L'apprenant est aujourd'hui sinon toujours au centre des actions de formation, du moins au centre des discours didactiques dominants. Il va de soi, dans les cercles où se produit ce qu'il convient de dire et d'écrire pour être dans le vent de l'histoire pédagogique, que, par définition, tout apprentissage, quel qu'il soit, est d'abord l'affaire d'un apprenant et qu'il s'en suit que, dans un projet éducatif coherent, la figure centrale ne saurait plus être ni l'enseignant, ni la matière, ni la méthode ou le manuel, mais le “se formant”. Les stratégies, les productions, les progressions qui importent ne sont ni du maître, ni de la langue, ni du livre, mais bien du sujet qui apprend. Les motivations, les attentes et les besoins à prendre en compte, les objectifs à retenir sont avant tout ceux du sujet en formation, pilote, moteur et gouvernail d'une navigation dont il lui revient de déterminer l'itinéraire; les autres agents ayant essentiellement pour fonction d'établir les cartes marines, de baliser les routes possibles et d'aider à faire le point (tout ceci dans le mesure – faible – où ils en sont effectivement capables).

There has been a great deal of discussion in the literature on second-language acquisition about the relationship between first-(L1) and second-language (L2) acquisition. I believe that the dust is beginning to settle and that it is now possible to move beyond this debate. I would like to do so in this paper, and examine in particular the role of linguistic input in L1 and L2 and the nature of conversational strategies in both processes.

I want to discuss two lines of enquiry in applied linguistic research which have come into prominence in recent years and which promise to have a bearing on a more learner-centred approach to language teaching pedagogy. These two lines have been pursued independently and at different points on the spectrum of applied linguistic studies. Furthermore, each one concentrates on a different aspect of natural language. I want to argue that we need to find ways of relating them if their pedagogic potential is to be effectively realized.

The term “interlanguage” is generally used in connection with the performance of second language learners in naturalistic learning situations, that is, outside the classroom and in situations where message CONTENT rather than message FORM is in focus. This is a reflection of the generally healthy separation that has taken place between investigations into learning and research into teaching or instruction. It remains true, however, that teaching methods and techniques can hardly be formulated without taking into account our current knowledge of what goes on or what seems to go on in learning. This, of course, has to be done with all due caution, that is, with a full appreciation of the limited nature of this current knowledge (Tarone et al. 1976). Seeing teaching from a learner's point of view is, in itself, a desirable attitude and one which is likely to be fostered if one searches through the literature on acquisition for possible insights, pointers, and even techniques of relevance to language instruction. Over the past four years, instructional techniques for teaching writing to advanced learners of English as a foreign language have been developed at the English Department, Utrecht University. These techniques are directly inspired by research into learning and have in turn proved to be of value for such research even though their primary aim is instructional. This paper will concentrate on the instructional aspects.

A learner brings to the classroom many characteristics which are relevant to predictions about his career as a language learner. These characteristics are the product of his membership of a community; he shares its language and its attitudes to, beliefs about, motivations for and traditions in, language learning in general, and in the learning of specific second languages. And he possesses particular features of personality as formed by his personal history of maturation and experience. I am concerned in this paper with the role of only two of these characteristics, both related to the community he belongs to: the nature of his mother tongue and any other languages known to him, and the beliefs current in his community, which he presumably shares, as to the nature, extent and probable success in the learning task which lies ahead of him.

In this paper I shall argue that FEEDBACK constitutes a central but unjustly neglected concept in the study of institutionalized foreign language learning. Since feedback is the crucial element in distinguishing cybernetic from linear models in general, I shall also be adopting the position that language learning, and foreign-language learning in particular, is best represented in cybernetic terms. To date, however, as Crothers and Suppes (1967:19) point out, feedback in psychological literature (and the same is true, I think, for the literature on foreign-language teaching) has usually been characterized simply as a 0, 1 event-that is, as a binary opposition which could be represented as “yes/no.” Our discussion will show, however, that even in the limited communication situation of the foreign-language classroom the students can and do extract much more from the behavior of the teacher than we might suppose – even if what they learn is somewhat different in nature from what the teacher intends. In proposing an explicitly cybernetic approach as a basis for modeling foreign-language learning, we must be careful to point out that this approach has most in common with many models put forward to explain particular processes within biology and, in the study of speech, with those postulated to explain speech degeneration (Arnold 1960, 1961; Gerard 1959; Milisen 1966; West 1957; Wolf and Wolf 1959; Wood 1945) and also some aspects of speech production and perception (Laver's 1970 model is implicitly cybernetic, as are Corder's speculations on the role of error in foreign-language learning. The analysis-by-synthesis model of speech perception, in that it can be reduced to the form HYPOTHESIS + FEEDBACK, is also essentially cybernetic in nature.)

Current research into second-language learning has tended to ignore (or at best to treat incidentally) a linguistic phenomenon that once used to be a particular preoccupation of applied linguists, the interference error. Instead, the limelight is now firmly focussed on developmental phenomena, with many studies using an approach to data gathering and analytical methodology strongly reminiscent of research into child language acquisition and language contact. There have been specific attempts to establish developmental sequences in the TL, in morpheme acquisition, for instance, so as to compare first and second language learning, and not a little attention is now being paid to such sociolinguistic notions as variability, continua and simplification. In other words, the main emphasis in interlanguage research has shifted from a rather static error-oriented view of language learning to a dynamic view of learners' language as a constantly evolving system. The calls for longitudinal studies of interlanguage of the late sixties and early seventies have not gone unheeded, eve if the word ‘longitudinal’ is sometimes rather liberally interpreted, as in those cases where a tacit (and probably justifiable) assumption is made that studying groups of learners of varying proficiency in respect of given TL features at one and the same time is really the same as following the progress of one group over a long period.

The following paper is an account of empirical research in lexical acquisition, an ongoing study whose preliminary findings were reported at the Neuchâtel colloquium May 1976 (Levenston and Blum 1977). A discussion of the research methodology has also been published (Levenston and Blum 1978), as well as an attempt to link this work with studies of lexical simplification in other linguistic contexts (Blum and Levenston 1977). Before discussing in detail the current findings, it seems appropriate to summarize briefly the preceding research, of which they form an integral part.

Following Sandra Savignon's pioneering study (1972), the attainment of communicative ability has become a highly valued goal in foreign language (FL) instruction. Savignon recognized that a pedagogical approach aimed at developing rudimentary communicative ability required considerable changes in instructional environment (for example, higher proportion of classtime devoted to communicative activities, the use of games and simulation techniques, the reinterpretation of the role of the teacher). But few advocates of the inclusion of communicative ability among the basic FL skills seem to have recognized the need for extensive concomitant modifications, particularly in the areas of syllabus design and the preparation of teaching materials. They have been content to pair communicative activities with grammar-oriented syllabuses and instructional materials that stress cognitive and analytical control. The scope and sequence of these traditional FL materials are based on discrete phonological, morphosyntactic, or lexical features. The number of features selected far exceeds the capacity of learners to internalize, let alone “cognize” them. Even materials that adopt a situational format subordinate pragmatic aspects to structural features; for instance, dialogs are used as vehicles for the “seeding” of pre-selected structures (Rivers 1975:22).

The data presented in this paper were gathered using a French cloze test in the context of a longitudinal evaluation of a number of French immersion programs in Ontario conducted by the Bilingual Education Project of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (see, for example, Barik and Swain 1978(a), 1978(b); Swain and Barik 1976; Swain and Lapkin 1977). One of the major research questions to which these studies have been addressed concerns the degree of second language proficiency attained by the immersion students: how much French is acquired by English-speaking students in these bilingual programs compared to that acquired by students in a regular program taking 20 to 40 minutes daily of core French or conventional French as a second language training? Through the use of standardized French achievement tests and other French measures developed by the Bilingual Education Project (e.g. Barik 1975, 1976; Barik, Swain, and Schloss 1978), it was determined early in the longitudinal study of early French immersion that immersion pupils were attaining a level of second language proficiency far superior to that of the comparison pupils taking core French. It became clear that a more appropriate reference group for measuring French language proficiency would consist of native French-speaking pupils of the same age and grade level. In other words, a shift of emphasis in the original research question has occurred over the past several years so that now the focus is on the degree to which immersion students can attain native-like ability in the second language (Lapkin 1978).

My intent in this short piece is to provide a context for consideration of learner variables in foreign language learning. I first propose a question set outlining the major issues, as I see them, arising in the design of learner-based foreign language learning systems. I then present a simplified three-part design model comprising knowledge considerations (language needs assessment), instructional considerations (learning access alternatives) and learner considerations (characteristics of learners). A review of some recent work in the first two of these prefaces the discussion of the third, learner considerations. A brief state of the art report on research in learner variables is followed by some speculation on next directions in the determination and description of learner variables within a general design model for learning foreign languages.

This paper presents the results of an experiment which investigated the syntactic parsing strategies used by L2 learners at different stages of acquisition. This represents a shift in emphasis from most studies in the field of language learning which deal almost exclusively with production data. The goal of acquisition studies is to understand both the nature of the linguistic system that a learner has acquired and the processes involved in the acquisition of that system. This linguistic knowledge is generally inferred from the perceptive or productive behavior of the learner. There are several reasons why production has been emphasized over perception in second language acquisition research: 1) Research in this area has been greatly affected by studies on child language acquisition in which traditional perception experiments are inappropriate due to a child's lack of cognitive maturity and verbal abilities. 2) Many perception experiments require a paraphrasing ability beyond that of L2 learners in the early stages of acquisition. 3) Problems involving production are more apparent in most pedagogical encounters and, therefore, are of more immediate concern to researchers. Yet, the investigation of perceptual strategies of L2 learners is important, if only because it affords us the possibility of viewing a different corpus of L2 data, thereby giving us additional insight into the nature of the acquisition process.

En 1974, le CRAPEL a commencé à mettre en place un système d'apprentissage autodirigé avec soutien pour des adultes souhaitant apprendre l'anglais, (voir Henner Stanchina 1975;76). Un des problèmes les plus difficiles à résoudre reste celui des matériaux à offrir aux apprenants. Au début, faute de temps pour élaborer des matériaux spécifiques, nous avons proposé des matériaux traités pour l'enseignement et adaptés en vue d'une utilisation autodirigée. L'inadéquation de ce type de matériel s'est vite révélée, en particulier son manque de souplesse d'utilisation dû à la progression préétablie. Il semblait donc urgent d'envisager la création de matériaux spécifiques à l'utilisation autodirigée. Voici quelques problèmes soulevés par la contradiction apparente entre ces deux notions: apprentissage autodirigé et matériaux communs à plusieurs types d'apprenants préstructurés par le conseiller.

The present paper touches slightly on theoretical issues concerned with the notion of linguistic redundancy but has primarily a very practical scope, i.e. the facilitation of the foreign language learning process. Specifically, this paper suggests the utilization of redundancy features in aiding learners to develop their recognition knowledge in the new language. As such, the paper is concerned with course objectives and the learner's linguistic needs.

It is easy for learner-centred approaches to classroom method to fall into the trap of appearing to advocate the virtual abdication of the teacher. The purpose of this paper is to try to redress the balance by setting out an approach (in Section II), initially quite neutral with respect to the ‘teacher-centred or learner-centred’ issue, that instead simply specifies the ‘things that have to happen’ in a classroom if the experience is to have any chance of being a profitable one for the learners. These things are necessary but not sufficient, because attempting to ensure that they happen entails running a number of major risks (to be specified in Section II) that threaten to destroy the value of the classroom experience.

Perhaps we are no worse than any other, but I think our field must soon be known for the incredible leaps in logic we make in applying our research findings to classroom teaching. When contrasts drawn between first and second languages showed differences and those differences seemed to match errors our students made in the classroom, we leapt to say that Contrastive Analysis alone should form the basis of the language teaching curriculum. When a so-called invariant order of acquisition of morphemes was found, we made two leaps in logic––one to say that this was the best evidence of a creative language acquisition process and a second to say that this research shows that learners should just be exposed to, rather than taught, the language. When we found traits shared by good language learners, we suggested that the curriculum should be altered to make sure everyone does what good learners do. We have looked at conversational analysis and declared that teaching materials should reflect true conversational data. No matter what the finding, we have taught ourselves to ask ‘What -does this mean for the classroom teacher?’ and made suggestions without careful thought. There is hardly a publisher or a political group that won't find (or hasn't already found) something in all these leaps of logic to call giant strides. It shouldn't be hard to find the basis to sell almost any program to almost everyone on the strength of someone's research findings.