Vivian
Cook, University of Essex
In V. Cook (ed) (1986), Experimental
Approaches to Second Language Learning, Pergamon, pp 3-21
A
useful starting point is to ask why researchers are interested in L2 learning.
Although they are seldom made explicit, four main orientations can be
discovered.
1. To investigate Second Language Learning itself
In
the United States particularly, and to some extent in Europe, a separate
discipline
of
second language learning research has evolved, which, though related in some
ways to psychology, to linguistics, and to language teaching, considers itself
an autonomous field of study, under no obligation to subordinate itself to other
sciences unless they fit in with its own methodology and aims. To quote Evelyn
Hatch, "The basic question that second language research addresses is: how
can we describe the process of second language acquisition." (Hatch, 1980,
p. 177). Research with this emphasis is mostly carried out by those who come
into the study of second language learning from psychology or linguistics. It
aims at describing L21earning in its own terms, and has led to the recent
proliferation of "models" of L2 learning, such as the Monitor Model
(Krashen, 1981) or the Acculturation Model (Schumann, 1978). For this approach
the implications of L2 research for language teaching or for other areas are
interesting but are of secondary importance. Probably the papers in the present
volume by Meara and by Nation and McLaughlin are closest to this orientation.
Much
L2 research, however, still has an applied goal; it is useful not for itself but
for its applications to language teaching. Thus a recent book with the title
Foreign and Second Language Learning states its aim as "to examine aspects
of learning which might help us to improve teaching" (Littlewood, 1984, p.
2). Many researchers with this orientation have come into the field from
language teaching; they argue that, since language teaching is only successful
if language learning takes place, the more we know about language learning the
better we can teach; real progress in language teaching comes not so much from
innovations in syllabus design or teaching techniques as from basing teaching on
better information about learning. One of the encouraging aspects of the
movement to emphasize comprehension-based teaching methods is not so much the
proposed teaching techniques themselves as the impressive body of experimental
evidence that has been put forward for them, compared with the almost total lack
of evidence for other contemporary models such as communicative language
teaching. This approach is represented in this book by the work of Garcia and
Winitz and is discussed further in Chapter 2.
3. To contribute
to wider issues in linguistics and the linguistic theory of language
acquisition
Second language learning can also be studied in order to test hypotheses from linguistic theory. White's article in this volume, for example, explores the Chomskyan theory of parameter setting in relationship to second language learning. One interpretation of this approach claims that first language acquisition is difficult to study because it confuses the effects of language acquisition with cognitive and social development; these are, however, separated in L2learning in adults. L2 learning is then a better test case of universals of language acquisition than L1 learning and has importance for linguistic theory (Gass and Ard, 1980). Even if this argument is not fully accepted, linguistics proper nevertheless can gain useful information from L2learning. Yet, however attractive this is in principle, in recent years L2 learning has had little to say to linguistics or to language acquisition. The main reason is the lack of connection between L2 research and contemporary linguistic theory. Partly the cause is precisely the attempt to make L2 learning an autonomous subject in its own right; straight linguistics and first language learning research were seen as separate areas. Partly, also, it was due to the alienation of L2 researchers from contemporary linguistics; the theories current in the early 1970s appeared remote, mathematical, and not connected with "practical" questions about language learning. With the exception of the select band of researchers, typified by White in this collection, who have recently been examining the relevance of current Chomskyan theory for L2 learning, L2 researchers have made little attempt to make connections with recent developments in either linguistics or first language learning. It is argued elsewhere that this is regrettable (Cook, 1985); over the past decade linguistics and first language learning research have evolved and in many ways have become simpler and closer to practical problems.
Just as on the one side L2learning can be linked to linguistics, so on the other it can be related to psychology. Many researchers have come into the area from psychology or have adopted psychological research methods; a book such as Research Design and Statistics/or Applied Linguistics (Hatch and Farhady, 1982) despite its title has far more connection with psychological research than with linguistics, and indeed has no references at all to the literature of applied or theoretical linguistics. One motivation for L2 research is to settle problems in psychology; "the mere fact of possessing two or more language repertoires poses interesting puzzles regarding the nature of the underlying memory systems, thought processes, productive efficiency, and the like" (Paivio and Begg, 1981, p. 288). For example, in the development of memory children progress from an adding stage in which they repeat each word in a list several times to a combining stage in which they combine it with previous words; is this a matter of gaining cognitive maturity or of becoming familiar with language? Perhaps only L2 learning can tell us; one experiment suggested that L2 learners indeed start with a combining strategy (Cook, 1981a), and consequently that this development is a matter of cognition rather than language. As with linguistics, L2learning can provide a special testing ground for psychology because of the way it disengages language learning from maturational issues. My own contribution to this volume uses L2 learning to investigate the boundaries between language and cognition; the contribution by Esser and Kossling is also firmly within this psychological approach.
Overall Research Designs in L2
Research
One way of approaching L2 learning is through the concept of time. Language learning represents change taking place through time; time therefore is a central feature of the research design. One possibility is a longitudinal study in which learners are followed over a period of time; samples are gathered at different intervals and progress between them is measured over periods ranging from months to years. Henning Wode, for instance, studied his own four children acquiring English as a second language continuously for 6 months (Wode, 1981). Traute Taeschner (1983) described her own two children simultaneously acquiring German and Italian over several years. A longitudinal study has the advantage that it is directly concerned with observing development, since the same learners are involved throughout; it has practical problems in the sheer length of time that is necessary and in other factors such as the drop-out rate among the learners. Secondly, different learners can be studied at different stages of development, different points of progression through time, which can be considered as if they were cross-sections of the same learners spread out through time. An example of a cross-sectional study is Padilla and Lindholm (1976), who tested Spanish-English bilingual children between the ages of2 and 6.5 to establish the order of development of interrogatives, negatives, and possessives. Cross-sectional studies have the advantage of requiring less time, since all stages of learning can in effect be studied simultaneously, but also the disadvantage that they do not study the same learners and hence, strictly speaking, they are not concerned with "development" itself. Thirdly, time may be built into the design in the form of an experiment with a starting and a finishing point; the changes in the learners over this period are then evaluated. The period of time used is usually minutes or weeks rather than years. For example, the paper by Nation and McLaughlin in the present volume concerns people who learn an artificial language for a matter of minutes and are then tested on how well they have mastered the implicit grammatical rules. In this case, as in the longitudinal study, in a sense the research uses "real" time in that the period of development corresponds with the period studied. The difficulty with short term experimental periods of time is in fact whether they tell one very much about learning over longer periods.
Several ways of categorizing L2 research are doubtless possible. One convenient approach is to divide it into three major methods.
The most straightforward method is to record samples of the learner's language, technically a "corpus", and then to analyse them; this may be called the "observational" method. The outcome of the research is typically the description of the stages through which the learner progresses, couched in terms of syntax, learning strategies, etc. Inevitably, the observational method concentrates primarily on language production, which is readily observable, rather than on comprehension, which is hard to establish from observation alone.
The language samples could in principle be "authentic", that is to say examples of the learner's natural use in real-life situations, such as shops or travel agents, or the by-products of teaching, such as student essays. The common factor in "authentic" language data is that it has not been produced solely for purposes of research but for the purposes of the learner himself, unaffected by the observing experimenter. Alternatively the language samples can be "non-authentic", i.e. specially produced for the research. A typical format is an interview in which the researcher conducts a guided conversation with the learner which is recorded on tape or video. Evelyn Hatch (1978), for instance, uses data from interviews between native speakers and foreign learners. The same technique is also reflected in the more structured use of picture description or storytelling; for example, in the BSM test the experimenter asks questions about seven cartoon pictures (Dulay and Burt, 1973). The overall difficulty with both techniques is the representativeness of the corpus that has been recorded; in some ways it may be untypical of the learner's behaviour; for instance, picture description may lend itself to the present continuous tense and hence under-represent the past tense or the present simple. The use of "non-authentic" samples involves the problem that the technique of collection may influence the data; an interview is structured so that it has the participants in leader and follower roles; it is not surprising that analysis of interviews shows that learners adopt strategies for "following" the conversation, of checking, reacting and so on, rather than for "leading" the conversation, which may be untypical of their conversational behaviour in other situations.
2. Measurement of Learner or
Situational Variables and Correlation with Language
The second major method consists of finding two groups of learners who differ in their makeup or in the situation they encounter and seeing how the chosen factor affects their L2 learning. The end product is an account of the differences between the two groups, measured in various ways. This can be called the "difference method". While the learners are tested naturally or artificially, neither they nor the situation are modified by the researcher.
It would be a mammoth task to describe all the varieties of learner difference that have been claimed to be relevant to L2 learning. It may be that age is an important factor: say, older learners are better than younger ones, as discussed in the next chapter. It may be that sex is important; perhaps girls are better than boys at L2 learning, as suggested for example in Burstall et al. (1974). It may be the learners' motivations and attitudes that count: the desire to integrate with the foreign culture or to use the new language within one's own society (Gardner and Lambert, 1972). It may be various personality factors that are crucial: extroverts may be better than introverts (Cohen, 1977); those with a "field-dependent" cognitive style may do better in some circumstances than those with a "field-independent" style, and vice versa (Hansen and Stansfield, 1981). Learners who have learnt two languages may be better at a third, as the paper by Nation and McLaughlin in this volume suggests. There may be a conglomeration of factors amounting to aptitude for learning a second language, discussed by Skehan and by Esser and Kossling in this book. All of these and many more have been advanced as explanations for learner differences; a more complete list can be found in Hammerley (1982). It must also not be forgotten that the relationship between learner variables and L2 learning goes in both directions; learning a second language can affect the learner's makeup as well as vice versa. Thus while some have looked at the beneficial effects of intelligence on L2 learning (Genesee, 1976), others have looked at the beneficial effects of L2 learning on intelligence (Peal and Lambert, 1962).
The two earlier methods accepted the learner's behaviour as it stands. A learning experiment however tries to see how behaviour is affected by something; it measures the differences between before and after. A typical framework compares two groups of learners, who start as similar as possible and are then treated in different ways. One, the control group, is given the minimum of treatment; the other, the experimental group, is given special treatment to test the question the researcher has in mind. Then both groups are given the same test and the differences that arise between them can be ascribed to the different treatments they have had. So a typical piece of language teaching research compares two groups of students who have been taught in different ways, as for instance in the paper by Garcia and Winitz in this volume. Alternatively, the treatment remains the same but the students are different; we see which group does best. Or, indeed, as well as the learner and the situation, the language itself is precisely controlled through a miniature artificial microlanguage (MAL), as in the papers by Esser and Kosslin and by Nation and McLaughlin in this volume. Let us call this type of research the "manipulative method".
Evidence and Measurement
While it may seem obvious that evidence to settle issues in L2 learning should come from L2 learning, this has sometimes been overlooked. The audiolingual method interpreted behaviourist psychology as saying that a second language should be learnt as a set of habits by practice and overlearning. Very little, if any, of the psychological evidence concerned L2 learning; hence the theory was accepted on the grounds of first language acquisition. It may be that first and second language learning are substantially identical and that theories of L1 acquisition carryover to L2 1earning by analogy. But this is in itself a research issue to which many people have addressed themselves, with fairly inconclusive results. What is even more unsatisfactory is that the behaviourist theory of first language learning was itself not based on research with children but on analogy with experiments with rats and pigeons. Evidence from L2 learning clearly seems preferable over that drawn from a different field, unless the analogy between them is watertight.
Evidence of the learner's behaviour can be gathered from many sources; potentially we are concerned with the full complex picture of L2 learning. Three broad types of evidence can be drawn on.
1. Introspective Data
One possibility is to ask people to examine their own feelings and experiences about L2 learning. At one time introspective study of one's thought processes was of great importance; Wundt, the founding father of psychology, after all, talked about his subjective experiences of listening to metronome beats (Miller, 1964). While introspection fell into disrepute under the behaviourist regime which accepted "objective" visible evidence, in linguistics it was legitimised by Chomsky's argument that the linguistic intuitions of the native speaker could be formalized through a rigorous form of statement; to quote an early precursor "introspection may make the preliminary survey, but it must be followed by the chain and transit of objective measurement" (Lashley, 1923). One type of introspection commonly used as evidence by linguistics is the native speaker's judgement of whether sentences are grammatical or acceptable, exemplified in White's paper in this book. A recent revival of introspection in psychology is signalled in a paper by Ericsson and Simon (1980) who argue that verbal reports of mental processes are accurate provided that certain conditions are met; namely, that the process involved is related to language, that it does not need extra processing to be available for the individual to report, and that it is not transformed in some way before the point at which the report is made. In L2learning, people's learning or processing strategies can be established by asking them what they are doing. Cohen and Hosenfeld (1981) distinguish between two types of introspective activity. One is "thinking aloud" - verbalizing about what is going on in one's head as it happens. (An interesting example of this technique is seen in the contribution to this volume by Dechert and Sandrock, which reports an experiment in which a German student gave a running commentary as she translated a passage from English to German.) The second type of activity described by Cohen and Hosenfeld is "self-observation", which can range from semi-analysed discussion to highly abstract accounts of mental processes or motivation.
Another possibility is to use the observational method to collect evidence. The researcher notes what happens, while trying to influence it as little as possible. Then he links it to some measure of the learner's success, for instance the equivalent language of the native speaker. For example, the strategies used by good language learners were studied in part by seeing how L2learners behaved in classrooms (Naiman, et al., 1975). Similarly, conversational strategies have mostly been established by analysing transcripts of learners' behaviour, as for instance in Hatch (1978). The usefulness of natural data depends on three conditions being met:
(a) That the evidence can indeed be observed. One problem with language is that what goes on in the mind is Dot visible. Observations of speech tell us about the visible tip of the iceberg from which we hope to deduce the invisible.
(b) That it occurs with sufficient frequency. Suppose we wanted to examine the development of the passive voice in L2learners talking in classrooms. Unless it were the specific teaching point or the type of language was very specialized, the number of passives observed per hour is likely to be rather small. Observations of natural situations can be frustrating because enough examples of any given phenomenon may not occur-another of the well-known problems attached to using a corpus.
(c) That there is a real cause and effect relationship between the behaviour and the factor held responsible. A well-known statistical tall story concerns the status of lice in the New Hebrides (Huff, 1954); the natives used to claim that lice were good for the health because they are never seen on a person who is ill; the evidence completely confirmed this. However, the explanation was that lice prefer to live at the normal human temperature and shun people whose temperature is higher. Rather than causing health, lice avoid illness. One needs to demonstrate that the effects really have the cause ascribed to them, something that is never totally possible with a non-manipulative method, as the people who dismiss the harmful effects of tobacco argue.
The data can also be specially created for the research, so to speak. The learner is put into a particular situation that will yield the type of behaviour we want to study. The controlled data that this affords can be put into two categories, according to whether it is directly or indirectly related to language.
The Rationale for an
Experimental Approach
Paivio and Begg (1981) put the basic rationale for an experimental approach in a nutshell; " An experiment is a controlled look at nature. The experimenter sets up a situation in which the structure of the task is explicit, the nature of the performance being studied is explicit and the question that is being asked is precise." Much L2 research makes use of elements taken from experiments without strictly conforming to this design. Let us define an experimental approach as one that tries to specify the relevant background of the learners, to ask precise questions, either to control the situation in which the data is collected in an appropriate way or to take into account its restrictions, to support its statements with objective measurable evidence, and to argue carefully from these results to wider conclusions. An experimental approach starts from the realization that the real world is a complex bundle of many things; it focuses on a single aspect at a time in order to establish its nature; it brings everything down to a single, precise question. Having posed the question, it looks for evidence that is explicit and objective. From this evidence it argues its way back to the original issue.
A point that has now to be made concerns the ethics of research. A manipulative approach that changes the world has to decide whether these changes are in the interests of society in general and of the people it is affecting in particular, though other approaches are not immune to ethical problems as well. The problem for first language acquisition research is that experiments to settle most of the major issues are ruled out because of their effects on the children who take part in them. A systematic test of language deprivation would be to see what happens when a child is totally deprived of language for 10 years. Psammetichus allegedly isolated two babies till they said their first word, which happened to be the word for bread in Phrygian (Fromkin and Rodman, 1974)-a type of experiment only possible to Pharoahs. Hence the interest of linguists in Genie, a girl whose parents had deprived her of language until her early teens and thus carried out the experiment that they themselves were forbidden (Curtess, 1977). Suppose in a less dramatic form that a researcher hypothesizes that a particular type of interaction, lets say peekaboo games, is crucial to first language acquisition (Bruner, 1983); an experiment could be designed in which one group of mothers were encouraged to play peekaboo, the other group prevented. But a researcher who sincerely believes in his hypothesis must feel he has done harm to one group of children, who might well have prospered without his interference. Paradoxically only if his hypothesis is of trivial importance could he say that the effects do not matter. For these reasons many questions about the relationship of environment to language learning lend themselves to observation rather than experimental manipulation; at least only the children's own parents are to blame. In first language acquisition a brief syntactic experiment lasting a few minutes may do minimum harm. But some risk is unavoidable. Carey (1978) showed that months after hearing a word a handful of times children knew more or less what it meant; Nelson (1982) advocated a rare-event theory of learning, where exposure of the child for 20 minutes to a syntactic structure for which he is "ready" can change a child from a non-user to a user. In other areas experiments have indeed had to be abandoned because of the effects on the subjects. At a personal level, I was once proposing to administer a syntactic test to children under 5 in which they had to show whether the dog bit the cat or vice versa, a common enough experimental technique; I had to spend a morning explaining to an educational psychologist that this did not have overtones of oral sadism before I was allowed to carry out the experiment!
Finally, let us see how a broad question about language could be turned into the precise form of an experiment. A suitable issue might be the perennial dispute about the relationship between speech and writing. This debate can be carried out in the form of questions.
1. Is speech more important than writing?
The answer "Yes" to this question formed part of the foundation for one school of linguistics, Bloomfieldian structuralism, and for one influential language teaching method, audiolingualism; indeed an affirmative answer is still assumed by most later schools of linguistics and language teaching theories, as shown for example by the assumption common among communicative language teachers that communication should be channelled through speech. What was this affirmative answer based on?
The justification usually presented for the primacy of speech is from history and language development (Bloomfield, 1933); in the prehistory of the human race speech occurs before writing; societies still exist with a spoken but not a written language; in the development of the child, speech invariably precedes writing and is acquired with ease by virtually all children; writing, however, has to be taught and some children acquire it with difficulty. Householder pointed out that this confused two issues - the way language develops and the way it is used by adult speakers (Householder, 1971). Language development is beside the point so far as the relationship of speech to writing in the mature native speaker is concerned, however interesting it may be in its own right; what matters is how they are connected now. On these lines he indeed argued that writing is dominant in adults' usage rather than speech. He was suggesting that the evidence provided an answer to the question "Does speech come before writing in the development of the human race and the human child?" rather than "Is speech more important than writing?" The applicability to second language learning is even more suspect; why should information about children learning their first language or Egyptians inventing hieroglyphics be relevant to people learning a second language? The audiolingualists' agreement with Bloomfield was premature; L2 learning is not directly concerned with either language history or first language acquisition. The relevance of Bloomfield's arguments for second language teaching depends at best on a strong analogy between first language learning and second language learning, which should not be assumed in advance. What is required is evidence to settle a slightly more precise question, namely:
L2 learning itself has many aspects, each of which might be affected differently by speech and writing; the question needs to specify which aspect we are interested in. One of the crucial axioms of audiolingualism was that a word should always be introduced in speech rather than in writing. Let us assume, then, that vocabulary is the vital aspect involved. While gaining precision, we have inevitably lost generality; it may be that vocabulary learning is a peculiar issue of its own, unlike other aspects of L2 learning. Taking vocabulary acquisition as a particular test case the question can be recast as:
There are still uncertainties to be resolved in this version. Most importantly, the question is phrased in terms that apply to all learners. Perhaps, indeed, all people learn second language vocabulary in the same way. Perhaps, on the contrary, there is great individual variation according to some factor in the learner's mental makeup; it might be a matter of cognitive style or motivation; it might be that older learners depend more on visual aids, perhaps. Let us therefore arbitrarily choose to study adults, thus eliminating at least some of the possible variations.
The precise situation of the learners could also affect the result. Learners in classrooms are treated in a bewildering variety of ways, each of them is in some way involved in the question of speech versus writing; learners outside classrooms meet speech and writing in different proportions according to their jobs, to whether they are in their own countries, and so on. Let us decide to concentrate on one particular type of situation, say, technical schools in France. The question now reads:
In terms of an experimental approach the next step is to set up two groups of learners so that the only difference between them is that between reading and writing. To operationalise question 5 we need two situations where only vocabulary learning is involved and where the only difference between them is oral versus written presentation - the controlled situation of Paivio and Begg (op. cit). In this case we might consider a straight experiment of short duration in which two randomly chosen groups at the technical school are taught vocabulary in the different ways and their success assessed. Or we might take two otherwise equivalent classes in the technical school and require one to be taught orally, the other through writing; clearly this already introduces all kinds of complications - will the students in the two groups actually be equivalent? Will the teachers handle both methods equally well? And so on. Even if this ideal cannot be achieved, at least we should be aware of the other factors that might cause the effects we are concerned with. Let us assume then that we set up an experimental situation in which two groups of learners are taught vocabulary in speech and in writing respectively.
The next problem to consider is how we can measure whether one group is better than the other. Again our decision will reflect our model of language and our view of what is important: Range of vocabulary? Ease of use? Speed of reaction? Fluency of expression? And so on. We might collect specimens of authentic data from the learners and subject it to an analysis of the vocabulary. Or we might decide to invent our own test to cover the particular point we are interested in. Or to use an existing test, say, the English Picture Vocabulary Test (EPVT), a standard test of vocabulary development. But the point is to have a yardstick that will impartially measure the relevant aspects of vocabulary in both groups. If we adopt the EPVT, the question now reads :
7. Are the scores on the EPVT of a group of educated French adult
learners of English in technical schools in France who are taught orally better
than those of an otherwise identical group who are taught through writing?
Finally we still need to quantify the word "better": how much do one group's scores need to differ from the others to be called "better"? Partly, this is a matter of statistics and levels of significance; we need to be certain that the results are not sheer chance and this can be done through various mathematical tools. Our design and system of measuring must then permit the use of such tools. Partly, it is a matter of common- sense and interpretation; do we feel that the difference we find is actually important to language learning, whatever the statistics may say? Hence the ultimate form of our question is:
8. Are the scores on the EPVT of a group of educated French adult
learners of English in technical schools in France who are taught orally
significantly better than those of an otherwise identical group who are taught
through writing?
This quest has tried to narrow down the research question so that it can receive a reliable answer. Instead of the overall, untestable proposition about speech and writing there is now a precise, answerable question. The technique of breaking a problem down into a single testable issue has a long history in science as the "method of detail" (Pacey, 1974). Galileo, for instance, tackled the problem of the strength of ships' hulls by reducing it to the strength of a single beam. The decomposition of a problem into elements is also often discussed as one of the benefits of teaching computing to children (O'Shea and Self, 1983). It is not then an approach unique to second language learning research.
References
d'Anglejan and Tucker, G. R. (1975) The acquisition of complex English structures by adult language learners, Language Learning, 25/2.
Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language.
Bruner, J. (1983) Child's Talk, O.U.P.
Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S. and Hargreaves, M. (1974) Primary French in the Balance, Slough, NFER.
Cancino, H., Rosansky, E. J. and Schumann, J. H. (1975) The acquisition of the English auxiliaries by native Spanish speakers, TESOL Quarterly, 9:4, 421-430.
Carey, S. (1978) The child as word learner, in M. Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. A. Miller (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, M.I. T.
Cohen, A. (1977) Successful second language learners: a review of research literature, Balshaunt Shimushit, I.
Cohen, A. and Hosenfeld, C.
(1981) Some uses of mentalistic data in second language research, Language
Learning,11/2.
Cook, V. J. (1981a) Some uses for second language learning research in H. Winitz(ed.), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 179,251-258. Online version
Cook, V. J. (1981b) Second language acquisition from an interactionist viewpoint, ISB-U, 6/1, 1981-82. online version
Cook, V. J. (1985) Chomsky's universal grammar and second language learning, Applied Linguistics, 6. online version
Corder, S. P. (1967) The
significance of learner's errors, IRAL, V/4.
Curtess, S. (1977) Genie: a psycholinguistic study of a modern-day "Wild child", New York, Academic Press.
Dulay, H. C. and Burt, M. K. (1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 21/2, 245-258.
Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982) Language Two, O.U.P./N. Y.
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. (1980) Verbal reports as data, Psychological Review, 87, 3, 215-251.
Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. (1978) An Introduction to Language, New York.
Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning, Newbury House.
Gass, S. and Ard, J. (1980) L2 data: their relevance for language universals, TESOL Quarterly, XIV/4, 443-452.
Genesee, F. (1976) The role of intelligence in L2 learning, Language Learning, XXVI/2, 267-280.
Green, P. S. (ed.) (1975) The Language Laboratory in Schools, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh and New York. H
alliday, M. A. K. (1975) Learning How to Mean, Edward Arnold.
Hammerley, H. (1982) Synthesis in Language Teaching, Blaine, Washington; Second Language Publications.
Hansen, J. and Stansfield, C. (1981) The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement, Language Learning, 11.
Hatch, E. (1978) Discourse analysis and second language acquisition, in E. Hatch (ed.), Second Language Acquisition, Newbury House.
Hatch, E. (1980) Second language acquisition-avoiding the problem, in S. Felix (ed.), Second Language Development, Gunter Narr, Tubingen.
Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. (1982) Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics, Newbury House.
Hosenfeld, C. (1976) Learning about learning: discovering our students' strategies, Foreign Language Annals, 912, 117-129.
Householder, F. W. (1971) Linguistic Speculations, C.U.P. Huff, D. (1954) How to Lie with Statistics, Gollancz.
Krashen, S. D. (1976) Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and language learning, TESOL Quarterly, 10/2.
Krashen, S. D. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Pergamon, Oxford.
Lambert, W. E. (1955) Measurement of the linguistic dominance of bilinguals, J. Ab. Soc. Psych. 50,197-200.
Lashley, K. (1923) The behaviouristic interpretation of consciousness, Psych. Review, 10, 329-353.
Leopold, W. F. (1939-49) Speech Development of a Bilingual Child: A Linguist's Record, Northwestern University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1984) Foreign and Second Language Learning, C.U.P.
Lyczak, R. A. (1979) The effects of exposures to a language on subsequent learning, Language and speech, 22.
Magnusson, D. (1974) The individual in the situation, Studia Psychologica, XVI, 124-132.
Miller, G. A. (1964) Psychology: the Science of Mental Life, Hutchinson.
Moroney, M. (1956) Facts from Figures, Penguin.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M. and Stern, H. H. (1975) The Good Language Learner, OISE, Toronto.
Nelson, K. (1982) Toward a rare-event cognitive comparison theory of syntax acquisition, in P. Dale and D. Ingram (eds.), Child Language: An International Perspective, University Park Press, Baltimore, 229-240.
O'Shea, T. and Self, J. (1983) Learning and Teaching with Computers, Harvester Press. Pacey, A. (1974) The Maze of Ingenuity, Allen Lane.
Padilla, A. M. and Lindholm, K. J. (1976) Development of interrogative, negative and possessive forms in the speech of young Spanish/English bilinguals, Bilingual Review, 111/2, 122-152.
Paivio, A. and Begg, I. (1981) Psychology of Language, Prentice Hall.
Peal, E. and Lambert, W. A. (1962) The relation of bilingualism to intelligence, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76,27.
Quirk, R. and Svartvik, J. (1966) Investigating Linguistic Acceptability, Mouton.
Ramsey, C. A. and Wright, E. N. (1974) Age and second language learning, J. Soc. Psych., 94, 51-121.
Robson, C. (1973) Experiment, Design and Statistics in Psychology, Penguin.
Schumann, J. H. (1978) The acculturation model for second language acquisition, in Gingras, R. C. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, Center for Applied Linguistics.
Sigurd, B. and Svartvik, J. (1981) (ed.) Studia Linguistica, J5, 1/2.
Smith, P. D. (1970) A Comparison of the Cognitive and Audiolingual Approaches to Foreign Language Instruction: The Pennsylvania Project, Center for Curriculum Development.
Taeschner, T. (1983) The Sun is Feminine, Springer-Verlag.
Wesche, M. B. (1981) Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods and diagnosis of learning problems, in K. C. Diller (ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude, Newbury House.
Wode, H. (1981) Learning a Second Language, Gunter Narr-Verlag, Tubingen.