Name the Researchers Flashcards by BobbiJean Fickle

Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen, 1982

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Backsliding/U-Shaped Curve

Sharwood Smith & Kellerman, 1989

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Comprehensible Input

Krashen, 1982

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Connectionism

N.C. Ellis, 2003

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Contrastive Analysis

Fries, 1945

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Critical Period Hypothesis

Lenneberg, 1967

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Error Analysis

Corder, 1967

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Information Processing

McLaughlin, 1987, 1990
Anderson, 1983, 1985 (ACT)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Interaction Hypothesis

Long, 1985, 1996

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Interlanguage

Selinker, 1972

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Language Acquisition Device

Chomsky, 1965
Krashen, 1982

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Language Transfer

Gass & Selinker, 2001

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Learner differences are categorized by Cognitive Factors and Affective Factors

Gardner & MacIntyre, 1992, 1993

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Monitor Model

Krashen, 1982

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Motivation is the desire to achieve a goal with devotion of effort and satisfaction in activities that help attain the goal.

Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Noticing Hypothesis

Schmidt, 1990, 2001

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Pushed Output Hypothesis

Swain, 1985, 1995

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

This study found that recasts were not as effective as explicit metalinguistic feedback in long-term learning.

Ellis, Loewen & Erlam, 2006

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Universal Grammar and Language Universals

Chomsky, 1965

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Fossilization

Selinker (1972)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

This study examined whether output and visual input enhancement, in isolation or combination, promoted noticing and learning of an L2 grammatical form (English relative clauses). Findings support Interaction and Output Hypotheses over Noticing.

Findings:

The groups that received visually enhanced texts took a greater number of noted of the RC words, indicating a positive role played by visual input enhancement on noticing.
However, results showed that visual input enhancement failed to show any measurable effect on learning.
In learning English relativization, those engaged in the output-input treatment outperformed those exposed to the same input for the sole purpose of comprehension.

Izumi (2002)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

This study compared the effect of pre-modified input and interactional modification on comprehension. The researchers found that:

the quality of the interactional modifications differed from the pre-modified input: Greater total input, greater redundancy and greater complexity.
Students who received interactional modifications significantly out-performed (and demonstrated greater comprehension) than the students receiving premodified input.

Pica, Young and Doughty (1987)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

This study examined the relationship between different types of conversational interaction and SLA in learning question formation.

Findings:

Only the groups that actively participated in the interaction showed clear evidence of development. They increased significantly in terms of developmental stage and produced significantly more higher level structures.

Mackey (1999)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

This study found that recasts were the most frequent and least effective form of feedback. Most effective were elicitation and metalinguistic feedback which involved negotiation of meaning and pushed output.

Lyster and Ranta (1997)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

This study of English/Japanese bilingual friends in conversation found that linguistic errors were usually not treated as interactional trouble unless one speaker invited repair or when understanding was compromised. This resulted in a negotiation of novice and expert roles between speakers (even between L1 speakers when looking for a word).

Hosada (2006)

This study examined whether negotiated help provided within the learner's zone of proximal development is more effective than help randomly provided. The qualitative component of the data analysis showed that collaborative feedback was more effective than random help. The quantitative analysis showed that the ZPD student gave correct responses approxiamately twice as often as the random student.

Nassaji and Swain (2000)

Defines integrative motivation as the desire to learn language to be a part of another culture. Defines instrumental motivation as the desire to learn language to complete a goal. She mentions studies that claim that a mixture of both types will help students be successful. She also cites a study (Snow, Padilla, and Campbell, 1988) that claims that it is not the type of motivation that predicts student success, it is the intensity of motivation.

McGroarty (1996)

A case study with Canadian French/English speakers in which people were asked to rate speakers of French and English (bilinguals) on Likert scales of semantic antonyms about honesty, intelligence, kindness, ect. The study found that the participants rated the speakers differently in some categories based on the language the speaker spoke, even though the participant heard the same speaker (a bilingual). This difference was attributed to language attitude. It showed that the participants "downgraded" certain language use in terms of intelligence or achievement, but rated most speakers similarly in categories like kindness and honesty. McGroarty takes this as a proof that the standard form is not "better" (p. 6-7).

Lambert & Tucker, 1972 McGroarty (1996)

They argue that not enough connection is made between research and pedagogy when it comes to sociolinguistics and education/educational linguistics. The field should be "transdisciplinary" (i.e. draw from anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc.) since the issue goes beyond the scope of any one field. As a result the field is becoming more transdisciplinary over time.

Hornberger & Hult (2006)

Teachers need to investigate differences between home and school language use as the difference can often be the source of classroom language problems. Teachers use and control language in the classroom, such as with the IRE (initiation, response, evaluation) style. They discuss the debate between additive and subtractive learning (tying in with need to support additive bilingualism in the classroom, originally discussed by Lambert, 1972), as well as restricted vs. elaborated codes. Cummins' (1978) Interdependence Hypothesis (that L1 and L2 development are interlinked) is also mentioned.

Leap and Mesthrie | (2000)

Argue that code switching is part of bilingual competence, an "everyday interaction" natural to bilinguals. Bilingual competence should be respected as a type of communicative competence; teachers should allow bilingual peer groups in class to allow use of this resource; bilinguals and monolinguals do not differ in what they do with language, just how they do it; code switching similar to monolinguals' switching between register and varieties

Gumperz & Cook- Gumperz (2005)

Linguists viewed "competence" as knowledge of a language and "performance" as encoding and decoding of a language, but Hymes against this artificial separation; children gain knowledge of appropriateness through social experience - linguists' focus on performance neglects social aspect; old grammaticality vs. acceptability dichotomy changed to possibility/feasibility/appropriateness/performance model; Hult ties in with Canale & Swain (1980) breakdown into: Linguistic, Sociolinguistic, Discourse, and Strategic competencies

Hymes (1972)

"Presentation rituals" used to show others how we feel about them; Face saving techniques differ across cultures; Positive face = desire for others to want what you want, Negative face = desire to have others not interfere with your wants; Contextualization cues (originally coined by Gumperz, 1982) smooth when shared between speakers, are often unconscious, connected to background experience/knowledge, and can be source of misunderstanding when not the same between speakers from different speech communities

Schiffrin (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

3 possible sources of misunderstanding: 1. linguistic differences, 2. Sociolinguistic transfer, 3. differences in interactional styles; continued miscommunication between groups can have a gate-keeping effect - lead to inequality and injustice; teachers cannot teach sociolinguistic rules directly - should help students foster strategic competence to help with reflection on miscommunication and repair misunderstandings when they occur in conversation

Chick (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

English is the most diffuse language throughout the world; 3 circles: 1. Inner circle (native English speaking countries like Britian, US), 2. Outer circle (mostly former colonies such as India, Pakistan); Expanding circles (countries like China where English is a prominently taught foreign language); most speakers of English in the world are using an interlanguage variety, so native speakers need to give up "ownership" of English and respect those interlanguages as being systematic and not deficient; English is a powerful "medium of multiculturalism"

Kachru & Nelson (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

Ferguson (1959) concept of diglossia discussed: high status vs. low status languages within a multicultural country, languages are "functionally separated"; "speech communities" share rules for language conduct and interpretation; separate domains often exist (e.g. intimate, formal, intergroup) for different languages and varieties; code switching and code mixing are natural and not random, functionally motivated; teachers need to revise their own attitudes about multilinguals' language use in the classroom

Sridhar (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

3 types of language planning: 1. corpus planning (changes to the body of a language), 2. status planning (can give official recognition, change context language is used in), 3. language acquisition planning (how language is taught, therefore affects number of speakers of a language); 3 goals of language policy: 1. language shift, 2. language maintenance, 3. language enrichment; political and economic goals also factor in; discusses recommendations for additive bilingualism (e.g. encourage L1 use in school, L1 groupings, L1 tutors, cultural artifacts around school); discussed Ruiz's (1984) Orientations toward Language Planning: 1. Language as a problem, 2. Language as a right, 3. Language as a resource

Wiley (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

English is not static - differences based on background, age, ethnicity; "Sociolinguistic markers" (originally Labov, 70's) indicate regional and social varieties; "dialect areas" - where regional dialects occur, share common features; social varieties (e.g. AAVE) are often more stigmatized than regional varieties; "accent" only refers to pronunciation, not syntax

Rickford (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

white American English vernaculars (WAEV) often not considered "creoles", less stigmatized than AAVE; "language contact" influences development of varieties; "founder populations" and segregation influence language evolution

Mufwene (2001) - "The Ecology of Language Evolution"

"Gullah" is an African-American creole variety, some white teachers needed translators until they could accommodate; pidgins and creoles not usually valued in schools; children create creoles from the pidgins of their parents, make more systematic; teachers need to understand linguistic backgrounds of their students in order to make curricula that are useful to them

Nichols (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

Ethnographic microanalysis - also known as "microethnography", look at language use in real time, in daily situations; "micropolitics" often affect these interactions; listening influences speakers - we create environments for speakers when we listen; cultural differences can be seen as Boundary or Border: Border = politicized, expected that large gulf exists between people from different cultures, Boundary = differences not politicized, expected eventual understanding despite cultural differences; need to find "co-membership" between teacher and students when cultural differences exist - look for shared aspects of social identity, relevant commonalities

Erickson (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

Ethnography of communication used to investigate how speakers learn the systems of shared knowledge and appropriateness that exist in a speech community - look for patterns of organization in communication; "expectations" are standards shared within the speech community; "ethonomethodology" used at smaller scale to research communication rules - without applying this research to the classroom teachers face possibility of alienating students from different backgrounds; "lingua franca" - default or "go-to" language used when no common language exists between speakers of different backgrounds

Saville-Troike (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

Every society has multiple styles of speech; "ways of speaking" = relationship between speech acts, personal roles, and context; ethnography of communication can examine: speech situations (e.g. ceremonies), speech events(e.g. conversations), or speech acts (e.g. a joke told within a conversation); SPEAKING acronym used to examine different aspects investigated by an ethnography (e.g. "S" = setting & scene, "P" = participants, etc.)

Hymes (1974)

Language socialization = how we learn to use language appropriately and in the correct context \*this sounds quite a bit like what is investigated in an ethnography of communication\*; language socialization is not a neutral process - reflects culture in which socialization is occurring in

Garrett & Baquedano- Lopez (2002)

Studied "literacy events" in 3 communities; some communities more likely to help children make connections between text and real world or ask questions/make children predict what will happen; other communities put more emphasis on oral story telling; teachers need to help students make connections with text via the narrative style of students' communities using their "way of talking", help them analyze text via the same method

Heath (1982)

Literacy is a "social practice" - it is not neutral; literacy connects individual skills with social knowledge; teacher should be aware of whose literacy they are teaching and minimize culturally-weighted items in assessments; literacy is connected to power to teachers should help students become critical readers (otherwise there is a gate-keeping effect)

McKay (1996 in McKay & Hornberger)

Language shapes our understanding of the social world, relationships, and identities; educators should try to eliminate disadvantages caused by disparate language use toward genders; "naming conventions" - male version often unmarked (e.g. chairman, mankind) but recent push away from that trend; 3 approaches to gender and language: 1. Dominance approach - women's speech seen as inferior, women are "victims", 2. Difference approach - women's speech more valued (e.g. more cooperative speech styles), 3. Dual-culture approach - Men and women's speech seen as different but both valued; schools are "socializing institutions" so teachers can help students move away from biased language and start new trends in changing conventions

Freeman & McElhinny (1996 in McKay and Hornberger)

Teachers cannot assume that all members of the same gender are alike; women often have less access to ESL classes (e.g. forced to stay at home); teachers can help students "imagine alternate realities" where gender is not an issue causing disadvantage in regards to language use

Norton & Pavlenko (2004)

Teachers should investigate students "funds of knowledge" - the cultural and practical knowledge gained through everyday experience in their cultures; helps connect home and classroom practices; helps see students as "whole people" - not somehow deficient because of lack of English proficiency; funds of knowledge allows members of the community to be tapped as sources of information, fight against stereotypes

Moll, et al. (1992)

Ideas for helping students translate from AAVE to SAE (or between any non-standard variety and standard English): 1. listen to audiotapes/books from students homes 2. look at characters on different TV shows 3. create bilingual dictionaries 4. play "language detectives" (originally from Heath) 5. Role plays - takes pressure off of students, can request to "Say it like a reporter", etc. 6. record students' output, play back for them - increases metalinguistic awareness of own production

Delpit (1998)

US schools historically poor at teaching African American students; language use tied to success in school; many teachers use the "interrupting style" - immediately correct students which can be discouraging and inhibit risk taking; teachers need to use a "linguistically informed" approach (e.g. investigate students home language use, understand the difference between pronunciation and reading errors); with AAVE students - have them first read texts via their variety and then translate to SAE/standard variety

Rickford (2005)

Bilinguals make up the majority of the world's population but nations often overlook linguistic minorities; Language rights cases often fought in courts. Valdes examines several key court cases - e.g. Perez vs. FBI - Spanish-bilingual agents in the FBI were relegated to jobs that centered around the use of Spanish and were not promoted at the same rate as their monolingual peers, ruling found that workplace cannot force use of language skills or penalize for language skills; several other cases mentioned in which language rights were presented as a civil right and not a human right (easier to argue?); the fight for language rights continues

Valdes (2001)

Mother tongue instruction is important, should be continued as long as possible; schools should supplies materials in students' L1s; some guidelines for bilingual education: 1. support L1 instruction 2. promote bilingual education through all levels of schooling (goes against the subtractive bilingual approach and the ESL approach that has students move from pullout classes to mainstream classes) 3. Language teaching supports international understanding between cultures

UNESCO (2003)

Language policies often do not affect the languages (e.g. varieties, dialects) being targetted; JPLs ("Just Plain Folks") use language in practical and functional ways, no way to change corpus of a language without JPLs going along and agreeing to need/logic of changes; ESL teachers on the "front lines" of selling these policies

Eggington (1997)

"Biliteracy" is the use of the L1 and L2 in classroom writing practices; links together the relationship between language and education for bilinguals; Continua of biliteracy chart on pg 453

Hornberger (1996 in McKay and Hornberger)

Hosada (2006)

Nassaji and Swain (2000)

McGroarty (1996)

Mufwene (2001) - "The Ecology of Language Evolution"

Developed the Processability Theory which states that beginning language learners have a limited capacity for syntactic information. Ties into his Teachability Hypothesis and developmental readiness.

Pienemann (1998)

Developed the Teachability Hypothesis which states that- a) stages of development cannot be skipped through instruction. b) instruction will be best if it focuses on the next developmental stage.

Pienemann (1981)

The concept of interlanguage which is the language system that each learner constructs at any given point in development. It is natural language characterized by systematicity and variability.

Selinker (1972)

Fossilization is the phenomenon of non-progression of learning despite 1. continuous exposure, 2. adequate motivation, and 3. opportunity to practice. Can be global (affecting all of the IL) or local (affecting part of the IL).

Han (2004)

Curtiss was Genie's case worker when she was residing at Children's Hospital. Genie never fully attained native-like proficiency and is a strong case in favor of the CPH, but there are many other external factors affecting the validity of Genie's case.

Curtiss (1977)

Studies have yet to identify a single adult L2 learner who is indistinguishable from a native speaker in all aspects of language.

Hyltenstam and Abramsson (2001)

Conducted a statistical meta-study of 45 case that looked at explicit and implicit FonF and FonFS instruction between 1980 and 1998. They found that instructed groups out performed non-instructed groups and that explicit FonF was the most effective.

Norris and Ortega (2001)

Noticed that many learners errors were interference from the L1 and claimed that the structures that were most different would be most difficult to learn. The beginnings of Contrastive Analysis.

Lado (1957)

The school of Contrastive Analysis believed that through L1-L2 comparison, one could predict learner errors because the L1 was the source of errors. The greater the difference in features of the L1 and features of the L2, the more more errors produced.

Stockwell et al. (1965)

Study with L1 French, L2 English learners and pronoun placement. Found that L1 did not accurately account for L2 errors (cast against Contrastive Analysis).

Zolb (1980)

Age of Acquisition (AoA) is the age at which learners are immersed in an L2 context. AoA is the strongest predictor for ultimate attainment.

Birdsong (2006)

Proposed that there is an age at which the acquisition of L1 at native-like levels becomes impossible, Critical Period Hypothesis. Children are predisposed to learn language.

Lenneberg (1967)

The information-processing theory and the idea of automatization. Learners move from controlled-processing the the short-term memory to automatic-processing in the long-term memory. This movement is called restructuring.

McLaughlin (1987)

Observation of French immersion classes in Canada. They noted the type of feedback and they types of learner uptake. The types of feedback observed were 1) explicit correction, 2) recasts, 3) clarafication requests, 4) metalinguistic feedback, 5) Elicitation, and 6) Repetition. They found that while recasts were the most common type of feedback used by teachers, it led to the least uptake. The most effective form of feedback for learner uptake was elicitation. Forms of feedback that did not give the learner the correct form were more effective for uptake in general.

Lyster & Ranta (1997)

34 low-intermediate students observed in a private language school in New Zealand. Target form was past tense "-ed." Students were given grammaticality judgement tests and immitation tests. They engaged in picture sequencing activities. They were given pre-, post-, and delayed post-tests on the target form. They found that explicit feedback with metalinguistic information was more effective than implicit feedback (as demonstrated on delayed post-tests. Explicit feedback contributes a learners developing language system.

Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006)

Dyads of NSs and NNSs giving and following instructions respectively. Looked to analyze the differences between pre-modified input and interactionally modified input. They found that the quantity, redundancy, and complexity or utterances was greater in interactionally modified input. Supports Long's Interaction Hypothesis.

Pica, Young, and Doughty (1987)

34 ESL learners in Austrialia. Sought to examine learner production of higher level question formation through interaction. Learners were grouped into 5 groups, two of which involved interaction. She found that more level 4 and 5 question types were produced by the groups that required/involved interaction. Supports Long's Interaction Hypothesis.

Mackey (1999)

Defined "tasks" as activities used in language teaching that are designed to promote the sharing of ideas and opinions, collaboration toward a single goal, or competition to achieve individual goals. Tasks encourage interaction. Jigsaw Information Gap Problem Solving Decision Making Opinion Exchange

Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993)

ESL students at American University, target form was relative clause production to see if learners noticed and acquired more through output activities. Subjects performed text reconstructions and comprehension activities. There were two output groups, two no output groups and a control group. One of each of the groups got enhanced input as well. He found that output participants noticed the form in both input and output. He also found that output had a positive effect on learning while enhanced input did not. Supports Swain's Output Hypothesis.

Izumi (2002)

Their hypothesis was that output gives rise to noticing. They studies 8th grade French immersion students in Canada using a think aloud protocol (later known as LREs). They found that as the learners produced the L2, they indeed noticed the gaps. They also found that the output and noticing triggered cognitive processes for metalinguistic knowledge.

Swain & Lapkin (1994)

3 Functions of Output 1. Noticing/Triggering Function: Output leads to more awareness of what needs to be learned. 2. Hypothesis Testing Function: Output leads to an opportunity to experiment with new or partially learned structures. 3. Metalinguistic Reflection Function: Output is a tool for reflection which leads to greater awareness and control.

Swain (1995)

Defined Language Related Episode (LRE) as a learner initiated discussion of language form in which learners talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, and correct themselves or others.

Swain & Lapkin (1998)

Output Hypothesis - Swain said that interaction and negotiating for meaning should push the delivery of a message (pushed output) that is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately. It is parallel to i + 1 and should be known has comprehensible output.

Swain (1985)

Defined intake as the portion of input that learners actually internalize.

Corder (1972)

Stated the Markedness Differential Hypothesis, which is that marked forms tend to be more difficult to learn and cause more interlanguage solutions

Eckman (1977)

``` # Define transfer as the psychological process whereby prior learning is carried over into a new learning situation. Positive transfer is facilitation. Negative transfer is interference. ```

Gass & Selinker (2001)

Mother tongue: language spoken by the primary caregiver. Primary Language: language a speaker feels most comfortable in in most contexts. L1: The first language a child learns to speak and understand. Home language: language used at home for everyday interaction. Family language: lingua franca among family members.

Thompson (2004)

First to focus attention on the importance of learner errors. Response the Contrastive Analysis because a majority of learner error could not be explained by L1 interference

Corder (1967)

Studied L1 morpheme acquisition in English speaking children and found a consistent order of acquisition. This sparked research into the L2 order of acquisition of certain features.

Brown, R. (1973)

After studying Spanish L1 and Mandarin Chinese L1, English L2 morpheme acquisition for several years, concluded that it is highly probable that children of different language backgrounds and host background acquire morphemes in a similar order.

Dulay & Burt (1982)

``` # Define error analysis as a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors learners make. Steps to EA- Collect data, identify errors, classify errors, quantify errors, analyze error source, conduct pedagogical remediation. ```

Gass & Selinker (2001) [Error Analysis]

Posited the Input Hypothesis which stated that learners will acquire language when the input contains language structures that are slightly beyond their current level. i + 1 (i = current level, +1 is structures slightly out of the learner's reach)

Krashen (1982) [Input]

Extended Krashen's Input Hypothesis because input alone is not sufficient. The Interaction Hypothesis states that interactionally modified input and conversational adjustments lead to acquisition as learners negotiate for meaning. Conversation is fine-tuned to comprehensible input through: 1. Repetitions 2. Confirmation checks 3. Comprehension checks 4. Clarification Requests

Long (1985)

Said that a crucial site for language development is the interaction between learners and other speakers because - 1. negotiation of meaning 2. interactionally modified imput 3. opportunity for output 4. elicitation of negative feedback to draw attention to mismatches.

Long & Robinson (1998)

A reformulation of the Interaction Hypothesis to emphasize negative feedback and selected attention as the way to acquisition during negotiation of meaning.

Long (1996)

The Noticing Hypothesis defined noticing as the process of bringing something into focal attention consciously or unconsciously. Noticing and attention are necessary and sufficient for turning input in to intake.

Schmidt (1990, 1994)

Designed the regulatory scale from explicit (other-regulated) to implicit (self-regulated) levels of collaboration between the tutor and learner in the learner's Zone of Proximal Development.

Aljaafreh & Lantolf (1994)

Study with 2 Korean, L2 English learners and article usage to see if corrective feedback in the ZPD was more effective than random corrective feedback. They found this to be true and consistent with Vygotskian perspective that knowledge is constructed through collaboration and interaction within the ZPD.

Nassaji & Swain (2000)

Analyzed audio and video data from L1-L2 Japanese casual interactions. Found that the L2 speakers oriented themselves as "novices" and the L1 speakers as "experts". In these differential roles conversational repair occurred when a) the L2 speaker invited repair and b) understanding would be jeopardized without repair.

Hosoda (2006)

Long's seminal work that distinguished between FonFS and FonF. FonFS is the syntactic approach centered and organized individual elements of language. FonF is overtly drawing learner's attention to linguistic elements through lessons that are focused on meaning and communication.

Long (1988, 1991)

Analyzed the effect of recasts and their impact on question formation for ESL learners. They use the pre- and post- test method. The experimental group got "intensive" recasts whenever they made an error. They found that the advanced learners who received the recast treatment progressed at least one stage. Researchers determined that recasts were effective if the learner was developmentally ready.

Mackey & Philp (1998)

Deals with the pedagogical choices a teacher has when dealing with FonF. First they discuss whether FonF is actually needed (if features are part of UG), but determine that FonF is needed to push learners to more accurate native-like proficiency. Then they discuss the difference between proactive (planned form flooding) and reactive (just in time learning) FonF and determined that the teacher must take into consideration the learner's developmental readiness when targeting forms (the next issue discussed) giving feedback.

Doughty & Williams (1998)

Reviewed 12 studies comparing learners who received instruction and those who did not (naturalistic). He found that instruction made a difference. Instruction is 1) beneficial for child and adult learners and 2) beneficial for learners at all proficiency levels.

Long (1983)

The effects of L1 transfer will only affect the rate of development.

Zolb (1982)

Study with 144 French L1, English L1, 11-13 y.o learners. analyzing question formation stages. They found that L1 transfer can create a sub-stage (sub-aux inversion with pronouns, but not nouns) in the developmental sequence, which affects their rate of development.

Lightbown & Spada (1999)