Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (1999) 19, 43–63. Printed in the USA.

Copyright © 1999 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/99 $9.50

PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA*

Norman Segalowitz and Patsy M. Lightbown

INTRODUCTION

These are exciting times for research into the psychological processes
underlying second language acquisition (SLA). In the 1970s, SLA emerged as a
field of inquiry in its own right (Brown 1980), and in the 1980s, a number of
different approaches to central questions in the field began to develop in parallel
and in relative isolation (McLaughlin and Harrington 1990). In the 1990s,
however, these different approaches began to confront one another directly. Now
we are entering a period reminiscent, in many ways, of the intellectually turbulent
times following the Chomskyan revolution (Chomsky 1957; 1965). Now, as then,
researchers are debating basic premises of a science of mind, language, and
learning. Some might complain, not entirely without reason, that we are still
debating the same issues after 30–40 years. However, there are now new
conceptual and research tools available to test hypotheses in ways previously
thought impossible. Because of this, many psychologists believe there will soon be
significant advancement on some SLA issues that have resisted closure for decades.
We outline some of these developments and explore where the field may be
heading. More than ever, it appears possible that psychological theory and SLA
theory are converging on solutions to common issues.

Questions that have remained central for psycholinguists since SLA

emerged as a discipline include the following: What cognitive processes underlie
success and failure in people’s attempts to master the syntactic patterning of a
second language (L2)? Do the data on this question support the idea that SLA
involves rule acquisition? If so, do the nature of these rules and the conditions
under which they are acquired suggest involvement of an innate linguistic capacity
or can learning alone account for SLA? How does a person become a fluent user of
a second language? How are general mechanisms of memory and attention
involved in SLA, and how do they contribute to fluency?

43
44 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

These questions serve as departure points for the present review. The
issues they raise are grouped into three sections as follows. The first deals with
SLA and the debate about the place of an innate Universal Grammar in language
acquisition. Traditionally, the concern here has been whether evidence concerning
L2 acquisition necessarily implies the existence of innate, specifically linguistic,
predispositions. The second section looks at basic cognitive mechanisms
underlying SLA, in particular, attention and memory, and their role in the
achievement of fluency. The third section addresses some pedagogical implications
of recent developments in the psychological literature.

INNATE UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR

When Chomsky (1957) introduced the idea that innate linguistic knowledge
underlies language acquisition over 40 years ago, the impact was dramatic; it
created a revolution in psychological thinking about language (Lightbown and
White 1987, Lyons 1991). Initially, there was a period of collaboration between
linguists and psychologists on fundamental questions of L1 development and
language functioning (e.g., Bloom 1970, Brown 1973, McNeill 1970). Later,
however, linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches diverged to such an extent that
the disciplines operated in relative isolation (Lyons 1991, Reber 1987). Many
linguists have adopted the view that human language capacity depends on an innate
Universal Grammar (UG) that constrains language development while
psycholinguists have generally approached language acquisition from the
perspective that general principles of skill learning and information processing can
alone account for language acquisition. Now, after a period of relative mutual
neglect, it appears that lively debate over fundamentals has arisen once again
between linguists and psychologists (e.g., Brown, Malmkjaer and Williams 1996,
Müller 1996 and commentaries contained therein). This time, the participation of
SLA researchers is more visible.

In linguistics, the central question is whether the evidence justifies

postulating that innate UG is an underlying factor in first language acquisition. The
case in favor of such innate knowledge rests on the following four premises:

1. Language development involves the acquisition of a rule governed system,

many of the details of which turn out to be universal, complex, and arbitrary.
2. Language acquisition takes place in what appears to be a very short time,
given the apparent inadequacy of the input and the complexity of the system
acquired.
3. The input provided to the learner/acquirer includes not only grammatical
sentences but also incomplete or incorrect sentences, false starts, and
misleading phonetic representations of the words and phrases which make up
the sentences.
4. The learner/acquirer does not receive negative evidence (information about
what potential patterns are not part of the language).
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 45

According to UG theorists, these considerations pose an insurmountable

challenge for any learning theory that does not include some innate predisposing
factor(s). This is the logical problem of language acquisition, also known as
Plato’s problem: How can people come to know so much if they are born without
knowledge and if the evidence provided to them by the learning environment is
extremely limited? Plato’s problem has always been at the center of Chomsky’s
work and of modern linguistics (Lyons 1991:164). The solution offered by UG
linguistics is to propose the existence of an innate Universal Grammar underlying
language acquisition. In SLA research, a particularly influential version of UG
theory has been the principles and parameters model (Chomsky 1995, Epstein,
Flynn and Martohardjono 1996, Lyons 1996, Meisel 1995, White 1996). This
model distinguishes between principles, which underlie all human languages, and
parameters, which reflect the different ways in which individual languages realize
these principles.

Plato’s problem is also at the center of the discussion about whether innate
UG is implicated in SLA. Schachter (1996a; 1996b) and White (1989; 1996),
among others, discuss how SLA could be understood in terms of parameter setting
within UG theory. White (1996:91) goes on to say that “Arguments in favor of a
role for UG in L2 acquisition hinge on the logical problem of L2 acquisition: L2
learners often end up with a highly complex unconscious mental representation of
their L2...which is underdetermined by the L2 input, suggesting that built-in
knowledge must be involved.” Of course, because the primary motivation for UG
theory comes from the premises underlying the logical problem of L1 acquisition,
success or failure to resolve it in that domain has consequences for SLA theory.

The debate regarding innate factors in first language acquisition has

become reanimated in recent years. The premises underlying the innateness
position described earlier are now being increasingly challenged by empiricists who
believe that language acquisition can be accounted for solely in terms of general
principles of learning and cognition. These challenges are based on new data and
new models of learning. It is beyond the scope of this paper to review these
challenges in detail, but the following points can be made by way of summary.
First, connectionist accounts of learning claim that, in principle at least, it is not
necessary to assume a learner has knowledge of rules even though the newly
acquired behavior appears to be rule governed (Broeder and Plunkett 1994, Ellis
1999, Elman, et al. 1996).1 Second, the assumption that the language input is
inadequate has been called into question (Snow 1995; see de Houwer 1995 for
discussion of input in SLA). Third, a learning environment that provides
degenerate (incomplete, inconsistent) data, contrary to what has been assumed, may
be able to support a surprising amount of learning, as demonstrated by Landauer
and Dumais (1997) in their modeling of vocabulary acquisition. Finally, claims
regarding the absence of negative evidence have been challenged with new accounts
of the amount and nature of the negative evidence available to young children
(Sokolov and Snow 1994). Of course, there is still a great deal of discussion about
how serious these challenges really are for innatist positions. However, given the
46 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

empirical nature of these challenges, it is likely that further research will soon make
clear whether they are as compelling as their authors claim.

Where is this debate heading? Certainly in recent years the introduction of

new research techniques has changed the nature of the discussion. Now it appears
possible to subject many of the assumptions held by UG theorists or by psycho-
linguists to disconfirmation tests by using tools not available before (e.g., computer
simulations of learning, the use of large data bases; MacWhinney 1995). Such
developments are to be welcomed, regardless of what one thinks about any specific
study, if for no other reason than that they provide a fresh way to look at old
questions. This evolution, in turn, may help remove an important obstacle that has
for decades prevented closure in the debate between UG theorists and psycho-
linguists, an obstacle that may be described in the following way (Watts [1970]
made a similar point in a related context).

Linguists and psycholinguists (as do all scientists) employ certain economy

criteria for evaluating competing theories within their own disciplines. That is,
given two possible accounts of a phenomenon, both UG theorists and psycho-
linguists will prefer the one that provides the optimal trade-off between
generalizability (accounting for more data) and simplicity (avoiding the use of
unnecessary theoretical constructs). UG theorists and psycholinguists, however,
differ in terms of how they use these economy criteria. The former evaluate a
theory’s economy with respect to how well it accounts for native speakers’
intuitions regarding the structure of their language. The latter, on the other hand,
assess a theory’s economy with respect to how well it accounts for language
behavior, including acquisition patterns, errors, memory for language, neurological
representations, and the like. The goals of the two groups are thus fundamentally
different in terms of what they each expect a theory to account for. As theories
within each discipline evolve through the selection of newer theories to replace
older ones, the disciplines necessarily diverge rather than converge on solutions to
what started out as common problems. The advent of new ways of defining issues
and collecting data, however, should help refocus theorists’ explanatory goals and
move us closer to achieving consensus on what theories of language and language
acquisition are expected to explain.

At the moment, however, such consensus has not been achieved. As

mentioned earlier, although linguists differ as to the details of UG’s influence,
many argue, nonetheless, that UG does underlie L2 acquisition (see White 1996 for
details of the different positions within UG theory). Others, however, maintain
that UG applies to L1 acquisition only and that a psychological learning theory
approach is appropriate for SLA (e.g., Schachter 1996a; 1996b). While such a
position is not logically indefensible, it generally is not favored by psycholinguists,
since, they argue, if a learning theory account works for SLA then it might also
work for L1 acquisition.
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 47

One psycholinguistic approach to SLA is the Competition Model (Bates

and MacWhinney 1989, MacWhinney 1997). The Competition Model views both
L1 and L2 acquisition as a learning process based on universals of cognitive
structure rather than on principles of UG. A basic principle underlying acquisition,
according to this model, is input-driven learning based on the cue-validity of
elements present in the environment. An element’s strength of cue- validity is the
reliability with which the cue is associated with the correct functional choice
(interpretation of a sentence or word). Sometimes the cue validity of a given
marker (say, word order) will differ between the L1 and the L2 (e.g., word order
in English versus Russian). MacWhinney and his colleagues report studies
involving many different languages. Their work supports the hypothesis that input-
driven learning based on cue-validity predicts L1 and L2 acquisition patterns and
performance (see references in MacWhinney 1997, MacWhinney and Bates 1989).
In a typical study, participants are asked to indicate which noun in a sentence is, for
example, the agent or recipient of the action indicated by the verb. Response
patterns indicate how the participant interprets the cues present in the sentence
(word order, case markings). By means of such techniques, it has been shown, for
example, that even an individual who has used English as a second language for
decades may continue to use the cue strength hierarchy of the L1 to guide L2
interpretations (Bates and MacWhinney 1981).

For several reasons, the Competition Model has proven attractive to

psycholinguists, including SLA researchers (e.g., Gass 1987; 1996, Kilborn 1994).
It is founded upon clearly articulated general principles of cognitive functioning,
including those underlying connectionist theories; empirical tests have provided
good support for hypotheses derived from the model; and the conditions for
disconfirming the model have been explicitly identified (MacWhinney 1997).
Nevertheless, some authors have raised questions about how far this approach can
take us. McLaughlin and Harrington (1990), for example, have questioned
Competition Model researchers’ tendency to use semantically anomalous sentences
when testing the model (but see MacWhinney 1997). Gass (1996) wonders whether
the Competition Model can account for how the learner comes to attend to the cue
dimensions relevant to the hierarchy in the first place. These are interesting
questions that future research will have to address.

What we have seen in the 1990s is a shift in the debate over basic questions
about the nature of language and language learning. In the early days of the
Chomskyan revolution, debate about innate competence versus the primacy of
learning was largely nonempirical. In contrast, we see now that new methods for
gathering data and constructing models are enabling theorists to test ideas in fresh
ways, leading some to believe that closure on some issues may be in sight.
48 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

BASIC COGNITIVE MECHANISMS IN SLA

In recent years, a number of authors have attempted to present fully

elaborated, cognitively oriented frameworks for thinking about SLA (e.g., Gass
1997, Johnson 1996, Skehan 1998). These works build upon earlier efforts to
bring an information-processing orientation to the SLA field (e.g., McLaughlin
1987, McLaughlin, Rossman and McLeod 1983, McLeod and Mclaughlin 1986),
and they draw upon theories of attention, memory, and skill to be found in both the
SLA and general cognitive psychology literatures. In this section, we highlight
some of the principal psychological issues and recent developments in these areas.

1. Attention

Perhaps the most widely discussed psychological topic in the SLA

literature at the present time is the role attention plays in L2 acquisition. (See
Neumann 1996 for an overview of developments in psychological research on
attention.) In his “Noticing Hypothesis,” Schmidt (1998) argues that virtually
every aspect of SLA involves attention. Of special concern is whether there is such
a thing as “implicit learning” or whether all learning requires explicit attention or
noticing, and whether attention—if it is necessary for learning—is also sufficient.
These topics are at the center of a lively debate among SLA researchers, partly
because they impact on proposed solutions to Plato’s problem, and partly because
they have implications for L2 pedagogy (see below).

Several positions have been staked out with respect to attention and
learning in SLA. The Competition Model, for example, is based on the premise
that learning takes place in the absence of attention, that is, learning is automatic
(does not consume attentional capacity), learning is implicit (does not require
intention), and repetitive exposure to input is sufficient for learning to take place.
In formulating his “Noticing Hypothesis,” Schmidt (1998) argues the contrary,
namely, that attention is essential for learning. He does acknowledge that a person
can register information without focal attention or awareness. This has been
demonstrated, for example, in priming studies where a briefly presented initial
stimulus word (the prime) can influence responses to the subsequent target word
even though there is no conscious awareness of the prime (Fowler, Wolford, Slade
and Tassinary 1981, Marcel 1983; but see Holender 1986, and discussions
contained therein). Schmidt’s point, however, is that, while such registration of
information can take place without attention, the effects do not last long and do not
affect longer term learning. He calls his position a strong version of the Noticing
Hypothesis because he holds that while there may be subliminal perception there is
no subliminal learning. Truscott (1998), on the other hand, opposes the view that
noticing is a necessary condition for learning and claims that the cognitive
foundations of the Noticing Hypothesis are weak and without supporting data.

Psychologists continue to debate the role attention plays in learning. An

interesting study is presented by Nissen and Bullemer (1987), who looked at
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 49

implicit learning of a serial pattern in a reaction time (RT) task. In their

experiment, participants had to press buttons to indicate the position of a target
appearing on the computer screen. The target location was changed either in a
random fashion or according to a patterned sequence; reaction times became faster
in the pattern condition, indicating implicit learning of the pattern. Nissen and
Bullemer found that when participants performed a concurrent tone-counting task,
implicit learning was significantly reduced. They concluded that the implicit
learning had required attentional capacity since it was disrupted by a secondary task
that itself required attentional capacity. Stadler (1995), however, repeated the
experiment with additional conditions and found that the reduction of implicit
learning by tone-counting was no greater than the reduction observed from inserting
long and short pauses between trials. The pauses segmented the pattern sequences
and hence disrupted the processing of the serial pattern, but the pauses themselves
did not draw upon attentional capacity. Stadler concluded that the implicit learning
did not require attentional capacity; the reduced learning could be explained fully in
terms of the disruption of the processing of pattern information, not in terms of
attentional capacity.

It is becoming increasingly recognized that part of what may underlie

controversies in this area, especially in the SLA literature, is lack of agreement on
the meaning of such terms as attention and implicit learning. For example,
definitions of implicit learning include learning with and without the use of
attentional capacity, conscious awareness, intention to learn, recollection or
intention to remember, and noticing, to name but some. Frensch (1998) provides a
useful discussion of the problems posed by multiple meanings in this area and
recommends criteria for choosing among various definitions. Other guides for this
complex issue can be found in Ellis (1994a), Roediger (1997), and Stadler and
Frensch (1998). Papers by Ellis (1994b), Reingold and Merikle (1988), Stadler
(1997), Stadler and Roediger (1998), and Whittlesea and Dorken (1997) provide
important discussions concerning the requirements for satisfactorily distinguishing
implicit from explicit processes.

Closely related to these topics is the distinction between automatic and

controlled processing (Schmidt 1992), where automatic processing is sometimes
defined as processing that does not require attentional capacity, and sometimes
defined as processing that is “ballistic,” that is, once triggered, continues
autonomously and cannot be intentionally interfered with. Often, however, authors
operationally define automatic processing simply as very fast responding.
Unfortunately, this criterion for automaticity, while convenient, is inadequate since
fast responding could equally be due to fast, controlled, nonautomatic processing
(Segalowitz 1991, Segalowitz and Segalowitz 1993). Finding appropriate measures
of automaticity is a challenge, but one that must be met if we hope to study the role
of automaticity in such areas as L2 fluency development (see below).
50 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

2. Memory

Most psychological research on memory and SLA has focused on how

concepts and words are mapped onto each other in the bilingual mind. Researchers
have asked whether the lexical stores of the bilingual’s two languages are
functionally independent or integrated, and how the particular languages involved
and the conditions under which they were acquired affect the way words and their
meanings are represented. Kroll and de Groot (1997) provide a thorough review of
this literature.

The majority of this research has involved tasks with single word stimuli
presented out of context rather than in the context of ongoing communication.
Typical experiments in this literature involve priming tasks which explore whether
response time to a target will be affected by previous presentation of its translation
equivalent, same language synonym, etc. Attempts to demonstrate cross language
priming effects have so far yielded mixed results, creating problems for theories
that posit separate stores for the two lexicons. Kroll and de Groot (1997) review
the issues involved here and propose new models of the bilingual lexicon to account
for some of the apparently contradictory results.

While the organization of the bilingual’s lexical store has been the main
focus of SLA memory research for a long time, there are other memory-related
issues that are (or should be) of interest to SLA researchers. Excellent reviews of
current general psychological research on memory can be found in Bjork and Bjork
(1996). One area of potentially great relevance, but so far little represented in the
SLA literature, concerns transfer appropriate processing, also sometimes referred
to as transfer appropriate learning.

The fundamental idea underlying transfer appropriate processing is that

when a person learns new information, that information is encoded in a cue
dependent or context sensitive manner (what Tulving [1983] refers to as “encoding
specificity”). A person’s success in retrieving previously learned information is,
therefore, facilitated to the extent that the mental operations engaged in at the time
of recollection (i.e., at the time of test) match those previously engaged in at the
time of encoding or learning. This effect occurs because the internal mental state
of the individual provides clues to assist recollection; if the retrieval cues activated
at the time of test match the cues encoded during learning of the to-be-remembered
information, then retrieval will be facilitated. Put another way, learning is said to
be “transfer appropriate” if it involves processing mechanisms that match those that
will be activated later at the time of test. Thus, for example, Blaxton (1989) found
that free recall of word targets (a semantically driven task) was enhanced when the
targets of recall had been generated (a semantically driven activity) by participants
in an earlier phase of the experiment than when they had been read (a perceptually
driven activity) and found the reverse for word fragment completion (a perceptually
driven activity).
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 51

There is considerable general evidence to support the principle of transfer

appropriate processing (Blaxton 1989, Roediger and Guynn 1996), and the concept
is encountered widely in the cognitive literature. In the SLA literature, Durgunoglu
and Roediger (1987) have shown how apparently inconsistent results concerning the
nature of lexical stores in bilinguals (separate versus integrated stores) may have
reflected methodological confounds related to transfer appropriate processing.
Healy and Bourne (1995; in press), Healy and Sinclair (1996), and Segalowitz
(1997) discuss how the principle of transfer appropriate processing applies to a
number of skill learning situations, including SLA. This context-sensitive view of
learning and memory is also consistent with assumptions underlying connectionist
models of learning and the Competition Model of language acquisition. As
discussed in the next main section, the principle of transfer appropriate processing
has important pedagogical implications.

3. Fluency

Recent research developments in memory and attention have opened up

new avenues for studying the acquisition of L2 fluency. The term “fluency,” of
course, has been used in many different senses (Riggenbach in press). For
purposes of this discussion, however, fluency refers to performance in speaking or
reading that is rapid and smooth. At least three component cognitive abilities of
fluency can be identified: 1) the ability to rapidly retrieve from memory appropriate
linguistic knowledge and speech routines as they are needed, 2) the ability to
perform in a smooth manner in the face of competition from potentially distracting
ongoing, unrelated events (external noises, intrusive thoughts), and 3) the ability to
perform without disruption when confronted with related but unexpected events (a
surprise turn in the conversation, an unexpected word from the interlocutor or text
being read, a change in speech register, etc.). Each of these three component
abilities involves specific cognitive mechanisms which, presumably, are implicated
in L2 fluency acquisition.

For example, according to the principle of transfer appropriate processing,

the learning environment that best promotes rapid, accurate retrieval of what has
been learned is that in which the psychological demands placed on the learner
resemble those that will be encountered later in natural settings. A challenge for
research now is to identify what those demands are, to build them into a learning
environment, and then to assess their impact on learning. The wealth of memory
research techniques developed in the past few years will no doubt provide useful
tools for investigating this element of skill acquisition (Healy and Bourne 1995).

The ability to perform fluently in the face of potential distraction from

unrelated events requires a high level of automatization; such automatization allows
language processing mechanisms to operate without interference from outside
sources of information. Psychological studies have steadily refined our
understanding of automaticity and are providing new ways to operationalize it for
research purposes (Schmidt 1992). These developments open up possibilities for
52 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

assessing the degree of automatic processing in L2 users at various times during L2

acquisition (Segalowitz, Segalowitz and Wood 1998), thereby enabling one to
measure the impact of particular learning experiences on this aspect of fluency. A
related fluency issue concerns the ability to suppress inappropriately activated
representations of information (e.g., an irrelevant meaning or thought elicited by a
word) from distracting the focus of attention. Gernsbacher (Gernsbacher and
Faust 1995), among others, has used various priming techniques to study individual
differences in L1 reading skills. Her studies suggest that it is the ability to suppress
irrelevant meanings efficiently, and not the ability to enhance the representation of
relevant meanings, that distinguishes fluent readers from less fluent readers. These
techniques can be used to study similar distinctions in L2 fluency, including how
such suppression skills develop.

Finally, L2 fluency also requires an ability to cope with related but

unexpected changes in the communicative environment. This type of fluency
requires an ability to shift (as opposed to suppressing) one’s focus of attention
easily from one dimension of the communicative situation to another. While there
are no published studies yet on this facet of fluency, recent developments in
techniques for investigating attention-shifting skills (e.g., Rogers and Monsell
1995) may soon make it possible to investigate its acquisition.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS.

We turn briefly now to two topics where psychological research may prove
valuable in resolving some controversial pedagogical issues. Both concern possible
limitations of the communicative language teaching (CLT) methodologies that
currently dominate L2 instruction. The first concerns how CLT is supposed to
promote those aspects of fluency which require automatic processing without
compromising its communicative nature; the second concerns the place, if any, for
focus on form in CLT.

1. CLT and fluency

It is widely acknowledged that CLT has the merit of avoiding many of the
shortcomings of the repetition-based, decontextualized techniques characteristic of
audiolingual teaching approaches (DeKeyser 1998, Lightbown 1998). What is not
so clear is how, in theory, CLT is supposed to promote general fluency (rapid,
smooth performance). The problem can be formulated in psychological terms as
follows. Fluency involves, among other things, the ability to process information
automatically, and both research and conventional wisdom suggest that automaticity
is achieved only through repetition practice (Schneider, Dumais and Shiffrin 1984).
Because it would appear that repetition practice is inherently uncommunicative, it
follows that one potential limitation of CLT methodologies is that they are ill-suited
for promoting fluency (automaticity).
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 53

This limitation may be more apparent than real, as can be seen from trying
to understand the cognitive bases of CLT methodologies. This topic has received
little discussion in the SLA literature (see Gatbonton and Segalowitz 1988, Johnson
1996, Segalowitz and Gatbonton 1995), but some testable hypotheses can be
derived from current psychological research on memory and attention. CLT
methodologies emphasize genuine communication, that is, communication based on
a real desire by the learner to understand and communicate meanings. CLT
methodologies attempt to provide life-like situations in the classroom to enable this
to happen. Gatbonton and Segalowitz (1988) argue that, when approached in a
certain way, CLT activities can be designed to meet the requirements of transfer
appropriate processing. Such adaptation requires making the psychological context
(the learner’s perceptions, feelings, intentions, etc.) in which learning takes place
match the psychological context that will obtain outside the classroom when the
learner’s language skills are called upon. If this condition is met, then the memory-
access component of fluency should be enhanced—what was learned in the
classroom should be more readily accessed when needed at a later time than would
otherwise be the case. Of course, skills can be learned under conditions that do not
meet the criteria of transfer appropriate processing; in this case, what is learned
should be less readily accessed when needed, and performance should be
correspondingly less fluent. It should be noted too that not all communicative
activities meet the criteria of transfer appropriate processing. One has to examine
closely the psychological demands associated with each learning activity and
consider the contexts in which the target language skills will be called upon.
(Gatbonton and Segalowitz [1988] present examples showing how conventional
CLT activities can be looked at from this perspective.)

CLT activities can also be designed to promote the other two elements of
fluency discussed earlier. For example, communication activities can be designed
to be inherently repetitive, thereby providing meaningful repetition practice that
leads to automaticity. Activities can also be constructed to be open-ended, allowing
for surprise turns of events, thereby providing possibilities for developing skills in
switching attention focus. They can also provide sources of distraction, thereby
creating opportunities for developing focusing skills that involve suppression of
elicited, irrelevant information.

What we see here is that the psychological literature on memory and

attention can provide new ways of thinking about CLT methodologies. These
innovations include criteria for designing activities to promote fluency and methods
for testing the outcomes. Such considerations may help overcome what some have
believed to be an inherent limitation of CLT methodologies.
54 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

2. CLT and focus on form

An issue hotly debated in recent years is whether there are benefits to be

derived from focusing the L2 learner’s attention on language form, and if so, how
best to do this in terms of timing and manner. (Does one match focus on form
activities to the learner’s stage of development? Should focus on form be integrated
into communicative activities or handled separately?) Overviews of the issues
involved can be found in DeKeyser (1998) and Doughty and Williams (1998).
Implicit here is the idea of another CLT limitation, namely, that these
methodologies do not readily permit learners to learn about structural features of
the language. Evidence supporting the effectiveness of integrating focus-on-form
and communicative activities during instruction is provided by a number of
researchers (Doughty and Varela 1998, Lightbown 1991, Lightbown and Spada
1990, Lyster 1994, Lyster and Ranta 1997, Spada and Lightbown 1993).
Lightbown (1998) also summarizes the potential limitations of separate activities
that focus on form and reviews teaching techniques that can incorporate focus on
form within CLT activities.

Of particular interest for the present review is how a psychological

perspective on SLA might make a contribution to the focus-on-form debate.
DeKeyser (1998) raises the question of how one can promote the gradual transition
from declarative knowledge (conscious, verbalizable) about language features to
procedural knowledge that is automatized. Such a transition is considered central
in most cognitive models of skill learning (e.g., Ackerman 1989, Anderson 1983).
Given the techniques that now exist for studying automaticity, one can envisage
testing hypotheses about the way knowledge of language structure gained through
focus-on-form becomes part of the learner’s repertoire of automatized language
abilities. In a similar vein, the principle of transfer appropriate processing provides
a theoretical framework for thinking about the effects of integrating form and
meaning focus during instruction (Lightbown 1998). Here, the testable hypothesis
would be that learners will have easier access to knowledge about language features
that were noticed during classroom-learning communicative activities when later
placed in communicative situations than if they learned about language features
outside a communicative context.

CONCLUSION

In the 1990s, there has been an enormous increase in the level—both

quantitative and qualitative—of research into SLA issues (e.g., Hulstijn and
DeKeyser 1997, Tomlin and Gernsbacher 1994). The present review has had to be
very selective. For example, we have said little about psychological studies of L2
word recognition and reading (Durgunoglu 1997, Koda 1994; 1996), L2 vocabulary
development (Hulstijn 1997, Meara 1993; 1997), or the neuro-linguistics of
bilingualism (Obler and Hannigan 1996, Paradis 1997), to name just some areas not
covered. In these areas, as well as in those reviewed above, increasingly
sophisticated research techniques are being brought to bear on challenging
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 55

problems. Until relatively recently, however, a major problem has been that the
SLA research community and the L2 psycholinguistic and cognitive psychology
community operated mostly in parallel with little interaction between them. Our
reading of recent developments suggests that this period is coming to an end, a
change that is both welcome and long overdue. Driving this change is the
appearance of new research methodologies. What is especially exciting is that a
number of longstanding issues that have resisted resolution may now be seen in a
new light, and perhaps some of them may even be resolved.

NOTES

* The authors thank Nilmini de Silva, Elizabeth Gatbonton, Catherine Poulsen and
Vivien Watson for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. Grant support
for this work came from a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada award to the first author, from a Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada award to the second author, and from a Quebec Ministry
Education grant (FCAR) held by both authors.

1. Not everyone agrees that connectionist models make good neuropsychological

sense (e.g., S. Segalowitz and Bernstein 1997). However, as Ellis (1999) has
suggested, one does not necessarily have to view connectionism as an attempt to
model neural architecture for it to be useful. Connectionist analysis can, instead,
be understood as a mathematical tool that reveals how the process of simple
associative learning can contain hidden within it the basis for establishing response
patterns that appear to be rule-governed in the absence of explicit rule
representation. This use of connectionism as a tool is analogous to, say, the way
one uses Fourier analysis to analyze complex wave forms to reveal underlying
hidden, simpler acoustic patterns (e.g., the component frequencies, formant
structures of speech). How the brain actually performs the equivalent analysis is
another question.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bjork, E. and R. Bjork (eds.) 1996. Memory: Handbook of perception and

cognition. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.

This edited volume is an outstanding collection of 15 chapters reviewing

major recent developments in the study of memory. Included are in-depth
discussions of memory systems, short-term/working memory, long-term
memory, retrieval, conscious and unconscious forms of memory,
56 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

individual differences in memory, and memory for real-world events. This

volume should definitely serve as a basic reference work for SLA
researchers interested in current psychological thinking about memory.

Brown, G., K. Malmkjaer and J. Williams (eds.) 1996. Performance and

competence in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

This edited volume presents, in the context of SLA research and theory, an
examination of the issues underlying Chomsky’s competence-performance
distinction and the theory of UG. The papers included here provide a wide
range of perspectives. Some papers provide a historical context for
understanding the theory of UG and the competence-performance
distinction as it relates to SLA. Others focus on making a case for, or
against, a UG approach to SLA. One chapter provides a useful tutorial on
connectionism, and others deal with the competence-performance
distinction in relation to lexical competence, sociolinguistic issues, and
language testing.

Epstein, D., S. Flynn and G. Martohardjono. 1996. Second language acquisition:

Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research (plus
commentaries). Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 19.677–758.

The target article addresses the question of whether UG constrains second

language acquisition. The authors argue in favor of what they call the
“Full Access” hypothesis, namely, that UG in its entirety constrains second
language acquisition. The main article is followed by commentaries from
32 authors drawn from a variety of fields plus the authors’ reply. The
comprehensive debate and the reference section containing over 300 entries
provides an excellent overview of the many perspectives on the issue of
UG in SLA.

Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.) 1994. Handbook of psycholinguistics. New York:

Academic Press.

This edited volume contains 34 chapters that provide excellent reviews of a

wide range of psycholinguistic topics of interest to SLA researchers. The
chapters cover various aspects of psycholinguistic theory and research
methodology, and touch on areas that include L1 acquisition, reading,
neurolinguistics, speech perception, and adult SLA. The volume is a
valuable resource, providing entry points into the psycholinguistic literature
in a number of major areas.
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 57

Hulstijn, J. and R. DeKeyser (eds.) 1997. Testing SLA theory in the research
laboratory. [Special Issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
19.2.]

This special issue of SSLA addresses the possibilities and limitations of

laboratory studies in contributing to our understanding of SLA. The seven
articles in this collection by well-known and respected authors in the field
of SLA touch mainly on the themes of automaticity and implicit versus
explicit processes in acquisition and instruction. This is a useful collection
for illustrating how theoretical issues in SLA can be operationalized and
submitted to laboratory testing.

Müller, R-A. 1996. Innateness, autonomy, universality? Neurobiological

approaches to language (plus commentaries). Behavioral and Brain
Sciences. 19.611–676.

The target article by Müller presents a neurobiological perspective on the

concepts of innateness, universality, and the possible autonomy of human
language capacity with respect to how these ideas have affected debate
between UG theorists and psycholinguists. The author examines issues
such as whether there could be language genes, hard-wiring of language
capacity, a critical period for language learning, and a biological basis for
a species-specific, human language capacity. He concludes that linguistic
specialization of brain areas can be accounted for without appeal to genetic
hard-wiring. The article is followed by a lively set of commentaries from
21 researchers drawn from a variety of areas, with a concluding reply by
the author. The article and commentaries contain over 800 references.

Stadler, M. A. and P. A. Frensch. 1998. Handbook of implicit learning. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

This edited collection provides an excellent and comprehensive discussion

of a topic that is currently a major theme in the SLA literature—the role of
attention in learning. The volume contains chapters presenting criteria for
defining implicit learning and reviewing the most recent methodologies for
investigating the place of attention in learning. Many SLA researchers will
find the analyses of research using artificial grammars to study implicit
learning especially interesting. This volume will serve as a major resource
for anyone interested in how psychologists are currently addressing
questions about implicit learning.

Tomlin, R. and M. Gernsbacher (eds.) 1994. Cognitive foundations of second

language acquisition. [Special issue of Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 16.2.]
58 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

As the title of this special issue might suggest, this collection of papers by
leaders in the field provides a possible “agenda” for cognitive
psychological approaches to second language acquisition. The topics
covered are varied, ranging across the nature of attention and control, the
role of implicit learning, the effect of cognitive biases on interlanguage
development, and the neurobiological dimensions of emotion and affect in
SLA.

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, P. 1989. Individual differences and skill acquisition. In P. Ackerman,

R. J. Sternberg and R. Glaser (eds.) Learning and individual differences.
New York: Freeman. 165–217.
Anderson, J. R. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bates, E. and B. MacWhinney. 1981. Second language acquisition from a
functionalist perspective: Pragmatic, semantic and perceptual strategies. In
H. Winitz (ed.) Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Conference
on native and foreign language acquisition. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences. 190–214.
1989. Functionalism and the Competition Model.
In B. MacWhinney and E. Bates (eds.) The crosslinguistic study of
sentence processing. New York: Cambridge University Press. 3–73.
Blaxton, T. 1989. Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for
a transfer appropriate framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and Cognition. 15.657–668.
Bloom, L. 1970. Language development: Form and function in emerging
grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Broeder, P. and K. Plunkett. 1994. Connectionism and second language
acquisition. In N. Ellis (ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of languages.
New York: Academic Press. 421–453.
Brown, H. D. 1980. Second language acquisition/learning: Psycholinguistic
factors. In R. B. Kaplan, et al. (eds.) Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 1. New York: Cambridge University Press. 108–113.
Brown, R. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
___________ 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
___________ 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
de Houwer, A. 1995. Bilingual language acquisition. In P. Fletcher and B.
MacWhinney (eds.) The handbook of child language. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers. 219–250.
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 59

DeKeyser, R. 1998. Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and

practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.)
Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 42–63.
Doughty, C. and E. Varela. 1998. Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty
and J. Williams (eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 114–138.
_________ and J. Williams. 1998. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C.
Doughty and J. Williams (eds.) Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 197–261.
Durgunoglu, A. 1997. Bilingual reading: Its components, development and other
issues. In A. de Groot and J. Kroll (eds.) Tutorials in bilingualism.
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum. 255–276.
____________ and H. Roediger. 1987. Test differences in accessing bilingual
memory. Journal of Memory and Language. 26.377–391.
Ellis, N. (ed.) 1994a. Implicit and explicit learning of languages. New York:
Academic Press.
(ed.) 1994b. Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit
cognitive mediation. In N. Ellis (ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of
languages. New York: Academic Press. 211–282.
1999. Cognitive approaches to SLA. In W. Grabe, et al. (ed.) Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 19. Survey of Applied Linguistics. New
York: Cambridge University Press. 22–42.
Elman, J., E. Bates, M. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi and K. Plunkett.
1996. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fowler, C., G. Wolford, R. Slade and L. Tassinary. 1981. Lexical access with and
without awareness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
110.341–362.
Frensch, P. 1998. One concept, multiple meanings: On how to define the concept
of implicit learning. In M. Stadler and P. Frensch (eds.) Handbook of
implicit learning. London: Sage Publications. 47–104.
Gass, S. 1987. The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A
bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics. 8.329–350.
_______ 1996. Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of
language transfer. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of second
language acquisition. New York: Academic Press. 317–345.
_______ 1997. Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
L. Erlbaum.
Gatbonton, E. and N. Segalowitz. 1988. Creative automatization: Principles for
promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly.
22.473–492.
Gernsbacher, M. and M. Faust. 1995. Skill suppression. In F. Dempster and C.
Brainerd (eds.) Interference and inhibition in cognition. New York:
Academic Press. 295–327.
60 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

Healy, A. and L. E. Bourne, Jr. (eds.) 1995. Learning and memory of knowledge
and skills: Durability and specificity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
__________________________ (eds.) In press. Foreign language learning:
Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention. Mahwah, NJ: L.
Erlbaum.
________ and G. Sinclair. 1996. The long-term retention of training and
instruction. In E. Bjork and R. Bjork (eds.) Memory: Handbook of
perception and cognition. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press. 525–564.
Holender, D. 1986. Semantic activation without conscious identification in dichotic
listening, parafoveal vision and visual masking: A survey and appraisal.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 9.1–66.
Hulstijn, J. 1997. Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning:
Theoretical considerations and pedagogical implications. In J. Coady and
T. Huckin (eds.) Second language vocabulary acquisition. New York:
Cambridge University Press. 203–224.
Johnson, K. 1996. Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kilborn, K. 1994. Learning a language late: Second language acquisition in adults.
In M. A. Gernsbacher (ed.) Handbook of psycholinguistics. New York:
Academic Press. 917–944.
Koda, K. 1994. Second language reading research: Problems and possibilities.
Applied Psycholinguistics. 15.1–28.
1996. L2 Word recognition research: A critical review. The Modern
Language Journal. 80.450–460.
Kroll, J. and A. de Groot. 1997. Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual:
Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In A. de Groot and J. Kroll
(eds.) Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Mahwah,
NJ: L. Erlbaum. 169–199.
Landauer, T. and S. Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato’s problem: The Latent
Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of
knowledge. Psychological Review. 104.211–240.
Lightbown, P. 1991. What have we here? Some observations on the influence of
instruction on L2 learning. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker,
M. Sharwood Smith and M. Swain (eds.) Foreign/second language
pedagogy research. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 197–212.
____________ 1998. The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty
and J. Williams (eds.) Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 177–196.
____________ and N. Spada. 1990. Focus on form and corrective feedback in
communicative language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
12.429–448.
____________ and L. White. 1987. The influence of linguistic theory on language
acquisition research. Language Learning. 37.483–510.
Lyons, J. 1991. Chomsky. 3rd ed. London: Harper Collins.
________ 1996. On competence and performance and related notions. In G.
Brown, K. Malmkjaer and J. Williams (eds.) Performance and competence
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 61

in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11–32.
Lyster, R. 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French
immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics.
15.263–287.
_________ and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake:
Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition. 19.37–66.
MacWhinney, B. 1995. Computational analysis of interactions. In P. Fletcher and
B. MacWhinney (eds.) The handbook of child language. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers. 152–178.
______________ 1997. Second language acquisition and the Competition Model. In
A. de Groot and J. Kroll (eds.) Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum. 113–142.
______________ and E. Bates (eds.) 1989. The crosslinguistic study of sentence
processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marcel, A. 1983. Conscious and unconscious perception: An approach to the
relations between phenomenal experience and perceptual processes.
Cognitive Psychology. 15.238–300.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of second language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
_____________ and M. Harrington. 1990. Second language acquisition. In R. B.
Kaplan, et al. (eds.) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 10. Survey of
applied linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 122–134.
_____________, T. Rossman and B. McLeod. 1983. Second language learning: An
information processing perspective. Language Learning. 33.135–158.
McLeod, B. and B. McLaughlin. 1986. Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a
second language. Language Learning. 36.109–123.
McNeill, D. 1970. The acquisition of language: The study of developmental
psycholinguistics. New York: Harper & Row.
Meara, P. 1993. The bilingual lexicon and the teaching of vocabulary. In R.
Schreuder and B. Weltens (eds.) The bilingual lexicon. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. 279–297.
________ 1997. Towards a new approach to modelling vocabulary acquisition. In
N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition
and pedagogy. New York: Cambridge University Press. 109–121.
Meisel, J. 1995. Parameters in acquisition. In P. Fletcher and B. MacWhinney
(eds.) The handbook of child language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
10–35.
Neumann, O. 1996. Theories of attention. In O. Neumann and A. F. Sanders (eds.)
Handbook of perception and action, Volume 3: Attention. London:
Academic Press. 389–446.
Nissen, M. and P. Bullemer. 1987. Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence
from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology. 19.1–32.
62 NORMAN SEGALOWITZ AND PATSY M. LIGHTBOWN

Obler, L. and S. Hannigan. 1996. The neuropsychology of second language

acquisition and use. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of
second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press. 509–523.
Paradis, M. 1997. The cognitive neuropsychology of bilingualism. In A. de Groot
and J. Kroll (eds.) Tutorials in bilingualism. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
331–354.
Reber, A. 1987. The rise and (surprisingly rapid) fall of psycholinguistics.
Synthèse. 72.325–339.
Reingold, E. and P. Merikle. 1988. Using direct and indirect measures to study
perception without awareness. Perception and Psychophysics. 44.563–575.
Riggenbach, H. (ed.) In press. Perspectives on fluency. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
Roediger, H. L., III (ed.) 1997. Implicit learning: A symposium. [Special issue of
the Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 4.]
________________ and M. Guynn. 1996. Retrieval processes. In E. Bjork and R.
Bjork (eds.) Memory: Handbook of perception and cognition. 2nd ed. New
York: Academic Press. 197–236.
Rogers, R. and S. Monsell. 1995. Costs of a predictable switch between simple
cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
124.207–231.
Schachter, J. 1996a. Learning and triggering in adult L2 acquisition. In G. Brown,
K. Malmkjaer and J. Williams (eds.) Performance and competence in
second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70–88.
___________ 1996b. Maturation and the issue of universal grammar in second
language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of
second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press. 159–193.
Schmidt, R. 1992. Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 14.357–385.
__________ 1998. The centrality of attention in SLA. University of Hawai’i
Working Papers in ESL. 16.1–34.
Schneider, W., S. Dumais and R. Shiffrin. 1984. Automatic and control processing
and attention. In R. Parasuraman and D. Davies (eds.) Varieties of
attention. New York: Academic Press. 1–23.
Segalowitz, N. 1991. Does advanced skill in a second language reduce automaticity
in the first language? Language Learning. 41.59–83.
____________ 1997. Individual differences in second language acquisition. In
A. de Groot and J. Kroll (eds.) Tutorials in bilingualism. Mahwah, NJ: L.
Erlbaum. 85–112.
____________ and E. Gatbonton. 1995. Automaticity and lexical skills in second
language fluency: Implications for computer assisted language learning.
Computer Assisted Language Learning. 8.129–149.
____________ and S. Segalowitz. 1993. Skilled performance, practice and the
differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from
second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics. 14.369–385.
 PSYCHOLINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA 63

Segalowitz, S. and D. Bernstein. 1997. Neural networks and neuroscience: What

are connectionist simulations good for? In D. Johnson and C. Erneling
(eds.) The future of the cognitive revolution. New York: Oxford University
Press. 209–216.
___________, N. Segalowitz and A. Wood. 1998. Assessing the development of
automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied
Psycholinguistics. 19.53–67.
Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Snow, C. 1995. Issues in the study of input: Finetuning, universality, individual
and developmental differences and necessary causes. In P. Fletcher and B.
MacWhinney (eds.) The handbook of child language. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers. 180–194.
Sokolov, J. and C. Snow. 1994. The changing role of negative evidence in theories
of language development. In C. Gallaway and B. Richards (eds.) Input and
interaction in language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. 38–55.
Spada, N. and P. Lightbown. 1993. Instruction and the development of questions in
the L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15.205–221.
Stadler, M. 1995. Role of attention in implicit learning. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 21.674–685.
_________ 1997. Distinguishing implicit and explicit learning. Psychonomic
Bulletin and Review. 4.56–62.
_________ and P. Frensch (eds.) 1998. Handbook of implicit learning. London:
Sage Publications.
_________ and H. L. Roediger, III. 1998. The question of awareness in research
on implicit learning. In M. Stadler and P. Frensch (eds.) Handbook of
implicit learning. London: Sage Publications. 105–132.
Tomlin, R. and V. Villa. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 16.183–203.
Truscott, J. 1998. Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review.
Second Language Research. 14.103–135.
Tulving, E. 1983. Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Watts, W. 1970. On two hypotheses concerning psycholinguistics. In J. Hayes
(ed.) Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley.
137–220.
White, L. 1989. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
________ 1996. Universal Grammar and second language acquisition: Current
trends and new directions. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds.) Handbook of
second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press. 85–120.
Whittlesea, B. and M. Dorken. 1997. Implicit learning: Indirect, not unconscious.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 4.63–67.