Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Part I - Theories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Theories
- Part II Methods
- Part III Skill Development
- Part IV Individual Differences
- Part V Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches
- Part VI Context and Environment
- Part VII Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
The relative conformity with which (typically developing) children attain adult grammatical competence—ultimate attainment—and the similarity in developmental paths along which they progress is remarkable (e.g., Ambridge & Lieven, 2011; Clark, 2003; Guasti, 2002; Synder, 2007). This achievement is, however, so ubiquitous and mundane that we seldom marvel at it. Of course, monolingual adult grammars may also differ from one another, especially for some domains of grammar (e.g., Dąbrowska, 1997, 2012), but such variability pales in comparison to the variation in adult non-native second language (L2) grammars. Indeed, the path and outcomes of L2 acquisition can be highly variable from one individual to another, even under seemingly comparable contexts. Individual and group-level factors in adulthood that either do not apply or apply with much less consequence in young childhood conspire to explain at least some of the gamut of L2 variability.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 11 - 108Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.Google Scholar
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemán Bañón, J., Fiorentino, R., & Gabriele, A. (2014). Morphosyntactic processing in advanced second language (L2) learners: An event-related potential investigation of the effects of L1–L2 similarity and structural distance. Second Language Research, 30, 275–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemán Bañón, J., Miller, D., & Rothman, J. (2017). Morphological variability in second language learners: An examination of electrophysiological and production data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(10), 1509–1536.Google ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2017). Why only us: Recent questions and answers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43, 166–177.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2012). Poverty of the stimulus stands: Why recent challenges fail. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M. & Berwick, R. C. (eds.), Rich languages from poor inputs (pp. 19–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Pietroski, P., Yankama, B., & Chomsky, N. (2011). Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science, 35(7), 1207–1242.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 1–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.Google Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J. (2011). Subject/object asymmetries in the grammar of bilingual and monolingual Spanish speakers: Evidence against connectionism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(2), 111–148.Google Scholar
Bylund, E., Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2012). Does first language maintenance hamper nativelikeness in a second language? A study of ultimate attainment in early bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E., Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2013). Age of acquisition effects or effects of bilingualism in second language ultimate attainment? In Granena, G. & Long, M. (eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 69–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). A note on non-control PRO. Journal of Linguistic Research, 1(4), 1–11.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the Shallow Structure Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 693–706.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 5, 1–29.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (2003). Languages and representations. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind (pp. 17–23). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. (2012). The emergence of meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.Google Scholar
Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay, A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’ sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(3), 615–646.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. (2017). Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(4), 659–678.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern day “wild child”. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (1997). The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics, 35, 735–766.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117–135.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(S1), 3–32.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of structural and discourse-level constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(3), 571–603.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Cunnings, I., Batterham, C., & Clahsen, H. (2012). The timing of island effects in nonnative sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(1), 67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., Sato, M., & Bertenshaw, N. (2009). The on-line application of Binding Principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(4), 485–502.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T., & Hauser, M. D. (2004). Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science, 303(5656), 377–380.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D., & Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition, 97(2), 179–210.Google Scholar
Foote, R. (2011). Integrated knowledge of agreement in early and late English–Spanish bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 187–220.Google Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183–192.Google Scholar
Fuchs, E., & Flügge, G. (2014). Adult Neuroplasticity: More Than 40 Years of Research. Neural Plasticity, 2014: 541870, 1–10.Google Scholar
Granena, G., & Long, M. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, T., & Rohde, H. (2013). L2 processing is affected by RAGE: Evidence from reference resolution. Paper presented at The 12th Conference on Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (GASLA).Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. J. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7(2), 199–229.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. (2002). Language development: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2001). The theoretical significance of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 345–367.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Casillas, G. (2008). Explaining frequency of verb morphology in early L2 speech. Lingua, 118, 595–612.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of UG in second language acquisition: The Failed Functional Features Hypothesis. Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(4), 603–634.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57, 1–33.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S. (1992). Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning, 42(2), 217–248.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of language: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39(3), 215–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh- extraction. Studies in second language acquisition, 17(4), 483–516.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language sentence processing. Language learning, 46(2), 283–323.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201.Google Scholar
Kam, X. N. C., & Fodor, J. D. (2012). Children’s acquisition of syntax: Simple models are too simple. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M. & Berwick, R. C. (eds.), Rich languages from poor inputs (pp. 43–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kam, X. N. C., Stoyneshka, I., Tornyova, L., Fodor, J. D., & Sakas, W. G. (2008). Bigrams and the richness of the stimulus. Cognitive Science, 32, 771–787.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (1997). The acquisition of null and overt pronominals in Japanese by English speakers. Second Language Research, 13, 265–87.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (1998). The stability of UG principles in second language acquisition. Linguistics, 36, 1125–1146.Google Scholar
Keating, G. D. (2009). Sensitivity to violations of gender agreement in native and nonnative Spanish: An eye-movement investigation. Language Learning, 59(3), 503–535.Google Scholar
Kim, E., Baek, S., & Tremblay, A. (2015). The role of island constraints in second language sentence processing. Language Acquisition, 22(4), 384–416.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H., & Lidz, J. (2017). The argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In Roberts, I. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar (pp. 221–249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. D., & Elman, J. L. (2001). Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S., & Do, A. H. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 359–370). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4), 861–883.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2005). Problems with supposed counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43(4), 287–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, H. L., & Slabakova, R. (2017). Grammatical meaning and the second language classroom: introduction. Language Teaching Research, 1–11.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. L., Whong, M., & Gil, K. H. (2018). What’s in the textbook and what’s in the mind: Polarity item “any” in learner English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Martohardjono, G. (1993). Wh-movement in the acquisition of a second language: A cross-linguistic study of 3 languages with and without overt movement. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2011). First and second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Massachusets Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Omaki, A., & Schulz, B. (2011). Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 563–588.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63(S1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2016). Multi-competence in second language acquisition: Inroads into the mainstream. In Cook, V. and Wei, L. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-Competence (pp. 50–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McKinnon, R., Bersick, M., & Corey, V. (1996). On the language specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(6), 507–526.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., Trompelt, H., & Felser, C. (2014). The online application of binding condition B in native and non-native pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–16.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Glass, W. (1997). OPC effects in the L2 acquisition of Spanish. In Pérez-Leroux, A. T. & Glass, W. (eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish. Vol. 1: Developing grammars (pp. 149–165). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., & Glass, W. (1999). Null anaphora in Spanish second language acquisition: Probabilistic versus generative approaches. Second Language Research, 15, 220–249.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.Google Scholar
Rankin, T. (2017). Working memory and L2 acquisition and processing. Second Language Research, 33(3), 389–399.Google Scholar
Rankin, T., & Unsworth, S. (2016). Beyond poverty: Engaging with input in generative SLA. Second Language Research, 32, 563–572.Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2003). Reappraising poverty of stimulus argument: A corpus analysis approach. In Brugos, A., Micciulla, L., & Smith, C. E. (eds.), Proceedings supplement of the 28th annual Boston University conference on language development (Epub, access at: http://www.bu.edu/bucld/proceedings/supplement/vol28/). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science, 29, 1007–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, L., González Alonso, J., Pliatsikas, C., & Rothman, J. (2018). Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications? Second Language Research, 34(1), 125–143.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368–392.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2013). Aptitude in second language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 198–202). Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, Massachusets Institute of Technology [later published in 1986 as Infinite syntax! (Norwood, NJ: Ablex).]Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2008). Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(6), 1063–1088.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2010). Input quality matters: Some comments on input type and age-effects in adult SLA. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 301–306.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Iverson, M. (2010). Independent normative assessments for bi/multilingualism, Where art thou. In Cruz-Ferrera, M. (ed.), Multilingual norms (pp. 33–51). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). State of the scholarship: The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 417–442.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2010). The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua, 120(8), 2022–2039.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2011). Proficiency and animacy effects on L2 gender agreement processes during comprehension. Language Learning, 61(1), 80–116.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2013). Processing of gender and number agreement in late Spanish bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(5), 607–627.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relation to Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9, 219–235.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 6(2), 93–124.Google Scholar
Schachter, J., & Yip, V. (1990). Grammaticality judgements: Why does anyone object to subject extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 379–392.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. (1986). The epistemological status of second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 2, 120–159.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, J. (ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 156–186). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2013). Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimulus. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 137–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2013). Adult second language acquisition: A selective overview with a focus on the learner linguistic system. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3, 48–72.Google Scholar
Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542–562.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2007). Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 454–475.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from wh- interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23(2), 215–242.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz, C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In Small, S. L. (ed.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1985). Is there a “logical problem” of second language acquisition? TESL Canada Journal, 2(2), 29–41.Google Scholar
White, L. (1992). Subjacency violations and empty categories in second language acquisition. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (eds.), Island constraints (pp. 445–464). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2018). Formal linguistics and second language acquisition. In Miller, D., Bayram, F., Rothman, J., & Serratrice, L. (eds.), Bilingualism: The state of the science across its subfields (pp. 57–77). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N., Möbius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh- questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(4), 509–540.Google Scholar
Whong, M., Gil, K. H., & Marsden, H. (eds.) (2013). Universal Grammar and the second language classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Yang, C., & Montrul, S. (2017). Learning datives: The Tolerance Principle in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Second Language Research, 33, 119–144.Google Scholar
References
Anderson, J. R. (1989). A rational analysis of human memory. In Roediger, H. L. I. & Craik, F. I. M. (eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 195–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147–149.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The use of adverbials and natural order in the development of temporal expression. IRAL, 30, 299–320.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R. A., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system. Position paper. Language Learning, 59(S1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2013). The input processing theory in second language acquisition. In García Mayo, M. P., Gutierrez Mangado, M. J., Martínez Adrián, M., Myles, F., Rothman, J., & VanPatten, B. (eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 93–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2008). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. & Janda, R. D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 602–623). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (eds.) (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Chater, N., & Manning, C. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 335–344.Google Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, M., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Exploring the interface: Explicit focus-on-form instruction and learned attentional biases in L2 Latin. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 197–235.Google Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, M., & Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience in second language acquisition: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1284.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–169.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Carter, D. M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech & Language, 2(3), 133–142.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (ed.). (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91–126.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48(4), 631–664.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). The Associative-Cognitive CREED. In Patten, B. V. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 77–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006c). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 1–31.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008a). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 41(3), 232–249.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008b). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned-attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 372–405). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Salience. In Hundt, M., Pfenninger, S., & Mollin, S. (eds.), The changing english language (pp. 71–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of second language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 39–60.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (eds.). (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Mahwah, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Hafeez, K., Martin, K. I., Chen, L., Boland, J., & Sagarra, N. (2014). An eye-tracking study of learned attention in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 547–579.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Language usage, acquisition, and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4), 553–580.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 589–624.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015a). Second language acquisition. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 409–431). Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., and Wulff, S. (2015b). Usage-based approaches in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 75–93). London and New York: NY Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2012). Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning. In Ellis, R. (ed.) Language Teaching Research and Pedagogy (pp. 217–306). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65, 268–297.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (2002). Interactions between the native and second-language phonetic systems. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., & Rohde, A. (eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 217–244). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015). Polysemy. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. S. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Currents in Language Learning, 2, 228–255.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 97–129.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H., & Odlin, T. (eds.) (2006). Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Herron, D., & Bates, E. (1997). Sentential and acoustic factors in the recognition of open- and closed-class words. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 217–239.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M. H., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N. C., & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(3), 361–421.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In Campbell, B. A. & Church, R. M. (eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 276–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 48, 527–550.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2006). Learned Attention. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Development and Learning, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K., & Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636–645.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (2002). The incidental acquisition of Spanish future morphology through reading in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 55–80.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the Competition Model. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The Competition Model: The input, the context, and the brain. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady, W. (eds.) (2015). The handbook of language emergence. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. (ed.), First and second language acquisition (pp. 206–224). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Noyau, C., Klein, W., & Dietrich, R. (1995). Acquisition of temporality in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., Tyler, A. E. In Park, H., & Uno, M. (eds.) (2016). The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (eds.) (2012). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 1–5.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (eds.) (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Ellis, N. C. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing morphology. Language experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 261–290.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1984). The strengths and limitations of acquisition: A case study of an untutored language learner. Language, Learning, and Communication, 3, 1–16.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & Plaut, D. C. (2014). Quasiregularity and its discontents: The legacy of the past tense debate. Cognitive Science, 38(6), 1190–1228.Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.Google Scholar
Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 52–63.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2018). Technologies, morphologies of communicative action, and the rewilding of language education. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T. (eds.) (2013). Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In Cadierno, T. & Eskildsen, S. W. (eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–101). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wills, A. J. (2005). New directions in human associative learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Zuraw, K. (2003). Probability in language change. In Bod, R., Hay, J., & Jannedy, S. (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 139–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
References
Adamson, H. D. (2009). Interlanguage variation in theoretical and pedagogical perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Backhurst, D. (2007). Vygotsky’s demons. In Cole, M., Daniels, H., & Wertsch, J. (eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 50–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J., & Varis, P. (2013). Enough is enough: The heuristics of authenticity in superdiversity. In Duarte, J. & Gogolin, I. (eds.), Linguistic superdiversity in urban areas: Research approaches (pp. 143–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chaiklin, S. (2002). A developmental teaching approach to schooling. In Wells, G. & Claxton, G. (eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 167–180). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. A. (2013). Researching whole people and whole lives. In Kinginger, C. (ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davydov, V. V. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research, and practice (trans. S. T. Kerr). Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12–21.Google Scholar
Donato, R., & Davin, K. (in press). The genesis of classroom discursive practices as history-in-person processes. Language Teaching Research.Google Scholar
Fasold, R., & Preston, D. (2007). The psycholinguistic unity of inherent variability: Old Occam whips out his razor. In Bayley, R. & Lucas, C. (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 45–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fernández, J. (2016). Problematizing authentic out-of-class interactions in study abroad. In van Compernolle, R. A. & McGregor, J. (eds.), Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts (pp. 131–150). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskian perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6, 19–44.Google Scholar
González Rey, F. L., & Martínez, A. M. (2016). Perezhivanie: Advancing on its implications for the cultural-historical approach. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7, 142–160.Google Scholar
Holland, D., Lachicotte, W. Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. The Modern Language Journal, 92(S1), 1–124.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Frawley, W. (1984). Second language performance and Vygotskyan psycholinguistics: Implications for L2 instruction. In Manning, A., Martin, P., & McCalla, K. (eds.), The tenth LACUS forum 1983 (pp. 425–440). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding learners as people. In Breen, M. (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leitch, D. G. (2011). Vygotsky, consciousness, and the German psycholinguistic tradition. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18, 305–318.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2012). The original sin of cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 396–403.Google Scholar
Mok, N. (2015). Toward an understanding of perezhivanie for sociocultural SLA research. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2, 139–159.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Ollman, B. (2003). Dance of the dialectic: Steps in Marx’s method. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Packer, M. (2011). The science of qualitative research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ratner, C. (2006). Cultural psychology: A perspective on psychological functioning and social reform. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Shively, R. L. (2016). An activity theoretical approach to social interaction during study abroad. L2 Journal, 8, 51–75.Google Scholar
Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Vygotsky’s stage theory: The psychology of art and the actor under the direction of perezhivanie. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18, 319–341.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. The Modern Language Journal, 91(S1), 820–836.Google Scholar
Smedslund, J. (1979). Between the analytic and the arbitrary: A case study of psychological research. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20, 129–140.Google Scholar
Smedslund, J. (1997). The structure of psychological common sense. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going in interlanguage pragmatics. Language Teaching, 48, 1–5.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research—1997–2007. The Modern Language Journal, 91(S1), 837–848.Google Scholar
Toomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (eds.) (2010). Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Charlotte, NC. Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J., & Sato, T. (2006). Whom to study in cultural psychology: From random to historically structured sampling. In Straub, J., Kolbl, C., Weidemann, D., & Zielke, B. (eds.), Pursuit of meaning. Theoretical and methodological advances in cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J., & van der Veer, R. (2014). Encountering the border: Vygotsky’s zona blizhaishego razvitia and its implications for theories of development. In Yasnitsky, A., van der Veer, R., & Ferrari, M. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 148–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2016). Sociolinguistic authenticity and classroom L2 learners: Production, perception, and metapragmatics. In van Compernolle, R. A. & McGregor, J. (eds.), Authenticity, language, and interaction in second language contexts (pp. 61–81). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A., Gomez-Laich, M. P., & Weber, A. (2016). Teaching L2 Spanish sociopragmatics through concepts: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 341–361.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A., & Henery, A. (2014). Instructed concept appropriation and L2 pragmatic development in the classroom. Language Learning, 64, 549–578.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012). Reconceptualizing sociolinguistic competence as mediated action: Identity, meaning-making, agency. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 234–250.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. New York: Plenum Press. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/index.htm.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In van der Veer, R. and Valsiner, J. (eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–354). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zinchenko, V. P. (2002). From classical to organic psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 39, 32–77.Google Scholar
Zinchenko, V. P. (2009). Consciousness as the subject matter and task of psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47, 44–75.Google Scholar
References
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29.Google Scholar
Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review, 113, 628–647.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2006). The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1980). Psycholinguistic aspects of L2 acquisition: Word-order phenomena in foreign workers’ interlanguage. In Felix, S. (ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 7–79). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 160–170.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 62–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, N., Rouder, J. N., Blume, C. L., & Saults, J. S. (2012). Models of verbal working memory capacity: What does it take to make them work? Psychological Review, 119, 480–499.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–258.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 232–249.Google Scholar
Elman, J. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48, 71–99.Google Scholar
Five Graces Group (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(S1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91, 1357–1392.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2012). The cortical language circuit: From auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 262–268.Google Scholar
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2005). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar (review). Language, 81, 754–757.Google Scholar
Holland, J. H. (2006). Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 19, 1–8.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. C. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krashen, S D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. (2004). The birth of the mind: How a tiny number of genes creates the complexities of human thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (2013). The ZISA Project. In Robinson, P. (ed.), The encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 708–709). New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.Google Scholar
Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative systems of foreign language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 9, 115–124.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 417–442.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 10, 209–231.Google Scholar
Selinker, L., & Lamendella, J. (1978). Two perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3, 143–191.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1994). Second language acquisition: Theoretical foundations. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Introducing language and cognition: A map of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2015). Consciousness and second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular approach to language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 1–20.Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2011). Input, intake, and consciousness: The quest for a theoretical foundation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 497–528.Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (in preparation). The internal context of bilingual processing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Fossilization in steady state L2 grammars: Persistent problems with inflectional morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 129–143.Google Scholar