Search

Considerable reason exists to view the mind, and language within it, as modular, and this view has an important place in research and theory in second language acquisition (SLA) and beyond. But it has had very little impact on the study of working memory and its role in SLA. This article considers the need for modular study of working memory, looking at the state of common approaches to the subject and the evidence for modularity, and then considering what working memory should look like in a modular mind. It then sketches a research program to explore working memory within a modular mind and particularly its role in SLA. This is followed by a brief look at the way that the Modular Online Growth and Use of Language (MOGUL) approach can serve as a framework for such a program.

Understanding the place of consciousness in second language acquisition (SLA) is crucial for an understanding of how acquisition occurs. Considerable work has been done on this topic, but nearly all of it assumes a highly non-modular view, according to which language and its development is "nothing special". As this assumption runs counter to much of the thinking in SLA, there is a need for an account of the place of consciousness within a framework that assumes that core aspects of language compose a distinct module (or modules) of the mind: that language is something special. This article offers such an account within the reasonably well-established MOGUL framework, with its approach to consciousness and the place of consciousness in the cognitive system. After briefly reviewing existing work and then the topics of modularity and consciousness, it presents MOGUL and its treatment of consciousness and then considers the way that this account applies to (1) the initial establishment of linguistic representations in perception, (2) the way these representations are then consolidated, (3) restructuring of the system of representations, and (4) the development of linguistic knowledge outside the language module, i.e. conceptual linguistic knowledge.

Over the last 40 years, there have been successive attempts to define or refine a set of key concepts intended to guide theory and experimentation in SLA. These include "input," "intake," and "consciousness." This article tries to take these attempts a stage further by integrating the conceptualization of these notions into a larger interdisciplinary framework called Modular Online Growth and Use of Language (MOGUL). Past work, which is problematic both in terms of the theoretical development itself and in terms of the way the resulting ideas have been applied, is critically reviewed. A reinterpretation of key concepts in MOGUL terms is presented, in hopes that this reformulation will provide a clearer theoretical understanding and serve as an improved foundation for future research.

In this response I discuss several points that Bruton made in his own response paper. I first argue that his main theme, that design factors should be emphasized over statistical analysis, has never been a genuine issue; it is two independent issues, and for each of them I have some concerns about his discussion. I then consider his comments on our respective "points of departure". If I have one, it is not at all what he says it is, and I find his own point of departure problematic in several respects. I also discuss, more briefly, three additional issues: his earlier accusations that I "misrepresent" the work of others and "inexplicably" fail to mention aspects of the research that might be troublesome for the case against correction, the ecological validity of research on correction, and explanations for the fact that some learners become highly skilled second language writers. I then offer a perspective on the state of the correction debate.

This study of incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading, involving 72 freshmen at two Asian universities, investigated (i) the effect of repeated encounters with target words on the development of seven aspects of word knowledge, and (ii) the effect of L1 lexicalization on the acquisition of meaning--does the absence of an L1 translation equivalent make acquisition of a word's meaning especially difficult? Seven measures were used, immediately after the treatment and again after a two-week delay. The design was based on that of Webb (2007) but emphasized ecological validity over control, presenting genuine words in meaningful reading passages and thus complementing Webb's more tightly controlled experiment. Results for repetition largely supported his findings while suggesting that the nature of his study led to an overestimate of learning. Knowledge of orthography, part of speech, and meaning showed different patterns of development with increasing encounters. On the immediate posttest, repetition affected productive knowledge somewhat more than receptive, consistent with Webb's findings, but this relation reversed on the delayed posttest. For L1 lexicalization, non-lexicalized words caused great difficulty.

In a recent paper, Anthony Bruton argued that correction receives too much attention and that the debate over it (which he calls "the Truscott debate") is "a rather tedious sterile academic debate" that has harmed the field. He dismissed the case against correction, based on arguments that uncorrected students do not improve, some general objections to the research evidence, and a claim that in presenting it I omitted troublesome information and misrepresented one of the relevant studies. His alternative view is that common sense tells us correcting students' errors is appropriate. In this response I address these points, emphasizing his comments on the evidence and the way I presented it. I conclude that he has not provided any substantive support for his claims and that his comments do not alter the conclusion that correction is a failure and has no place in second language writing classes.

Previous research has shown that corrective feedback on an assignment helps learners reduce their errors on that assignment during the revision process. Does this finding constitute evidence that learning resulted from the feedback? Differing answers play an important role in the ongoing debate over the effectiveness of error correction, suggesting a need for empirical investigation. In this study, learners first wrote an in-class narrative and then revised their writing during the next class. Half the students had their errors underlined and used this feedback in the revision task while the other half did the same task without feedback. Results matched those of previous studies: the underline group was significantly more successful than the control group. One week later, all students wrote a new narrative as a measure of (short-term) learning. On this measure, change in error rate from the first narrative to the second, the two groups were virtually identical. Thus, successful error reduction during revision is not a predictor of learning (at least for the uncoded corrective feedback that has typified studies in this area), as the two groups differed dramatically on the former but were indistinguishable on the latter. Improvements made during revision are not evidence on the effectiveness of correction for improving learners' writing ability. (Contains 6 tables.)

The paper evaluates and synthesizes research on the question of how error correction affects learners' ability to write accurately, combining qualitative analysis of the relevant studies with quantitative meta-analysis of their findings. The conclusions are that, based on existing research: (a) the best estimate is that correction has a small negative effect on learners' ability to write accurately, and (b) we can be 95% confident that if it has any actual benefits, they are very small. This analysis is followed by discussion of factors that have probably biased the findings in favor of correction groups, the implication being that the conclusions of the meta-analysis probably underestimate the failure of correction.

The simultaneous presence in a learner's grammar of two features that should be mutually exclusive (optionality) typifies second language acquisition. But generative approaches have no good means of accommodating the phenomenon. The paper proposes one approach, based on Truscott and Sharwood Smith's (2004) MOGUL framework. In this framework, development involves items being written in the lexicon during processing, in accordance with UG principles embodied in the processors, and their resting activation levels gradually rising as a consequence of repeated use. Stored items compete with one another for inclusion in the representations constructed during processing, with success based on resting levels plus demands of the current processing task. Optionality occurs when two rival items coexist and neither has yet achieved a resting level at which it consistently triumphs over the other. The account is applied to various cases of optionality in second language acquisition. (Contains 1 figure and 4 notes.)

References to developmental stages and continua seem to be part and parcel of investigations into the acquisition of new grammars. Nonetheless, there seems to be an equivocation in the literature about which is actually the most helpful way of explaining how learner grammars evolve through time. Some see development essentially as gradual growth and, in this perspective, talking about a sequence of discrete stages looks like an artificial way of organizing learner data imposed by researchers simply as a matter of convenience. Indeed, the evidence does lend support to the idea of a learner not only developing new solutions to how the L2 works very gradually, but also entertaining alternative solutions at the same time. At the same time, from a linguistic perspective, it often makes sense to see development as a stepwise movement from one rule system to another: the acquisition literature is consequently full of references to stages and evidence to back up this type of analysis. In this paper, we will attempt to resolve the apparent conflict by adopting a language processing perspective called MOGUL that allows for both stages and continua and we shall illustrate our proposals using empirical findings from the second language acquisition literature.

The paper offers a model of language development, first and second, within a processing perspective. We first sketch a modular view of language, in which competence is embodied in the processing mechanisms. We then propose a novel approach to language acquisition (Acquisition by Processing Theory, or APT), in which development of the module occurs as a natural product of processing activity, without any acquisition mechanisms as such. The approach is illustrated and explicated through examples of the development of content words, derivational morphology, the functional category I with its variable features, and Case and thematic roles, as well as apparent cross-linguistic variation in processing strategies and the status of bootstrapping in the model. We then examine some possible applications to issues in second language acquisition--noticing the gap, the initial state, transfer, and the apparent limits of SLA--and finally offer a broader perspective on the model: its scope, its relations to other approaches, and its possible limits.

To begin with, we thank the commentators for their remarks, which both intrigued and challenged us in various ways. Time and space limits prevent us from doing justice to all the points they raised, so we will focus on those we consider most significant and are best prepared to deal with. One of these points, of course, is the overall character and status of our proposal. Pienemann terms Acquisition by Processing (APT) "an interesting point of departure" (p. 38) for the development of a theory of acquisition and processing. Harrington and Carroll say in effect that it can't be done; others seem more open to the possibility. In any case, we quickly accept Roeper's suggestion that what we have presented is more a "prole-gomena" (p. 21) to a theory than a full-fledged theory in itself.

Considers the possibility of applying instance theory to the study of second language. Instance theory emphasizes the storage and subsequent use of individual experiences over the creation of abstract principles. Suggests that the theory can be applied to the study of second languages, only if it is used in conjunction with a theory of universal grammar. (Author/ER)

This article draws attention to the obstacles created by imprecise definitions and misleading dichotomies. In this case the focus is on second language and multilingualism research literature. Despite the obvious benefits of reformulating otherwise complex ideas and approaches in simpler terms in order to distill their essential meaning, misunderstandings and misrepresentations can too easily arise. These can then proliferate within and beyond these research fields and hinder productive debates between proponents of different theoretical approaches. A selection of classic examples relating to issues of language cognition are discussed in this article. They include definitions of terms like cognitive, nativist, innatist, interactionist, usage-based, and dynamic. Simple contrasts introduced to improve readability and to introduce a longer discussion can become highly misleading where the context fails to include clarification. Incorrect inferences may otherwise be drawn by less well-informed readers. In other cases, dichotomies can be just wrong. We discuss the choice and phrasing of various terms and distinctions and argue that more care is needed by all involved. Discussions can still be carried out in a combative style if discussants so wish but not to the point of introducing conceptual confusion in debates that should serve to advance understanding in second language acquisition research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aim of this study was to assess vitamin K status in an unselected population of children with cystic fibrosis (CF) and to investigate any vitamin K effect on bone turnover and bone mineral status. Methods. Children [greater than or equal to] 5 years of age who were attending the CF unit were invited to enter the study. Fasting blood samples were analyzed for levels of vitamin [K.sub.1] and prothrombin produced in vitamin K absence; total, undercarboxylated, and carboxylated osteocalcin (OC); and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and procollagen I carboxy-terminal propeptide (bone formation markers). Levels of N-telopeptide and free pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline (bone breakdown products) were measured in urine samples. Bone mineral density and bone mineral content were measured at the lumbar spine and for the total body with a GE Lunar Prodigy densitometer. Statistical analyses were performed with Minitab version 9.1. Results. One hundred six children entered the study. Sixty-five of 93 children (70%) from whom blood samples were obtained showed suboptimal vitamin K status, on the basis of low serum vitamin [K.sub.1] levels, increased prothrombin produced in vitamin K absence levels, or both abnormalities. Vitamin [K.sub.1] levels showed a significant negative correlation with undercarboxylated OC levels but showed no significant correlation with any marker of bone turnover or measurement of bone mineral status. Undercarboxylated OC levels were correlated significantly with bone turnover markers, which themselves showed a significant negative correlation with measurements of bone mineral density and content. There were no significant correlations between carboxylated or undercarboxylated OC levels and bone density measurements. Conclusions. Vitamin [K.sub.1] deficiency is common among children with CF, and routine supplements should be considered. Through its role in the carboxylation of OC, vitamin K deficiency may be associated with an uncoupling of the balance between bone resorption and bone formation. A cause-effect relationship between vitamin K deficiency and low bone mass has not been proved. vitamin K, bone density, bone turnover, cystic fibrosis., ABBREVIATIONS. BMD, bone mineral density; BMC, bone mineral content; BSAP, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase; CF, cystic fibrosis; Gla-OC, carboxylated osteocalcin; Glu-OC, undercarboxylated osteocalcin; PICP, procollagen I carboxy-terminal propeptide; PIVKA-II, prothrombin produced [...]