Applied Generative SLA: The Need for an Agenda and a Methodology

  • Melinda WhongEmail author
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 16)


This chapter brings together some of the core themes that emerge from the chapters in the volume and builds on them to suggest a way forward for SLA as a field, suggesting avenues for initiating dialogue and collaboration between GenSLA and instructed SLA. Appeals are made to GenSLA researchers to consider their research in relation to questions of pedagogy, by articulating their findings for practitioners in order to raise their levels of expertise. The need to better articulate the distinction between acquisition and learning is also explored, and the question of the relationship between this and concepts of explicit/implicit language development is identified as an area in need of engagement with SLA researchers working within other linguistic paradigms. Within GenSLA, it is argued that now is the time for the field to develop a subfield of Applied Generative Second Language Acquisition.


Language Development Language Acquisition Language Teaching Lexical Item Generative Agenda 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20: 3–49.Google Scholar
  2. Block, D. 2007. The rise of identity in SLA research, post. The Modern Language Journal 91: 863–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogaards, P., and B. Laufer (eds.). 2004. Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition and testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, S. 2001. Input and Evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  5. Clahsen, H., and P. Muysken. 1996. How adult second language learning differs from child first language development. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19: 721–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corder, P. 1967. The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeKeyser, R. 1997. Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Dulay, H., and M. Burt. 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, N. 1993. Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of implicit and explicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 5: 289–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gass, S., and L. Selinker. 2008. Second language acquisition: An introduction, 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Jordan, G. 2004. Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Keck, C., G. Iberri-Shea, N. Tracy-Ventura, and S. Wa-Mbaleka. 2006. Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In Synthesising research on language learning and teaching, ed. J. Norris and L. Ortega, 91–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  14. Krashen, S. 1977. Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In On TESOL ‘77, ed. H. Brown, C. Yorio, and R. Crymes, 144–158. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
  15. Krashen, S. 1985. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006. TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly 10: 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lardiere, D. 2000. Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In Second language acquisition and linguistic theory, ed. J. Archibald, 102–129. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Lengyel, Z., and J. Navracsics (eds.). 2007. Second language lexical processes: Applied linguistics and psycholinguistic perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  19. Lightbown, P. 1985. Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics 6: 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lightbown, P. 2000. Classroom research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics 21: 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lightbown, P. 2003. SLA research in the classroom/SLA research for the classroom. Language Learning Journal 28: 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Long, M. 1981. Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. In Native language and foreign language acquisition, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, ed. H. Winitz, 259–278. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. Long, M. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, ed. K. de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. Mackey, A. 2007. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Paris: Lavoisier.Google Scholar
  25. Meara, P. 2009. Connected words: Word associations and second language vocabulary acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Montrul, S. 2000. Transitivity alternations in L2 acquisition: Toward a modular view of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 229–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norris, J., and L. Ortega. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50: 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pennycook, A. 1999. Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 33: 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Piske, T., and M. Young-Scholten. 2009. Input matters in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  30. Richards, J., and T. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Russell, J., and N. Spada. 2006. The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In Synthesising research on language learning and teaching, ed. J. Norris and L. Ortega, 133–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Schütze, C. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Schwartz, B.D. 1993. On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sharwood Smith, M. 2004. In two minds about grammar: On the interaction of linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in performance. Transactions of the Philological Society 102: 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slabakova, R. 2008. Meaning in the second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sorace, A. 1996. The use of acceptability judgments in second language acquisition research. In Handbook of second language acquisition, ed. W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 375–409. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  38. Sorace, A., and L. Serratrice. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Spada, N., and P. Lightbown. 1993. Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spada, N., and Y. Tomita. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60: 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spolsky, B. 2000. Anniversary article. Language motivation revisited. Applied Linguistics 21: 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Input and second language acquisition, ed. S. Gass and C. Madden, 235–252. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  43. Swain, M. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research’. In Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning, ed. E. Hinkel, 471–484. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Truscott, J., and M. Sharwood Smith. 2004. Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. VanPatten, B., and J. Williams (eds.). 2007. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  47. White, L. 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7: 133–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. White, L. 2009. Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In The new handbook of second language acquisition, ed. W.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia, 49–68. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  49. Whong, M. 2011. Language teaching: Linguistic theory in practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Whong, M. 2013. A linguistic perspective on communicative language teaching. The Language Learning Journal 41(1):115–128.Google Scholar
  51. Young-Scholten, M., and T. Piske. 2009. Introduction. In Input matters in SLA, ed. T. Piske and M. Young-Scholten, 1–26. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  52. Yusa, N., M. Koizumi, J. Kim, N. Kimura, S. Uchida, S. Yokoyama, N. Miura, R. Kawashima, and H. Hagiwara. 2011. Second-language instinct and instruction effects: Nature and nurture in second-language acquisition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23: 2716–2730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, School of Modern Languages and CulturesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations