Development Of Linguistic Theory Research Articles

Variation theory and second language acquisition (review)

REVIEWS163 Variation theory and second language acquisition. By Hugh Douglas Adamson. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1988. Pp. viii, 92. $10.95. Reviewed by René Coppieters, Pomona College The rationale for VT&SLA springs from what A perceives as an ongoing shift within SLA. The psycholinguistic tradition, understood here primarily as the influence of early First Language Acquisition studies on SLA, is, according to A, rapidly adopting 'theoretical constructs and analytic tools from sociolinguists ' (vi). Furthermore, 'the field is in danger of being split into two camps— psycholinguists and sociolinguists, who both study language acquisition, but who are unable to integrate their findings. This book is, I hope, a first step towards ... a unifying theory' (ibidem). VT&SLA is centered around an outline of relevant studies in the sociolinguistics and SLA literature. Unfortunately, and unwittingly proving that the split he fears is indeed taking place, A completely ignores all studies based on the more recent developments in theoretical linguistics. ' There is no recognition here of the work of Stephen Pinker (e.g. 1984) in first-language acquisition (FLA), or that of Lydia White and Suzanne Flynn (cf. White 1982 and, most recently, Flynn 1987 on the possible role of Universal Grammar in SLA), to mention just a few relevant examples.2 As a result, rather than confronting traditions in need of dialogue, if not reconciliation, A restricts himself to discussing works—more exactly, parts of works—which are, in fact, already compatible . This exclusion is particularly problematic for SLA, which has, in recent years, taken considerable advantage of the opportunities for productive research offered by ongoing developments in linguistic theory (for a recent overview , see Lightbown & White 1987). The basic issue tackled by A is how to analyze variation in the speech of second language learners. The unifying theme is methodology. Within the constraints mentioned above, A's discussion is informative and well organized. It includes a review of the early first- and second-language morpheme-acquisition studies; an overview ofthe techniques developed by sociolinguists for the analysis of variation; an outline of the possible similarities between the speech of second-language learners and pidgins and créoles; an essay on the psychological reality of linguistic rules, in particular variable rules; a discussion of the variable rule notation to express the results of 'prototype' studies; and a short discussion of Krashen's monitor model (see, for instance, Krashen 1981) in relation to variation theory.3 In each case, A presents his analyses in the context of specific and detailed examples. 1 The last theoretical work discussed in VT&SLA is Chomsky 1965. A also refers to Bresnan 1978, although her views in that article are not discussed or reflected in his book. 2 White 1982 is mentioned in VT&SLA, but A does not review her work or take her concerns into consideration. 3 A also includes an experimental study, conducted by himself and his co-worker Mary Ciske. Using adult second language acquirers as subjects, they tested (with some success) Bickerton's 1981 claim that children use the contrast between the presence or absence of an article to mark the [± specific] distinction for NPs. Cf. Cziko 1986 for a thorough evaluation of Bickerton's thesis in first-language acquisition. 164LANGUAGE, VOLUME 66, NUMBER 1 (1990) If VT&SLA's strong point is a clear review of relevant studies on variation, its weak point is the lack of a consistent and explicit framework in which the important questions alluded to would find their place. Indeed, on many critical issues in linguistics VT&SLA offers sometimes dogmatic and often nebulous opinions which are neither properly justified nor sufficiently integrated. In Ch. 1, A points out that 'constructing an average order of acquisition requires abstracting away from the speech data of individuals, and in this sense it is like describing langue, or the competence of the ideal speaker-hearer' (6). What is the rationale, then, for this abstraction, which he otherwise strongly condemns, and what does it represent? A rather meekly answers: 'However, such abstracting is commonly done in psychological studies involving groups, and it results in a description that is closer to the actual speech data than are the very abstract descriptions of Saussure and Chomsky' (6). A ignores here the issue of the interpretation...

The Elsewhere Condition and h-aspiré

The phonology of French continues to command widespread attention in the development of linguistic theory. The most recent, and most novel, contribution to the explicit description of sound patterns in this language is Anderson (1982), who demonstrates the central rôle played by syllabic structure in alternations obtaining between null and ‘e-instable’, or schwa. In expected contrast to the natural generative phonology approach advocated, for example, by Klausenburger (1978), Anderson advances the more orthodox generative position (cf. Schane, 1968; Dell, 1973) that characterizes such alternations as petit m. ‘pəti]/petite f. [pətit] ‘small’ in terms of the phonological deletion of basic word-final consonants (masculine forms) and final ‘protective’ schwas (feminine forms). This familiar, ‘abstract’ kind of account has been challenged most comprehensively by Tranel (1981), but it still represents the standard alternative within more or less traditional generative phonology, which, without further elaboration, Anderson and the comments that follow here share as a point of departure.

Native and Second Language Learning: Implications for Foreign Language Teaching

Many language teachers are requesting firm demonstration that a new methodology will work before they are willing to invest time and energy learning about it, and certainly before they are willing to practice it. Furthermore, they are aware that in the last twenty years linguists and psychologists have raised numerous questions about the acquisition, content, form, and function of language which need to be answered before a dependable methodology can be forged. This paper will discuss briefly some recent findings in first and second language acquisition and their implications for a theory of language instruction. The second part of the paper will describe an approach to language instruction that seems to reflect best these recent findings. Since the second World War, we have seen extraordinary development of linguistic theory, in particular generative grammar, psycholinguistics, and child language as well as second language acquisition research. These areas of study provide a perspective about language learning and language teaching that is not necessarily reflected in the methodologies practiced traditionally in the foreign language classroom, such as the grammar translation method, the audiolingual approach, the direct method, or even in more recent methodological approaches.' What has the modem study of language taught us and how can we use this information to develop or improve current teaching practices?

Theory And Problems in Psycholinguistics

A major problem for linguistic theory is that of specifying how the sounds of language relate to meaning. Although this problem is an exceedingly complex one, considerable progress has been made in formalizing grammars which, while incomplete, have provided a reasonable first account of the structure of natural language. These developments in linguistic theory, and in particular generative–transformational grammars, have had a profound effect on the psychological study of language, shifting the emphasis from the behavioristic studies of words to the analysis of sentence comprehension and production. More recently, following parallel developments in lingistics, psychologists have also turned their attention to units larger than the sentence, with a particular focus on text comprehension.

Towards a Synthetization of Teaching Methodologies for TESOL

In his keynote address to the TESOL convention in New Orleans (March 1971), John B. Carroll suggested that language teachers should effect a synthesis of methodologies incorporating features of both the audio-lingual habit theory and the cognitive-code learning theory. In this report, the practical implications of such a synthesis are examined in the areas of (1) the manipulation of phonological and grammatical patterns in different kinds of exercises, (2) the mastery of the grammar of the target language by induction or by deduction, (3) the maintenance of the natural order of language learning, i.e. listening, speaking, reading and writing, (4) the use of translation in language learning and (5) the contextualization of language practice in various exercises. It is the conclusion of this report that a synthesis of the audio-lingual and cognitive-code theories can be effected in all of these areas with a methodology which is both pedagogically sound and in accord with recent developments in linguistic theory.

Meaning and the Structure of Language

THE NON-LINGUIST who has conscientiously tried to keep abreast of developments in linguistic theory may well be ready to give up. Linguistics, especially transformational grammar, has matured recently at an alarming rate, so that transformational grammarians may seem to have developed increasingly narrow interests and, moreover, to have become so embroiled in the muddy business of securing their own positions, digging themselves in on a narrow front, that whether they are involved in civil war or are continuing to extend the frontiers of linguistic knowledge is often very unclear-even to themselves. I fancy that scarcely a single transformationalist will bother to raise his head as Professor Chafe wings his way overhead firing enthusiastically but erratically in all directions. The outsider is much more likely to notice the high-flier, and he needs some help in assessing the significance of Chafe's sally-perhaps it would not be out of place to give him at the same time some reports from the transformational trenches, and to assure him that all is still well there. I shall assume that he is reasonably familiar with Chomsky's Syntactic Structures1 and the main developments in transformational grammar up to about 1965, when Chomsky published his Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.2 Not that I believe the college English teacher has any (narrow professional) reason to bother much about contemporary linguistics. On the contrary, recent developments in transformational grammar should make it perfectly clear that there is no hope whatever of making direct use of that approach to linguistics in English teaching-at any rate not along the lines of existing attempts. And Chafe's work seems even less relevant.

The Development of Linguistic Theory and Research into Aphasia

The Development of Linguistic Theory and Research into Aphasia

Models as a Tool in the Development of Linguistic Theory

Models as a Tool in the Development of Linguistic Theory