A Survey of Research in Second

Language Acquisition
JUDITH CHUN

A NU MBER OF REC EN T R ESEA RCH FIN DIN GS

guage acquisition, and not simultaneous (bi-
have revolutionized the way many linguists re-
lingual) acquisition of two languages in very
gard the language learning process. These de-
young children.'
velopments are sometimes in direct contradic-
It would be difficult, indeed, to examine
tion to popular notions about language learn-
research in second language (L2) acquisition
ing. It is, therefore, of great importance that
without considering research in the field of
teachers be able to interpret and evaluate for
first language (LI) acquisition. Not only does
themselves the growing body of research in
the field of L2 acquisition owe a great deal to
second language acquisition. The purpose of
child language in terms of research method-
this article is to summarize some of the recent
ology, but many researchers have been con-
empirical research in second language acqui- cerned with the question of whether or not
sition and to discuss the evidence for and second language learning is like the first.'
against various claims about the second lan- L 1 and L2 acquisition are generally be-
guage learning process. lieved to be similar in that both processes re-
Three of the issues discussed in the litera-
sult in a language system that does not con-
ture on second language acquisition are of
form to the (adult or native) model; both the
primary interest to teachers. These issues will
Ll and L2 learners’ systems seem to progress
provide the framework for the ensuing discus-
through a series of stages by means of rules
sion: 1) the relationship between age and sec-
that learners formulate and try out for them-
ond language learning; 2) the implications of
selves. Dale has pointed out that, for first lan-
the “invariant” order of acquisition of mor-
guage development, “two fundamental in-
phemes obtained in various language acquisi-
sights underlie most recent research”: 1) “the
tion studies; and 3) the role of errors in second
child does not merely speak a garbled version
language acquisition.
of the adult language around him,” and, 2)
“the child himself must act as a linguist”
PREU MINA RY RE MA RKS (p.2)’
In the same way that child language has
Some researchers make a distinction be- come to be regarded as a system in its own
tween “acquisition” and “learning.” However, right, not just a deviant form of adult lan-
in this paper the two terms will be used inter- guage, L2 learners’ speech, or “interlan-
changeably, and any reference to specific guage,”’ is also regarded as a unique system,
learning situations will be made explicit (e.g. , distinct from both the Ll and L2. Further-
second language acquisition in a natural set- more, just as children play an active role in
ting). The term “second language acquisi- the creation of their own language system, L2
tion” will be used as a general term referring learners seem to be taking an active part in
to the adding of a second language once the the creation of their language through a pro-
learner has a fairly good notion of his first cess of hypothesis formation and testing. Cer-
language, as it emphasizes the role of the tainly the field of language acquisition owes
learner rather than that of the teacher. This these insights in part to Chomsky’s observa-
emphasis is representative of recent trends in tions on language learning and his criticism of
second language research. Furthermore, the behaviorist theory in language learning, as
term second language acquisition will be used well as to Brown’s important work in child
only to refer to cases of seqtietttiitf second lan- language learning. s
288
Judith Chun
While we have much to learn from studies
seems tied to the idea that lateralization
of child language acquisition in terms of the
(specialization of functions of different hemi-
language learning process, and many re-
spheres of the brain) takes place in the brain
searchers make a strong case for the compar-
at around puberty, after which language
ability of the two processes, the fact remains
learning is both different and more difficult.
that L2 learner are very different — and find
Lenneberg even extends the notion of a criti-
themselves in very different situations — than
cal period to L2 learning, suggesting that,
children learning their Ll. Many researchers
though we are able to learn a L2 as adults, the
point out that L2 learners are older and
learning process itself differs. Post-pubescent
smarter, already have some knowledge of at
language learners must make a “conscious
least one language, and probably have a very
and labored effort” (p. 176) to •.arn the L2,
different motivation for learning a L2 than
the number of obstacles in the language
they did for learning their LI. Two differ-
learning process increases after puberty, and
ences between LI and L2 learners, age and
the speech of older learners is marked by for-
previous linguistic knowledge, have generated
eign accents.
considerable research and controversy. Although many aspects of Lenneberg’s
critical period theory have become the subject
AGE AND SEC OND LANGUAGE AC@U ISITI O N
of debate, one question is of particular inter-
est to L2 teachers: is there a qualitative differ-
As mentioned above, age is one of the
ence in the way adults and children learn a
most crucial factors distinguishing Ll and
second language? Krashen does not agree
L2 learners, since L2 learners are older than
with Lenneberg regarding the role of laterali-
Ll learners. A number of different theories
zation in language learning, or the age at
exist regarding the relationship between age
and L2 learning — the “biological argument,” which it takes place; but, he does see a quali-
the “cognitive argument,” the “affective argu- tative difference between adult and child L2
ment”'—most of which maintain, in one form learning.'° While he feels that child second
or another, that younger language learners language “acquisition” is basically effortless
are better than older learners. However, we and subconscious, he believes that adults also
have no clear empirical support for the hy- use conscious means in “learning” a L2.''
pothesis of a general decrease in L2 learning Rosansky, among others, sees the role of
ability with age. cognitive factors as crucial to the distinction
The popular notion that younger langiiage between adult and child L2 acquisition, and
learners have the best chances of being suc- maintains that the close of the critical period
cessful is largely due to the controversial coincides with the onset of Piaget’s stage of
“critical period theory” in LI learning. The “formal operations.”” Rosansky, however,
idea of a critical period is actually based on also concedes the importance of affective
studies of animal behavior and was extended factors.
to language learning by Lenneberg among Taylor feels that affective factors such as
others.’ Proponents of the theory maintain motivation, empathy, and ego boundaries
that there is a period during which language distinguish adult and child L2 acquisition."
learning must take place and after which a Although he believes that differences exist be-
language can never be learned in quite the tween adult and child L2 learning, he claims
same way. They cite, as evidence of a critical that they are quantitative rather than qualita-
period for LI learning, cases of both retarded tive. That is, “the previous linguistic cap-
children who cease their linguistic develop- ability and advanced cognitive maturity”
ment at puberty and children with brain (p. 32) of the adult give him an advantage in
damage, who recover better than adults, and terms of rate of learning (quantitative differ-
who are able to transfer the language func- ences), but the similar psychological learning
tion from one hemisphere of the brain to the strategies (based on similar errors) of adults
other in the event that one is damaged or re- and children are cited as evidence that the
moved before puberty. Thus, for Lenneberg, two processes are basically similar.
the idea of a critical period for L 1 learning Ekstrand adopts a similar position in main-
taining that LI and L2 involve the same basic
Research in Second Language A cquisitlon
289
mechanism with situational and develop- tionship between age on arrival in the u.s.
mental criteria determining the learning that and native like pronunciation (as judged by
takes place at different ages.'^ He proposes a
native English-speaking peers).'8 The chil-
“developmental theory” of language learning dren who had arrived between the ages of
in which ability generally increases with age,
one and six did best on a test which consisted
though that general trend may be modified at of reading four English sentences. However,
different points of development resulting in since some of the older children had achleved
“plateaus.” Another alternative to the critical
excellent pronunciation, the authors con-
period theory is proposed by Ervin-Tripp, cluded that pronunciation “fidelity” could
who suggests that different aspects of L2
not be entirely biologically determined.
learning may be easiest at different stages in
Four longitudinal studies of “naturalistic”
life, since we continue learning different as-
L2 acquisition are also relevant to the critical
pects of our LI (such as vocabulary) even as
period theory. Ervin Tripp studied a group of
adults."
$1 English-speaking children ages 4-9 learn-
Despite the various theories regarding the ing French in French-speaking Switzerland."
influence of age on L2 acquisition (biological, She administered a number of tests to the
cognitive, affective), it is clear that many re- children (comprehension, imitation, transla-
searchers do believe there are qualitative, if tion) and found that, generally speaking, the
not quantitative, differences in L2 acquisition older children (ages 7-9) learned faster than
of adults and children. Even those researchers the younger ones (ages 4-6). Although Ervin-
who do not believe in a strong version of the Tripp’s study is really not directly relevant to
critical period theory often cite the small the critical period theory (since all the chil-
number of adult L2 learners who achieve na- dren are below the age of puberty), it does
tive-like pronunciation as evidence for differ- support a general increase in language learn-
ences between adults and children in L2 ac- ing ability with age even among young chil-
quisition. Lamendella argues that the very dren.
existence of successful adult language Fathman conducted a study of 140 chil-
learners, no matter how few, provides evi- dren ages 6-15 of diverse language back-
dence against a critical period for L2 learn- grounds learning English in the U. s.2° She
ing." He proposes, instead, a “sensitive found that the younger children (ages 6-10)
period,” during which time L2 learning is did better at pronunciation, while the older
most efficient. children (ages 11 -1 ö) did better on a test of
Several empirical studies are relevant to the morphology and syntax. Fathman’s findings
age issue. Some are experimental, cross sec- further support Ervin-Tripp’s idea that lan-
tional studies (generally of pronunciation). guage learners excel at different aspects of
Others are longitudinal studies of language language learning at different ages.
acquisition in a natural setting (i.e. , in which Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle compared the
the subjects are learning the L2 with a mini- findings of a laboratory study with a study of
mum of formal instruction and a maximum naturalistic L2 acquisition. 2' In the labora-
of contact with native speakers). The experi- tory study, 136 English-speaking subjects ages
mental, cross-sectional studies show conflict- 5-31 were asked to repeat five Dutch words 20
ing findings regarding age and pronuncia- times each immediately after a stimulus. The
tion. In a study comparing 20 elementary, 20 naturalistic study tested 47 English speakers
junior high, and 20 college students on a test ages 3-60 learning Dutch in Holland on a
of $3 German phonemes, Olson and Samuels number of aspects of language learning
found that the junior high and college groups (phonology, morphology, syntax, vocabu-
did significantly better after two weeks of pro- lary). The results of the laboratory study
nunciation instruction (10 sessions of 16-25 showed a general linear increase in pronun-
minutes each) than did the elementary school ciation ability with age: the older the learn-
children." Asher and Garcia, on the other ers, the bet ter their pronunciation. The
hand, found that, in a group of 7l Cuban findings of Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle’s
immigrants ages 7- 19 who had been in the naturalistic study indicate that the adults ac-
U.S. for 1 -8 years, there was an inverse rela- tually had an initial advantage in pronuncia-
290
Judith Chun
tion, though the younger subjects caught up
These empirical studies thus appear to sup-
later on. Snow and Hœfnagel-Höhle tested
port the notion that different aspects of lan-
the subjects three times over a period of one
guage are best learned at different ages de-
year at 4-5 month intervals. The subjects
pending on biological, cognitive, affective,
were asked to pronounce eighty different
and social factors. They do not, however, sup-
words, once as part of an imitation test and
port a strong version of the critical period
once in response to a picture cue. After the
theory for language learning.
first testing, the adults had a slight advantage
over the children on the picture production
test only. On all other tests of pronunciation, MORPHEMES AND SEQUENCES I N SECOND
LANGUAGE AC@U ISITI ON
all age groups performed equally well. They
concluded that the results of the naturalistic
Brown’s longitudinal study of the spon-
study supported those of the laboratory one
taneous L I speech production of three chil-
(and the superiority of older learners), there- dren has greatly influenced the field of L2 ac-
fore providing evidence that the critical quisition. 2' He found that, although each of
period theory should be rejected. Based on the children developed at an individual rate,
their findings that children “caught up” with all acquired a set of fourteen grammatical
adults after prolonged contact with the sec- morphemes of English in approximately the
ond language in a naturalistic setting, they same order. He examined a number of pos-
further concluded, however, that younger sible reasons for the “invariance” of order of
children may continue learning longer than acquisition: grammatical complexity, se-
adults. They attributed this longer period of mantic complexity, perceptual salience, fre-
active acquisition to differences in need and quency of the morphemes in parental speech,
motivation, and hypothesized that older etc. He concluded that both grammatical and
learners may rely less on pronunciation, be- semantic complexity were major determi-
cause they are better at other things (vocabu- nants of the order in which the morphemes
lary, morphology and syntax). 22 were acquired, but that the two were prob-
Chun’s study of 26 English speakers ages ably inter-related and neither could be iso-
6-41 learning French in France without for- lated as the sole determinant of the order.
mal instruction reveals some similar findings Though Brown studied only three children,
to those of Snow and Hoefnagel Höhle." his findings were further substantiated by a
Chun administered a storytelling test to the cross-sectional study of 21 preschool children
subjects and evaluated their performance learning English. 2‘ Brown’s study is of par-
after one year’s contact with the L2 through a ticular importance for language learning
number of subjective as well as objective theory, for if, in fact, all children (and, by
measures. Whereas she found that the older analogy, all L2 learners) learn the various
children (ages 13-17) did best on a number of grammatical features of English in the same
measures, each of the age groups (younger order, we have strong evidence for a “uni-
children ages 6- 12, older children ages versal sequence” in language learning and,
13- l7, adults ages 18-41) excelled on at least therefore, support for the argument that lan-
one measure of language learning. (The dif- guage learning is to some degree innate.
ferences among the groups were slight, how- Various L2 researchers have also entertained
ever, and there were few measures on which the possibility that L2 learners are predis-
there were statistically significant differ- posed to learn the grammatical features of a
ences.) Thèse findings are in accordance with L2 in a specified order. Corder, for example,
the contention that learners excel at different suggests that L2 learners may have a “built-in
aspects of L2 learning at the different ages syllabus.” 2’ Such a “built-in syllabus” in the
proposed by Ervin-Tripp. Chun, like Snow acquisition of grammatical features of a given
and Hoefnagel-Höhle, suggested that the dif- language by L2 learners would be of interest
ferences in proficiency of different age groups both for linguistic theory and for classroom
might be attributed to situational differences practice.
(e.g. , opportunity to make friends and quality Brown’s study has served as a theoretical
of social interaction in different situations).‘* and methodological model for a number of
Research in Second Language A cquisltlon

L2 studies. Dulay and Burt were among the

different subsets of morphemes were studied)
first to extend his method of analysis to L2 ac-
the correspondence between the order of dif-
quisition. In a series of studies they adminis-
ficulty of the morphemes common to all of
tered a picture test, the Bilingual Syntax
the studies is quite striking.
Measure (BsM), to children (ages 5-8) learn-
These morpheme studies have, however,
ing English as a second language in order to
been severely criticized on methodological
elicit speech samples containing a pre-speci-
grounds." In her study of adult ESL learners,
fied set of morphemes. 2' Though their studies
Larsen Freeman points out that the “in-
differed from Brown’s in that they were cross-
variant” order of acquisition of morphemes
sectional studies of elicited speech, they con-
may be an artifact of the BSM.3* The order she
cluded that L2 learners of various linguistic
obtained using the BsM, though similar to the
backgrounds demonstrated the same order of
order found by Dulay and Burt, was quite dif-
acquisition of morphemes and, therefore,
ferent from the order she obtained with some
that “the strategies of second language acqui-
other tests. She further notes her preference
sition by children are universal” (p. 256). The
for the term “difficulty order” rather than
L2 morpheme order found by Dulay and Burt
“acquisition order.” Though the term “acqui-
does not correspond to the one found by
sition order” is appropriate in describing the
Brown (or to that of deVilliers and deVilliers)
actual order in which the morphemes are ac-
for LI acquisition. Dulay and Burt attribute
quired over time in longitudinal studies such
this difference to the increased cognitive and
as Brown’s, it is not valid in describing the
linguistic maturity of L2 learners. 2’ They con-
order obtained in cross-sectional studies such
clude that “we should leave the learning of
as those by Dulay and Burt where the order
syntax to the children and redirect our teach-
represents the amount of difficulty subjects
ing efforts to other aspects of language”
have in supplying the correct morpheme in a
(p. 257).
test situation.
Bailey, Madden, and Krashen further in-
Rosansky notes the lack of comparability
vestigated the order of acquisition of mor- between spontaneous and elicited speech
phemes by adult L2 learners by using the data, since the morpheme orders she found
same test (BSM) with adults of varying lan- using spontaneous speech samples for two
guage backgrounds and levels of ESL profi- adolescent boys did not correspond to those
ciency.'° They found that, regardless of the obtained using the BsM with the same sub-
learner’s L 1, exposure to English, or ESL in- jects.'5 She further remarks on the lack of
struction, the relative difficulty reflected in comparability between cross-sectional and
the order of acquisition of morphemes was longitudinal data. The morpheme order she
virtually the same among the learners, and obtained in a longitudinal (10-month) study
was also very similar to the child order. They of an adolescent Spanish speaker learning
concluded that children and adults use com- English did not correlate with the order ob-
mon strategies in second language learning. tained for the same subject at a single point in
Numerous other “morpheme studies” have his development. Though Rosansky’s data are
produced similar results. Fathman, using the based on a small number of subjects, her criti-
Second Language Oral Production English cisms are important; the rationale behind the
Test (SLO PE), studied 120 Spanish - and Korean- L2 morpheme studies is the finding that cross-
speaking child ren (ages 6- 14) learn- ing sectional (deV illiers and deVilliers) and longi-
English." She found that the two groups tudinal (Brown) morpheme orders obtained
demonstrated a very similar order of acquisi- in Ll studies were very similar.
tion of the twenty morphemes studied. Even more important is the high degree of
Krashen, et al. replicated these findings with individual variability found by Rosansky and
an adult group, also using the SLOPE test.’2 Larsen-Freeman in the performance of dif-
Thus, numerous studies seem to indicate an ferent language learners. This variability
“invariant order of acquisition” of mor- should caution us to interpret the “in-
phemes in ESL learning regardless of age, L 1, variance” of acquisition orders with care.
or instruction. Though not all of the studies Hakuta’s finding that the morpheme acquisi-
are comparable (different tests were used and tion order of a five-year-old Japanese girl
292 Judith Chun
learning English was not very similar to the as “conned” and “goed.” Such forms are
order obtained by Dulay and Burt in their thought to be the result of a rule such as
cross-sectional studies further points to indi- “English past = ed” that is overapplied by
vidual differences." Andersen suggests alter- children. In the same respect, LS learners
native scoring methods to help take into ac- seem to try out new and unique forms to
count individual variation." which they have doubtless never been ex-
Despite these drawbacks, a high degree of
posed.
similarity exists between the morpheme ac-
Error analysis, the technique of examining
quisition orders obtained in a number of
and categorizing systematic errors in lan-
studies. As to their significance for the class-
guage learners’ speech, owes its popularity in
room teacher, Fathman suggests that “the
part to trends in LI research, and in part to
best applications for such research may not be
the inability of existing theories of L2 acquisi-
to change the sequence of textbooks or cur-
tion to explain some of the phenomena occur-
ricula, but rather to provide teachers with
ring in the speech of L2 learners. Historically,
concrete insights concerning the.learning pro-
L2 learners’ errors were thought to arise from
cess (many of which may have previously been
differences between the learners’ LI and L2
intuitive). Thus the most meaningful applica-
(interlingual errors). Linguists spent a great
tions may be indirect ones which influence a
deal of time contrasting languages (often
teacher’s attitudes towards learners and out-
sound systems) and predicting potential
look toward language teaching and learning
sources of difficulty (i.e. , points of difference
in general” (p. 197)." Though the morpheme
between the two languages). The application
studies do not entirely explain the language
of such a technique for language teachers is
learning process, they certainly raise some in-
obvious. If, in fact, one can effectively predict
teresting questions that have become the sub-
the source of error, teachers can foresee
ject of another major area of research in L2
potential problems and organize the class syl-
acquisition: error analysis.
labus to focus on areas of difficulty. Contras-
tive analysis has, however, proved to be less
ER RO RS AN D SEC O N D LAN G UA G E than ideal in many ways. Its usefulness is
AC @UIS IT IO N limited in a classroom where students are of
divergent language backgrounds, since
An alternative way of looking at the lan- unique problems would probably be pre-
guage acquisition process is to examine pos- dicted for students of different native lan-
sible strategies that language learners adopt guages. Moreover, contrastive analysis has not
in trying to make sense of their L2. Corder proved to have a very high degree of predic-
maintains that learners’ errors can provide tive power. While errors predicted by contras-
valuable evidence of the language learning tive analysis do not always occur, those not
process; by systematically examining and clas- predicted sometimes do. In addition, some re-
sifying these errors, researchers or teachers searchers have stressed the finding that not all
can infer strategies used by language learners. errors which occur can be attributed to differ-
Thus, the product (errors) of language ences between the Ll and L2 or to the inter-
learners’ attempts at communicating in their ference of a pattern of the L1 in the acquisi-
L2 proves the key to their language learning tion of the L2.’° Rather, errors are often at-
process (strategies).’° tributable to sources of difficulty within the
Rather than seeing errors as deviant forms L2 (intralingual errors), are similar to errors
to be eradicated at all costs, L2 researchers have made by children in Ll development (de-
come to regard them as evidence of hypothesis velopmental errors) or are due to the overap-
formation and testing on the part of language plication of a rule of the L2 in inappropriate
learners. This point of view probably owes its circumstances (overgeneralization).’'
inception to the finding (in LI acquisition) Because of the disadvantages of contrastive
that many forms occurring in children’s analysis, many researchers have become
speech are not merely imitations of the lan- somewhat disillusioned with it and have
guage they hear. Rather, children use forms begun to turn to error analysis as an alterna-
they have probably never heard before, such tive form of analyzing language learners’
Research in Second Language Acquisition 295
speech.*' One goal of error analysis is the
dents, on the other hand, made more over-
identification of strategies of language learn-
generalization errors than did their elemen-
ing through the examination of learners’ writ-
tary counterparts. Beginning language
ten and oral errors.*’ The idea of learning
learners have very little proficiency in the L2
strategies is not new in the field of language
and might therefore tend to rely more heavily
acquisition. One of the child language studies
on their Ll than would more advanced L2
that has been most influential in the search
learners. This might be particularly true in
for “strategies” of L2 acquisition is that of
situations in which language learners are
Slobin, who compared numerous studies of
motivated to communicate beyond their
child language development in various lan-
capacitys' or to produce sentences about un-
guages and posited a number of “operating
familiar concepts." Intermediate learners, on
principles” (strategies) that children presum-
the other hand, simply because they know
ably use in organizing their knowledge about
more of the L2, might be more likely to over-
their developing language system.‘* Although
generalize a rule of the L2.
Slobin’s principles are cognitive in nature,
Wode also points out that interference may
Fillmo e has also proposed social strategies occur at particular developmental stages."
used by children in learning a L2.” Swain has shown that, in order to get a repre-
Atany rate, numerous empirical studies of sentative sample of errors, one must study
language learners’ errors have attempted to those that learners make over a long period of
discover the nature of the L2 learning pro- time.'* Tarone, Frauenfelder, and Selinker
cess. Since these studies differ in many re- have attempted to account for changes in
spects (age of subjects, language learning errors over time through the quantification of
situation, duration of study, languages in- stability/ instability in learners’ interlanguage
volved, etc.), it is not surprising that they also systems.”
differ in the types of errors (and thus strate- One issue in the field of error analysis that
gies) found and in the terminology used to de- is particularly difficult to investigate is
scribe these findings." The two most widely- whether or not some L2 learning strategies
discussed strategies of L2 learning are transfer are conscious." Although learners’ strategies
and overgeneralization. are inferred by linguists in their attempt to
The existence of native language transfer, describe the language learning process, it is
or interference, is one of the most contro- difficult to prove whether or not they actually
versial issues in error analysis and has its ante- exist. Tarone, Frauenfelder, and Selinker
cedents in the question of how similar the L l have hypothesized a number of conscious
and L2 learning processes are. Some re- learner strategies, including semantic and
searchers claim to find little evidence of inter- topic avoidance." Schachter has shown that,
ference, thus making a strong claim for simi- conscious or not, language learners may avoid
larities between L l and L2 acquisition.” particular structures." Schachter’s study
Others claim to find interference errors at demonstrates the importance of factors such
various levels of language: phonological, lexi- as avoidance in the analysis of language
cal, syntactic, morphological.4' As stated learners’ speech.
above, these differences are probably due to In order to study the nature of conscious
those in the design of the studies and suggest learner strategies, researchers have begun to
that individual and situational factors are im- conduct error interview sessions with lan-
portant variables in L2 learning. guage learners in which they ask learners how
Some researchers have noted that over- they go about learning new features of the
generalization and transfer could indeed be language, how they react when they don't
part of the same process: an attempt at sim- know a particular word, etc." Thus, lan-
plification*’ or reliance on previous linguistic guage learners are asked to report on their
knowledge.’° Taylor, in a study of written own behavior as direct evidence of the learn-
samples from adult language learners, ing process and also of the consciousness of
showed that elementary students of ES L made strategies of language learning.
proportionately more transfer errors than did As linguists begin to take a holistic ap-
intermediate students. The intermediate stu- proach to language learning and focus in-
294 Judith Chun
creasingly on the social and situational vari- ciation.“ Studies of “error tolerance” such as
ables involved,‘° the input to the language those by Chun, Guntermann, and Politzer
learner and the feedback given the language can help teachers identify and focus on those
learner have become the subject of a growing errors which are most unacceptable to native
body of research. Snow and Hoefnagel-Höhle speakers."
have examined the speech directed at lan- In addition to studies of native speakers’ re-
guage learners by teachers and peers." actions to language learners’ errors, a number
Larsen-Freeman has summarized a number
of researchers have begun to study when and
of studies including those of conversations be-
how teachers correct learners’ errors in the
tween pairs of natives and non natives, and
classroom." Cohen discusses a number of pos-
pairs of non-native speakers.‘ 2 Hatch has sug- sible criteria for teacher to use in correcting
gested that L2 learners’ grammatical develop-
errors, including frequency and persistence of
ment is dependent upon their conversational
errors." Allwright stresses the importance of
ability." If Hatch’s hypothesis is borne out,
the overall classroom interaction in error cor-
the implications for classroom teachers are
rection and suggests letting students correct
clear: more time should be spent in teaching
each other.’° Burt and Kiparsky base their
language learners how to successfully initiate
guidelines for error treatment on compre-
and end conversations. Classroom techniques
of this sort have been proposed by Scarcella.'* hensibility of learner speech. ' Holley and
Other studies have suggested the primacy King suggest that teachers be selective in cor-
recting errors and delay correction in order to
of general fluency over grammatical accu-
give learners the opportunity to correct them-
racy, suggesting a classroom focus on com-
selves.’2
munication rather than linguistic compe-
The goal of all of these recent studies of
tence. Chun found that, in a naturalistic lan-
error treatment and tolerance is to provide
guage learning situation, the learners ap-
language learners with the skills essential to
proached native-like competence in terms of
ensuring better, longer conversational ex-
general ability to communicate after one
changes than they otherwise might have.
year’s contact with the L2 but continued to
Though error analysis is not without its limi-
make many grammatical errors." When she
tations,” it can provide classroom teachers
asked native speakers to judge the learners’
with a systematic evaluation of language
errors, they tended not to react negatively to
learners’ difficulties, valuable insights into the
grammatical errors made by speakers who
L2 learning process, and guidelines for error
were also very fluent and had good pronun-
treatment in the classroom.’*

MOTES

'A good review of the latter can be fou nd in Barry

McLaughlin, Second Language yf cquisltion n Childhood •See Ervin -Tripp¡ Dulay & Burt, “Goofi ng . ”
(Hillsdale, Nj: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978). (see note 2 above).
'See Susa n Ervin-Tripp, “1s Second Language Learn- ’See S. Pit Corder, "The Significa rice of Learners'
ing Like the First?” rrsoi Quarterly, 8 (1974), pp. Errors," la» i.. 5 (1967), pp. 162-69; Ervin -Tripp (see
137 -44; Heidi Dulay & Marina Burt, “Goofing: An Indi- note 2 above).
cator of Children’s Second Language Learning Strate- •john Schumann, The Pi'dgint*atlon Process: A Model
gies,“ Language Leamt”ng, 22 (I 972), pp. 295-5 I . for Second Language A cquistllon (Rowley, M z: Newbury
’Philip S. Dale, Lzinguage Development.’ St nicture House, 1978).
end Function, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, ’Eric Lenneberg, Bt'oiogfca/ Foundations of Language
1976), p. 2. (News York: Wiley, 1967).
’Larry Selinker, “1nterlanguage,” rite i., 10 (1972), '°Stephen Krashen, “Lateralization, Language Learn-
pp. 209-31 . ing and the Critical Period: Some New Evidence,” Lan-
'Noam Chomsky, “Review of Skinner’s Verbal Be- guage Learning, 23 (1973), pp. 63-74.
havior,” Language, 55 (1959), pp. 26-58: Roger Brown, ''Stephen Krashen, “Second Language Acquisition,”
A First Language (Cambridge, via: Harvard Univ. Press, A Suruey of Linguistic Science, ed. William Orr Ding-
1973). wall, 2nd ed. (Stamford, cr: Greylock, 1978), pp.
$17 -38.
R eseazch in Second Language A equisltion 295
“See Ellen Rosansky, “The Critical Period for the Ac- ’°Nathalie Bailey, Carolyn Madden & Stephen
quisition of Language: Some Cognitive Developmental Krashen, “ls There a ‘Natural Sequence’ in Adult Second
Considerations,” lForling I epers on &i?ingun/ñm, No. 6 Language Learning?” Lengunge Learning, 24 (1974),
(May 1976), pp. 92- 102. pp. 295-44.
"Barry Taylor, “Toward a Theory of Language Ac- ”Ann Fathman, “Language Background, Age and
quisition,” Lang ttage Learning, 24 (1974), pp. 25-36. the Order of Acquisition of English Structures,” New Di-
'*Lars Henric Ekstrand, “English Without a Book Re-
rections in Second Lattguage Learning, Teaching and Bl-
visited,” paper presented at the 5th International
llngual Education, On rzsoc ’75, ed. Marina Burt &
Congress of Applied Linguistics, Montreal, 1978. Heidi Dulay (Washington, nc +ESOL. 1976), pp. $9-43.
”Ervin-Tripp (note 2 above). “Stephen Krashen et al. , “Adult Performance on the
"John Lamendella, “General Principles of Neuro- SLO PE Test: More Evidence for a Natural Sequence in
functional Organization and Their Manifestation in Pri- Adult Second Language Acquisition,” Lotigunge Learn-
mary and Nonprimary Language Acquisition,” Lan- ing, 26 (1976), pp. 145-â2.
guage Leeming, 27 (1977), pp. 155-96. ”See Elaine Tarone, “A Discussion on the Dulay and
"Linda Olson & S. Jay Samuels, “The Relationship Burt Studies with Comments by Heidi Dulay and Marina
Between Age and Accuracy of Foreign Language Pro- Burt,” Working Papers on Bllingualism, No. 4 (October
nunciation,”Journal of Educational Research, 66 (1979), 1974), pp. 57 -70.
pp.26s-68. ”Diane Larsen-Freeman, “The Acquisition of Gram-
”James]. Asher & Ramiro Garcla, “The Optimal Age matical Morphemes by Adult Est Students,” rrsor
to Learn a Foreign Language,” Modern Language Jona- Quanerly, 9 ( 1975), pp. 409-20.
trot, 53 (1969), pp. 9$4-41. ”Ellen Rosansky, “Methods and Morphemes in Sec-
"Ervin-Tripp (note 2 above). ond Language Acquisition Research,” Language Leas-
'°Ann Fathman, “The Relationship Between Age and ing, 26 (1976), pp. 409-25.
Second Language Productive Ability," Language Learn- "Kenji Hakuta, ”A Case Study of a )apanese Child
i”ng, 25 (1975), pp. 245-54. Learning English as a Second Language,” Language
"Catherine Snow & Marian Hœfnagel-Höhle, “Age Learning, 26 (1976), pp. 321 -51.
Differences in the Pronunciation of Foreign Sounds,” ”Roger Andersen, “The 1mpoverished State of Cross-
Language ond Speech, 20 (1977), pp. 957 -66. Sectional Morpheme Acquisition/Accuracy Method-
"For further discussion of age differences in rule- ology,” Working Papen on Billngualism, No. 14 (Oc-
governed aspects of language (morphology and syntax) tober 1977), pp. 47-82.
see also Catherine Snow & Marian Hœfnagel-Höhle, "Ann Fathman, “The Value of Morpheme Order
“Age Differences in Second Language Acquisition,” Sec- Studies for Second Language Learning,” tFor£ing Papers
ond Langttage A cquisilion.’ A Boom of R eadings, ed. on Bîlingualism, No. 18 (June 1979), pp. 179-97.
Evelyn Hatch (Rowley, vin: Newbury House, 1978), pp. S$3- ”Corder (note 7 above). The process/ product dis-
44. tinction has also been noted by Dulay & Burt, “Goof-
"Judith Chun, “The Interaction of Age and Social ing . ” (note 2 above).
Factors in Second Language Acquisition,” paper pre- *°See Dulay and Burt, “Errors a nd Strategies . . ”
sented at the 19th 1nternational Congress of Applied (note 28 above).
Psychology, Munich, 1978. *'A more extensive discussion of thèse error types can
'•Snow & Hœfnagel-Höhle, ”Age Differences . . ,” be found in Jack C. Richards, “A Non-Contrastive Ap-
1978 (see .note 22 above). This is also the position of proach to Error Analysis,” E rror Analysis.’ Perspectiues on
Vivian J. Cook, “Second Language Learning: A Psycho- Second Language H cquisitlon, ed. Jack C. Richards
linguistic Perspective,” Language Teaching A bstratts, 11 (London: Longman, 1974), pp. 172-78; Dulay & Burt,
(1978), pp. 73-90. “Goofing . ” (note 2 above).
"Brown (note 5 above). "See Richards (note 41 above): Libuâe Dulkovi , “On
")ill DeVilliers & Peter DeVilliers, “A Cross-Sectiona1 Sources of Erron in Foreign Language Learning,” ts8 £.
Study of the Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes in 7 (l9fi9), pp. 11 - 86; Magdelhayne Buteau, “Students'
Child Speech,” Journo/ of Psychollnguistlc R eseorch, 2 Errors and the Learning of French as a Second Lan-
(1975), pp. 267 -78. guage: A Pilot Study,” inz t. 8 (1970), pp. 133-45.
”Corder (note 7 above). “In this discussion the term “la nguage learning
"Heidi Dulay & Marina Burt: “Should We Teach strategy” is used in a genera1 sense to refer to any heuristic
Children Syntax?“ Language Learning, 23 (1978), pp. used by the language learner. For further terminological
24ii-97; “Errors and Strategies in Child Second Language distinctions see Elaine Tarone, “Some Thoughts on the
Acquisition,” rxsor t/arlerl 8 (1974), pp. 129—36; Notion of ‘Communication Strategy,’ " paper presented
“Natural Sequences in Child Second Language Acquisi- at the +Esoc Summer Meeting, Los Angeles, 1979.
tion,” L‹ingunge Leernthg, 24 (1974), pp. 37-94. "Dan Slobin, “Cognitive Prerequisites for the De-
velopment of Grammar,” Studies of Child Language De-
"Heidi Dulay & Marina Burt, “A New Perspective on uelopment, ed. Charles Ferguson & Dan Slobin (New
the Creative Construction Processes in Child Second Lan- York: Holt, Rinehart, 197 9), pp. 1 7iî -208.
guage Acquisition,” Language Leernihg, 24 (1974), pp. *’Lily Wong Fillmore, “The Second Time Around,”
2S5-78. Diss. Stanford Univ. , 1976.
296 Judith Chun
‘•5ee Judith Chun, ”Selected Processes in Second Lan- Douglas Brown, Carlos Yorio & Ruth Crymes (Washing-
guage Acquisition," PSycholinguistics, supplement to ton, oc: TESOL. 1977), pp. 172-77.
Proteedings of the 4th International Congress of Applied ”Evelyn Hatch, ”Discourse Analysis and Second Lan-
Linguistics, ed. Gerhard Nickel (Stuttgart: Hochschul- guage Acquisition,” Second Lnnguege A cquisition: A
verlag, 1978). Book of R eadlngs, ed. Evelyn Hatch (Rowley, viz: New-
•’See Ervin -Tripp (note 2 above); Dulay & Burt, bury House, 1978), pp. 402 -3iL
' Errors and Strategies ...”(note 28 above). "Robin Scarcella, “Developing Discourse Strategies
"Larry Selinker, Merrill Swain & Guy Dumas, ”The through Role-Play," paper presented at the cArxsoc
Interlanguage Hypothesis Extended to Children,” Lan- State Conference, San Francisco, 1978.
guage Learning, 25 (1975), pp. 139-52; Elaine Tarone, "Judith Chun, “Fluency vs. Accuracy: A Study of
Andrew Cohen & Guy Dumas, “A Closer Look at Some Language Acquisition in a Naturalistic Setting,” paper
Interlanguage Terminology: A Framework for Com- presented at the I 3th Fi Prv Congress on Language
munication 5trategies,” Work ing Papets on Bi‘lin- Learning, Lucerne, 1978: Judith Chun, “The Impor-
gun/ism, No. 9 (April 1976), pp. 76-90. tance of the Language Learning Situation: Is Immersion
"Selinker, Swain & Dumas (note 48 above). the Same as the 'Sink or Swim’ Method?” hooking Papens
*°Barry Taylor, “The Use of Overgeneralization and on Bilingualism, No. 18 (June 1979), pp. 131 —64.
Transfer Learning Strategies by Elementary and Inter- ‘%udith Chun, “Making a Good Impression: Native
mediate Students in EsL.” Language Learning, 25 (1975), Speaker Tolerance of Language Learners’ Errors,” paper
pp. 73-108. presented at the Boston Univ. Conference on Language
"Chun, “Selected Processes ..."(note 46 above).
Development, Boston, 1978.
’* Ervin-Tripp (note 2 above).
"Gail Guntermann, “A Study of the Frequency and
”Henning Wode, “Developmental Sequences in
Communicative Effects of Errors in Spanish," Modern
Naturalistic L2 Acquisition,” Setond Language A cqiiisi-
Language Journal, 62 (1978), pp. 249-53: Robert L.
tion: A Book of Readlngs, ed. Evelyn Hatch (Rowley, sie:
Politzer, “Errors of English Speakers of German as Per-
Newbury House, 1978), pp. 101 - 17. ceived and Evaluated by German Natives,” Modem Lan-
’*Merrill Swain, “Changes in Errors: Random or Sys- guage Journal, 62 (1978), pp. 253-61.
tematik?” Proceedi'ngs of the 4th International Kongress "See Craig Chaudron, “A Descriptive Model of Dis-
of A pplled Linguisliis, ed. Gerhard Nickel (S tuttgart: course in the Corrective Treatment of Learners’ Errors,"
Hochschulverlag, 1976). lI, pp. 945- 58. Language Learning, 27 (1977), pp. 29-46; Esther Lucas,
’ s Elaine Tarone, Uli Frauenfelder & Larry Selinker, “Teachers’ Verbal Reactions Following Errors Made by
“Systematicity/Variability and Stability/lnstability in I n- Pupils in Post Primary zsL Classes in Israel,” Proceedings
terlanguage Systems,” Papers in Second Language Ac- of The 4th International Congress of A ppli!ed Linguistics,
quisition, ed. H. Douglas Brown (Ann Arbor, u 1: Lan- ed. Gerhard Nickel (Stuttgart: Hochschulverlag, 1976),
guage Learning, 1976), pp. 9$-1$4. II , pp. 315—28.
"See Tarone, Cohen & Dumas (note 48 above); *’Andrew Cohen, “Error Analysis and Error Correc-
Tarone, Frauenfelder & Selinker (note 55 above). tion with Respect to the Training of Language
”Tarone, Frauenfelder & Selinker (note S5 above). Teachers," worhfxzf›ers i”n Teachi”ng English as a Second
*'Jacquelyn Schachter, “An Error in Error Analysis,"
Language (Univ. of California, Los Angeles), N o. 9
Language Learnt°ng, 24 (1974), pp. 205-14.
()une 1975). pp. 107 -23.
"See Andrew Cohen & Margaret Robbins, “Toward
’°Richard Allwright, “Problems in the 5tudy of
Assessing I nterlanguage Performance: The Relationship
Teachers’ Treatment of Learner Error,” New Directions
Between Selected Errors, Learners’ Characteristics and
in Second Language L.earning, Teachi!ng and Bilingual
Learners’ Explanations,” Language Learning, 26 (1976),
Educal ion, On rzsoc ‘NJ, ed. Marina Burt & Heidi
pp. 4ii-fi6; Elaine Tarone, “Conscious Communication
Dulay (Washington, DC: +zsor. i975), pp. 9fi- 109.
Strategies in I nterlanguage: A Progress Report," Teoch-
'Marina Burt & Carol Kiparsky, “Global and Local
ing and Learni!ng English as a Second Language. Trends
Mistakes,” I•lew Frontiers in Second Language Learning,
iii Research and Prattice, On rzsoz ’7'7, ed. H. Douglas
ed. John Schumann & Nancy Stenson (Rowley, vtw: New-
Brown, Carlos Yorio & Ruth Crymes (Washington, nc:
bury House, 1974), pp. 71 -80.
TESOr. 1977), pp. 194-203; Esther Glahn, “lntrospection
"Freda Holley & Janet King, “Imitation and Correc-
as a Method of Elicitation in Interlanguage Studies,”
tion in Foreign Language Learning,” New Frontiers in
paper presented at the 5th International Congress of Ap- Second Iztzgunge Learning, ed. John Schumann & Nancy
plied Linguistics, Montreal, 1978. Sterison (Rowley, VA: Newbury House, 1974), pp. 81-89.
‘°Schumann (note 8 above). ”See Jacquelyn 5chachter & Marianne Celce-Murcia,
"Catherine Snow & Marian Hoefnagel-Höhle, “The
“Some Reservations Concerning Error Analysis,” rzsor
Linguistic Environment of School-Age Second Language
@unzter/y, 1 I (1977), pp. 441-51 ; Elaine Tarone, Merrill
Learners” (Amsterdam: Univ. of Amsterdam, Institute of
Swain & Ann Fathman, “Some Limitations to the Class-
General Linguistics, 1978) mimeo.
room Applications of Current Second Language Acquisi-
*'Diane Larsen-Freeman, “A Rationale for Discourse
tion Research,” TES OL ttnrter/y, 10 (1976). pp. 19-$Z.
Analysis in Second Language Acquisition Research,"
"A version of this article appears in 2teedfngs on zsz.
Teachi'ng end Learning English as a Second Language:
ed. Kenneth Croft, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, vin: W inthrop,
Trends in Research and Practice, On rzso z ’77, ed. H.
1980), pp. 181 -98.