Theoretical Frameworks in L2 Acquisition

doi:10.1017/9781108333603.005

4 - Theoretical Frameworks in L2 Acquisition

from Part I - Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019

John Truscott and

Michael Sharwood Smith

Edited by

John W. Schwieter and

Alessandro Benati

Show author details

John W. Schwieter: Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati: Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Book contents

Get access

Summary

It is important to distinguish between a theory and the hypotheses that are derived from it, on the one hand, and a theoretical framework on the other. The crucial criterion for judging a theory, in addition to its explanatory value, is its ability to make useful predictions. A framework functions at a higher level of abstraction. The level can vary between a narrow, “local” framework restricted to a well-specified research domain and one that has a wider coverage, ending up with frameworks that also facilitate interdisciplinary research projects. What all frameworks have in common is that they contain some commitments that cannot be significantly altered: this is the framework’s metatheory. Then there are the areas where variation is perfectly possible, allowing researchers to carry out many alternative applications of the metatheory that defines that particular framework.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 84 - 108

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.005 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Carruthers, P. (2006). The architecture of the mind: Massive modularity and the flexibility of thought. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRef 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.CrossRef 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

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University 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

Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.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

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRef 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