Applied An Introduction to [627837]

Licență

Applied An Introduction to [627837]

Byadmin ianuarie 1, 2024

Applied An Introduction to
Linguistics

This page intentionally left blank

An Introduction to
Applied Linguistics
edited by Norbert Schmitt

Orders: please contact Bookpoint Ltd, 130 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4SB.
Telephone: (44) 01235 827720. Fax: (44) 01235 400454. Lines are open from 9.00 to
5.00, Monday to Saturday, with a 24-hour message answering service. You can also order
through our website www.hoddereducation.co.uk
If you have any comments to make about this, or any of our other titles,
please send them to [anonimizat]
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978 0 340 98447 5
First Edition Published 2002
This Edition Published 2010
Impression number 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Year 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010
Copyright © 2010 Hodder & Stoughton Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher
or under licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited. Further details of such
licences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from the Copyright Licensing
Agency Limited, of Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Hachette UK’s policy is to use papers that are natural, renewable and
recyclable products and made from wood grown in sustainable forests.
The logging and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the
environmental regulations of the country of origin.
Cover photo © Paul Taylor/Stone+/Getty Images
Typeset by Phoenix Photosetting, Chatham, Kent
Printed in Great Britain for Hodder Education, An Hachette UK Company,
338 Euston Road, London NW1 3BH by Antony Rowe Ltd

If you want peace, work for justice

This page intentionally left blank

Contents
Preface viii
1 An Overview of Applied Linguistics 1
Norbert Schmitt and Marianne Celce-Murcia
1 Description of Language and Language Use
2 Grammar 18
Diane Larsen-Freeman and Jeanette DeCarrico
3 Vocabulary 34
Paul Nation and Paul Meara
4 Discourse Analysis 53
Michael McCarthy, Christian Matthiessen and Diana Slade
5 Pragmatics 70
Helen Spencer-Oatey and Vladimir Z ˇegarac
6 Corpus Linguistics 89
Randi Reppen and Rita Simpson-Vlach
2 Essential Areas of Enquiry in Applied Linguistics
7 Second Language Acquisition 108
Nina Spada and Patsy M. Lightbown
8 Psycholinguistics 124
Kees de Bot and Judith F. Kroll
9 Sociolinguistics 143
Carmen Llamas and Peter Stockwell
10 Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation 161
Andrew D. Cohen
3 Language Skills and Assessment
11 Listening 180
Tony Lynch and David Mendelsohn
12 Speaking and Pronunciation 197
Anne Burns and Barbara Seidlhofer
13 Reading 215
Patricia L. Carrell and William Grabe
14 Writing 232
Paul Kei Matsuda and Tony Silva
15 Assessment 247
Carol A. Chapelle and Geoff Brindley
16 Suggested Solutions 268
References 283
Index 335

Preface
This book is intended to give you a broad overview of Applied Linguistics. It
will introduce you to important areas in the ﬁeld, and familiarize you with the
key issues in each of those areas. The book is written at the ‘sophisticated
introduction’ level, where the most current ideas in the ﬁeld are presented, but
explained in language that is accessible and direct. After having engaged with
the knowledge in this introductory book, you should be able to move on to more
advanced books and articles, such as those recommended at the end of each
chapter in the ‘Further Reading’ section.
In addition to helping you become familiar with the issues in Applied Linguistics,
the book will also help you become familiar with some of the research
methodology currently being used in the ﬁeld. Knowledge of this methodology
is important in order to be able to read and understand original research studies
in Applied Linguistics books and journals. A number of chapters show you how
research in their area is carried out (for example, Chapter 9, Sociolinguistics ,
and Chapter 11, Listening ), which should enable you to gain a greater awareness
of various research approaches. In addition, each chapter has some data for you
to analyse and interpret, with the authors’ suggested solutions at the end of the
book. These ‘Hands-on Activities’ will help to understand the information in each
chapter better, because you will use some of it in your own analyses.
Applied Linguistics is a big ﬁeld and one person cannot be an expert in all
areas. To ensure that chapters contain an authoritative treatment of an area,
most are co-authored by two (and sometimes three) leading international
specialists. By having multiple specialists writing together, the chapters can
represent an expert consensus of the most important issues in that area. The
various teams of authors working in their own separate areas have naturally
developed different ways of discussing issues, and I have decided to let each
team retain their own ‘voice’ and style, rather than trying to homogenize the
chapters into a single style throughout the book. I hope you will ﬁnd the result
illuminating and engaging.
Although teams of authors will retain their individual identity, there is a
common format for the chapters. First, each chapter opens with an ‘Introduction’
or ‘What is X?’ section which brieﬂy explains what the area is and why it is
important. The following section will be the heart of each chapter, where the key
issues pertaining to the area are discussed. Next, the pedagogical implications
of the area will be considered. Of course some chapters, such as Chapter 3,
Vocabulary , may have more tangible pedagogical implications than others, such
as Chapter 8, Psycholinguistics , but all will address pedagogical concerns. Each
chapter has a ‘Further Reading’ section, with a number of reading suggestions,
complete with brief annotations. Finally, each chapter has a ‘Hands-on Activity’,
where some data are presented for you to analyse and interpret. The authors
present their suggestions in Chapter 16, Suggested Solutions .

ix Preface
The areas of Applied Linguistics are related to each other in various ways.
This means that certain ideas will inevitably appear in more than one chapter. I
have built a certain amount of this repetition into the book, because I believe a
good way to learn key ideas is to see them approached from slightly different
perspectives by several authors. When an idea is discussed in another chapter,
it will usually be cross-referenced, for example: ( see Chapter 4, Discourse
Analysis , and Chapter 5, Pragmatics ).
This book has been a team effort with 30 authors contributing their expertise.
Writing sophisticated ideas in an accessible way is no easy task, and I thank them
for their efforts. I also wish to thank the team at Hodder Education publishers,
in particular Tamsin Smith and Liz Wilson, who have worked hard to ensure that
all stages of the publishing process were academically rigorous, but refreshingly
expedited. I learned a lot about Applied Linguistics by editing this book. I hope
you will be able to say the same thing after reading it.
Norbert Schmitt
University of Nottingham
August 2009

This page intentionally left blank

An Overview of Applied Linguistics
Norbert Schmitt
University of Nottingham
Marianne Celce-Murcia
University of California, Los Angeles
What is Applied Linguistics?
‘Applied linguistics’ is using what we know about (a) language, (b) how it is learned
and (c) how it is used, in order to achieve some purpose or solve some problem in
the real world. Those purposes are many and varied, as is evident in a deﬁnition
given by Wilkins (1999: 7):
In a broad sense, applied linguistics is concerned with increasing understanding of the
role of language in human affairs and thereby with providing the knowledge necessary for
those who are responsible for taking language-related decisions whether the need for these
arises in the classroom, the workplace, the law court, or the laboratory.
The range of these purposes is partly illustrated by the call for papers for the
American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL) 2010 conference, which lists
16 topic areas:
• analysis of discourse and interaction
• assessment and evaluation
• bilingual, immersion, heritage and language minority education
• language and ideology
• language and learner characteristics
• language and technology
• language cognition and brain research
• language, culture, socialization and pragmatics
• language maintenance and revitalization
• language planning and policy
• reading, writing and literacy
• second and foreign language pedagogy
• second language acquisition, language acquisition and attrition
• sociolinguistics
• text analysis (written discourse)
• translation and interpretation.
The call for papers to the 2011 AILA conference goes even further and lists
28 areas in applied linguistics. Out of these numerous areas, the dominant
application has always been the teaching and learning of second or foreign
languages (L2). Around the world, a large percentage of people, and a
majority in some areas, speak more than one language. For example, a survey
published in 1987 found that 83 per cent of 20–24-year-olds in Europe had
studied a second language (Cook, 1996: 134), although to varying levels of
ﬁnal proﬁciency. Also, in some countries, a second language is a necessary
‘common denominator’ (‘lingua franca’) when the population speaks a variety 1

2An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
of different L1s (ﬁrst languages). English is the main second language being
studied in the world today, and even a decade before this book was published,
an estimated 235 million L2 learners were learning it (Crystal, 1995: 108). So it
is perhaps not surprising that this book is written in that language, although
the concepts presented here should be appropriate to non-English L2 teaching
and learning as well. Figures concerning the numbers of people learning or
using second languages can only be rough estimates, but they still give some
idea of the impact that applied linguistics can have in the world.
Due to length constraints, this book must inevitably focus on limited facets
of applied linguistics. Traditionally, the primary concern of applied linguistics
has been second language acquisition theory, second language pedagogy and
the interface between the two, and it is these areas which this volume will
cover. However, it is also useful to consider brieﬂy some of the areas of applied
linguistics which will not be emphasized in this book, in order to further give
some sense of the breadth of issues in the ﬁeld. Carter and Nunan (2001:
2) list the following sub-disciplines in which applied linguists also take an
interest: literacy, speech pathology, deaf education, interpreting and translating,
communication practices, lexicography and ﬁrst language acquisition. Of these,
L1 acquisition research can be particularly informative concerning L2 contexts,
and so will be referred to in several chapters throughout this book ( see Chapter
7, Second Language Acquisition , and Chapter 8, Psycholinguistics , in particular, for
more on L1 issues).
Besides mother tongue education, language planning and bilingualism/
multilingualism, two other areas that Carter and Nunan (2001) did not list are
authorship identiﬁcation and forensic linguistics. These areas exemplify how
applied linguistics knowledge may be utilized in practical ways in non-educational
areas. Authorship identiﬁcation uses a statistical analysis of various linguistic
features in anonymous or disputed texts and compares the results with a similar
analysis from texts whose authors are known. When a match is made, this gives a
strong indication that the matching author wrote the text in question. The search
for the anonymous author of the eighteenth-century political letters written
under the pseudonym of Junius is an example of this. A linguistic analysis of the
vocabulary in the letters (for example, whether on or upon was used) showed that it
was very similar to the use of vocabulary in the writings of Sir Philip Francis, who
was then identiﬁed as the probable author (Crystal, 1987: 68). Similar analyses are
carried out in forensic linguistics, often to establish the probability of whether or
not a defendant or witness actually produced a speciﬁc piece of discourse. Crystal
(1987) relates a case where a convicted murderer was pardoned, partially because
a linguistic analysis showed that the transcript of his oral statement (written by
the police) was very different stylistically from his normal speech patterns. This
discrepancy cast strong doubts on the accuracy of the incriminating evidence in
the transcript.
In addition to all these areas and purposes, applied linguistics is interested
in cases where language goes wrong. Researchers working on language-related
disorders study the speech of aphasic, schizophrenic and autistic speakers, as well
as hemispherectomy patients, in the belief that we can better understand how
the brain functions when we analyse what happens when the speaker’s language
system breaks down or does not function properly. Even slips of the tongue and
ear committed by normal individuals can give us insights into how the human
brain processes language (Fromkin, l973, 1980).

3 An Overview of Applied Linguistics
The Development of Applied Linguistics
Early History
Interest in languages and language teaching has a long history, and we can trace this
back at least as far as the ancient Greeks, where both ‘Plato and Aristotle contributed
to the design of a curriculum beginning with good writing (grammar), then
moving on to effective discourse (rhetoric) and culminating in the development
of dialectic to promote a philosophical approach to life’ (Howatt, 1999: 618). If
we focus on English, major attempts at linguistic description began to occur in
the second half of the eighteenth century. In 1755, Samuel Johnson published
his Dictionary of the English Language , which quickly became the unquestioned
authority on the meanings of English words. It also had the effect of standardizing
English spelling, which until that time had been relatively variable (for example,
the printer William Caxton complained in 1490 that eggs could be spelled as ‘eggys’
or ‘egges’ or even ‘eyren’ depending on the local pronunciation). About the same
time, Robert Lowth published an inﬂuential grammar, Short Introduction to English
Grammar (1762), but whereas Johnson sought to describe English vocabulary by
collecting thousands of examples of how English words were actually used, Lowth
prescribed what ‘correct’ grammar should be. He had no specialized linguistic
background to do this, and unfortunately based his English grammar on a classical
Latin model, even though the two languages are organized in quite different ways.
The result was that English, which is a Germanic language, was described by a
linguistic system (parts of speech) which was borrowed from Latin, which had
previously borrowed the system from Greek. The process of prescribing, rather
than describing, has left us with English grammar rules which are much too rigid
to describe actual language usage:
• no multiple negatives (I don’t need no help from nobody!)
• no split inﬁnitives (So we need to really think about all this from scratch .)
• no ending a sentence with a preposition (I don’t know what it is made of.)
These rules made little sense even when Lowth wrote them, but through the ages
both teachers and students have generally disliked ambiguity, and so Lowth’s
notions of grammar were quickly adopted once in print as the rules of ‘correct
English’. ( See Chapter 2, Grammar , for more on prescriptive versus descriptive
grammars.)
Applied Linguistics during the Twentieth Century
An Overview of the Century
The real acceleration of change in linguistic description and pedagogy occurred
during the twentieth century, during which a number of movements inﬂuenced
the ﬁeld only to be replaced or modiﬁed by subsequent developments. At the
beginning of the century, second languages were usually taught by the ‘Grammar-
translation method’, which had been in use since the late eighteenth century,
but was fully codiﬁed in the nineteenth century by Karl Plötz (1819–1881), (cited
in Kelly, 1969: 53, 220). A lesson would typically have one or two new grammar
rules, a list of vocabulary items and some practice examples to translate from L1
into L2 or vice versa. The approach was originally reformist in nature, attempting
to make language learning easier through the use of example sentences instead of

4An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
whole texts (Howatt, 1984: 136). However, the method grew into a very controlled
system, with a heavy emphasis on accuracy and explicit grammar rules, many of
which were quite obscure. The content focused on reading and writing literary
materials, which highlighted the archaic vocabulary found in the classics.
As the method became increasingly pedantic, a new pedagogical direction was
needed. One of the main problems with Grammar-translation was that it focused
on the ability to ‘analyse’ language, and not the ability to ‘use’ it. In addition, the
emphasis on reading and writing did little to promote an ability to communicate
orally in the target language. By the beginning of the twentieth century, new use-
based ideas had coalesced into what became known as the ‘Direct method’. This
emphasized exposure to oral language, with listening and speaking as the primary
skills. Meaning was related directly to the target language, without the step of
translation, while explicit grammar teaching was also downplayed. It imitated
how a mother tongue is learnt naturally, with listening ﬁrst, then speaking, and
only later reading and writing. The focus was squarely on use of the second
language, with stronger proponents banishing all use of the L1 in the classroom.
The Direct method had its own problems, however. It required teachers to be
highly proﬁcient in the target language, which was not always possible. Also, it
mimicked L1 learning, but did not take into account the differences between L1
and L2 acquisition. One key difference is that L1 learners have abundant exposure
to the target language, which the Direct method could not hope to match.
In the UK, Michael West was interested in increasing learners’ exposure to
language through reading. His ‘Reading method’ attempted to make this possible
by promoting reading skills through vocabulary management. To improve the
readability of his textbooks, he ‘substituted low-frequency “literary” words such
as isle, nought , and ere with more frequent items such as island, nothing, and before ’
(Schmitt, 2000: 17). He also controlled the number of new words which could
appear in any text. These steps had the effect of signiﬁcantly reducing the lexical
load for readers. This focus on vocabulary management was part of a greater
approach called the ‘Vocabulary Control Movement’, which eventually resulted
in a book called the General Service List of English Words (West, 1953), which listed
the most useful 2000 words in English. ( See Chapter 3, Vocabulary , for more on
frequency, the percentage of words known in a text and readability.) The three
methods, Grammar-translation, the Direct method and the Reading method,
continued to hold sway until World War II.
During the war, the weaknesses of all of the above approaches became obvious,
as the American military found itself short of people who were conversationally
ﬂuent in foreign languages. It needed a way of training soldiers in oral and aural
skills quickly. American structural linguists stepped into the gap and developed
a programme which borrowed from the Direct method, especially its emphasis
on listening and speaking. It drew its rationale from the dominant psychological
theory of the time, Behaviourism, that essentially said that language learning was a
result of habit formation. Thus the method included activities which were believed
to reinforce ‘good’ language habits, such as close attention to pronunciation,
intensive oral drilling, a focus on sentence patterns and memorization. In short,
students were expected to learn through drills rather than through an analysis
of the target language. The students who went through this ‘Army method’ were
mostly mature and highly motivated, and their success was dramatic. This success
meant that the method naturally continued on after the war, and it came to be
known as ‘Audiolingualism’.

5 An Overview of Applied Linguistics
Chomsky’s (1959) attack on the behaviourist underpinnings of structural
linguistics in the late 1950s proved decisive, and its associated pedagogical approach
– audiolingualism – began to fall out of favour. Supplanting the behaviourist idea
of habit-formation, language was now seen as governed by cognitive factors,
in particular a set of abstract rules which were assumed to be innate. Chomsky
(1959) suggested that children form hypotheses about their language that they
tested out in practice. Some would naturally be incorrect, but Chomsky and his
followers argued that children do not receive enough negative feedback from
other people about these inappropriate language forms (negative evidence) to be
able to discard them. Thus, some other mechanism must constrain the type of
hypotheses generated. Chomsky (1959) posited that children are born with an
understanding of the way languages work, which was referred to as ‘Universal
Grammar’. They would know the underlying principles of language (for example,
languages usually have pronouns) and their parameters (some languages allow
these pronouns to be dropped when in the subject position). Thus, children would
need only enough exposure to a language to determine whether their L1 allowed
the deletion of pronouns (+pro drop, for example, Japanese) or not (–pro drop, for
example, English). This parameter-setting would require much less exposure than
a habit-formation route, and so appeared a more convincing argument for how
children learned language so quickly. The ﬂurry of research inspired by Chomsky’s
ideas did much to stimulate the development of the ﬁeld of second language
acquisition and its psychological counterpart, psycholinguistics.
In the early 1970s, Hymes (1972) added the concept of ‘communicative
competence’, which emphasized that language competence consists of more
than just being able to ‘form grammatically correct sentences but also to know
when and where to use these sentences and to whom’ (Richards, Platt and Weber,
1985: 49). This helped to swing the focus from language ‘correctness’ (accuracy)
to how suitable any use of language was for a particular context (appropriacy).
At the same time, Halliday’s (1973) systemic-functional grammar was offering an
alternative to Chomsky’s approach, in which language was seen not as something
exclusively internal to a learner, but rather as a means of functioning in society.
Halliday (1973) identiﬁed three types of function:
• ideational (telling people facts or experiences)
• interpersonal (maintaining personal relationships with people)
• textual (expressing the connections and organization within a text, for example,
clarifying, summarizing, signalling the beginning and end of an argument).
This approach to language highlighted its communicative and dynamic nature.
These and other factors pushed the ﬁeld towards a more ‘communicative’ type of
pedagogy. In the mid-1970s, a Council of Europe project (van Ek, 1976) attempted
to create a Europe-wide language teaching system which was based on a survey of
L2 learners’ needs ( needs analysis ) and was ‘based on semantic categories related
to those needs, including the relevant concepts ( notions ) and uses of language
(functions )’ (Howatt, 1999: 624). The revised 1998 version (van Ek and Trim: 27)
lists six broad categories of language function:
• imparting and seeking factual information
• expressing and ﬁnding out attitudes
• getting things done (suasion)
• socializing

6An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• structuring discourse
• communication repair.
In addition, eight general categories of notions were listed, which are shown here
with representative examples of their sub-classes:
• existential (existence, presence, availability)
• spatial (location, distance, motion, size)
• temporal (indications of time, duration, sequence)
• quantitative (number, quantity, degree)
• qualitative (shape, colour, age, physical condition)
• mental (reﬂection, expression of ideas)
• relational (ownership, logical relations, effect)
• deixis (anaphoric and non-anaphoric proforms, articles).
The materials from this project were inﬂuential (for example, Threshold Level
English ), and textbooks based on a notional–functional syllabus became
widespread. In the early 1980s, a theory of acquisition promoted by Krashen
(1982) focused attention on the role of input. Krashen’s ‘Monitor theory’ posited
that a second language was mainly unconsciously acquired through exposure to
‘comprehensible input’ rather than being learnt through explicit exercises, that
it required a focus on meaning rather than form, and that a learner’s emotional
state can affect this acquisition (‘affective ﬁlter’). The pedagogical implications of
this theory were that classrooms should supply a rich source of language exposure
that was meaning-based and understandable, always including some elements
just beyond the current level of learners’ ability ( i+1).
The methodology which developed from these factors emphasized the use of
language for meaningful communication – communicative language teaching
(CLT) (Littlewood, 1981). The focus was on learners’ message and ﬂuency rather
than their grammatical accuracy. It was often taught through problem-solving
activities and tasks which required students to transact information, such as
information gap exercises. In these, one student is given information the other
does not have, with the two having to negotiate the exchange of that information.
Taken further, students could be taught some non-language-related subject, such as
history or politics, in the L2. The assumption was that the learners would acquire
the L2 simply by using it to learn the subject matter content, without the L2
being the focus of explicit instruction. Taking the communicative approach to its
logical extreme, students could be enrolled in ‘immersion’ programmes where they
attended primary or secondary schools which taught subject matter only in the L2.
Results from this kind of immersion programme, such as those initiated in
Canada but which now also exist elsewhere, showed that learners could indeed
become quite ﬂuent in an L2 through exposure without explicit instruction, and
that they developed excellent receptive skills. However, they also showed that the
learners continued to make certain persistent grammatical errors, even after many
years of instruction. In other words, a communicative approach helped learners
to become ﬂuent, but was insufﬁcient to ensure comparable levels of accuracy. It
seems as if a certain amount of explicit instruction focusing on language form may
be necessary as well. The current focus-on-form movement (for example, Doughty
and Williams, 1998) is an attempt to inject well-considered explicit instruction
back into language lessons without abandoning the positive features and results
of the communicative approach.

7 An Overview of Applied Linguistics
Just as language pedagogy developed and advanced during this time, so did the
ﬁeld of language assessment. Until the 1980s, tests were evaluated according to
three principal criteria:
• ‘Validity’ (did the test really measure what it was supposed to measure?)
• ‘Reliability’ (did the test perform consistently from one administration to the
next?)
• ‘Practicality’ (was the test practical to give and mark in a particular setting?).
These criteria focused very much on the test itself, and took little notice of the
effects it might have on the people (‘stakeholders’) involved with it. Messick
(1989) changed this with a seminal paper which argued that tests could not be
considered ‘valid’ or ‘not valid’ in a black and white manner by focusing only
on test-internal factors; rather, one needed to argue for the validity of a test by
considering a variety of factors: for what kind of examinee was the test suitable;
what reasonable inferences could be derived from the scores?; how did the test
method affect the scores?; what kind of positive or negative effect (‘washback’)
might the test have on stakeholders? and many others. Now, tests are seen in the
context of a complete assessment environment, which includes stakeholders (for
example, examinees, raters, administrators, government ofﬁcials), test conditions
(for example, can everyone hear the tape recorder clearly), the intended use of
the scores (for example, will they be used for relatively ‘high-stakes’ purposes
(university admission) versus relatively ‘low stakes’ purposes (a classroom quiz)) and
characteristics of the test itself (Are the instructions clear? What kind of tasks does
the test employ?). Within this framework, tests are generally seen as being suitable
for particular purposes and particular sets of learners, rather than ‘one size ﬁts all’.
Since every classroom and group of learners is somewhat different, there has been a
move towards exploring the value of alternative types of assessment which can be
individualized to suit particular situations. These include structured observation,
progress grids, portfolios, learning journals, project work, peer-assessment and self-
assessment. ( See Chapter 15, Assessment , for more on these issues.)
Technology was advancing throughout the century, but the advent of powerful
and affordable personal computers probably has had the greatest impact on
applied linguistics. Of course, language laboratories had utilized technology since
the mid- to late-1940s, but the relatively recent development of very capable
personal computers made quite sophisticated language programs available to the
individual user, whether learner, teacher or researcher. Pedagogically, this opened
the door to ‘computer-assisted language learning’ (CALL), where learners could
work on individual computers truly at their own pace. Computer technology
has also facilitated the incorporation of audio and video input into learning
programs on a scale previously unimaginable. The best of the current programs
are interactive, tailoring their input and tasks to individual learners’ progress,
although it must be said that much remains to be done in this area. With new
learning programs arriving regularly, today CALL is one of the more dynamic
areas in applied linguistics.
Computing technology also made it possible to analyse large databases of
language, called ‘corpora’. Evidence from corpora have provided numerous
insights into the workings of language (Egbert and Hanson-Smith, 1999; see
also Chapter 6, Corpus Linguistics ). Perhaps the most important revelation is the
vast amount of lexical patterning which exists; in fact, it is so great that some
scholars have suggested that it is more important than grammar in contributing

8An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
to the organization of language (Sinclair, 1996). Corpora are now a key tool in
lexicography, and have been consulted in the development of most current learner
dictionaries. Evidence from corpora of spoken discourse has also highlighted the
differences between spoken and written discourse (McCarthy and Carter, 1997),
and the fact that language is largely phrasal in nature (Biber, Johansson, Leech,
Conrad and Finegan, 1999; Wray, 2002). Happily, corpora have now made truly
descriptive grammars possible, with writers having numerous authentic examples
of many grammatical structures at their ﬁngertips (Carter and McCarthy, 2006).
The best studies in this area can even distinguish varying language usage between
different registers, for example written ﬁction versus academic prose (Biber,
Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan, 1999). It is likely that evidence from
corpus linguistics will continue to have a major inﬂuence on applied linguistic
thinking well into the foreseeable future.
Incorporating Social and Cultural Elements into Applied Linguistics
The mid-twentieth century domination of behaviourism as the overriding
psychological paradigm (at least in English-speaking countries) meant that only
stimuli (that is, teaching input) and reactions (student responses) which could
be observed were considered worthy of discussion in the area of psychology. In
linguistics, a similar dichotomy occurred when Saussure (1857–1913; see Saussure,
1966) split language (‘langue’) from the actual use of language (‘parole’). Chomsky’s
(1965) ideas had a similar effect as they distinguished what was happening inside
the learner (‘language competence’) from what was observable outside the person
(‘language performance’).
There were some voices speaking out against these divisions, such as Vygotsky
(1896–1934; see Vygotsky, 1987), but political and academic factors kept their
inﬂuence in check until the latter part of the twentieth century. In the late
1960s, Labov (1970) began exploring how social factors inﬂuence L1 language
use and Tarone (1979) and others later did the same for L2 usage. The study of
the interface of social factors and language use eventually developed into the
ﬁeld of ‘sociolinguistics’. Similarly, it was acknowledged that the context in which
language is used (for example, for what purpose, the relative power relationship
between interlocutors) also affects the language of communication. The study of
these factors blossomed in the area of ‘pragmatics’. Together, these ﬁelds, along
with the closely related area of ‘discourse analysis’, have shown that social and
contextual inﬂuences cannot be divorced from individual learners when language
learning and use are studied.
One view of cognition, called ‘sociocultural theory’, emphasizes individual–
social integration by focusing on the necessary and dialectic relationship between
the sociocultural endowment (the ‘ inter’-personal interface between a person
and his or her environment) and the biological endowment (the ‘ intra’-personal
mechanisms and processes belonging to that person), out of which emerges the
individual. Sociocultural theory suggests that in order to understand the human
mind, one must look at these two endowments in an integrated manner, as
considering either one individually will inevitably result in an incomplete, and
thus inaccurate, representation. For it is only through social interaction with
others that humans develop their language and cognition. Furthermore, most
language use (spoken or written) is co-constructed with others and not simply the
product of one individual acting alone in a vacuum.

9 An Overview of Applied Linguistics
Psycholinguistic Perspectives in Applied Linguistics
One of the most noticeable recent trends has been the establishment of a more
psychological perspective of language acquisition, processing and use. This
perspective is being driven by a number of sub-ﬁelds (cognitive linguistics,
neurolinguistics, cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience (see Dörnyei, 2009)),
but I will use the umbrella cover term psycholinguistics here, as that is the title
of the chapter in this volume which covers this general approach (see Chapter
8, Psycholinguistics ). Psycholinguistic perspectives have now become a major
inﬂuence in applied linguistics, in areas ranging from theory building to research
methodology (Field, 2003; Gaskell, 2009; Harley, 2008).
Perhaps the most noticeable outcome is that the current leading theories of
how second languages are acquired are all informed by psycholinguistic thinking
and research. Although these theories differ somewhat, at heart most of them
maintain that the mind extracts the recurring patterns from the language input
a learner receives. These patterns exist with the smallest components of language
all the way up to overall connected discourse. For example, some graphemes
often cluster together in English ( spl – splatter, split, spleen ), while others rarely
or never do ( zlf). Also, afﬁxes attach to stems in systematic ways ( re- + play =
replay ). Similarly, words co-occur together in patterns called collocations (black
coffee, strong coffee, hot coffee, but not **powerful coffee ). Patterns even exist at
the level of discourse, as every reader would expect some type of Introduction–
Body–Conclusion organization in an academic text. Current thinking is that the
human mind is very good at extracting these patterns and using them to build
up a picture of the systematicity of a language. In essence, the learner’s linguistic
knowledge is ‘constructed’ through general learning mechanisms, rather than
being innately in place, as Chomsky posited more than half a century earlier.
The process is implicit, but eventually the patterns may become salient enough
that a learner is able to describe them explicitly. Various versions of this ‘pattern
extraction’ can be seen in the connectionism (Elman, 2001), emergentism (Ellis
and Larsen-Freeman, 2006), usage/exemplar-based (Ellis, 2008) and construction
grammar (Tomasello, 2003) theories of language acquisition and use.
A related trend is use of psycholinguistic research methodologies to explore
language processing in much more detail than before possible. Previously, most
language measurement required explicit knowledge of linguistic features because
learners were required to write down or say their answers. Newer psycholinguistic
techniques can look into the inner workings of the brain while learners are using
language in various ways. This allows exploration of linguistic knowledge even
before learners become aware of it. This has now made research into the very
initial pre-conscious stages of language learning possible. For example, Schmitt (in
press) describes how this is beginning to revolutionize research into vocabulary
acquisition. He relates how:
• Reaction-timing studies can inform about the development of automaticity of
lexical access.
• Priming studies can show the acquisition of collocation pairings.
• Eye-movement studies can show how formulaic sequences are read by native
and non-native speakers.
• Event-Related Potentials (ERP) can indicate the very earliest traces of lexical learning.
*An asterisk indicates a form that is ungrammatical or inappropriate.

10An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) can show the locations where
various types of word (that is, words relating to parts of the body) are activated
in the brain.
Language is immensely complex and numerous factors affect how it is learned.
While past research has often considered how these factors work in combination
to lead to the end product of learning, there is a growing awareness that the
various factors also affect each other in dynamic and ﬂuid ways. For example,
language learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC) is partially dependent
on their levels of proﬁciency and on their linguistic self-conﬁdence. However,
while the two factors exert their effect on WTC, they themselves can also change
(for example, successful communication can improve the learner’s language
proﬁciency and enhance their conﬁdence) (Dörnyei, 2009). In addition, it is easy
to see how the two factors can affect each other. Greater proﬁciency should lead
to greater conﬁdence. Conversely, greater conﬁdence may lead to the learners
putting themselves in situations where they use and practise their language more,
which in turn may lead to improved proﬁciency. Complex interactions like these
are difﬁcult to describe and understand and, in an effort to do so, some researchers
are working to adapt methods from other ﬁelds which have to model complex
and difﬁcult-to-predict phenomena (for example, weather). The methods come
under several names: Dynamic(al) systems theory, Complexity theory and Chaos
theory. Although it is still in its early days, given the dynamic nature of language
acquisition and use, it is likely that this type of approach will prove increasingly
inﬂuential in the future. For overviews, see Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008)
and de Bot, Lowie and Verspoor (2007).
Themes to Watch For in this Book
This book includes a broad selection of major areas in Applied Linguistics. But this
diversity does not mean that each area can be isolated and dealt with on its own.
On the contrary, true understanding of any individual area can only be gained
by understanding others which are related. For example, to truly understand the
information in Chapter 3, Vocabulary , one must take on board the insights given
in Chapter 6, Corpus Linguistics . In fact, if we look deeply enough, nearly all of
the areas are related to each other in some way. This being the case, there are
several themes that run through the various chapters. These underlying currents
are important because they add coherence to the overall discussion and represent
an entry point to understanding and critiquing the ideas in this book.
The Interrelationship of the Areas of Applied Linguistics
There is a story from India about the ﬁve blind men of Hindustan who went out
to learn about an elephant. They all felt different parts of the elephant’s body and
came to very different conclusions about what an elephant is like. The man who
felt the trunk thought an elephant was like a snake, the one who felt a leg thought
elephants were like a tree, the one who felt the ear thought elephants were like a
fan, and so on. Similarly, language is a big, complex subject and we are nowhere
near to being able to comprehend it in its entirety. The best any person can do at
the moment is to study a limited number of elements of language, language use
and language learning, and try to understand those elements in detail. Although

11 An Overview of Applied Linguistics
we strive to connect this understanding with insights from other areas in the
applied linguistics ﬁeld, we can only be partially successful. Thus we end up with
scholars becoming specialists in areas of applied linguistics, but with no single
person able to master the whole ﬁeld. (That is why this is an edited volume and
not a book written by a single author.) This is inevitable and happens in every
ﬁeld, but it does mean that applied linguistics is compartmentalized to some
extent. We must be aware of this and realize that this compartmentalization is
an expedient which enables us to get around our cognitive limitations as human
beings; it is not the way language works in the real world. Language, language
learning and language use are a seamless whole and all of the various elements
interact with each other in complex ways. Each chapter in this book looks at one
area of specialization, but when reading them, it is useful to remember that they
make up only one part of the larger ‘complete elephant’.
The Move from Discrete to more Holistic and Integrative
Perspectives
Despite the above-mentioned caveat about compartmentalization, we are getting
better at being able to grasp larger and larger bits of the language elephant. Up
until the middle of the last century, language was viewed in very discrete terms:
it was made up of grammar, phonology and vocabulary, each of which could be
separately identiﬁed and described. (In fact, phonetics was the ﬁrst area within
linguistics to become well-developed (late nineteenth century) and the Reform
Movement in language teaching, led by phoneticians, was very inﬂuential in
encouraging a focus on the spoken language.) The last 40 years have seen a move
towards viewing language in much more integrative and holistic terms. We now
know that language use is not just a product of a number of individual language
‘knowledge bits’ which reside completely within ‘interlocutors’ (language users);
it is also profoundly affected by a number of other factors, such as the social
context (who you are communicating with and for what purpose), the degree
of involvement and interaction, the mode of communication (written versus
spoken) and time constraints. Taking these and other factors into account gives us
a much richer and more accurate account of the way language is actually used and
leads to a better description of the knowledge and skills which make up language
proﬁciency. In fact Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) have proposed a discourse-
based framework for language teaching designed to deal with all these factors
simultaneously. In the rest of this book, therefore, a trend worth watching is
how the various areas of applied linguistics now embrace integrative perspectives
which acknowledge the complex interplay of numerous factors.
Lexico-grammar and Formulaic Language
The areas of vocabulary and grammar provide a good example of this new
integrative approach. Traditionally, vocabulary was viewed as individual words
which could be taught and used in isolation. With grammar being highlighted
in most theories and pedagogical methodologies, vocabulary items were seen
merely as ‘slot ﬁllers’ necessary to ﬁll out syntactic structures. This conception
saw vocabulary and grammar as two discrete entities which could be taught and
learnt separately. This view is starting to change and one of the most interesting
developments in applied linguistics today is the realization that vocabulary and

12An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
grammar are not necessarily separate things, but may be viewed as two elements
of a single language system referred to as ‘lexico-grammar’ (Halliday, 1978). This
term acknowledges that much of the systematicity in language comes from lexical
choices and the grammatical behaviour of those choices. For example, you can
use the word plain in many ways and in many grammatical constructions, but
once you choose the collocation made it plain you are more or less constrained to
using the following structure:
SOMEONE/SOMETHING made it plain that SOMETHING AS YET UNREALIZED
(often with authority) WAS INTENDED OR DESIRED
(Schmitt, 2000: 189)
This structure should not be viewed in terms of being ﬁrst generated with grammar,
and then the words simply slotted into the blanks. Rather, this structure is likely
to reside in memory as a bit of formulaic language which is already formed, that
is, it is a ‘formulaic sequence’. Since it is preformed and ‘ready to go’, it should
take less cognitive energy to produce than sequences which have to be created
from scratch (Pawley and Syder, 1983; Conklin and Schmitt, 2008). Evidence from
corpora show that much of language is made up of such ‘multi-word units’, many
of which are likely to be preformulated in the mind ( see Moon, 1997; Wray, 2002).
Because we now believe that a great deal of language is stored in peoples’ minds
as these ‘chunks’, it makes little sense to attempt to analyse those chunks as if
they were generated online according to grammar rules. This insight is forcing a
reappraisal of both how we consider language itself and how it is processed.
Bringing the Language Learner into the Discussion
Previously, much of the discussion about language learning focused on the best
techniques and materials for teaching. In other words, it had a focus on the
teacher. There seemed to be an unexpressed view that the learner was somehow a
‘container’ into which language knowledge could be poured. This view ﬁtted well
with teacher-fronted classes and behaviourist theories which suggested learning
was merely the result of practice and conditioning. However, in the early 1970s,
it was realized that learners are active participants in the learning process and
should be allowed to take substantial responsibility for their own learning. This
led to interest in the various ways in which individual learners were different
from one another and how that might affect their learning. It ﬁrst led to the
development of the area of ‘learner strategies’. If learners were, in fact, active
participants then it followed that what these learners did would make a difference
in the quality and speed of their learning. Studies were carried out to ﬁnd out
what behaviours differentiated ‘good’ from ‘poor’ learners (Naiman, Fröhlich,
Stern and Todesco, 1978). From these studies, lists of learning strategies which
good learners used were developed and it was suggested that all learners could
beneﬁt from training in these strategies. Of course, nothing in applied linguistics
is so straightforward, and it was eventually discovered that the correspondence
between strategy training and use, and higher language achievement, was less
direct than previously assumed. It is clear that effective strategy use can facilitate
language learning (Oxford, 1990), but it is still unclear how to best train learners
to use strategies, or indeed how effective strategy training is in general.
More recently, there has been a great deal of emphasis on how the individual
characteristics of each learner affects their learning (that is, individual differences).

13 An Overview of Applied Linguistics
Clearly, a range of differences either constrain or facilitate the rate at which second
languages are learned, including age (Birdsong, 2006), aptitude (Dörnyei, 2005),
learning style preferences (Cohen and Weaver, 2006), strategy use (Grifﬁths,
2008) and motivation (Dörnyei, 2005). The area of individual differences will be
discussed in detail in Chapter 10, Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies,
and Motivation.
New Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills
The teaching of the four language skills ( see Chapter 11, Listening , Chapter 12,
Speaking and Pronunciation , Chapter 13, Reading , and Chapter 14, Writing ) has long
been an important concern in second language pedagogy. Language use inevitably
involves one or more of the four skills, thus this text devotes a chapter to each
language skill. Although it is useful to give attention to the unique sub-skills and
strategies associated with each skill, it is also important to consider the overlaps in
mode (oral versus written) and process (receptive versus productive):
Oral Written
Receptive LISTENING READING
Productive SPEAKING WRITING
Furthermore, each skill may usefully be described in terms of the top-down
and bottom-up processing required. Listeners and readers work to decode and
construct meanings and messages, whereas speakers and writers use language
resources to encode and express meanings and messages. These meanings and
messages occur at the level of text or discourse; thus, discourse analysis is highly
relevant to understanding the four skills. Top-down processing utilizes shared
knowledge, pragmatic knowledge and contextual information to achieve an
appropriate interpretation or realization of textual meanings and messages.
Bottom-up processing depends on language resources – lexico-grammar and
phonology (pronunciation) or orthography – as aids to the accurate decoding or
interpretation, or encoding or realization, of meaningful text.
Typically, more than one language skill is involved in any communicative
activity (for example, we take turns at listening and speaking in conversation,
we write notes while listening to a lecture, we read a passage carefully in order to
write a summary, etc.). If teachers focus on one skill for purposes of pedagogy and
practice, that is, to improve learners’ use of that skill, the ultimate goal should
always be to move from such practice toward the types of integrated skill use that
the learners are likely to need when using the target language for communication.
The Lack of ‘Black and White’ Answers
Because language is created and processed both between interlocutors and within
the human mind, much of what is of interest in applied linguistics is hidden from
direct view and study. Despite the advances in psycholinguistic methodologies,
we cannot yet look into the human brain and directly observe language, which
means that most research has to rely on indirect evidence observable through
language processing and use. The results of such indirect evidence need to be
interpreted, and usually more than one interpretation is possible. This makes it
difﬁcult to say much with complete certainty about language learning and use.
You will notice that throughout the book there are a number of theories and

14An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
hypotheses and that different scholars hold different positions on key issues. Until
‘neurolinguistics’ develops to a point which allows us to directly track language
in a physiological manner (Brown and Hagoort, 1999; Paradis, 2004; Schumann
et al., 2004), a degree of controversy and multiplicity of views seems inevitable.
It thus remains the responsibility of researchers, teachers and you the reader to
evaluate the various proposed positions and decide which makes the most sense.
Readers looking for easy, tidy and absolute answers may be disappointed, but
should remain open to new directions in the future.
Conclusion
From the discussion in this overview, it should be obvious that our ﬁeld’s views
on language, language learning and language use are not static, but are constantly
evolving. At the point in time when you read this book, they will still be changing.
Thus, you should consider the ideas in this book (and any book) critically and
remain open to future directions in the ﬁeld.
Further Reading
Howatt, A.P.R. (2004) A History of English Language Teaching (second edition). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kelly, L.G. (1969) 25 Centuries of Language Teaching . Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Two books which give a historical background to the key applied linguistics area of second
language teaching and learning (focusing primarily on English as a second language).
Carter, R., Nunan, D. (eds.) (2001) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. and Davison, C. (eds.) (2007) International Handbook of English Language
Teaching, Parts 1 and 2 . New York: Springer.
Davies, A. and Elder, C. (eds.) (2006) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics . Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hinkel, E. (ed.). (2005) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaplan, R.B. (ed.) (2005) The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Spolsky, B. (ed.) (1999) Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics . Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
There is now a range of encyclopaedia/handbooks that cover the areas of applied
linguistics and English language teaching, and the above six volumes are a representative
sample. They tend to be longer books that cover a more comprehensive range of
subjects than the present text, although each area is often covered in less depth. They
are primarily meant as reference volumes where teachers and researchers can look up a
range of topics and obtain a brief overview of that subject.

15 An Overview of Applied Linguistics
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (second
edition). New York: Oxford University Press. A very accessible book which describes,
and gives examples, of the various major teaching methodologies used in the twentieth
century.
Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.) (2001) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (third
edition). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. A comprehensive introductory volume intended for
preservice teachers focusing on teaching language skills and pedagogical issues.
Crystal, D. (1997) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (second edition).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A lively table-top reference book which gives
interesting snippets on a wide variety of language issues, the vast majority of them
focusing on the L1 (but including an L2 section).

This page intentionally left blank

1
Description of Language and
Language Use

Grammar
Diane Larsen-Freeman
University of Michigan
Jeanette DeCarrico
Portland State University
Introduction: Grammar and Grammars
When it comes to deﬁnitions of grammar, confusion abounds. One problem is
that the word ‘grammar’ means different things to different people. For many, the
term suggests a list of do’s and don’ts, rules that tell us we should say It is I , not It is
me, that we should not say ain’t, or that we should avoid ending a sentence with a
preposition. For others, the term may refer to the rules of grammar found mainly
in written language, for example, rules that label sentence fragments as incorrect
even though they are often found in spoken language (for example, ‘Working on a
term paper’ as a response to the question ‘What are you doing?’ ), or that admonish
us not to begin sentences with and or but, though again, this usage is common in
spoken English. For still others, it may simply mean an objective description of
the structures of language, with no comment concerning correct versus incorrect
forms.
Grammars with rules that make distinctions between correct and incorrect
forms are deﬁned as ‘prescriptive’ grammars. They tell us how we ought to speak,
as in It is I , and how we ought not to speak, as in It is me , or He ain’t home .
This approach codiﬁes certain distinctions between standard and non-standard
varieties, and often makes overt value judgements by referring to the standard
varieties as correct, or ‘good’, English and the non-standard as incorrect, or ‘bad’,
English.
Grammars that do not make these distinctions and that aim to describe language as
it is actually used are called ‘descriptive’ grammars. The rules are more like a blueprint
for building well-formed structures, and they represent speakers’ unconscious
knowledge, or ‘mental grammar’ of the language. Taking this unconscious knowledge
into account, this approach focuses on describing how native speakers actually do
speak and does not prescribe how they ought to speak. No value judgements are
made, but rather the value-neutral terms ‘grammatical’ and ‘ungrammatical’ are
used to distinguish between patterns that are well-formed, possible sentences or
phrases in a language and those that are not. For example, The cow ate the corn is a
grammatical sentence in English, but *Ate the corn the cow is ungrammatical. (An
asterisk indicates a form that is ungrammatical or inappropriate.) Grammar in this
sense consists of rules of syntax, which specify how words and phrases combine
to form sentences, and rules of morphology, which specify how word forms are
constructed (for example, present and past tense distinctions: love, loved ; number
distinctions: word, words ) and so on. For linguists, a descriptive grammar may also
be a more detailed look at language, including not only syntax and morphology but
also phonetics, phonology, semantics and lexis (that is, vocabulary).
For applied linguists, the focus is more on ‘pedagogical grammar’, the type
of grammar designed for the needs of second-language students and teachers. 2

19 Grammar
Although teaching grammar in a second language does involve some of the
prescriptive rules for the standard varieties, a pedagogical grammar resembles a
descriptive grammar much more than a prescriptive one, especially in terms of the
range of structures covered (Odlin, 1994). And while certain linguistic grammars
tend to be narrowly focused, pedagogical grammars are typically more eclectic,
drawing on insights from formal and functional grammars ( see below ), as well as
work on corpus linguistics, discourse analysis and pragmatics, addressed in other
chapters in this volume. For after all, applied linguists must be concerned that
students not only can produce grammatical structures that are formally accurate;
students must be able to use them meaningfully and appropriately as well.
Issues when Describing Grammar
A descriptive approach to grammar may seem a simple matter, but in practice
it is somewhat more complicated than it may ﬁrst appear. The outcome will be
different depending on which parts of the grammar are included and on what the
focus of the description is.
Which Rules to Describe
For one thing, we tend to expect grammars to state rules in terms of general
statements, to describe how structures behave in a predictable, rule-governed way.
Yet a moment’s reﬂection tells us that some rules apply more consistently than
others. For example, whereas the ordering rule for auxiliaries is invariant (modal
auxiliaries such as would, might and so on, always precede the primary auxiliaries
have or be, as in, would have tried , might be trying but not *have would tried , *be might
trying ), the subject–verb agreement rule admits exceptions (verbs take the sufﬁx
-s if their subject is third person singular, as in He leaves , but there are exceptions
such as subjunctive forms, I insist that he leave now ). Plural titles of books, plays,
ﬁlms, etc. are also sometimes exceptions to the subject–verb agreement rule
(Angela’s Ashes is a novel about growing up in an impoverished Irish family ). We will
also discuss other examples below in which the intended meaning dictates the
form of the verb, regardless of the number of the subject.
As these examples indicate, grammar must include both rules that are invariant
and rules that admit variations. Notice that these examples fall under well-
established categories of acceptable, standard English. But what about different
varieties? Some descriptive grammars may include only standard varieties as
spoken and written on formal occasions by educated speakers of the language,
whereas others may focus more on standard forms but also include certain non-
standard, or ‘informal’, variants. Grammars intended for use by students of
writing, for instance, typically include only those forms acceptable in formal
writing. Pedagogical grammars, on the other hand, may focus on standard formal
patterns but also include a number of informal alternatives, with explanations
of the situations in which each is acceptable, for example, class assignments, job
interviews and the like typically require formal writing or speaking ( How do you
do?, I would like to enquire about X ), whereas casual conversation with friends tends
towards informal expressions ( Hi there, What’s up? ).
These examples illustrate that issues of what to include can often be decided
on the basis of the intended audience. There are other issues that depend on
a particular view of what grammar is and on what type of description accords

20An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
with that particular view. These include formal versus functional approaches to
grammatical description, considerations of type versus token, sentence versus
discourse grammar and the role of spoken versus written forms. Choices based on
these issues have far-reaching implications, not only for the particular framework
of the grammar itself but also for applications that inﬂuence the design of
pedagogical grammars, of syllabuses and of teaching approaches. The remainder
of this section addresses these issues in more detail.
Form and Function
Models of grammar differ greatly, depending on whether they are formal grammars
or functional grammars. Formal grammar is concerned with the forms themselves
and with how they operate within the overall system of grammar. Traditional
grammar, which describes the structure of sentences, is perhaps the best known
formal grammar. Among linguists, the most inﬂuential formal grammar in the
latter half of the twentieth century has been the generative (transformational)
theory of grammar (Chomsky, 1957, 1965), the general principles of which are
still the basis for Chomsky’s later versions of generative grammar in the form
of principles and parameters (Chomsky, 1981) and the minimalist programme
(Chomsky, 1995), and for dozens of other competing variants developed within
some version of the generative framework. The focus is primarily syntax and
morphology.
Generative theory is based on a rationalist approach, the central assumption
being that language is represented as a speaker’s mental grammar, a set of abstract
rules for generating grammatical sentences. This mental grammar, or internalized,
unconscious knowledge of the system of rules, is termed ‘competence’. The rules
generate the syntactic structure and lexical items from appropriate grammatical
categories (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) are selected to ﬁll in the corresponding
grammatical slots in the syntactic frame of the sentence. The interests of generative
linguists focus mainly on rule-governed behaviour and on the grammatical
structure of sentences and do not include concerns for the appropriate use of
language in context.
Hymes (1972), an anthropological linguist, developed a functional model that
focuses more on appropriate use of language, that is, on how language functions
in discourse. Although not rejecting Chomsky’s model entirely, Hymes (1972)
extended it and gave greater emphasis to sociolinguistic and pragmatic factors.
A central concern of his model is the concept of ‘communicative competence’,
which emphasizes language as meaningful communication, including the
appropriate use of language in particular social contexts (for example, informal
conversation at the dinner table versus formal conversation at the bank). For Hymes
(1972), communicative competence is deﬁned as ‘the capabilities of a person’, a
competence which is ‘dependent upon both [tacit] knowledge and [ability for] use’
(Hymes, 1972: 282). In other words, it includes not only knowledge of the rules in
Chomsky’s sense (grammatical competence) but also the ability to use language in
various contexts (pragmatic competence). For example, it includes knowing how
to formulate a yes/no question (Operator–NP–VP), and knowing that only certain
types (for example, ‘Could you VP?’ ) function as polite requests and knowing how
to use them appropriately.
In applied linguistics, the inﬂuence of these theoretical models is evident
in various areas. For example, the approach to grammar as abstract linguistic

21 Grammar
descriptions is found in learners’ grammars such as Quirk et al. (1972), a descriptive
grammar that deals with abstract forms as syntactic combinations of words. On
the other hand, a functional approach is evident in Leech and Svartvik (1975),
a communicative grammar based on correspondences between structure and
function. In this learners’ grammar, each section is built around a major function
of language, such as denial and afﬁrmation, describing emotions, and presenting
and focusing information.
Inﬂuence of different models of grammar can also be seen in syllabus design.
Many ESL or EFL grammar texts are based on a structural syllabus design deﬁned in
formal terms, with lexical items and grammatical patterns presented according to
structural categories such as nouns and noun phrases, verbs and verb phrases, verb
tense and aspect, and clause and sentence types. In contrast, notional syllabuses
are deﬁned in functional terms such as the speech acts of requesting, ‘Could you
VP?’; offering, ‘Would you like X?’ and so on; these notional syllabuses developed
at a time when linguistic interest had begun to shift to the communicative
properties of language (Widdowson, 1979).
Various teaching approaches also draw on insights from these differing approaches
to grammar. Approaches inﬂuenced by formal theories such as generative grammar
tend to view language learning as rule acquisition and, therefore, focus on
formalized rules of grammar. Those that evolved from functional considerations,
known as communicative language teaching, view language as communication
and tend to promote ﬂuency over accuracy, consequently shifting the focus from
sentence-level forms to communicative functions, such as requests, greetings,
apologies and the like.
More recently, some applied linguists have argued for an approach that
draws not on one or the other, but on both (Rutherford and Sharwood Smith,
1988; Widdowson, 1989). Widdowson (1989) is particularly insistent that it is
a mistake to concentrate solely on functional considerations while ignoring
form altogether. He observes, for instance, that just as approaches that rely too
heavily on achievement of rules of grammar often lead to dissociation from any
consideration of appropriateness, so approaches which rely too heavily on an
ability to use language appropriately can lead to a lack of necessary grammatical
knowledge and of the ability to compose or decompose sentences with reference
to it. There is, he says, ‘evidence that excessive zeal for communicative language
teaching can lead to just such a state of affairs’ (Widdowson, 1989: 131). What is
needed is an approach that provides a middle ground in that it neglects neither.
Newer linguistic theories that attempt to combine form and meaning (though
they give less attention to appropriate use) are cognitive grammar (Langacker, 1987)
and construction grammar (Fillmore, Kay, and O’Connor, 1988). Constructions
integrate form and meaning at various levels of complexity from the morphology
of words to phrases to clauses. An oft-cited example is that of English verb-
argument constructions (Goldberg, 2006). For instance, many English verbs enter
into a pattern called the ‘ditransitive’ or ‘double object’ construction, in which
the indirect object precedes the direct object following the verb. This construction
entails the meaning ‘X causes Y to receive Z’, as in ‘ Sam mailed Paul a letter’ .
When newer verbs enter into this construction, they inherit the semantics of the
construction and force us to interpret the sentence in the same way. For example,
‘Paul faxed Sam a reply’ . It is important to note that, contrary to formal grammar,
construction grammar takes the position that certain words ﬁt certain patterns.
In other words, it is not the case that any word will ﬁll any slot in a construction.

22An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Pedagogical grammarians Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) give
strong support to the view that, in language teaching, a formal or functional
approach should not be taken to the exclusion of the other. In fact, these authors
recommend adopting a three-prong approach, including meaning as a separate
dimension, along with those of form and function. They recognize that grammar
is not merely a collection of forms ‘but rather involves the three dimensions of
what linguists refer to as (morpho)syntax, semantics, and pragmatics’ (Celce-
Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999: 4). They illustrate the importance of all three
dimensions by means of a pie chart divided into equal and interconnected parts
labelled ‘Form’, ‘Meaning’ and ‘Use’ (Figure 2.1). They feel this chart is useful
as a conceptual framework for teaching grammar as it serves as a reminder that
learners need not only to achieve a certain degree of formal accuracy, but that
they also need to use the structures meaningfully and appropriately as well ( see
also Larsen-Freeman, 2001; 2003).
MORPHOSYNTAX/FORM
How is it formed?SEMANTICS/MEANING
What does it mean?
PRAGMATICS/USE
When/why is it used?
Figure 2.1 Interconnected dimensions of grammar
Type versus Token
In terms of descriptive grammars, there still remain questions about what it is,
exactly, that should be described. Descriptions of language will also have different
outcomes depending on whether they account for types of linguistic elements
in the abstract, or for tokens of linguistic elements as they actually occur in
contexts of use. Descriptions that deal with forms in the abstract describe a range
of category types, but those that deal with actual tokens (instances) of language
use reveal more than category types: they also reveal the relative frequency of
forms and their habitual co-occurrence in different contexts. Whereas a type
description might present a broad array of structures and give each equal weight,
a token description ‘might well reveal that some of these were of rare occurrence,
or restricted to a realization through a limited range of lexical items, almost

23 Grammar
exclusively conﬁned to certain contexts, or associated with certain meanings’
(Widdowson, 1990: 75).
With the development of computers and computer analysis of language, token
descriptions are now possible on a massive scale, and such descriptions have
revolutionalized the way we view language ( see Chapter 6, Corpus Linguistics ). A
well-known example is the COBUILD Bank of English Corpus, which contains
more than 500 million words (mostly from written texts). Sinclair (1985) notes
that type descriptions lacking attested data do not provide an adequate source of
reference for language teaching. Instead, he believes that language for pedagogical
purposes should be a projection of what actually occurs as recorded by the
computer analysis of text.
Projects based on analyses of this and other corpus studies have produced various
dictionaries and grammars, including the Collins COBUILD English Grammar
(1990) of which Sinclair was Editor-in-Chief; Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad,
and Finegan (1999); Hunston and Francis (2000); and Carter and McCarthy
(2006). These grammars attempt to make statements about English, as attested by
an analysis of patterns of words in linguistic corpora.
Discourse Grammar
Corpus studies have also led to an increased interest in analyses of ‘discourse
grammar’, that is, analyses of the functional roles of grammatical structures in
discourse. Here we are using discourse to mean the organization of language at a
level above the sentence or individual conversational turn – that which connects
language at the suprasentential level. In addition to the discourse context, there
is also the inﬂuence that the non-linguistic co-text plays in the deployment of a
speaker’s grammatical resources.
Speakers and writers make grammatical choices that depend on how they
construe and wish to represent the context and on how they wish to position
themselves in it (Larsen-Freeman, 2002). For example, speakers use the past
perfect tense–aspect combination in English, not only to indicate the ﬁrst of
two past events, but also to give a reason or justiﬁcation for the main events of
the narrative. These events are not the main events themselves but, rather, are
felt to be an essential background to what happened ( see McCarthy and Carter,
1994; Hughes and McCarthy, 1998). The italicized structure in the following
excerpt, from an illustration given by Hughes and McCarthy (1998), occurs in a
conversation between two young women who are talking about mutual friends
from their days together at Brunel University.
Speaker 1: Got on better with Glynbob I think and John Bish let me and Trudie sleep in
his bed last time we went up to Brunel or the one time when we stayed in Old Windsor
with them cos erm Ben had given us his room cos he’d gone away for the weekend
and erm it was me and Trudie just in Ben’s room and John Doughty had a double bed so
he, John Bish had a double bed so he offered us this double bed between us and then slept
in Ben’s room cos Ben and PQ had gone away for the weekend.
(Hughes and McCarthy, 1998: 270)
Hughes and McCarthy (1998) note that the italicized past perfects seem to give a
reason or justiﬁcation for the main events. In a similar vein, Celce-Murcia (1998)
argues that the vast majority of grammatical choices that writers make represent

24An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
‘rules’ that are discourse-sensitive, including position of adverbials, passive versus
active voice, indirect object and direct object, sequencing, pronominalization
across independent clauses, article/determiner selection, use of existential there
and tense–aspect–modality choice. The order of adverbial clauses viz-a-viz main
clauses in sentences, for instance, is not simply random. Rather, it has been found
that sentence-initial adverbial clauses serve an important discourse-organizing
role by linking up information in the main clause with information in the
previous discourse; sentence-ﬁnal clauses, in contrast, generally only expand the
local main clause (Thompson, 1985; DeCarrico, 2000). The following example,
from DeCarrico (2000), illustrates this point. It is an excerpt from a description of
the painter Winslow Homer.
Thoreau had called the seacoast a ‘wild rank place … with no ﬂattery in it.’ Homer,
in his later years, consciously cultivated a briney persona that matched [the seacoast]
roughness. When he was not communing with the roaring sea from his studio, on
Prout’s Neck, Maine, he was off in the Adirondacks with his brother, Charles, angling
for trout.
(DeCarrico, 2000: 194)
The ﬁrst sentence establishes, as the discourse topic, the ruggedness of the seacoast
and Homer’s deliberate cultivation of a rugged persona to match. DeCarrico
(2000) notes that, given this context, the initial placement of the when adverbial
clause not only functions within the sentence to indicate a time relation between
the events within the two clauses themselves, but it also serves as a discourse link
between the previously established topic, that of the wild seacoast and the pursuit
of a briney persona, and the idea of being off in the Adirondacks angling for trout.
If normal word order had been used, with the adverbial clause in ﬁnal position,
the linkage with the previous discourse would be much less clear, if not entirely
lost.
Spoken and Written Grammar
Corpus studies also reveal important distinctions between spoken and written
grammar. Comparisons of spoken and written corpora have raised some basic
questions concerning descriptions of grammar, such as how different types of
spoken language can be classiﬁed, how features of written and spoken grammar
are differently distributed and what the status of the spoken language is, as an
object of study within applied linguistics (McCarthy 1998).
Carter and McCarthy (1995) believe that the differences between spoken
and written grammar are especially important for pedagogical grammars, since
‘descriptions that rest on the written mode or on restricted genres and registers of
spoken language are likely to omit many common features of everyday informal
grammar and usage’ (Carter and McCarthy, 1995: 154). For instance, grammars
these authors surveyed gave examples of the reporting verb in the simple past
tense ( X said that Y ), and yet in their spoken corpus they found various examples
of the reporting verb in past continuous ( X was saying Y ). While undoubtedly
such observations are valid, Leech (2000) contends that the same grammatical
repertoires operate in both speech and writing, although the structures used in
each may occur with different frequencies. It should also be noted that there has
often been a ‘written bias’ in linguistic descriptions (Linell, 2005).

25 Grammar
Limitations of Grammatical Descriptions
Previous sections have reviewed issues in describing grammar, issues that were
mainly concerned with what to describe, how to describe it and how to account
for differing approaches and their implications in terms of theory and pedagogy
in applied linguistics. But however precise and thorough researchers may attempt
to be in addressing these issues, there are certain limitations to descriptions of
grammar given in isolation from all other parts of the language system.
The Interdependence of Grammar and Lexis
Regardless of the type of description or the approach taken, when we try to
make general statements about grammar that neatly identify broad patterns,
we are abstracting away from the overall system in ways that are somewhat
artiﬁcial. One reason is that it is very difﬁcult to isolate grammar and lexis into
completely separate categories, because grammar does not exist on its own. It
is interdependent with lexis and, in many cases, grammatical regularity and
acceptability are conditioned by words.
A commonly cited example is the past morpheme -ed, which applies only where
the verb happens to be ‘regular’, as in walked, traded, wondered . Irregular verbs,
on the other hand, take various past forms, such as drank or ate. However, the
choice of lexical item may restrict grammatical structures in other ways. The
progressive aspect, for instance, is often used to indicate a temporary activity,
but certain lexical items may act upon the grammar to constrain this sense of
temporariness. We easily recognize that a sentence such as Mary is taking a nap
indicates a temporary activity, whereas Mary is taking a class indicates an activity
of extended duration.
Lexicogrammar: The Problem of Deﬁning Boundaries
A more striking instance of the interdependence of lexis and grammar is that
of prefabricated ‘chunks’ of language, in which the boundary between the two
becomes even more blurred. Native speakers tend to use a great many expressions
that are formulaic in nature (Pawley and Syder, 1983), ﬁxed or semi-ﬁxed
expressions that act as single lexical units used as wholes. That is, they are not
composed each time from scratch by the rules of syntax. As ﬁxed units, they
appear to be intermediary between lexical words and grammatical structures.
These prefabricated units are called by many names, perhaps most commonly
‘formulaic sequences’ (Wray, 2002), and exhibit great variability. Nattinger and
DeCarrico (1992) were among the ﬁrst to highlight the importance of these
sequences, focusing in particular on ‘lexical phrases’ , which they describe as
‘multi-word lexical phenomena that exist somewhere between the traditional
poles of lexicon and syntax, conventionalized form/function composites that
occur more frequently and have more idiomatically determined meaning than
language that is put together each time’ (page 1). As form/function composites,
lexical phrases differ from other formulaic language, such as idioms ( kick the
bucket, hell bent for leather ), in that they have associated discourse functions. They
range from completely ﬁxed, as in by the way , which functions to shift a topic in
discourse, to relatively ﬁxed frames with limited slots for ﬁllers, as in a___ago , used
to express time relationships (for example, a day ago , a long time ago ), to frames

26An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
with slots allowing considerable variation, as in I’m (really) (very) sorry to hear that
X (where X may be an entire clause, such as, you ﬂunked the test , you lost your job ,
etc.), used to express sympathy.
The descriptive part of the problem is that these phrasal units, which are
pervasive in language, cannot be adequately accounted for by models consisting of
abstract rules of sentence syntax, supported by a lexicon of single word items that
are inserted into abstract categories such as NP, VP, PP, etc. There is considerable
evidence that the mind stores and processes lexical phrases as individual wholes,
including evidence from ﬁrst language acquisition studies indicating that they
are learned ﬁrst as unanalysed chunks and, only later, analysed as to particular
grammatical patterns (Peters, 1983).
At present, there is growing interest in investigating the implications of
formulaic language for descriptions of grammar, in particular, implications for
how we view the components of syntax and lexicon and for how the components
interact with each other and with discourse level concerns (DeCarrico, 1998). A
closer look at the limitations of various grammatical models may help us to re-
examine previous assumptions and to look for new directions in resolving issues
and problems in the description of grammar. As this essential work on arriving at
more comprehensive descriptive grammars continues, applied linguists must also
get on with the tasks of explaining the learning, and improving the teaching, of
grammar.
Learning Grammar
Over the history of applied linguistics, different theories of learning have been
proposed to account for how grammar is learned. During the middle of the
previous century, for instance, grammar learning was thought to take place
through a process of verbal ‘habit formation’. Habits were established through
stimulus-response conditioning, which led to the ‘overlearning’ of the grammatical
patterns of a language. In order to help students overcome the habits of their
native language and inculcate those of the target language, teachers conducted
pattern practice drills of various types: repetition, transformation, question and
answer, etc. Teachers introduced little new vocabulary until the grammatical
patterns were ﬁrmly established. Language use was also tightly controlled in order
to prevent students making errors that could lead to the formation of bad habits
that would later prove difﬁcult to eradicate.
With the rise of generative grammar and its view of language as a system of rules,
grammar learning was seen to take place through a process of ‘rule formation’,
which itself was brought about when students formulated, tested and revised
hypotheses about grammatical structures in the target language. Thus, students
were seen to play a much more active role in the classroom than they had earlier.
Consistent with this perspective, students’ errors were not to be feared, but rather
welcomed as evidence that students were attempting to test their hypotheses
and receive feedback, with which they could then revise their hypotheses. In the
classroom, students were given written grammar exercises so they could induce
the grammatical rules that would allow them to generate and understand novel
sentences.
With the shift toward a more communicative approach to language teaching,
views of grammar learning changed once again. Some held that grammar
learning took place implicitly and most effectively when students’ attention was

27 Grammar
not on grammar at all. In other words, they said that grammar was best learned
subconsciously when students were engaged in understanding the meaning of
the language to which they were introduced (Krashen and Terrell, 1983). Those
that adhered to a Chomskyan universal grammar (UG) perspective felt that target
language input alone or input with negative evidence (that is, evidence that a
particular form is ungrammatical) might be sufﬁcient to have learners reset the
parameters of UG principles in order to reﬂect the differences between the native
language and target language grammars (White, 1987). Others felt that explicit
grammar teaching had a role (Norris and Ortega, 2000), with some claiming
that explicit attention to grammar was essential for older language learners
whose ability to acquire language implicitly, much as children learn their native
language, was no longer possible, or at least no longer efﬁcient.
Second language acquisition (SLA) research in both naturalistic and classroom
environments has informed modern perspectives of grammar learning ( see Chapter
7, Second Language Acquisition ). SLA research tells us that an analysis of the language
that learners use, their ‘interlanguage’, reveals that grammar is not acquired in a
linear fashion, one structure being mastered after another. Further, with regard to
any one structure, learners use a lot of intermediate forms before conforming to
what is accurate in the target language. It can easily be seen that many learners’
utterances are overgeneralizations. For example, learners of English produce
‘eated’ for ‘ ate’, interpreted by some researchers as evidence for the process of rule
formation in SLA. Learners also use forms that do not resemble target forms, and
they do so consistently, such as using pre-verbal negation during early English
language acquisition (for example, ‘no want’), regardless of the native language
of learners. This behaviour explains why it has been said that the interlanguage is
systematic, that is, learners operate consistently within a system, albeit one that is
not consonant with the target language. New structures are not simply assimilated
one by one, but rather as a new structure makes its appearance into a learner’s
interlanguage, the learner’s system begins to shift. Thus, learning does not add
knowledge to an unchanging system – it changes the system (Feldman, 2006).
It is also clear, however, that rule formation does not account for all of grammar
learning. Indeed, some would argue that it has no role in SLA at all. Connectionist
or neural network models support such a conclusion (Ellis, 1998). Repeated
exposure to target language forms contributes to the strengthening of connections
in neural network models. The models simulate rule-like grammatical behaviour
even though no rules or algorithms are used in constructing the model. Instead,
patterns are abstracted from the way structures are statistically distributed in
massive amounts of input data. With the use of connectionism to simulate the
way that neural networks in the brain function ( see Chapter 7, Second Language
Acquisition ), new ways of conceptualizing grammar learning are coming to the
forefront.
One method that is receiving a great deal of attention is emergentism (Ellis
and Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 2006). Emergentists believe that
rather than speakers’ performance being managed by a ‘top-down’ rule-governed
system, learners’ interlanguage emerges from repeated encounters with structures
and with opportunities to use them. In this way, it could be said that language
learning is an iterative process, revisiting the same or similar territory again and
again (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2008). Thus, grammar learning is facilitated
by the frequency of use of the forms in the language to which the learner is
exposed. The Zipﬁan proﬁle of language, in which certain forms are used very

28An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
frequently while others are used far less so, facilitates the process of abstracting
the patterns (Ellis and Larsen-Freeman, 2009). The fact that frequently-occurring
constructions are often semantically concrete and short in length aids the learning
process (Goldberg, 2006).
Regardless of which type (or types, as is more likely the case) of process is
responsible for learning, SLA research makes clear to most researchers that some
attention must be given to grammar by second language learners. However,
it is also clear that the attention to form should not come through the use of
decontextualized drills or isolated grammar exercises. Learners will be able
to complete the exercises satisfactorily when their attention is focused on the
grammar, but when their attention shifts to a more communicative interaction,
the grammar will be forgotten. In order for learners to be able to transfer what
they have learned in the classroom to more communicative contexts outside
it, pedagogical activities have to be psychologically authentic, where there is
alignment between the conditions of learning and the conditions of subsequent
use (Segalowitz, 2003).
Further, for new forms to be incorporated into the intermediate language, or
‘interlanguage’, that learners speak, it is thought that students must ﬁrst notice
what it is they are to learn (Schmidt, 1990). Until they do, the target form may
merely remain as part of the ‘noise’ in the input. Then too, even when they are
able to produce grammatical structures accurately, students still need to learn
what they mean and when they are used. In other words, learning grammar does
not merely entail learning form.
In fact, as we noted earlier, what needs to be learnt about grammar can be
characterized by three dimensions: form, meaning and use. We have seen in Figure
2.1 that the dimensions are interconnected, but nonetheless can be described
discretely. For example, in learning the rule of English subject–verb agreement
discussed above, students would have to learn the form that an ‘s’ is added to the
verb stem and that the orthographic ‘s’ may be realized in pronunciation as one
of three allomorphs /s/, /z/ or / ∂z/. (The slashes indicate sounds; see Chapter 9,
Sociolinguistics , and Chapter 12, Speaking and Pronunciation .) They would also have
to learn what it means, that is, that it signals the present tense and that the subject
is third person and is conceived of as a single entity. This being the case, usually,
singular subjects go with singular verbs and plural subjects with plural verbs.
However, to show that the meaning contribution is independent from form, we
only have to think of a case where there is a departure from this convention. For
example, a sentence such as ‘Ten miles makes for a long hike.’ shows us that even
a plural subject can be conceived of as a single entity. Here again, as we showed
earlier, there are times when the rule of subject–verb agreement does not apply.
Teaching students when to use it and when not to, then, becomes an essential
element in grammar instruction.
The same analysis holds for a formulaic utterance. A greeting, such as ‘Good
afternoon’ , for instance, can be described in terms of its form, a noun preceded
by an attributive adjective. Its meaning is a greeting at a particular time of day.
Learning to use it would involve, for example, students’ learning when to use it as
opposed to learning to use a more informal greeting such as ‘Hi’. Another example
of learning to use greetings is the need for learners of English to learn that ‘ Good
night’ is used only for taking leave. ‘ Good evening’ is appropriate for a greeting, no
matter what time of night it is. This is different from other languages in which
the equivalent of ‘ Good night ’ is used as a greeting. This last point highlights the

29 Grammar
inﬂuence of the L1. Because the patterns of the native language are so entrenched,
many believe that grammar teaching is the only, or certainly the most efﬁcient,
way to help learners master new patterns.
Teaching Grammar
As mentioned above, the prevailing view today is that students must notice what
it is they are to learn. Although this has traditionally been accomplished by a
teacher presentation, often of an explicit rule, a greater variety of means, some
far more implicit or interactive, is favoured these days. An example of an implicit
means of promoting student noticing is the use of some sort of input enhancement
(Sharwood Smith, 1993). It might take the form of ‘input ﬂooding’, that is,
increasing the number of times that students encounter the target structure in a
particular text. Another possibility for enhancing the input is for the teacher to
modify the text features in some fashion, such as boldfacing the target structures
to make them more salient to students. An example of encouraging noticing
through interaction is accomplished through guided participation (Adair-Hauck,
Donato and Cumo-Johanssen, 2000), in which the teacher carefully leads students
to awarenesses that they did not have before – it is neither an inductive nor a
deductive process, then, but rather teacher and students collaborate to produced a
co-constructed grammar explanation. Awareness may also be heightened through
peer interactions, as research by Donato (1994) and Swain and Lapkin (1998) has
shown.
Peer interaction has also been used effectively in promoting noticing through
the use of speciﬁc ‘consciousness-raising’ tasks (Fotos and Ellis, 1991) in which
students are given data, such as a set of grammatical and ungrammatical sentences,
and are encouraged to discover the grammatical generalization for themselves.
For example, they may be given the following sentences in order to ﬁgure out the
rule about English word order with regard to indirect and direct objects.
Sandy bought Margaret a gift.
Sandy bought a gift for Margaret.
Sandy bought it for her.
*Sandy bought her it.
Also included in the promoting noticing category would be Van Patten’s (1996,
2006) input-processing tasks, in which students are guided to pay attention to
particular aspects of the target language, especially those aspects that differ between
the L1 and the L2, rather than working on explicit rule learning and application.
Although not all would agree, we feel that teachers cannot be satisﬁed with
merely promoting their students’ noticing. Since language use is a skill, overt
productive practice is also needed (DeKeyser, 2007). It is important to point out,
however, that in order for optimal transfer to take place, the practice must be
meaningful, what Larsen-Freeman (1995) has called ‘grammaring’. Grammaring
may be accomplished by asking students to engage in a communicative task where
it is necessary to use certain structures to complete it (Loschky and Bley-Vroman,
1993). An example might be where students have to read maps in order to give
directions to someone. By so doing, they naturally would receive meaningful
practice in using prepositions and imperatives.
Depending on the learning challenge, that is, the grammatical dimension with
which students are struggling, the nature of the productive practice activity will

30An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
differ. If the students need to work on form, for instance, meaningful repetition is
useful. For example, students might be asked to talk about their family members’
or friends’ daily routines, in which they will have ample opportunity to use the
third person singular form of verbs. Meaningful repetition would also be useful for
helping students learn the form of lexical phrases or other prefabricated structures.
If the students’ learning challenge is meaning, they will need to practise bonding
form and meaning together, such as practice associating certain phrasal verbs
with physical actions ( Stand up, Turn on the light, Sit down , etc.). If the challenge is
use, students will need to make a choice. For example, asking students to role-play
a situation that calls for advice to be given to a supervisor versus to a friend invites
those students to select the appropriate form of modal or other structure with
which to offer such advice. To practise use of discourse grammar, students might
be asked to choose between use of the active or passive voice after a given prompt.
Feedback is also seen to be a necessary part of grammar instruction. Feedback
mechanisms span the spectrum from direct correction by the teacher to recasts, in
which the teacher reformulates correctly what the learner has just said erroneously,
to giving students the space to correct themselves (Aljaafreh and Lantolf, 1994;
Lyster and Ranta, 1997). In a total turnaround from the view that learner errors
are to be prevented, some applied linguists have even suggested that students
should be encouraged to make errors by being ‘led down the garden path’. For
example, students might be given a rule without being told that it has exceptions.
It is assumed that when students do overgeneralize the rule and commit an error,
the negative feedback they receive will be more successful in their acquiring the
exceptions than if they were given a list of exceptions in advance (Tomasello and
Herron, 1989). Of course, all of this is in vain if learner noticing and uptake do
not occur after the feedback. This has been the concern with recasts. Although
teachers’ recasts are ubiquitous, they have the inherent problem of learners’
not necessarily noticing that they are being corrected. It has been suggested
more recently that prompts may be more effective in this regard than recasts.
In addition, Lyster (2004) observes that prompts, such as a teacher repeating a
learner’s error verbatim with rising intonation, withholds approval and allows the
learner to self-repair.
Earlier we made the point that learners do not master grammatical structures
one after another like beads on a string. Indeed, the learning of grammar, as
with the learning of many aspects of language, is a much more organic process
(Rutherford, 1987; Larsen-Freeman, 2003). This suggests that a traditional
grammatical syllabus that sequences structures one after another may result in
a mis-match between learnability and teachability (Pienemann, 1984). For this
reason, many have recommended the use of a ‘spiral syllabus’, where particular
structures are recycled from time to time during a course (Ellis, 1993). A helpful
guideline in the construction of such a spiral syllabus might be to focus on a
different dimension of a grammar structure each time it is revisited. An alternative
some have recommended is not to adopt a grammatical syllabus at all, reckoning
that the grammar that students need to learn will become apparent as they work
on meaningful content. In this way, grammar teaching becomes more responsive
than proactive. This last line of thinking is perhaps best exempliﬁed in the
prescription that a ‘focus on form’ should only occur as needed; students should
otherwise spend their time engaged in meaningful tasks and in learning content
(Long, 1991). When it appears that students are ready to learn, their attention can
be drawn to linguistic form. One problem with this approach is that an opportunity

31 Grammar
to teach a particular structure may not present itself because it occurs infrequently
or because students know that they have difﬁculty with the structure, and so
they avoid it. Perhaps the best compromise is to employ a grammar checklist – to
ensure that students have worked on particular forms by the end of a course – but
leaving the sequence indeterminate so that students can work on structures as
they emerge naturally from classroom tasks and content (Larsen-Freeman, 2003).
When they do not emerge, teachers can create supplementary tasks and activities
to ensure that they receive attention when the teacher has determined that the
students are ready to learn them. In this way, the risk of focusing on forms in
isolation is minimized (Long, 1991).
Not all grammar teaching needs to be reactive, however. For instance, it is
recommended to teachers of English language learners that they teach structures
that learners will need in order to make sense of the decontextualized academic
language they must handle in their schooling. In an academic context, therefore,
it is important for lessons for English language learners to have both content
objectives and linguistic objectives (Pica, 2002; Schleppegrell, Achugar, and
Oteíza, 2004).
Indeed, to leave the grammar to chance overlooks an important function of a
‘focus on form’ which is to ‘ﬁll in the gaps in the input’ (Spada and Lightbown,
1993). That is, teachers need to work with students on structures that do not
normally arise in the course of every day classroom discourse or even content-
based or task-based instruction. More recently, Spada and Lightbown (2008) have
made the case for both isolated and integrated form-focused instruction. Isolated
grammar instruction does not mean instruction removed from a programme
that is primarily communicative in orientation. Rather, it is one where grammar
activities are separated from communicative or content-based interaction. The
authors suggest that the two types of instruction have different purposes and that
isolated instruction, in particular, is useful when the L1 has a strong inﬂuence
on the forms that learners are producing in the L2, when certain grammatical
features are not particularly salient so that they escape learners’ attention and
when certain forms are not naturally frequently-occurring in the classroom.
One should also not forget that teachers do not only teach language; they teach
learners. It should not be surprising to learn, therefore, that students and teachers
have different aptitudes and attitudes toward grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 2009),
which no doubt affect the way it is taught and learned.
Conclusion
Views of grammar have changed over the years. With the awareness that formulaic
language is as prevalent as it is, it is clearly the case that we should be thinking
more in terms of lexicogrammar, rather than thinking solely of morphology and
syntax. Similarly, owing to contributions from SLA research, we can appreciate the
fact that the acquisition of lexicogrammar is not likely to be accounted for by one
type of learning process. Finally, due to the multifaceted nature of grammar and
the learning processes, we must recognize that the teaching of grammar itself is
complex and multidimensional and may require a variety of teaching approaches.
What should not be expected is a simple, proximal, causal link between what is
taught and what is learned. This is not surprising though, given the non-linear
nature of the learning process, and it does not reduce in the least the need for
grammar instruction.

32An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Further Reading
Celce-Murcia, M., Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999) The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL
Teacher’s Course (second edition). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage. Celce-Murcia and
Larsen-Freeman have written their book to help prospective and practising teachers of
English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL) enhance their understanding of English
grammar, expand their skills in linguistic analysis and develop a pedagogical approach to
teaching English grammar. Each chapter deals with a major structure of English, analysing
its form, meaning and use. Each chapter concludes with teaching suggestions.
DeCarrico, J. (2000) The Structure of English: Studies in Form and Function for
Language Teaching . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. This book presents
a descriptive overview of grammatical structures in English, but it differs from most
grammar books in that the focus is not only on form but also on function (both sentence
level grammatical function and discourse function). The underlying philosophy is that
a better understanding of how grammar works and why it works that way will enable
teachers to be more effective in teaching grammar in the classroom.
DeKeyser, R. (ed.). (2007) Practice in a Second Language . New York: Cambridge
University Press. Seeing language as a skill to be learned raises the question of how
declarative knowledge becomes proceduralized/automatized. The contributors to this
volume explore a number of questions of theoretical and practical signiﬁcance, including
what kinds of practice are more effective, in what contexts, for what kinds of learners.
Doughty, C., Williams, J. (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty and Williams argue for
incorporating a focus on form into the communicative approach to language teaching.
They believe that focusing on form respects students’ ‘internal linguistic syllabus’, drawing
their attention to problematic linguistic features during communicative activities. This
approach recognizes the need for accuracy and provides an alternative to methodologies
that treat accuracy and ﬂuency separately.
Hinkel, E., Fotos, S. (eds.). (2002) New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second
Language Classrooms . Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The chapters
in this anthology present a variety of approaches to teaching grammar within different
curricular and methodological frameworks. It is the editors’ intention that teachers
develop ﬂexible practice in teaching grammar and cultivate an eclectic view of teaching
grammar.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001) Teaching grammar. In Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.), Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language (third edition). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage.
In this article, Larsen-Freeman makes a case for teachers systematically addressing the
three dimensions of grammatical structures: their form, meaning and use, depending on
which of these dimensions presents the greatest learning challenge to ESL/EFL students.
She also suggests that the three dimensions need to be taught differently since they are
likely learnt differently.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring . Boston,
MA: Heinle/Cengage. Larsen-Freeman proposes that grammar is, as with other naturally

33 Grammar
occurring systems, best conceived of as a non-linear, dynamic system. Seen in this way,
the complexity of grammar is respected, especially as manifest at the discourse level, the
non-linear nature of language and its learning is best understood and the organic nature
of language/grammar is appreciated. As a consequence of this way of viewing grammar,
Larsen-Freeman has proposed that grammar teaching be thought of as ‘grammaring’, to
reﬂect the dynamic nature of grammar and its learning.
Hands-on Activity
Analyse the following interlanguage productions by ESL/EFL learners. Say what
the problem is. Next, diagnose the error as an error of form, meaning or use in
terms of Standard English. Finally, plan one promoting noticing and one practice
activity for dealing with the problem as you have diagnosed it.
1 *Allyson is a 13-years-old girl.
2 *I am boring in algebra class.
3 *A goal was wanted by the other team.
4 *There are a lot of mountains in the West; on the contrary, there are few in the
Midwest.
5 Would you hand me that book?
*Of course, I would.
6 *Although he had few close friends, he was very lonely.
7 *I will buy for my parents a house.

Vocabulary
Paul Nation
Victoria University of Wellington
Paul Meara
University of Wales, Swansea
What is vocabulary?
One of the most difﬁcult questions to answer in vocabulary studies is ‘What is a
word?’ and there are a variety of only partly satisfactory answers depending on
the reasons for asking the question. If we want to count how long a book is, or
how fast someone can speak or read in words per minute, then we need to count
tokens . The sentence ‘To be or not to be, that is the question’ contains ten tokens.
Even though the same word form be occurs twice, it is counted each time it occurs.
When counting tokens, it is necessary to decide if we count items like I’m or we’ll
as two tokens or one. If we are counting tokens in spoken language, do we count
um and er as tokens, and do we count repetitions like I … I … I said as tokens? We
can only answer these questions by examining our reasons for counting.
Often we are interested in how many different words someone knows or uses.
For example, if we are interested in how much sight vocabulary a learner has
(words that are known well enough to be quickly and accurately recognized), then
we would count word types . The sentence ‘To be or not to be, that is the question’
contains eight word types. Both be and to occur twice, and so they are not counted
after their ﬁrst occurrence. Some of the problems with counting types include
deciding what to do about capital letters (Are High and high two types or one?)
And what to do with identical types that have different meanings ( generation (of
electricity) and (the younger) generation ).
If our reason for counting is related to vocabulary learning, then we need to
choose a unit of counting that reﬂects the kind of knowledge that language users
draw on. There is evidence (Nagy, Anderson, Schommer, Scott and Stallman,
1989) that language users see closely related word forms ( mend , mends , mended ,
mending ) as belonging to the same word family and it is the total frequency of
a word family that determines the familiarity of any particular member of that
family. In other words, the regular word building devices create items that are
seen as being very closely related to each other. A major problem with counting
word families is in deciding what should be counted as a member of a family.
The most conservative way is to count lemmas . A lemma is a set of related words
that consists of the stem form and inﬂected forms that are all the same part of
speech. So, approach , approaches , approached , approaching would all be members
of the same lemma because they all have the same stem, include only the stem
and inﬂected forms, and are all verbs. Approach and approaches as nouns would
be a different lemma. A less conservative deﬁnition of a word family would also
include items made with derivational afﬁxes like un- and non-, -ness and -ly.
Bauer and Nation (1993) suggest that as learners become more proﬁcient, the
number of items included in their word families will also tend to increase. If we
are counting learners’ receptive knowledge, the word family is the best unit. If 3

35 Vocabulary
we are counting productive knowledge as in speaking or writing, the word type
(or perhaps the lemma) is the best unit.
There are some groups of words, like good morning and at the end of the day , which
seem to be used like single words. Some of the groups may be items that have not
been analysed into parts but are just learned, stored and used as complete units.
Others may be constructed from known parts but are used so often that users
treat them as a single unit. Pawley and Syder (1983) suggest that native speakers
speak appropriately and ﬂuently because they have stored a great deal of this
formulaic language which they can draw on when engaging in communication.
The phenomenon of formulaic language goes by several names, including:
• ‘Preformulated language’ (emphasizing how multi-word units can be stored as
single units which are ‘ready to go’).
• ‘Formulas ’ (emphasizing how multi-word units can be repeatedly used instead
of having to generate new ways of saying things).
• ‘Lexical phrases’ (emphasizing how certain phrases are typically used to achieve
particular functions in everyday life, for example, Have you heard the one about
_____ is commonly used to introduce a joke).
• ‘Formulaic sequences or multi-word items’ (the individual formulaic items).
From a learning perspective, it is useful to classify formulaic language into three
major categories (Grant and Nation, 2006).
1 Core idioms: These are items where the meaning of the parts bears no obvious
relationship to the meaning of the whole. The most frequent examples of these in
English are as well (as), of course, such and such, out of hand, take the piss, and serve
(someone) right . Surprisingly, there are only just over 100 such items in English.
2 Figuratives: These are items that have both a literal meaning and a ﬁgurative
meaning. For example, We have to make sure we are singing from the same hymn
sheet has a literal meaning, but it is used here with a ﬁgurative meaning – ‘We
have to make sure we are following the same set of rules’. There are thousands
of these in English and they are continually being added to. They make up
most of the entries in idiom dictionaries. Typically the ﬁgurative meaning can
be readily related to the literal meaning of the multi-word unit. Core idioms are
probably ﬁguratives whose history has been lost.
3 Literals: By far the largest group of formulaic sequences are literals, where the
meaning of the part clearly makes up the meaning of the whole. Some of the
highest frequency literals in spoken English are you know, I think, thank you, in fact,
talk about, and I suppose . Most of what are called collocations are included in literals.
The few core idioms need to be learnt as set phrases, although a large proportion
of them have a changeable form. Figuratives need to be dealt with using a strategy
that involves relating the ﬁgurative meaning to the literal meaning. Literals do
not require any interpretive strategy, but may be usefully memorized as a way of
increasing ﬂuency of access and gaining native-like accuracy. Some literals may
not have parallel L1 forms.
What Vocabulary Should Be Learned?
What vocabulary to focus on should be determined by two major considerations
– the needs of the learners and the usefulness of the vocabulary items. The
traditional way of measuring the usefulness of items is to discover their

36An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
frequency and range in a relevant corpus. The most striking features of the
results of a frequency-based study are:
• The very wide spread of frequencies, with some items occurring many, many
times and some occurring only once.
• The relatively small number of words needed to cover a very large proportion
of the tokens in a text.
• The very large number of low frequency items that account for a very small
proportion of the tokens in a text.
These three points are illustrated in Table 3.1 and 3.2. Table 3.1 is the result of
a frequency count of a 500-token section of this chapter. The 500-word section
contained 204 different word types which made up 169 word families. Table 3.2
lists the frequency, the number of words with that frequency and the cumulative
coverage of the tokens. In Table 3.1 not all the words occurring once or twice are
listed because there were too many of them to show here. A very large proportion
of words in even a very big collection of texts occur only once.
By doing frequency counts of large relevant corpora, it is possible to come up
with lists of words that will be very useful for people in the early stages of learning
a language. Several such lists exist and they provide a very useful basis for course
design. The classic list of the most useful words of English is Michael West’s (1953)
A General Service List of English Words (GSL) which contains 2000 high frequency
words. There is plenty of evidence that 2000 words is an appropriate size for such
a list, but the list needs to be based on a corpus where spoken language is well
represented. The GSL is based on written language, and so needs to be updated by
a new list based on both spoken and written discourse.
The
Of
To
And
Is
A
That
We
Word
Or
Are
Be
In
As
Count
Counting
Tokens
Family
What
If
Same
Types
Vocabulary
All
Do22
18
17
16
16
14
12
12
11
10
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4I
It
Occurs
Related
With
Words
Counted
For
Forms
How
Include
Items
Language
Like
Not
One
Only
Question
Stem
Then
Twice
Would
Answer
Can
Closely4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2Conservative
Contains
Deciding
Different
Each
Form
…
About
Afﬁxes
After
Also
Anderson
Answers
Any
Approach
Approached
Approaches
Approaching
Asking
Bauer
Because
Being
…2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 3.1 A frequency list of a 500-word text

37 Vocabulary
Frequency Number of types Cumulative coverage of
text (%)
10 and above 10 word types 29.6
8 occurrences 3 34.4
7 4 40.0
6 2 42.4
5 4 46.4
4 8 52.8
3 16 62.4
2 32 75.2
1 125 100
Table 3.2 Number of words and coverage for each frequency
The information from frequency studies suggests a cost–beneﬁt approach to
dealing with vocabulary. If we use frequency counts to distinguish high-frequency
from low-frequency words, then it seems clear that the high-frequency words
need to be the ﬁrst and main vocabulary goal of learners. These words are so
frequent, so widespread and make up such a manageable group that both teachers
and learners can usefully spend considerable time ensuring that they are well
learned. The low-frequency words are so infrequent, have such a narrow range
of occurrence and make up such a large group that they do not deserve teaching
time. Of course, learners need to keep on learning low frequency words after they
have learned the high frequency words, but they should do this incidentally
or deliberately in their own time. Teachers should focus on strategies that help
learners do this ‘incidental’ or ‘deliberate’ learning. These strategies include
guessing from context, learning from word cards, using word parts and dictionary
use. We will look at these in more detail later in this chapter.
It is possible to increase the number of high-frequency words that teachers
and learners should give attention to by looking at the needs of the learners
and making special purpose vocabulary lists. The most useful of these lists is the
Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000) which is designed for learners who intend
to do academic study through the medium of English. The list consists of 570
word families which account for 8.5–10 per cent of the tokens in a wide range
of academic texts. The list includes words such as evaluate, invest, technology and
valid. These words are a very important learning goal for learners with academic
purposes who have learned the high-frequency words of English. On average, there
are 30 of these words on every page of an academic text. Some of these words have
more than one largely unrelated meaning, for example issue = ‘problem’, issue =
‘produce, send out’, but almost invariably one of these meanings is much more
frequent than the other.
In specialized texts, technical vocabulary plays a very important role, making up
anything from 20–30 per cent of the running words of a text (Chung and Nation,
2003). Technical vocabulary consists of vocabulary that is very closely related to a
particular subject area. The technical vocabulary of anatomy, for example, includes
words like xiphoid, vascular, neck, chest, cranial, trachea and girdle . Note that some
of this vocabulary comes from the high-frequency words of English, some may be

38An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
in the Academic Word List and much of it consists of words that occur only in the
ﬁelds of medicine and anatomy. Because technical vocabulary occurs much more
frequently in a specialized text than in other areas, it is possible to quickly ﬁnd
most of the technical vocabulary of a specialized ﬁeld by comparing the frequency
of words in that ﬁeld with their frequency in general English.
Technical vocabulary needs to be treated in much the same way as high-
frequency vocabulary for learners who are specializing in that ﬁeld. That is, it
needs both deliberate attention and the opportunity to learn it through use. Let
us now look at the range of these opportunities for learning.
How Should Vocabulary Be Learned?
Many teachers would assume that vocabulary learning stems mainly from the
direct teaching of words in the classroom. However, vocabulary learning needs
to be more broadly based than this. Let us look at four strands of vocabulary
learning in turn (Nation, 2007). These strands need to be present in roughly equal
proportions in a well-balanced language course.
Learning Vocabulary from Meaning-focused Input
(Listening and Reading)
Learning from meaning-focused input, that is, learning incidentally through
listening and reading, accounts for most ﬁrst language vocabulary learning.
Although this kind of learning is less sure than deliberate study, for native
speakers there are enormous opportunities for such learning (Nagy, Herman and
Anderson, 1985). For such learning to occur with non-native speakers, three
major conditions need to be met. First, the unknown vocabulary should make
up only a very small proportion of the tokens, preferably around 2 per cent,
which would mean one unknown word in ﬁfty (Hu and Nation, 2000; also see
READING). Second, there needs to be a very large quantity of input, preferably
one million tokens or more per year. Third, learning will be increased if there is
more deliberate attention to the unknown vocabulary through the occurrence
of the same vocabulary in the deliberate learning strand of the course. It also
helps to make learners aware of new words by glossing them (Watanabe, 1997),
highlighting them in the text and by using dictionaries. In fact, most research
shows the clear advantages of integrating incidental and deliberate vocabulary
learning approaches (Schmitt, 2008). It is also important to remember that
incidental learning is cumulative, and therefore vocabulary needs to be met a
number of times to allow the learning of each word to become stronger and to
enrich the knowledge of each word.
The core of the meaning-focused input strand of a course is a well-organized,
well-monitored, substantial extensive reading programme based largely, but not
exclusively, on graded readers (for substantial reviews, see Day and Bamford,
1998; Waring, 1997a). Graded readers are particularly helpful for learners in the
beginning and intermediate stages, as they best realize the three conditions for
learning outlined above. Typically a graded reader series begins with books about
5000 words long written within a 300–500 word family vocabulary. These go up
in four to six stages to books about 25,000–35,000 words long written within
a 2000–2500 word family vocabulary. Nation and Wang (1999) estimate that

39 Vocabulary
second language learners need to be reading at least one graded reader every
two weeks in order for noticeable learning to occur. In the past, graded readers
have been accused of being inauthentic reduced versions of texts which do not
expose learners to the full richness of the English language and are poorly written.
These criticisms all had a grain of truth in them, but they are now essentially
misinformed. There are currently some very well-written graded readers which
have key advantages: even beginning and intermediate learners with limited
vocabulary sizes can read simpliﬁed readers for pleasure, which is an authentic
use of language, even if the text itself is not purely ‘authentic’. Learners ﬁnd it
impossible to respond authentically to texts that overburden them with unknown
vocabulary. A list of very good graded readers can be found on the website of the
Extensive Reading Foundation. The Extensive Reading Foundation awards prizes
for the best graded readers at various levels each year.
Listening is also a source of meaning-focused input and the same conditions of
low unknown vocabulary load, quantity of input and some deliberate attention
to vocabulary are necessary for effective vocabulary learning. Quantity of input,
which directly affects repetition, can be partly achieved through repeated
listening, where learners listen to the same story several times over several days.
Deliberate attention to vocabulary can be encouraged by the teacher quickly
deﬁning unknown items (Elley, 1989), noting them on the board, or allowing
learners the opportunity to negotiate their meaning by asking for clariﬁcation
(Ellis, 1994, 1995; Ellis and Heimbach, 1997; Ellis and He, 1999). Newton (1995)
found that although negotiation is a reasonably sure way of vocabulary learning,
the bulk of vocabulary learning was through the less sure way of non-negotiated
learning from context, simply because there are many more opportunities for this
kind of learning to occur.
Learning Vocabulary from Meaning-focused Output
(Speaking and Writing)
Learning from meaning-focused output, that is, learning through speaking and
writing, is necessary to move receptive knowledge into productive knowledge.
This enhancement of vocabulary through the productive skills can occur in
several ways. First, activities can be designed, such as those involving the use of
annotated pictures or deﬁnitions, which encourage the use of new vocabulary.
Second, speaking activities involving group work can provide opportunities for
learners to negotiate the meanings of unknown words with each other. Such
negotiation is often successful and positive (Newton, 1995). Third, because the
learning of a particular word is a cumulative process, using a partly known word
in speaking or writing can help strengthen and enrich knowledge of the word.
Joe, Nation and Newton (1996) describe guidelines for the design of speaking
activities that try to optimize vocabulary learning by careful design of the written
input to such activities. These guidelines include predicting what parts of the
written input are most likely to be used in the task, using retelling, role play
or problem-solving discussion which draws heavily on the written input, and
encouraging creative use of the vocabulary through having to reshape the written
input to a particular purpose.
Written input to a writing task can play a role similar to that which it can play
in speaking tasks.

40An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Deliberate Vocabulary Learning
Studies comparing incidental vocabulary learning with direct vocabulary learning
characteristically show that direct learning is more effective. This is not surprising
as noticing and giving attention to language learning generally makes that
learning more effective (Schmidt, 1990). Also, deliberate learning is more focused
and goal-directed than incidental learning. There is a long history of research on
deliberate vocabulary learning, which has resulted in a very useful set of learning
guidelines (Nation, 2001). These guidelines are illustrated below through the use
of word cards.
1 Retrieve rather than recognize . Write the word to be learned on one side of a
small card and its translation on the other side. This forces retrieval of the item
after the ﬁrst meeting. Each retrieval strengthens the connection between the
form of the word and its meaning (Baddeley, 1990). Seeing them both together
does not do this.
2 Use appropriately sized groups of cards. At ﬁrst start with small packs of cards –
about 15 or 20 words. Difﬁcult items should be learned in small groups to allow
more repetition and more thoughtful processing. As the learning gets easier,
increase the size of the pack – more than 50 seems to be unmanageable simply
for keeping the cards together and getting through them all in one go.
3 Space the repetitions . The best spacing is to go through the cards a few minutes
after ﬁrst looking at them, and then an hour or so later, and then the next day,
and then a week later and then a couple of weeks later. This spacing is much
more effective than massing the repetitions together into an hour of study. The
total time taken may be the same but the result is different. Spaced repetition
results in longer lasting learning.
4 Repeat the words aloud or to yourself . This ensures that the words have a good
chance of going into long-term memory.
5 Process the words thoughtfully . For words that are difﬁcult to learn, use depth
of processing techniques like the keyword technique ( see below ). Think of the
word in language contexts and visualize it in situational contexts. Break the
word into word parts if possible. The more associations you can make with an
item, the better it will be remembered.
6 Avoid interference . Make sure that words of similar spelling or of related
meaning are not together in the same pack of cards. This means days of the
week should not be all learned at the same time. The same applies to months
of the year, numbers, opposites, words with similar meanings, and words
belonging to the same category, such as items of clothing, names of fruit, parts
of the body and things in the kitchen. These items interfere with each other
and make learning much more difﬁcult (Higa, 1963; Tinkham, 1997, Waring,
1997b; Nation, 2000).
7 Avoid a serial learning effect . Keep changing the order of the words in the pack.
This will avoid serial learning where the meaning of one word reminds you of
the meaning of the next word in the pack.
8 Use context where this helps . Write collocates of the words on the card too
where this is helpful. This particularly applies to verbs. Some words are most
usefully learned in a phrase or sentence.
Deliberate vocabulary learning is a very important part of a vocabulary learning
programme. It can result in a very quick (and long-lasting) expansion of vocabulary

41 Vocabulary
size which then needs to be consolidated and enriched through meaning-focused
input and output, and ﬂuency development. Deliberate learning can result in
both explicit knowledge and the implicit knowledge needed for normal language
use (Elgort, 2007). The meaning-focused and context-based exposure also
complements deliberate learning in that deliberate learning by itself usually does
not provide the knowledge of grammar, collocation, associations, reference and
constraints on use that may be best learned through meeting items in context.
Deliberate vocabulary teaching is one way of encouraging deliberate vocabulary
learning. Such teaching can have three major goals. First, it can aim to result
in well-established vocabulary learning. This requires what has been called ‘rich
instruction’ (Beck, McKeown and Omanson, 1987: 149). This involves spending
a reasonable amount of time on each word and focusing on several aspects of
what is involved in knowing a word, such as its spelling, pronunciation, word
parts, meaning, collocations, grammatical patterns and contexts of use. Such rich
instruction is necessary if pre-teaching of vocabulary is intended to have the effect
of improving comprehension of a following text (Stahl and Fairbanks, 1986).
Because of the time involved in rich instruction, it should be directed towards
high frequency words. Second, deliberate vocabulary teaching can have the aim
of simply raising learners’ consciousness of particular words so that they are
noticed when they are met again. Here vocabulary teaching has the modest aim
of beginning the process of cumulative learning. However, it can also directly lead
to implicit knowledge. Third, deliberate vocabulary teaching can have the aim
of helping learners gain knowledge of strategies and of systematic features of the
language that will be of use in learning a large number of words. These features
include sound-spelling correspondences (Wijk, 1966; Venezky, 1970; Brown and
Ellis, 1994), word parts, (preﬁxes, stems and sufﬁxes), underlying concepts and
meaning extensions, collocational patterns and types of associations (Miller
and Fellbaum, 1991).
Deliberate vocabulary teaching can take a variety of forms including:
• Pre-teaching of vocabulary before a language use activity.
• Dealing with vocabulary in a variety of ways during intensive reading.
• Exercises that follow a listening or reading text, such as matching words and
deﬁnitions, creating word families using word parts or semantic mapping.
• Self-contained vocabulary activities like the second-hand cloze (Laufer and
Osimo, 1991).
• Word detectives, where learners report on words they have found.
• Collocation activities.
• Quickly dealing with words as they occur in a lesson.
Developing Fluency with Vocabulary across the Four
Skills
Knowing vocabulary is important, but to use vocabulary well it needs to be
available for ﬂuent use. Developing ﬂuency involves learning to make the best use
of what is already known.
Thus, ﬂuency development activities should not involve unknown vocabulary.
The conditions needed for ﬂuency development involve a large quantity of
familiar material, focus on the message and some pressure to perform at a higher

42An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
than normal level. Because of these conditions, ﬂuency development activities
do not usually focus speciﬁcally on vocabulary or grammar, but aim at ﬂuency in
listening, speaking, reading or writing.
There are two general approaches to ﬂuency development. The ﬁrst approach
relies primarily on repetition and could be called ‘the well-beaten path approach’
to ﬂuency. This involves gaining repeated practice on the same material so that
it can be performed ﬂuently. It includes activities like repeated reading, the 4/3/2
technique (where learners speak for four minutes, then three minutes, then two
minutes on the same topic to different learners) the best recording (where the
learner makes repeated attempts to record their best spoken version of a text)
and rehearsed talks. The second approach to ﬂuency relies on making many
connections and associations with a known item. Rather than following one well-
beaten path, the learner can choose from many paths. This could be called ‘the
richness approach’ to ﬂuency. It involves using the known item in a wide variety
of contexts and situations. This includes speed reading practice, easy extensive
reading, continuous writing and retelling activities. The aim and result of these
approaches is to develop a well-ordered system of vocabulary. Fluency can then
occur because the learner is in control of the system of the language and can use
a variety of efﬁcient, well-connected and well-practised paths to the wanted item.
This is one of the major goals of language learning.
This discussion has focused on the learning of individual words, but learning
formulaic sequences can occur across the four learning strands as well. Most
learning of such sequences should occur through extensive meaning-focused
language use rather than deliberate study. Fluency development activities provide
useful conditions for establishing knowledge of these units.
Strategy Development
There are four major strategies that help with ﬁnding the meaning of unknown
words and making the words stay in memory. These strategies are guessing from
context clues, deliberately studying words on word cards, using word parts and
dictionary use. These are all powerful strategies and are widely applicable. Because
they provide access to large numbers of words, they deserve substantial amounts
of classroom time. Learners need to reach such a level of skill in the use of these
strategies that it seems easier to use them than not use them. These strategies are
useful for the high frequency words of the language and they are essential for
the low frequency words. Because there are thousands of low frequency words
and each word occurs so infrequently, teachers should not spend classroom time
teaching them. Instead, teachers should provide training in the strategies so that
learners can deal with these words independently.
Guessing from Context
Guessing a meaning for a word from context clues is the most useful of all the
strategies. To learn the strategy and to use it effectively, learners need to know
95–98 per cent of the tokens in a text. That is, the unknown word to be guessed
has to have plenty of comprehensible supporting context. The results of using
the guessing strategy have to be seen from the perspective that learning any
particular word is a cumulative process. Some contexts do not provide a lot of
information about a word, but most contexts provide some information that

43 Vocabulary
can take knowledge of the word forward. Nagy, Herman and Anderson (1985)
estimated that native speakers gain measurable information for up to 10 per
cent of the unknown words in a text after reading it. While this ﬁgure may
seem low, if it is looked at over a year of substantial amounts of reading, the
gains from such guessing could be 1000 or more words per year. For second
language learners, learning from guessing is part of the meaning-focused input
strand, and this should be complemented by direct learning of the same words,
and for the higher frequency words, opportunity to use them in meaning-
focused output.
Training in the skill of guessing results in improved guessing (Fukkink and de
Glopper, 1998; Kuhn and Stahl, 1998). Such training should focus on linguistic
clues in the immediate context of the unknown word, clues from the wider
context, including conjunction relationships, and common-sense and background
knowledge. Word part analysis is not a reliable means of guessing, but it is a very
useful way of checking on the accuracy of a guess based on context clues.
Successful guessing from context is also dependent on good listening and
reading skills. Training learners in guessing from context needs to be a part of the
general development of these skills. Training in guessing needs to be worked on
over several weeks until learners can make largely successful guesses with little
interruption to the reading process.
Learning from Word Cards and Using Word Parts
The strategy of learning vocabulary from small cards made by the learners has already
been described in the section on the deliberate study of words. Although such rote
learning is usually frowned on by teachers, the research evidence supporting its
use is substantial (Nation, 2001). There are also very useful mnemonic strategies
that can increase the effectiveness of such learning. The most well-researched of
these is the ‘keyword technique’ which typically gives results about 25 per cent
higher than ordinary rote learning. The keyword technique is used to help link
the form of a word to its meaning, and so can be brought into play once the
learner has access to the meaning of the word. To explain the technique, let us
take the example of a Thai learner of English wanting to learn the English word
fun. In the ﬁrst step, the learner thinks of a ﬁrst language word that sounds like the
foreign word to be learned. This is the keyword. Thai has a word fun which means
‘teeth’. In the second step, the meaning of the keyword is combined in an image
with the meaning of the foreign word. So, for example, the learner has to think
of the meaning of the English word fun (happiness, enjoyment) combining with
the Thai keyword fun (teeth). The image might be a big smile showing teeth, or a
tooth experiencing a lot of enjoyment.
Using word parts to help remember the meaning of a word is somewhat similar.
If the learner meets the word apposition meaning ‘occurring alongside each
other’, the learner needs to ﬁnd familiar parts in the word, ap- (which is a form
of ad- meaning ‘to’ or ‘next to’), pos (meaning ‘to put or to place’), and -ition
(signalling a noun). The word parts are like keywords, and the analysis of the
word into parts is like the ﬁrst step of the keyword technique. The second step
is to relate the meaning of the parts to the meaning of the whole word, which
is a simple procedure for apposition . This is done by restating the meaning of the
word including the meaning of the parts in the deﬁnition – ‘placed next to each
other’. To make use of word parts in this way the learner needs to know the most

44An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
useful word parts of English (20 or so high frequency preﬁxes and sufﬁxes are
enough initially), needs to be able to recognize them in their various forms when
they occur in words and needs to be able to relate the meanings of the parts to
the meaning of the deﬁnition. Like all the strategies, this requires learning and
practice. Because 60 per cent of the low frequency words of English are from
French, Latin or Greek, and thus are likely to have word parts, this is a widely
applicable strategy.
Dictionary Use
Dictionaries may be monolingual (all in the foreign language), bilingual (foreign
language words–ﬁrst language deﬁnitions and vice versa) or bilingualized
(monolingual with ﬁrst language deﬁnitions also provided). Learners show strong
preferences for bilingual dictionaries, and research indicates that bilingualized
dictionaries are effective in that they cater for the range of preferences and styles
(Laufer and Kimmel, 1997; Laufer and Hadar, 1997).
Dictionaries can be used ‘receptively’ to support reading and listening, or
‘productively’, to support writing and speaking. Studies of dictionary use indicate
that many learners do not use dictionaries as effectively as they could, and so
training in the strategies of dictionary use could have beneﬁts. Dictionary
use involves numerous subskills such as reading a phonemic transcription,
interpreting grammatical information, generalizing from example sentences and
guessing from context to help choose from alternative meanings.
Dictionaries may also be used as learning tools, and learners can beneﬁt from
some training in how to do this. This involves looking at the various senses of
the word to see if there is a shared core meaning in all the senses. It can also
involve looking for related words ( base, basic, basis, basal ) to see if the new
word is formally and semantically related to a known word. It can also involve
deliberately imaging or visualizing some of the example sentences to help the
new word stick in memory.
Training learners in vocabulary use strategies requires assessment to see what skill
and knowledge of the strategies the learners already have, planning a programme
of work to develop ﬂuent use of the strategy, helping learners value the strategy
and be aware of its range of applications, and monitoring and assessing to measure
progress in controlling the strategy. Each of the strategies described above are
powerful strategies that can be used with thousands of words. They each deserve
sustained attention from both teachers and learners.
Assessing Vocabulary Knowledge
Vocabulary tests can have a range of purposes:
• To measure vocabulary size (useful for placement purposes or as one element of
a proﬁciency measure).
• To measure what has just been learned (a short-term achievement measure).
• To measure what has been learned in a course (a long-term achievement
measure).
• To diagnose areas of strength and weakness (a diagnostic measure).
There are now several vocabulary tests that have research evidence supporting
their validity ( see also Chapter 15 Assessment ). They include the Vocabulary

45 Vocabulary
Levels Test (Schmitt, 2000; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham,
2001), the Productive Levels Test (Laufer and Nation, 1999), the X_Lex (0–5000
frequency level) and Y_Lex (6000–10,000 level) checklist tests (Meara, available
at http://www.lognostics.co.uk), the Vocabulary Dictation tests (Fountain and
Nation, 2000) and the Vocabulary Size Test (Nation and Beglar, 2007; Beglar,
in press). There are also bilingual versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test and
the Vocabulary Size Test. Each of these tests samples from a range of frequency
levels and tests learners’ knowledge of the words. The Vocabulary Levels Test
uses a matching format where examinees write the number of their answer in
the blanks.
1 business
2 clock ___________ part of a house
3 horse ___________ animal with four legs
4 pencil ___________ something used for writing
5 shoe
6 wall
The test has ﬁve sections covering various frequency levels, and so the results
can help teachers decide what vocabulary level learners should be working on.
Because teachers should deal with high-frequency and low-frequency words
in different ways, the results of this test can also help teachers decide what
vocabulary work they should be doing with particular learners or groups of
learners.
The Productive Levels Test requires learners to recall the form of words using a
sentence cue.
They keep their valuables in a va_________ at the bank.
The ﬁrst few letters of each tested word are provided to help cue the word and
to prevent the learners from writing other synonymous words. This test format
is useful in showing whether a learner’s knowledge of a word has begun to move
towards productive mastery.
The X_Lex and Y_Lex tests use a yes/no format where learners see a word on
a computer screen and then have to decide if they know it. The tests include
some pseudowords (like skemp ) that look like real words, and learners’ scores
are adjusted downwards by the number of times they say that they know these
non-words. The tests give an estimate of overall vocabulary size and a proﬁle of
vocabulary known at each 1000 frequency band.
The Vocabulary Dictation tests each consist of ﬁve paragraphs with each
successive paragraph containing less-frequent vocabulary. The test is administered
like a dictation but only the 20 target words at each level are actually marked.
There are four versions of the test. It can be used for quickly determining the
extent of learners’ listening vocabulary.
The Vocabulary Size Test (Nation and Beglar, 2007) was designed as a proﬁciency
test to measure total vocabulary sizes. Copies of the test can be found at http://
www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/nation.aspx and at Tom Cobb’s website
(www.lextutor.ca). It consists of 140 multiple-choice items with the stem
containing the tested word in a non-deﬁning context sentence. Although the test
is divided into fourteen 1000-word levels, with 10 items at each level, a learner’s
total vocabulary size is found by simply multiplying the learner’s score on the test
by 100. A Rasch-based validation of the test (Beglar, in press) found:

46An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
1 It can be used with learners with a very wide range of proﬁciency levels.
2 It measures what it is supposed to measure and does not measure other things.
Beglar found that the test was very clearly measuring a single factor (presumably
written receptive vocabulary knowledge) and other factors played a very minor
role in performance on the text.
3 It behaves in ways that we would expect it to behave, distinguishing between
learners of different proﬁciency levels, having a range of item difﬁculties related
to the frequency level of the tested words, and clearly distinguishing several
different levels of vocabulary knowledge so that learners’ vocabulary growth
over time could be measured.
4 It performs consistently and reliably, even though circumstances change. In
Beglar’s trialing of the test, these changes included comparing the performance
of male subjects with female subjects, comparing 70-item versions of the test
with the 140-item version, and comparing learners of various proﬁciency levels.
Rasch reliability measures were around 0.96.
5 It is easy to score and interpret the scores.
6 The items in the test are clear and unambiguous.
7 It can be administered in efﬁcient ways. When learners sit the test, they need
not sit the whole test if the lower frequency levels are thought to be well
beyond their present level of knowledge. Ideally, they should sit at least two
levels beyond their present level of knowledge. So if learners are thought to
have a vocabulary size of around 3000 words, they should sit the ﬁrst ﬁve or
six 1000 word levels.
The test works very well because it covers a very wide range of frequency levels,
it includes a large number of items (even half of this number would work well),
the items have been very carefully designed and made and the test is designed to
measure just one kind of vocabulary knowledge.
As can be seen in the above examples of the various tests, there is a wide variety
of vocabulary test formats. Different test formats testing the same vocabulary
tend to correlate with each other around 0.7, indicating that test format plays
a considerable role in determining the results of a vocabulary test. This also
suggests that different test formats may be tapping different aspects of vocabulary
knowledge. There are a number of issues that complicate vocabulary testing, and
these are well covered by Read (2000) in his book devoted to assessing vocabulary
and Schmitt (in press) in his vocabulary research manual.
Limitations On Generalizing Vocabulary Size
Estimates And Strategies To Other Languages
It is worth pointing out that most of the research on vocabulary has been done
within the broad context of English Language Teaching (ELT). This is rather
unfortunate, since English is a very peculiar language in some respects, and
particularly so as far as its vocabulary is concerned. This means that the ﬁndings
reported in the earlier part of this chapter may not always be generalizable to
other languages in a straightforward way.
The chief characteristic of English vocabulary is that it is very large. Consider,
for example, the set of objects and actions that in English are labelled as: book,
write, read, desk , letter, secretary and scribe. These words are all related semantically,
in that they refer to written language, but it is impossible to tell this simply by

47 Vocabulary
looking at the words. They share no physical similarities at all, and this means
that learners of English have to acquire seven separate words to cover all these
meanings. In other languages, this is not always the case. In Arabic, for example,
all seven meanings are represented by words which contain a shared set of three
consonants – in this case k-t-b. The different meanings are signalled in a systematic
way by different combinations of vowels. This means that in Arabic all seven
English words are clearly marked as belonging to the same semantic set, and the
learning load is correspondingly reduced.
There are also some historical reasons which contributed to the complexity of
English vocabulary. A substantial proportion of English vocabulary is basically
Anglo-Saxon in origin but, after the Norman invasion in 1066, huge numbers
of Norman French words found their way into English, and these words often
co-existed side-by-side with already existing native English words. English
vocabulary was again very heavily inﬂuenced in the eighteenth century when
scholars deliberately expanded the vocabulary by introducing words based on
Latin and Greek. This means that English vocabulary is made up of layers of
words, which are heavily marked from the stylistic point of view. Some examples
of this are:
cow beef bovine
horse … equine
pig pork porcine
sheep mutton ovine
The ﬁrst column (Anglo-Saxon words), describes animals in the ﬁeld, the second
column (Norman French derivatives) describe the animals as you might ﬁnd them
in a feast, while the third column (learned words) describes the animals as you
might ﬁnd them in an anatomy text book. It is very easy to ﬁnd examples of the
same process operating in other lexical ﬁelds as well, since it is very widespread
in English. Almost all the basic Anglo-Saxon words have parallel forms based on
Latin or Greek, which are used in particular, specialist discourse. In fact, estimates
suggest around 60 per cent of English vocabulary comes from French, Latin or
Greek.
English also has a tendency to use rare and unusual words where other
languages often use circumlocutions based on simpler items. Thus, English uses
plagiarism to describe stealing quotations from other people’s literary works,
rustling to describe stealing other people’s cows and hijacking to describe stealing
other people’s airplanes. These terms are completely opaque in English: the
words themselves contain no clues as to their meaning. In other languages, these
ideas would often be described by words or expressions that literally translate
as stealing writing, or stealing cows or stealing aircraft . In these languages, the
meaning of these expressions is entirely transparent, and they could easily be
understood by people who knew the easy words of which these expressions are
composed.
The Lexical Bar
Unfortunately for EFL learners, the opaque terms are not just an optional extra.
A large part of English education is about learning this difﬁcult vocabulary,
which Corson (1995) called the ‘lexical bar’ or barrier, and educated
English speakers are expected to know these words and be able to use them

48An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
appropriately. Trainee doctors, for example, need to master a set of familiar
words for body parts , (eye, ear, back, etc. ) as well as a set of formal learned words
for the same body parts (ocular, auricular, lumbar, etc.) They may also need to
acquire a set of familiar words which refer to body parts which are regarded as
taboo ( stomach/belly, bum, arse, bottom, etc ). Some of these words will only occur
in speech with patients, some would only be appropriately used with children,
others will only appear in written reports, others might be appropriately used
in a conversation with a medical colleague. Using a word in the wrong context
can cause offence, make you look like an idiot, or cause you to be completely
misunderstood. All this represents a signiﬁcant learning burden for non-native
speakers, and one which is not always found to quite the same extent in other
languages.
The basic problem here seems to be that English vocabulary consists of a large
number of different items, which are layered according to the contexts in which
they appear. In other languages, the number of basic items is smaller, but there
is more of a ‘system’ for inventing new words (Ringbom, 1983). In languages
with a rich morphology, for example, it is often possible to make a verb out of
any noun by adding the appropriate verbal ending, or to make an adjective by
adding an appropriate adjectival ending. You cannot always do this easily in
English. In some other languages – German is a good example – it is possible
to create new words by combining simple words into novel, compound forms.
Native speakers learn these systems and develop the ability to create new words
as they need them, and to easily decode new words created by other speakers
when they hear them. In these languages, having a large vocabulary may be less
important than having an understanding of the process of word formation and
having the ability to use these processes effectively and efﬁciently as the need
arises.
An important consequence of this is that some of the statistical claims put
forward for English will not apply straightforwardly to other languages. In
English, for example, we would normally consider a vocabulary of 4000–5000
word families to be a minimum for intermediate level performance, and
6000–9000 word families to be the requirement for advanced performance
(Nation, 2006). But this may not be the case for other languages. It is possible,
for example, that in a language which makes extensive use of compounding,
and has a highly developed morphological system, a vocabulary of 2000–3000
words might give you access to a very much larger vocabulary which could be
constructed and decoded on-line. It is difﬁcult to assess this idea in the absence
of formal statistical evaluations, but it clearly implies that we need to evaluate
the claims we make about English in the light of the particular lexical properties
of other target languages.
Vocabulary Size and Language Proﬁciency
This means that the relationship between vocabulary size and overall linguistic
ability may differ from one language to another. In English, there is a relatively
close relationship between how many words you know, as measured on the
standard vocabulary tests, and how well you perform on reading tests, listening
tests and other formal tests of your English ability. In other languages, it is
much less clear that this relationship holds up in a straightforward way. Let us
imagine, for example, a language which had a relatively small core vocabulary

49 Vocabulary
– let’s call it ‘Simplish’ – and let’s say that Simplish has a core vocabulary of
about 2000 core words but makes up for this by making very extensive use of
compounding. In Simplish, anyone who had acquired the basic vocabulary and
understood the rules of compounding would automatically have access to all
the other words in the vocabulary as well. ‘Difﬁcult words’ – in the sense of
words that are infrequent – would exist in Simplish, but they would not be a
problem for learners. These infrequent words would probably be long, because
they were made up of many components, but the components would all be
familiar at some level. It might be difﬁcult to unwrap the words at ﬁrst but,
in principle, even the most difﬁcult word would be amenable to analysis. For
L2 learners of Simplish, the vocabulary learning load would be tiny, and once
they had mastered the core items, they would face few of the problems that
L2 English speakers face. They would be able to read almost everything they
encountered; they would be able to construct new vocabulary as it was needed,
rather than learning it by rote in advance. For teachers of Simplish, it would
be important to know how much of the core vocabulary their students could
handle with ease and familiarity, but beyond that, the notion of ‘vocabulary
size’ would be completely irrelevant. It would be useful to know whether your
class had a vocabulary of 500 words or 1500 words, but once the learners had
mastered the 2000 core words it just wouldn’t make sense to ask how big their
vocabulary was. It would also not make much sense to ask what words we need
to teach: the obvious strategy would be to get students familiar with all the core
vocabulary as quickly as possible. After that, we would need to concentrate on
teaching learners how to unpack unfamiliar vocabulary, and how to construct
compound words in a way that was pleasing, elegant and effective.
Unfortunately, not many languages are as elegant as Simplish. However, if we
think of English as being especially difﬁcult as far as vocabulary is concerned,
then it seems likely that many of the languages that we commonly teach are
much more like Simplish than English. This means that we would not always
expect to ﬁnd that vocabulary plays the same role in learning these languages
as it does in English. Vocabulary size in English strongly limits the sorts of
texts that you can read with ease: this might not be case in other languages,
and this would make it unnecessary for teachers to invest in simpliﬁed readers.
Advanced learners of English tend to exhibit richer vocabulary in their writing
than less advanced learners do: in a language that makes more extensive use
of a core vocabulary, this relationship might not be so obvious, and this might
have implications for the ways examiners evaluate texts written by learners
of these languages. English has very different vocabulary registers for special
areas of discourse, and this makes it important for learners to acquire academic
vocabulary, legal vocabulary, the vocabulary of business English and so on:
in other languages, these special vocabularies may not be so obvious or
necessary.
The general point here is that the sheer size of English vocabulary has a very
marked effect on the way we teach English, and severely constrains the level
of achievement we expect of learners. Most people agree that ﬂuent English
speakers need very large vocabularies, that it makes sense to pace the learning
of this vocabulary over a long time, and that we should rely principally on the
learners’ own motivation to get them to these very high levels of vocabulary
knowledge. However, this wouldn’t be the best set of strategies to adopt if you
believed that the language you were teaching was more like Simplish. In these

50An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
cases, it would be worth putting a lot of effort into getting students to learn the
core vocabulary very quickly indeed, simply because the pay-off for this effort
would be very great.
Our guess is that very many languages are much simpler than English is as
far as their vocabulary structure is concerned, and that it would be wrong to
assume that research ﬁndings based on English will generalize automatically to
these languages. This means that teaching methods that take English vocabulary
structure for granted will not always be the best way for us to approach the
teaching of vocabulary in other languages.
This comparison underlines the importance of having a well-thought out
plan for helping learners with English vocabulary. The basis for this plan is an
awareness of the distinction between high-frequency and low-frequency words,
and of the strands and strategies which are the means of dealing with these
words.
FURTHER READING
Nagy, W.E., Herman, P. and Anderson, R.C. (1985) Learning words from context.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20: 233-253. The classic ﬁrst language study of guessing
from context.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. A substantial survey of vocabulary teaching and learning.
Nation, I.S.P. (2008) Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and Techniques . Boston: Heinle
Cengage Learning. A book written for teachers covering a wide range of vocabulary
teaching and learning topics.
Read, J. (2000) Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A clear,
well-informed study of vocabulary testing.
Schmitt, N. (2000) Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. An accessible introduction to vocabulary teaching and learning.
Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds) (1997) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and
Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. An authoritative and accessible
collection of articles on vocabulary.
West, M. (1953) A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman. The
classic second language 2000 word list. A model for future lists.
HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES
A. Take this test (Goulden, Nation, and Read, 1990) to estimate how many word
families you know. You will ﬁnd below a list of 50 words which is part of a
sample of all the words in the language. The words are arranged more or less
in order of frequency, starting with common words and going down to some
very unusual ones.

51 Vocabulary
Procedure
1 Read through the whole list. Put a tick next to each word you know, that is,
you have seen the word before and can express at least one meaning for it. Put
a question mark next to each word that you think you know but are not sure
about. Do not mark the words you do not know.
2 When you have been through the whole list, go back and check the words with
question marks to see whether you can change the question mark to a tick.
3 Then ﬁnd the last ﬁve words you ticked (that is, the ones that are furthest
down the list). Show you know the meaning of each one by giving a synonym
or deﬁnition or by using it in a sentence or drawing a diagram, if appropriate.
4 Check your explanations of the ﬁve words in a dictionary. If more than one
of the explanations is not correct, you need to work back through the list,
beginning with the sixth to last word you ticked. Write the meaning of this
word and check it in the dictionary. Continue this process until you have
a sequence of four words (which may include some of the original ﬁve you
checked) that you have explained correctly.
5 Calculate your score by multiplying the total number of known words by 500.
Do not include the words with a question mark in your scoring.
Test
1 bag
2 face
3 entire
4 approve
5 tap
6 jersey
7 cavalry
8 mortgage
9 homage
10 colleague
11 avalanche
12 ﬁrmament
13 shrew
14 atrophy
15 broach
16 con
17 halloo
18 marquise
19 stationery
20 woodsman
21 bastinado
22 countermarch
23 furbish
24 meerschaum
25 patroon26 regatta
27 asphyxiate
28 curricle
29 weta
30 bioenvironmental
31 detente
32 draconic
33 glaucoma
34 morph
35 permutate
36 thingamabob
37 piss
38 brazenfaced
39 loquat
40 anthelmintic
41 gamp
42 paraprotein
43 heterophyllous
44 squirearch
45 resorb
46 goldenhair
47 axbreaker
48 masonite
49 hematoid
50 polybrid
B. The following table contains a few activities classiﬁed into the four vocabulary
learning strands.

52An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Strand General conditions Activities and techniques
Meaning-focused input Focus on the message
Some unfamiliar items (2%)
Understanding
NoticingListening to the teacher
explain something
Language-focused learning Focus on language items
Deliberate studyLearning word parts
Using word cards
Learning to guess from
context
Meaning-focused output Focus on the message
Some unfamiliar items
Understanding
Noticing
Fluency development Focus on the message
Little or no unfamiliar
language
Pressure to perform faster
Quantity of practiceListening to other learners
give talks
Table 3.3 Four vocabulary learning strands
Complete the table by putting the following activities into the appropriate
strand. Be prepared to justify your choices by referring to the criteria in Column 2.
What strands do these activities ﬁt into?
• 10 minute writing. (The learners write for 10 minutes each day on very easy
topics. The best learner is the one who writes the most.)
• 4/3/2 (The learners give the same talk to three different learners one after the
other having 4 minutes for the ﬁrst delivery, 3 minutes for the second and
2 minutes for the third.)
• Communication activities.
• Communication activities with written input.
• Direct learning.
• Direct teaching of vocabulary.
• Intensive reading.
• Linked skills. (For example, read about a topic, then talk about it and then write
about it.)
• Listening to easy input.
• Listening to stories.
• Prepared writing.
• Reading easy graded readers.
• Reading graded readers.
• Rehearsed tasks.
• Repeated reading.
• Speed reading.
• Training in vocabulary strategies.

Discourse Analysis
Michael McCarthy
University of Nottingham
Christian Matthiessen
Macquarie University
Diana Slade
University of Technology, Sydney
What is Discourse Analysis?
Life is a constant ﬂow of discourse – of language functioning in one of the many
contexts that together make up a culture. Consider an ordinary day. It will, very
likely, start with discourse (for example, greeting members of the household and
some item of news from the radio, TV , world wide web or printed newspaper) before
individuals rush off to go to work or school. The day then continues with a variety
of discourse in these institutions: discussing plans at a business meeting, writing
an undergraduate psychology essay in the university library, ordering lunch at
a fast food outlet. (The day may, of course, include contexts that are not part of
daily life, both private ones, such as a consultation with a medical specialist, and
public ones, such as the inaugural speech by a newly elected ofﬁcial.) As the day
outside the home draws to a close, the members of the household come together
again, quite possibly sitting down for a joint meal with enough time to review the
day and dream about the future.
If you try to document, in a ‘discourse diary’, the ﬂow of discourse over a
few days, you will get a good sense of the extent to which life is ‘made up of’
discourse, and of the extraordinary range of contexts in which you engage in
communication. This will also give a good indication of the diverse demands on
language faced by language learners: learning how to engage in discourse is one
of the most important goals in language learning and teaching. This means that
the study of discourse is absolutely central to the concerns of applied linguistics;
and as a language student or language teacher it is very helpful to ‘develop an ear’
for discourse – to learn to attend to the different strands of patterning in discourse
and to focus on those contexts and linguistic strategies that are most immediately
relevant.
Because of its pervasiveness in life, discourse is studied in a number of different
disciplines ( see below ). In the ﬁeld of applied linguistics, the most relevant body
of work is that which has come to be known as ‘discourse analysis’ (or ‘text
linguistics’). The discourse analyst studies texts, whether spoken or written,
whether long or short, and is interested in the relationship between texts and
the contexts in which they arise and operate. Discourse analysts always look
at real texts – and in this they differ signiﬁcantly from formal (as opposed to
functional) grammarians and philosophers of language, since these scholars tend
to work with invented (constructed) examples. In addition, discourse analysts
study language independently of the notion of the sentence, typically studying
longer passages of text, whereas grammarians traditionally do not work beyond
the written sentence. In other words, discourse analysts work with ‘utterances’ 4

54An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
(sequences of words written or spoken in speciﬁc contexts), whereas grammarians
tend to work with ‘sentences’ (sequences of words conforming, or not, to the rules
of grammar for the construction of phrases, clauses, etc.). Discourse analysts focus
on the following questions when analysing texts:
• Who are the participants in the discourse, that is, the writer and reader(s), the
speaker(s) and listener(s)? What is their relationship? Is it one between equals?
Are there differences in power or knowledge between the participants? What
are their goals? (A formal grammarian does not usually take any of these factors
into account when working with out-of-context sentences.)
• How do we know what writers and speakers mean? More speciﬁcally, discourse
analysts ask ‘What does this piece of language mean in this context ?’ and ‘What
does the speaker/writer mean by this piece of language?’ What factors enable
us to interpret the text? What do we need to know about the context? What
clues are there in the surrounding text which will enable us to apprehend the
meaning? (In contrast, a formal grammarian can ask the question ‘What does
this sentence mean ?’, and a lexicologist can ask ‘What does this word mean ?’,
independently of context.)
The important position that discourse analysis occupies in applied linguistics has
come about because it enables applied linguists to analyse and understand real
language data, for example, texts written by ﬁrst and second language learners, or
recordings of the spoken output of second language learners, or of the interaction
between teachers and learners or among learners themselves in classrooms. It also
enables us to understand better the kinds of discourse that language learners are
exposed to outside the classroom: the language of service encounters in shops,
banks, restaurants, etc., the language of newspapers, the language of everyday
informal conversation. In addition, such analyses can assist language teachers and
materials writers to evaluate language course books in terms of how closely they
approximate authentic language, or what needs to be modiﬁed when authentic
texts are brought into the classroom. Language testing can also gain a great deal
from looking at real language use as a source of criteria for the evaluation of test
performances.
Speaking and Writing
Discourse analysis is the analysis of language in its social context. Discourse
analysts are just as interested in the analysis of spoken discourse as they are in
the analysis of written discourse. When the focus in linguistics was primarily
on written language and restricted to the study of isolated sentences, spoken
language was seen as formless and ungrammatical and written language as
highly structured and organized. Beattie (1983) wrote: ‘Spontaneous speech is
unlike written text. It contains many mistakes, sentences are unusually brief
and indeed the whole fabric of verbal expression is riddled with hesitations
and silences’ (Beattie, 1983: 33). However, research on the analysis of spoken
discourse (Halliday, 1985; Eggins and Slade, 1997; McCarthy, 1998) shows that
spoken English does have a consistent and describable structure and that in
many respects the language patterning is the same as written English. Halliday
(1985: 77) provides an explanation for the myth of the ‘formlessness’ of spoken
language, arguing that it derives from the analysis of written transcriptions of
conversation, with all their pauses, repetitions and false starts. He contends that

55 Discourse Analysis
an author’s ﬁrst draft, with its crossings-out and re-writings, would look just as
ramshackle. Beneath its surface ‘imperfections’ (which are an essential part of its
dynamic ﬂexibility) spoken language exhibits a highly elaborate organization,
and is grammatically intricate, though in a way which is quite different from the
language which we read and write.
One way of approaching differences between speaking and writing is to plot
individual texts along scales or dimensions. Figure 4.1 maps different kinds of
spoken and written texts along such a scale. At one end of the scale, we have
the most informal, concrete, interactions and, at the other, the most formal and
abstract interactions.
Figure 4.1 The cline between spoken and written discourse.
At the most formal end of the formality continuum, there are the most
dense written texts, such as academic articles, which are planned, collated and
redrafted many times. At the other, are the most informal, spontaneous spoken
interactions, with turn-taking, constantly shifting topics, overlapping speech and
frequent interruptions. It is to these informal interactions that the label ‘casual
conversation’ is applied. In the middle of the scales are the informal, written texts
(such as email and letters to friends) and the formal, spoken texts (such as service
encounters, job interview or a public speech).
Academic texts are usually written in a detached and formal style (detachment
or distancing oneself from the reader may be seen in the use of impersonal
pronouns and passive voices, an absence of the pronoun you and an absence of
affective/emotional vocabulary). Chatting with a friend over coffee, on the other
hand, is usually a highly involved activity, with the pronouns I and you much
in evidence, along with affective vocabulary. We have to hedge these statements
with the word usually , however, as the characteristics of all types of discourse are
variable to some degree. For example, chat between strangers may be much more
distant and uninvolved personally, a kind of ritual where subjects such as the
weather are acceptable, but where personal and intimate topics are not.
Not only is the formality of the vocabulary usually different between spoken
and written discourse but the amount of content that the words carry also differs,
that is, spoken and written discourse usually have different lexical densities.
Lexical density in a text is the rate of occurrence of lexical items (so-called ‘content
words’, such as, sun, confuse , tiny) as against grammatical items (for example, he,
was, on). Spoken discourse typically has a far lower lexical density and it is partly
because of this lexical scarcity that some people believe that spoken language
‘lacks content’. In fact, much of the content is ‘ﬁlled into’ the grammatical words
by the context. For example, the grammatical words in ‘ It’s over there ’ can be easily
understood by watching the speaker gesture to a ﬂowerpot on a shelf.Informal spoken English Formal written English
Casual conversation:
cosy chat with a
close friend
E-mail to a friendLetter to an
acquaintance
Conversation with
manager at workJob interview
Public speechWritten academic
article

56An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
If we focus just on spoken English, it is possible to plot the differences between
the most informal casual conversations, such as a dinner party conversation, and
formal spoken interactions, such as doctor–patient interactions or formal job
interviews. Table 4.1 illustrates that the differences between formal and informal
spoken English are indicative of, but not as extreme, as the differences between
spoken and written discourse. Overall, spoken interactions can be broadly
categorized as interpersonally motivated or pragmatically motivated.
Informal spoken discourse Formal spoken discourse
Primary purpose is the achievement of
interpersonal goals: to establish who we
are, how we relate to others and what we
think of how the world isPrimary purpose is the achievement
of pragmatic goals: to talk to ﬁnd out
information, to pass on knowledge, to make
appointments, to get jobs and to jointly
participate in practical activities
Spontaneity phenomena, such as false
starts, hesitations, interruptions and overlapTurn-taking more ordered
Constantly shifting topics as the goal is not
to achieve a particular purposeRole differentiation: there is clear role
differentiation between interactants (for
example, in doctor–patient interactions),
which results in greater topic control
Conversations are open-ended and can
continue for hours; it is in the process of
talking that we explore our social relationshipsFormal conversations are closed; once the
task is achieved, interaction ends
Table 4.1 Differences between informal and formal spoken discourse
The signiﬁcant contribution of discourse analysis is that it has demonstrated that
both spoken and written discourse have consistent and describable structures, with
different complexities reﬂecting the different functions of speech and writing in
our culture. As Halliday (1985: 92) wrote, ‘talking and writing, then, are different
ways of saying. They are different modes for expressing linguistic meanings.’
Language teachers will be aware that most traditional grammars derive from
analysis of written texts. However, recently there has been the development of
grammars that deal with both spoken and written English (Halliday, 1994; Biber
et al., 1999; Carter, Hughes and McCarthy, 2001). Discourse analysis, provides
valuable insights into the way we pattern and organize our speech. In every way
possible, learners should be alerted to the special qualities of spoken language and
encouraged to accord equal ‘validity’ to both spoken and written formulations of
language.
In the next sections we will brieﬂy describe the different approaches to discourse
analysis, and then go on to discuss how discourse analysts explain semantic and
lexico-grammatical features (the words and grammar of discourse).
Approaches to Discourse Analysis
Overview
Discourse analysts come from a number of different academic disciplines and
the ﬁeld is vast. We will not, therefore, attempt to provide a comprehensive

57 Discourse Analysis
review of approaches to discourse analysis, as this has been done elsewhere ( see
Levinson (1983), McCarthy (1991), Schiffrin (1994), Coulthard (1985), Eggins and
Slade (1997)) but will, rather, focus on those approaches that have the greatest
relevance to applied linguistics and language education. The different approaches
that have developed since the mid-twentieth century may be classiﬁed according
to different criteria. The most prominent, according to disciplinary origins, are
shown in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 Approaches to discourse analysis according to disciplinary origins (adapted from
Eggins and Slade, 1997).
The major contribution to the study of spoken discourse has come from
sociology, in particular from conversational analysis. Within sociolinguistic
approaches those relevant to the analysis of spoken discourse are the ethno-
graphy of speaking, interactional linguistics (Tannen 1984, 1989) and Labov
and Waletzky’s (1967) research on narrative within variation theory. From
philosophy, speech act theory and pragmatics have shed light on how people
interpret particular utterances. Within linguistics, the Birmingham School and
systemic functional linguistics (SFL) have both made signiﬁcant contributions
to an understanding of spoken and written discourse in English. Recently,
perspectives have emerged from interdisciplinary connections between
linguistics and critical and cultural theory, including critical linguistics and
critical discourse analysis (CDA).
Although each of the approaches listed in Figure 4.2 has made a signiﬁcant
contribution to our understanding of discourse, we will review only those that are
currently playing a major role in the various contexts of applied linguistics and
language education.Sociology
Sociolinguistics
Philosophy
Linguistics
Artificial intelligenceConversational analysis
Structural–functional
Social semioticSpeech act theory
PragmaticsEthnography
Interactional sociolinguistics
Variation theory
Birmingham School
Systemic functional linguistics (SFL)
SFL
Critical discourse analysis

58An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Sociology: Conversation Analysis
Conversation analysis is concerned with the detailed organization of everyday
interaction; thus, it contrasts with much of the work in mainstream sociology
which focuses on large-scale categories of class, gender, age groups and so on. It is
concerned mainly with dialogic, spoken discourse of a fairly informal character.
Conversation analysis was stimulated by Garﬁnkel’s (1967) ethnomethodology
and Goffman’s (1974, 1981) frame analysis, and was developed into a distinctive
ﬁeld of enquiry by Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson and others (Jefferson, 1972; Schegloff,
1972; Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks, 1977;
Sacks, 1992). Conversation analysis focuses on conversation because it offers a
particularly appropriate and accessible resource for sociological enquiry. It favours
ﬁne-grain analyses, often of quite short stretches of conversation. Key questions
for conversation analysts are:
• How do people take turns in conversation?
• How do people open and close conversations?
• How do people launch new topics, close old ones, shift topic, etc.?
• How is it that conversation generally progresses satisfactorily from one utterance
to the next?
Turn-taking
In conversation analysis, the basic unit of speech is the individual speaker ‘turn’.
A turn is each occasion that a speaker speaks and a turn ends when another speaker
takes a turn. This is based on social interaction in the ﬁrst place rather than on
any phonological, lexico-grammatical or semantic considerations. Conversation
analysts are interested in how speakers achieve smooth turn-taking, and what the
‘rules’ are for who speaks when.
In any ordinary, informal conversation, there is hardly any overlap or interruption,
and only minimal silences between turns (on average, less than a second), if there
is any silence at all. Sacks et al. (1974) observed that speakers are permitted to take
turns when they are chosen or ‘nominated’ by the current speaker, or if no one is
directly selected, they may speak of their own choice (‘self-selection’). If neither
of these conditions apply, the current speaker can simply continue. The language
provides us with ways of getting the next turn. These vary in appropriateness to
different contexts ( ‘If I may ask a question of the panel’ , ‘Can I speak?’ , ‘Shut up for
goodness sake, I can’t get a word in!’ ). There are also ways of not taking the turn even
when one has the chance to, for example by just saying Mmm . Vocalizations while
another person is speaking, such as Mmm , uhuh , yeah , sure, right , are called ‘back-
channel’ responses (Yngve, 1970; McCarthy, 2001) and show that the listener is
still following the speaker and wishes him or her to continue. Another important
aspect of turn-taking is the way interlocutors predict one another’s turns and
often complete the speaker’s utterance for them. Also, they often overlap with
the speaker as they complete the speaker’s utterance even though the speaker
is still talking. Neither back-channels nor completions or overlaps are normally
perceived as interruptions or as rude. For conversation analysts, they represent co-
operative activity by participants to facilitate communication.
Patterns in Turn-taking: Adjacency Pairs
In conversation analysis, the most basic pattern is the ‘adjacency pair’, which is

59 Discourse Analysis
a pair of turns that mutually affect one another. Examples of everyday adjacency
pairs are greeting–greeting , compliment–thanks , apology–acceptance . Such pairs consist
of two parts: a ﬁrst pair-part and a second-pair-part:
First pair-part Second pair-part
A: Good morning ➝ B: Hi, good morning
A: Congratulations on the new job ➝ B: Oh, thanks
These adjacency pairs proceed smoothly and are well-formed in terms of the
cultural contexts in which they typically occur in English: a greeting gets a
greeting in return, and congratulations prompt a thank-you. These are examples
of ‘preferred sequences’. But consider this:
A: Hi, how’s it going? ➝ B: Drop dead!
This would probably be perceived as a ‘dispreferred sequence’, a problem for the
speakers. Sometimes it is necessary to produce a dispreferred second pair-part (for
example, declining an invitation or offer). When this occurs, hard work is usually
involved to make the sequence as little-damaging to the participants’ ‘face’ (sense
of personal worth) as possible. Apart from ritual adjacency pairs (often connected
with politeness, small talk, openings and closings, etc.), other common types
include ‘solidary routines’ (for example, A: I have a terrible headache , B: Oh, I’m
sorry, can I do anything? ) and ‘converging pairs’ (for example, A: I just love that green
sweater , B: Oh, so do I, isn’t it great! ) (see Pomeranz, 1984).
Conversation analysts are also interested in conversational openings and
closings (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973) and how interactants manage the topics they
want to talk about (Gardner, 1987). ( See Chapter 12, Speaking and Pronunciation ,
for more on turn-taking and topic management.)
A major contribution of conversation analysis has been to make everyday
interaction a subject worthy of academic research. The strength of the observations
of conversation comes, in part, from the fact that they are always based on actual
recorded data of naturally occurring interactions, transcribed in meticulous detail
(albeit usually giving the prosodic features of intonation and rhythm a very
cursory treatment). Believing that intuition is an extremely unreliable guide for
work in conversation, conversation analysis has always rejected experimental
methods of collecting conversational data, such as simulating dialogues or setting
up artiﬁcial interactive contexts, and has challenged discourse analysts to access
the data offered by everyday life. This has implications for the language teaching
classrooms: as much as possible, language learners should be given access to
authentic spoken extracts, as so often the concocted examples provided in text
books do not resemble real conversation at all.
Sociolinguistic Approaches: Ethnography and Variation
Theory
Anthropological linguistics and sociolinguistics are concerned with studying
not the isolated sentence but how language creates effective communication in
the contexts of everyday life. The three sociolinguistic approaches to discourse
analysis are ethnographic approaches, interactional sociolinguistics and variation
theory. We will brieﬂy outline two of these approaches, and refer readers to
Schiffrin (1994), Eggins and Slade (1997), as well as to Chapter 9, Sociolinguistics .

60An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Ethnography
Ethnographic approaches to conversation have been led by Hymes (Hymes,
1972a, b; Saville-Troike, 1989) and are concerned with ‘the situation and uses,
the patterns and functions, of speaking as an activity in its own right’ (Hymes,
1974: 3). Hymes developed a schema for analysing context that has the ‘speech
event’ in which language occurs as its prime unit of analysis:
The speech event is to the analysis of verbal interaction what the sentence is to grammar
… I t r e p r esents an extension in the size of the basic analytical unit from the single
utterance to stretches of utterances, as well as a shift in focus from … text to . . .
interaction.
Hymes, 1972: 17
Speech events include interactions such as a conversation at a party or ordering
a meal, etc. Any speech event comprises several components and these are
listed in the grid in Table 4.2. With each letter acting as an abbreviation for a
different component of communication, Hymes’s grid has become known as the
‘SPEAKING grid’.
S setting scene temporal and physical circumstances subjective deﬁnition of
an occasion
P participant speaker/sender/addressor hearer/receiver/audience/
addressee
E ends purposes and goals outcomes
A act sequence message form and content
K key tone, manner
I instrumentalities channel (verbal and non-verbal; physical forms of speech
drawn from community repertoires)
N norms of interaction
and interpretationspeciﬁc properties attached to speaking interpretations of
norms within cultural belief system
G genre textual categories
Table 4.2 Hymes’s SPEAKING grid (Hymes, 1972b)
The SPEAKING grid provides a necessary reminder of the contextual dimensions
that determine our use of language. Hymes’s ethnographic framework led not only
to broader notions of the ‘communicative competence’ language users display but
also to a recognition of the close relationship between speech events and their
social or cultural contexts.
A concept that is increasingly important in language teaching is the concept of
‘genre’. Later, we will describe some of the different genres that occur in spoken
and written English. The term ‘genre’ is used in many different disciplines ( see
Chapter 6, Corpus Linguistics , Chapter 12, Speaking and Pronunciation and Chapter
14, Writing ). What each approach has in common is the recognition that there
are, in both spoken and written language, different text-types or genres with their
own different internal structures, which accord with different social goals. As the
SPEAKING grid shows, Hymes (1972b) used the term ‘genre’ to refer to just one
component of the speech event.

61 Discourse Analysis
Variation Theory
Variation theory was developed by Labov (1972) and has made a major contribution
to the analysis of discourse, in particular, his description of the structure of spoken
narratives, which has been very inﬂuential in language teaching. Labov, with
Waletsky (Labov and Waletsky, 1967), argued that the ‘overall structure’ of a fully
formed narrative of personal experience is:
• Abstract (summary of story, with its point),
• Orientation (in respect of place, time and situation),
• Complication (temporal sequence of events, culminating in crisis),
• Evaluation (narrator’s attitude towards narrative),
• Resolution (protagonist’s approach to crisis),
• Coda (point about narrative as a whole).
(Labov and Waletsky, 1967: 363)
Labov did not use the word genre , but his analysis of text structure, in particular
in relation to narratives of personal experience, has been particularly inﬂuential
in work on genre in language teaching and within functional linguistics, which
are described below.
Linguistic Approaches
The Birmingham School
In the early 1970s, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) tape-recorded mother-tongue
classes. The classes were traditional, teacher-fronted lessons where knowledge
was typically transmitted by the pupils answering the teacher’s display questions
(questions where the teacher already knew the answers), engaging in some sort of
activity or just listening to the teacher talking. From these recordings, Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975) built a model for the analysis of classroom discourse. A typical
piece of classroom discourse, from a primary school class in England is the following:
T = Teacher P = Any pupil who speaks
T: Now then … I’ve got some things here, too. Hands up. What’s that,
what is it?
P: Saw.
T: It’s a saw, yes this is a saw. What do we do with a saw?
P: Cut wood.
T: Yes. You’re shouting out though. What do we do with a saw? Marvelette.
P: Cut wood.
T: We cut wood.
Note here:
(a) The teacher begins this phase of the lesson with ‘Now then’. This is a
discourse marker that indicates a boundary, the start of something new.
(b) Pupils aren’t allowed just to shout their answers. The teacher nominates
who speaks next.
(c) The teacher reinforces the answer by repeating it and evaluating it as a
good answer (‘It’s a saw, yes, this is a saw’).
(d) The discourse proceeds in units of three parts: the question, the
response, and the feedback or follow-up.
(Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975: 93 –94)

62An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
This extract also shows how the discourse is organized at several different levels.
The top level is the lesson phases usually bounded by discourse markers such
as ‘Now then’ and ‘Right’. In the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) model these are
called ‘transactions’.
The next level is illustrated in the question–answer–feedback combinations.
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) called these ‘exchanges’.
The next level below is represented by the single actions of questioning,
answering, feeding back, each of which is called a ‘move’.
Finally, there are local, micro-actions such as nominating a pupil to speak,
telling the kids to put their hands up, acknowledging, etc., which Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975) called ‘acts’.
These different levels form a rank-scale, in which any level is comprised of all
the levels below it.
Transactions are composed of
EXCHANGES
MOVES
ACTS
A typical exchange in the teacher-fronted classroom is the ‘eliciting exchange’,
which has three moves, an initiating move, a responding move and a follow-up
move:
T: How do we use a thermometer? Jennie. INITIATING MOVE
P: Put it in your mouth. RESPONDING MOVE
T: You put it in your mouth. FOLLOW-UP MOVE
These three core moves, I(nitiating), R(esponding) and F(ollow-up) led to the
model being referred to by the shorthand title, the ‘IRF model’.
Many second language teachers will recognize in the Sinclair-Coulthard
transcripts their own instinctive behaviour in front of large groups of learners,
especially when institutional pressures prevent more imaginative ways of
communicating in the classroom. Sinclair and Coulthard’s research brought a new
awareness of classroom language to a generation of language teachers in the 1970s
and 1980s, and had an important informing role in boosting the move towards
communicative language teaching. The model was taken into the world outside
the classroom (Hoey, 1991; Francis and Hunston, 1992), and since its early days it
has been immensely useful for those interested in analysing language classrooms
and many other types of discourse.
Systemic Functional Linguistics
There is a family of linguistic approaches – of which systemic functional
linguistics (SFL) and critical discourse analysis are members – that is socially
oriented, essentially concerned with describing the relationship of language,
text and social life. Within this broad band of approaches, there are functional
descriptions of language which see a particular kind of relationship between
language and context where one shapes the other. Functional descriptions seek
to explain the nature and organization of language according to what it has to
do (for example, Excuse me, do you know the way to _____ ? serves the purpose of
asking for directions). Systemic functional linguistics is one variety of functional
linguistics, its distinctive feature being the concern to explain the internal

63 Discourse Analysis
organization of language in terms of the functions that it has evolved to serve
(Halliday, 1978, 1994).
The central concern of systemic functional linguistics is how people use language
with each other to accomplish everyday social life and how social worlds are, in
turn, created in and through language. This interest leads to an investigation of
how language is structured to achieve socio-cultural meanings. Systemic functional
linguistics therefore focuses on the analysis of texts, considered in relationship
to the social context in which they occur. It has particular applicability to the
analysis of spoken discourse.
The systemic functional linguistics orientation to spoken discourse is similar
to that of conversation analysis, in that both are concerned to describe the
relationship between language and its social context. However, the focus in
systemic functional linguistics on spoken language is on the way that language
is organized to enable conversation to work and to have the power it does. By
contrast, conversation analysis focuses on social life, and conversation is seen as
a key to that. What they share is the belief in the social nature of language: that
conversation builds social contexts at the same time as these contexts guide and
shape conversation.
Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical discourse analysis is concerned with the relationship between language,
ideology and power (Fairclough, 1989) and the relationship between discourse and
sociocultural change (Fairclough, 1992). The approach is inﬂuenced by Halliday
and systemic linguistics (Fairclough, 1995: 6).
Genres in critical discourse analysis are seen as social actions occurring within
particular social and historical contexts. As Miller (1984) argues, similarities
in form and function are seen as deriving from the similarity in the social
action undertaken. Thus, texts are looked at not only according to the textual
regularities they display but also according to what class, gender and ethnic bias
they incorporate, what discursive practices are constructed in the text, and, as a
consequence of this, what social practices they reﬂect.
This new conception of genre in critical discourse analysis sees genres as both
social and textual categories and no longer as ﬁxed and immutable, but as dynamic
and changing. As with the systemic accounts of genres, genres in critical discourse
analysis are seen not only as a reﬂection of social reality but also as constructing
social reality. Genres, therefore, not only arise out of the social context but, in
fact, they shape the social context.
Grammar and Discourse: Spoken and Written
Differences
In written discourses, writers can rely on readers to process the text in a logical
and commonsense way. So, if a subject is not repeated in a co-ordinated clause,
the reader simply assumes that the same subject applies:
We stood and gazed at the sea.
(Understood: We stood and we gazed at the sea.)
But because spoken discourse is usually so tied to its immediate context (unlike
written texts which are often produced at one time and place to be read at

64An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
another), speakers usually have even less need to refer to everything that is in the
context and can take for granted that listeners will know what is being referred
to. This is often reﬂected in very short, reduced turns in informal conversation,
where items normally required by the grammar of writing are simply absent. For
instance, it is a general rule of English, that verbs in interrogative clauses must
have a subject, and yet subjects and auxiliary verbs are often absent in questions
directly referring to the listener(s):
Hi, Nigel, been working?
(Understood: ‘ Have you been working?’)
A: Anybody want soup?
B: No thank you.
(Understood: ‘ Does anyone want soup?)
Statements, too, often occur without a subject where the subject is obvious or
may be assumed to be known:
Turned out well in the end.
(Understood: ‘ It turned out well in the end.’)
Countable nouns sometimes occur without articles of any kind:
A: Nice restaurant.
B: Yes, it is, isn’t it.
(Understood: ‘ It’s a nice restaurant.’)
These common features of spoken discourse mean that a grammar written
solely on the basis of written texts, where such phenomena might be rare or
completely absent, is incomplete. Equally, some structures which are common
in writing may be very rare indeed in everyday conversation, for example
non-ﬁnite -ing clauses in English. At the beginning of this chapter we used this
sentence to introduce types of discourse:
As the day outside the home draws to a close, the members of the household will again
come together, quite possibly sitting down for a joint meal with enough time to
review the day and dream about the future.
This type of -ing clause is very rare indeed in informal conversation. So, once
again, we can say that a grammar that fails to make the spoken–written distinction
may be incomplete or even misleading, giving the impression that structures are
equally common in speech and writing. A discourse grammar, since it derives
its description from real contexts of use rather than from isolated or invented
sentences, will necessarily be interested in the spoken–written divide wherever it
is relevant. Carter and McCarthy (1995) give further examples of typically spoken
grammatical phenomena, and argue that language teaching should take note of
the differences, especially where skills are separated into speaking or listening
skills and writing or reading skills, in syllabuses, materials and language testing.
At least one major new descriptive grammar now offers wide-ranging information
on spoken and written differences (Biber et al., 1999).
Lexical Patterns in Spoken Language
Discourse analysts are interested in how speakers’ and writers’ use of lexis creates
patterns over longer stretches of text beyond the sentence ( see Chapter 2, Grammar ,

65 Discourse Analysis
and Chapter 6, Corpus Linguistics ). Here, we shall focus on spoken texts. Speakers
make their lexical choices, and listeners receive and interpret them. It is clear from
actual discourse contexts that the ﬁxedness of meanings that we associate with
dictionary deﬁnitions is open to negotiation, and that lexical meaning emerges
from context, rather than being entirely pre-ordained. For example, agreed
meanings can be signalled and conﬁrmed by repetition, where the listener repeats
the speaker’s lexis:
Speaker 1: And then we went down to San Diego. Santa Barbara.
Speaker 2: California. Lovely.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It was really beautiful .
Speaker 2: It’s a beautiful place.
However, a notable feature of conversation is the way speakers often trade
approximate synonyms, rather than repeating one another, especially when
exchanging subjective meanings, in an attempt to converge on agreed
interpretations. In the next extract, lovely and so nice are matched:
Speaker 1: Alice where did you get that skirt? Cos I want one like that.
Speaker 2: Isn’t it lovely ?
Speaker 1: It’s so nice.
Speaker 3: In Top Shop.
This phenomenon is known as ‘relexicalization’ (McCarthy 1988). Repetition and
relexicalization enable conversational participants to converge on meanings, to
negotiate them in particular contexts. Sometimes, more than one pair of lexical
items is involved, and complex chains of lexical interaction may be observed,
involving both repetition and relexicalization in the same stretch of talk:
Speaker 1: Ooh. Look at the sky.
Speaker 2: Oh that’s lovely .
Speaker 1: Gorgeous . The sky is absolutely beautiful .
Speaker 2: Beautiful .
Another feature related to the negotiation of meaning is the display of opposites
in the same utterance, which enables speakers to focus lexical meaning:
Speaker 1: I can take a bit of the burden off Jim. Sometimes it’s hard
but I sometimes really feel as though I’m bashing my
head against a wall though.
Speaker 2: Well it is it is hard isn’t it. It’s not easy to go forward.
McCarthy (1988) refers to ‘instantial’ lexical meanings in describing synonyms and
antonyms used in this way in context, to distinguish them from out-of-context
semantic meanings, such as are found in dictionary entries for single words.
What is very clear is that the native speaker or expert user’s mental lexicon of
any language is organized in terms of meaning connections such as similarity and
opposition, and that this is not a mere abstract convenience ( see Schmitt, 2000).
Synonyms and antonyms are speedily accessed and used ﬂuently by speakers in

66An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
conversation as part of their basic strategy for creating meaning. The implications
of this are that the abstract domains of lexical semantics and the pedagogical
issues of learning and using vocabulary should by no means be divorced from
what happens in ordinary communication. Repetition and relexicalization are
part of the speaking skill, and in the case of relexicalization (that is, the ability
to retrieve synonyms and antonyms quickly), present a considerable challenge to
second language learners.
Corpus Linguistics and Variation in Discourse
In recent years, discourse analysts have been able to greatly expand the scope
of their work thanks to computer software that can analyse large corpora ( see
Chapter 6, Corpus Linguistics ). Corpus linguistics sprang from a desire to be
more objective about language and to free description from subjective intuition
(see Halliday (1966) and Sinclair (1966) for early arguments in favour of using
corpora). Corpus linguists believe that external evidence, looking at language
use, is a better source for description than internal evidence, or native speaker
intuition (for a good introduction, see Biber, Conrad and Reppen, 1998). Broadly,
corpus linguistics may be performed in two ways: quantitative and qualitative.
The quantitative approach usually looks for the largest corpus possible (up to
100–600 million words at the time of writing), from as wide a range of sources as
possible. These data are then analysed computationally and the output comprises
sets of ﬁgures that tell the discourse analyst about the frequency of occurrence
of words, phrases, collocations or structures. These statistics are then used to
produce dictionaries, grammars and so on. But for the discourse analyst, statistical
facts raise the question ‘ Why? ’, and answers can only be found by looking at
the contexts of the texts in the corpus. Discourse analysts, therefore, work with
corpora in a qualitative way. For example, a spoken corpus frequency list might
show an unexpectedly high frequency for words such as absolutely , exactly and
brilliant compared with a written corpus frequency list. Here are some frequency
ﬁgures for absolutely :
CIC* written: ﬁve million CANCODE* spoken:
word sample ﬁve million words
absolutely 276 1234
*CIC = Cambridge International Corpus; CANCODE = Cambridge and
Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English.
© Both corpora are copyright Cambridge University Press.
The discourse analyst then seeks an explanation for this, and ﬁnds that in the
spoken corpus, these high-frequency words often occur as single-word responses
to incoming talk, for example:
Speaker 1: I thought it was wonderful, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely .
In this way, spoken discourse analysts use corpus statistics to get at notions
such as listener feedback, turn-taking distributions, the distribution of items
such as hedges and intensiﬁers (which often reveal much about politeness and
communicative strategies) and the frequency and distribution of discourse markers
such as you know , I mean , you see , well, right, anyway , okay, etc. Written text analysts

67 Discourse Analysis
can gain similar information from statistical procedures, as well as the frequency
and distribution of cohesive devices, how academic writers hedge or how they cite
others’ work, and so on. Such information is immensely useful to those designing
language teaching materials, since a corpus offers direct evidence of language use
on a wide scale. McCarthy (1998) is one example of using a corpus to pursue
answers to questions that interest discourse analysts and language teachers alike.
There is no doubt that corpus linguistics will continue to inﬂuence discourse
analysis as corpora become more available and software easier to manipulate,
and that the results of corpus-based discourse analysis will feed through to the
teaching of speaking and writing in language pedagogy.
Implications for Pedagogy
The ideas outlined in this chapter have the following direct implications for
language pedagogy:
• Discourse analysts describe and analyse how language is structured in different
contexts of use. This enables language practitioners to more precisely delineate
in syllabuses and materials the different genres of language with which learners
will need to engage, and to select and evaluate discourses that are relevant to
particular learners’ needs.
• When modelling different types of writing (for example, academic paper,
business letter), discourse analysis can help teachers to explain the underlying
features of the text types associated with those types of writing.
• In both teacher training programmes and for the teacher already in the
classroom, models of analysis, such as the IRF, may serve to raise awareness
of the nature of teacher–learner interaction. For example, traditional teacher-
fronted classrooms may offer an impoverished context for learners to engage in
the genuine interaction which seems to facilitate language acquisition. Insights
from the analysis of discourse can help teachers consider their own interaction
practices in a more systematic manner.
• Teachers can use insights from discourse analysis to better evaluate their own
learners’ performance in classroom tasks, such as pair work and group work, in
terms of its proximity to or distance from real-world discourse. The results of
such evaluation may also lead to better classroom task design.
• Conversation analysis shows that everyday talk is not as disorganized as it may
seem, and this offers the possibility of systematic teaching of features, such
as the language of openings and closings, discourse markers and common
adjacency pairs.
• Discourse analysis provides the descriptive information which pedagogical
grammarians and lexicographers require to produce more true-to-life
descriptions and guidelines for the use of language. The products of these
descriptions (especially corpus-based ones) come in the form of pedagogical
grammars and learners dictionaries which are more sensitive to context and the
different demands that speech and writing place on the learner.

68An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Further Reading
Cook, G. (1989) Discourse . Oxford: Oxford University Press. A good ﬁrst introduction to
the ﬁeld, which gives a helpful and accessible summary of the IRF model.
Hughes, R. (1996) English in Speech and Writing . London: Routledge. An activity-
based book, which provides the most comprehensive account of the differences between
spoken and written discourse.
McCarthy, M.J. (1991) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. In addition to giving a more detailed treatment of the
various approaches to spoken and written discourse analysis covered in the present
chapter, this book also has chapters on grammar and lexis at the discourse level.
Eggins, S. and Slade, D. (1997) Analysing Casual Conversation . London: Cassell.
Based on a large body of authentic conversational data, this book develops a functionally
oriented model for the systematic analysis and critical interpretation of casual
conversation in English.
McCarthy, M.J. (1998) Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. This book contains a detailed treatment of spoken genres
and integrates discourse analysis with corpus-based analyses of spoken language.
Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse . Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. An
advanced exposition of all of the issues in discourse analysis which are of interest to
language teachers and applied linguists.
Hands-on Activity
Read the two texts below and consider their similarities and differences. In
particular, consider:
• How dependent each text is on context.
• The nature of the vocabulary in each text.
• The grammatical complexity of each text.
• The lexical density of the beginning of each text where the lexical words have
been underlined for you.
Text 1: Cockroaches
Cockroaches are eminently tropical, but certain species have become widely
disseminated through commerce and are now cosmopolitan. Cockroaches are
nocturnal in habit, hiding themselves during the day; the domestic species are
omnivorous but are especially addicted to starchy or sweetened matter of various
kinds, as a rule they injure and soil far more than consume, and most species emit
a disagreeable odour.

69 Discourse Analysis
Text 2: Cockroaches
Turn Speaker
1 Pat I remember we were sitting for our analytical chemistry exam and it
was the ﬁnal exams and they have sort of like bench desks where there’s
three to a bench normally and they had the middle seat empty and two sat
either side and I was sitting there and I thought ‘Geez I can feel something
on my foot.’
2 Pauline uuhh
3 Pat And I thought ‘No, no, don’t worry about it,’ you know ‘what on
earth is this chemical equation?’ and I am trying to think ‘but there’s
something on my foot!’ and I looked down and there was this cockroach
like this [gesture] – and I just screamed and jumped up on the chair and
as I did that I knocked the bench and it went up and all Geoff’s exam
stuff went into the bin next to him, and I was standing on this chair
screaming and the exam supervisor came running over, ‘what’s going on
there?’ [laughs]
And I said ‘there’s a cockroach down there’ [laughs]
‘cause you’re not allowed to speak, sneeze, cough, anything in those ﬁnal
exams, and um, there’s me screaming on the chair.
Non- [Pat and Pauline both laugh]
verbal

Pragmatics
Helen Spencer-Oatey
University of Warwick
Vladimir Žegarac
University of Bedfordshire
Introduction
An operational deﬁnition of an insecure science is: a science whose leaders say they are
in quest of a paradigm, or have just found a paradigm.
Hacking 1995: 352
Over the past 30 years or so, pragmatics has grown into a well-established, ‘secure’,
discipline in institutional terms. There are a number of specialist journals ( Journal
of Pragmatics, Pragmatics, Pragmatics and Cognition, Multilingua as well as others),
there is at least one major professional organization (The International Pragmatics
Association) whose membership reaches into thousands and regular international
conferences are held the world over. Yet, despite these achievements, pragmatics
remains a good example of an insecure science in terms of Hacking’s deﬁnition. None
of the many pragmatic theories and frameworks comes close to being a generally
accepted paradigm and, in fact, there is no consensus as to the domain of pragmatics.
Nevertheless, most people working in the ﬁeld would probably not disagree with
some interpretation or other of the suggestion, put forward by Charles Morris (1938:
30), that pragmatics is ‘the science of the relation of signs to their interpreters’. In
other words, pragmatics is concerned not with language as a system or product per
se, but rather with the interrelationship between language form, (communicated)
messages and language users. It explores questions such as the following:
• How do people communicate more than what the words or phrases of their
utterances might mean by themselves, and how do people make these
interpretations?
• Why do people choose to say and/or interpret something in one way rather
than another?
• How do people’s perceptions of contextual factors (for example, who the
interlocutors are, what their relationship is, and what circumstances they
are communicating in) inﬂuence the process of producing and interpreting
language?
Pragmatics thus questions the validity of the ‘code-model’ of communication
that was developed within the discipline of semiotics. In the code-model,
communication is seen as an encoding–decoding process, where a code is a system
that enables the automatic pairing of messages (that is, meanings internal to
senders and receivers) and signals (that is, what is physically transmitted (that is,
sound, smoke signals, writing) between the sender and the receiver). According
to this view, communication is successful to the extent that the sender and the
receiver pair signals and messages in the same way, so that the message broadcast 5

71 Pragmatics
in the form of a given signal is identical to the one received when that signal
is decoded. The code model has the merit of describing one way in which
communication can be achieved (for example, between machines or bees), but it is
wholly inadequate as an account of how people actually communicate ( see Sperber
and Wilson, 1986/95: Chapter 1). Modern approaches to pragmatics recognize that
human communication largely exploits a code (a natural language such as English,
German or Japanese), but they also try to do justice to the fact, illustrated in the
next section, that human communicative behaviour relies heavily on people’s
capacity to engage in reasoning about each other’s intentions, exploiting not only
the evidence presented by the signals in the language code, but also evidence from
other sources, including perception and general world knowledge.
In a brief chapter like this, it is impossible to explain properly the many topics
that are usually studied within pragmatics, and the various different approaches
that are taken within the ﬁeld. So our goal is to provide a taster to these topics
and issues and the methods used to study them, to show how pragmatic concerns
have relevance to areas of applied study such as foreign language teaching, and to
suggest references for follow-up reading.
Pragmatic Perspectives On Language Use
This section uses a brief (authentic) dialogue in order to introduce some important
terms and concepts in modern pragmatics and to illustrate brieﬂy the sorts of
phenomena that pragmatics needs to account for.
A Sample Dialogue
Situation: Kiki and Sharon are students at a British University. They have been ﬂatmates
for a short time and do not know each other very well. Kiki is Greek and Sharon is
English. Sharon is getting ready to go out.
[1] Kiki: Where are you going tonight?
[2] Sharon: Ministry.
[3] Kiki: Ministry?
[4] Sharon: Ministry of Sound. A club in London. Heard of it?
[5] Kiki: I’ve been clubbing in London before.
[6] Sharon: Where to?
[7] Kiki: Why do you want to know?
[8] Sharon: Well, I may have been there.
[9] Kiki: It was called ‘The End’.
[10] Sharon: Nice one!
[11] Kiki: I hope you have a good time at the Ministry.
(contributed by Kelly-Jay Marshall)
Pragmatic Meaning
It is often (though not universally) assumed that the task of ‘semantics’ is to
describe and explain linguistic meaning (that is, what a given utterance means
by virtue of the words used and the ways in which they are put together),

72An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
whereas ‘pragmatics’ is concerned with the study of the meaning that linguistic
expressions receive in use. So one task of pragmatics is to explain how participants
in a dialogue such as the one above move from the decontextualized (that is,
linguistically encoded) meanings of the words and phrases to a grasp of their
meaning in context. This process can involve several aspects:
• The assignment of reference; for example, what does Ministry [line 2] stand for
(technically, refer to)?
• Figuring out what is communicated directly; for example, what does Nice one
[line 10] mean in this context?
• Figuring out what is communicated indirectly, or implicitly; for example, what
does Sharon intend to imply when she asks Heard of it? [line 4]?; what is the
illocutionary force of Kiki’s interrogative utterance: Where are you going tonight?
[line 1]?
In our sample dialogue, the process of handling these pragmatic issues sometimes
goes smoothly, but sometimes it does not (as is typical of real life). Let us consider
each of them in turn.
Assigning Reference
Kiki starts by asking Sharon where she is going, but Sharon’s one-word answer is
not informative enough for Kiki to be able to ﬁgure out what Sharon is actually
referring to. Sharon’s utterance takes it for granted that the name ‘Ministry’ has
a referent (in other words, it presupposes the existence of a referent), but Kiki’s
general world knowledge is insufﬁcient for her to identify the speciﬁc referent that
Sharon intended for ‘Ministry’ in this context. Only upon further clariﬁcation
(requested in [3] and given in [4]), is Kiki able to work out that, by saying ‘ Ministry ’
([2]), Sharon intends to convey something like: I am going to a London club
called ‘Ministry of Sound’. So, there is a gap between the decontextualized
meaning of the utterance (roughly, what the word ‘Ministry’ means according to
the dictionary) and the thought expressed by that word (roughly: a London club
called ‘Ministry of Sound’). Kiki needs to bridge this gap, and initially fails to do
so. In other words, a listener needs to assign reference to the words that a speaker
uses, and since there is no direct relationship between entities and words, the
listener typically has to make inferences as to what the speaker intends to identify.
If this inferencing process is too difﬁcult, communication will falter and so, to be
cooperative, a speaker needs to anticipate how much information the listener will
need. As Yule (1996) points out:
… [reference] is not simply a relationship between the meaning of a word or phrase and
an object or person in the world. It is a social act, in which the speaker assumes that the
word or phrase chosen to identify an object or person will be interpreted as the speaker
intended.
(Yule, 1996: 22)
The process of assigning reference also involves the interpretation of ‘deictic
expressions’. These are linguistic items that point to contextually salient referents
without naming them explicitly. There are several types of deictic expressions in
the dialogue: person deictics (for example, the personal pronouns you ([1], [7]), it
([4], [9]), I ([5], [8], [11]), place deictics (for example, there ([8]), and time deictics
(for example, the tensed forms of the verbs). In context, they refer to particular

73 Pragmatics
people or things, places and moments in time, respectively, but on different
occasions they pick out different referents. For example, when Sharon says I may
have been there [8], the deictic there refers to the particular club in London which
Kiki has visited. But, when used on another occasion, the same word will refer to
some other place.
Figuring out what is communicated directly
Sometimes the process of identifying pragmatic meaning (that is, contextually
determined aspects of utterance meaning) involves interpreting ambiguous
and vague linguistic expressions in order to establish which concepts and
thoughts they express. For example, in line [10] Sharon says Nice one . This could
be taken to mean that a particular previously mentioned thing is nice (in this
context, the London club called ‘The End’), but this expression also has another
conventionalized (and somewhat vague) meaning, roughly: ‘Good idea’ or ‘Well
done’ . In this dialogue, it is unclear whether Kiki has interpreted the phrase in one
way rather than another, or whether she treats both interpretations as possible.
These observations show that the meaning of an utterance is not fully determined
by the words that are used: there is a gap between the meaning of the words used
by the speaker and the thought that the speaker intends to represent by using
those words on a particular occasion. More technically, the linguistic meaning of
an utterance underdetermines the communicator’s intended meaning. This gap
is ﬁlled by the addressee’s reasoning about what the communicator (may have)
intended to communicate by his or her utterance. Hence, pragmatics plays a role
in explaining how the thought expressed by a given utterance on a given occasion
is recovered by the addressee ( see Carston, 2004).
Figuring out what is communicated indirectly
The main import of an utterance may, in fact, easily lie not with the thought
expressed by the utterance (that is, with what is communicated directly) but rather
with the thought(s) that the hearer assumes the speaker intends to suggest or hint
at. More technically, it lies with what is implicated, or communicated indirectly.
For example, in line [4] Sharon asks Heard of it? , indicating that information about
whether Kiki has heard of the club in question is desirable to her. However, Kiki
interprets Sharon’s question as evidence that Sharon considers her incompetent
or inadequate in the social sphere. Therefore, she responds to (what she takes
to be) the implicit import of Sharon’s utterance ([5]), rather than giving the
information explicitly requested. So, pragmatics needs to explain how indirectly
(that is, implicitly) communicated ideas (in this case: Sharon thinks Kiki is socially
incompetent and/or inadequate) are recovered.
By far the most inﬂuential solution to this problem was developed in the mid-
1960s by the Oxford philosopher Paul Grice (1967, 1989). He argued that people
are disposed to presume that communicative behaviour is guided by a set of
principles and norms, which he called the ‘Co-operative Principle’ and maxims
of conversation.
The Co-operative Principle
Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs,
by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.
(Grice, 1989: 26)

74An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Deriving an interpretation that satisﬁes the Co-operative Principle is effected
through four maxims which the communicator is presumed to abide by:
• Truthfulness (communicators should do their best to make contributions
which are true).
• Informativeness (communicators should do their best to be adequately
informative).
• Relevance (communicators should do their best to make contributions which
are relevant).
• Style (communicators should do their best to make contributions which are
appropriately short and clearly expressed).
Grice labelled the maxims using terms which are, perhaps, less intuitive: ‘quality’,
‘quantity’, ‘relation’ and ‘manner’, respectively. Grice’s fundamental point was
not that people always observe these maxims, but rather that they are unstated
assumptions that underlie communication. So if a speaker clearly ﬂouts one or
more of the maxims (for example, by giving a very brief answer when a more
informative one is expected), the speaker may be prompting the listener to look
for a meaning that is different from (or additional to) the meaning that is verbally
expressed; in other words, to work out the ‘conversational implicature’.
Grice’s approach provides a reasonably neat account of implicated (that is,
indirectly communicated) meaning. For example, what might Kiki mean by saying
I’ve been clubbing in London before ? [5] Superﬁcially it might seem that her answer is
not relevant. However, given the context set by the exchange up to that point, and
assuming that Kiki is trying to be co-operative, informative, relevant and concise,
it seems clear why Sharon would be justiﬁed in concluding that Kiki implicates
(that is, intends to imply) that she is familiar with the London club scene, that
she is generally socially competent and the like. Nevertheless, Grice’s theory has a
number of limitations; for example, it does not incorporate the impact of social or
interpersonal factors which inﬂuence the participants’ preferences and goals (see
below), and are important in explaining why Kiki interprets Sharon’s question
Heard of it? [4] as questioning her social competence; nor does Grice’s approach
explain the fact that context plays an extremely important role in determining the
thought expressed by an utterance. In other words, it does not explain pragmatic
aspects of what is communicated directly.
The challenge of describing and explaining the reasoning processes involved in
communication has also been taken up by cognitive approaches to pragmatics,
such as Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) ‘relevance theory’, which maintains that
the reasoning processes involved in communication are constrained by a single
principle: the principle of relevance, making the Co-operative Principle and the
maxims of quality (truthfulness), quantity (informativeness) and manner (style)
redundant. On this view, human cognition is designed in such a way that people
generally tend to be on the lookout for new information worth having. When we
produce communicative acts, such as utterances and texts, we indicate to their
intended recipients (hearers, readers) that these acts warrant their attention; that
if they mentally represent and process what we have said or written, they will
get enough information worth having without wasting their mental effort. So,
according to the communicative principle of relevance, an act of communication
(such as an utterance, text or pointing gesture) makes evident a tacit guarantee
that it is informative enough to be worth mentally representing and processing.
For example, when deciding how much information to give in response to Kiki’s

75 Pragmatics
ﬁrst question [1] Where are you going tonight? Sharon needs to work out what sort
of information Kiki would like to have, how much information of this type she is
interested in having, and how this information can be conveyed most effectively
(that is, simply, without putting Kiki to gratuitous expenditure of mental
processing effort). In this instance, Sharon’s one word reply ([2] Ministry ) falls
short of conveying enough desirable information to Kiki, who is left wondering
about the likely reasons for this.
Another perspective on meaning in communication focuses on the distinction
between the linguistic form of the utterance and its communicative function
(technically, the ‘illocutionary force’) of that utterance in the communication
situation. The philosopher John Austin (1975) generated, and another philosopher
of language, John Searle (1969), developed the view that language should be seen
as a form of action – that when we speak, we ‘do’ things like make requests, make
statements, offer apologies and so on. Austin’s initial insight was that people do
not simply make statements that can be judged as ‘true’ or ‘false’; rather they
use language to perform actions (such as requesting information, promising,
offering, betting, etc.) that have an impact in some way on the world. Both he
and Searle tried to classify speech acts into different categories, and to identify the
‘felicity conditions’ that enable a speech act to be performed ‘successfully’. Let us
consider Kiki’s ﬁrst question again: [1] Where are you going tonight? Under what
circumstances is it appropriate to ask another person a question? Under what
circumstances is it appropriate to ask people for factual information of the type
requested by Kiki? Was she requesting information? Is it possible that she used
the (interrogative) form of words which is standardly used for asking questions,
because she intended to hint that she wanted to be invited out with Sharon? Or was
she perhaps criticizing Sharon for going out too much? In other words, what
was her intention in using an interrogative utterance, or more technically, what
was the illocutionary force (request for information (?), suggestion/hint (?)) of
Kiki’s interrogative utterance? While speech act theory looks at these questions by
focusing on the relation between linguistic form (for example, interrogative) and
communicative function (for example, request for information) Grice’s approach
aimed to answer them in terms of the Co-operative Principle, the maxims of
conversation and contextual knowledge.
Explaining the Impact of Social Factors
Grice’s (1989) theory of conversation, and in particular his view that conversation
is governed by a set of norms, pointed to the importance of investigating the social
regularities which arise through and are reﬂected in communicative interaction.
Relevance theory takes the view that such social factors which inﬂuence
communication are best analysed as part of the context (the set of assumptions
which participants use in producing and interpreting acts of communication),
so they do not need to be taken account of by positing special mechanisms (for
example, additional principles or maxims). In contrast to the cognitive framework
of relevance theory, work within social pragmatics has sometimes led to the
introduction of additional communicative norms. For example, Leech (1983)
maintains that the ‘Politeness Principle’ is a necessary supplement to Grice’s Co-
operative Principle, arguing that people often break the Co-operative Principle
for ‘politeness’ reasons; in other words, ‘to maintain the social equilibrium
and the friendly relations which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are

76An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
being cooperative in the ﬁrst place’ (Leech, 1983: 82). Leech proposes a set of
‘politeness maxims’, such as the ‘modesty maxim’ and the ‘agreement maxim’,
which operate in conjunction with the co-operative maxims. They are worded as
‘rules’ (for example, minimize praise of self, maximize dispraise of self; minimize
disagreement between self and other, maximize agreement between self and other),
but in fact they aim to describe the interactional principles that underlie language
use. Leech (1983) also suggests that language use involves a ‘pragmalinguistic ’
perspective and a ‘sociopragmatic’ perspective. This distinction is a useful one
that has been widely adopted, although it can be fuzzy at times.
The pragmalinguistic perspective focuses on the linguistic strategies that are
used to convey a given pragmatic meaning, while the sociopragmatic perspective
focuses on the socially-based assessments, beliefs and interactional principles that
underlie people’s choice of strategies. For example, suppose I am a dinner guest
and want to reach the salt which is placed at the other side of the table. I have
various options available: I could stand up and reach for it, I could say ‘ Pass the
salt, will you’ , or ‘Can you pass the salt, please ’, or even ‘ I like my food quite salty ’.
A sociopragmatic perspective focuses on the social judgements associated with
such a scenario; for example, what the relationship between the participants is
(for example, close or distant, equal or unequal), and the social acceptability of
reaching for food in such a context. A pragmalinguistic perspective, on the other
hand, focuses on the linguistic strategies used to operationalize the request: for
example, whether it is a direct request (‘ Pass the salt, will you ’), a conventionally
indirect request (‘ Can you pass the salt please ?’) or a non-conventionally indirect
request (‘ I like my food quite salty ’). Thomas (1983) suggests that when there is
a mismatch in people’s sociopragmatic conventions (for example, one person
thinks it is acceptable to say ‘ sorry’ and stand up and reach for the salt, whereas
someone else does not), sociopragmatic failure can occur, and that when there is
a mismatch in people’s pragmalinguistic conventions (for example, one person
typically uses a direct request in this context, whereas another person typically
uses a conventionally indirect request), pragmalinguistic failure can occur.
One of the most inﬂuential models that tries to explain the impact of social
factors on people’s use of language is Brown and Levinson’s (1978/1987) ‘face’
model of politeness. Brown and Levinson deﬁne face as ‘the public self-image
that every member wants to claim for himself’ (1987: 61), and they draw a
distinction between positive face and negative face. Positive face reﬂects every
person’s need that his/her self-image is appreciated and approved of, and negative
face reﬂects every person’s ‘basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to
non-distraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition’ (1987:
61). So, for example, Kiki’s question [1] Where are you going? could be interpreted
by Sharon as an infringement of her personal preserves, or in other words, as a
threat to her negative face. This threat may well have been aggravated by the
fact that Sharon was getting ready to go out and was too busy or preoccupied
to engage in small talk with Kiki. But, in a more general sense, every utterance
is potentially an imposition on the hearer, because, by producing the utterance,
the speaker indicates that s/he requests the hearer’s attention. Clearly, the request
for attention may be justiﬁed if the information communicated by the utterance
is actually desirable to the hearer. But when the speaker requests information
from the hearer, as Kiki did in line [1], her request for Sharon’s attention may
easily be taken as an imposition, because the information requested is seen as
desirable to Kiki, rather than to Sharon, who is asked to supply it. Various forms

77 Pragmatics
of ‘polite’ linguistic behaviour have developed precisely to show that the speaker
acknowledges the imposition (and, possibly, that she would consider herself in
the hearer’s debt, if the latter decided to accept the imposition). Examples in
English include expressions such as: I know I’m interrupting you, but… , Could you … ,
I’d be grateful if … , and many others.
A face interpretation can also be given to Sharon’s question [4] Heard of it? Kiki
interprets this question as a challenge to her social competence, or in other words,
as a threat to her positive face. In fact, Sharon may not have meant it in this way,
but Kiki may be particularly sensitive to positive face threats of this kind since she
is a foreigner (a Greek student in Britain) and may be insecure as to whether she
has been accepted as a member of the local youth culture.
The fact that the two interlocutors are from different cultural backgrounds raises
further possibilities. It could be that they have slightly different conventions for
initiating small talk. In some languages (for example, Chinese), a question like Where
are you going? is a phatic remark which is not really meant to be treated as a request
for information, but rather is meant simply as a superﬁcial friendly remark, similar
to the way in which we routinely say How are you? in English without expecting
a detailed or particularly truthful response. However, this ‘cultural difference’
explanation is unlikely to be satisfactory in Kiki’s case, as this type of question is not
commonly used as a phatic remark in Greek. So perhaps the rather ‘clumsy’ start to
the conversation is a reﬂection of Kiki’s uncertainty as to how to start a conversation
appropriately in English with someone she does not know very well.
Brown and Levinson (1978/1987) argue that speakers take three main variables
into account when deciding how to word a face-threatening utterance such as a
request or a challenge:
• The power differential between hearer and the speaker (that is, amount of
equality/inequality, labelled P).
• The distance–closeness between them (labelled D).
• The degree of imposition of the content of the utterance (confusingly labelled
R for rank).
They maintain that, other things being equal, the greater the power differential,
the greater the distance and the greater the imposition, the more careful and
more indirect the speaker will be. In our sample conversation, the interlocutors
are equal, and the content of Kiki’s initial request [1] Where are you going tonight? is
not particularly imposing. So in many respects we would not expect her to phrase
it particularly diplomatically. On the other hand, the two of them do not know
each other very well, so we might have expected a slightly more tentative remark
such as Going anywhere special tonight? Perhaps Kiki’s direct question Where are you
going tonight? reﬂected the Greek tendency to use positive politeness strategies
(to use ‘approach oriented’ strategies that assume a certain level of closeness),
in contrast to the British tendency to use negative politeness strategies (to use
‘imposition acknowledgement’ strategies) to people they do not know well (cf.
Siﬁanou 1992). Or perhaps she was doing this strategically to try and build up her
friendship with Sharon.
Conversational Patterns and Structure
Conversational patterns such as those in lines [6]–[9] have been studied extensively
within the framework of conversation analysis ( see Chapter 4, Discourse Analysis ).

78An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
This is an approach that starts from the commonsense observation that people
take turns in conversation, and that relies on descriptions of naturally occurring
data to discover the rules involved in the patterning of conversational exchanges.
In this view, conversation proceeds through ordered pairs of utterances, called
adjacency pairs. The utterances in a pair are ordered, in that the ﬁrst member
of a pair requires a second member. For example, a question requires an answer.
Within the framework of conversation analysis, one would say that the adjacency
pair consisting of the question in line [6] and the answer in line [9] is interrupted
by another adjacency pair ([7] and [8]), thus forming an insertion sequence.
Conversation analysis is really an approach to discourse analysis; however, patterns
such as insertion sequences can also be analysed from a pragmatic perspective, in
which case factors such as ‘face’ are included to try and explain why such patterns
occur. On the other hand, pragmatists working within other frameworks, such as
Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/95) cognitive–psychological approach, would argue
that the patterns observed by conversation analysts follow from general principles
of human cognition and communication. They would, therefore, dispute the
need for and the plausibility of turn taking rules and most of the apparatus of
conversation analysis.
The Role of Context
In all approaches to pragmatics, context plays a major role in the communication
process, and so an important task for pragmatic theory is to elucidate this process
(Verschueren, 1999). As pointed out in the section on Pragmatic Meaning, context
contributes both to what is communicated directly and to what is communicated
indirectly. In social pragmatics, it is widely accepted that the following features
of the situational context have a particularly crucial inﬂuence on people’s use of
language:
• The participants: their roles, the amount of power differential (if any) between
them, the degree of distance–closeness between them, the number of people
present.
• The message content: how ‘costly’ or ‘beneﬁcial’ the message is to the hearer
and/or speaker, how face-threatening it is, whether it exceeds or stays within
the rights and obligations of the relationship.
• The communicative activity (such as a job interview, a lecture, or a medical
consultation): how the norms of the activity inﬂuence language behaviour such
as right to talk or ask questions, discourse structure and level of formality.
Brown and Levinson’s (1987) three variables, P, D and R have been particularly
widely used in social pragmatic studies, and have been manipulated in various
ways to try and ﬁnd out how they inﬂuence language use.
Unfortunately, context is sometimes taken to be the concrete aspects of the
environment in which an exchange takes place and that have a bearing on the
communication process. But in pragmatics, a more psychological notion of
context is crucial. The physical environment (the time, the place, and the objects
and people present) does not impinge directly on utterance production and
interpretation; it does so only indirectly via people’s representations of it. For
example, if you do not want your colleague in the next ofﬁce to hear what you
are about to say, you may speak in a low voice. However, your decision to speak
in this way depends not so much on whether your colleague is actually in the

79 Pragmatics
next ofﬁce or not as on your beliefs about his/her possible presence and ability to
overhear your conversation. So in pragmatics, context can be deﬁned as the set of
assumptions (that is, mental representations capable of being true or false) that
have a bearing on the production and interpretation of particular communicative
acts.
One of the main problems of pragmatics is to explain the constant updating of
contextual assumptions in the course of a communicative exchange. For instance,
in the conversation between Kiki and Sharon, Kiki probably begins the conversation
with the belief that Sharon considers her to be socially competent. Following her
request for clariﬁcation in line [3], she abandons this background contextual
assumption, because she thinks that she has displayed her lack of essential social
knowledge about the London club scene. The continuation of the conversation is
inﬂuenced by Kiki’s newly formed contextual assumption that Sharon considers
her socially inadequate. In fact, the role of some linguistic items is precisely to
help the addressee – they point to the right contextual assumptions (that is, those
that the communicator intends the addressee(s) to exploit in the interpretation).
For example, in the conversation, Kiki says that she has been clubbing in London
before ([5]); Sharon asks her which London club(s) she has been clubbing in ([6]),
and Kiki (who assumes that Sharon’s question implicates that she does not believe
her statement in line [5]), asks ([7]) Why do you want to know? Sharon’s answer ([8])
begins with the word well, whose function is, roughly, to indicate that the answer
that follows should not be interpreted in the context which Sharon presumes
is most salient to Kiki; in this case, a set of assumptions about Sharon’s doubts
as to whether Kiki has really been clubbing in London. In effect, the word well
means something like: Do not interpret the utterance introduced by well in the way
in which the speaker thinks you are most likely to interpret it . So, the word well does
not contribute to what Sharon intends to say, but rather helps Kiki access the
right context for the interpretation of the utterance which follows. Linguistic
elements like well, anyway , however , but, so, after all, which help the addressee
to contextualize what is said by the utterance, are called semantic constraints
on implicatures ( see Blakemore, 1987). Other authors (for example, Mey 2000)
consider them to be similar to adverbials such as obviously , unfortunately and the
like, which do not contribute to the thought expressed by the utterance, but rather
provide a comment on the speaker’s attitude towards that thought. For example,
imagine an Arsenal football club supporter saying: Unfortunately, Manchester
United will win the Premier League again . This utterance expresses a thought that
describes a state of affairs (technically called a ‘proposition ’), and at the same time
it includes the speaker’s attitude towards that state of affairs. Hence, a comment
like: That’s not true , would be taken as challenging the claim: Manchester United will
win the Premier League , not as disputing the Arsenal supporter’s attitude towards
that statement.
Pragmatics Research: Paradigms And Methods
As the section above implies, there are two broad approaches to pragmatics, a
cognitive–psychological approach and a social–psychological approach. Cognitive
pragmaticists are concerned with fundamental questions such as: What is
communication? and How is communication possible? They are primarily interested
in exploring the relation between the decontextualized, linguistic meaning of
utterances, what speakers mean by their utterances on given occasions and how

80An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
listeners interpret those utterances on those given occasions. Social pragmaticists,
on the other hand, tend to focus on the ways in which particular communicative
exchanges between individuals are embedded in and constrained by social, cultural
and other contextual factors. These two approaches tend to use different research
paradigms and methods. Generally speaking, work within social pragmatics tends
to take an empirical approach, and emphasizes the collection of pragmatic data,
partly for descriptive purposes, and partly so that existing theories (for example,
Brown and Levinson’s (1978/1987) face model of politeness) can be tested and if
necessary modiﬁed. Work within the cognitive–psychological tradition, on the
other hand, is less concerned with large-scale data collection, and instead tends to
theorize from speciﬁc examples of communicative utterances. In fact, many key
pragmatic insights were developed within philosophy; Austin, Searle and Grice,
for example, were all philosophers.
In terms of data collection, pragmatics borrows from other sciences such as
psychology, sociology and anthropology, and thus uses a variety of methods. For
example, it uses video/audio-recording and detailed ﬁeld notes to collect on-line
discourse, such as authentic conversations, elicited conversations and role-played
interactions; and it uses questionnaires, diaries and interviews to obtain off-line
pragmatic data in which participants report, discuss and/or comment on their
use of language. Some methods are more suitable than others for exploring given
research questions, so it should not be thought that one method is necessarily
always better than another. Moreover, the different methods can provide
useful complementary information and perspectives and thus help to ensure
‘triangulation’ (the use of two or more different methods focusing on the same
research question so that complementary and converging data can be obtained
and that the conclusions can be more robust). For instance, discourse data
(obtained by recording an authentic interaction) can usefully be supplemented
by post-event interview data in that participants can often provide rich and
illuminating insights into their use of language in the recorded interchange. They
may describe a sociocultural principle that is important to them, for example, or
they may comment how they felt when someone said a particular thing.
The collection of on-line data brings into focus the problem of the ‘Observer’s
Paradox’: the concern that the interactants’ awareness of being observed and
recorded for research purposes may actually affect their communicative behaviour
and thus distort the primary research data. Many researchers have found that any
such effect tends to be temporary, but as Kasper (2000: 320) points out, ‘since
initial observer effects are quite possible, researchers should refrain from the get-
your-data-and-run type of data collection’.
Despite their thematic and methodological differences, the cognitive–
psychological and the social approaches to communication should be seen as
complementary. For example, the realization of communicative directness–
indirectness in different cultures is an important topic in social pragmatics, yet
socio-pragmatic descriptions can beneﬁt from a characterization of the reasoning
processes involved in direct and indirect communication. Roughly, the more
complex the reasoning involved in deriving a communicated assumption,
the more indirectly communicated that assumption will be. For example,
although the utterance Could you pass me the salt? has the form of a request for
information about the hearer’s ability to pass the salt, it is routinely (perhaps
conventionally) used as a request that the hearer pass the salt to the speaker.
Hence, the interpretation of Could you pass me the salt? as a request for action

81 Pragmatics
does not involve a complex reasoning process, and its meaning of request for
passing the salt is not communicated very indirectly. In contrast to more or less
conventionalized indirect requests like this one, an utterance such as I like my
food salty is not routinely used as a request that the hearer perform the action of
passing the salt, so deriving this interpretation will involve a rather more complex
reasoning process. Hence, I like my food salty is a more indirect request for action
than Could you pass me the salt?
The distinction between direct and indirect communication is closely related to
the observation that information may be communicated more or less strongly or
weakly. The stronger (that is, more conclusive) the evidence the communicator
presents for intending to communicate a particular assumption, the more strongly
communicated that assumption will be, and vice versa. For example, when Kiki
asks Where are you going tonight? , her utterance, by virtue of its linguistic form,
presents Sharon with conclusive evidence that some information about Sharon’s
plans for the evening is relevant to Kiki. In other words, it communicates strongly
a request for information. The same question presents far less compelling evidence
as to Kiki’s purpose in asking the question: Kiki is genuinely interested in Sharon, Kiki
is trying to avoid the embarrassment of silence, Kiki wants to show that she considers
Sharon a friend, Kiki is lonely and is hoping that Sharon will invite her to come along
with her , and so on. These [intentions] are less well-evidenced linguistically, and
so are communicated weakly, if at all. This example may suggest that information
which is communicated very indirectly is also communicated weakly, and vice
versa. However, this is not necessarily the case. For example, consider two answers
to the question: Would you like to have a half of my tuna sandwich? The reply
No, thanks would be a more direct way to decline the offer of a tuna sandwich
than I am allergic to ﬁsh , but the latter, conveys this message more strongly (it is
unlikely that a person might change their mind about not eating food which they
are allergic to). For this reason, it is communicative (in)directness that should
be distinguished from communicative strength. This distinction is particularly
important in intercultural communication situations, because different cultures
have different sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic conventions about what,
how and when to communicate more or less directly. They also have different
conventions concerning the strength with which the message is communicated;
about when it is appropriate to make an assertion, a suggestion or a mere hint.
Cognitive pragmatics needs to spell out how the contextual evidence available to
interactants combines with the linguistic evidence to help them work out what
is communicated on any given occasion. If the account is sufﬁciently explicit
and detailed, it could help with the description and classiﬁcation of cultural
constraints on how people select context for the interpretation of language and
how they choose linguistic expressions to convey messages more or less strongly.
Pragmatics and Language Learning and Teaching
Why should pragmatics play an important role in learning and teaching a second
or foreign language? The answer to this question is rather straightforward. People
generally set out to learn another language because they want to expand their
possibilities of communication. As we have seen, there is more to communication
than knowledge of language. Typically, the linguistic meaning of an utterance
radically falls short of specifying the message conveyed by that utterance. So,
although the ability to produce grammatically well-formed utterances with

82An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
coherent linguistic meanings in a given language is an essential prerequisite
for successful communication, it is certainly not sufﬁcient. As pragmatics is a
discipline which investigates the different aspects of the complex relation between
the linguistic meaning and contextual interpretation, it should play a major role
in learning and teaching a new language. This section examines brieﬂy some of
the key aspects of language learning and language teaching which are informed
by pragmatics.
The Possibility (or Likelihood) of Pragmatic Transfer
People generally learn new things by starting from what they already know. It
is widely acknowledged that people’s use of a second (or subsequently learnt)
language can be inﬂuenced by the characteristics of their ﬁrst (or earlier learnt)
language (it is particularly noticeable, for instance, in people’s accents). It is
important, therefore, for teachers to consider the possibility of pragmatic transfer
occurring (Kasper 1992; Žegarac and Pennington 2008).
Naturally, there can be pragmatic differences between languages, just as there
can be phonological or syntactic differences. Some of these differences can be
relatively ‘grammatical’; for example, in phrases like ‘In the light of this’ or
‘Having said that’, which refer to what has been said previously, a singular deictic
(this, that) is used in English whereas a plural is used in Greek. Other differences
are more socially based; for example, in China if you thank a close friend after
they have done you a favour, it may be perceived as ‘distancing’ behaviour and
hence inappropriate; in England, on the other hand, failure to thank would be
inappropriate because it implies taking the friend for granted.
During the last 20 years or so, pragmaticians have carried out contrastive research
into many different pragmatic features in a very wide range of languages. This
area of research is known as ‘cross-cultural pragmatics’. The majority of studies
have focused on speech acts across cultures; for example, many have explored the
following questions:
• What cultural differences (if any) are there in the effect of context on the
performance of speech acts? (For example, if two strangers slightly bump into
each other, do British and Greek people evaluate this similarly in terms of degree
of seriousness, and thus have similar conceptions as to whether a verbal apology
is required?)
• What cultural differences (if any) are there in the impact of sociopragmatic
principles on people’s performance of speech acts? (For example, when
responding to a compliment, is it more important to express verbal modesty in
Chinese than in English?)
• What language differences (if any) are there in the inﬂuence of pragmalinguistic
conventions on the performance of speech acts? (For example, when expressing
disagreement, is it common to soften the impact by using an ‘I agree with you
but …’ structure, or by asking for further information?)
Both similarities and differences have been found across many languages and
cultural groups, so this raises another question: what are the implications of
the ﬁndings for foreign language teaching and learning? Researchers who are
interested in this question typically work within ‘interlanguage pragmatics’,
and explore how foreign language learners’ performance compares with that of
native speakers. However, there is much debate whether native speaker norms

83 Pragmatics
are appropriate targets. In today’s globalized world, native speaker norms are
often complex and varied, and people may wish to present themselves in terms
of their own identities rather than simply conform to those of others. So, the
ways in which pragmatic differences are handled may need to vary according to
whether they are primarily pragmalinguistic differences (that is, differences in
the linguistic strategies typically used to convey a given illocutionary force) or
primarily sociopragmatic differences (that is, differences in the social assessments,
beliefs and principles that underlie language use).
As Thomas (1983:104) points out, learners are often more sensitive about having
their sociopragmatic judgements called into question than their pragmalinguistic
judgements, because of their strong social basis. So teachers need to consider,
for example, whether it is appropriate to train students to say ‘ Bless you ’ when
someone sneezes, whether they should ask students to address them by their ﬁrst
name when the students’ sociocultural norm is to show respect by using the title
plus last name, or whether they should encourage students to say ‘ thank you ’ in
response to a compliment when the students’ sociopragmatic convention is to
ritualistically reject the compliment out of modesty. Are such matters legitimate
teaching points in that they help students interact more naturally with native
speakers, or are they a form of language imperialism? There are no easy answers to
such questions, and teachers need to think them through very carefully, perhaps
in conjunction with their students.
Pragmatic Proﬁciency and the Value of Language
Instruction
Even more fundamentally, teachers need to consider the extent to which
language instruction can improve students’ pragmatic proﬁciency. Rose (2005:
390) identiﬁes three basic questions:
1 Is the target pragmatic feature teachable at all?
2 Is instruction in the targeted feature more effective than no instruction?
3 Are different teaching approaches differentially effective?
A range of studies have investigated the ﬁrst two questions, and have focused on
a range of pragmatic features such as routine pragmatic formulae (for example,
sumimasen in Japanese), hedging expressions (for example, it seems to me ), speech
acts (for example, requests and apologies) and strategies for performing them,
discourse markers and pragmatic comprehension. The studies typically use a
research design in which a single group of learners are initially tested for their
performance on the pragmatic feature selected for study, then the learners are
exposed to the feature for a certain period of time, and after this they are tested
again to ﬁnd out whether their pragmatic performance has improved or not. Rose
(2005: 392) concludes that ‘the research provides ample evidence demonstrating
the teachability of pragmatic features’.
However, we need to ask whether instruction is more effective than simple
exposure. Schmidt (1990: 142) argues that ‘you can’t learn a foreign language (or
anything else, for that matter) through subliminal perception’. He maintains that
‘noticing’ is required if the input that learners are exposed to is to become intake
and thus made available to them for further processing. Rose (2005) provides
a summary review of studies that have tested Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis;

84An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
in other words, studies that have investigated whether pragmatic instruction
(which seeks to draw learners’ attention to the targeted pragmatic feature) is more
beneﬁcial than simple exposure alone. He concludes that ‘without exception,
learners receiving instruction in pragmatics outperformed those who did not’
(Rose 2005: 392) and that ‘without instruction in pragmatics, learners do not
achieve sufﬁcient ability in a range of pragmatic areas’ (Rose 2005: 397).
Nevertheless, such conclusions need some qualiﬁcation. Rose also reports that
in some studies, learners who received instruction on certain features nevertheless
had difﬁculty in mastering those features, especially when those features entailed
very subtle aspects of language use. Moreover, it may be that the effectiveness of
instruction is affected by the proﬁciency level of the learners. Tateyama (2001)
reports that short pragmatic routines are teachable to absolute beginners, but we
suspect that more complex aspects of pragmatic use (for example, level of directness
or indirectness of requests in English) may require a higher level of proﬁciency.
Materials and Methods for developing Pragmatic
Proﬁciency
Bardovi-Harlig (2001: 30) proposes that there are two main areas where teachers
can usefully help students improve their pragmatic proﬁciency:
• Expose learners to pragmatically authentic input material.
• Assist learners with pragmatic comprehension.
Sometimes the constraints of the classroom and the teacher’s status can limit
students’ exposure to pragmatically variable authentic language use; for example,
Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1996) point out that teachers’ requests to students
are worded in ways that reﬂect the teacher–student role relationship. Such
wordings cannot (or should not), therefore, serve as direct models for learners.
Can textbooks, therefore, provide a suitably wide range of input? Carter (1998)
compared scripted dialogues in published ELT materials with corpus data and
found there were signiﬁcant differences. Bardovi-Harlig (2001) also found that
the content of textbooks was often a poor reﬂection of authentic language use
and argues that ‘in general, textbooks cannot be counted on as a reliable source
of pragmatic input for classroom language learners’ (2001: 25). Similarly, Vellenga
(2004), after analysing the pragmatic content of eight English language textbooks
from major publishers, draws the same conclusion. She also makes the following
suggestion:
A pragmatically friendly textbook might involve pragmatic awareness raising activities,
extralinguistic contextual information for all language samples, provision of a variety of
language forms to accomplish a certain speech act to enable pragmalinguistic choices,
and rich cultural information to enable sociopragmatic choices.
Both Bardovi-Harlig (2001) and Vellenga (2004) acknowledge that more recent
textbooks may be more suitable, and Vellenga calls for more research into
the pragmatic information that is available in textbooks. Kasper (1997) also
emphasizes the importance of research: ‘Because native speaker intuition is a
notoriously unreliable source of information about the communicative practices
of their own community, it is vital that teaching materials on L2 pragmatics are
research-based.’

85 Pragmatics
One major project that lives up to this requirement is the Language in the
Workplace Project (LWP) at Victoria University of Wellington. Holmes et al.
(forthcoming) report on how they have used their LWP corpus of interactions (which
were collected in professional workplaces) as a resource for developing teaching
and learning materials to help migrant workers become more pragmatically/
interculturally proﬁcient. Marra, Holmes and Riddiford (in preparation) explain
their general design principles as follows:
The diversity in the class, coupled with reasonably high levels of English proﬁciency,
means that instruction cannot and should not be focused on speciﬁc tasks for speciﬁc
positions. Instead our focus is sociopragmatic skills which serve as resources in a
range of situations. Learners need to be able to manage on-going, dynamic social
interaction in a wide range of settings, and this entails the ability to accurately
analyse the relative weight of different social dimensions. Hence we explicitly
encourage and teach tools for self-reﬂection and analysis of relevant contextual
information. … A particular challenge in the design of the course thus involves giving
adequate weight to ways of empowering the migrant employees to undertake their
own analyses of what is going on in workplace interactions […] (Newton 2007). Or,
as Clark and Ivanic (1997: 217) express it, ‘providing them with a critical analytical
framework to help them reﬂect on their own language experiences and practices and
on the language practices of others in the institutions of which they are a part and in
the wider society in which they live’.
Details of how this is carried out in practice can be found in Newton (2007),
Marra, Holmes and Riddiford (in preparation), Holmes et al. (forthcoming) and
Riddiford (2007).
Another potential source of pragmatic information for learners is dictionaries,
and Kawamura (2006) argues that pragmatic information in dictionaries, both
monolingual and bilingual, needs to be signiﬁcantly improved. He maintains that
lexicographers need to pay greater attention to pragmatic information, and suggests
that more lexical items and expressions should be considered from a pragmatic
perspective. For example, he recommends including relatively infrequent words
and phrases if they tend to be misused frequently by foreign learners and lead to
serious pragmatic failure. However, he also warns that dictionaries are typically
expected to be prescriptive, and that users may thus wrongly interpret pragmatic
dictionary information in this light.
Pragmatic Performance and Learner Identity
As we noted above, it is impossible to prepare students for every communicative
context and need that they will face in real life, and it is thus impractical to
provide them with pre-determined strategies for dealing with such contexts and
needs. But even if we were able to do so, it would be inappropriate to make this
our goal. People’s use of language is closely interconnected with their senses of
identity, and people need to be able to present themselves in ways that they
feel comfortable with. As Kachru and Nelson (1996: 89) maintain, ‘If a typical
American has no wish to speak like or be labelled as a British user of English, why
should a Nigerian, an Indian, or a Singaporean user feel any differently?’. In fact,
some learners may wish to speak like members of the target language/culture –
they may wish to identify with the other social group; on the other hand, others
may not wish to do so. The key point is that learners need to be able to make that

86An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
choice for themselves. They need to have a range of strategies at their disposal,
and to select meaningfully among them to present themselves as they personally
wish.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Kelly-Jay Marshall for providing us with the
dialogue that we discuss.
Further Reading
Introductions to Pragmatics
Thomas, J. (1995) Meaning in Interaction. An Introduction to Pragmatics . London:
Longman.
Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics . Oxford: OUP.
Both of these books provide concise and extremely accessible introductions to
pragmatics. Thomas (1995) is particularly rich in interesting examples.
Cutting, Joan (2007) Pragmatics and Discourse. A Resource Book for Students (second
edition). London: Routledge.
In addition to explaining key concepts in pragmatics, this book also includes extensive
examples, classic readings and activities.
Mey, Jacob (2000) Pragmatics. An Introduction (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
This book takes a strong social perspective, and explores pragmatics in much greater
depth than either Thomas (1995) or Yule (1996) but is very accessible.
Pragmatics and Culture
Kasper, G. and Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.) (1993) Interlanguage Pragmatics . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
This book comprises empirical studies of interlanguage pragmatics, with a focus on
speech acts.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) (2008) Culturally Speaking. Communication, Culture and
Politeness Theory (second edition). London: Continuum.
This book comprises both theoretical and empirical chapters. There are particularly useful
chapters on pragmatic transfer, pragmatic data collection and pragmatic data analysis, as
well as cross-cultural (comparative) and intercultural (discourse) studies.
Thomas, J. (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics , 4(2): 91–112.
This widely-quoted journal article discusses different types of pragmatic failure and the
difﬁculties faced by non-native speakers.

87 Pragmatics
Pragmatics and Language Teaching
Rose, K.R. and Kasper, G. (eds) (2001) Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Alcón, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. (eds) (2008) Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign
Language Learning, Teaching and Testing . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
These two books report many research studies into pragmatics and language learning
and teaching.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003) Teaching Pragmatics. Washington, DC:
United States Department of State. Available at http://www.indiana.edu/~dsls/faculty/
kathleen.shtml [accessed 20 June 2009].
This online resource provides a large number of lessons and activities for the teaching of
pragmatic aspects of language use.
HANDS-ON ACTIVITY
Read the following authentic interchange, and then carry out a pragmatic analysis
of it, paying particular attention to the following features:
• Reference.
• Illocutionary force.
• Agreement/disagreement.
• Face-threatening behaviour.
• Context.
• Conversational patterns/structure.
The Rice Episode
Brian, an American student spending a year in Germany, has cooked a meal for
Andi, a German friend, who has recently helped him with his German seminar
paper. Andi has just arrived.
01 Brian: hallo Andi how are you?
02 Andi: yeah ﬁne oh ﬁne really yeah;
03 Brian: so (.) everything’s ready now (.) I hope you like it (0.3) I have
cooked it myself [so because]
04 Andi: [yeah ﬁne]
05 Brian: that’s what we eat in the South
06 Andi: {in a loud voice} but that’s so much that is FAR TOO MUCH
rice
07 Brian: that doesn’t MATTER (0.1) I have paid for it (.) and I have
INVITED you (.) [you have]
08 Andi: [no it] DOES matter it DOES it DOES think
of the many poor people who go hungry and would like to eat
something like that [well I]
09 Brian: [I I] believe I (0.1) I [ﬁnd]

88An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
10 Andi: [I ﬁnd] one should in
this common world in which we do all live (0.2) the world in
which we are all endowed with material goods so UNequally
we should at least on a small scale try to produce no waste no
useless [waste]
11 Brian [well Andi] I am not I (0.2) [don’t believe]

12 Andi: produce [no waste] and always in
our consciousness think that we in the rich western world …
{monologue continues for 1½ minutes}
(House 2000: 154–5)
Transcription Conventions
Meaning Symbol Example
Overlapping text word [word] word
[word] wordAndi: no useless [waste]
Brian: [well Andi] I
Micropause (.) Andi: I have paid for it (.) and I
Pause of indicated
length (in seconds)(0.5) Andi: I (0.1) I ﬁnd
Emphasised word CAPITAL LETTERS Andi: no it DOES matter
Relevant additional
information{descriptive comment} {in a loud voice}

Corpus Linguistics
Randi Reppen
Northern Arizona University
Rita Simpson-Vlach
California State University at San Jose
What is Corpus Linguistics?
Recently, the area of study known as ‘corpus linguistics’ has enjoyed much greater
popularity, both as a means to explore actual patterns of language use and as a tool
for developing materials for classroom language instruction. Corpus linguistics
uses large collections of both spoken and written natural texts ( corpora or corpuses ,
singular corpus ) that are stored on computers. By using a variety of computer-
based tools, corpus linguists can explore different questions about language use.
One of the major contributions of corpus linguistics is in the area of exploring
patterns of language use. Corpus linguistics provides an extremely powerful tool
for the analysis of natural language and can provide tremendous insights as to
how language use varies in different situations, such as spoken versus written, or
formal interactions versus casual conversation.
Although corpus linguistics and the term ‘corpus’ in its present-day sense are
pretty much synonymous with computerized corpora and methods, this was
not always the case, and earlier corpora, of course, were often not computerized.
Before the advent of computers, or at least before the proliferation of personal
computers, many empirical linguistics who were interested in function and use
did essentially what we now call corpus linguistics. An empirical approach to
linguistic analysis is one based on naturally occurring spoken or written data as
opposed to an approach that gives priority to introspection. Empirical approaches
to issues in linguistics are now the accepted practice, partly as a result of computer
tools and resources becoming more sophisticated and widespread. Advances in
technology have led to a number of advantages for corpus linguists, including the
collection of ever larger language samples, the ability for much faster and more
efﬁcient text processing and access, and the availability of easy to learn computer
resources for linguistic analysis. As a result of these advances, there are typically
four features that are seen as characteristic of corpus-based analyses of language:
• It is empirical, analysing the actual patterns of use in natural texts.
• It utilizes a large and principled collection of natural texts, known as a ‘corpus’,
as the basis for analysis.
• It makes extensive use of computers for analysis, using both automatic and
interactive techniques.
• It depends on both quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques.
(From Biber, Conrad and Reppen, 1998: 4.)
As mentioned above, a corpus refers to a large principled collection of natural
texts. The use of natural texts means that language has been collected from
naturally occurring sources rather than from surveys or questionnaires. In the case
of spoken language, this means ﬁrst recording and then transcribing the speech. 6

90An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
The process of creating written transcripts of spoken language can be quite time-
consuming, involving a series of choices based on the research interests of the
corpus compilers. Even with the collection of written texts there are questions
that must be addressed. For example, when creating a corpus of personal letters,
the researcher must decide what to do about spelling conventions and errors.
There are a number of existing corpora that are valuable resources for investigating
some types of language questions. Some of the more well-known available
corpora include the British National Corpus (BNC), the Corpus of Contemporary
American English (COCA), the Brown Corpus, the Lancaster/Oslo–Bergen (LOB)
Corpus and the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts.
However, researchers interested in exploring aspects of language use that are not
represented by readily available corpora (for example, research issues relating to a
particular register or time period) will need to compile a new corpus.
The text collection process for building a corpus needs to be principled, so
as to ensure representativeness and balance. The linguistic features or research
questions being investigated will shape the collection of texts used in creating the
corpus. For example, if the research focus is to characterize the language used in
business letters, the researcher would need to collect a representative sample of
business letters. After considering the task of representing all of the various types
of businesses and the various kinds of correspondence that are included in the
category of ‘business letters’, the researcher might decide to focus on how small
businesses communicate with each other. Now, the researcher can set about the
task of contacting small businesses and collecting inter-ofﬁce communication.
These and other issues related to the compilation and analysis of corpora will be
described in greater detail in the next section of this chapter.
Because corpus linguistics uses large collections of naturally occurring language,
the use of computers for analysis is imperative. Computers are tireless tools that
can store large amounts of information and allow us to look at that information
in various conﬁgurations. Imagine that you are interested in exploring the use of
relative clauses in academic written language. Now, imagine that you needed to
carry out this task by hand. As a simple example of how overwhelming such a
task can be, turn to a random page in this book and note all the relative clauses
that occur on that page – imagine doing this for the entire book! Just the thought
of completing this task is daunting. Next, imagine that you were interested in
looking at different types of relative clauses and the different contexts in which
they occur. You can easily see that this is a task that is better given to a computer
that can store information and sort that information in various ways. Just how the
computer can accomplish such a task is described in the ‘What can a Corpus Tell
Us?’ section of this chapter.
The ﬁnal characteristic of corpus-based methods stated above is an important
and often overlooked one (that is, that this approach involves both quantitative
and qualitative methods of analysis). Although computers make possible a wide
range of sophisticated statistical techniques and accomplish tedious, mechanical
tasks rapidly and accurately, human analysts are still needed to decide what
information is worth searching for, to extract that information from the corpus
and to interpret the ﬁndings. Thus, perhaps the greatest contribution of corpus
linguistics lies in its potential to bring together aspects of quantitative and
qualitative techniques. The quantitative analyses provide an accurate view of
more macro-level characteristics, whereas the qualitative analyses provide the
complementary micro-level perspective.

91 Corpus Linguistics
Corpus Design and Compilation
A corpus, as deﬁned above, is a large and principled collection of texts stored in
electronic format. Although there is no minimum size for a text collection to be
considered a corpus, an early standard size set by the creators of the Brown Corpus
was one million words. A number of well-known specialized corpora are much
smaller than that, but there is a general assumption that for most tasks within
corpus linguistics, larger corpora are more valuable, up to a certain point. Another
feature of modern-day corpora is that they are usually made available to other
researchers*, most commonly for a modest fee and occasionally free of charge.
This is a signiﬁcant development, as it enables researchers all over the world
to access the same sets of data, which not only encourages a higher degree of
accountability in data analysis, but also permits collaborative work and follow-up
studies by different researchers. This section presents a summary of corpus types
and some of the issues involved in designing and compiling a corpus. Because
such a wide range of corpora is accessible to individual teachers and researchers,
it is not necessary – or even desirable – for those interested in corpus linguistics
and its applications to build their own corpus, and this section should not be
taken as encouragement to do so. However, as noted above, it is possible that at
some point you will be interested in research questions that cannot be properly
investigated using existing corpora, and this section offers an introduction to the
kinds of issues that need to be considered should you decide to compile your own
corpus. Aside from that, it is important to know something about how corpora are
designed and compiled in order to evaluate existing corpora and understand what
sorts of analyses they are best suited for.
Types of Corpora
It could be said that there are as many types of corpora as there are research
topics in linguistics. The following section gives a brief overview of the most
common types of corpora being used by language researchers today. General
corpora, such as the Brown Corpus, the LOB Corpus, the COCA or the BNC,
aim to represent language in its broadest sense and to serve as a widely available
resource for baseline or comparative studies of general linguistic features.
Increasingly, general corpora are designed to be quite large. For example, the
BNC, compiled in the 1990s, contains 100 million words, and the COCA had
385 million in 2009. The early general corpora like Brown and LOB, at a mere
one million words, seem tiny by today’s standards, but they continue to be
used by both applied and computational linguists, and research has shown
that one million words is sufﬁcient to obtain reliable, generalizable results for
many, though not all, research questions. A general corpus is designed to be
balanced and include language samples from a wide range of registers or genres,
including both ﬁction and nonﬁction in all their diversity (Biber, 1993a, 1993b).
Most of the early general corpora were limited to written language, but because
of advances in technology and increasing interest in spoken language among
linguists, many of the modern general corpora include a spoken component,
which similarly encompasses a wide variety of speech types, from casual
*In some cases, the compilation of a corpus is funded by a publishing (or testing) company, which has a
ﬁnancial interest in restricting access to the corpus to a select group of key researchers.

92An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
conversations among friends and family to academic lectures and national
radio broadcasts. However, because written texts are vastly easier and cheaper to
compile than transcripts of speech, very few of the large corpora are balanced in
terms of speech and writing. The compilers of the BNC had originally planned
to include equal amounts of speech and writing, and eventually settled for a
spoken component of ten million words, or ten per cent of the total. A few
corpora exclusively dedicated to spoken discourse have been developed, but
they are inevitably much smaller than modern general corpora like the BNC,
for example the Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English
(CANCODE) ( see Carter and McCarthy, 1997).
Although the general corpora have fostered important research over the years,
specialized corpora – those designed with more speciﬁc research goals in mind – may
be the most crucial ‘growth area’ for corpus linguistics, as researchers increasingly
recognize the importance of register-speciﬁc descriptions and investigations of
language. Specialized corpora may include both spoken and written components,
as do the International Corpus of English (ICE), a corpus designed for the study of
national varieties of English, and the TOEFL-2000 Spoken and Written Academic
Language Corpus. More commonly, a specialized corpus focuses on a particular
spoken or written variety of language. Specialized written corpora include historical
corpora (for example, the Helsinki Corpus (1.5 million words dating from AD850
to 1710) and the Archer Corpus (2 million words of British and American English
dating from 1650 to 1990) and corpora of newspaper writing, ﬁction or academic
prose, to name a few. Registers of speech that have been the focus of specialized
spoken corpora include academic speech (the Michigan Corpus of Academic
Spoken English; MICASE), teenage language (COLT), child language (the CHILDES
database), the language of television (Quaglio, 2009) and call centre interactions
(Friginal, 2009). Some spoken corpora have been coded for discourse intonation
such as the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English (Cheng, Greaves and Warren,
2008). In addition to enhanced prosodic and acoustic transcriptions of spoken
corpora, multi-modal corpora are another important type of specialized corpus.
These corpora link video and audio recordings to non-linguistic features that
play a crucial role in communication, such as facial expressions, hand gestures
and body position ( see, for example, Carter and Adolphs, 2008; Dahlmann and
Adolphs, in press; Knight and Adolphs, 2008).
One type of specialized corpus that is becoming increasingly important for
language teachers is the so-called ‘learner’s corpus’. This is a corpus that includes
spoken or written language samples produced by non-native speakers, the most
well-known example being the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE).
The worldwide web has also had an impact on the types of corpora that are
available. There are an increasing number of corpora that are available online and
can be searched by the tools that are provided with that site. ( See Mark Davies’
online corpora in ‘Useful Websites’ at the end of this chapter.)
Issues in Corpus Design
One of the most important factors in corpus linguistics is the design of the
corpus (Biber, 1990). This factor impacts all of the analysis that can be carried
out with the corpus and has serious implications for the reliability of the results.
The composition of the corpus should reﬂect the anticipated research goals. A
corpus that is intended to be used for exploring lexical questions needs to be very

93 Corpus Linguistics
large to allow for accurate representation of a large number of words and of the
different senses, or meanings, that a word might have. A corpus of one million
words will not be large enough to provide reliable information about less frequent
lexical items. For grammatical explorations, however, the size constraints are not
as great, since there are far fewer different grammatical constructions than lexical
items, and therefore they tend to recur much more frequently in comparison. So,
for grammatical analysis, the ﬁrst generation corpora of one million words have
withstood the test of time. However, it is essential that the overall design of the
corpus reﬂects the issues being explored. For example, if a researcher is interested
in comparing patterns of language found in spoken and written discourse, the
corpus has to encompass a range of possible spoken and written texts, so that the
information derived from the corpus accurately reﬂects the variation possible in
the patterns being compared across the two registers.
A well-designed corpus should aim to be representative of the types of language
included in it, but there are many different ways to conceive of and justify
representativeness. First, you can try to be representative primarily of different
registers (for example, ﬁction, non-ﬁction, casual conversation, service encounters,
broadcast speech) as well as discourse modes (monologic, dialogic, multi-party
interactive) and topics (national versus local news, arts versus sciences). Another
category of representativeness involves the demographics of the speakers or
writers (nationality, gender, age, education level, social class, native language/
dialect). A third issue to consider in devising a representative sample is whether or
not it should be based on production or reception. For example, e-mail messages
constitute a type of writing produced by many people, whereas bestsellers and
major newspapers are produced by relatively few people, but read, or consumed, by
many. All these issues must be weighed when deciding how much of each category
(genre, topic, speaker type, etc.) to include. It is possible that certain aspects of
all of these categories will be important in creating a balanced, representative
corpus. However, striving for representativeness in too many categories would
necessitate an enormous corpus in order for each category to be meaningful. Once
the categories and target number of texts and words from each category have been
decided upon, it is important to incorporate a method of randomizing the texts
or speakers and speech situations in order to avoid sampling bias on the part of
the compilers.
In thinking about the research goals of a corpus, compilers must bear in mind
the intended distribution of the corpus. If access to the corpus is to be limited to a
relatively small group of researchers, their own research agenda would be the only
factor inﬂuencing corpus design decisions. If the corpus is to be freely or widely
available, decisions might be made to include more categories of information, in
anticipation of the goals of other researchers who might use the corpus ( see below
for more details on encoding). Of course, no corpus can be everything to everyone;
the point is that in creating more widely distributed resources, it is worthwhile to
think about potential future users during the design phase. Many of the decisions
made about the design of a corpus have to do with practical considerations of
funding and time. Some of the questions that need to be addressed are: How much
time can be allotted to the project? Is there a dedicated staff of corpus compilers
or are they full-time academics? How much funding is available to support the
collection and compilation of the corpus? In the case of a spoken corpus, budget
is especially critical because of the tremendous amount of time and skilled labour
involved in transcribing speech accurately and consistently.

94An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Corpus Compilation
When creating a corpus, data collection involves obtaining or creating electronic
versions of the target texts, and storing and organizing them. Written corpora are
far less labour intensive to collect than spoken corpora. Data collection for a written
corpus most commonly means using a scanner and optical character recognition
(OCR) software to scan paper documents into electronic text ﬁles. Occasionally,
materials for a written corpus may be keyboarded manually (for example, in the case
of some historical corpora, corpora of handwritten letters, etc.). Optical character
recognition is not error-free, however, so even when documents are scanned, some
degree of manual proofreading and error-correction is necessary. The tremendous
wealth of resources now available on the worldwide web provides an additional
option for the collection of some types of written corpora or some categories of
documents. For example, most newspapers and many popular periodicals are now
produced in both print versions and electronic versions, making it much easier to
collect a corpus of newspaper or other journalistic types of writing. Other types
of documents readily available on the web that may comprise small specialized
corpora or sub-sections of larger corpora include, for example, scholarly journals,
government documents, business publications and consumer information, to
say nothing of more informal (formerly private) kinds of writing, such as travel
diaries, or the abundant archives of written-cum-spoken genres found in blogs,
e-mail discussion, news groups and the like. There is a danger, of course, in relying
exclusively on electronically produced texts, since it is possible that the format itself
engenders particular linguistic characteristics that differentiate the language of
electronic texts from that of texts produced for print. However, many texts available
online are produced primarily for print publication and then posted on the web.
The data collection phase of building a spoken corpus is lengthy and expensive,
as mentioned above. The ﬁrst step is to decide on a transcription system (Edwards
and Lampert, 1993). Most spoken corpora use an orthographic transcription
system that does not attempt to capture prosodic details or phonetic variation.
Some spoken corpora, however, (for example, CSAE, London–Lund and the Hong
Kong Corpus of Spoken English) include a great deal of prosodic detail in the
transcripts, since they were designed to be used at least partly, if not primarily,
for research on phonetics or discourse-level prosodics. Another important issue in
choosing a transcription system is deciding how the interactional characteristics
of the speech will be represented in the transcripts; over lapping speech, back
channels, pauses and non-verbal contextual events are all features of interactive
speech that may be represented to varying degrees of detail in a spoken corpus.
For either spoken or written corpora, an important issue during data collection is
obtaining permission to use the data for the corpus. This usually involves informing
speakers or copyright owners about the purposes of the corpus, how and to whom
it will be available, and in the case of spoken corpora, what measures will be taken
to ensure anonymity. For these reasons, it is usually impractical to use existing
recordings or transcripts as part of a new spoken corpus, unless the speakers can
still be contacted. ( See Reppen (in press) for more details about building a corpus.)
Markup and Annotation
A simple corpus could consist of raw text, with no additional information
provided about the origins, authors, speakers, structure or contents of the texts

95 Corpus Linguistics
themselves. However, encoding some of this information in the form of markup
makes the corpus much richer and more useful, especially to researchers who
were not involved in its compilation. Structural markup refers to the use of codes
in the texts to identify structural features of the text. For example, in a written
corpus, it may be desirable to identify and code structural entities such as titles,
authors, paragraphs, subheadings, chapters, etc. In a spoken corpus, turns ( see
Chapter 4, Discourse Analysis , and Chapter 12, Speaking and Pronunciation ) and
speakers are almost always identiﬁed and coded, but there are a number of other
features that may be encoded as well, including, for example, contextual events
or paralinguistic features. In addition to structural markup, many corpora provide
information about the contents and creation of each text in what is called a
header attached to the beginning of the text, or else stored in a separate database.
Information that may be encoded in the header includes, for spoken corpora,
demographic information about the speakers (such as gender, social class,
occupation, age, native language or dialect), when and where the speech event
or conversation took place, relationships among the participants and so forth.
For written corpora, demographic information about the author(s), as well as title
and publication details may be encoded in a header. For both spoken and written
corpora, headers sometimes include classiﬁcations of the text into categories, such
as register, genre, topic domain, discourse mode or formality.
In addition to headers, which provide information about the text (for example,
production circumstances, participants, etc.), some corpora are also encoded with
certain types of linguistic annotation. There are a number of different kinds of
linguistic processing or annotation that can be carried out to make the corpus a more
powerful resource. Part-of-speech tagging is the most common kind of linguistic
annotation. This involves assigning a grammatical category tag to each word in the
corpus. For example, the sentence: ‘A goat can eat shoes’ could be coded as follows:
A (indeﬁnite article) goat (noun, singular) can (modal) eat (main verb) shoes (noun,
plural). Different levels of speciﬁcity can be coded, such as functional information
or case, for example. Other kinds of tagging include prosodic and phonetic
annotation, which are not uncommon, and syntactic parsing, which is much less
common, and used especially, though not exclusively, by computational linguists. A
tagged corpus allows researchers to explore and answer different types of questions.
In addition to frequency of lexical items, a tagged corpus allows researchers to see
what grammatical structures co-occur. A tagged corpus also addresses the problem
of words that have multiple meanings or functions. For example, the word like can
be a verb, preposition, discourse marker or adverb, depending on its use. The word
can is a modal or a noun, but the tag in the example above identiﬁes it as a modal
in that particular sentence. With an untagged corpus, it is impossible to retrieve
automatically speciﬁc uses of words with multiple meanings or functions.
What Can a Corpus tell Us?
Word Counts and Basic Corpus Tools
There are many levels of information that can be gathered from a corpus.
These levels range from simple word lists to catalogues of complex grammatical
structures and interactive analyses that can reveal both linguistic and non-
linguistic association patterns. Analyses can explore individual lexical or linguistic
features across texts or identify clusters of features that characterize particular

96An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
registers (Biber, 1988).* The tools that are used for these analyses range from basic
concordancing packages to complex interactive computer programs.
The ﬁrst, or most basic information that we can get from a corpus, is frequency of
occurrence information. There are several reasonably priced or free concordancing
tools (for example, MonoConc, WordSmith Tools, Antconc etc.) that can easily be
used to provide word frequency information. A word list is simply a list of all the
words that occur in the corpus. These lists can be arranged in alphabetic or frequency
order (from most frequent to least frequent). Frequency lists from different corpora
or from different parts of the same corpus (for example, spoken versus written texts
or personal letters versus editorials) can be compared to discover some basic lexical
differences across registers. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show two excerpts from the MICASE
word list; Table 6.1 shows the 50 most frequent words and Table 6.2 shows the 38
words with a frequency of 50 in the whole corpus (out of a total of 1.5 million words).
Table 6.1 The 50 most frequent words in the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English
(MICASE)
*‘Register’ is the term we are using to describe varieties of texts that are deﬁned by situational characteristics
(for example, spoken versus written, edited versus online production). Registers can be described at various
levels of speciﬁcity. For example, spoken language versus written language constitute two broadly deﬁned
registers. A subcategory of the register of written language is the register of academic textbooks. It is also
possible to further divide the category of academic textbooks according to discipline (such as biology,
business, education, art history, etc.) or by level (undergraduate, graduate, freshman, sophomore, etc.).N Word Frequency N Word Frequency
1 THE 68,036 26 BE 8874
2 AND 41,091 27 THEY 8799
3 OF 35,053 28 ON 8650
4 YOU 34,986 29 ARE 8596
5 THAT 34,085 30 IF 8440
6 TO 33,029 31 YEAH 8292
7 A 32,236 32 WAS 8179
8 I 31,483 33 JUST 7970
9 IS 23,535 34 DO 7675
10 IN 23,255 35 NOT 7638
11 IT 21,883 36 OR 7488
12 SO 17,669 37 THAT’S 7042
13 THIS 17,110 38 ABOUT 7014
14 UM 15,346 39 RIGHT 6980
15 UH 14,859 40 WITH 6726
16 HAVE 11,590 41 CAN 6350
17 IT’S 11,560 42 AT 6312
18 WE 11,383 43 AS 6229
19 WHAT 11,236 44 THERE 5991
20 LIKE 11,037 45 THINK 5796
21 BUT 10,402 46 DON’T 5650
22 KNOW 10,000 47 XX* 5646
23 FOR 9282 48 THEN 5443
24 ONE 9267 49 ALL 5289
25 OKAY 9250 50 TWO 4937
*Note: (xx) is the convention used to indicate unintelligible speech.

97 Corpus Linguistics
N Word Frequency
2039 ABSOLUTE 50
2040 BECOMING 50
2041 CAUSED 50
2042 CHARACTERISTIC 50
2043 CLASSROOM 50
2044 CONSISTENT 50
2045 CORE 50
2046 CURVES 50
2047 DAILY 50
2048 DESCRIPTION 50
2049 DETECT 50
2050 DISSERTATION 50
2051 EXECUTION 50
2052 EXPOSED 50
2053 FIGURED 50
2054 GARDEN 50
2055 GRAVITY 50
2056 HABITAT 50
2057 OPENING 50
2058 PAGES 50
2059 PHRASE 50
2060 PRESENTED 50
2061 RAISED 50
2062 RANDOMLY 50
2063 REGIONS 50
2064 REVELATION 50
2065 SELECTION 50
2066 SHORTER 50
2067 SHUTTLE 50
2068 SPLIT 50
2069 SURVEY 50
2070 TAIL 50
2071 THEORETICAL 50
2072 TRAITS 50
2073 TUMOR 50
2074 WHOA 50
Table 6.2 Words with a frequency of 50 in MICASE

98An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Word lists derived from corpora can be useful for vocabulary instruction and
test development. For example, a word list from an appropriate corpus could be
used to select vocabulary words occurring within a speciﬁed target frequency
range – say words occurring ﬁve to ten times per million words – to be included
in a course syllabus or pool of test items. Similarly, a teacher trying to decide what
modal verbs to teach and what sequence to teach them in could consult a wordlist
from one or more corpora to ﬁnd the relative frequencies of the modals.
In addition to frequency lists, concordancing packages can provide additional
information about lexical co-occurrence patterns. To generate a concordance
listing showing these patterns, a target word or phrase needs to be selected. Once
the search word/phrase is selected, the program can search the texts in the corpus
and provide a list of each occurrence of the target word in context. This display,
referred to as a ‘key word in context’ (KWIC) may then be used to explore various
uses or various senses of the target word. Figure 6.1 shows a screen shot of a KWIC
for the target word like from a small corpus of spoken children’s language.
The top portion of the screen display provides context for the occurrence of like
that is highlighted in the lower portion of the screen. The size of the windows and
the amount of context can be adjusted, allowing users to adjust settings according
to their needs. This small KWIC display of like shows that the students (ﬁfth-
graders) engaged in informal conversations were primarily using like as a verb and
that it was often preceded by a personal pronoun and followed by an inﬁnitive
(for example, we like to talk, we like to walk, I don’t like to listen). Of course, this
small display does not show all of the occurrences of like; other uses do occur in
the corpus.
A concordance program can also provide information about words that tend
to occur together in the corpus. For example, we could discover which words
most frequently occur just to the right or just to the left of a particular target
word, or even within two or three words to the left or right of the target word.
Words that commonly occur with or in the vicinity of a target word (that is, with
greater probability than random chance) are called ‘collocates’, and the resulting
sequences or sets of words are called ‘collocations’. An analysis of collocations
provides important information about grammatical and semantic patterns
of use for individual lexical items ( see Sinclair, 1991 for more information on
collocations).
Through the use of corpus analyses we can discover patterns of use that
previously were unnoticed. Words and grammatical structures that seem
synonymous often have strong patterns of association or preferences for use
with certain structures. For example, the nearly synonymous verbs begin and start
have the same grammatical potential. That is, they can be used with the same
variety of clause elements (for example, transitive, intransitive). Yet from corpus-
based investigations we have learned that start has a strong preference for an
intransitive pattern, in particular in academic prose (Biber, Conrad and Reppen,
1998). A detailed example of nearly synonymous words is provided later in this
chapter in the section on ‘Examples of Corpus-based Classroom Activities’ and in
the ‘Hands-on Activity’ at the end of this chapter.
Lexical phrases, or lexical bundles, is another area of collocational studies that
has come to light through corpus linguistics. Like collocations, these lexical
phrases or bundles are patterns that occur with a greater than random frequency
(see Chapter 1, An Overview of Applied Linguistics , for an example). The Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al., 1999) provides a good discussion

99 Corpus Linguistics
Figure 6.1 MonoConc concordance display of KWIC for the target word like

100 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
of these extended collocations and lists frequent three-, four- and ﬁve-word lexical
bundle patterns by register. Without the use of sophisticated computer programs,
these patterns would remain undetected.
Working with Tagged Texts
In order to carry out more sophisticated types of corpus analyses, it is often
necessary to have a tagged corpus. As mentioned in the previous section, when a
corpus is tagged, each word in the corpus is given a grammatical label. The process
of assigning grammatical labels to words is complex. For example, even a simple
word such as can falls into two grammatical categories. It can be a modal – ‘I can
reach the book’. Or, it can be used as a noun – ‘Put the paper in the can’. By writing
computer programs that include rules and probability information, computers can
quite accurately identify the grammatical labels for many words. However, there
are certain features that remain elusive. For these features, programs that work
interactively with a user can result in accurate identiﬁcation. These programs are
similar to spellcheckers and bring problematic or ambiguous words to the screen
for the user to select the correct classiﬁcation. Biber, Conrad and Reppen (1998)
provide a fuller description of tagged texts and interactive tagging.
Once texts have been tagged it is possible to explore a variety of complex
linguistic issues. Clusters of features can be counted, thus providing a fuller picture
of the texts in a register. Rather than information from a single linguistic feature,
the researcher can explore how features work together in texts. For example,
studies have shown that interactive spoken texts produced under time constraints
have particular linguistic features associated with them which are different from
informational texts. Interactive texts typically have more contractions and a
greater use of ﬁrst and second pronouns (for example, I, we, you, my ), whereas
informational texts have relatively few of these features.
Overview of Different Types of Corpus Studies
Over the years, corpora have been used to address a number of interesting issues.
The question of language change is one that intrigues many researchers, teachers
and language students. The area of historical linguistics has been well established
in Europe, with numerous scholars carrying out extensive projects to see how
language has changed over the centuries.
In addition to exploring changes across the centuries, scholars have used
specialized corpora to gain insights into changes related to language development,
both in ﬁrst and second language situations. These types of studies can provide
valuable insights as to the linguistic developmental changes that take place as
individuals acquire their ﬁrst language and also can provide important insights as
to patterns of developmental changes that apply to different ﬁrst language groups
as they acquire a second language.
Corpora have also been used to explore similarities or differences across different
national or regional varieties of English. Several collections of corpora that represent
different varieties of English (Australian English, American English, British English,
Indian English) have yielded interesting information about the systematic linguistic
differences that occur in these different regional varieties of English.
There have been large-scale studies to explore the differences between spoken
and written language. In addition to large-scale comparisons, there have been

101 Corpus Linguistics
descriptions of subregisters, such as newspaper language, or even comparisons
focusing on different sections of newspapers (for example, news reportage, letters
to the editor, feature articles, etc.). Many of the patterns of language use discovered
through corpus studies could not have been uncovered through traditional
techniques. Prior to corpus linguistics it was difﬁcult to note patterns of use, since
observing and tracking use patterns was a monumental task. In addition, many of
these ﬁndings run counter to our intuitions of how we use language (for example,
use of progressive aspect in conversation). For instance, a quick look at most ESL/
EFL conversation textbooks will show an emphasis on the use of the progressive
aspect. Although the progressive is more common in spoken language than in
written, its use is relatively small when compared with simple aspect (Biber et al.,
1999).
Describing the characteristics of a particular register can often provide valuable
resources for teachers and students. For example, MICASE, a specialized corpus of
spoken academic language, may be used to better prepare students to meet the
demands of spoken language that they will encounter at university. Teachers can
use this corpus evidence to develop materials for students that more accurately
reﬂect the spoken language tasks they will face in a university setting. In the
ﬁnal section of this chapter, we focus on the potential pedagogical applications of
corpora and corpus linguistics.
How can Corpora inform Language Teaching?
The impact of corpus linguistic studies on classroom language teaching practices
is already taking shape. The availability of corpus ﬁndings, along with the
increased availability of tools for exploring corpora (for example, MonoConc,
WordSmith Tools, Paul Nation’s vocabulary programs, the Lextutor website*) is a
considerable beneﬁt to the language classroom. Corpus-based studies of particular
language features and comprehensive works such as The Longman Grammar of
Spoken and Written English (Biber et al., 1999) will also serve language teachers
well by providing a basis for deciding which language features and structures are
important and also how various features and structures are used. For the ﬁrst time,
teachers and materials writers can have a basis for selecting the material that is
being presented and for the claims that are being made about linguistic features.
Rather than basing pedagogical decisions on intuitions and/or sequences that
have appeared in textbooks over the years, these decisions can now be grounded
on actual patterns of language use in various situations (such as spoken or written,
formal or casual situations).
There are several works that encourage teachers to explore the use of corpora
in the language classroom (Flowerdew and Tong, 1994; Johns, 1994; Barnbrook,
1996; Wichmann et al. , 1997; Simpson and Swales, 2001; O’Keefe, McCarthy and
Carter, 2007). Exploring Spoken Language , by Carter and McCarthy (1997), was the
ﬁrst widely available textbook to combine the use of corpus material with language
instruction. The challenge now is how best to translate frequency information
and knowledge about patterns of language use into classroom materials.
*MonoConcPro available at www.athel.com; WordSmith Tools available from Oxford University Press
http://www.oup.com/elt/global/isbn/6890; Vocabulary analysis programs by Paul Nation (RANGE and
WORD) available at http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/software.htm. Lextutor available at http://www.lextutor.ca/.

102 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Bringing Corpora into the Language Classroom
Corpus-based information can be brought to bear on language teaching in two
ways. First, teachers can shape instruction based on corpus-based information.
They can consult corpus studies to gain information about the features that they
are teaching. For example, if the focus of instruction is conversational English,
teachers could read corpus investigations on spoken language to determine which
features and grammatical structures are characteristic of conversational English.
Instruction could then be shaped by the features that students are most likely to
encounter. If the focus of instruction is a particular grammatical structure, corpus-
based studies can provide a picture of the range of use of that particular structure,
identifying lexical and pragmatic co-occurrence patterns associated with it. If
teachers have a corpus available, they can make their own enquiries into the use
of language features that they are teaching.
A second way that corpus information can be brought into the language
classroom is by having learners interact with corpora. This can take place in one
of two ways. If computer facilities are adequate, learners can be actively involved
in exploring corpora; if adequate facilities do not exist, teachers can bring in
printouts or results from corpus searches for use in the classroom. An example
of this type of activity is provided in the Hands-on Activity at the end of this
chapter.
It is worth noting here that the use of concordancing tasks in the classroom
is a matter of some controversy – strongly advocated by those who favour an
inductive or data-driven approach to learning (Johns, 1994), but criticized by
others who argue that it is difﬁcult to guide students appropriately and efﬁciently
in the analysis of vast numbers of linguistic examples (Cook, 1998). Clearly, there
is a need for classroom-based research and experimentation on the effectiveness of
exposing language students to corpora and concordance tools. Concrete evidence
about how effective these methods are will only become apparent over time, once
enough teachers have experimented with the use of corpora as reference sources
and learning tools.
Examples of Corpus-based Classroom Activities
The creation of appropriate, worthwhile corpus-based teaching materials takes
time, careful planning and access to a few basic tools and resources. All the
activities described in this section assume access to a computer, texts and to a
concordancing package, but the activities do not require a sophisticated skills or
computer programming ability. Several vocabulary activities can be generated
through simple frequency lists and concordance output (Donley and Reppen,
2001). If the teacher has the ability to scan or obtain an electronic version of the
texts that are being read by the students, frequency lists generated from these
texts may be used to identify and prioritize vocabulary words that need to be
taught. If too many words are unknown, then the teacher might decide to wait
and introduce the text later, when students are more prepared to cope with the
vocabulary demands of the text. Frequency lists can also be a starting point for
students to group words by grammatical category (for example, verb, nouns,
etc.) or semantic categories. In addition, students could do activities that explore
how to change words with various sufﬁxes (for example, nation to national to
nationalize ).

103 Corpus Linguistics
Concordances of target words can be used to better understand those words’
meaning and usage. Initially, concordances can be utilized to discover what a word
‘means’. However, the use of a word and its patterning characteristics also contribute
to its meaning senses. For example, words often are seen as synonymous when
actually, their use is not synonymous. Dictionaries often list the ‘resulting copulas’
(copulas which indicate a change of state due to some force or action) become, turn,
go and come as synonyms, with meanings like ‘to become’, ‘to get to be’, ‘to result’,
‘to turn out’. However, most dictionaries provide no clues to how these four words
might differ in meaning. In contrast, corpus research shows that these words differ
dramatically in their typical contexts of use. In particular, turn almost always refers
to a change of colour or physical appearance (for example, The water turned grey); go
almost always describes a change to a negative state (as in go crazy, go bad, go wrong)
and come is almost always used to describe a change to a more active state (as in
come awake or come alive) (Biber et al., 1999). Thus, corpus activities, coupled with
dictionary activities, can provide a much richer language-learning environment and
one which engages the student in the process of ﬁne-tuning word senses.
Understanding a word’s patterns of use is crucial for language learners, and
native speaker intuitions often do not prove helpful in predicting the patterns.
Thus, in the above example, unexpected combinations would be judged as wrong
by native speakers who would have trouble understanding combinations such
as go awake or come wrong, but may be at a loss to explain why or think of
additional examples of the correct patterns. Although traditional dictionaries are
of little help here, students and teachers can easily discover such patterns through
corpus analyses. Collocational activities can be used to help advanced language
learners reﬁne the context of use and move toward native-like use.
The patterns of language use that can be discovered through corpus linguistics
will continue to reshape the way we think of language. Detailed descriptions and
models of this use are now being published for teachers’ beneﬁt. Evidence from
corpus research is also beginning to have a positive impact on the materials that
we use to teach language. Perhaps the most exciting possibility is that corpus
linguistics now gives students and teachers the ability to explore for themselves
the way that various aspects of language are used, helping to guide them toward
their language goals.
Further Reading
Barnbrook, G. (1996) Language and Computers: A Practical Introduction to the
Computer Analysis of Language . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. A comprehensive
introduction to corpus-based language research that focuses on the computer side of the
ﬁeld. Discusses the rationale for using computers, how to collect a corpus, and various
ways of using a computer to analyse and annotate texts for linguistic research and natural
language processing. Includes appendices with programming examples.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R. (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language
Structure and Use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. An introduction to the range
of linguistic analyses that lend themselves to a corpus-based approach, including studies
focusing on lexicography, grammar, discourse, register variation, language acquisition
and historical linguistics. Includes detailed explanations of the methodologies involved in
investigating different linguistic features.

104 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
O’Keefe, A. McCarthy, M., Carter, R (2007) From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use
and Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Presents information
that can inform the order of instruction and how certain language features are taught.
An easily accessible collection of important aspects of spoken language for teachers
and teacher trainers that includes a reference section with citations that address many
different aspects of corpus research.
McEnery, T. Xiao, R, Tono, Y. (2006) Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced
Resource Book. New York: Routledge. A collection of relevant readings and research
activities presented in an engaging manner.
Useful Websites for Corpus Linguistics
The pages listed below provide a useful and friendly sampler of some of the
corpora and useful corpus resources that are available through the web. Of course,
web address and links change over time, so please be understanding if some of
these are no longer current.
• www.ecml.at/projects/voll/our_resources/graz_2002/ddrivenlrning/whatisddl/
resources/tim_ddl_learning_page.htm
Tim Johns’ Data Driven Learning Page with numerous links to corpus-based
data-driven learning and teaching materials, as well as more general links
related to corpora and language teaching.
• www.lexically.net/wordsmith/
The homepage of Wordsmith Tools, a concordancing and text analysis program.
• www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/software.html
A freeware program for doing corpus searches. AntConc can create frequency
lists, and concordance searches and also create lists of n-grams.
• www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase
Online access to transcripts of the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English
(MICASE), including a search facility for browsing transcripts and key-word-in-
context (KWIC) searches.
• davies-linguistics.byu.edu/personal/
Mark Davies’ home page provides access to several online corpora including a
385+ million word corpus of American English, historic corpora and Spanish
and Portuguese corpora all with a friendly user interface.
• www.lextutor.ca
The Compleat Lexical Tutor is a rich source of tools and resources that allow
users to identify vocabulary in texts (both English and French). The site includes
vocabulary assessment tools.
• www.kwicﬁnder.com/kfNgram/kfNgramHelp.html
The kfNgram website has tools for analysing corpora including tools for
identifying word clusters.
Hands-on Activity
Imagine that you have been asked to explain the difference in use between think
of and think about . First, try to decide if through experience and intuition you can
come up with a pattern for when one form is preferred over the other. Next, look
at the concordance lines provided below for think of and think about , taken from

105 Corpus Linguistics
a corpus of informal spoken conversation. Pay special attention to what comes
before and after the target words (for example, think of/about what?). Are there
any generalizations that can be made that would help a learner know when to use
think of and when to use think about ? To help you, the target expressions, think of
and think about , have been bolded in the concordance lines presented below.
THINK OF
Then, as he was trying to think of something to say to her (all
yes, wedding presents. We must think of something. You probably don’t
racking my brains for three hours to think of something, I simply cannot last
a second catastrophe. I tried to think of something to say myself, but my
offered frills. Nicandra tried to think of something pleasing to say:
only you were here, then we could think of something to do. ‘Christopher
groaning quietly, perhaps trying to think of something that summed up what
let said nothing. He had tried to think of something to say, but the only
lunch?’ ‘Ah me, the young! You think of nothing but your stomachs.
sympathy and collusion. But I can think of nothing to say. Perdie says,
she tried to speak, but she could think of nothing, and her mother, shifting
anything so familiar, and he could think of nothing on earth to say. It
man in the world.’ ‘As he could think of nothing else, Martin repeated
But try as she might, she could think of nothing to say like that, ﬁerce
listening. ‘Can we ourselves think of nothing that needs to be done?
‘what an idiot I was not to think of it before! You all right Elﬁe?
no, wait a minute, come to think of it you ‘re ﬁnding. hmm.
or him, on other occasions, come to think of it. We’ve been aware of each
happened to those kids. And come to think of it, Hamelin’s rats and children
like that ﬁve years ago, come to think of it, or even ten. It’s the
wash his feet, he had seen, come to think of it, the moon not too remote from
probably cheaper than Selina, come to think of it, what with the hotel mark
could have. I didn’t happen to think of it then. ‘And when did you
her pregnant. Better not even to think of it. Just go on hating him,
and done with. Don’t let us ever think of it again. My family always
‘How nice. What did you think of it?’ Patrice held her breath,
THINK ABOUT
You wouldn’t just think about it it’s just gone isn’t it
Well that’s a good way, if you think about it he’s got, he’s got four
more, I mean they can wear, if you think about it they were suits in the
When you think about it, yeah he was So what’
it seems easier that way when you think about it dunnit? Mm it’s a lot be
does that come from? Oh when you think about it Pledge, why do they call
wasn’t the money really when you think about it because at end of day,
more. I mean they can wear if you think about it they wear suits in the
week! And why, they don’t need to think about it, they can talk you out of
penetrating as lasers. ‘We might think about that, ‘I say at last.
I’ll have to start and think about that train, Dwight.
see it. That’s the way I like to think about that sort of place. It’s
another way, but I don’t want to think about that for a while. ‘Timothy
get eight to twenty-ﬁve. Now think about that. The district attorney

This page intentionally left blank

2
Essential Areas of Enquiry in
Applied Linguistics

Second Language Acquisition
Nina Spada
OISE/University of Toronto
Patsy M. Lightbown
Concordia University
What is Second Language Acquisition?
Second language acquisition research focuses on the developing knowledge and
use of a language by children and adults who already know at least one other
language. This ﬁeld of research has both theoretical and practical importance.
The theoretical importance is related to our understanding of how language
is represented in the mind and whether there is a difference between the way
language is acquired and processed and the way other kinds of information are
acquired and processed. The practical importance arises from the assumption that
an understanding of how languages are learned will lead to more effective teaching
practices. In a broader context, a knowledge of second language acquisition may
help educational policy makers set more realistic goals for programmes for both
foreign language courses and the learning of the majority language by minority
language children and adults.
This chapter begins with a discussion of some of the linguistic and psychological
theories which have informed second language acquisition research. This is
followed by a review of research ﬁndings on learners’ developing knowledge
and use of their second language (L2), including a discussion of how previously
learned languages affect that development. The ﬁnal section examines the role of
instruction in L2 development.
Theories of L2 Learning
Both linguistic and psychological theories have inﬂuenced research in second
language acquisition. One of the fundamental differences between theories
developed in these two disciplines is the role they hypothesize for internal and
external factors in the learning process. Some linguists have suggested that
language acquisition is based on the presence of a specialized module of the
human mind containing innate knowledge of principles common to all languages.
In contrast, most psychologists have argued that language is processed by general
cognitive mechanisms that are responsible for a wide range of human learning
and information processing and requires no specialized module.
Linguistic Perspectives
Universal Grammar
The idea that there exists a universal grammar (UG) of human languages
originated with Chomsky’s (1968) view on ﬁrst language (L1) acquisition. He was 7

109 Second Language Acquisition
looking for an explanation of the fact that virtually all children learn language at
a time in their cognitive development when they experience difﬁculty grasping
other kinds of knowledge which appear to be far less complex than language. It
was observed that even children with impaired intellectual ability were usually
successful in acquiring the language they heard around them. Chomsky argued,
furthermore, that the kind of information which mature speakers of a language
eventually have of their L1 could not have been learned from the language
they hear around them. This problem came to be called the ‘logical problem
of language acquisition’. Chomsky pointed out that children were exposed
to samples of language that were incomplete and sometimes ‘degenerate’ (for
example, slips of the tongue, false starts, etc.). In addition, some L1 researchers
noted that parents did not provide systematic feedback when young children
produced speech that did not match the adult language, and yet children would
eventually leave behind their childish errors and acquire full competence in the
language they were exposed to. Thus, Chomsky inferred that children must have
an innate language faculty. This faculty, originally referred to as the language
acquisition device (LAD) and later as UG, was described as a specialized module
of the brain, pre-programmed to process language. UG was said to contain
general principles underlying all languages. The child’s task would be to discover
how the language of his or her environment made use of those principles.
Chomsky’s theory of UG was offered as an explanation for L1 acquisition
and, although it has been questioned in that context (Elman et al., 1996), it
is widely accepted as at least a plausible explanation for L1 acquisition. The
question of whether UG can also explain L2 learning is controversial. One of
the reasons for this controversy is the claim that there is a critical period for
language acquisition. That is, it is suggested that while UG permits a young
child to acquire language during a particular developmental period, referred to
as the ‘critical period’ for language acquisition, UG is no longer available to older
learners. Even some theorists who accept UG as the basis for L1 acquisition argue
that UG is no longer available after puberty and that older L2 learners must make
use of more general learning processes (Bley-Vroman, 1989). Because these are
not speciﬁc to language, second language acquisition by older learners is more
difﬁcult than for younger learners and it is never complete. Other researchers
have suggested that language acquisition continues to be based on UG but that,
once a ﬁrst language has been learned, UG is no longer neutral and open to the
acquisition of any language. That is, although L2 grammars are still consistent
with universal principles of all human languages, learners tend to perceive the
L2 in a way that is shaped by the way their L1 realizes these principles (White,
2003).
Researchers who study second language acquisition from a UG perspective
seek to discover a language user’s underlying linguistic ‘competence’ (what a
language user knows) instead of focusing on his or her linguistic ‘performance’
(what a language user actually says or writes or understands). Therefore,
researchers have usually used indirect means of investigating that competence.
For example, rather than record spontaneous conversation, the researcher may
ask a language user to judge whether a sentence is grammatical or not. In
this way, it is possible to determine whether the linguistic feature of interest
is part of an individual’s linguistic competence, even if it is rarely or never
used. Alternatively, a child might be asked to use toy animals to demonstrate
a sentence such as ‘The tiger is chased by the lion’. If the child’s linguistic

110 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
competence does not yet include passive sentences, it is likely that the toy tiger
will chase the lion.*
Monitor Theory
Monitor Theory shares a number of the assumptions of the UG approach but its
scope is speciﬁcally second language acquisition. As with UG, the assumption is that
human beings acquire language without instruction or feedback on error. Krashen
developed this theory in the 1970s and presented it in terms of ﬁve ‘hypotheses’
(Krashen, 1982). The fundamental hypothesis of Monitor Theory is that there is
a difference between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’. Acquisition is hypothesized to
occur in a manner similar to L1 acquisition, that is, with the learner’s focus on
communicating messages and meanings; learning is described as a conscious process,
one in which the learner’s attention is directed to the rules and forms of the language.
The ‘monitor hypothesis’ suggests that, although spontaneous speech originates in
the ‘acquired system’, what has been learned may be used as a monitor to edit speech
if the L2 learner has the time and the inclination to focus on the accuracy of the
message. In light of research showing that L2 learners, like L1 learners, go through a
series of predictable stages in their acquisition of linguistic features, Krashen (1982)
proposed the ‘natural order hypothesis’. The ‘comprehensible input hypothesis’
reﬂects his view that L2 learning, like L1 learning, occurs as a result of exposure
to meaningful and varied linguistic input. Linguistic input will be effective in
changing the learner’s developing competence if it is comprehensible (with the help
of contextual information) and also offers exposure to language which is slightly
more complex than that which the learner has already acquired. The ‘affective ﬁlter
hypothesis’ suggests, however, that a condition for successful acquisition is that the
learner be motivated to learn the L2 and thus receptive to the comprehensible input.
Monitor Theory has been criticized for the vagueness of the hypotheses and
for the fact that some of them are difﬁcult to investigate in empirical studies
(DeKeyser, 1997; McLaughlin, 1990; White, 1987). Nonetheless, it has had a
signiﬁcant impact on the ﬁeld of L2 teaching. Many teachers and students
intuitively accept the distinction between ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’, recalling
experiences of being unable to spontaneously use their L2 even though they had
studied it in a classroom. This may be especially true in classrooms where the
emphasis is on meta-linguistic knowledge (the ability to talk about the language)
rather than on practice in using it communicatively.
Psychological Perspectives
Behaviourism
For much of the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century, behaviourism dominated
psychology and education and, consequently, theories of L2 learning and
*Note that the distinction between competence and performance is not the same as the distinction
between comprehension and production. In communicative contexts, learners are often able to
understand language that is, in the purely linguistic sense, well beyond their current competence. For
example, if there is an accompanying picture, a sentence such as ‘The boy was hit by the ball’ may be
interpreted correctly. However, when such a sentence is encountered outside an illustrative context, a
young child or a second language learner may be uncertain about whether the boy or the ball was hit.
That is, they can guess the meaning with contextual help, but their linguistic competence does not yet
include the passive construction.

111 Second Language Acquisition
teaching. Behaviourism was based on the view that all learning – including
language learning – occurs through a process of imitation, practice, reinforcement
and habit formation. According to behaviourism, the environment is crucial not
only because it is the source of the linguistic stimuli that learners need in order
to form associations between the words they hear and the objects and events
they represent, but also because it provides feedback on learners’ performance.
Behaviourists claimed that when learners correctly produce language that
approximates what they are exposed to in the input, and these efforts receive
positive reinforcement, habits are formed (Skinner, 1957).
Behaviourism came under attack when Chomsky (1968) questioned the
notion that children learn their ﬁrst language by repeating what they hear in the
surrounding environment. He argued that children produce novel and creative
utterances – ones that they would never have heard in their environment.
Researchers asserted that children’s creative use of language showed that they were
not simply mimicking what they heard in the speech of others but, rather, applying
rules and developing an underlying grammar. Following Chomsky’s critique of
behaviourist explanations for language acquisition and a number of studies of L1
acquisition, behaviourist interpretations of language acquisition fell into disfavour.
It took almost 30 years, but some of the principles of behaviourism have re-surfaced
and gained recognition in a different framework ( see Connectionism below).
One of the ideas associated with behaviourism was the notion that the L1 habits
that learners had already established would interfere with the formation of new
habits in the L2. The contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) was proposed to
account for the role of the L1 in L2 learning. CAH predicted that where similarities
existed between L1 and L2 structures, there would be no difﬁculty for L2 learning.
Where there were differences, however, the L2 learner would experience problems
(Lado, 1964). When put to the test, CAH was not fully supported. It failed to
predict errors that L2 learners were observed to make, and it predicted some errors
that did not occur. Researchers found that L2 learners from different backgrounds
made some of the same errors and that some of these errors would not have been
predicted by a contrastive analysis between learners’ L1 and L2. These ﬁndings,
together with the rejection of behaviourist learning theories which CAH had
been associated with, led a number of second language acquisition researchers
in the 1970s and 1980s to argue that there was, in fact, very little L1 inﬂuence in
second language acquisition (Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982). Later research has
tended to re-establish the importance of L1 inﬂuence, but it has also shown that
the inﬂuence is complex and that it changes as the learner’s competence in the
second language develops (Kellerman and Sharwood Smith, 1986; Odlin, 1989).
Cognitive Psychology
Since the late 1980s, there has been a revival of interest in psychological theories
of language learning. In contrast to the hypotheses of linguistic theories, cognitive
psychologists see no reason to assume that language acquisition requires speciﬁc
brain structures used uniquely for language acquisition. Rather, they hypothesize
that second language acquisition, like other learning, requires the learner’s
attention and effort – whether or not the learner is fully aware of what is being
attended to. Some information processing theories suggest that language, like
other skilled activity, is ﬁrst acquired through intentional learning of what is called
‘declarative knowledge’ and that, through practice, the declarative knowledge

112 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
can become ‘proceduralized’ and, with further practice, it can become ‘automatic’
(De Keyser, 2003). Other theorists make a similar contrast between ‘controlled’
and ‘automatic’ processing (Segalowitz, 2003). The difference is that controlled
processing is not necessarily intentional. Controlled processing occurs when
a learner is accessing information that is new or rare or complex. Controlled
processing requires mental effort and takes attention away from other controlled
processes. For example, a language learner who appears relatively proﬁcient in a
conversation on a familiar topic may struggle to understand an academic lecture,
because the effort and attention involved in interpreting the language itself
interferes with the effort and attention needed to interpret the content. Automatic
processing, on the other hand, occurs quickly and with little or no attention and
effort. Indeed, it is argued that we cannot prevent automatic processing and have
little awareness or memory of its occurrence. Thus, once language itself is largely
automatic, attention can be focused on the content. The information processing
model offers a useful explanation as to why learners in the initial phases of learning
seem to put so much effort into understanding and producing language.
According to the information processing model, learning occurs when, through
repeated practice, declarative knowledge becomes automatic. In addition to
practice, it is also hypothesized that a process referred to as ‘restructuring’
may result in learners appearing to have made quite sudden changes in their
interlanguage systems rather than gradually increasing the speed with which they
use constructions that were already present. Restructuring is a cognitive process in
which previously acquired information that has been somehow stored in separate
categories is integrated and this integration expands the learner’s competence
(McLaughlin, 1990; McLaughlin and Heredia, 1996). Sometimes the restructuring
can lead learners to make errors that had not previously been present. For
example, when a learner comes to understand that English question forms require
inversion, there might be a period in which embedded questions ( Do you know
what the children are doing ?) would be produced with inversion as well (* Do you
know what are the children doing ?).
Some researchers working within information processing models of second
language acquisition have argued that nothing is learned without ‘noticing’.
That is, in order for some feature of language to be acquired, it is not enough
for the learner to be exposed to it through comprehensible input. The learner
must actually notice what it is in that input that makes the meaning. This idea
has raised a considerable amount of interest in the context of instructed second
language learning (Schmidt, 1990, 2001).
Connectionism
Another psychological approach to understanding language learning is that
taken in connectionist, emergentist and parallel distributed processing models
(N. Ellis, 2003; Rumelhart and McClelland, 1986). These approaches are like
the behaviourist approach in the sense that they hypothesize the development
of strong associations between items that are frequently encountered together.
According to these views, the brain creates networks which connect words or
phrases to other words or phrases (as well as to events and objects) which occur at
the same time. It is suggested that these links (or connections) are strengthened
when learners are repeatedly exposed to linguistic stimuli in speciﬁc contexts. For
example, when L2 learners produce I go and she goes , the latter does not reﬂect

113 Second Language Acquisition
an underlying knowledge of a rule for the placement of ‘s’ with the third person
singular. Rather, the connection between she and goes is thought to be established
through high-frequency exposure to these co-occurring structures in the linguistic
input. The pronoun she activates goes and the pronoun I triggers go because the
learner has heard these forms in combination many many times.
Research which has investigated connectionist explanations for ﬁrst and second
language learning has typically involved computer simulations of the learning
of either artiﬁcial languages or small units of real language. Many of these
studies provide evidence to support associative accounts of learning (Ellis and
Schmidt, 1997). There is growing interest in this explanation for second language
acquisition. Related to this approach is the observation that much of the language
that even highly proﬁcient speakers produce consists of chunks or strings of
language that have a high probability of occurring together (Wray, 1999, 2007;
see also Chapter 2, Grammar , and Chapter 3, Vocabulary ). Researchers working
within these frameworks are proposing that language is represented in the mind
as a very large number of linguistic units with varying degrees of likelihood of
co-occurrence, rather than as a set of linguistic rules for creating novel sentences.
Processability Theory
One of the central questions within psychological accounts of second language
acquisition is why it is that L1 and L2 learners go through a series of predictable
stages in their acquisition of grammatical features. Slobin (1973) proposed
‘operating principles’ to help explain what L1 learners found easier or harder to
process and learn. Within second language acquisition, Processability Theory
represents a way to relate underlying cognitive processes to stages in the L2
learner’s development (Pienemann, 1998).
Processability Theory was originally developed as a result of studies of the
acquisition of German word order and, later, on the basis of research with L2
learners of English (Pienemann, 1989). In this research, L2 learners were observed
to acquire certain syntactic and morphological features of the L2 in predictable
stages. These features were referred to as ‘developmental’. Other features, referred
to as ‘variational’, appeared to be learned by some but not all learners and, in
any case, did not appear to be learned in a ﬁxed sequence. With respect to the
developmental features, it was suggested that each stage represented a further
degree of complexity in processing strings of words and grammatical markers
(Pienemann, Johnston and Brindley, 1988). For example, it seemed that learners
would begin by picking out the most typical word order pattern of a language and
using it in all contexts. Later, they would notice words at the beginning or end of
sentences or phrases and would begin to be able to move these. Only later could
they manipulate elements which were less salient because they were embedded
in the middle of a string of words. Because each stage reﬂected an increase in
complexity, a learner had to grasp one stage before moving to the next, and it
was not possible to ‘skip a stage’. One of the pedagogical implications drawn from
the research related to Processability Theory is the ‘Teachability Hypothesis’: that
learners can only be taught what they are psycholinguistically ready to learn.
Interactionist Perspectives
Some theorists who work primarily within a second language acquisition framework
assume that a great deal of language learning takes place through social interaction,

114 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
at least in part because interlocutors adjust their speech to make it more accessible
to learners. Some of the L2 research in this framework is based on L1 research
into children’s interaction with their caregivers and peers. L1 studies showed that
children are often exposed to a specialized variety of speech which is tailored to
their linguistic and cognitive abilities (that is, child-directed speech). When native
speakers engage in conversation with L2 learners, they may also adjust their language
in ways intended to make it more comprehensible to the learner. Furthermore, when
L2 learners interact with each other or with native speakers they use a variety of
interaction techniques and adjustments in their efforts to negotiate meaning. These
adjustments include modiﬁcations and simpliﬁcations in all aspects of language,
including phonology, vocabulary, syntax and discourse. In an early formulation
of this position for second language acquisition, Long (1985) hypothesized that,
as Krashen suggests, comprehensible input probably is the essential ingredient for
interlanguage development. However, in his view, it was not in simplifying the
linguistic elements of speech that interlocutors helped learners acquire language.
Rather, it was in modifying the interaction patterns, by paraphrasing, repeating,
clarifying or otherwise working with the L2 speaker to ensure that meaning was
successfully communicated. Thus, he hypothesized, interactional adjustments
improve comprehension, and comprehension allows acquisition.
Considerable research has been done to document the negotiation of meaning
in native/non-native interaction, and there is increasing work to investigate the
effects of interaction on second language development (Mackey, 2007). Most of
this work has been motivated by Long’s (1996) reformulation of the interaction
hypothesis that acknowledges the need for learner attention and implicit negative
feedback to bring L2 learners to higher levels of lexical and syntactic performance.
Sociocultural Perspectives
Theorists working within a sociocultural perspective of L2 learning operate
from the assumption that there is an intimate relationship between culture
and mind, and that all learning is ﬁrst social then individual. It is argued that
through dialogic communication, learners jointly construct knowledge and this
knowledge is later internalized by the individual. Like cognitive psychologists,
sociocultural theorists assume that the same general learning mechanisms apply
to language learning as with other forms of knowledge. However, sociocultural
theorists emphasize the integration of the social, cultural and biological elements.
This theory, initially proposed by Vygotsky (1987), has been brought to the ﬁeld
of second language acquisition by researchers including Lantolf (2000), Swain
(2000) and Ohta (2000). ( See also Chapter 1, An Overview of Applied Linguistics .)
Summary
All theories of language acquisition are meant to account for the working of the
human mind, and all use metaphors to represent this invisible reality. Theorists
can draw some of their evidence from neurological research that taps language
processing more directly. In general, however, second language acquisition
theories must be based on other kinds of evidence – primarily the language which
L2 learners produce, understand and judge to be appropriate or grammatical.
In the next section, we will look at some of the ﬁndings of research on learner
language. The focus of this review is on grammatical aspects of learner language

115 Second Language Acquisition
– the area in which most SLA research has been carried out. While there has been
increasing research in vocabulary and pragmatic development in recent years,
space limitations do not permit us to review that work here, but see Chapter 3,
Vocabulary and Chapter 5, Pragmatics .
Learner Language
In the 1970s, a number of researchers began to call attention to the fact that, although
the language produced by L2 learners did not conform to the target language,
the ‘errors’ that learners made were not random, but reﬂected a systematic, if
incomplete, knowledge of the L2 (Corder, 1967). The term ‘interlanguage’ (Selinker,
1972) was coined to characterize this developing linguistic system of the L2 learner.
Several error analysis studies in the 1970s classiﬁed L2 learners’ errors and found
that many could not be attributed to L1 inﬂuence (Richards, 1974). For example,
both L1 and L2 learners of English make similar overgeneralization errors such
as two mouses and she goed . The ﬁnding that not all L2 errors could be traced to
the L1 led some researchers not only to reject traditional contrastive analysis, but
to claim that L2 learners did not rely on the L1 as a source of hypotheses about
the L2 (Dulay and Burt, 1976). Furthermore, because of the association between
contrastive analysis and behaviourist explanations of language learning, the
inﬂuence of the L1 in L2 learning was either minimized or completely ignored by
some researchers. The focus was instead on the similarities among all L2 learners
of a particular language, regardless of L1.
Developmental Sequences
In the late 1960s, and especially in the 1970s, a number of researchers studied
second language acquisition in ways that were based on previous work in L1
acquisition. This was reﬂected in the methods which were used to investigate
interlanguage, the speciﬁc linguistic features under investigation, and as we saw
earlier in this chapter, the theories proposed to explain language development.
One of the most inﬂuential studies of the acquisition of L1 English was Brown’s
(1973) longitudinal research on the language development of three children. One
part of that study focused on how the children acquired grammatical morphemes
such as possessive ’s and past tense -ed. Brown and colleagues (1973) found that
the children acquired these forms in a similar order. Other L1 studies showed that
children acquire syntactic patterns, such as interrogative and negative sentences
of the L1, in a series of stages that are common to all children learning the same
L1. L1 learners also make errors which show that they are not simply repeating
words or phrases exactly as they have heard others produce them. For example,
a typical L1 error in English is putting an ‘s’ on foot to express the plural. This
kind of error is based on a logical generalization since the pattern of adding ‘s’ to
express plurality works with regular nouns in English. The ﬁnding that children go
through a series of predictable stages in the acquisition of their ﬁrst language, and
that their errors are systematic and similar among learners, is used as evidence to
support the hypothesis that language learning is based at least in part on internal
processes, not just on simple imitation of speech or environmental factors such as
frequency of occurrence and feedback on error.
One of the important questions for early second language acquisition researchers
was whether L2 learning was similar to L1 acquisition. A number of early studies

116 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
focused on learners’ use of the English morphemes such as the plural, past tense
and progressive -ing that Brown and colleagues studied in L1 (Dulay and Burt,
1974; Hakuta, 1976; Larsen-Freeman, 1976). Researchers looked at the speech of
L2 learners whose ages and L1 backgrounds differed and calculated the accuracy
with which they produced the morphemes. They found an accuracy order that
was similar regardless of the age or L1 background of the L2 learners. Even
though it was not the same as the L1 acquisition order, the similarity across L2
learners suggested that L2 learning, like L1 learning, is governed partly by internal
mechanisms. This does not mean that there was no evidence of L1 inﬂuence in the
L2 morpheme studies, but the overall patterns were more similar than different.
L2 learners were also observed to acquire other grammatical features of
the language in a predictable order. These acquisition sequences have been
observed in the language of L2 learners learning a variety of target languages.
For example, L2 learners of French and English acquire features such as negatives
and interrogatives in a similar sequence – a sequence which is also similar to
that observed in L1 learners of these languages. L2 learners of German from a
variety of L1 backgrounds have been observed to acquire word order features in
predictable stages. Figure 7.1 shows an example of a developmental sequence for
interrogatives in the acquisition of L2 English. As can be seen, at each stage, some
of the questions learners produce may be grammatical within a particular context.
Indeed, at Stage 1, chunk-learned whole questions may appear quite advanced.
But this does not mean that the learner has mastered all aspects of question
formation. As they progress to higher stages, they are able to manipulate more
linguistic elements. Thus a Stage 3 question such as ‘ What the dog are playing ’ may
be more advanced than an apparently correct question such as ‘ What’s your name ?’
The existence of developmental patterns is widely acknowledged. Within this
framework, it is possible to look at L1 inﬂuence in a different light.
L1 Inﬂuence
In spite of the rejection of contrastive analysis by some second language
acquisition researchers, most teachers and researchers have remained convinced
that learners draw on their knowledge of other languages as they try to learn a
new one. Current research shows that L1 inﬂuence is a subtle and evolving aspect
of L2 development. Learners do not simply transfer all patterns from the L1 to the
L2, and there are changes over time, as learners come to know more about the
L2 and thus to recognize similarities between L1 and L2 that were not evident in
earlier stages of L2 acquisition.
It has been observed that some aspects of language are more susceptible to L1
inﬂuence than others. For example, pronunciation and word order are more likely
to show L1 inﬂuence than grammatical morphemes. Learners seem intuitively to
know that it is not possible to simply add a grammatical inﬂection such as -ing to
a verb in another language, although some very young second language learners
are heard to produce such hybrid forms. In addition, learners seem to be sensitive
to the fact that some patterns in the L1 are idiomatic or unusual in some way and
are therefore not transferable (Kellerman, 1986). Also, there is evidence that when
learning a language which is very different from the L1, learners are less likely to
attempt transfer (Ringbom, 1986).
One important aspect of L1 inﬂuence is the way in which it appears to interact
with developmental sequences (Wode, 1981; Zobl, 1980). Although developmental

117 Second Language Acquisition
sequences are common among learners from different L1 backgrounds, learners
may be slowed down when they reach a developmental level at which a particular
interlanguage pattern is similar to a pattern in their L1. For example, although
all learners seem to pass through a stage of pre-verbal negation ( I no like that ),
Spanish L1 learners tend to use this form longer than learners whose L1 does not
have pre-verbal negation. L1 inﬂuence can also lead learners to create sub-stages
which are not observed in learners from different L1 backgrounds. For example,
when German learners of English reach the stage of placing the negative marker
after the modal or auxiliary verb ( He can not play baseball .), they may, for a time,
use post-verbal negation with lexical verbs ( He plays not baseball. ) in a way that
matches German negation patterns. This sub-stage would not be expected in the
L2 speech of learners whose L1 does not have post-verbal negation.
Another way in which the L1 interacts with developmental sequences is in
the constraints which L1 inﬂuence may place on the use of L2 patterns within
a particular stage. For example, French speaking learners of English L2 who had
reached an advanced stage in the use of subject–verb inversion in questions,
nevertheless failed to use (and rejected as ungrammatical) questions when the
subject was a noun. That is, they used and accepted questions such as ‘ Can he play
baseball ?’ but rejected sentences such as ‘ Can John play baseball ?’ This is consistent
with French in that full noun subjects cannot be inverted with the verb to form
questions while pronoun subjects can (Spada, Lightbown and White, 2005).
Stage 1 Single words, formulae or sentence fragments Children?
What’s your name?
A spot on the dog?
Stage 2 Declarative word order
no inversion, no fronting: It’s a monster in the right corner?
The boys throw the shoes?
Stage 3 Fronting
wh-fronting, no inversion: Where the little children are?
What the dog are playing?
do-fronting: Do you have a shoes on
your picture?
Does in this picture there is
four astronauts?
other-fronting: Is the picture has two planets
on top?
Stage 4 Inversion in wh- and yes/no questions
copula in wh- questions: Where is the sun?
auxiliary other than do in yes/no questions: Is there a ﬁsh in the water?
Stage 5 Inversion in wh- questions
inverted wh- questions with do: How do you say [proche]?
inverted wh- questions with auxiliaries other than do: What’s the boy doing?
Stage 6 Complex questions
question tag: It’s better, isn’t it?
negative question: Why can’t you go?
embedded question: Can you tell me what the date
is today?
Figure 7.1 Developmental stages for question formation (adapted from Lightbown and Spada,
2006).

118 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Instruction and Second Language Acquisition
Research shows that instruction can have a signiﬁcant effect on L2 acquisition,
at least in terms of the rate of learning and the long-term success that learners
achieve in using the language accurately. That is, instruction does not prevent
learners from going through developmental stages which are similar to those of
learners whose exposure to the L2 is primarily outside a classroom, but it may
permit learners to move through the stages faster, and to replace some learner
language characteristics with more target-like use of the L2 (Lightbown and
Spada, 2006).
In light of the evidence that learners pass through developmental stages,
and that much of second language acquisition is based on processes internal
to the learner, teachers and researchers have raised questions about the role
of instruction in second language acquisition. Krashen (1982) argued that
instruction tended to lead only to what he called ‘learning’ and that instruction
could potentially interfere with language ‘acquisition’. He concluded that
exposure to ‘comprehensible input’ would be sufﬁcient to allow learners to
progress through developmental stages because the language that learners needed
to make further progress would always be available if there were enough natural
language exposure. Pienemann (1989) recommended a more precise matching of
instructional input and developmental stages. Some research provides evidence
that input and instruction targeted to the next stage beyond the learner’s current
developmental level can be effective (Pienemann, 1989; Mackey and Philp, 1998;
Spada and Lightbown, 1999). Some other research has shown, however, that
teaching features which are typical of more advanced stages may hasten learners’
progress through the lower stages (Ammar and Lightbown, 2005 ; Hamilton,
1994). Note that all the research is consistent with the view that instruction does
not permit learners to skip stages. That is, even though learners may perform well
on tests of meta-linguistic knowledge or on exercises that reﬂect the instruction
they have received, they tend to revert to their current developmental level when
they use language more spontaneously.
Certain kinds of instruction may appear to alter the developmental path of
L2 acquisition. This has been observed when learners are exposed to classroom
input that is restricted to discrete point presentation of one grammatical form
after another. In these classrooms, learners do sometimes develop unusual learner
language characteristics and hypotheses about the L2, based on the fact that the
input they have received is itself a distortion of the target language (Lightbown,
2000).
One way to provide learners with more natural input is through communicative
and content-based language teaching. In such classes, the emphasis is on
meaning, and learners are exposed to language which is not presented according
to a sequence of grammatical forms but rather according to a theme or a lesson in
a school subject such as history or science. Such instructional environments allow
learners to develop more effective comprehension and communication skills than
are typical in more traditional language teaching approaches. Even in such richly
communicative environments, however, there are limitations on the L2 input
available for acquisition. These limitations arise from the fact that some language
features are simply not very frequent in the ‘natural’ language of the classroom.
Swain (1988) has reported that, even in history lessons in French immersion
classes, learners may not hear the past tense used regularly. Teachers often use the

119 Second Language Acquisition
historical present tense typical of narratives to make the events more engaging
to the learners. Furthermore, classroom language is likely to have a restricted
range of sociolinguistic and discoursal features. Lyster (1994) found that students
who had had several years of French immersion were still uncertain about the
use of formal and informal address forms vous and tu. Tarone and Swain (1995)
comment that, in classrooms where the only proﬁcient speaker is the teacher,
speech and discourse characteristics that are typical of adolescent interaction are
rare or absent. Thus, learners whose only or primary exposure to the L2 is in the
classroom will inevitably have gaps in their knowledge of the language and the
way it is used outside the classroom setting.
Early research in communicative and content-based classrooms revealed
that while L2 learners developed relatively high levels of comprehension and
‘communicative conﬁdence’, they continued to experience problems with
grammatical accuracy and lexical precision (Harley and Swain, 1984; Lightbown
and Spada, 1990). In classrooms, when learners are able to understand the
meaning, they may overlook details of the forms required to express those
meanings. When they are able to make themselves understood to their teacher
and to their classmates with inaccurate language and when there are no L2 peers
to serve as models, there may be little motivation to move beyond their current
level of language use.
Certain types of errors may be easier for L2 learners to overcome than others.
In the context of communicative interaction, learners seem to be able to beneﬁt
more from instruction and error feedback which focus on semantic or lexical
errors than from instruction which targets syntactic errors. Semantic and lexical
errors often result in a breakdown of communication and the reaction of the
teacher or fellow student is often based on a genuine need for clariﬁcation. This
is likely to make the information more memorable to the learners, but it is also
the case that such errors usually involve a change in a single word or phrase
rather than of a more systematic pattern in the learner’s interlanguage. As we have
seen, errors of the latter type may reﬂect a developmental stage which learners are
not yet ready to move away from. However, instruction and feedback on those
developmental features may provide learners with information that they can store
as chunk-learned examples, and these may contribute to their progress when the
time is right (Sharwood Smith, 1981; Lightbown, 1998).
Errors that are inﬂuenced by the L1 and do not interfere with meaning may
be particularly difﬁcult. For example, when a French-speaking learner of English
says, ‘ She is wearing a skirt red ’, the word order error does not lead to confusion. If
there is no breakdown in communication, learners may never notice that more
proﬁcient speakers of English do not use this word order. Or, if they do notice
that others place the adjective before the noun, they may simply assume that this
is another way to say the same thing. In these cases, instruction which includes
explicit information about how L1 and L2 differ may be the only way for learners
to eliminate these features from their L2 (Kupferberg and Olstain, 1996; Spada,
Lightbown and White, 2005; White, 1991).
Over the past 10–15 years, many experimental and quasi-experimental studies
have been carried out to examine the contributions of form-focused instruction
and corrective feedback to classroom second language acquisition. In these studies,
efforts are made to draw the L2 learners’ attention to different language forms
under different instructional conditions. This includes instructional activities
which vary along an explicit/implicit continuum – for example, the provision

120 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
of meta-linguistic rules and overt signalling at the explicit end, contrasted
with high-frequency exposure, input enhancement and less explicit corrective
feedback (that is, recasts) at the implicit end. The overall ﬁndings of this work
have indicated that learners in communicative and content-based classrooms
beneﬁt from opportunities to focus on language form, when the instructional
input and/or corrective feedback is more explicit (R. Ellis, 2001; Norris and Ortega,
2000; Spada, 1997; Spada and Tomita, in press).
Conclusion
Since the 1960s, second language acquisition research has become a ﬁeld in its
own right, with numerous conferences and journals devoted entirely to studies
of L2 learning. In 1980 it was possible to read almost everything that had been
written about second language acquisition theory and research and to keep up to
date on new studies. Today, the ﬁeld of second language acquisition has enormous
scope and depth both in terms of the variety of topics under investigation and
the research approaches used to investigate them. In a 1994 review of second
language acquisition research, Ellis included over 1500 references to research in
this area. The 2008 edition of this review refers to more than 2700 publications,
and the list is far from exhaustive. In this chapter, we have touched on some of
the principal topics in second language acquisition. Several other chapters in this
volume refer to other areas of work in second language acquisition, including
Chapter 2 Grammar , Chapter 3 Vocabulary and Chapter 8 Psycholinguistics .
Further Reading
Doughty, C. J., and Long, M. (Eds.). (2003) The Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition . Oxford: Blackwell. Researchers with a number of different theoretical
orientations contribute chapters on research and theory in second language acquisition.
Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition (second edition) . Oxford:
Oxford University Press. This book provides a comprehensive overview of research and
theory in second language acquisition and serves as a useful reference for students and
applied linguists.
Gass, S.and Selinker, L. (2000) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course
(second edition). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This course book on
second language acquisition is intended for students in linguistics and applied linguistics.
Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (2006) How Languages are Learned (third edition).
Oxford: Oxford University Press. This is a basic introduction to second language learning
and its relevance to second language teaching written for teachers.
Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004) Second Language Learning Theories (second
edition). London: Edward Arnold. A review and critical commentary of the major theories
inﬂuencing second language acquisition research is provided for students of linguistics
and applied linguistics.
Ortega, L. (2007) Second Language Acquisition , London: Hodder Education. This book
provides a thorough and accessible overview of theory and research in the ﬁeld of SLA.

121 Second Language Acquisition
Hands-on Activity
This picture of a busy airport (Figure 7.2) was used to elicit examples of questions
from a group of young learners of L2 English. Each student was given a sheet
with the picture and 11 blank numbered lines corresponding to the bubbles in
the cartoon picture. The instructions were to imagine what people were saying
and to write the question on the lines provided. The students who wrote the
questions shown on pages 122 and 123 were grade six (11- and 12-year-old) native
speakers of French who began learning English in grade four (about age 9). The
total amount of classroom instruction they had received was about 350 hours – 60
hours per year in regular ESL classes in grades four and ﬁve and an intensive ESL
course in grade six, in which they had English classes for most of every school day
for a period of ﬁve months. These questions were written when they were near
the end of the ﬁve-month intensive class. The instructional approach in both the
regular and intensive classes was communicative, with minimal attention to form.
Teachers provided some corrective feedback, but the emphasis was always on the
exchange of meaning rather than on the accuracy of English usage. Most students
had little exposure to English outside of school, although English television and
pop music were certainly available to them.
Figure 7.2 Airport cartoon used to elicit examples of questions from a group of young learners
of L2 English
• Using the information in Figure 7.1, determine what stage each question
represents. Remember that you are not asked to determine whether the question
is grammatically correct, but which stage it corresponds to.
• In your opinion, which student appears to be the most advanced? Why? Which
student is the least advanced? Why?

122 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• Some of the questions produced on this task appear to be more advanced than
the questions which the same students produced in an oral interaction task.
How would you explain this?
• If you know French, look for examples of interlanguage features that you think
may be inﬂuenced by the students’ L1.
Asking Questions at the Airport
An airport is a very busy place. People ask for directions. They ask for help with
their baggage. Some people need information about renting cars or taking taxis.
Sometimes children get lost.
In the picture ( see Figure 7.2), people are asking questions. For example,
Number 4 seems to be asking, ‘What time is it?’
On the lines below, write the question that you think each person is asking.
1 ?
•
•
•
11 ?
Stage
Student A
1 Do you need something? 1
2 Why did you bring this bomb? 2
3 Where do I put the money, boss? 3
4 Hey, short stuff. What time is it? 4
5 Why are you crying little boy? 5
6 Hey mom! It looks like your ugly skirt! 6
7 What did you ﬁnd on this terrorist, agent 007? 7
8 Can I have a coke please? 8
9 Do you [have] a big uncomfeterble car, Mrs? 9
10 Where’s gate number 5? 10
11 Dad, are you sure you can bring this alone? 11
Student B
1 Everting is okay? 1
2 It’s normal to have guns in your countries? 2
3 What’s the mission for today boss? 3
4 When do you go to Quebec City? 4
5 Are you loss litle baby? 5
6 It’s that your socks? 6
7 It’s you on this passports? 7
8 It’s that good? 8
9 Do you pay cash or on the credit card? 9
10 Where’s the gate 5? 10
11 Do you pass a go [good?] time at the logan airport? 11

123 Second Language Acquisition
Student C
1 Do you want something to drink? 1
2 What do you have in your trunk? 2
3 Where do I have to go? 3
4 Do you have the hour? 4
5 Do you want milk? 5
6 Do you like my new shoes? 6
7 Do you have your passport? 7
8 Do you have beer? 8
9 Do you like this car? 9
10 Mister, do you know where is the gate 5? 10
11 Can I know witch one is my trunk? 11

Psycholinguistics
Kees de Bot
University of Groningen
Judith F. Kroll
Pennsylvania State University
What is Psycholinguistics?
Psycholinguistics is the study of the cognitive processes that support the
acquisition and use of language. The scope of psycholinguistics includes language
performance under normal circumstances and when it breaks down, for example,
following brain damage. Historically, the focus of most psycholinguistics has been
on the ﬁrst language (L1), in studies of acquisition in children and in research on
adult comprehension and production. The questions that have been the focus of
investigation include:
• What is the nature of the input that is critical for language to develop?
• To what extent is this developmental process biologically constrained?
• How are words recognized when listening to speech or reading text?
• How do we understand sentences and texts?
• By what means are lexical and syntactic ambiguities resolved?
• How are abstract thoughts mapped onto utterances prior to speaking?
• How is language processed in the brain?
More recently, psycholinguists have recognized the importance of extending the
study of language processing to individuals who are acquiring or actively using
more than one language. (In this chapter, the term ‘bilinguals’ is used to refer to
such individuals, even though their additional languages may not be as strong as
their L1.) Because bilinguals outnumber monolinguals in the world’s population,
bilinguals more than monolinguals provide a genuinely universal account of the
cognitive mechanisms that underlie language performance. Furthermore, the
use of two or more languages provides a powerful tool for investigating issues
of cognitive representation and processing that are otherwise hidden from view.
Speciﬁc questions with respect to bilinguals are:
• Is L2 acquisition different from L1 acquisition?
• To what extent does the L1 play a role in using the L2?
• Are there rules governing code-switching (the use of more than one language
in an utterance)?
• How do speakers of more than one language keep the two languages apart?
• How are languages acquired at some point in time lost or maintained over time?
• How are multiple languages processed in the brain?
In this chapter we provide a selective review of some recent illustrative
psycholinguistic research on second language (L2) acquisition and competent
bilingual performance. This work is framed by an important set of assumptions
about language and cognition. First, we assume that the cognitive processes that are
revealed as individuals acquire proﬁciency in a second language share a common 8

125 Psycholinguistics
basis with the processes that are in place for competent bilinguals. Although we do
not intend to downplay aspects of development that may differentially inﬂuence
performance over the course of acquisition, the basic assumption is that L2 learners
and proﬁcient bilinguals rely on similar cognitive mechanisms. Second, we
assume that these mechanisms are generally universal across languages, although
the relative importance of some factors may differ depending on the structural
properties of the languages involved. For example, whether the L2 shares the same
alphabet with the L1 can have profound consequences for the nature of cross-
language interactions ( see Chapter 13, Reading ). Yet we assume that, fundamentally,
the same cognitive resources are drawn upon when a native Chinese speaker learns
English or a native English speaker learns French. Third, we assume that the same
cognitive resources are universally available to all learners, although individuals
will differ in some respects that may have speciﬁc implications for success in L2
learning. For example, the degree to which individuals can devote memory and
attentional resources to processing and storage may play an important role in their
ability to develop automaticity in the L2, to resolve ambiguities during sentence
comprehension and to inhibit the L1 when required to do so.
The chapter is outlined as follows. First, we focus on the way in which
psycholinguists construct cognitive models to characterize the representations and
processes that underlie language performance. Because our review will necessarily
be brief, our illustration is restricted to a model of language production that has
been extended to bilingual speakers. The model captures many of the core problems
that need to be resolved when speakers have more than one language available:
• To what extent are the two languages kept separate?
• How is control effected so that words only from the intended language are
spoken?
The model may also be used to illustrate the way in which psycholinguists formulate
hypotheses and conduct experiments to test theoretically based predictions.
Second, we illustrate the contribution of psycholinguistic research by considering
a set of selected questions that have been the focus of empirical work on second
language learning and bilingualism. These include the non-selective nature of
lexical access in word recognition, the development of lexical proﬁciency in L2 and
aspects of language retention and attrition. One of our goals in this section is to
illuminate the general logic and method of psychological approaches to research.
Third we present some research on code-switching that reﬂects some of the new
trends in research on bilingualism, such as the use of neuro-imaging techniques
and the shift from monologue to dialogue.
Finally, in the Hands-on Activity, we ask you to apply these ideas to the results
of a study on the development of L2 lexical ﬂuency.
Cognitive Models: Language Production in Bilinguals
Modelling Language Production of the Competent
Bilingual
In psycholinguistics, researchers try to develop models to describe and preferably
predict speciﬁc linguistic behaviour. The aim is to capture all aspects of language
use. Ultimately, the goal is to have a model that describes how language is processed

126 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
in our brains, but the link between functional models, that is, models that describe
adequately how language functions in communication, and structures in the brain
(neural substrates), is still underdeveloped. The creator of the model to be described
below, the Dutch psycholinguist William Levelt, used the term ‘blueprint’, by
which he means that this is probably the structure of the system as it really works
in the brain, but where and how it is located in the brain is an active area of
investigation (for example, see Abutelbi and Green, 2007). Levelt’s ‘Speaking’
model (1989, 1999) aims at describing the process of language production from
the development of communicative intentions to the articulation of the sounds.
For this incredibly complex process a number of sub-components, each performing
speciﬁc tasks, are proposed. The ﬁrst component is the ‘conceptualizer’ in which
communicative intentions are turned into something that can be expressed in
human language. This is more or less the level of our thinking. Though there has
been considerable discussion about this, it is now generally accepted that most
of our thinking does not take place in a form that is linguistic in nature, at any
rate not in the linguistic forms we use while speaking. At this level utterances are
planned on the basis of the meanings to be expressed. The second component is
the ‘formulator’. Here, isolated words and meanings are turned into sentences that
are translated accordingly into sounds by the third component, the articulator.
Let us look at the Levelt model in terms of lexis, especially as language
production is largely lexically based. This means that we ﬁrst select words, or to
be more precise: lexical items, on the basis of the meanings we want to express.
Then, through the activation of ‘lexical items’, syntactic procedures are triggered
that lead to sentence formation. Lexical items consist of two parts, the ‘lemma’
and the morpho-phonological form or ‘lexeme’. In the lemma the lexical entry’s
meaning and syntax are represented, whereas morphological and phonological
properties are represented in the lexeme. In production, lexical items are activated
by matching the meaning part of the lemma with the semantic information in
the pre-verbal message. The selection of the lemmas with their meaning and
syntactic information leads to the formation of the ‘surface structure’ (an ordered
string of lemmas grouped in phrases and sub-phrases of various kinds (Levelt
1989: 11). While the surface structure is being formed, the morpho-phonological
information belonging to the lemma is activated and encoded. The phonological
encoding provides the input for the articulator in the form of a phonetic plan,
which leads to the spoken utterance.
As mentioned above, three levels are particularly relevant. At the conceptual
level all information about a concept is stored. This includes, for instance, that a
horse has four legs, that it can jump and pull carts, but also how it smells and how
it sounds. The lemma level holds the semantic information required to match the
conceptual and syntactic information necessary to arrive at a surface structure.
Thus the lemma can be said to be the link between meaning and form. The
distinction between three levels: conceptual, lemma and lexeme, is crucial to the
model used here. Moreover, there is compelling evidence that the mind actually
works in this manner, although the underlying mechanics of the process are not
yet very clear. For example, concepts have a conceptual speciﬁcation in which
all the meaning components necessary to represent a communicative intention
are represented. This conceptual speciﬁcation serves to match a concept with a
lemma. However, we are still not quite sure how this matching takes place and
how a speciﬁc match is evaluated (that is, is there enough overlap between the
speciﬁcation in the concept and in the lemma).

127 Psycholinguistics
The lemma/lexeme distinction ﬁgures in most theories in language. Evidence
for this distinction comes from research on naturally occurring and elicited
speech errors, aphasia, ‘tip-of-the-tongue’ phenomena and various experimental
paradigms, such as word/picture naming.* There is no perfect one-to-one match
between lemmas and lexemes, however. The activation of a lemma through the
matching on the basis of the conceptual speciﬁcation does not always lead to
retrieval of the (right) lexeme, and the lexeme is not always retrieved as a whole.
Evidence from speech errors such as ‘heft-lemisphere’ for ‘left-hemisphere’ show
that the lexeme is not a ready-made template, but that it consists of a phonological
frame in which phonological segments are inserted. The imperfect match between
lemma and lexeme is very obvious in tip-of-the-tongue phenomena: in studies
like those of Brown and McNeill (1966) and Jones and Langford (1987) subjects in
a tip-of-the-tongue state appear to know the number of letters, the initial letter,
the number of syllables and the syllable which carries primary stress well above
chance level.
Levelt’s Speaking model is primarily a model of the fully competent monolingual
speaker. In her discussion of learners of a foreign language as bilingual speakers,
Poulisse (1997) mentions the following factors that have to be taken into account
if we want to turn a monolingual model into a bilingual model:
• L2 knowledge is typically incomplete. L2 speakers generally have fewer
words and rules at their disposal than L1 speakers. This may keep them from
expressing messages they had originally intended to convey, lead them to use
compensatory strategies, or to avoid words or structures about which they feel
uncertain.
• L2 speech is more hesitant, and contains more errors and slips, depending on
the level of proﬁciency of the learners. Cognitive skill theories such as Schneider
and Shiffrin’s (1977) or Anderson’s ACT* (1983) stress the importance of the
development of automatic processes that are difﬁcult to acquire and hard to
unlearn. Less automaticity means that more attention has to be paid to the
execution of speciﬁc lower-level tasks (such as pronouncing difﬁcult phonemes
clearly), which leads to a slowing down of the production process and to a
greater number of slips, because limited attentional resources have to be spent
on lower-level processing.
• L2 speech often carries traces of the L1. L2 speakers have a fully developed
L1 system at their disposal, and may switch to their L1 either deliberately
(‘motivated’ switches) or unintentionally (‘performance’ switches). Switches to
the L1 may, for example, be motivated by a desire to express group membership
in conversations in which other bilinguals with the same L1 background
participate, or they may occur unintentionally, for example when an L1
word is accidentally accessed instead of an intended L2 word. Poulisse and
Bongaerts (1994) argue that such accidental switches to the L1 are very similar
to substitutions and slips in monolingual speech. In addition to such code
switches, L2 speech also contains traces of the L1 which are due to transfer or
cross-linguistic inﬂuence.
*Aphasia is the condition where language centres of the brain have been physically damaged through
illness or accident. In a ‘tip-of-the-tongue’ state, a person is trying to remember a word, but cannot quite
recall the complete word form. The individual is likely to remember some elements of the form, however,
such as the number of syllables in the word.

128 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Poulisse (1997) argues that the incomplete L2 knowledge base and the lack of
automaticity of L2 speakers can be handled adequately by existing monolingual
production models, but that the occurrence of L1 traces in L2 speech poses
problems for such models. Paradis (1981), on the other hand, claims that neither
switches to the L1 nor cross-linguistic inﬂuence phenomena call for adaptations
of existing models. Paradis (1981) claims that a phenomenon which is very similar
to cross-linguistic inﬂuence is operating in monolingual speech production, for
example, when monolinguals use words from another style in an incorrect way
(informal words in formal speech). In terms of processing, Paradis (1981) argues,
cross-linguistic inﬂuence phenomena cannot be distinguished clearly from code-
switching phenomena: both result from the working of the production system in
an individual speaker, and the fact that cross-linguistic inﬂuence may sometimes be
undesirable in terms of an external model of the target language is not relevant here.
Keeping Languages Apart
Psycholinguistically, code-switching and keeping languages apart are different
aspects of the same phenomenon. In the literature, a number of proposals have
been made on how bilingual speakers keep their languages apart. Earlier proposals
suggested that there were ‘switches’ controlling the input and output of different
languages, but these have been abandoned for models based on activation spreading.
On the basis of research on bilingual aphasia, Paradis (1981) has proposed the ‘sub-set
hypothesis’, which, it is claimed, can account for most of the data found. According
to Paradis (1981), words (or syntactic rules or phonemes) from a given language
form a sub-set of the total inventory. Each sub-set can be activated independently.
Some sub-sets (for example, from typologically related languages) may show
considerable overlap in the form of cognate words. The sub-sets are formed and
maintained by the use of words in speciﬁc settings: words from a given language
will be used together in most settings, but in settings in which code-switching is the
norm, speakers may develop a sub-set in which words from more than one language
can be used together. A major advantage of the sub-set hypothesis is that the set of
lexical elements from which a selection has to be made is reduced dramatically as a
result of the fact that a particular language or sub-set has been chosen. Our claim is
that the sub-set hypothesis may explain how languages in bilinguals may be kept
apart, but not how the choice for a given language is made.
According to the sub-set hypothesis, bilingual speakers have stores for lemmas,
lexemes, syntactic rules, morpho-phonological rules and elements, and articulatory
elements that are not fundamentally different from those of monolingual speakers.
Within each of these stores there will be sub-sets for different languages, but also
for different varieties, styles and registers. There are probably relations between
sub-sets in different stores, that is, lemmas forming a sub-set in a given language
will be related to both lexemes and syntactical rules from that same language,
and phonological rules from that language will be connected with articulatory
elements accordingly.
Language Choice
Returning to the model, we will now discuss how language choice is implemented.
In speaking, the step which is probably most crucial is the matching of chunks from
the pre-verbal message with the meaning part of lemmas, because here the transition

129 Psycholinguistics
from (language-independent) conceptualization to language-speciﬁc coding takes
place. In Levelt’s description, the lemma consists basically of three parts: a semantic
speciﬁcation, syntactic information and a pointer to a particular lexeme.
The semantic speciﬁcation is ‘the set of conceptual conditions under which the
lemma can be appropriately used’ (Levelt, 1993: 4), which is matched with a chunk
from a pre-verbal message. It is likely that in lexical retrieval a single concept can
temporarily activate more than one semantically related lemma, which suggests
that the lemma store is organized according to semantic principles.
The syntactic information refers to the syntactic category of a lemma and
its grammatical functions. When a lemma is activated, its particular syntactic
environment is deﬁned as well: for example, the verb sell will involve a subject,
an object and a prepositional phrase. Other lemmas will be labelled as ‘recipient’
or ‘agent’. The lemmas that have been activated will ‘search’ for other lemmas
that ﬁt, that is, the verb will ‘search’ for a subject (and sometimes a direct object/
indirect object). ‘Grammatical encoding is like solving a set of simultaneous
equations: the surface structure must be such that for all lemmas the required
syntactic environments are realized’ (Levelt, 1993: 4).
The third type of information in the lemma is a pointer to a lexeme. Lexemes
contain the phonological speciﬁcations of a lemma and the morphological
makeup, although the exact relation between the lemma and the lexeme is not
entirely clear.
Thus there are a number of steps in the process of lexical access where choices
have to be made. When choosing lemmas, Poulisse and Bongaerts (1994) argue that
‘language’ is one of the features used in the selection process. So, for the selection of
the lemma ‘boy’, not only do the semantic features ‘male’ and ‘young’ have to match
relevant conceptual information in the pre-verbal message, but, for a bilingual speaker
who has English as one of his languages, the lemma ‘boy’, will also need to contain
information about which language it belongs to (English) and this information will
have to match the language cue in the pre-verbal message. Translation equivalents
such as ‘boy’ and ‘jongen’ (Dutch) show considerable overlap in their semantic
speciﬁcations, but differ mainly with respect to the ‘language’ feature.
In the preceding sections we gave a short description of the production model that
represents the state of the art at the moment. However, many aspects of bilingual
processing are still unclear. One has to do with ‘timing’: to what extent is the precise
timing of the sub-processes in our production system (as measured in milliseconds)
based on characteristics of our L1? Do languages that are structurally different require
different internal timing between the sub-processes? If so, might there be a mis-
match between the timing in place due to the L1 and the timing required to use an
L2 effectively? A great deal of current research on bilingual language production also
shows that it is virtually impossible for bilinguals to selectively activate candidates
in the target language alone (for example, Costa, 2005). This observation suggests
that a mechanism other than the intention to speak one language only must be in
place to permit control over production. In the section that follows we consider
the implications of cross-language activation during speech planning for models of
speech production and for cognitive control more generally.
Experimental Studies of Language Production in L1 and L2
Compared to research on language comprehension, there has been less
experimental research on language production. One important reason is, no

130 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
doubt, that the kind of careful manipulations of the stimuli that may be made
in comprehension studies, as described later on, cannot be done as directly in
language production. In studies of comprehension, a word, sentence or text can
be presented and we can examine the way in which processing reﬂects its structure
and meaning. However, it is much more difﬁcult to elicit speech with particular
characteristics, even in response to a simple picture or scene.
Recent studies have used a set of experimental tasks to constrain the words that
speakers produce in order to investigate the planning of utterances in real time.
For example, in a simple picture-naming task, participants are shown a picture
of a drawing and asked to speak the name of the picture aloud as quickly and
as accurately as possible. By measuring the time to begin to speak the picture’s
name in L1 or L2 it is possible to infer the bilingual’s relative proﬁciency in the
two languages. Typically, even proﬁcient bilinguals are faster to name pictures
in L1 than L2. However, the time difference alone does not reveal the source
of the language difference. One possibility is simply that bilingual speakers are
slower to access the phonology of L2 than L1 and therefore they are slower on
any production task in L2. Evidence from single-word translation and word-
naming (Kroll and Stewart, 1994) is consistent with this view, although the delay
in L2 naming relative to L1 appears to be greatest in production tasks which
require lexicalization, that is, the selection of a single word on the basis of initial
conceptual activation. Thus, an alternative account is that L2 is not only slower
to speak but also harder to select for output. L2 lemmas may be more weakly
activated than the corresponding L1 lemmas or they may be more vulnerable
to competition from the more active L1 alternatives. Green (1998) proposed an
‘inhibitory control model’ in which L1 lemmas are suppressed to allow bilinguals
to speak words in L2. A focal issue in this area of research is to understand the
source of this control. Does it arise from within the processing dynamics of the
lexicon itself? Or is it externally imposed by general cognitive mechanisms that
modulate the allocation of attentional resources as a function of the task and
context in which it is placed?
The main empirical approach to language production in monolinguals has been
to examine the pattern and timecourse of interference effects in a variant of the
picture-naming task known as picture–word interference. A picture is presented
to be named, just as in the simple picture-naming task, but now a word distractor
is also presented, either visually or auditorily, and the participant is instructed to
ignore the word and name the picture. By varying the time at which the word
is presented relative to the picture (before, during or after the picture) and the
relation of the word to the picture’s name (whether the word is identical to the
picture’s name, phonologically or semantically related to the name, or completely
unrelated), it is possible to infer the nature of the processes that must have been
operating at different moments in time prior to speaking. The results of studies
taking this approach have shown that semantically related distractors appear
to produce the greatest effects early in the process of planning the picture’s
name, whereas phonological effects are largest later in planning, although they
are sometimes observed at earlier points as well (Schriefers, Meyer and Levelt,
1990; Levelt et al., 1991; Starreveld and La Heij, 1995; Levelt, Roelofs and Meyer,
1999; Starreveld, 2000). At a general level, the empirical results of these time
course studies support the claims of production models such as the one outlined
above in suggesting that ﬁrst the meaning of the intended utterance needs to be
established, and only later can the form of the utterance be planned. However,

131 Psycholinguistics
there has been a great deal of debate about the ﬁne tuning of this process. Some
studies (Jescheniak and Schriefers, 1998; Peterson and Savoy, 1998) have shown
that concepts that can be named in two alternative ways (for example, close
synonyms such as couch versus sofa in English) compete with each other for quite
a long time during speech planning, to the point where the phonology of both
alternatives appears to be active.
Although close synonyms may be the exception rather than the rule for
monolingual speakers, for individuals who speak more than one language, the
situation may be more complicated because translation equivalents may actively
compete for selection. A number of studies have examined this issue in bilingual
speakers using the picture–word interference task described above (Hermans,
Bongaerts, de Bot and Schreuder, 1998; Costa, Miozzo and Caramazza, 1999;
Hermans, 2000). Although they come from different theoretical positions, the
empirical results that they report converge closely. Perhaps most signiﬁcant is
that they ﬁnd evidence for cross-language semantic interference. That is, picture-
naming in either of the bilingual’s two languages is slowed when a semantically
related word is presented, regardless of whether or not the word is in the language
they are about to speak. This observation suggests that lemmas in both languages
are active during speaking.
The question in subsequent research has been whether activation reaches the
level of the phonology and, if so, how the bilingual avoids making the error or
speaking the word in the wrong language. A number of past studies have provided
evidence that the phonology of a picture’s name in the language not in use is on
the tip of the bilingual’s tongue. For example, naming a picture whose name is
a cognate in the bilingual’s two languages is faster than naming a picture with a
non-cognate translation, suggesting that activation of shared phonology facilitates
naming (for example, Costa, Caramazza and Sebastián-Gallés, 2000). Furthermore,
phonological facilitation for naming cognate pictures is not restricted to bilinguals
whose two languages share the same written form. Japanese–English bilinguals
produce cognate effects that are identical to those observed for Spanish–English
bilinguals (Hoshino and Kroll, 2008).
If under some circumstances there is activation of the phonology of the
language not being spoken, then how does a bilingual eventually select the
intended language alternative? Two types of explanation have been considered.
The language speciﬁc model, following the work of Costa et al. (1999), suggests
that the bilinguals establish a mental ﬁrewall of sorts in which lexical alternatives
in both languages become active but attention is directed only to the selection
of candidates in the target language cued for selection. In this view, the language
cue becomes critical in establishing the basis on which the separation between
the two languages functions. The alternative, following Green’s (1998) Inhibitory
Control model, is a competition-for-selection model, in which all activated
candidates compete for selection, requiring eventual inhibition of alternatives in
the unintended language ( see Kroll, Bobb, Misra and Guo, 2008 for a detailed
review of these alternatives). Although the debate on this issue is ongoing, an
exciting new development is the use of neuroscience methods, including both
Event Related Potentials (ERPs) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
(fMRI) to investigate the time course and localization of brain function during
bilingual speech planning (for example, Abutalebi et al., 2007; Christoffels, Firk
and Schiller, 2007; Verhoefs, Roelof and Chwilla, 2009). Like the behavioural
evidence, the neuroscience evidence provides mixed support for the two models.

132 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Illustrative Research on Second Language Acquisition
and Bilingualism
The Non-selective Nature of Lexical Access
The topic of selectivity of lexical access mentioned above in the discussion of
language production research is also a key issue in understanding how knowledge
of the bilingual’s two languages is organized and accessed, in particular for
understanding the role of the L1 during L2 acquisition. Early research on this
issue suggested that lexical access was indeed selective by language. One approach
to this problem was to ask bilinguals to make lexical decisions about letter strings
that might be words in one or both of their languages. In the lexical decision
task, letter strings are presented and the participant must decide whether they
are real words or not. On some trials the letter strings form real words but on
others they are non-words that are possible but not actual words. The participant
must make the decision as quickly as possible and indicate his or her response
by pressing a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ button. Gerard and Scarborough (1989) used the
lexical decision to test the selectivity of lexical access by having English–Spanish
bilinguals judge whether letter strings were real words in their L2. The condition
of interest consisted of interlingual homographs or false friends – words that exist
in both of the bilingual’s languages, but that have different meanings in the two
languages. For example, in Spanish the word red means ‘net’, whereas in English
the same letter string refers to a colour. If lexical access is selective then it should
be possible for a bilingual to retrieve only the language-appropriate reading of
the homograph. Gerard and Scarborough (1989) found support for the selective
hypothesis because bilinguals were able to accept an interlingual homograph as a
real word as quickly as a control word that was exclusively a word in one language
only. That is, it appeared that the non-intended reading of the word did not affect
processing, suggesting that it was unavailable.
Subsequent research has challenged the conclusion that lexical access is selective
by language. In a series of studies that initially used a slightly modiﬁed version of
the above procedure, Dijkstra, Van Jaarsveld and Ten Brinke (1998) manipulated
the presence of words in the L1 in the task. When the L1 was required to be active,
there was signiﬁcant interference for the interlingual homographs relative to
their control ‘words’. The result suggests that when the non-target language was
sufﬁciently active, the alternative reading of the word was also available. In the
same series of studies, when the task was changed from English lexical decision to
generalized lexical decision, with a ‘Yes’ decision indicating that the letter string
is a real word in either English or Dutch, there was facilitation for the interlingual
homographs relative to control ‘words’, suggesting again that both readings of the
word were active.
Subsequent research has supported the claim that lexical access is language
non-selective in comprehension (Dijkstra and Van Heuven, 1998; Dijkstra, Van
Heuven and Grainger, 1998; Dijkstra, Grainger and Van Heuven, 1999; Dijkstra,
de Bruijn, Schriefers and Ten Brinke, 2000; de Groot, Delmaar and Lupker, 2000;
Jared and Kroll, 2001; Marian and Spivey, 2003; see Dijkstra, 2005 for a review).
One aspect of these results that may seem a bit surprising from the perspective of
L2 acquisition, is that these studies have almost all examined the performance of
highly proﬁcient bilinguals. Even skilled bilinguals appear to be unable to control
the consequences of activating information in the unintended language, at least

133 Psycholinguistics
in these out-of-context word recognition tasks. One implication is that learners
may be even more vulnerable to the consequences of the effects of L1 lexical
form on processing in L2. Furthermore, we might ask whether these ﬁndings are
conﬁned to bilinguals for whom the two language share orthographic properties.
Will Hebrew–English or Chinese–English bilinguals also show evidence for non-
selective access? The few studies that have examined these effects across languages
that do not share the same alphabet or script suggest that there are still persistent
interactions attributable to shared phonology (Gollan, Forster and Frost, 1997;
Jiang, 1999).
Developing Lexical Proﬁciency in a Second Language
If competent bilinguals activate lexical forms in both languages when presented
with information in one language alone, then what about learners? Relatively few
studies have taken a developmental approach to this issue to ask how the nature
of activated lexical information changes with increasing proﬁciency in L2. The
few that have compared performance across proﬁciency groups have observed
differences consistent with the view that initially the high degree of activation of
L1 inﬂuences processing in L2, but that effects of L2 on L1 that can be obtained
with competent bilinguals are less likely to be seen (Bijeljac-Babic, Biardeau and
Grainger, 1997; Jared and Kroll, 2001).
The main focus in psycholinguistic research on the development of L2 expertise
has instead been on the availability of the L1 translation equivalent during L2
processing. An important paper by Potter, So, van Eckardt and Feldman (1984)
used the comparison between picture naming and single word translation as a
means of determining whether bilinguals were able to access concepts directly
for L2 or whether access proceeded through the L1 ﬁrst. Potter et al. (1984)
observed similar picture naming and translation performance and concluded that
bilinguals conceptually mediate L2 without L1 inﬂuence. However, a subsequent
series of studies (Kroll and Curley, 1988; Chen and Leung, 1989) showed that the
pattern of results depended on the level of L2 proﬁciency. The results for skilled
bilinguals replicated the ﬁndings of Potter et al. (1984), suggesting that at this
level of proﬁciency concepts can be accessed directly for L2. However, the results
for L2 learners suggested that at earlier stages of L2 development there was indeed
lexical mediation whereby L1 translation equivalents were activated to facilitate
access to concepts.
Subsequent research has considered the implications of this developmental
course, for example, is the early reliance on L1 something that one outgrows
when one gains sufﬁcient knowledge and automaticity in L2? Kroll and Stewart
(1994) reported a set of results which suggest not (and see Thierry and Wu,
2007, for related ERP evidence on the activation of the translation equivalent
in proﬁcient bilinguals). They showed that the performance of even a group
of highly proﬁcient Dutch–English bilinguals revealed the use of direct lexical-
to-lexical connections to perform translation from L2 to L1. When bilinguals
translated words from L1 to L2, there were strong effects of a semantic variable,
whether the words appeared in lists that were organized by semantic category
or randomly mixed. However, when they translated from L2 to L1, there were
no apparent effects of the semantics of the list, suggesting that they were able to
bypass conceptual processing in this direction of translation. These ﬁndings have
been a focus of debate because other studies suggest that conceptual processing

134 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
is directly available for L2 for both proﬁcient bilinguals and learners (La Heij,
Kerling and Van der Velden, 1996; Altarriba and Mathis, 1997).
A recent study by Sunderman and Kroll (2006) provided evidence for early access
to semantics for L2 learners but, at the same time, reliance on the translation
equivalent during the initial stages of L2 learning. The results of that study suggest
that the role of the L1 translation during L2 learning may be more complex than
initially understood. It will remain for future research to map out a complete
account of lexical development that traces the role of the L1 translation equivalent
(see also the Hands-on Activity at the end of this chapter for an opportunity to
consider these issues in more detail).
The costs of code switching
One of the research areas that has provided us with rich data on bilingual language
production is code switching. Code-switching (CS) is deﬁned here as the use of
more than one language in an utterance. There is a wealth of data and literature on
CS and the focus has gradually moved from a primarily linguistic approach (how
do languages as formal systems interact) to a more psycholinguistic approach
that focuses on the mechanisms of language processing involved. Here we limit
ourselves to two aspects that have drawn researchers’ attention. One is the issue
of ‘switching costs’: the costs in terms of time and effort involved in switching
between languages, the other is the study of CS in interaction.
Switching costs
In 1999, Meuter and Allport published an article that triggered an extensive
discussion on the mental costs involved in CS. In an experimental task, they
had bilingual speakers produce words that had to be produced in one of two
languages, depending on visual cues. Their most important ﬁndings were that
switching does cost time, and that is takes more time to switch from the weaker
language into a stronger language than the other way around. Their explanation
was that more effort is needed to inhibit the stronger language and that it
takes accordingly more time and effort to reactivate again. Jackson, Swainson,
Cunnington and Jackson (2001), Christoffels et al. (2007) and Verhoef et al.
(2009) provide neuro-imaging data that seem to support Meuter and Allports’s
experimental ﬁndings.
More recently, Abutalebi et al. (2007) studied CS and switching costs in an Event-
Related Functional Magnetic Resonance (er-fMRI) study. This technique provides
data on both the timing of brain activity and the location. Participants listened
to sentences in their L1 and L2 with switches between languages. There were
four types of switches: semantically acceptable or unacceptable, and syntactically
acceptable or unacceptable.
An example of an acceptable switch between Italian and French they present is:
e mi dicevo: ‘ce que je vois là’ (and I was telling to myself: ‘that what I see there’).
An example of an unacceptable switch from their set is: mais c’était interrotto (but
it was interrupted). The data show that the processes involved in unacceptable
switches were different in terms of brain areas involved, and the authors suggest
that acceptable switches are easier to process while the unacceptable ones are
processed as violations. The outcomes do not seem to support the patterns of
switching costs found by Meuter and Allport (1999) and Jackson et al. (2001).

135 Psycholinguistics
One problem with the data on switching costs presented so far is that they were
gathered in an experimental setting. Grosjean and Miller (1994) have argued that
in natural CS there are no switching costs. The costs found are the result of the
experimental setting rather than from the switching mechanisms involved. In
normal interaction, bilingual speakers who are used to switching are never forced
to switch unexpectedly, the switches are integrated in the production process.
So far there are no data on the switching costs in natural CS speech. Preliminary
data on ‘heavy code-switchers’ (data from a study on long term Dutch migrants
in Australia, de Bot and Clyne in prep., see also Broersma, Isurin, Bultena and de
Bot 2009) suggest that for such experienced switchers, pauses between words in
the same language are similar to those for pauses between words from different
languages. Such analyses are complex though, since it is quite often totally unclear
to what language elements in CS speech belong. As Clyne (1987) argues, extensive
CS often involves ‘compromise forms’, words that show traces of more than one
language.
CS in dialogue
CS has typically been studied from a monologue perspective, in line with the
general trend in the study of language production. Kootstra, van Hell and Dijkstra
(2009) propose a change in perspective by using an extension of the interactive
alignment model by Pickering and Garrod (2004). In this model, dialogue is taken
as the basic unit of analysis. Kootstra et al. argue that CS typically takes place
in interaction and that the study of CS in dialogue is ecologically more valid
than taking a monologue perspective. They also show that it is possible to gather
experimental data on CS using the so-called ‘confederate paradigm’ in which
interactional data are gathered in a setting in which one of the interactants is
actually manipulating the conversation to prime certain types of language use.
This technique has been used extensively in studies on syntactic priming within
and between languages. Hartsuiker, Pickering and Veldkamp (2004) carried out
a syntactic priming experiment in which participants who were intermediate to
high level Spanish learners of English had to describe pictures after being provided
with a verbal cue from a confederate. The cues were given in Spanish, while the
descriptions of the pictures had to be given in English. The critical contrast was
the use of active versus passive constructions by the confederate and the effect
this had on the proportion of use of passives by the participants. The results
showed that the confederate’s use of the passive in Spanish had an impact on the
participants’ use of the passive in English. Kootstra et al. show that this approach
can be used to prime speciﬁc forms of CS without interrupting the natural ﬂow of
the interaction.
Gestures in a second language
One of the recent trends in psycholinguistics is an enhanced interest in the link
between verbal and non-verbal aspects of communication. In particular speech-
related gestures (hand movements) have been studied extensively. We know very
little about the genesis of gestures as part of the communicative system and as part
of the language production system. As McGafferty and Stam (2008) argue in their
introduction to their edited volume on gesture, second language acquisition and
classroom research, the Chomskian focus on language as a separate encapsulated

136 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
module has not stimulated the integration of the study of gesture as an integrated
aspect of communication. De Ruijter (2000) presents a version of the Levelt model
discussed earlier, to which he adds a gesture component by suggesting that just as
verbal production is done on the basis of a limited set of syllables (‘the syllabary’),
a similar set can be postulated for gestures (‘the gestuary’). How exactly gestures
are produced in sync with speech, and how the distribution of labour between
verbal and non-verbal information is given shape, is as yet unclear.
Several studies have looked at the acquisition and use of gestures in second
language development ( see Gullberg, de Bot and Volterra, 2008 for an overview).
One of the intriguing questions is whether there is something like a ‘gestural
foreign accent’, that is, whether language learners may be ﬂuent on the verbal
level but still show signs of their other languages through gesture and other non-
verbal behaviour. The study of gesture in language development is clearly a ﬁeld
in which we have only scratched the surface and one that will become more
prominent in the years to come.
An interesting development related to the work on gesture addresses bimodal
bilingualism among hearing individuals who speak one language and sign the
other. In a series of studies, Emmorey and colleagues (Emmorey, Borinstein,
Thompson and Gollan, 2008; Pyers and Emmorey, 2008) have shown that the
language non-selectivity that appears to characterize bilinguals who speak two
languages also appears to hold for bimodal bilinguals, suggesting that the control
of the two languages occurs at a relatively abstract level of representation. Thus,
using two languages whose form is completely distinct does not apparently permit
bilinguals to keep the two languages more functionally separate.
The cognitive consequences of bilingualism
One of the most exciting developments in recent research on bilingualism
comes from studies that show that a life as a bilingual confers a set of beneﬁts to
cognition within the realm of executive function. Although some studies suggest
that bilinguals suffer relative to monolinguals in the realm of verbal ﬂuency and
in the speed of lexical access (for example, Gollan, Montoya, Fennema-Notestine
and Morris, 2005; Gollan, Montoya and Werner, 2002), a now compelling body of
literature shows that there are beneﬁts of bilingualism on attentional control that
extend from young bilingual children to young adult bilinguals and to elderly
bilinguals (for example, Bialystok, 2005; Costa, Hernandez and Sebastián-Gallés,
2008). Most notably, these beneﬁts are observed in simple cognitive tasks that
do not explicitly involve language. The data on older bilinguals are particularly
striking because bilingualism appears to provide a measure of protection against
the normal effects of cognitive aging (for example, Bialystok, Craik, Klein and
Viswanathan, 2004). Elderly bilinguals outperform their monolingual counterparts
on tasks that require them to ignore irrelevant information or to resolve conﬂict
in the face of stimulus-response incompatibility. The hypothesis is that a life spent
negotiating cross-language competition ﬁne tunes a set of cognitive skills that
beneﬁt the ability to select targeted information, regardless of whether the context
is linguistic or not. Thus far, the available data are correlational. It will remain to
be seen in the next period how studies of language processing in bilinguals might
be related to the observed cognitive consequences to provide a causal account of
the way in which the resolution of cross-language competition might create these
changes in cognitive performance.

137 Psycholinguistics
Forgetting and Relearning
In this chapter, we have looked at the storage and retrieval of L2 knowledge. A
growing ﬁeld of research now deals with the opposite of language acquisition:
language attrition and language loss ( see de Bot (1996) and Hansen (2001) for
overviews). As discussed above, the level of acquisition of linguistic knowledge is
crucial in production and perception. Through non-use of a language, the level
of activation of knowledge in that language decreases, even to the point that that
knowledge is considered lost. An important point for foreign language teaching
is how such knowledge can be reactivated again using our knowledge of the
mechanics of language production and perception. Unfortunately, very little has
been done on this so far.
Many people assume that words can be lost completely, but is this true? de
Bot and Stoessel (2000) report on a number of experiments on reactivation of
language skills. In those studies, they made use of the ‘Savings’ method for
establishing low levels of activation of items in memory. This method is based
on the assumption that words, once learned, are never really lost, and that even
for words that cannot be recognized using traditional test procedures there are
residues of knowledge that possibly can be used in reactivating these words. The
procedure is fairly simple: subjects are presented with a list of words; some of
these have been learned at some point in the past but cannot be remembered
(‘old’), whereas others have never been seen before (‘new’). The task is to
translate the words from the second language into the ﬁrst language. Then,
the subjects are presented with the words and their translations and are asked
to learn the translations. Finally, they are tested on those same words again. In
a number of experiments with Dutch as a second language, and German and
French as a foreign language, de Bot and Stoessel (2000) showed signiﬁcant
savings effects for the old words. Relearning the old words was easier than
learning completely new words, which indicates that there was indeed residual
knowledge of the old words, which helped to activate them. These ﬁndings can
be used to help language learners who learned a second language at some point
in the past reactivate the language they feel they have forgotten. The data show
that very short relearning activities (presenting words in L1 and their translation
in L2 for six seconds per pair) lead to high retention scores for such once-learned
words.
In terms of language maintenance, Harley (1994) discusses a number of case
studies of Anglophone Canadians who successfully retained their French skills
learned at school. Among the people interviewed there was unanimity on the
role of high initial proﬁciency and continuing contact with the foreign language.
Motivation is also important, as it leads to learners actively seeking opportunities
to use the foreign language in different settings.
Implications
Probably the one main implication of this, largely theoretical, chapter is that
for both language production and language perception two factors determine
accessibility of linguistic elements, in particular in non-balanced bilinguals and
language learners: the information must have been acquired and stored, and it
must be accessible in time. Both production and perception are incredibly fast
processes, and information that is not readily available will hamper processing of

138 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
input and output. So far, little attention has been paid to the crucial role of speed
of processing. An exception to this is the work by Jan Hulstijn and his colleagues
who are now actually training early learners of a second language to access
linguistic elements as quickly as possible; and their preliminary results show that
there is a direct and probably causal relation between speed of processing and
reading skills. No research has been done so far on productive skills, but it is
quite likely that speciﬁc training of speeded processes will have a positive effect
on those skills as well. The use of computers in language teaching will allow for
the use of programs that can train and evaluate such processing. In addition,
insights from psycholinguistic research should be applied more frequently in the
area of language testing. Although the language production system in particular
has been treated as a ‘black box’ whose hidden mechanisms are difﬁcult to
discern, psycholinguists have been successful in explaining many of its workings.
This information should inspire language testers to design more sophisticated
and valid measures of language proﬁciency in which the input and output sub-
processes are measured along with the global outcome of the system as a whole
(cf. de Bot, 2000).
Another, maybe less welcome implication is that much of our linguistic
knowledge is by deﬁnition unstable: words and rules are not always equally
available, availability depends on similarity to the L1 or other languages
acquired earlier in life, recency and frequency of use and many other factors.
Having learned a word through translation lists does not mean that such a word
is then available with all its nuances; rather, only a ﬁrst connection between a
form and a meaning are established. It is only through extensive contact with
that word in a variety of contexts that it will gradually develop a full, close to
native, set of links.
Psycholinguistic insights also can inform some of the discussions and
controversies on bilingual education and bilingual upbringing. The most
important one is that there is no support for the hypothesis that bilingualism
or learning an additional language at any age will have negative consequences
on cognitive processing. It is remarkable that there is a long history of negative
attitudes towards bilingualism but basically no empirical evidence to support the
assumptions that being or becoming bilingual has negative effects. As Hakuta
(1986) has argued convincingly, the debate on bilingual education in the USA
(and similar discussions on bilingual upbringing in educational circles) is based
much more on attitudes and beliefs than on facts. Apparently, the evidence for
positive effects of bilingualism at an early age have little effect on such beliefs. It is
quite likely that the growing internationalization in many parts of the world will
show the need for multilingualism on all levels. In Canada, the requirement of
bilingualism for a good work position led to changes in attitudes towards learning
French. Similarly, the need for proﬁciency in more languages in the global market
may change attitudes in other places as well.
New trends in psycholinguistics
In this contribution we have given a description of some of the current trends in
psycholinguistics, in particular with respect to second language development and
multilingual processing. We want to conclude with a short summary of what we
think will be the main trends in the years to come.

139 Psycholinguistics
• From monologue to dialogue: Though dialogue is more difﬁcult to study than
monologue, there will be a move away from taking monologue as the typical
language production setting. The same may be true for language comprehension,
though there are more natural settings in which listening happens without
interaction, such as listening to lectures or sermons, watching television, and
listening to spoken books. This shift to dialogue also implies a shift in research
methodology: what are needed are more paradigms in which we can manipulate
speech in dialogue as in the confederate technique described earlier. Possibly
different computerized techniques will provide options for this.
• From words to larger units: It follows from the previous point that we will
have to move from single words to larger units of production and interaction.
The interactive alignment model assumes an interaction between the use of
language and the setting in which it is used. In that interaction single words will
be rare as units, larger units and chunks are more likely to be the building blocks
in production and perception.
• Integration of verbal and non-verbal aspects of language use: The increase in
interest in the use of gestures reﬂects a tendency to a more holistic approach
in which speech is no longer studied in isolation but as part of communication
that also involves non-verbal behaviour. This will lead to questions like: what
is the added value of non-verbal behaviour, and how are different types of
information combined in production and perception?
• The added value of neuro-imaging: Research in bilingual processing and neuro-
imaging is booming. The main aim is to ﬁnd out to what extent functional
differences in language processing between monolinguals and bilinguals is
linked to speciﬁc neural substrates that play a role in multilingual processing.
So far, the contribution of neuro-imaging data has been limited, but there is
no doubt that there is great potential in the use of more advanced techniques
like Transcortical Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) that will allow us not only to
monitor brain activity, but also manipulate it to ﬁnd out what roles different
brain regions play in language processing.
Further Reading
Altarriba, J. and Heredia, R. (eds.). (2008) An Introduction to Bilingualism. Principles
and Processes . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. The volume contains various useful
chapters on methodological issues and new issues like bilingualism and aging, and
bilingualism and creativity.
Carroll, D.W. (1999) Psychology of Language (third edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing. Carroll’s book is a popular introductory psycholinguistics text. It covers
basic topics on acquisition, comprehension and production and also the biological
bases of language and the cultural context in which language is used. It is an excellent
starting point for a reader without background in psycholinguistics or cognitive
psychology.
De Groot, A.M.B., and Kroll, J.F. (eds) (1997) Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. This volume consists of 12 tutorial
chapters on the psycholinguistics of bilingualism and second language acquisition. The
chapters cover acquisition, the debate about critical periods for L2, individual differences,

140 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
lexical and semantic memory, language production and reading, the neuropsychology of
bilingualism and the consequences of bilingualism for cognition.
Kroll, J.F. and De Groot, A.M.B. (eds) (2005) Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. This handbook reviews the major
developments in the psycholinguistics of bilingualism, including chapters on recent
neuroscience approaches.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989) Speaking. From Intention to Articulation . Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. This is probably the most inﬂuential book in psycholinguistics in the last two
decades. It contains a full description of the work on (monolingual) language production
and a blueprint of the speaker based on that research. Although a lot of new research has
been done since, the basic model still stands.
Nicol, J.L. (ed.) (2001) One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing .
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. This edited volume contains chapters on topics
ranging from the control of the bilingual’s two languages, to the lexicon, language
production and code switching, sentence parsing in two languages and sign language.
Poulisse, N. (1999) Slips of the Tongue: Speech Errors in First and Second Language
Production . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. In this book, slips of the tongue
of foreign language learners are described and analysed using the model presented
in Levelt (1989) and various adaptations that have been suggested in the literature to
apply the model to bilinguals. The transcripts and analyses are a rich source of data for
research and teaching.
Schreuder, R., Weltens, B. (eds) (1993) The Bilingual Lexicon . Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins. This edited volume contains a number of contributions that have been
the basis of present theoretical models of bilingual processing. The papers cover a wide
range of issues that are still relevant.
Hands-on Activity
We illustrate the psycholinguistic approach to second language acquisition by
asking you to interpret data from a study by Talamas, Kroll and Dufour (1999).
We will walk you through the logic, experimental design and methodology.
Then we will present some results for you to interpret. The starting point for the
study was the observation that high school learners of Spanish at early stages
of acquisition often make errors of lexical form. For example, the word mujer
which means ‘woman’ in Spanish, might be confused with the word mejor which
means ‘best’. If the meaning of L2 words is not readily available to learners,
then words that look or sound alike will be difﬁcult to distinguish. Talamas et
al. (1999) were interested in bringing this observation into the laboratory to
see whether it could be replicated experimentally and to then investigate its
developmental course. At what point do learners become able to access meaning
for L2 words? ( See the discussion in the chapter on the development of lexical
proﬁciency in L2.)
To capture this classroom observation in the laboratory, Talamas et al. (1999)
compared the performance of less and more proﬁcient English–Spanish learners

141 Psycholinguistics
on a translation recognition task (De Groot, 1992). In translation recognition,
individuals are presented with two words, one in each language. Their task is to
decide whether the second of the two words is the correct translation of the ﬁrst.
For example, if you were shown the word man and then the word hombre you would
respond ‘Yes’ because hombre is the correct translation of man. The experiment
was performed on a computer and participants were tested individually. A word
in one language appeared brieﬂy on the screen and was followed by a word in the
other language. The participant had to decide as quickly as possible whether the
second word was the correct translation of the ﬁrst and respond ‘Yes’ if it was and
‘No’ otherwise by pressing one of two designated buttons. Talamas et al. (1999)
measured both the amount of time it took participants to make their decision and
their accuracy.
The critical conditions of the experiment involved word pairs which were
not the correct translation of one another. Some of these pairs were simply
unrelated words (for example, man followed by casa which means ‘house’ in
Spanish). But others were form distractors, like the errors that students had been
observed to produce spontaneously (for example, man followed by hambre which
means ‘hunger’ but looks like the correct translation, hombre ). A ﬁnal condition
consisted of semantic distractors which were semantically related words but
not translation equivalents (for example, man followed by mujer which means
‘woman’).
A summary of the conditions is shown in Table 8.1.
Translation recognition task: Is the second word the correct translation of the ﬁrst word?
Condition Example Correct response
Correct translation man–hombre Yes
Incorrect translations
form-related
semantically related
unrelated controlman–hambre
man–mujer
man–casaNo
No
No
Table 8.1 Summary of conditions in the translation recognition task (after Talamas, Kroll and
Dufour, 1999)
Talamas et al. (1999) hypothesized that less proﬁcient learners would be tricked
by the similarity of the form distractors. If so, they should take longer to reject
incorrect translation pairs, such as man–hambre than unrelated controls and also
be more likely to make the error of incorrectly responding ‘Yes’ to the incorrect
translation. Furthermore, Talamas et al. (1999) predicted that the performance
of less proﬁcient learners would suffer more from form interference than
the performance of more proﬁcient learners, who can more readily access the
meaning of the words. Similarly, they hypothesized that the performance of the
more proﬁcient learners would be more sensitive to the semantic distractors than
the performance of the less proﬁcient learners.
The results of this experiment are shown in Table 8.2 for the critical ‘No’ pairs.*
*Note that for the purpose of this activity, the data from the Talamas, Kroll and Dufour (1999) study have
been averaged over conditions. The interested reader is encouraged to consult the original report of this
work for a more complete discussion of the experiment and results.

142 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Table 8.2 Results of the critical ‘No’ pairs experiment*
Condition Example (correct
response)Learner groups
Less proﬁcient More proﬁcient
Form-related man–hambre (No) 972 ms (58%) 903 ms (82%)
Semantically related man–mujer (No) 898 ms (72%) 967 ms (85%)
Unrelated control man–casa (No) 868 ms (88%) 852 ms (99%)
*Mean response latencies (time in milliseconds to make the ‘No’ decision) and per cent accuracy.
For the purpose of the activity, we will ignore statistical considerations and
simply focus on overall differences between conditions. Assume that any
difference in the response latency data larger than 50 milliseconds is statistically
reliable and that any difference greater than 10 percentage points in accuracy is
also signiﬁcant.
Questions:
• Is there any evidence in the data to support the hypothesis based on the observation of
classroom errors that less proﬁcient learners are more likely to be fooled by similarity
in the lexical form of L2 words?
• Do the data provide support for the prediction that more but not less proﬁcient learners
are sensitive to the meaning of L2 words? Is there any evidence that the less skilled
learners were inﬂuenced by the semantically related distracters?
• Using these results, how would you characterize L2 lexical development, that is, the
difference between high and low proﬁciency groups?
• What are the implications of the observed form interference in the more proﬁcient
group for claims about the selectivity of lexical access discussed in the chapter?

Sociolinguistics
Carmen Llamas
York University
Peter Stockwell
University of Nottingham
What is Sociolinguistics?
The most obvious deﬁnition of ‘sociolinguistics’ is that it is the study of language
in society. However, if it was as easy as that, then almost every language event
would form part of the ﬁeld of sociolinguistics. After all, there is a social and
contextual dimension to every naturally occurring use of language, and it is always
these social factors that determine the choice and form of what is written or said
or understood. If sociolinguistics is not to encompass all linguistics, psychology
and social theory, then we need a more precise and complex deﬁnition.
So, sociolinguistics is the study of the linguistic indicators of culture and power.
This is much more speciﬁc. This allows us to focus on language but also allows us
to emphasize the social force of language events in the world. It allows us to use the
tools of linguistics as outlined in the ﬁrst part of this book (grammar, vocabulary,
corpus linguistics, discourse analysis and pragmatics), as well as phonology, but
it also encourages us to see the inﬂuences of ethnicity, gender, ideology and
social rank on language events. Above all, this deﬁnition allows sociolinguists
to be descriptive of pieces of language in the world, whilst encouraging us to
recognize that we are all included in that world too. It could even be argued that
sociolinguists have a special responsibility to use their privileged knowledge to
inﬂuence the direction of, for example, government language policies, educational
practices, media representations and so on.
Many sociolinguists have argued strongly for this ethically-involved position.
However, we must recognize that the majority of sociolinguistic studies are
primarily descriptive and aim towards a scientiﬁc objectivity, even when dealing
with very complex social inﬂuences on language. That is, most studies focus on
giving an account of social aspects of language in the real world that is as precise
and systematic an account as possible within the current state of knowledge.
Sociolinguistics is thus progressive as a discipline in the sense that new studies and
new thinking are continually testing and developing our understanding of the way
language and society work in relation to each other. This means we need a deﬁnition
of sociolinguistics that covers the central concerns of the majority of the discipline.
So, ﬁnally and centrally, sociolinguistics is the study of language variation and
language change. This deﬁnition foregrounds the essential features of language:
societies differ from each other and change over time, and language is bound
up with these processes. The two dimensions can be seen as complementary
axes: an historical or ‘diachronic’ axis which is concerned with the ways in
which language use has changed over time; and a snapshot of a moment in time,
usually contemporary, on the ‘synchronic’ axis. All the tools of linguistics may be
deployed to focus in on particular features along these two dimensions, as we will
outline in the rest of this chapter.9

144 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Issues in Sociolinguistics
Sociolinguistics is a ﬁeldwork-based discipline. Researchers collect examples of
language usage in their naturally occurring environments and study them in
relation to the ﬁndings of other sociolinguists’ research work. In this sense it is
truly an example of applied linguistics: there is no introspection, nor intuitive
conclusions, nor impressionistic evaluation involved. This means it is relatively
easy for researchers new to the discipline to engage in genuine and valuable
sociolinguistic research at an early stage in their study. Indeed, this sort of practical
investigation would be the best way to develop your own thinking and knowledge
of sociolinguistics.
In order to demonstrate this fact, we introduce the key ideas in the ﬁeld by
illustration, using the sociolinguistic ﬁeldwork data of Carmen Llamas. This
research concentrates on the area of Teesside in the north-east of England,
although the techniques Llamas uses and several of her ﬁndings are connected
to many published sociolinguistic studies (Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, 1998;
Foulkes and Docherty, 1999; Kerswill, Llamas and Upton, 1999; Llamas, 2001,
2006, 2007a; Llamas and Watt, 2009).
Categorizing the Ways People Speak
Idiolect and Sociolect
Individuals speak in characteristic ways that might be peculiar to them in certain
circumstances: we call this pattern their ‘idiolect’. However, people often use
language in ways that they share with many other people: most generally we can
call these patterns ‘sociolects’. In part, the sociolects that individuals use help us
to deﬁne them as a coherent social group.
Sociolinguistics is mainly interested in the different forms of sociolect, in
suggesting patterns and frameworks by which such sociolects seem to operate. It
is a process of generalization away from the detail of speciﬁc data. In doing this,
sociolinguistics does not deny the value of individual experience; indeed, the fact
that social patterns are made explicit can be of immense value in understanding
the place of individuals in society.
Standard, Non-Standard and Codiﬁcation
An example of the potential conﬂict that might result from these patterns can
be seen in the tension – felt in almost all languages around the world – between
the ‘standard’ form and ‘non-standard’ varieties. Standardization is a process that
is apparent in almost all modern nations, in which one variety of a particular
language is taken up (by government, the education system, newspapers and other
media) and promoted as the ‘standard’ form. This often involves prescribing its use
in the classroom and public examinations, reporting the workings of government
in this form, printing national publications and any formal or prestigious material
through its medium, and treating it as the ‘correct’ and ‘proper’ form of the
language (when, technically, there is no such thing). ‘Codiﬁcation’ is a prominent
feature of standard forms: grammar books and dictionaries are written promoting
the form; texts of religious or cultural signiﬁcance and canonical literature in the
form are valued; and the variety is taught to children in schools ( see Pennycook,
1994; Bex and Watts, 1999; Milroy and Milroy, 1999; Mugglestone, 2003).

145 Sociolinguistics
Prestige, Stigmatization and Language Loyalty
By contrast, other non-standard forms of the language can be treated as ‘poor’ or
‘incorrect’ varieties: they are ‘stigmatized’. Standard forms receive ‘prestige’. It is
easy to measure the relative prestige or stigma of a variety by asking the following
questions:
• Has the variety been ‘standardized’ and codiﬁed institutionally?
• Is the variety spoken by a ‘living community’ of speakers?
• Do the speakers have a sense of the long ‘history’ of their variety?
• Do the speakers consider their variety to be independent of other forms and
‘autonomous’?
• Do the speakers use the variety for all social functions and in all contexts or does
it have a ‘reduced scope’ of usage?
• Do the speakers consider their variety ‘pure’ or a ‘mixture’ of other forms?
• Are there ‘unofﬁcial’ rules of the variety, even where there is no codiﬁed
grammar book; is there a sense of a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ form?
(List adapted from Bell, 1976.)
You will notice that these factors of prestige and stigmatization depend very
much on speakers’ attitudes to their own variety. This is an important feature of
sociolinguistic enquiry. People’s attitude to their own language often affects the
form of that language. For example, stigmatized varieties of language often survive
even under institutional pressure because groups have a ‘language loyalty’ that
preserves the varieties in the face of the standardized form ( see Garrett, Coupland
and Williams, 2003).
Dialect, Accent and Language Planning
A standardized variety is usually a regional ‘dialect’, which has been elevated in
prestige and often loses its regional associations as a result. A dialect refers to the
characteristic patterns of words and word-order (lexico-grammar) which are used
by a group of speakers. The standard form of a language is an institutionally-valued
dialect, which has been selected by historical accident or by deliberate ‘language
planning’ by governments to be held up as the standard language. Dialect usually
refers just to the form of the lexico-grammar of the variety as it could be written
down, rather than its pattern of pronunciation. The latter is called ‘accent’.
An accent can also be standardized and stigmatized. It is important to realize that
accent and dialect are separate concepts. In principle, any dialect can be spoken in
any accent, for example, the dialect known as Standard UK English can be heard in
all of the regional accents of Britain. In practice, non-standard dialects tend to be
spoken in speciﬁc local accents: it would be very strange (though possible) to hear a
Liverpool dialect spoken in a New York accent, for instance. However, we often hear
regional dialects spoken in foreign accents when they are being learned by non-
native speakers. It is also important to realize that every form of spoken language
is uttered as a dialect and in an accent. When people say they have no accent, they
usually mean that they are speaking in a standardized and prestigious accent.
Speech Communities
The way people speak often serves to deﬁne them as a group. We can talk of the
‘speech community’, which might correspond with the group as deﬁned by other

146 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
non-linguistic means: nationality, age range, gender, town or city population,
political allegiance and so on. As we will see in this chapter, the coherence generated
by all these factors – including the linguistic factor – can operate as a self-serving
reinforcement of all sorts of social values to do with local or community or ethnic
identity. Language variants may also be maintained and reinforced, even against
standardization pressure, in this way.
Descriptive Tools of Language Variation
Any single piece of language is an integrated whole, but in order to investigate
its different aspects we must explore it in convenient categories. Traditionally,
linguistics has categorized the different dimensions of language as a ‘rank scale’
from the smallest units of individual sounds or letters up to the largest scale of
whole texts and discourses. Each of these levels often corresponds with a linguistic
sub-discipline, as follows:
Language element Linguistic sub-discipline
discourse discourse analysis
text text linguistics
utterance pragmatics
sentence meaning ➝ semantics
clause &
phrase structure ➝ syntax
word/lexeme lexicology
morpheme morphology
sound/phoneme phonology
letter/grapheme graphology
(For an overview of all these dimensions, see McGregor, 2009; Jackson and
Stockwell, in press; Mullany and Stockwell, in press.) You will have noticed that
some of the chapters in the ﬁrst part of this book cover several of these sub-
disciplines. Like second language acquisition and psycholinguistics in this part
of the book, the sub-discipline of sociolinguistics is not conﬁned to one of these
levels; instead, it investigates different levels from a sociolinguistic perspective.
Although sociolinguistic variation occurs throughout the language system,
sociolinguistic studies have focused on particular types of patterns, especially at
the phonological level. Phonological variation is a useful level to study since it
is easier to ﬁnd an occurrence of a particular sound rather than a word, phrase
or grammatical structure; also, phonological variation is often below the level of
awareness of speakers and so is less affected by self-conscious alteration. However,
sociolinguistic exploration has also been undertaken at the grammatical, lexical,
discoursal and whole-language levels.
The Linguistic Variable
The main tool in sociolinguistics has been the concept of the ‘linguistic variable’.
This is any single feature of language which could be realized by different choices.
In the word farm, for example, some people do not pronounce the /r/ and some
do, and there are also variations in the ways the /r/ can be pronounced. This
is a linguistic variable which is strongly determined by geographical location:
non-/r/-pronouncers are likely to be from England, Wales, Australia, Massachusetts /H20902

147 Sociolinguistics
or the southern states of the USA. Furthermore, you could pronounce the /r/ as a
sort of ‘tap’ against the back of the teeth (almost like a /d/), in which case you are
likely to be from the Scottish Highlands or the west of Ireland.
The linguistic variable feature could be a sound, or a word, or a phrase, or a
pattern of discourse and so on. For example, common words for round bread
products include the lexical variants: bun, roll, cob, bap, barm, fadgie, stotty, cake,
batch, loaf and no doubt many others. You might not even recognize some of
these, but their use is determined by the social factor of geographical location. Do
you park your car, rank it or ﬁle it ? Do you buy sugar in a bag, or a sack, or a poke?
Do you call someone or phone them up or ring them or give them a phone or give them
a bell or give them a buzz ? All of these will vary depending on where you live, and
who you are talking to.
Phonological Variation
Although the linguistic variable can be from any level of the linguistic rank
structure, it is variation in ‘accent’ that has provided the major focus of
sociolinguistic studies so far. This is partly because observing and recording
occurrences of individual sounds is very much easier than waiting around all
day for a particular word, structure or discourse pattern to appear, or setting up
a complicated and artiﬁcial test situation. Phonological variables also have the
advantage that they are usually below the level of conscious awareness, so the
recorded data can be relied on to be naturalistic.
People ordinarily talk of ‘broad’ or ‘strong’ accents and describe sounds as
‘precise’ or ‘clipped’ or a ‘drawl’. However, in order to be able to describe accents
systematically and precisely, sociolinguists use the International Phonetic
Alphabet (IPA). This is a system of special letters, each one of which corresponds
with a very particular sound. The full IPA covers every speech sound it is possible
to make with the human mouth and throat (see Ball and Rahilly, 1999; Collins
and Mees, 2008). Table 9.1 lists a selection of some symbols which you might ﬁnd
useful in sociolinguistics.
Grammatical Variation
Linguistic variables operating at a grammatical level have also been studied
in sociolinguistics. For example, variations in the morphology of subject–verb
agreement have been observed among the speech of British schoolchildren. The
third person morpheme ‘-s’ ( he goes, she knows ) was used by some children for
all verb agreements ( I goes, I knows ). It was noted that this non-standard pattern
tended to be used with a greater frequency by boys than girls, and seemed to be a
marker of group solidarity among the boys.
Centrality in the social group and speech community is often marked by the
frequent use of certain realizations of linguistic variables. A major feature of
African–American vernacular English (AAVE) is the non-use of the verb ‘to be’
in some contexts: he a big man, you the teacher . This is known as ‘zero copula’,
and is the grammatical form to use when the verb could be contracted in general
American English or standard British English: he’s a big man, you’re the teacher . By
contrast, African–American vernacular has developed an invariant ‘be’ to signal
habitual states: he be busy, she be running all day .
A common grammatical variable that AAVE shares with many other non-
standard grammars is the requirement for ‘negative concord’: that is, in a negated

148 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
sentence, every element must be negated ( Ain’t nobody going to help you, don’t
nobody know me ). This can be used for heavy emphasis ( Ain’t no cat can’t get in no
coop), where standard Englishes would need to use a few more phrases to achieve
the same effect ( There isn’t a single cat that can get into any coop at all ) (see Labov,
1972; Kochman, 1981).
Consonants
p – pip t ʃ – church
b – bib d ȝ – judge
t – ten m – man
d – den n – man
k – cat ŋ – sing
g – get l – let
f – ﬁsh r – ride, parrot (‘trilled r’)
v – van ɾ – rubbish (Scots) (‘tapped r’)
θ – thigh ɹ – farm (US) (‘approximant r’)
ð – thy /vscript – ‘very’ as ‘vehwy’
s – set w – wet
z – zen j – yet
ʃ – ship ʔ – bu’er, ‘butter pronounced without
ȝ – leisure the /t/’ (glottal stop)
h – hen x – loch (Scots)
Vowels
(Monophthongs) (Diphthongs)
i – pit ai – bite, night
ε – pet əi – night (Scots, Canadian)
/ash – pat εi – bait
ɒ – pot (British accent) ɔi – boy
Ÿ – putt (British), color (US) əυ – roe
υ – put aυ – house
ə – patter (British) υə – sewer, poor (British)
o – eau (French), low (N England) iə – ear (British)
ɑ – calm (Scouse), farm (Teesside) εə – air (British)
y – tu (French), school (Scouse)
ø – peu (French), boat (Geordie)
i: – bean
/epsilonreversed: – burn
ɑ: – barn
ɔ: – born
u: – boon
e: – bait (Northern England)
Table 9.1 Selected International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbols
Lexical Variation
Dialectal variation depends largely on different lexical items being used from
region to region. Traditionally, ‘dialectologists’ were able to draw lines across maps
in order to delineate the boundaries where different words or phrases were used.
When making tea, you might stew, mash , brew or draw the tea in boiling water.
Most local areas have speciﬁc lexical items that serve to identify their speakers:

149 Sociolinguistics
your nose is a neb in Yorkshire; a square is to Philadelphians what a block is to a
New Yorker; an American resume is a British CV, which is South African biodata ;
South African robots are British trafﬁc lights ; American police batons are British
truncheons which are Indian lathis and so on.
Phrasal variations include the Irish and Scottish Is that you? when an English
person would say Are you ﬁnished? and an American would say Are you done? or Are
you through? Prepositional variation is very difﬁcult to explain: why do Americans
talk with and meet with when British people talk to and just meet? Something in
back of the house in America is behind or at the back of it in Britain. There are
dozens of others, usually consequences of historical divergence or interference
from other languages.
Discoursal Variation
Variability in discourse organization is a very fruitful area of investigation at the
moment. Strategies of conversational structure can be observed and analysed, for
example, and it is easy to see how politicians can be trained to exploit techniques
for ‘keeping their turn’ ( see Chapter 12, Speaking and Pronunciation ) and dominating
the discussion. Alternatively, the different ways that men and women organize
narratives or conduct conversations or arguments have been investigated to show
up apparently different objectives in speech.
Aspects of politeness and social solidarity represent another dimension of
discourse organisation that can be explored ( see Chapter 5, Pragmatics ). Again,
gender studies have led the way here, and insights into how politeness (and
impoliteness) works have been generalized cross-culturally in comparative studies.
The discoursal end of sociolinguistics is considered by some researchers to belong
to pragmatics.
Linguistic Variation
Lastly, the entire language can be treated as a variable. Bilingual or multilingual
individuals can often move from one language to another within a single utterance
and sometimes even within a sentence. This is called ‘code-switching’, and the
shift into another language can be used to indicate that a different ‘domain’ of
experience is being signalled.
Sometimes entire speech communities share two or more languages, as in
Switzerland (German, French, Italian) or Canada (French, English). Where there is
a functional division between the languages’ usage, for example when one is used
for formal or printed contexts and the other just in speech, then a situation of
‘diglossia’ is said to exist. One variety becomes the H (as in High German) and the
other the L (Low German) variety. For example, classical Arabic, the language of
the Koran, is the H variety that can be read by all Arabic speakers, but in different
Arab countries a range of different L varieties of Arabic is spoken.
Sociolinguistics explores aspects of such situations, as well as deliberate attempts
by governments and authorities to engage in language planning: the promotion
and standardization of one variety of language, and attempted interventions
in linguistic usage (such as Noah Webster’s dictionary with its new spellings of
‘American English’ words, or prohibitions by the Academie Française of Anglicisms
such as le weekend or le hot-dog in French).
Lastly, sociolinguists explore the birth and death of languages, for example in
the development of ‘pidgin’ languages. These are new languages, often based on

150 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
two or more languages in contact, with their own systematic grammatical rules.
When some pidgins become the ﬁrst languages of a new generation, they are
called ‘creoles’ (such as South African Afrikaans, Jamaican Patwa, West African
Krio, Louisiana Crioule and many others). Creolists have provided insights into
the processes of development of all languages, by investigating new and emerging
creoles ( see Holm 1988, 1989; Kouwenberg and Singler, 2005; Mufwene, 2001;
Romaine, 1988; Sebba, 1997).
Social Factors that Correlate with Language Variation
In the section above, it was very difﬁcult for us to talk about linguistic variables
without mentioning the social factors with which they may correlate. This is the
whole point of sociolinguistics. In investigation, a linguistic variable is set against
the social variable in order to work out the inﬂuence of that social aspect on
language. A range of social variables has been focused upon in sociolinguistic
studies ( see Llamas, Mullany and Stockwell, 2007; Milroy and Milroy, 1993).
Geographical and Social Mobility
Dialects within a language are often localized geographically. We can speak of
‘dialect chains’ where the shift from one dialect to the next is not sudden between
one town or county or state and the next. Instead, dialects merge and overlap
across distances. Even at national boundaries, speakers on either side of the border
can sometimes understand each others’ dialects (such as neighbouring Dutch and
Germans) better than speakers within their own ‘language’ community (northern
Germans and Bavarian Germans, for example).
If dialect chains complicate the dialect map, towns and cities complicate matters
further. The migration of people into urban areas disrupted neat dialect divisions,
and the study of ‘urban dialectology’ was only achieved by the realization
that there is social stratiﬁcation in urban areas on the basis of class. Increasing
geographical mobility has been matched over the last century in the western
world by increasing social mobility. The self-consciousness that this brings can
be observed in people of certain social groups aiming for a more prestigious form
of language than they would naturally use, for example, ‘overdoing’ an upper-
middle class accent in formal situations. This is called ‘hypercorrection’.
The counterpart of hypercorrection is the phenomenon observed when some
people use stigmatized forms of language (as a sort of ‘streetwise’ accent signal):
this is known as ‘covert prestige’. Factors such as these are major inﬂuences on
language loyalty and language change.
Gender and Power
The inﬂuence of gender and asymmetries in power relations have been a major
aspect of sociolinguistic discussion in recent years. The notion of a ‘genderlect’
has been proposed to account for some of the apparently systematic differences in
the ways men and women use language. These differences can be observed across
the whole range of linguistic variables, from plans of narrative and discourse
organization, to the different accents that men and women have even from the
same area ( see Coates and Cameron, 1986; Cameron, 1995; Crawford, 1995; Mills,
1995; Holmes and Meyerhoff, 2003; Coates, 2004).

151 Sociolinguistics
Age
Older people and younger people use language differently. When corresponding
features of these speakers are compared, such differences can reveal evidence of
changes in the language over time. In other words, the ‘snapshot’ of current usage
across the age ranges can suggest historical language changes. This is the ‘apparent
time hypothesis’; it gives us the ability to observe potential change in progress,
which was not thought possible in the past ( see Llamas, 2007b).
Audience
Taking into account the audience and reception of language use provides insights
into the ways speakers behave. Most conversations have a ‘recipient design’,
that is, speakers plan their utterances with the addressee in mind. This factor
often results in speakers adjusting their accent, style or language towards their
addressees. This phenomenon is called ‘accommodation’ and it seems that such
convergence of accents is an important cause of language change over time ( see
Auer, 2007).
Identity
This is an important social factor. Not only do linguistic patterns signal social and
individual identity, but people’s conscious awareness of their personal, ethnic,
geographical, political and family identities is often a factor in their language
use. Allegiance and membership of different social groups can be expressed by
language patterns, and sometimes those groups are even deﬁned by these patterns,
whether this is a language or style or jargon ( see Eckert, 2000; Dyer, 2007; Llamas
and Watt, 2009; Mullany, 2007).
Social Network Relations
It has been recognized that the relative strength of relations between individuals
within a social group (their ‘social network’) is also important in understanding
how linguistic features are maintained, reinforced and spread. Whether
individuals have strong or weak ties to the group can be used as a measure of their
sociolinguistic inﬂuence ( see Milroy, 1987; Milroy and Milroy, 1999).
Working with Sociolinguistic Data
Collecting and Analysing Sociolinguistic Data
When collecting data, the ﬁeldworker must be aware of a range of issues involved
in ‘sampling’ and the ‘representativeness’ of the population surveyed. A variety
of techniques have been developed by sociolinguists to gain access to the least
monitored forms of speech, below the level of common self-awareness.
Among the ‘experimental’ forms of elicitation that can be used are interviews,
questionnaires (spoken or written), ‘thinking-out-loud protocols/think-aloud
protocols’ (TOL/TAP) given with a passage to read, role-play and storytelling.
Linguists have also investigated speech styles by use of a series of elicitation
techniques that have increasing degrees of informant self-awareness, for example,
starting with an informal conversation, then giving a reading passage, then a
list of words to read, and ﬁnally a list of potential minimal pairs (such as moon/

152 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
moan , which/witch or cot/caught ). Another example of an innovative technique was
used by Llamas in her ﬁeldwork: ‘a sense relation network’ sheet (also known as a
‘semantic map’) intended to elicit local speech variants.
It is a fact of sociolinguistic research that if people are aware they are being
observed, they often alter their linguistic behaviour. This is the ‘observer’s
paradox’, and several of the methods above were developed in order to minimize
its impact on the data collected. The ‘ethical’ consequences of data collection
must also be considered, in relation to the informants’ rights of privacy.
Interpreting Sociolinguistic Data
Now that we have introduced some of the key concepts involved in sociolinguistics
and we have considered factors to bear in mind when collecting sociolinguistic
data, we must think about how we interpret the data we collect. As well as
discovering variation, we must attempt to explain what motivates this variation.
Some questions we must think about include:
• Why does language variation exist (particularly variation between speakers
from the same speech community)?
• What function does the variation serve?
• How do languages change?
• What processes are involved?
• Does the data we collect from one speech community have wider implications?
In this section we shall use aspects of Llamas’s research on Teesside English to
consider what linguistic data can tell us about the nature and function of language
variation and change. Before looking at data from the Teesside study, however, we
shall consider some models and frameworks we work within when interpreting
language variation and change. This will allow us insight into decisions made in
the design of the Teesside study and the research questions it addresses.
Models and Frameworks
The axiom underlying our initial deﬁnition of sociolinguistics is that language
is variable at all times. Variation means there is the potential for change, and
the causes and effects of language change are, therefore, central concerns of
sociolinguistics. In seeking the motivation for language change, we must consider
whether the changes are internal or external to the linguistic system. Internal
changes are ‘system-based’, brought about by pressures internal to the linguistic
system. For example, vowel changes affecting a number of northern cities in the
USA are often explained from the perspective of a ‘chain shift model’. In this
framework, changes in vowel sounds are co-ordinated, that is, movement of one
vowel triggers movement of another and another and so on down the chain.
Within sociolinguistics, external changes are ‘speaker-based’, brought about
by speakers adopting forms from other varieties. The Teesside study focuses on
variation in the realization of certain consonants and considers the variation to be
speaker-based. The motivation for the variation is thus seen as social and external
to the linguistic system.
Unprecedented changes have been witnessed in spoken British English in
recent years, most of which appear to be best accounted for by factors external
to the linguistic system. A ‘dialect levelling model’ of change has been used to

153 Sociolinguistics
account for data in a number of studies. ‘Dialect’ or ‘accent levelling’ involves
the eradication of locally marked forms in a variety. Large-scale homogenization
appears to be taking place in spoken British English: differences between accents
are becoming less marked. A ‘gravity model’ of ‘diffusion’, which involves the
spreading of variants from an identiﬁable local base into other geographical
localities, also appears to be underway. Many of the spreading features in British
English are thought to be moving northwards from a south-eastern epicentre.
Forms associated with London English are now found in urban centres far from
the capital.
Both levelling and diffusion come about through the ‘dialect contact’ caused
by geographical and social mobility. As people increasingly travel and move
across society, speakers often experience considerable face-to-face contact with
speakers of other varieties. In these contact situations, speakers tend to avoid very
locally marked forms of speech (this is called ‘accommodation’, where speakers
move towards their interlocutor’s speech patterns). If this happens sufﬁciently
frequently and in sufﬁciently large numbers, the accommodation can become
permanent. Contact-based changes have often been thought to be changes
towards the standard variety. However, non-standard varieties are exercising more
and more inﬂuence in British English and many of the current changes in progress
involve the spread of non-standard forms.
Let us look at some evidence from the Teesside study to see whether our linguistic
data can be interpreted by the models of change we have been considering.
The Teesside Study
The study set out to investigate whether localized forms were coming under
pressure from other vernacular forms spreading from outside the area. A previously
unresearched urban variety of British English was chosen as the locality for the
research: Middlesbrough, the major urban centre of the conurbation around the
River Tees, lies some 260 miles north of London, and offered a good case study
situation. Llamas wanted to discover whether local forms were being eradicated
and whether spreading vernacular forms had made inroads into Middlesbrough
English (MbE).
Combined with analysing variation within MbE, evidence for linguistic change
in progress was sought in the study. For this reason the two social variables of
age and gender were included in the design of the ﬁeldwork sample. Data were
taken from a sample of 32 speakers from Middlesbrough who formed a socially
homogeneous group, all being ‘working-class’ by their own self-assessment. In
order to detect potential linguistic changes in progress using the ‘apparent time
hypothesis’, four age groups of speakers were included in the sample (Table 9.2).
Old (60–80) Middle-aged (32–45) Y oung adult (19–22) Adolescent (16–17)
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
44444444
Table 9.2 Design of the ﬁeldwork sample
Llamas conducted interviews with informants in self-selected pairs, using a
new method of data elicitation. The method was designed to elicit data which

154 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
are analysable on ﬁve levels of the rank scale we looked at earlier: phonology,
morphology, syntax, lexicology and discoursal variation (although only the ﬁrst
four were analysed in the study). The principal research tool used in the interview
was a Sense Relation Network sheet, where subjects were given prompts, such as
tired, throw away or tell to be quiet, and then asked to write in alternative words or
phrases from their own vernacular.
So, let us look at some data from the study to see whether we can detect any
systematic variation in the sample or any evidence for possible change in progress
in MbE.
One of the linguistic variables included in the study was intervocalic /r/ (as in
carry, area, a real and to reach ). Three variants of /r/ were analysed in the data:
• The alveolar tap [ ɾ].
• The alveolar approximant [ ɹ].
• The labio-dental approximant [ /vscript].
(Note: Whereas phonemes are represented in slashes, for example /r/, the various
slightly different ways of pronouncing a phoneme are represented by square
brackets, for example [ ɾ], these are called ‘allophones’ ( see Celce-Murcia, Brinton
and Goodwin, 1996, and Collins and Mees, 2008, for a description of phonemes
and allophones and how they are produced in the vocal tract).
• [ɾ] This tap may be considered the ‘localized variant’ which is found in northern
England and Scotland.
• [ɹ] This alveolar approximant is the non-localized, or ‘standard variant’.
• [/vscript] This labio-dental is the ‘spreading variant’ which is currently spreading
rapidly from the south of England.
Figure 9.1 reveals whether use of the localized variant, the standard variant and
the spreading variant can be correlated with any of the social groups of speakers.
Figure 9.1 Distribution of variants of /r/ in Middlesbrough English.Labio-dental approx.
Alveolar approx.
Tap100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Old male
Middle male
Young adult male
Adolescent male
Old female
Middle female
Young adult female
Adolescent femalePercent

155 Sociolinguistics
What Figure 9.1 shows is that there is a great deal of variation in the use of
variants of /r/ among the speakers of the sample. This variation is both gender-
correlated and age-correlated.
If we consider the age variation ﬁrst, the data suggest that use of the localized
variant [ ɾ] is in steady and dramatic decline (it is used by the old speakers, but
almost rejected categorically by the young speakers). The age-correlated variation
also suggests that [ /vscript] is a new variant which has appeared in MbE very recently (it
is used to a considerable extent by the young speakers, but not found at all in the
speech of the old). What we have, then, is evidence suggesting change in progress in
MbE. This change appears to involve the processes of both levelling and diffusion.
There also seems to be a gender difference between the initiators of these
processes of change. The ﬁndings indicate that the females lead in the levelling out
of variants, with males following (note the much lower female use of [ ɾ]). Males,
on the other hand, lead in the diffusion of new variants into the vernacular, with
females following (note the higher use of [ /vscript] among young males).
It seems, then, from the data for /r/ that MbE is indeed undergoing a process
of levelling and features which are spreading from the south-east of England are
appearing in the speech of the young in Middlesbrough. Does this mean that
MbE is becoming like accents of the south-east of England? Let’s look at another
variable.
Intervocalic, word-medial /p/ was also taken as a variable in the study (as in
‘paper’). Three allophones of /p/ were under investigation:
• The standard variant is the released bilabial stop [p].
• Another possible variant is the glottal stop [ ʔ].
• The variant local to the north-east of England is a glottalized [ ʔp] (this represents
a simultaneous glottal stop and ‘p’ sound).
Given the dialect levelling in evidence in the variable /r/, we may expect the same
to be true of /p/ with a marked decline revealed in the use of [p]. Let us see.
The most immediately striking thing we see in Figure 9.2 is the marked gender
difference. The women show a clear preference for the standard variant [p],
whereas the men favour the localized [ ʔp]. This type of gender-correlated variation
has been found repeatedly in sociolinguistic studies. If we look closely at the
data, however, we notice that the young women are acting quite differently from
the old and middle-aged women. The young women demonstrate a much higher
use of the localized north-eastern [ ʔp]. Such is the increase in usage that [ ʔp] is
the preferred variant of the adolescent women compared with a 4.6 per cent
use among the old female speakers. Far from being levelled out then, use of the
localized variant of /p/ appears to be on the increase. Also, an increase is revealed
in use of the glottal stop, in particular among the young female speakers. Again,
we have evidence which suggests change in progress in MbE as well as the
existence of sharply differentiated genderlects.
It is clear, then, from looking at just two linguistic variables and co-varying
them with two social variables, that socially meaningful language variation can
be detected, and from the evidence of variation we can infer patterns of change.
Evidence from /r/ and /p/ both suggest that change is in progress in MbE. In
both variables we also see that men speak differently from women of the same
speech community, indeed, in many cases of the same family. The variation in
language is clearly not random or free. Rather, it appears to be systematic and to
be constrained by social factors.

156 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Figure 9.2 Distribution of variants of /p/ in Middlesbrough English.
Although the groups we are working with are made up of individuals (a fact
we should not forget), the individual speakers appear to systematically prefer or
disprefer variants that are available to them depending on whether they are male
or female, young or old. In this way speakers realize their sociolinguistic identity
and are able to project the linguistic identity they choose to the outside world.
Gaining insight into the motivation for these choices is also part of our job as
sociolinguists. The different variants must carry symbolic meaning to the speakers
whether or not the speakers would be able to explain what that meaning is. By
analysing other factors – how mobile the speakers are, how they evaluate the
variants under consideration – we may ﬁnd answers to some of the questions
posed by our ﬁndings:
• Why are some variants adopted from other varieties and others not?
• Why are some variants in decline and others increasing?
• Why are some variants preferred by female speakers and others by males?
The data we have looked at have revealed another important fact to us. Although
the increasing variants we have seen, [ /vscript] and [ ʔp], are different – one is new to
MbE and the other is local to MbE – one thing they have in common is that
they are both non-standard forms. The changes in progress that are suggested
by the evident variation in the data, then, do not represent a movement of MbE
towards the standard variety. This is true of many other localities and many
other variables. The ‘covert prestige’ carried by non-standard forms seems to
be exercising more and more inﬂuence on language variation and change. This
suggests we should re-evaluate the inﬂuence of the standard variety, for example
Received Pronunciation (RP) in British English, and to question its status as a
model to be imitated in language teaching.Glottalled
Glottalized
Released100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Old male
Middle male
Young adult male
Adolescent male
Old female
Middle female
Young adult female
Adolescent femalePercent

157 Sociolinguistics
Applications of Sociolinguistics
Many sociolinguistic studies have a practical application as their main objective.
Sociolinguistics has informed the thinking of government policy on education
and language planning across the world, with insights from the ﬁeld ﬁnding their
way directly into teacher-training courses and educational programmes, especially
in the UK and USA. Teachers who are aware of the sociolinguistic context have
insights at their disposal which can make them better teachers. For example, what
was once regarded as ‘bad’ grammar can be seen as a systematic non-standard
dialect, and corrective teaching can be replaced by an awareness of multi-
dialectalism. This can give students a greater repertoire in their performance,
including access to the prestigious standard forms, and a greater conﬁdence in
their own language abilities. It encourages us to recognize diversity as richness.
Lippi-Green (1997), for example, contains a wealth of information on how
language prejudice and ideological planning have operated in the USA.
There are many other uses of sociolinguistics. Film actors imitating accents will
have been trained using insights from sociolinguistics. Criminals have been caught
by pinpointing their accent origins. Politicians, advertisers and assertiveness
trainers all learn discourse patterns that convey their message most effectively.
In addition, sociolinguistic studies have contributed greatly to our understanding
of how languages change. For example, Labov (1994, 2001) and Milroy (1992)
demonstrate a sociolinguistic view of the historical development of English. This
not only helps us to ‘read’ the past but also offers us guidance on the likely social
implications in the future.
Finally, the methods developed in sociolinguistics have led the way in the
consideration of research ethics and in the use of naturalistic data in linguistic
study. Sociolinguistics reveals the complexity of context when language is studied
in its real, applied setting, and it also suggests ways of understanding this context
and the richness of language uses.
Further Reading
There are some very good book-length introductions to sociolinguistics, such as the
following:
Holmes, J. (2008) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (third edition). London: Longman.
This is a good survey of the ﬁeld with some excellent illustrations and case-studies.
Stockwell, P. (2007) Sociolinguistics: A Resource Book for Students (second edition).
London: Routledge. This is a very readable ‘ﬂexi-text’ which takes students from key
concepts rapidly to their own explorations, and also contains some key readings by
leading sociolinguists.
Wardhaugh, R. (2005) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (ﬁfth edition). Oxford:
Blackwell. This is probably the standard textbook in the area: comprehensive and
authoritative.
For other good introductions, see also Downes (1994) and Trudgill (2000).
The following are more advanced books or collections:

158 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Chambers, J.K. (2003) Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and Its Social
Signiﬁcance (second edition) . Oxford: Blackwell. This is an advanced reference work
which focuses on the consequences of sociolinguistic studies on linguistic theory.
Coulmas, F. (1997) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics . Oxford: Blackwell. This has
become the deﬁnitive manual of the ﬁeld.
Coupland, N. and Jaworski, A. (1997) Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook .
Basingstoke: Macmillan. This is an excellent resource for key texts in sociolinguistics; its
range of articles covers the broad range of approaches and it provides a good orientation
in the ﬁeld.
For other good collections and comprehensive surveys, see also Hudson, 1996;
Chambers and Trudgill, 1998; Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, 1998; Labov, 2001.
Hands-on Activity
The passage below is a humorous attempt to imitate the spoken vernacular of
Middlesbrough in written form (and also pokes some gentle fun at sociolinguists).
We have chosen this passage as it is likely to be unfamiliar to most of the readers
of this book. However, you do not need to understand the passage at ﬁrst to be
able to use it as sociolinguistic data. First, draw a large table divided as follows:
Middlesbrough Standard
English English
Phonological examples
(Any novel spellings that seem to be
used to represent the accent)
Lexical examples
(Any words you do not recognize, or
which seem to be used in an
unusual way)
Grammatical examples
(Including strange idioms, as well
as unusual phrases and syntactic
ordering that you ﬁnd odd)
Discoursal examples
(Anything which seems to be trying
to capture spoken discourse)
Then go through the passage, systematically trying to identify as many
representations of the Middlesbrough accent and dialect as you can, in these four
categories. At this stage you do not need to know exactly what the non-standard
forms mean. Here is the passage:
NOW YOU’RE TALKIN’
EE, well us Teessiders have ﬁnally been recognised by the posh Cockneys coz of the class
way what we talk, eh?
It was on the telly news and everything. Did yer see it, eh?

159 Sociolinguistics
What it is, right, there’s this new dictionary out this week – which is good news like coz
I’ve ﬁnished reading the other one now, like, and – get this – we only get a mention!
Honest. They reckon more new words and phrases are made up on Teesside than anywhere
else … well me and the lads in the Streetﬁghters Arms do anyway, like.
Hey, this dictionary, it’s huge! Its been genetically modiﬁed I reckon. It’s not like them
rubbishy efforts at school with all the mucky words underlined in red and that.
This one’s got 18,000 smart ofﬁcial new words in it. I didn’t know there were that many
words in the world, me – mind, to be fair I reckon Our Lass gets through at least that
many when she’s got a right cob on with us, like!
I swear down dead, it’s got all these top Teessidisms in it like ‘ee’, ‘gadgie’ and ‘parmo’ –
words what we’re learning the rest of the country, like.
Not that they’re new words or owt like, just ones what all the eggheads down Oxford
have ﬁnally ﬁgured out what we’ve been saying all along, eh? The bofﬁns reckon it shows
Teesside has ‘a dynamic and vibrant regional vernacular’. That’s rubbish, that is.
Mind, if you want to hear some choice new words for next year’s book yer wanna get
yerselves round Our House when Boro lose!
So anyroad like, I was just gobsmacked when Our Tony walked into the Streetﬁghters and
plonked his show-off copy of The Guardian on the bar.
He said he’d got something to show us like and that it was the new ‘lingua gadgia’ but
like I said, I don’t give a hoot about no Italian cars.
Anyroad, it turns out it was this thing about all these new words and that.
And there we were on page eight like: ‘ee’, a North-eastern alternative to ‘oh’; ‘gadgie’,
a Teesside version of ‘bloke’ derived from ancient romany; and ‘parmo’, a late night
breaded pork and cheese dish claimed to be of Italian origin but actually peculiar to
Middlesbrough.
That’s right, that is, like. When we went down to Wembley the fest time we all went
down the West End and had a right chew on in this little Italian when they wouldn’t
serve us a parmo.
I mean, they said they’d never heard of it! Said we were making it up.
Cheeky nowts.
Mind, to be fair, they haven’t even heard of it in Stockton, although that is Durham and
over there they can’t even tell a ‘croggie’ from a ‘tan’!
(Evening Gazette, 12 June, 1999)
You should now have a list of words and phrases that cause you problems in
understanding. Some of your difﬁculties, of course, will also be a result of not
having enough contextual local knowledge. So, for example:
• Teessiders – people mainly from the Teesside towns of Middlesbrough and
Stockton.
• Cockneys – people from east London, but used here to mean anyone from
England south of Teesside.
• Streetﬁghters Arms – an invented pub name.
• Boro – nickname for the local football team.
• The Guardian – a quality broadsheet national newspaper with a reputation for
being read by educated liberals.
• Wembley – the national football stadium where cup ﬁnals are played.

160 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• West End – the main entertainment district in London.
• little Italian – here meaning an Italian restaurant.
• Durham – a cathedral city north of the river Tees; Stockton used to be in County
Durham and Middlesbrough in Yorkshire.
You can now try to ﬁll in the second column in your table, by guessing, from
context, the equivalent expressions in standard English. Our interpretations are
presented in the Suggested Solutions section at the end of this book.
Can you imagine a similar passage written in your own local dialect? You could
analyse your dialect in a similar way, breaking it down into its different categories,
and deciding where and when it would be most appropriate to use certain features.

Focus on the Language Learner:
Styles, Strategies and Motivation*
Andrew D. Cohen
University of Minnesota
Introduction: Learner Characteristics
Success in learning a foreign or second language (L2) depends on a variety of factors
such as the duration and intensity of the language course, the characteristics and
abilities of the teacher, the appropriateness of the teaching methodology, the
quality of the textbook, the size and composition of the learner group, the amount
of natural L2 practice opportunities, and last but not least, the characteristics of
the language learner. This chapter will focus on the last factor, that is, on the
impact of the most important learner features on language learning achievement.
The importance of learner characteristics cannot be overestimated. When
students embark on the study of an L2, they are not merely ‘empty vessels’ that will
need to be ﬁlled by the wise words of the teacher; instead, they carry a considerable
‘personal baggage’ to the language course that will have a signiﬁcant bearing on
how learning proceeds. Past research in applied linguistics has identiﬁed a number
of key components of this learner ‘baggage’ and has also provided clear evidence
that these components determine how fast and how well we are likely to master
the L2. In this chapter we will ﬁrst brieﬂy look at learner characteristics which are
largely beyond the teacher’s control , and then concentrate on three factors that
teachers can actively address to increase the effectiveness of instruction: learning
styles, learner strategies and motivation.
Characteristics Outside the Teacher’s Control
Age and Gender
What are the chief learner characteristics – or as researchers like to call them,
‘individual differences’ – that inﬂuence language learning success? It is appropriate
to start with the two main demographic variables, the learner’s age and gender.
The former has been the subject of a great deal of research over the last 40 years.
The traditional view has been that the younger we start to learn a second language,
the better chance for success we have. Previously, this advantage was explained
in terms of a ‘critical period’, where a person needed to learn the L2 in the period
roughly before puberty, or lose the ability to become native-like altogether.
However, recent research shows that ‘the younger the better’ principle is only
valid in environments where there is a constant and natural exposure to the
L2 (for example, learning French in France); in typical classroom environments
*The previous version of this chapter was co-authored with Zoltán Dörnyei, and the section on motivation
remains his contribution, albeit with bibliographic updates.10

162 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
where the amount of exposure is relatively small, older learners seem to have the
advantage over their younger peers, that is, here, older is better. Also, age seems
to have a much greater effect on pronunciation than on other linguistic abilities,
such as grammar or vocabulary. Even here, it seems that some late-starting learners
have been able to develop native-like pronunciation. Thus, although the ‘age
factor’ may have some physiological basis in the way the brain handles language,
there are also likely to be several other age-related factors at work, including the
amount and pattern of L2 input, the amount of verbal analytical ability and the
motivation to learn the L2 ( see Birdsong, 2006, for an overview).
The second factor, the learner’s gender, is important because research has
consistently found females to outdo their male peers when it comes to language
learning. However, because this factor is beyond the teacher’s control, we will not
dwell on it here.
Language Aptitude
Let us now turn to what is probably the best-known individual difference variable
in language learning: ‘language aptitude’. This factor has been referred to under
different names, for example, a special ‘ability’, ‘gift’, ‘knack’, ‘feel’ or ‘ﬂair’ for
languages, and everybody – learners, teachers and researchers alike – will agree
that it is a very important attribute of learning effectiveness ( see Dörnyei, 2005:
31–64, for issues and directions for research). It is best seen as the language-
related aspect of intelligence, and it determines the rate of learning and the
amount of energy the progress is likely to require of the learner. Someone with
a high aptitude will pick up the L2 relatively easily, whereas for another person
the same level of proﬁciency can only be achieved by means of hard work and
persistence. Having said this, it is important to note that language aptitude does
not determine whether or not someone can learn a language. If a learner is not
a natural language learner, this can be compensated for by various other factors
such as high motivation or the use of effective language learner strategies. Indeed,
the majority of people are able to achieve at least a working knowledge of an L2
regardless of their aptitude – so where there is a will, there is most likely a way. Let
us look ﬁrst at learning styles, then at strategies, and ﬁnally at motivation.
Learning Styles
Researchers both in educational psychology and the L2 ﬁeld have observed that
various learners approach learning in a signiﬁcantly different manner, and the
concept of ‘learning styles’ has been used to refer to these differences. Indeed, we
learn in different ways and what suits one learner may be inadequate for another.
While learning styles seem to be relatively stable, teachers can modify the learning
tasks they use in their classes in a way that may bring the best out of particular
learners with particular learning style preferences. It is also possible that learners
over time can be encouraged to engage in ‘style-stretching’ so as to incorporate
approaches to learning they were resisting in the past. For example, let us say
that a given reader may have been so global in her approach to reading academic
texts that she was missing speciﬁc details that could have assisted her in deriving
meaning from the texts. With proper encouragement from the teacher, she can
become more versed at maintaining her global perspective, whilst paying more
attention to particulars as well.

163 Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation
Learning style researchers have attempted to develop a framework that can
usefully describe learners’ style preferences, so that instruction can match
these. Although numerous distinctions are emerging from the literature, three
categories of style preferences are considered particularly relevant and useful to
understanding the process of language learning: sensory/perceptual, cognitive
and personality-related preferences ((Reid, 1995; Ehrman, 1996). The following
are some examples from a list in Cohen and Weaver (2006):
Sensory/perceptual style preferences:
• Being more visual, more auditory or more tactile/kinaesthetic (hands-on).
Cognitive style preferences:
• Being more global or more particular/detail-oriented.
• Being a more of a synthesizer and/or being analytic.
• Being more deductive or more inductive.
Personality-related style preferences:
• Being more extroverted or more introverted.
• Being more abstract and intuitive or more concrete and thinking in step-by-step
sequence.
• Preferring to keep all options open or being more closure-oriented .
The Hands-on Activity at the end of this chapter includes a self-assessment
instrument and detailed explanations to illustrate what these style dimensions
involve in actual learning. Let us look at an example to illustrate how styles may
play a role in language learning and language use ( see also Cohen, 2003). Suppose
an instructor assigns a task of reading a 500-word text about a new ‘dot.com’
organization on the market and then completing three activities that accompany
the text. The learners are to write out the main point of the passage in one or
two sentences, respond to an inference item (‘From what is reported about the
dot.com’s weaknesses, what can be inferred about the rival dot.com’s strengths?’)
and summarize the key points of the passage. In this example, we would suppose
that certain style variables are going to be activated more than others – let us say,
for the sake of illustration, that they are the following style contrasts: concrete–
sequential versus abstract–intuitive, analytic versus synthesizing and global versus
particular/detail-oriented. In this instance, we might expect that those learners
who are more concrete–sequential are the ones who will check the headings
and sub-headings in the text to get a sense of its organization, whereas the more
abstract–intuitive learners will skip around the text, looking for key words here
and there but without a sequential pattern motivating their search. Both types of
learners arrive at the main idea, but possibly using different strategic approaches.
With regard to the sub-task calling for inference, learners with a more abstract–
intuitive preference may take some clues from the text, but they may be most
comfortable relying on their background knowledge and opinions to infer what is
not stated in the text about the strengths of the rival dot.com. The more concrete–
sequential learners, on the other hand, may focus more exclusively on the clues
in the text and remain somewhat frustrated that the answer to the question is
illusive for them since it cannot be found in the text itself. Finally, the more
global and synthesizing learners may enjoy a summarization task because they are
predisposed to using strategies for integrating material into a summary, whereas

164 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
analytic learners may ﬁnd it more difﬁcult because they are more predisposed to
look carefully at speciﬁc details. The style preferences are presented as dichotomies
in the discussion above, but clearly many learners do not favour one learning style
to the exclusion of all others. This means that many learners operate somewhere
in the middle ground between the extreme positions, for example, usually being a
global learner, but at times focusing on details depending on the task.
Learner Strategies
Strategy Deﬁnitions
When learning and using an L2, learners may employ a number of strategies
which are usually aimed at improving their performance. Second-language
researchers ﬁrst noticed the importance of various learning strategies when they
were examining the ‘good language learner’ in the 1970s ( see Rubin, 1975, and the
collection of chapters in Grifﬁths, 2008). Studies of good language learners over the
years have indicated that it is not merely a high degree of language aptitude and
motivation (to be discussed below) that causes some learners to excel, but also the
students’ own active and creative participation in the learning process through the
application of individualized learner strategies. Research has found that the ‘good
language learner’ is in command of a rich and sufﬁciently personalized repertoire
of such strategies ( see Cohen, 1998; Cohen and Macaro, 2007; Grifﬁths, 2008).
Language Learning and Language Use Strategies
One helpful distinction when deﬁning language learner strategies is between
language learning and language use strategies.
‘Language learning strategies’ – referring to the conscious and semi-conscious
thoughts and behaviours used by learners with the explicit goal of improving
their knowledge and understanding of a target language.
‘Language use strategies’ – referring to strategies for using the language that has
been learned, however incompletely, including four sub-sets of strategies:
• ‘Retrieval strategies’ (strategies used to call up language material from storage,
for example, calling up the correct verb in its appropriate tense or retrieving the
meaning of a word when it is heard or read).
• ‘Rehearsal strategies’ (strategies for practising target language structures, for
example, rehearsing the subjunctive form for several Spanish verbs in preparation
for using them communicatively in a request in Spanish to a teacher or boss to
be excused for the day).
• ‘Communication strategies’ (strategies used to convey a message that is both
meaningful and informative for the listener or reader, for example, when we
want to explain technical information for which we do not have the specialized
vocabulary).
• ‘Cover strategies’ (strategies for creating an appearance of language ability so as
not to look unprepared, foolish or even stupid, for example, using a memorized
and partially understood phrase in a classroom drill in order to keep the action
going, or laughing at a joke that you did not understand at all).
Communication strategies have unquestionably received the most focus in the
research literature (Faerch and Kasper, 1983; Tarone and Yule, 1989; Poulisse,

165 Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation
1990; Dörnyei and Scott, 1997; Kasper and Kellerman, 1997; Dörnyei, 2005).
Communication strategies have primarily been viewed as the verbal (or non-
verbal) ﬁrst aid devices which may be used to deal with problems or breakdowns
in communication. These devices enable learners to stay active partners in
communication even when things do not go well. They may, for example, use
communication strategies to steer the conversation away from problematic areas,
to express their meaning in creative ways (for example, by paraphrasing a word
or concept), to create more time for them to think and to negotiate the difﬁcult
parts of their communication with their conversation partner until everything is
clear. Thus, these strategies extend the learners’ communicative means beyond
the constraints of target-language proﬁciency and consequently help to increase
their linguistic conﬁdence as well. Moreover, communication strategies also
include conversational interaction strategies and strategies for maintaining the
ﬂoor which learners who are not experiencing gaps in their knowledge may use.
Researchers have adopted several different taxonomies to classify the relevant
problem-solving strategies (Dörnyei and Scott, 1997; Cohen, 1998). Table 10.1
summarizes the most well-known categories and strategy types.
Table 10.1 Some commonly used communication strategies
Avoidance or reduction strategies
Message abandonment : leaving a message unﬁnished because of some language difﬁculty
Topic avoidance : avoiding topic areas or concepts which pose language difﬁculties
Message replacement : substituting the original message with a new one because of not
feeling capable of executing it
Achievement or compensatory strategies
Circumlocution : describing or exemplifying the target word you cannot remember (for
example, ‘the thing you open bottles with’ for corkscrew )
Approximation : using an alternative term which expresses the meaning of the word you
cannot remember as closely as possible (for example, ship for ‘sailing boat’)
Use of all-purpose words : extending a general, ‘empty’ lexical item to contexts where speciﬁc
words are lacking (for example, the overuse of thing , stuff, make , do as well as using words
like ‘thingie’, ‘what-do-you-call-it’, ‘what’s-his-name’, etc.)
Word-coinage : creating a non-existing L2 word based on a supposed rule (for example,
‘vegetarianist’ for vegetarian )
Use of non-linguistic means : mime, gesture, facial expression or sound imitation
Literal translation : translating literally a lexical item, an idiom, a compound word or structure
from L1 to L2
Foreignizing : using an L1 word by adjusting it towards the L2 phonologically (that is, with a L2
pronunciation) and/or morphologically (for example, adding a L2 sufﬁx to it)
Code switching : including an L1 word with L1 pronunciation or an L3 word with L3
pronunciation in L2 speech
Stalling or time-gaining strategies
Use of ﬁllers and other hesitation devices : using ﬁlling words or gambits to ﬁll pauses and to
gain time to think (for example, well, now let me see , as a matter of fact , etc.)
Repetition : repeating a word or a string of words immediately after they were said (either by
the speaker or the conversation partner)
Interactional strategies
Appeal for help : turning to the conversation partner for help either directly (for example, ‘What
do you call …?’) or indirectly (e.g., rising intonation, pause, eye contact, puzzled expression)

166 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Asking for repetition : requesting repetition when not hearing or understanding something
properly (e.g. ‘Sorry’, ‘Pardon’) Asking for clariﬁcation : requesting explanation of an
unfamiliar meaning structure (e.g. ‘What do you mean?’, ‘The what?’)
Asking for conﬁrmation : requesting conﬁrmation that one heard or understood something
correctly (e.g. ‘You mean’, ‘Do you mean?’)
Expressing non-understanding : expressing that one did not understand something properly
either verbally or nonverbally (e.g. ‘Sorry, I don’t understand’, ‘I think I’ve lost the thread’)
Interpretive summary : extended paraphrase of the interlocutor’s message to check that the
speaker has understood correctly (e.g. ‘So what you are saying is …’, ‘Let me get this right;
you are saying that …’)
It is important to note that communication strategies may or may not have any
impact on learning. For example, learners may use a vocabulary item encountered
for the ﬁrst time in a given lesson to communicate a thought, without any intention
of trying to learn the word. In contrast, they may insert the new vocabulary item
into their communication expressly in order to promote their learning of it.
Cognitive, Meta-cognitive, Affective and Social
Strategies
Aside from classifying strategies as focusing on the learning or the use of language,
there are two other notable approaches to categorizing strategies. One is to categorize
them into one of four groups according to whether they are cognitive, meta-
cognitive, affective or social (Chamot, 1987; Oxford, 1990). Another is to group
them according to the skill area to which they relate (Cohen, 1990; Paige, Cohen,
Kappler, Chi and Lassegard, 2006). Let us ﬁrst describe the four-way grouping, and
then provide an illustrative classiﬁcation of strategies according to skill area.
‘Cognitive strategies’ encompass the language learning strategies of identiﬁcation,
grouping, retention and storage of language material, as well as the language use
strategies of retrieval, rehearsal and comprehension or production of words, phrases
and other elements of the L2. In short, they cover many of the processes or mental
manipulations that learners go through in both learning and using the target
language. ‘Meta-cognitive strategies’ are those processes which learners consciously
use in order to supervise or manage their language learning. Such strategies allow
learners to control their own cognition by planning what they will do, checking
how it is going and then evaluating how it went.
Affective strategies serve to regulate emotions, motivation and attitudes (for
example, strategies for reduction of anxiety and for self-encouragement). So, for
example, before a job interview in the L2, a learner may engage in positive self-
talk about focusing on the message rather than on the inevitable grammatical
errors that will emerge. Finally, ‘social strategies’ include the actions which
learners choose to take in order to interact with other learners and with native
speakers (for example, asking questions to clarify social roles and relationships
or co-operating with others in order to complete tasks). Such strategies are
usually directed at increasing the learners’ exposure to L2 communication and to
interactive practice. For example, an American learner of Japanese in Hawaii may
develop and then consciously select a series of strategies for starting conversations
with Japanese tourists in Waikiki, a daunting challenge since rules for starting
conversations with strangers differ across the two cultures.

167 Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation
There is one obvious problem relating to this kind of classiﬁcation of strategies.
A learner’s use of what is ostensibly a single strategy may actually represent a
continual shifting or ‘dance’ from one of these categories to another. For example,
let us say that a given learner, Herbert, practises a gracious self-introduction for
a job interview. On one level, Herbert’s strategy is a cognitive one since he is
rehearsing pragmatic behaviour in order that it be done gracefully, appropriately
and without too many grammatical errors. If Herbert is doing it as a conscious
planning strategy, it may also represent a meta-cognitive strategy, especially
during the moments when he thinks to himself that this is what he wants to
do. The strategy may also serve as an affective strategy since Herbert could be
choosing it as a means of reducing anxiety regarding the imminent interview.
Finally, the rehearsal of self-introductions can serve as a social strategy in that the
better Herbert is at self-introductions, the easier it may be for him to introduce
himself to others, the more motivated he may feel to do so, and consequently the
more encounters he may be motivated to have with speakers of the L2.
Classifying Strategies According to Skill Areas
Yet another type of classiﬁcation of strategies is by skill area. The receptive
skills, listening and reading, and the productive skills, speaking and writing, are
the four basic skill categories. There are, however, other skill areas as well. For
example, there are strategies associated with vocabulary learning which cross-cut
the four basic skills. There are strategies associated with the learning of grammar
(see Oxford and Lee, 2007; Cohen and Pinilla-Herrera, 2009; for examples of
grammar strategies for learning Spanish, see http://www.carla.umn.edu/strategies/
sp_grammar/). Then, there is also the strategic use of translation, perhaps less
conspicuous a skill area for strategizing, but undoubtedly an area that learners
draw on. By translation, we are not referring to ﬁgurative or polished translation,
but rather to the kind of literal or rough translation that most learners engage
in from time to time or even extensively in order to function in all four of the
basic skill areas ( see Cohen, Oxford and Chi, 2002a, for a skill-based language
strategy survey). Table 10.2 shows the skill-related strategy categories, along with
representative examples of speciﬁc strategies.
Table 10.2 A brief sampling of strategies associated with different skill areas
Listening strategies
Strategies to increase exposure to the new language:
Listening to a talk show on the radio, watching a TV show, going to see a movie in the new
language, or attending some out-of-class event conducted in the target language
Strategies to become more familiar with the sounds in the new language:
Looking for associations between the sound of a word or phrase in the new language and
the sound of a familiar word
Imitating the way native speakers talk
Strategies for better understanding the new language in conversation
Before listening to the language:
Deciding to pay special attention to speciﬁc language aspects, for example, the way the
speaker pronounces certain sounds

168 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
When listening in the language:
Listening for word and sentence stress to see what natives emphasize when they speak
Practising ‘skim listening’ by paying attention to some parts and ignoring others
If some or most of what someone says in the language is not understood:
Making educated guesses and inferences about the topic based on what has already been said
Looking to the speaker’s gestures and general body language as a clue to meaning
Reading strategy use
With regard to reading habits in the target language:
Making a real effort to ﬁnd reading material that is at or near one’s level
As basic reading strategies:
Planning how to read a text, monitor to see how the reading is going, and then check to
see how much of it was understood
Making ongoing summaries either in one’s mind or in the margins of the text
When encountering unknown words and structures:
Guessing the approximate meaning by using clues from the surrounding context
Using a dictionary so as to get a detailed sense of what individual words mean
Speaking strategy use
In order to practise for speaking:
Practising new grammatical structures in different situations to check out one’s conﬁdence
level with the structures
Asking oneself how a native speaker might say something and then attempting to practise
saying it that way
In order to engage in conversations:
Initiating conversations in the new language as often as possible
Asking questions as a way to be sure to be involved in the conversation
When not able to think of a word or expression:
Looking for a different way to express the idea; for example, using a synonym or describing
the idea or object being talked about
Using words from one’s native language, perhaps adding vowels or consonants so that
they seem like words in the target language
Writing strategy use
As basic writing strategies:
Planning how to write an academic essay, monitoring to see how the writing is going, and
then checking to see how well the product ﬁts the intentions
Making an effort to write different kinds of texts in the target language (for example,
personal notes, messages, letters and course papers)
While writing an essay:
Reviewing what one has already written before continuing to write new material in an essay
Postponing editing of the writing until all the ideas are written down
Once a draft essay has been written:
Revising the essay once or twice to improve the language and content
Looking for ways to get feedback from others, such as having a native writer put the text in
his or her own words and then comparing it to one’s original version
Vocabulary strategies
To memorize new words:
Analysing words to identify the structure and/or meaning of a part or several parts of them
Making a mental image of new words whose meaning can be depicted

169 Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation
In order to review vocabulary:
Going over new words often at ﬁrst to make sure they are learned
Going back periodically to refresh one’s memory about words previously learned
In order to recall vocabulary:
Making an effort to remember the situation where the word was heard or seen in writing,
and if written, trying to remember the page or sign it was written on
As a way of making use of new vocabulary:
Using words just learned in order to see if they work
Using familiar words in different combinations to make new sentences
Grammar strategies
In order to master a verb tense
Memorizing preterite endings by means of a chant or a song
Using an acronym to remember when to use the imperfect tense
In order to remember pronoun position
Using a model sentence
Using a phrase as a mnemonic device
In order to check for number and adjective agreement
Underlining all nouns and their respective adjectives in the same color (e.g., green) to
ensure agreement
Envisioning agreement as in a polynomial to make sure that all the elements of the
sentence agree with the subject
Strategic use of translation
In order to enhance language learning and use:
Planning out what one wants to say or write in the L1 and then translating it into the target
language
While listening to others, translating parts of what they have said into one’s own L1 to help
store the concepts
To work directly in the target language as much as possible:
Making an effort to put one’s native language out of mind and to think only in the target
language
Being cautious about transferring words or concepts directly from the L1 to the target language.
Motivation
While style preferences and language strategies are clearly important contributors
to acquisition of language skills, at least some degree of motivation is also
important. Motivation can be promoted consciously, which is good news for L2
teachers: it means that by employing certain methods it is possible to change
learners’ motivation in a positive direction. For this reason, skills in motivating
learners are an important aspect of any teacher’s methodological repertoire.
The Social Nature of L2 Motivation
Motivation to learn a second language is very different from the motivation to
learn any other school subject. This is because an L2 is not only a communication
code, but also a representative of the L2 culture where it is spoken. Learning a
second language therefore always entails learning a second culture to some degree.
As Williams (1994: 77) argues:

170 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
The learning of a foreign language involves far more than simply learning skills, or a
system of rules, or a grammar; it involves an alteration in self-image, the adoption of new
social and cultural behaviours and ways of being, and therefore has a signiﬁcant impact
on the social nature of the learner.
As a consequence, L2 motivation will always have a strong sociocultural
component. Learners may well be reluctant to set about learning the language
of a cultural group towards which they have truly negative feelings, and
similarly, having favourable attitudes towards a language community may well
increase the motivation to learn their language. In fact, recognition of this
reality inspired the initiation of L2 motivation research at the end of the 1950s
in Canada by Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert. The social psychological
approach they adopted ( see below ) is still one of the most inﬂuential directions
in the study of L2 motivation (for an overview, see Gardner, 1985; Clément and
Gardner, 2001).
Motivation as a Dynamic Process
A second important aspect of L2 motivation is that it is not stable and static but is
rather in a continuous process of change. Dörnyei (2005) argues that motivation
undergoes a cycle that has at least three distinct phases.
• First, motivation needs to be generated . The motivational dimension related to
this initial phase can be referred to as ‘choice motivation’ because the motivation
that is generated then leads to the selection of the goal or task to be pursued.
• Second, the generated motivation needs to be actively maintained and protected
while the particular action lasts. This motivational dimension has been referred
to as ‘executive motivation’ (or ‘volition’), and it is particularly relevant to
learning in classroom settings, where students are exposed to a great number
of distracting inﬂuences, such as off-task thoughts, irrelevant distractions from
others, anxiety about the tasks or physical conditions that make it difﬁcult to
complete the task.
• Finally, there is a third phase following the completion of the action – termed
‘motivational retrospection’ – which concerns learners’ retrospective evaluation
of how things went. The way students process their past experiences in this
retrospective phase will determine the kind of activities they will be motivated
to pursue in the future.
These three phases are associated with largely different motives. That is, people
will be inﬂuenced by different factors while they are still contemplating an action
from those that inﬂuence them once they have embarked on some action. And
similarly, when we look back at something and evaluate it, again a new set of
motivational components may well become relevant. Bearing this in mind, let us
look at the most important motives discussed in psychology.
The Most Important Motives to Learn an L2
With regard to ‘choice motivation’, the most important components are the
values and attitudes related to the L2, the L2 speakers and language learning in
general. These were the focal issues in Gardner’s (1985) inﬂuential motivation
theory, which placed the emphasis on understanding the broad sociocultural

171 Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation
nature of L2 motivation. Within this theory, three concepts in particular have
become well-known.
• ‘Integrative orientation’, which reﬂects a positive disposition toward the
L2 group and the desire to interact with and even become similar to valued
members of that community.
• ‘Instrumental orientation’, where language learning is primarily associated with
the potential pragmatic gains of L2 proﬁciency, such as getting a better job or
a higher salary.
• The ‘integrative motive’, which is a complex construct made up of three main
components: (a) integrativeness (subsuming integrative orientation, interest in
foreign languages and attitudes toward the L2 community); (b) attitudes toward
the learning situation (comprising attitudes toward the teacher and the course);
and (c) motivation (made up of motivational intensity, desire and attitudes
towards learning the language).
Another important aspect of choice motivation, the ‘expectancy of success and
perceived coping potential’, refers to learners’ conﬁdence in being able to carry
out the tasks associated with L2 learning. A key element of this aspect, ‘linguistic
self-conﬁdence’, has been identiﬁed as a signiﬁcant motivational subsystem in
L2 acquisition (Clément, 1980; Clément, Dörnyei and Noels, 1994); a plausible
explanation for this is that what matters in foreign languages learning is not really
the objective level of one’s language abilities but rather the subjective perceptions
of assurance and trust in oneself. (This is partly why some people will be able to
communicate with 100 words while others will not be able to even with thousands
of words.)
It is also easy to see that the learners’ initial beliefs about L2 learning will affect
motivation, since unrealistic beliefs about the amount of time it will take to attain
a certain level of language functioning will inevitably lead to disappointment.
Similarly, whether or not the learner receives positive or negative messages from
the larger environment (for example, media, friends) plays an important role in
reinforcing or blocking one’s initial commitment.
The most important aspect of ‘executive motivation’ is related to the perceived
quality of the learning experience. This quality dimension can be described
satisfactorily using Schumann’s (1997) framework. Drawing on research in
neurobiology, Schumann (1997) argues that humans appraise the stimuli they
receive from their environment along ﬁve dimensions:
• ‘Novelty’ (degree of unexpectedness/familiarity).
• ‘Pleasantness’ (attractiveness).
• ‘Goal or need signiﬁcance’ (whether the stimulus is instrumental in satisfying
needs or achieving goals).
• ‘Coping potential’ (whether the individual expects to be able to cope with the event).
• ‘Self and social image’ (whether the event is compatible with social norms and
the individual’s self-concept).
These appraisals, then, constitute the person’s overall evaluation of the quality of
a particular experience. Although the ‘quality of the learning experience’ factor
provides a broad coverage of a range of classroom-speciﬁc issues, it is useful to
look at the motivational role of the participants in any given learning experience
separately. First and foremost come the teachers, whose motivational inﬂuence is
crucial in every aspect of learning. In their position of ofﬁcially designated leaders

172 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
they are the most visible ﬁgures in the classroom, embody group conscience, and
serve as a reference and a standard. Their personal characteristics, their rapport with
the students and the speciﬁc ways they model motivational values (for example,
how they present tasks or give feedback and praise) are all likely to have an impact
on the students’ commitment to learning. In addition, we need to consider the
role of the parents since educational psychologists have long recognized that
various family characteristics and practices are linked with school achievement.
Finally, in situations where learning takes place within groups of learners, the
motivational inﬂuence of the whole ‘learner group’ is also considerable – as can
be evidenced by every student whose initial enthusiasm for a subject was quickly
killed by being called a ‘brain’, a ‘nerd’, a ‘creep’ or a ‘swot’ (or something even
worse) by his/her peers ( see Dörnyei, 2001a).
A second important constituent of executive motivation, ‘autonomy’ (or as it is
often called in psychology, ‘self determination’), has also generated a lot of research
(for a review, see Benson, 2001) because there is a consensus that autonomy and
motivation go hand in hand, that is, ‘Autonomous language learners are by deﬁnition
motivated learners’ (Ushioda, 1996: 2). In addition, research by Noels and colleagues
(Noels, Clément and Pelletier, 1999; Noels, 2001) indicates that the teachers’
orientation towards autonomy, namely whether they are ‘autonomy-supporting’
or ‘controlling’, also plays an important role in shaping their students’ motivation,
with the former leading to increased student involvement and commitment.
The last main phase of the motivational process, ‘motivational retrospection’,
involves the process whereby learners look back and evaluate how things went.
Various characteristics will strongly inﬂuence learners’ overall impressions about
the past – some learners will gain a positive impetus even from less-than-positive
experiences, whereas others may not be completely satisﬁed even with outstanding
performance. From a practical point of view, however, the feedback, the praise
and the grades that learners receive are the most signiﬁcant determinants of their
ﬁnal self-evaluation. The nature of such rewards is too complex to cover in detail
here, but we might note that they can function as double-edged swords – grades in
particular. If there is too much emphasis on them, getting good grades can become
more important than learning; as Covington (1999: 127) concluded, ‘many
students are grade driven, not to say, “grade grubbing”, and this preoccupation
begins surprisingly early in life’.
Finally, knowledge of and skills in using various ‘learner strategies’ also have an
impact on learners’ motivation in all three phases of the motivational process.
Being aware of certain ‘made-to-measure’ strategies (for example, a computer
devotee is told about an effective method of learning an L2 through the use of
computer games and tasks) might give the necessary incentive to initiate learning.
Then, while learning, well-used strategies increase one’s self-conﬁdence and lead
to increased success, and – as the saying goes – success breeds further success.
Finally, one very important function of the retrospective stage is for learners to
consolidate and extend the repertoire of personally useful strategies, which will in
turn function as a source of inspiration for future learning. Indeed, strategies and
motivation are very closely linked.
Motivating Learners
How can motivation research help classroom practitioners? The most obvious
way is by providing a list of practical motivational techniques that teachers can

173 Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation
apply. For such lists to be comprehensive and valid, they need to be based on
a solid underlying theoretical framework. Motivational recommendations have
been offered by a number of scholars in the L2 ﬁeld (Alison, 1993; Brown, 1994;
Oxford and Shearin, 1994; Williams and Burden, 1997; Dörnyei and Csizeér,
1998), with Dörnyei (2001b) providing a comprehensive summary of the topic.
Dörnyei (2005: 111–113) uses the model described above (choice motivation/
executive motivation/motivational retrospection) as an organizing framework
and identiﬁes four principal aspects of motivational teaching practice:
• ‘Creating the basic motivational conditions’ (establishing rapport with the
students; fostering a pleasant and supportive classroom atmosphere; developing
a cohesive learner group with appropriate group norms).
• ‘Generating initial student motivation’ (enhancing the learners’ L2-related
values and attitudes; increasing the learners’ expectancy of success; increasing
the learners’ goal-orientedness; making teaching materials relevant to the
learners; creating realistic learner beliefs).
• ‘Maintaining and protecting motivation’ (making learning stimulating; setting
speciﬁc learner goals; presenting tasks in a motivating way; protecting the
learners’ self-esteem and increasing their self-conﬁdence; allowing learners to
maintain a positive social image; creating learner autonomy; promoting co-
operation among the learners; promoting self-motivating strategies).
• ‘Encouraging positive retrospective self-evaluation’ (providing motivational
feedback; promoting motivational attributions; increasing learner satisfaction;
offering rewards and grades in a motivating manner).
Pedagogical Implications: the Intersection of Styles,
Strategies and Motivation
Steps for Style- and Strategies-based Instruction
Research has found that it is possible to teach learners to enhance their strategy
use, that is, to help them to be more conscious and systematic about the strategies
that they already use and to add new strategies to their repertoire (Dörnyei, 1995;
Cohen, 1998; Cohen and Weaver, 2006; Rubin, Chamot, Harris and Anderson,
2007; Chamot, 2008). The earlier discussion of learning styles underscored the
importance of having learners determine their style preferences and be more
cognizant of the ﬁt between their style preferences and the strategies that they
select for language learning and language use tasks. The following are steps that
teachers can take to make their instruction style- and strategies-based, along with
motivating learners to engage themselves in this type of awareness-raising:
• Raise learner awareness about learning style preferences and language learner
strategies at the outset in order to generate motivation to be more conscious
about style preferences and more proactive about the use of language strategies.
• Find out which styles the learners favour, and which strategies the students may
already use or may wish to add to their repertoire.
• Suggest and model what ‘style-stretching’ might look like, as well as modelling
new strategies.
• Provide a rationale for strategy use, since learners are likely to apply strategies or
develop new ones only if they become convinced about their usefulness.

174 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• Provide guided exercises or experiences to help students put the strategies into
practice.
• Encourage students to enhance their current strategy repertoire.
• Encourage students to be willing to use such strategies even when it may mean
taking risks.
• Highlight cross-cultural differences in how strategies (especially communicative
strategies) might be employed (for example, when it is appropriate to use ﬁlled
pauses in a language, such as the use of, say, eto and ano in Japanese, since their
usage is different from that of uh or umm in English; see Erard, 2007).
• Organize ‘sharing sessions’: From time to time ask students to share information
about their learning style preferences and about the strategies they have
generated or found particularly useful. Because of their direct involvement in
the learning process, students often have fresh insights they can share with
their peers. In addition, personalized learning strategies are sometimes amusing
to hear about and students may enjoy sharing them, especially when they see
that their peers are doing some of the same things.
The Use of Style and Strategy Surveys
There are advantages to having learners actively diagnose for themselves their
style and language strategy preferences, as well as their ‘motivational temperature’
(Cohen and Dörnyei, 2001). There are various published learning style surveys
available, such as the Learning Style Survey (Cohen, Oxford and Chi, 2002b), which
is more focused on language learning than some of the other instruments (cf. also
the shortened version of this instrument appearing at the end of this chapter).
In addition, teachers can administer language strategy questionnaires that cover
strategy use in terms of:
• Skill areas, such as in Table 10.2.
• Communication strategies such as those listed in Table 10.1.
• Strategies classiﬁed according to their cognitive, metacognitive, affective or
social function, as in Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford,
1990: 283–291).
A key factor is to make the interrelationship of styles, strategies and motivation
a matter of explicit discussion early on, rather than to assume that ‘things will
come automatically’ or that learners know what to do in each instance. If learners
are made aware of the importance of these individual difference variables, and are
given tools for dealing with them, they are likely to take more responsibility of
their own learning and will adopt those attitudes and techniques that characterize
the good language learner.
Self-motivating Strategies
‘Self-motivating strategies’ may play a role in empowering learners to be more
committed and enthusiastic language learners. Even under adverse conditions
in certain classrooms and without any teacher assistance, some learners are
more successful at staying committed to the goals they have set for themselves
than others are. How do they do it? The answer is that they apply certain self-
management skills as a means for overcoming environmental distractions or
distracting emotional or physical needs/states; in short, they motivate themselves.

175 Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation
And if they can do so, surely others can do so as well, particularly if teachers and
other language educators provide some coaching.
Dörnyei (2001b) draws on Kuhl’s (1987) and Corno and Kanfer’s (1993) research
to suggest that self-motivating strategies are made up of ﬁve main classes, which
are listed below with two illustrative strategies for each:
1 Commitment control strategies for helping to preserve or increase the learners’
original goal commitment:
• Keeping in mind favourable expectations or positive incentives and rewards (for
example, a ﬁlm director fantasizing about receiving an Oscar).
• Focusing on what would happen if the original intention failed .
2 ‘Metacognitive control strategies’ for monitoring and controlling concentration,
and for curtailing unnecessary procrastination:
• Identifying recurring distractions and developing defensive routines .
• Focusing on the ﬁrst steps to take .
3 ‘Satiation control strategies’ for eliminating boredom and adding extra
attraction or interest to the task:
• Adding a twist to the task (for example, reordering certain sequences or setting
artiﬁcial records and trying to break them).
• Using fantasy to liven up the task (for example, treating the task as a game,
creating imaginary scenarios).
4 ‘Emotion control strategies’ for managing disruptive emotional states or moods,
and for generating emotions that will be conducive to implementing one’s
intentions (note that these strategies are often similar to ‘affective learning
strategies’ discussed earlier):
• Self-encouragement.
• Using relaxation and meditation techniques.
5 ‘Environmental control strategies’ for eliminating negative environmental
inﬂuences and exploiting positive environmental inﬂuences by making the
environment an ally in the pursuit of a difﬁcult goal:
• Eliminating negative environmental inﬂuences (such as sources of interference:
for example, noise, friends; and environmental temptations: for example, a
packet of cigarettes).
• Creating positive environmental inﬂuences (for example, making a promise or a
public commitment to do or not to do something, asking friends to help you
or not to allow you to do something).
Raising learners’ awareness of self-motivation strategies, in particular drawing
attention to speciﬁc strategies that are especially useful in a given situation, may
have a signiﬁcant ‘empowering effect’ on the students.
Conclusion
The individual difference variables of learning style, strategies and motivation are
interrelated in numerous ways. If students with certain style preferences succeed
in ﬁnding learning strategies that particularly suit them (for example, an auditory
learner taking the initiative to tape-record portions of a class session and then
playing them back in order to review vocabulary and ﬁx the words more solidly in
memory), such actions may also enhance their interest in the task and expectancy
of success, which will in turn increase their motivation to complete the task
successfully and will ideally have a positive inﬂuence on their performance with

176 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
other tasks as well. Similarly, effective and well-personalized communication
strategies (such as when the extroverted learner keeps a conversation going with
a well-placed paraphrase when the target-language word for, say, ‘ insight’ escapes
her) can increase the learners’ linguistic self-conﬁdence and generate increased
satisfaction in their L2 use. Finally, a teacher who keeps learner self-motivating
strategies ﬁrmly in mind can check periodically to make sure that these and
other strategies are in the learners’ repertoire and that everything is being done
to assist learners in keeping their motivational level high. Given the numerous
other pedagogical issues to consider in the classroom, teachers may not feel that
there is time to engage in this kind of top-down motivation, style and strategy
planning for a given course. In reality, it may be just such planning which makes
the teaching of a language course more productive for both the teacher and the
students, as well as more enjoyable.
Further Reading
Cohen, A. D. and Macaro, E. (2007) Language Learner Strategies: 30 Y ears of Research
and Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. This book provides a re-examination
of key issues such as strategies in context, strategy instruction and strategy research
methods by numerous experts in the ﬁeld. It offers an overview of what is known from
empirical research about listening, reading, speaking, writing, vocabulary and grammar
strategies, and it proposes a research agenda for the next decades.
Cohen, A. D. and Weaver, S.J. (2006) Styles- and Strategies-Based Instruction:
A Teachers’ Guide. Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition,
University of Minnesota. Styles-and strategies-based instruction helps students become
more aware of their learning style preferences and gives them a set of strategies to
maximize their language learning ability. This guide helps teachers to identify the individual
needs of their students and incorporate opportunities for students to practice a wide
range of strategies for both language learning and language use.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Teaching and Researching Motivation . Harlow: Longman. This is
an accessible overview of L2 motivation research, with a balanced treatment of both
theoretical and practical issues. It also provides research guidelines and over 150
questionnaire items for those who would like to conduct their own investigations.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Written for practicing teachers, this book is the ﬁrst
publication that is entirely devoted to discussing L2 motivational strategies, that is,
practical techniques to generate and maintain student motivation in the language
classroom.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences
in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. This book offers a
comprehensive review of individual differences that have been found to affect language
learning success, such as personality, language aptitude, motivation, learning styles
and cognitive styles, language learning strategies and student self-regulation. The book
examines the theoretical bases of each of these learner characteristics and then reviews
the relevant research conducted in psychology and applied linguistics.

177 Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies and Motivation
Grifﬁths, C. (ed.) (2008) Lessons From Good Language Learners . Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press. Inspired by a ground-breaking article by Joan Rubin in 1975
in which she set out to identify the strategies used by successful language learners, this
edited collection re-examines the same topic in the light of current thinking and research,
considers the implications for language teaching and learning, and looks at unresolved
questions regarding numerous factors, such as age, style, personality, gender, autonomy,
beliefs, the teaching and learning method, strategy instruction and error correction.
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C. and Lassegard, J. P. (2006)
Maximizing Study Abroad: A Students’ Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture
Learning and Use (second edition). Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research
on Language Acquisition. Aimed at students who want to make the most of their study
abroad experience, this ﬂexible and user-friendly guide helps students identify and use
a wide variety of language- and culture-learning strategies. The guide begins with three
inventories designed to help students be more aware of how they currently learn language
and culture. The guide then provides students with tools and creative activities that they
can use to enhance their favored learning strategies and to try out unfamiliar ones.
Students can use this guide as they prepare for study abroad, during their experience,
and once they return to maximize their experience.
Hands-on Activity
The following is a shortened version of the ‘Learning Style Survey’ (Cohen,
Oxford, and Chi, 2002b), designed to assess language learners’ general approach
to learning. Your task is to ﬁll in the survey, then total your points, and based on
your scores, consider your overall learning preferences. In the Suggested Solutions
section, we provide speciﬁc guidelines on how to interpret your scores.
For each item, circle your immediate response:
• 0 = Never
• 1 = Rarely
• 2 = Sometimes
• 3 = Often
• 4 = Always
Part 1: How I Use My Physical Senses
I remember something better if I write it down 0 1 2 3 4
I understand lectures better when they write on the board 0 1 2 3 4
Charts, diagrams and maps help me understand what someone says 0 1 2 3 4
Visual – Total
I remember things better if I discuss them with someone 0 1 2 3 4
I prefer to learn by listening to a lecture rather than reading 0 1 2 3 4
I like to listen to music when I study or work 0 1 2 3 4
Auditory – Total
I need frequent breaks when I work or study 0 1 2 3 4
If I have a choice between sitting and standing, I’d rather stand 0 1 2 3 4
I think better when I move around (for example, pacing or 0 1 2 3 4
tapping my feet)
Tactile – Total

178 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Part 2: How I Expose Myself to Learning Situations
I learn better when I work or study with others than by myself 0 1 2 3 4
I meet new people easily by jumping into the conversation 0 1 2 3 4
It is easy for me to approach strangers 0 1 2 3 4
Extroverted – Total
I am energized by the inner world (what I’m thinking inside) 0 1 2 3 4
I prefer individual or one-on-one games and activities 0 1 2 3 4
When I am in a large group, I tend to keep silent and just listen 0 1 2 3 4
Introverted – Total
Part 3: How I Handle Possibilities
I have a creative imagination 0 1 2 3 4
I add many original ideas during class discussions 0 1 2 3 4
I am open-minded to new suggestions from my peers 0 1 2 3 4
Random–Intuitive – Total
I read instruction manuals (for example, for laptops) before using 0 1 2 3 4
the device
I trust concrete facts instead of new, untested ideas 0 1 2 3 4
I prefer things presented in a step-by-step way 0 1 2 3 4
Concrete–Sequential – Total
Part 4: How I Approach Tasks
My notes and other school materials are carefully organized 0 1 2 3 4
I write lists of everything I need to do each day 0 1 2 3 4
I enjoy a sense of structure in the classroom 0 1 2 3 4
Closure-oriented – Total
I gather lots of information, and then I make last-minute decisions 0 1 2 3 4
I prefer fun or open activities rather than structured activities 0 1 2 3 4
My schedule is ﬂexible for changes 0 1 2 3 4
Open – Total
Part 5: How I Deal with Ideas
I can summarize information easily 0 1 2 3 4
I enjoy tasks where I have to pull together ideas to form one large idea 0 1 2 3 4
By looking at the whole situation, I can easily understand someone 0 1 2 3 4
Synthesizing – Total
I prefer to focus on grammar rules 0 1 2 3 4
I enjoy activities where I have to compare or contrast two things 0 1 2 3 4
I’m good at solving complicated mysteries and puzzles 0 1 2 3 4
Analytic – Total
Part 6: How I Deal with Input
It is easy for me to see the overall plan or big picture 0 1 2 3 4
I get the main idea, and that’s enough for me 0 1 2 3 4
When I tell an old story, I tend to forget lots of speciﬁc details 0 1 2 3 4
Global – Total
I need very speciﬁc examples in order to understand fully 0 1 2 3 4
I can easily break down big ideas into their smaller parts 0 1 2 3 4
I pay attention to speciﬁc facts or information 0 1 2 3 4
Particular – Total

3
Language Skills and Assessment

Listening
Tony Lynch
University of Edinburgh
David Mendelsohn
York University
What Is Listening?
Listening involves making sense of spoken language, normally accompanied by
other sounds and visual input, with the help of our relevant prior knowledge
and the context in which we are listening. Rather than thinking of listening as a
single process, it is more accurate to conceive of it as a bundle of related processes
– recognition of the sounds uttered by the speaker, perception of intonation
patterns showing information focus, interpretation of the relevance of what is
being said to the current topic and so on.
Usually we are unaware of these processes in our own language; achieving
comprehension seems relatively effortless unless we encounter unhelpful
conditions, such as poor acoustics or an unfamiliar accent. Under more demanding
conditions, we may become more conscious of listening processes, and the same
thing applies in trying to understand a second or foreign language (L2). Not the
least of the problems we face as listeners is the fact that we generally get only one
chance to process the (linguistic and other) input, and have to do so in real time.
Only sometimes do we get the chance to ask the speaker to repeat or rephrase.
Traditionally, listening was viewed as a passive process, in which our ears were
receivers into which information was poured, and all the listener had to do was
passively register the message. Today we recognize that listening is an ‘active’
process, and that good listeners are just as active when listening as speakers are
when speaking.
Active listening is also an interpretive process. Listening used to be thought of as
the exact decoding of the message. In fact, listening involves subtle interpretation.
This has long been recognized in reading, but it has taken a long time for it to
be accepted in terms of listening. Its acceptance impacts directly on our notion
of ‘correctness’ – it requires an acknowledgement of the inherent variation in
listeners’ comprehension of what they hear, and of the importance of context and
non-linguistic variables in this interpretation.
Finally, it is important to note that listening is not merely an auditory version
of reading, just as speech is not simply a spoken version of writing. Among the
unique features of listening are the following:
• Its usually ephemeral, one-shot nature.
• The presence of a rich prosody (stress, intonation, rhythm, loudness and more),
which is absent from the written language.
• The presence of characteristics of natural fast speech, such as assimilation,
making it markedly different from written language, for example, /g ∂mmt/ for
government.
• The frequent need to process and respond almost immediately.11

181 Listening
Issues in Listening
Models of Listening
We have come a long way in our understanding of how people manage to make
sense of what they hear. The last half-century has seen the development of successive
theories or models of comprehension, reﬂecting contemporary knowledge,
concerns and technology. We will summarize four of the most important.
Communication Theory Model
‘Communication Theory’ or, more precisely, ‘the mathematical theory of com-
munication’ (Shannon and Weaver, 1949), was intended to make telecommunica-
tions systems more efﬁcient. CT has given us terms such as ‘transmission’, ‘signal’,
‘reception’ and ‘noise’. Since it was developed to solve an engineering problem,
human participation in the process of communication was peripheral: ‘[T]he con-
cern was with intelligibility rather than perception, and the results were used
to evaluate equipment rather than listeners’ (Licklider and Miller, 1951: 1040).
CT researchers themselves had warned against assuming that their work reﬂected
human comprehension; nevertheless, CT stimulated thinking about the ways in
which comprehension could not be characterized in terms of straightforward re-
ception of a message.
Information Processing Model
The second type of comprehension model, ‘Information Processing’, was strongly
inﬂuenced by research in computing and artiﬁcial intelligence. Central to
information processing are the concepts of input, processing and output, with
the human being seen as a limited processor, so that when doing complex tasks,
we have to devote more attention to one aspect of the task and less to another.
Typical information processing models are ‘Perception, Parsing and Utilization’
(Anderson, 1985) and ‘Identify, Search, File and Use’ (Brown, 1995a). Although
both imply ‘stages’ of understanding, it is now recognized that listeners are only
able to achieve real-time processing by resorting to parallel distributed processing.
This entails integrating information from multiple sources simultaneously,
and working ‘bottom-up’ (looking for clues in linguistic input) and ‘top-down’
(activating background knowledge and exploiting context).
Social/Contextual Model
A third type of listening model is the Social/Contextual, in which human beings
are considered much more than (relatively limited) processors, and comprehension
is seen as ‘a cognitive process … that unites the social and the individual’ (Ohta,
2000: 54). In the social/contextual model, in contrast to communications
theory and information processing, we are seen as participants in and creators
of meaning, and meanings are achieved in the interactional space between us
and not just inside our individual heads. Even in highly constrained contexts,
such as those investigated in controlled experiments, conversational partners
negotiate meanings and work towards a ‘mutual cognitive environment’ (Sperber
and Wilson, 1995: 61). Context is assigned a primary role by writers adopting
the social-constructive view of language, such as van Lier (1996, 2000), who has
argued against the widespread use of computing metaphors such as ‘input ’ and

182 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
‘output’ on the grounds that they are misleading and belie the active participation
of the successful listener in interaction.
Situated Action Model
Finally, a more speculative alternative to information processing models comes
from work on the evolution of language and society. Evolutionary psychologists
argue that humans spend much of their time trying to understand in order to
do things (‘situated action’), rather than to archive information in memory, as
information processing approaches assume. Barsalou (1999) claims that language
evolved from the need to control the actions of others in activities such as
hunting, gathering and simple industry: ‘[T]he foundational properties of human
language today reﬂect those evolutionary pressures then. Formal education and
science have occurred much too recently to have had such impact’ (Barsalou,
1999: 66). Supporters of the situated action model do not entirely rule out an
archival function for comprehension, but emphasize that our daily interactions
are more often oriented towards future action, for example, where to shop for
fresh food or how best to treat a child with a sinus infection.
These four comprehension models are complementary rather than mutually
exclusive. Even the most limited, the communication theory model, adequately
describes certain limited listening tasks, such as taking down someone’s mobile
number. As we investigate the full range of listening tasks, we ﬁnd that the different
elements required for successful listening are best explained by a combination of
the comprehension models available.
Types of Listening
We can divide listening into two main modes: One-way listening and two-way
(‘reciprocal’ or ‘interactional’) listening. These modes intersect with two principal
functions of language: ‘transaction’ and ‘interaction’ (Brown and Yule, 1983).
Transaction has as its main purpose the transfer of information, while the primary
function of interaction is the maintenance of social relations. While it is true,
particularly in speech, that virtually all communication involves elements of
both, in most situations one of the two purposes is dominant.
One-way Listening
Popular opinion has traditionally linked listening to the transactional function
of language and this has strongly inﬂuenced the teaching of listening to L2
learners. Until recently it also resulted in an almost exclusive use of monologue
for listening practice.
It is certainly true that one-way, transactional listening is important, ﬁrst
and foremost in academic settings such as lectures and school lessons. This
could be termed ‘listening in order to learn’. Pedagogic discourse has certain
well-deﬁned characteristics: density of cognitive content; a tendency towards
decontextualization; rather formal language (more like writing); and the need to
do something with what has been heard, such as take notes on the content.
Other common situations in which one-way listening takes place are watching
a ﬁlm or television or listening to the radio, where the purpose is rather different.
Here, the language being listened to is likely to be of the ‘spoken’ variety,
although there can be a range of styles from the more formal and prepared (such

183 Listening
as a newsreader’s script) to the more informal and spontaneous (such as a sports
commentary).
Two-way listening
Despite the fact that most of our everyday listening occurs in two-way interactions,
research studies and pedagogic publications have tended to emphasize one-way,
non-reciprocal listening. There is, however, a continuing strand of research into
how listeners cope in interactive conversation – notably under the inﬂuence of
work done at the University of Edinburgh ( Brown and Yule, 1983; Brown, 1995b;
Lynch, 1995, 1997; Yule 1997).
Two-way listening might be more accurately termed ‘listening-and-speaking’
(Oprandy, 1994) because it involves dialogue or discussion, where different
features come into play. The listener’s involvement, or potential involvement, in
a speaking role brings costs as well as beneﬁts: the costs include the requirement
to respond appropriately, the time pressure in processing what is being said, and
the risk of misinterpreting the interlocutor; the communicative beneﬁts include
the opportunity to get doubts cleared up straight away and problems resolved.
The question of whether the listener is ‘able ’ to intervene to resolve problems
as they occur raises the issue of whether in the particular communicative setting
they feel ‘entitled ’ to do so. In Bell’s (1984) framework there are four listener roles
in discourse:
• Participant – someone who is being spoken to and has the same speaking rights
as others present.
• Addressee – someone who is being spoken to but has limited rights to speak.
• Auditor – someone who is being spoken to but is not expected to respond.
• Overhearer – someone who is not being spoken to and has no right to speak.
These roles vary both between cultures and within the same culture, and represent
norms rather than rules. The use of mobile phones (at excessive volume) seems
to be altering listener roles, particularly on public transport. Lynch (2009) reports
an incident on a Scottish bus in which one passenger was speaking so loudly that
an Overhearer felt ‘entitled’ to become a Participant in the conversation, with the
apparent approval of the other Overhearers present.
Processes of Listening
As we listen, we engage in ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ processing. A competent
listener uses both of these in order to achieve effective comprehension of spoken
language, and a key factor in successful listening is the individual’s ability to
integrate information gathered via the two. The balance of researchers’ interest
in the two processes has shifted over time, as illustrated by special issues on
comprehension brought out by two leading journals two decades apart. In 1986,
a thematic issue of Applied Linguistics on comprehension contained ﬁve papers, of
which four addressed issues of context and background knowledge (top-down);
by contrast, a 2008 special issue of System on listening featured eight papers, ﬁve
of them focusing on the ‘bottom’ level in the understanding of spoken language.
Bottom-up processing
Bottom-up processing involves piecing together the parts of what is being heard
in a linear fashion, one by one, in sequence. This used to be seen as a complete

184 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
and accurate description of successful listening – ’listener as tape recorder’
(Anderson and Lynch, 1988: 9). Even if, as we will argue, top-down processing
is important, bottom-up processing is indispensable; listeners always have to do
some bottom-up processing of what they hear at the acoustic level – for example,
discriminating between similar sounds (Byrnes, 1984; Brown, 1990) – in order to
facilitate subsequent top-down processing.
Listeners vary in terms of how they integrate cues at bottom and top levels.
Field (2004) reported an experiment in which L2 learners of English were
played a series of sentences whose ﬁnal word was chosen to be unfamiliar and
phonologically similar to a more common word. This was designed to provide
a meaningful context for the unfamiliar word, but a contradictor y one for the
common word – for example, They’re lazy in that ofﬁce; they like to shirk (instead of
work). The results were striking. Of the students who offered an answer, just under
half rejected the phonetic/acoustic (bottom) evidence and matched it roughly
to a word they did know. The others – more than half of the group – identiﬁed
the item as unfamiliar and attempted to transcribe its sound shape. Field called
these two strategies ‘lexical ’ and ‘phonological ’, respectively. The fact that the
‘lexical’ listeners wrote down words that were not only semantically inappropriate
but also grammatically incorrect underlines the risk of a strategy that is neither
bottom-up nor top-down, but ‘potentially overrules contextual information and
modiﬁes perceptual’ (Field, 2004: 373).
Top-down processing
Top-down processing is in some ways the converse of bottom-up: holistic, going from
whole to part, and focused on interpretation of meaning rather than recognition
of sounds, words, and sentences. Listeners actively formulate hypotheses as to
the speaker’s meaning, and conﬁrm or modify them where necessary. Top-down
processing has been said to involve the listener as ‘active model-builder’ (Anderson
and Lynch, 1988: 11).
In top-down processing we rely on what we already know to help make sense
of what we hear. The term ‘schema ’ (plural ‘schemata ’) is used to refer to the prior
knowledge and experience that we have in memory and can call on in the process
of comprehension. Schemata are of two types: ‘content schemata’ and ‘rhetorical
schemata’ .
Content schemata are networks of knowledge on different topics, for example,
earthquakes, and comprise knowledge gained from personal and second-hand
experience. When we hear someone talking about a topic that we are able to link
to an existing content schema, we ﬁnd comprehension very much easier.
Rhetorical schemata (also known as formal or textual schemata) are based
on our knowledge of the structure and organization of discourse genres, for
example, an academic lecture or a sermon. An awareness of the genre we are
listening to makes it easier to engage in top-down processing strategies, such
as predicting and inferencing. Predicting is deﬁned as guessing at the rest of a
message based on only part of the information – the information might be only
partial because either only part of the discourse has been heard so far, or only
part has been comprehended. Inferencing is more subtle and in a sense operates
at a higher level: ‘everything is comprehensible, but there is meaning to the
discourse that exceeds the understanding of each of the utterances or part of it.
Adding these together, only by inferencing will the whole be comprehended’

185 Listening
(Mendelsohn, 1994: 105). Inferencing can be thought of as ‘listening between
the lines’.
Listening Skills
The convention is to refer to ‘the four language skills’, but it is clear that each
of these comprises a large number of sub-skills, whose value and relevance vary
from one situation to another. Richards (1983) was one of the ﬁrst to categorize
the sub-skills required in different listening situations; he came up with 33 micro-
skills for conversational listening (CL) and a further 18 for academic listening to
lectures (AL). His analysis raises a number of interesting questions, of which we
will brieﬂy mention two.
The ﬁrst question is: What is the relationship between conversational and
academic micro-skills? Richards implied it was incremental: that all conversational
listening micro-skills are required for academic listening, but that certain more
specialized academic listening micro-skills (such as ‘coping with different styles
of lecturing’) are required only in the lecture hall – making a possible academic
listening total of 51 micro-skills. On the other hand, some micro-skills listed in
both sets, such as ‘identifying and reconstructing topics’ (CL) and ‘identifying
the lecture topic and following its development’ (AL), appear to rely on the same
comprehension processes.
Secondly, there is the question of the internal ordering of the micro-skills.
Richards used the term ‘taxonomies’ of listening skill, which implied that the
relationship within each set was hierarchical. That leads us to ask whether the
successful use of some micro-skills depends on prior success in using others.
Presumably it does; for example, one can hardly deduce the meaning of a
word (conversational listening micro-skill 12) until you have distinguished its
boundaries, for example, recognized its phonological form from the rest of the
speech stream (conversational listening micro-skill 8).
Richards’ analysis has been extremely inﬂuential in helping language
teachers to distinguish and prioritize the components of different types of
listening, and his article is still widely cited in discussion of materials design.
His micro-skill taxonomies were later reshaped and developed by Rost (1990),
who emphasized the importance of identifying ‘clusters’ of listening micro-
skills. As Rost pointed out, his proposal for clustered practice also reﬂected
wider doubts as to whether learning a complex skill can be effectively helped
by step-by-step practice of its components, and whether learners can re-
synthesize them in actual use.
Rost’s clusters of micro-skills are shown in Table 11.1, which makes clear his key
distinction between ‘enabling skills’ (those employed in order to perceive what
the speaker is saying and to interpret what they intend to mean) and ‘enacting
skills’ (those employed to respond appropriately to the message).
Rost’s (1990) division of listening into perception, interpretation, and response
shows parallels with the information processing models we mentioned earlier:
‘Perception, Parsing and Understanding’ (Anderson, 1985) and ‘Identify, Search,
File and Use’ (Brown, 1995a). It helps us to distinguish between the levels of
comprehension success and to pinpoint failure. In the Hands-on Activity at the
end of this chapter we will be using Rost’s (1990) micro-skill clusters ( see above )
to help us categorize areas of success and failure in an individual L2 learner’s
understanding of a listening text.

186 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
ENABLING SKILLS
Perception
1. Recognizing prominence within utterances, including
• Discriminating sounds in words, especially phonemic contrasts
• Discriminating strong and weak forms, phonetic change at word boundaries
• Identifying use of stress and pitch (information units, emphasis, etc.)
Interpretation
2. Formulating content sense of an utterance, including
• Deducing the meaning of unfamiliar words
• Inferring implicit information
• Inferring links between propositions
3. Formulating a conceptual framework linking utterances, including
• Recognizing discourse markers (clarifying, contrasting)
• Constructing a theme over a stretch of discourse
• Predicting content
• Identifying elements that help you to form an overall schema
• Maintaining and updating the context
4. Interpreting (possible) speaker intentions, including
• Identifying an ‘interpersonal frame’ speaker-to-hearer
• Monitoring changes in prosody and establishing (in)consistencies
• Noting contradictions, inadequate information, ambiguities
• Differentiating between fact and opinion
ENACTING SKILLS
5. Making an appropriate response (based on 1–4 above), including
• Selecting key points for the current task
• Transcoding information into written form (for example, notes)
• Identifying which points need clariﬁcation
• Integrating information with that from other sources
• Providing appropriate feedback to the speaker.
(adapted from Rost (1990: 152–3))
Table 11.1 Micro-skill clusters in listening comprehension
Listening Strategies
Interest in strategy use and strategy instruction derives from research over
the years into ways of facilitating language learning (Rubin, 1975; Wenden
and Rubin, 1987; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; see also Chapter
10, Focus on the Language Learner: Styles, Strategies, and Motivation ). Chamot
(1987: 71) provides a good basic deﬁnition of learning strategies: ‘techniques,
approaches, or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the
learning and recall of both linguistic and content area information’. Research
into strategy use has led to the development of a ‘strategy-based approach’ to
teaching listening comprehension (Mendelsohn, 1994). As we stated in the
opening section, people are usually not conscious of how they listen in their ﬁrst
language unless they encounter difﬁculty. So what L2 learners need to do when
listening is to make conscious use of the strategies they unconsciously use in
their ﬁrst language.
Learning strategies are usually divided into meta-cognitive, cognitive and social/
affective strategies – a tripartite classiﬁcation developed by O’Malley, Chamot,

187 Listening
Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper and Russo (1985). The table above brings together
the listening strategies that researchers have identiﬁed in L2 contexts.
Skilful listeners use these strategies in combination, varying their use according
to the needs of the speciﬁc situation – a process that has been described as
‘orchestration ’ (Vandergrift 2003). Research into L2 listening strategy use has
recently tended to focus on meta-cognitive strategies and the work done by
Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal and Tafaghodfari (2006) is of particular potential
interest for the language teacher. This team developed, tested and validated a
Meta-cognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ), which they trialled
with L2 listeners in Canada, Singapore and the Netherlands. When the listeners’
self-report responses were correlated with their performances on listening tests,
ﬁve factors were found to be associated with success in listening: ‘Problem-solving’
(guessing and monitoring those guesses); ‘Planning and Elaboration’ (preparing
for listening and assessing success); avoiding ‘Mental Translation’; ‘Person
Knowledge’ (conﬁdence or anxiety, self-perception as a listener); and ‘Directed
Attention’ (ways of concentrating on aspects of the task).Cognitive Meta-cognitive Social/affective
Predicting / Inferencing
• from the text
• from the voice
• from the body language
• between discourse parts
Elaboration
• from personal experience
• from world knowledge
• from academic learning
• from imagination
Contextualization
Imagery
Summarization
• mental
• physical (notes)
Translation
Repetition
Transfer from other
language(s)
Deduction
Fixation
• stopping to think about
spelling
• stopping to think about
meaning
• stopping to memorizePlanning
• advance organization
• self-management
Comprehension monitoring
• conﬁrming comprehension
• identifying words not
understood
Directed attention
• concentrating
• persevering despite
problems
Selective attention
• listening for familiar words
• listening for the overall
message
• noticing the information
structure
• noticing repetition and
reformulation
• listening to speciﬁc parts
Evaluation
• checking interpretation
against predictions
• checking interpretation
against knowledge
• checking interpretation
against contextQuestioning (two-way tasks)
• asking for clariﬁcation
• asking for repetition
• using comprehension
check
Cooperation
• working with other
learners
Anxiety reduction
• encouraging yourself
• comparing yourself with
others
• focusing on success
Relaxation
• using physical techniques
• using visualization
(Based on Goh 2002; Vandergrift 2003; and Kondo and Yang 2004.)
Table 11.2. Listening strategies

188 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
How do we Gain Insights into Listening?
Settings
Experiments
Experimental investigation has tended to concentrate on quantiﬁable aspects,
such as the effects of prosody on speech recognition. From experiments we
know that the characteristic patterning of speech in our L1 provides a metrical
template that inﬂuences the way we process L2 speech. Speakers of French, for
example, have been shown to rely on syllable patterns to segment the stream of
spoken French, whereas speakers of English use stress patterns rather than syllable
patterns to parse L1 speech (Cutler, 2001). Delabatie and Bradley (1995) found
that maintaining these unconscious L1 metrical habits caused listeners problems
up to relatively advanced levels of L2 proﬁciency.
Experimental approaches are well-suited to assessing the effects of other
quantitative features on L2 comprehension. In the case of speed of speaking, for
example, the absolute rate of speaking seems to matter less than the position and
frequency of pauses. However, since real-life listening occurs in a speciﬁc social
and cognitive context, other approaches are necessary to study the processes of
making sense of ‘meaning’, as opposed to recognizing form.
Pedagogic tasks
As we mentioned earlier, the literature on L2 listening has tended to focus on
pedagogic settings, such as the lecture theatre (Chaudron and Richards, 1986,
Flowerdew, 1994; Vidal 2003; Carrell, Dunkel and Mollaun, 2004). Among the
main ﬁndings have been the beneﬁcial effects on L2 comprehension of content
redundancy, pausing, macro-level signposting and visual support. Foreign
language classroom studies that have explored listening within an interactive
setting (Yule and Powers, 1994, Lynch, 1997) have emphasized the additional
complexities for the listener of having, in Rost’s terms, to ‘enact’ a response, by
contributing relevantly and coherently at an appropriate point in the discourse.
Test performances
Researchers with access to candidates’ performances in listening in worldwide
tests such as IELTS and TOEFL have been able to investigate listening skills on a
very large scale. Tsui and Fullilove (1998) sampled 150,000 item performances by
Chinese learners of English to investigate whether skill in bottom-up processing
(rather than top-down) makes some listeners more successful than others. They
compared performances on questions where the correct answer matched the
likely content schema with items where the answer conﬂicted with the schema.
Candidates who got the correct answer for non-matching schema items tended to
be more skilled listeners; presumably, the less skilled could rely on guessing for the
matching items, but not for non-matching ones. Bottom-up processing seemed
therefore to be more important than top-down processing in discriminating
between candidates’ listening performance.
Ethnographic research
Although test-based studies have the advantage of scale, what they gain in
terms of statistical robustness has to be weighed against what they may lose in

189 Listening
lifelikeness. Observation of actual listening behaviour – such as misunderstandings
in conversation – can yield rich data for analysis. One context in which such
misunderstandings are common is the daily life of immigrants or migrant
workers, as shown by an extensive ethnographic study of immigrant listeners in
ﬁve European countries (Bremer, Roberts, Vasseur, Simonot and Broeder, 1996).
The study was based on real-life or naturalistic encounters with native speakers in
a variety of gate-keeper roles, such as job interviewer and social security ofﬁcer.
In some cases, misunderstandings were found to have primarily linguistic causes,
but in most cases the miscommunications the research team analysed were rooted
in non-shared expectations of members of different cultures, rather than simply
in gaps in linguistic knowledge. We will be analysing just such an intercultural
misunderstanding in the second Hands-on Activity at the end of this chapter.
Methods
The fact that comprehension occurs largely unobserved means that it can be
very difﬁcult to establish the ‘process ’ by which listeners have reached their
interpretations, even if we have evidence of the ‘product’ (what they understood).
However, for the listening researcher or language teacher it is vital to establish
the source of listening problems: ‘Until the teacher is provided with some sort
of method of investigating the student’s problems, the teacher is really not in
a position of being able to help the student “do better”’ (Brown, 1986: 286).
Investigations of the routes by which listeners achieve understanding have
adopted three main methods: ‘observation ’, ‘introspection’ and ‘retrospection’.
Observation
Observation takes many forms, from informal noticing of real-life examples of
misunderstandings (Bond and Garnes, 1980) to experiments designed to create
ambiguities and referential conﬂicts (Brown, 1986). Numerous studies have
investigated communication on map-based tasks (Brown et al., 1984; Brown, 1986;
Yule and Powers, 1994). By adjusting the degree of difﬁculty built in to the tasks
at speciﬁc ‘trouble spots’, the researcher can adjust the amount of negotiation
required to resolve the problems. However, even in the most controlled of
experiments the researcher cannot be certain of the cause of the listener’s doubts,
or the current state of the listener’s mental model.
Introspection
One way of supplementing the information available from observation is to use
introspection (comments by the listener at the time of listening or immediately
afterwards). This form of inquiry is also known as the ‘think-aloud protocol’. A
particularly enlightening study was carried out by Ross (1997), who tested the
view that listeners at different levels of L2 proﬁciency adopt different processing
strategies. The task Ross set his Japanese students was to listen to a recorded
message in English and match it with one of a number of icons. He then asked
them to introspect about the reasons behind their icon selection. He found
that weaker listeners tended to focus on a key word, produce an initial mental
model and stick to it, without searching for conﬁrming clues; the more proﬁcient
listeners also identiﬁed the key word but continued actively to search for further
clues in the rest of the message.

190 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Introspection studies are open to three main criticisms. First, the demands of
on-line reporting may lead listeners to listen differently from normal. Second, the
data obtained can be greatly inﬂuenced by the listeners’ skill in verbalizing mental
processes, especially if the self-reporting is done in the L2. Third, listeners’ reports
may reﬂect prior knowledge, rather than their listening. These last two problems
can be reduced, for example, by allowing subjects to report in L1, or by selecting
unfamiliar topics, but researchers using introspective approaches have had greater
difﬁculty in addressing the problem of interference in normal comprehension
processes.
Retrospection
An alternative method of throwing light on listening is retrospection, in which
the listener is asked to recall the experience of comprehending some time later,
usually prompted by memory support such as reviewing a recording of the
original conversation. Wu (1998) used a retrospective approach to investigate
the relationship between linguistic processing and listeners’ use of background
knowledge. Chinese learners of English were played a three-minute text twice –
once all the way through as they completed multiple-choice questions on content
and then in sections. After each section, they were asked to recall their route
to comprehension and their strategies for dealing with problems. Wu concluded
that linguistic (bottom-up) processing was basic to successful comprehension;
failure or partial success at the linguistic level can lead listeners to allow schematic
knowledge to dominate their interpretation – as in other studies we have
mentioned (Ross, 1997; Tsui and Fullilove, 1998).
As with introspection tasks, there is a risk of ‘contamination’ in retrospection:
subjects asked to recall how they understood a text may elaborate what they
actually understood ﬁrst time. However, as with the listening models we discussed
earlier, the three methods summarized in this section – observation, introspection
and retrospection – need not be mutually exclusive. Applying them in judicious
combination is probably the best approach to ﬁnding out how individuals listen
and how they deal with comprehension problems.
From Theory to Practice: Issues in Teaching L2
Listening
The point of contact between theory and application is to be found in the work
on learning strategies. We have already mentioned Mendelsohn’s strategy-based
approach. Field (1998: 12) suggests what he calls a ‘diagnostic approach’, in which
a listening lesson would involve pre-listening, listening and then an extended
post-listening session ‘in which gaps in the learners’ listening skills could be
examined and redressed through short micro-listening exercises’. Despite minor
differences, Mendelsohn and Field are both advocating teaching learners how to
listen.
Berne (1996, 1998) examined the relationship between the theory and the
practice of acquiring listening competence, and found that – other than the
mutual interest in listening strategies mentioned above – there was a disturbing
mis-match between researchers’ and classroom practitioners’ interests. Better
communication between the two sides is essential to help close this gap (for
further discussion on this point, see Mendelsohn, 1998, 2001).

191 Listening
Difﬁculty Factors in Listening
An examination of traditional listening comprehension materials for L2 learners
shows that the selection of texts was not systematically based on criteria of
difﬁculty. This resulted in a situation in which the materials used to teach listening
were often unsuitable, and the tasks assigned after listening were inappropriate
for the text or for the particular needs of the learners in question. Attention was
usually given primarily to the appropriacy of the ‘topic ’ rather than to other
aspects.
Research over the past number of years has attempted to deﬁne which
factors contribute to making a particular listening passage difﬁcult or easy to
comprehend. Building on literature surveys such as Rubin (1994), Brown (1995a)
and Lynch (1998), Buck (2001) distilled researchers’ ﬁndings into the following
list of characteristics that affect listening:
INPUT CHARACTERISTICS
Language
• Speech rate.
• Unfamiliar accent.
• Number of speakers.
• Similarity of voices.
• Use of less frequent vocabulary.
• Grammatical complexity.
• Embedded idea units.
• Complex pronoun reference.
Explicitness
• Implicit ideas.
• Lack of redundancy.
Organization
• Events narrated out of natural time order.
• Examples preceding the point they illustrate.
Content
• Unfamiliar topics.
• Number of things and people referred to.
• Unclear indication of the relative importance of protagonists in the text.
• Shifting relationships between protagonists.
• Abstract content.
Context
• Lack of visual or other support.
TASK CHARACTERISTICS
Tasks tend to be more difﬁcult when they require:
• Processing of more details.
• Integration of information from different parts of the text.
• Recall of gist (for example, writing a summary) rather than exact content.
• Separation of fact from opinion.
• Recall of non-central or irrelevant details.
• A delayed response, rather than an immediate one.
(Adapted from Buck 2001: 149–151.)
Table 11.3 Sources of difﬁculty in second language listening

192 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Authenticity of Text and Task
Authenticity of T ext
The debate over the use of authentic materials in language teaching has occupied
methodologists for at least three decades (Geddes and White, 1979; Porter and
Roberts, 1981). ‘Authentic ’ in this context is generally deﬁned as ‘not designed
or recorded for non-native speakers, or for language learning purposes’. Early
in the professional debate over authenticity of learning materials, Widdowson
proposed a separation of two different aspects of language in use: ‘genuineness’
and ‘authenticity’ (Widdowson, 1979). He argued that that a text was ‘genuine’
if it contained the sort of language typical of that genre in actual use, and
that it did not matter (for learners or teachers) whether it had occurred in real
communication. The term ‘authentic’, on the other hand, Widdowson reserved
for the appropriacy of the response from the listener or reader. In other words,
genuineness was related to text; authenticity was related to task. A text could
therefore be genuine even if it had been ‘invented’ for teaching purposes rather
than ‘discovered’ in actual use.
Although most classroom practitioners would agree that authenticity is
desirable (Rings, 1986; Field, 1998; Mendelsohn, 2001), some have gone too far
in their demand for authenticity. Recently Richards criticized what he called
the ‘myth’ of authenticity (Richards, 2007); echoing Widdowson’s article of
three decades ago, Richards argued that it is unrealistic and unnecessary to base
L2 instruction on ‘authentic’ texts, since authentic listening texts are largely
unusable, given the logistical difﬁculties of recording conversations, as well
as the legal and ethical problems of getting informed consent of the people
recorded. Both Widdowson and Richards take the position that authenticity is
the ‘end’ of language teaching, but need not be the ‘means’. Listening teachers
need to bring learners to the point where they can understand, interpret and
respond to L2 listening input in the way that the original speaker intended.
However, we should not be over-concerned with ﬁnding real texts; ‘realistic’
texts will do just as well, provided they are used in a way that helps learners to
respond to them appropriately.
Authenticity of Task
With the advent of a primarily communicative focus in L2 instruction, many
materials developers and teachers have aimed to make learning tasks as realistic
as possible. One example of this is the ‘information gap’ task, which cannot be
completed unless the learners share the relevant different bits of information in
their possession. However, similar caveats are required here to those stated in the
discussion of text authenticity above: that is, it may be necessary to help learners
approach fully authentic tasks gradually, rather than trying to make tasks lifelike
from the beginning.
Strategy instruction
Strategy instruction is not revolutionary or faddish. Neither is it something that
should be viewed as an ‘add-on’ to what happens in the listening lesson. Strategy
instruction is at the root of teaching learners how to tackle a listening text. It
involves showing learners the clues to getting at meaning when gaps in their

193 Listening
competence make that difﬁcult. Moreover, strategy instruction can contribute
signiﬁcantly to learner autonomy.
Mendelsohn (1994), as part of his strategy-based approach, offers examples of
strategies to determine setting (S), interpersonal relationships (I), mood (M) and
topic (T) (SIMT) arguing that this facilitates comprehension. Setting relates to
‘where’ and ‘when’, interpersonal relations relate to ‘who’, mood and atmosphere
relate to ‘how’ things are being said (the tone), and topic relates to ‘what’ is being
said and ‘why’. One example of a strategy to determine mood and atmosphere
is training students to listen for changes in voice quality. They might hear the
following dialogue twice: the ﬁrst time with normal voice, the second, with
‘whispery voice’:
A: Jane, have you met the new ofﬁce secretary?
B: No, not yet. Why?
A: She’s really nice. Did you know that she’s pregnant?
(Mendelsohn 1994: 90)
They would then discuss the difference in meaning between the two dialogues
and hopefully come to the conclusion that when the last line is whispered, it
implies secrecy and not merely a statement of fact.
Two notes of caution should be sounded about strategy instruction. First, if
strategy instruction is to be effective, it requires thorough preparation of teacher
and students, and it needs to be provided over an extended period with plenty
of practice. A number of research projects testing the effectiveness of strategy
instruction have found it made no signiﬁcant difference, which may well have
been due to insufﬁcient training. On the other hand, in a long-term study
designed to meet the conditions described above, Thompson and Rubin (1996)
found that strategy instruction was very effective, and they helpfully discuss in
detail the conditions that support listening improvement. Our second caveat on
strategy instruction is that it should not be regarded as the answer to ‘everything ’.
A successful listener is not simply someone that is good at compensating for their
weaknesses by skilful use of top-down strategies, but someone who also possesses
and uses form-oriented L2 listening skills effectively in bottom-up processing.
Some of the most important features of listening are discussed in the following
section.
Skills Training
As we noted earlier, a certain level of linguistic proﬁciency is required in order to
handle listening comprehension. This includes a minimum level of mastery of the
features of the sound system, but also of the grammatical system (at sentence level)
and of discourse. As Brown (1990: 11–12) states, despite the current emphasis on
top-down processing, ‘you still need to be able to monitor the incoming acoustic
signals so that you know which of your predictions is being conﬁrmed and which
is not’.
This mastery of basic linguistic competence as it relates to listening to spoken
English should be assessed through diagnostic testing and, if necessary, taught
early on in a listening course, and prior to the detailed strategy instruction. (For
more detail, see Mendelsohn, 1994: Chapter 5.) Some of the features that need to
be practised are:

194 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• Discriminating between similar sounds.
• Coping with and processing ‘fast speech’.
• Processing stress and intonational differences.
• Processing the meaning of different discourse markers.
• Understanding communicative functions and the non-one-to-one equivalence
between form and function.
Conclusion
Listening processes are complex, and listening comprehension is difﬁcult in a
second or foreign language. Until relatively recently, teachers either did not teach
listening at all, or attempted to teach it, but did so rather ineffectively; arguably,
learners who learned to comprehend the spoken language did so ‘in spite of the
teaching’ , not because of it. We have made substantial progress in the past 40 or so
years in our understanding of listening, and how we should go about teaching the
relevant skills and strategies. It now remains for materials writers and teachers not
only to endorse the importance of a strategic approach to L2 listening instruction,
but also to strike a balance between practice-focused listening skills work and
practice in the use of strategies that will enhance their comprehension of the
target language.
FURTHER READING
Field, J. (ed.) (2008) Special issue on listening. System 36: 1. A collection of eight
papers reﬂecting current research into (ﬁrst and second language) listening processes.
Most of the contributors address bottom-level (perception) issues in listening, but there
are also papers on listening strategy use and the testing and teaching of listening skills.
Flowerdew, J, and L. Miller. (2005) Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The authors discuss a pedagogic model of listening
that broadens the scope of listening tasks to offer a range of ‘listenings’ – individualized,
cross-cultural, social, affective, contextualized, strategic, intertextual and critical.
Lynch, T. (2009) Teaching Second Language Listening . Oxford: Oxford University
Press. This book draws on current research to suggest ways of evaluating and designing
L2 classroom listening activities. In particular, it highlights ways of focusing on the learner
in listening: involving learners in the design of listening activities for use in the classroom
and the self-access centre, and suggesting how learners can develop their listening skills
beyond the classroom.
Mendelsohn, D. and Rubin, J. (eds.) (1995) A Guide to the Teaching of Second
Language Listening . San Diego: Dominie Press. A collection of papers by leading
authors in the listening ﬁeld, offering language teachers practical advice on appropriate
methods for teaching listening. Part One explores the principles underlying good practice,
including strategies in both L1 and L2 listening, and the cognitive dimensions of difﬁculty
in understanding. Part Two addresses practical pedagogy.
Vandergrift, L. (2007) Recent developments in second and foreign listening
comprehension research . Language Teaching 40: 191–210. A comprehensive round-up

195 Listening
of research since the turn of the century into the cognitive, social and affective factors
that inﬂuence L2 listening. It offers an integrated strategic approach to instruction and
discusses recent investigations of multi-media applications in listening.
Hands-on Activity
There are obvious practical constraints on representing the ‘process’ of listening
on the printed page. We have chosen two different sorts of listening data for
you to analyse: the ﬁrst comes from a dictation exercise done by an L2 learner of
English; the second is an example of misunderstanding observed in real life.
A classroom example
For our purposes here, the advantage of using a dictation example is that it shows
precisely what the learner understood and allows us to speculate as to how he
reached that interpretation.
On the left-hand side below are the 10 sentences of an English for Academic
Purposes dictation about the problems of talking to native speakers. The text
was recorded onto a cassette at slightly less than conversational speed but with
natural pronunciation and assimilation. The learners were told the topic of the
text, which they would hear as separate sentences, and were asked to write down
what they heard, in 30-second pauses between the sentences. On the right-hand
side is the version of the text produced by an intermediate-level Japanese learner
of English.
Original version Learner version
1. Conversing with native speakers
can cause a range of difﬁculties. Convergent is very difﬁcult.
2. However, many of them have
practical solutions. However, many be made practical
solution.
3. One thing you have to get used to
is uncertainty. One thing you have to get on seventy.
4. For instance, you may not be able
to decipher every word. Whatever may be you’re able to decide
everywhere.
5. But then you can use the context
to guess. But then you can get contact the
guest.
6. Another problem is the cultural
assumptions in what is said. Another problem is consumption in
what he said.
7. You may catch the words but fail
to grasp their meaning. You might catch the dog while
wandering.
8. In either case, you want to get
your doubts cleared up. You may want to be done clear-up.
9. Requesting repetition and
clariﬁcation is natural in our
mother tongue Repetition and indication is natural in
another tongue.
10. In the foreign language it is more
demanding but beneﬁcial. In the language, there is more demand
than beneﬁt.

196 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Question 1: Listening sub-skills
Look back to Table 11.1 on p. 186. Compare the two versions of the dictation text,
and look for points where the learner had problems in applying the following
sub-skills:
• Discriminating sounds in words.
• Recognizing word boundaries.
• Deducing the meaning of unfamiliar words.
Question 2: Overall comprehension
What did the learner appear to think the text was about? Does his text give you
any clue about his own professional ﬁeld?
The real-life example
Tony Lynch heard this during an interview on BBC television in 1999. The
setting was a mosque in Glasgow, where Muslims were celebrating the end of
the Ramadhan fast. A BBC Scotland TV reporter was sitting at a table with two
Pakistani men (father and son) and had just taken his ﬁrst mouthful of their
celebration meal.
Reporter: Wow, this is hot!
Interviewee: Well, when we break the fast, we like to eat something tasty.
Reporter: This is certainly… tasty ( laughs awkwardly; looks brieﬂy towards
the camera ). I don’t suppose you have a carry-out, do you?
Interviewee: ( laughs ) No, I’m a doctor, a general practitioner.
(Note: In Scotland, ‘carry-out’ is used to refer either to a take-away meal or to the
premises where the meal is made and sold.)
Question 3: Intercultural misunderstanding
What was the misunderstanding, and how can you explain it?

Speaking and Pronunciation
Anne Burns
Macquarie University, Sydney
Barbara Seidlhofer
University of Vienna
What are Speaking and Pronunciation?
We take as our starting point the notion of spoken language in use, drawing
on insights from discourse analysis which make it clear that language is used
to negotiate and achieve meaning in social contexts and so cannot be divorced
from those contexts ( see Chapter 4, Discourse Analysis ). Corpus linguistic research
over the last decade and a half, involving computer analysis of large bodies of
naturally produced language has also greatly inﬂuenced the way in which
spoken language and the patterns of its grammar are understood ( see Chapter 6
Corpus Linguistics; O’Keeffe, McCarthy and Carter, 2007). This perspective takes
us beyond a purely psycholinguistic model of speech, where underlying mental
processes are highlighted (Levelt, 1989). The perspective also takes us beyond the
focus on the sentence, which has traditionally been the unit of analysis in much
grammatical analysis and language teaching. In our discussion here, ‘sentences’
as formal grammatical units are irrelevant; rather, we are concerned with spoken
‘utterances’, which could be anything from ‘yeah’ to an extended monologue.
We would argue that this more contextualized perspective represents a shift from
what has been a prevailing model of spoken language in second language teaching
– one that is essentially sentence- and form-based – to one that takes text and
function as a starting point ( see McCarthy and Carter, 1994; Burns, 2001; Hughes,
2006; Thornbury and Slade, 2006).
‘Speaking’ is so much part of daily life that we tend to take it for granted. However,
learning speaking, whether in a ﬁrst or other language, involves developing
subtle and detailed knowledge about why, how and when to communicate, and
complex skills for producing and managing interaction, such as asking a question
or obtaining a turn. One of the most important aspects of everyday talk is that it
always takes place in cultural and social contexts. We speak in order to carry out
various social activities and, although we may not always be consciously aware of
doing so, we attune our language and the meanings we wish to exchange to our
speciﬁc purposes for speaking in that context.
Zooming in on speaking more closely, we can make further intriguing discoveries
about other things we are usually unaware of when talking to somebody. Every
time we open our mouths to say anything at all, even a short utterance such
as ‘Thank you! ’, several things happen all at once that fall within the scope of
pronunciation: we can say ‘Thank you’ loudly or softly, quickly or slowly, with a
certain voice quality, with a certain speech melody; we can stress either the ﬁrst
or the second syllable, and there are different ways of pronouncing the individual
sounds which make up the utterance. All these elements together make up the way
we sound to our interlocutors, and so are crucial factors in conveying meaning
when we talk. For language teaching this means that every lesson involving the 12

198 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
spoken language is (also) a pronunciation lesson ( see Gilbert, 2008 for a very
accessible discussion of the interrelatedness of factors involved in speaking and
listening).
The way we sound to our interlocutors is not a trivial or unimportant matter; it
is how we project our identity as individuals and how we indicate our membership
of particular communities as social beings – like the way we look, the way we
sound inﬂuences how we get judged by fellow humans. At the same time, and
sometimes even in conﬂict with this ‘identity’ function, our pronunciation is also
responsible for ‘intelligibility’ – whether or not we can get our message across. The
issue of intelligibility is one that second or foreign language learners are keenly
aware of. In pronunciation learning and teaching, matters are complicated by
the fact that many of these things normally happen subconsciously and so are
not really accessible to conscious analysis and intervention. Overall, then, the
signiﬁcance of understanding what makes up ‘pronunciation’ is far-reaching,
and a basic knowledge in this area can be a valuable and powerful resource for
language teachers and learners alike ( see also Seidlhofer, 2001).
Issues in Speaking
Spoken interaction involves producing and negotiating language rather differently
from the way it is used in writing. Speakers and listeners (‘interlocutors’) are
involved simultaneously in both producing and processing spoken interactions.
They are under time constraints which mean that they must process language as
they go, with no opportunities to go back and make changes. Speakers must also
take account of relationships with others, adjusting their language according to the
meanings they wish to get across, and responding to verbal or non-verbal signals
from their listeners that they are being understood. Many spoken interactions
consist of commenting on immediate actions or events, or casually moving from
one topic to another. However, it is also true that some types of speech may be
more planned in advance (such as meetings) or written to be spoken (such as news
broadcasts). Differences between spoken and written language are probably best
thought about as a ‘cline’ or ‘continuum’, rather than a sharp division ( see Cook,
1989; Halliday, 1989; Cornbleet and Carter, 2001).
We can see some of the features that result from ‘online’ processing of speech in
the following text. Here, two female Australian friends, Anne and Jane, talk about
a time when Anne’s neighbour, Stan, was bitten by a poisonous insect, a funnel
web spider. We will use this text throughout the chapter for illustration.
A funnel web spider jumped out …
A = Anne, J = Jane
A1: years ago when I was married, about I don’t know how long ago about 10 or
12 years ago I lived in Mosman and I had a really nice neighbour called Stan …
sometimes he used to cut the grass outside our place and sometimes we’d cut the
grass outside his place … and one weekend, I was away when this happened, but
he told me about it much later, this weekend Stan cut the grass outside the front
and was clipping along the edges of our garden with a little axe.
J1: mmm …
A2: and a funnel web spider jumped out and …
J2: a funnel web!

199 Speaking and Pronunciation
A3: yeah, and bit him on the ﬂeshy part of his thumb … and unbelievably he banged
the spider with the axe or something, took off his belt, wrapped his belt around his
arm, went in and got a jar, put the spider in the jar and walked to the corner …
you … do you remember Rosebery Street almost went up to Military Road?
J3: yes, yes
A4: on that corner was a doctor’s surgery – he walked up to the doctor’s surgery
J4: good heavens
A5: and um …
J5: did the doctor have an antivenene? [American spelling: antivenin]
A6: no, the doctor called an ambulance and they put him in, took him straight to
North Shore [hospital] and …
J6: aaah
A7: and that’s … he said the pain was excruciating, it was like someone had turned a
blowtorch on his hand
J7: what the poison goes straight up the arm into their …
A8: I don’t know if it was the poison or the fangs of the spider or whatever it was that
caused the pain but he said it was just like a blowtorch
J8: ahh
A9: and then he had antivenene in hospital but two weeks later his hand was still
numb
J9: good heavens!
A10: he was terribly lucky
J10: ohhh
A11: I mean I would never have reacted that way would you?
J11: my God, doesn’t it give you the creeps?
A12: yes, absolutely dreadful
(From de Silva Joyce and Burns, 1999: 98–99.)
Anne produces her ﬁrst turn (A1) ﬂuently, mainly by using a series of clauses
linked by the co-ordinating conjunction and (but is also a common spoken
conjunction). Informal spoken language tends to contain many clauses that
are independent of each other, in contrast to written language, which typically
contains more dependent clauses. We can also notice diversions and backtracking
as Anne processes the information she wants to deliver, ‘I was away when this
happened’ . Anne’s utterance also contains ‘formulaic expressions’ ( see Schmitt,
2004; Seidlhofer, 2009), wordings that commonly go together and are used as a
kind of shorthand in familiar situations, for example, ‘I don’t know how long ago’ .
‘Ellipsis’, the omission of parts of structures that would usually be expected, also
eases the pressure in speaking production. Anne refers to ‘outside the front’ , in the
expectation that Jane will understand from the context and her previous reference
to ‘our place’ that she means the front of the house.
Genres of Speaking
One way we can think about spoken discourse at a macro-level is to consider
the concept of discourse types, or ‘genres’. In daily life, we use this concept
repeatedly to identify the kinds of interactions in which we are involved, for
example speeches, jokes, doctor’s consultations ( see Chapter 4, Discourse Analysis ,
for more on genres). Martin and Rothery (1980–1981) deﬁne genre as a ‘staged,
goal-oriented, social process’, indicating that:

200 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
1 a genre evolves within a culture and its social institutions (hence social)
2 social processes are purposeful (hence goal-oriented)
3 it usually takes a number of steps to achieve one’s purpose (hence staged)
(Painter, 2001: 168)
Within particular social contexts, having identiﬁed genres with their different
purposes, speakers also anticipate the various kinds of interactions and language
they might use in relation to a genre. Purposeful language variation will involve
recognizing the overall shape or structure of the text, but also selecting from the
vast repertoire of language resources available to us, the language features and
patterns appropriate to a particular spoken ‘transaction or interaction’.
Transactional communication is primarily motivated by an exchange of goods
and service, for example, booking a ﬂight at a travel agent or phoning a careers’
centre for information, whereas the motivation for interactional communication
is primarily to create and maintain social relationships, for example, casual
conversations between friends ( see also Dalton and Seidlhofer, 1994: 9–12, 53).
We say ‘primarily’ because in reality talk in daily life is often a mixture of the two.
Work by Slade (1997) on casual conversation distinguished between ‘chat’,
highly interactive multiple speaker sequences of conversation, and ‘chunks’,
sequences where primarily one speaker holds the ﬂoor. Chunks are more readily
analysable for their generic structures as they tend to follow predictable patterns
(see Eggins and Slade, 1997; Burns, 2001; Thornbury and Slade, 2006 for further
discussion). The spider text is an example of a complete chunk where Anne is the
speaker who has gained an extended series of turns. The text she and Jane produce
is an example of ‘story telling’ (Slade, 1997), a genre that is very commonly
found in casual conversations. To sum up, the text is i) more chunk than chat; ii)
interactional.
Generic Structure
Generic or schematic structure (Martin, 2001) refers to the overall way in which
a text unfolds. The spider text is a personal ‘narrative’ (an entertaining story
involving the resolution of a crisis), which typically shows the structure (Labov
and Waletkzy, 1967: 39):
(Abstract)^Orientation^Complication^Evaluation^Resolution^(Coda)
[ ( ) = optional elements; ^ = followed by]
Genres contain both obligatory and optional elements; Abstract and Coda will
not be present in all instances of narrative. However, the obligatory elements are
the key elements and must be present for a text to be deﬁned and recognized as
reﬂective of a particular genre.
The Abstract, which summarizes or encapsulates the main point, usually
signals the start of a story – a classic example might be ‘Did I ever tell you about
… [my neighbour’s encounter with a funnel web spider?]. This is followed by
the Orientation – the who, what, where, when – that orients the listener to the
situation, place and time. In the text Anne begins the story at the Orientation stage,
indicating the main player, Stan, and the time and place, but towards the end of her
ﬁrst long utterance (A1) she shifts towards the Complication. The Complication,
the main part of the narrative, presents events in time sequence which lead up to a
problem or crisis. ‘And one weekend, I was away when this happened …’ begins Anne’s

201 Speaking and Pronunciation
move towards the Complication, which culminates in the crisis, ‘And a funnel web
spider jumped out …’ (A2) and the surrounding events (A3).
The Evaluation shows the speakers’ reactions to the story and we can see this
in Anne’s (A7, A8, A10) and Jane’s (J6, J7, J8, J9, J10) utterances. The Resolution
stage reveals how the story’s main players resolve the crisis (A4–A6). In this text,
as with other narratives, the Evaluation may appear at any stage, running through
the text, sustaining the story and reﬂecting its personal and social signiﬁcance
to the speakers. We can see that Resolution and Evaluation are interspersed. In
the concluding stage of Coda the story is brought full circle; Coda makes a point
about the text as a whole and reorients the speakers to the present (A11, J10, A12).
We can go further than providing an analysis of the overall generic structure.
Different stages of a genre are characterized by typical lexical (vocabulary) and
grammatical (grammatical structures) patterns. Table 12.1 illustrates some of the
linguistic choices that characterize a narrative.
Stage Lexico-grammatical features
Abstract
Signals the story and the reason for telling it (No abstract stage in the text)
Orientation (A1)
Orients the listener to the story by giving
details of time, location, characters, etc.Expressions of time/place – who, what,
where, when: in Mosman , one weekend ,
outside his place Past tense verbs ( was, had)
Use of nouns and pronouns for participants
(I, Stan, he, our)
Complication (A2–A3)
Introduces the problem Events sequenced in time
Past tense action verbs ( bit, banged , took off )
Expressions of place ( on the ﬂeshy part of
his thumb ) and manner ( with the axe )
Evaluation (J6–J8)
Establishes the signiﬁcance of the story and
builds suspenseAction suspended through evaluation of
events and suspense-building
Repetition ( it was just like a blowtorch )
Intensiﬁers ( excruciating, terribly )
Conﬁrmation check ( what, the poison
goes …? )
Resolution (A4–J6, A9–J10)
Explains resolution of problem Events are time-sequenced
Past tense action verbs
Normality restored ( he was terribly lucky )
Coda (A11–A12)
Comments on the overall story and brings it
back to presentEvaluation of story through
Vocabulary expressing speakers’ attitude
(absolutely dreadful )
Return to present ( doesn’t it give you the
creeps? )
Table 12.1 Characteristic choices that characterize a narrative

202 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
The information above is valuable in language teaching and learning because
language learners who wish to speak ﬂuently and coherently must have an
understanding, at least implicitly, of the organization of the genres in which they
will be interacting, and of the linguistic features which realize the generic structure.
Exchange
Texts do not, of course, emerge intact as ﬁnished products; Anne and Jane must
negotiate their narrative together dynamically at a micro-level, turn by turn.
Exchange structure analysis ( see Chapter 4, Discourse Analysis ) provides a way
of showing ‘how speakers can keep taking turns’ (Eggins and Slade, 1997: 44).
The ‘classic’ Initiation (I)–Response (R)–Follow-up (F) exchange (Sinclair and
Coulthard, 1975) is illustrated in the following:
J7: What the poison goes straight up the arm into their …
(Initiation)
A8: I don’t know if it was the poison … just like a blowtorch
(Response)
J7: Aah (Follow-up)
The function of follow ups is to acknowledge information supplied in the response,
show our social and emotional reactions to the topic and indicate ‘convergence’
(Widdowson, 1979) or shared understanding. Formulaic expressions ( ‘Isn’t that
great, terrible …’, etc.) are common in follow-ups:
J11: My God, doesn’t it give you the creeps?
A11: Yes, absolutely dreadful
However, in many interactions, follow-ups are delayed by a more protracted series
of responses when, for example, further clariﬁcations or checks are sought.
Learner exchanges in classrooms may omit the follow-up, making them sound
stilted and interview-like, and so learners should be helped to produce more
natural exchange patterns. One way of doing this is to explore similar expressions
in other languages. By giving learners opportunities to observe and use this core
aspect of spoken interaction, their repertoire of discourse skills should be usefully
extended.
Turn-taking and Turn Types
Jointly constructing the interaction means that speakers must also judge when
and how to take a turn (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974: see also Hutchby
and Wooﬁtt, 2008). One possibility for obtaining a turn is to self-select. Jane does
this in J5, taking advantage of a slight break in the ﬂow of Anne’s story (A5) ( see
also comments below on pitch and volume). Turns can be difﬁcult to get when
there is high competition, urgency or disagreement and speakers must attune to
local transition points in the conversation such as pauses, or signals that turns are
ending (for example, laughter, ﬁllers such as ‘so’ or ‘anyway’ ). Another turn-taking
opportunity comes when the current speaker nominates the next. This may be
done directly – ‘What do you think, Jane?’ – or through the type of turn the speaker
selects. In A11, Anne poses a question, thereby offering Jane the opportunity to
respond. ‘Adjacency pairs’ are major types of turns occurring together that enable

203 Speaking and Pronunciation
speakers to allocate or give up turns. Question/answer is one of the most common,
although there are many others, for instance, ‘Hello/Hi’ (greeting/greeting); ‘Close
the window/OK’ (request/grant). Not all responses are preferred (or positive); some
are dispreferred and in English typically accompanied by some kind of justiﬁcation
or explanation, as in this invented example:
Anne: Did I ever tell you about my neighbour’s encounter with a funnel web?
Jane: No … look, I’d love to hear about it some other time, but I have to rush to catch
my train right now …
In a narrative, it is the storyteller (here Anne) who gets more turns than the other
speakers. However, the listener’s role is also important. Although their turn-
taking rights are limited, it would seem very odd if listeners remained passive and
silent; Jane’s contributions play an important part in showing she is on track (J1)
(backchannelling), predicting what will come up (J5) – ‘Did the doctor have any
antivenene?’ – and assisting Anne to evaluate the signiﬁcance of the events (J8),
without which the entertainment value (the ‘so what?’) of the story would be absent.
Topic Management
Closely related to turn-taking is the way speakers manage and negotiate topics.
Speakers must ensure mutual understanding, selecting appropriate levels of
explicitness (cf. Grice, 1975) and using discourse strategies, such as clarifying,
checking, summarizing and adapting to points made by other speakers. Observe
how Anne:
• Checks mutual knowledge with Jane (A3).
• Assumes it elsewhere with the reference to North Shore [Hospital] (A6).
• Provides further information (A4) on the basis of her response (J3).
Jane’s ‘backchannels’ (J1, J8) provide Anne with feedback that she is negotiating
the topic successfully.
Repetition (McCarthy, 1998) is another discourse device used to manage topic
negotiation. Speakers repeat each other’s words to move the topic forward. Too
much exact repetition tends to reﬂect non-co-operative situations where the
interaction gets held up. Socially co-operative interaction, such as in the spider
text, is typiﬁed by repetition as in A2/J2 ( ‘a funnel web spider’ ), J5/A9 ( ‘antivenene’ ),
A7/A8 ( ‘the pain was excruciating, like a blowtorch’ ), J7/A8 ( ‘the poison’ ).
Knowledge about turn-taking and topic management can help learners
understand the changing roles that speakers take up in conversation and the way
meaning is negotiated at the micro-level of each turn.
Issues in Pronunciation
In addition to what we have observed about the workings of spoken discourse
so far, there is another level at which we can analyse speaking: ‘pronunciation’
and the role it plays in getting our meaning across, both transactionally and
interactionally. Pronunciation is a term used to capture all aspects of how we
employ speech sounds for communicating.
Revisiting some of the aspects of speaking we described above, then, we can
ﬁne-tune our analysis to a consideration of how the actual sounds we produce
contribute to communication. In so doing, we shall move from larger to smaller

204 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
units, attempting to explain and illustrate some of the most important concepts
and terms as we go along. We shall consider elements of pronunciation that
extend over entire utterances (whether these are long texts or just one word)
and thus go beyond individual sound segments – which is why they are called
‘suprasegmental’ (or ‘prosodic’) features. Also, acts of speech are physical acts
which often involve the whole body, so pronunciation does not work in isolation
from other factors: in addition to employing our voice, we also use eye movement,
mime and gesture. As Abercrombie (1972: 64) puts it, ‘we speak with our vocal
organs, but we converse with our entire bodies’.
Tone Units/Chunking
To start with, there are certain patterns to how speakers use their voices to
structure what they say, thus providing important signposts for listeners as how
to process what they hear. A good example is the way we usually say telephone
numbers in certain groups, and the variation in these patterns we can observe in
different linguacultures. These patterns are achieved by chunking utterances into
what is called ‘sense or tone groups’ or ‘tone units’, which indicate what, from the
speaker’s point of view, ‘belongs together’. Observe how Anne’s ﬁrst long sentence
(A1) can be chunked into:
//Years ago // when I was married // about I don’t know how long ago // about 10 or 12
years ago // I lived in Mosman // and I had a really nice neighbour called Stan //.
Tone groups are characterized by ‘pitch movement’ (also called ‘tone’), that is, the
voice going up and down, and sometimes set off by pauses. Some of the chunking
is very obvious, but in other cases there is more than one possibility, so that if
readers were to read this utterance out loud, some would say:
// I lived in Mosman // and I had a really nice neighbour called Stan //
as two units, whereas others would divide it up into three:
// I lived in Mosman // and I had a really nice neighbour // called Stan //
Prominence
Staying with the same utterance for a moment, Anne makes certain syllables
more salient than others, that is to say, she gives them ‘prominence’. To do
this, she uses pitch movement on the syllables highlighted by small capitals:
MOSman, NEIGH bour, STAN; she also pronounces these syllables slightly more loudly.
In any tone unit, the syllable on which the major pitch movement takes place,
or begins, is called ‘tonic syllable’ – the syllable with the greatest prominence.
Analysing her ‘intonation’, or speech melody, thus helps us recognize how she
uses the prosodic feature of ‘pitch’ (perceptual label for ‘high’/’low’), sometimes
in combination with slightly increased loudness and vowel length, to foreground
what is important. Signalling prominence is clearly an extremely important factor
in getting our message across.
Turn-taking
Next, it always seems to be very clear to both interlocutors in our example when
they should speak, when they should be silent, and when and how (not) to yield

205 Speaking and Pronunciation
the ﬂoor to the other person. For the precise timing of this turn-taking, ‘pitch’
and ‘loudness’ are particularly important. Thus Jane’s back-channel signal ‘Mmm’
(J1) is fairly low in pitch and volume, indicating that she is listening, not bidding
for a turn or interrupting. Her next utterance, however, ‘A funnel web!’ is spoken
much more loudly and with considerable pitch movement, reaching fairly high
pitch on the ﬁrst syllable of funnel . Anne’s subsequent ‘Yeah’ may be seen as her
acknowledgement of this much more noticeable interjection by Jane before she
continues her story. A little later, Anne’s ‘And um’ (A5) is again at relatively low
pitch and volume, giving the impression that she is hesitating, trying to think of
what she wants to say next. This offers Jane an ‘opening’ for putting her question
in (J5). In this sense, then, Anne’s low pitch functions as a turn-yielding device,
whereas the higher pitch of Jane’s ‘Did’ signals a bid for a turn.
Introducing and Ending Topics
We can also look at pitch level from the point of view of speakers’ topic
management, which is closely bound up with turn-taking mechanisms. It is
easy to imagine Anne’s initial ‘And’ (A5) being pronounced quite differently:
emphatically, dramatically, to heighten Jane’s anticipation of what happened
next, with higher pitch and higher volume, and even some pitch movement on
this one syllable. In that case Jane would have been very unlikely to come in with
her question (J5). Consider, for instance, how Anne introduces the topic of the
spider (A2):
// And a FUNnel web spider jumped out and //
where she jumps to ‘high pitch’ on the ﬁrst prominent syllable of the tone unit.
‘High pitch’ (and ‘low’ pitch) are, of course, not absolute values but mean high
(or low) in comparison to the immediately preceding tone unit, in this case
higher than the concluding tone unit in A1, where ‘… with a little AXE’ ﬁnishes on
a relatively low pitch to end that topical segment. Pitch level, then, can be used to
indicate relationships between successive tone units in terms of the informational
value speakers attribute to them. A particularly useful example of this is the
function of intonation in conveying ‘contrastive stress’. Notice, for instance, how
in A1, Anne stresses pronouns, which would normally be unstressed, to convey
this contrast:
// Sometimes HE used to cut the grass outside OUR place // and sometimes WE’D cut the
grass outside HIS place //.
Thus, contrastive stress is a very important signpost for listeners.
Social Meanings and Roles/Degrees of Involvement
Dramatic pitch movement is often a sign of strong emotional involvement: in our
text, for instance, Jane’s // Good HEAvens // (J4 and J9) and her // doesn’t it give
you the CREEPS // as well as Anne’s ‘unbe LIEvably’ and //absolutely DREAD ful // display
such pitch movement. But emotional involvement and attitudinal meaning
are notoriously difﬁcult to generalize in any helpful way, as they are so highly
dependent on context, situation and relationships. This is why descriptions of
‘intonational meaning’ can hardly go beyond ad hoc observations (O’Connor and
Arnold, 1973).

206 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
In contrast, Brazil’s (1997) model of the communicative role of intonation is a
powerful one, as it works with a limited set of possible choices to capture the state
of play in discourse as it is negotiated moment by moment by the interlocutors. A
central concept for Brazil is that of ‘common ground’, ‘what knowledge speakers
[think they] share about the world, about each other’s experiences, attitudes and
emotions’ (Brazil, Coulthard and Johns, 1980: 15). According to Brazil (1997), it is
this assessment as to what is shared and what is not that determines the speaker’s
choice of tone. The basic options are: tones ending in a rise (‘fall-rise’ or ‘rise’) for
a part of the message which the speaker regards as part of the existing common
ground, and tones ending in a fall (‘fall’ or ‘rise-fall’) for what they see as adding
to the common ground. Anne’s ﬁrst utterance illustrates this distinction: in //
Years ago when I was married //, ‘married’ will end in a rise if she assumes that
Jane knows about this, and in a fall if she thinks this is new to Jane. // called
Stan // , on the other hand, is clearly new, and therefore ends in a fall. The
distinction between end-rising and end-falling tones is thus a distinction between
invoking ‘the togetherness aspect of the conversational relationship’ as opposed
to expressing ‘unassimilated viewpoints’ (Brazil, 1997: Chapter 4).
In this sense, then, intonation is the most important means by which
interlocutors negotiate their mutual relationship and indicate how they view the
topic under discussion. During the interaction, intonation enables participants to
constantly check and establish common ground in order to achieve convergence
and conversational solidarity or, alternatively, to assert conversational dominance.
Stress and Unstress
We have seen that the way we signal prominence in tone units by stressing
important words is a crucial prosodic device for getting our meaning across. So which
words get stressed is to a great extent a matter of speaker choice in the constantly
evolving state of play in the participants’ conversation. However, speakers are
not entirely free in their stress-placement: there are also certain grammatical and
lexical constraints. Generally speaking, so-called ‘content words’ (nouns, verbs,
adjectives, etc.) tend to be the main carriers of meaning and so often get selected
for prominence. In contrast, so-called ‘function words’ (articles, prepositions,
pronouns and conjunctions) mainly serve to indicate grammatical relationships
and are usually unstressed in utterances (except when they carry contrastive stress).
In A9, for example, the stressed words include antivenene , numb and later, and the
unstressed ones And, he, in, but and was. It is important to realize, however, that for
natural conversation these are general tendencies, not invariable rules, and that
within any particular word, the syllable(s) to be stressed is relatively ﬁxed.
Sound Segments
Having moved from the larger units of intonation to the smaller ones of stress
in words, we can now consider the smallest units we can isolate intuitively, the
individual sounds which make up utterances. However, it has to be emphasized
that speech is a continuous stream without clear-cut borderlines between individual
sounds, and when we speak, rather than producing carefully enunciated ‘citation
forms’ of individual words, we tend to minimize our articulatory effort by making
sounds more like each other (‘assimilation’), sometimes leaving sounds out
altogether (‘elision’) and sometimes inserting a sound to make for a smoother

207 Speaking and Pronunciation
transition (‘linking’). The strangely persistent notion that pronunciation only has to
do with individual sounds and how they are articulated is probably due to a human
tendency to simplify and idealize in our effort to understand complex processes.
Individual sounds, then, are just one part of the story, but an important one. As
all foreign language learners know, we ﬁnd some sounds easy and others difﬁcult
when we study a new language. This is so because different languages select
different parts of the sound spectrum (‘vowels and consonants’) for linguistic use.
During ﬁrst language acquisition, we come to regard the sounds of our mother
tongue as ‘normal’, thus acquiring a kind of mental ‘ﬁlter’ which predisposes us to
regard certain sounds as signiﬁcant and others as not. To many learners of English,
for instance, the so-called ‘th-sounds’ seem rather peculiar, whereas for English
speakers, the ‘tones’ of, say, Mandarin Chinese and the ‘clicks’ of certain African
languages are equally unfamiliar. On the other hand, most languages have o-like,
i-like and e-like sounds. How exactly speech sounds get produced and received
as physiological and acoustic events is explored in the ﬁeld of ‘phonetics’. How
they are utilized, how they are organized into a system of sounds in a particular
language is the domain of ‘phonology’. Each distinctive sound within the system,
for example /p/ or /b/, is called a ‘phoneme’ ( see Chapter 9, Sociolinguistics , for a
listing of the IPA representations of most of the phonemes of English).
What is not represented in the phoneme system is the actual phonetic realization
of these distinctive sounds, which are called ‘allophones’. As in our handwriting,
where the actual letters we write vary and are often quite different from the
‘ideal’ shape, no two realizations of a phoneme, even by the same person, are
ever exactly the same. In addition, there are individual and dialectal differences
between the ‘accents’ of different speakers of the same language, that is, users of
the same phoneme inventory. Also, certain sounds are pronounced differently
depending on the position they occur in, such as the three occurrences of /l/ in
A9: many English speakers would use a so-called ‘clear l’ in later and a ‘dark l’
in hospital and still – however, the way this phoneme is realized does not make
any difference to the meaning. We can thus say that we ‘think in phonemes’ but
‘speak in allophones’ (Dalton and Seidlhofer, 1994: Chapter 2).
Implications for Pedagogy
In this section we raise a series of questions typically asked, in our experience, about
teaching speaking and pronunciation, and offer some practical suggestions. These
suggestions assume ideas related to general learning theory that need to be taken
into account, such as the tenet that perception needs to precede production and
achievability, that is, success in little steps is important to counter the insecurity of
learning another language. This factor also highlights the teacher’s role in ‘scaffolding’
manageable learning opportunities by providing more explicit support and input in
initial learning through activities that give guided practice and strategically withdraw
support as students become more able to complete tasks independently.
Should Speaking Activities Focus on Texts or Sentences?
There may be good reasons for focusing on sentence-level study. Cook (1989: 4ff)
lists the following:
• Formal grammatical knowledge and skills that provide the basis for
communication can be taught.

208 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• Proﬁciency in speciﬁc aspects of pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary can
be easily diagnosed and assessed.
• ‘Abstract’ sentences are still the best material for language instruction as they
isolate the language from the complexities of a particular context.
• Formal language rules underpin well-formed sentences and need to be
understood and recognized.
• The treatment of language as sentences has been successful in language learning
in revealing how language works.
• It is more difﬁcult to establish rules and constraints about what is
communicatively effective beyond sentence-level.
By way of contrast, the following are some of the arguments that have been
advanced for a focus on text:
• Communicative competence requires more than producing and understanding
sentences.
• Texts, in the form of scripted dialogues, are commonly used in language teaching.
• If dialogues are to be used, they should also introduce learners to some of the
features of ‘real-life’ discourse, such as generic structure, associated grammatical
choices and the role of pronunciation in creating meaning.
• Focusing on discourse and text helps students to notice and analyse authentic
and appropriate usage of language.
• Discourse-based activities enable students to extend their communicative
repertoire and prepare them more effectively for communication in the target
language outside the classroom.
How Can a Discourse-based Approach be Applied in
Classroom Practice?
Both teachers and students can beneﬁt from an awareness of the discourse features
of different texts (see Burns, 2006). Developing awareness of these features
suggests a consciousness-raising approach, rather than implying that students
should follow ‘recipe’ type models in a slavish fashion (Burns and Joyce, 1997).
At a macro-level, students can be sensitized to:
• Functional purpose: identifying whether a text is primarily transactional or
interactional.
• Generic structure: highlighting the typical ways that different text types
‘unfold’ in spoken interaction. This may help to clarify reasons for cross-cultural
miscommunication where different expectations may be at play; intercultural
differences in genres can also be compared.
• ‘Gate-keeping’ contexts: identifying situations where speakers may have unequal
power relations and how language is used to conﬁrm or contest these roles.
At a micro-level the following patterns can be explored:
• Exchange structure: showing how speakers position themselves to hold the
ﬂoor and the strategies they use to do this (challenges, dispreferred responses,
clariﬁcation checks, etc.).
• Turn-taking: highlighting what kinds of turns are likely to go together and how
speakers can take up or modify different kinds of turns.

209 Speaking and Pronunciation
• Conversational moves: enabling learners to practise expressions realizing
conversational openings, closings, evaluative follow-ups, back-channelling and
so on.
Should we use only ‘Authentic’ Texts?
In responding to this question, we support in general Lynch and Mendelssohn’s
comments on authenticity in text and task ( see Chapter 11, Listening ). ‘Authentic’
texts may not be always be the most available or feasible, but teachers can
potentially offer students a continuum of spoken text samples from single
sentences to scripted dialogues to semi-scripted dialogues to completely natural
speech. We have already commented on the use of single sentences. There are also
advantages and disadvantages to each of the other options.
• Scripted dialogues constructed speciﬁcally for the purposes of language teaching
are common in many published course books. They are valuable for students at
lower levels because they often control the vocabulary and grammatical structures
introduced. Usually the dialogue is a vehicle for practising particular patterns
that have already been introduced through word- or sentence-level exercises.
However, they may present spoken discourse as unrealistic and unproblematic
and they rarely reﬂect the grammar, discourse features and idiomatic uses of the
language in natural speech. If used exclusively, they represent a ‘restricted diet’
of speaking and pronunciation development.
• Semi-scripted texts are increasing in more recently published materials. They
are sometimes based on recordings where speakers are given a general outline
of a dialogue and asked to include features of natural discourse (de Silva Joyce
and Burns, 1999). The resulting dialogues is less fragmented and ‘messy’ than
authentic discourse and therefore lends itself to language teaching with a focus
on particular topics, vocabulary, grammar, discourse features and pronunciation.
Although it can be a ‘transition’ to authentic speech, it may suffer from some of
the same restrictions as scripted dialogues.
• Authentic texts can introduce students to a full range of transactional and
interpersonal speech, as well as the reality, unpredictability and complexity
of spoken communication. They can highlight language variation and choice
rather than ﬁxed and formal sets of rules. However, authentic texts are highly
context-dependent and may assume substantial cultural and social knowledge
(Carter, 1997; Widdowson, 2003: especially Chapters 8 and 9). They may also be
fragmented (hesitations, false starts, overlaps, interruptions, unclear utterances)
and include too many different grammatical and other features for focused
language pattern practice in the classroom.
What Procedures are there Speciﬁcally for
Pronunciation Teaching?
The teacher’s decision as to what kind of activities to use in any speciﬁc context
will, of course, depend on an analysis of learner needs and variables such as
learning purpose, learners’ age and setting. Procedures range on a continuum
from either fairly mechanical or analytic/cognitive exercises drawing attention
to speciﬁcs of the language code on the one end to communication tasks on the
other (a rich resource for both classroom work and self-study is Hewings, 2007).

210 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Elicited Mechanical Production
Manipulation of sound patterns without apparent communicative reason and
without offering learners an opportunity for making motivated choices of
sounds, stress patterns, etc. Examples: manipulation of stress for prominence, as
in ‘How about dinner with us to NIGHT ? How about dinner with US tonight? How
about DINNer with us tonight?’. For individual sounds, tongue twisters of the
‘she sells sea shells on the sea shore’ kind. Another time-honoured technique
is ‘listen and repeat’, which involves learners in imitating chunks of language
provided by the teacher or a recording; still widely used in course books which
are accompanied by a tape, and particularly popular as a language laboratory
exercise.
Ear Training for Sound Contrasts
For instance, reading contrasting sounds or words aloud to a class and asking
them to decide what has been uttered. This can take the form of a bingo-like
game, as in Bowen and Marks’s (1992: 36f) ‘sound discrimination exercise’.
An interesting variation of this particularly suitable for monolingual classes is
‘bilingual minimal pairs’ (Bowen and Marks, 1992: 21), which asks learners to
listen out for differences in articulatory settings in lists of L1–L2 word pairs, such
as German Bild and English build .
Sounds for Meaning Contrasts
Although ‘listen and repeat’ is very drill-like, there are numerous ways in which
such exercises can be modiﬁed to make them more meaningful for the learner
while retaining a focus on sounds. Most recent textbooks offer such variations.
What they have in common is that they endeavour to relate linguistic form
to pragmatic meaning and action. This can be achieved through more active
involvement of the part of the learner, a clearer speciﬁcation of purpose, and
a stronger element of choice. Minimal pairs (pairs of words distinguished by
one phoneme only) can be embedded in sentences such as ‘This BED is not
BAD’; ideally, minimal pairs can be used for listening for differences and giving
appropriate responses, a technique in which Gilbert (2005) is unsurpassed, for
example:
‘a. He wants to buy my boat. / b. He wants to buy my vote.’ is to be matched with
‘a. Will you sell it? / b. That’s against the law!’
The same principle can be applied for teaching how to employ pitch height for
contrast, for example when emphasizing the correct word composer versus the
incorrect word author : ‘The AUTHOR of the concerto is Mozart. – The COMPOSER of
the concerto is Mozart’. Similarly, chunking into tone units can be practised with
effective information gap activities, such as arithmetic pair practice, where the
correct answers depend on correct grouping, and students thus get immediate
evidence of the importance of chunking, as in:
‘(2 + 3) × 5 = 25 // two plus three // times ﬁve // equals twenty-ﬁve’ // vs.
‘2 + (3 × 5) = 17 // two plus // three times ﬁve // equals seventeen’
(Gilbert, 2005: 109)
Peer dictation activities also challenge learners as both listeners and speakers.

211 Speaking and Pronunciation
Cognitive Analysis
Many learners, in particular more mature ones, welcome some overt explanation
and analysis. These notions include a wide range of methodological options,
such as:
• ‘Talking about it’, for example discussing stereotypic ideas about ‘correct’ and
‘sloppy’ speech for introducing assimilation and elision as crucial features of
connected speech.
• Phonetic training: explanations of how particular sounds are articulated, with
the help of videos and head diagrams, and conscious exploration and analysis
by learners how they themselves articulate L1 and L2 sounds.
• Teaching learners phonemic script: controversial, but appreciated by many
students as it better enables them to conceptualize the L2 sound system, to use
pronunciation dictionaries, to record pronunciation themselves, and to draw
comparisons with their L1.
• Giving rules, especially when they are simple and comprehensive, for example
for the pronunciation of the -ed past tense marker and the -s inﬂectional ending
(Celce-Murcia, Brinton and Goodwin, 1996: Chapter 8).
• Comparison of L1 and L2 sound systems: since learners tend to hear the sounds
of a new language through the ﬁlter of their L1, it can be very helpful for them
not to be taught just the articulation of the new sounds, but the system of
phonemes, that is, the relevant oppositions.
• Analysis of sounds in texts: Dalton and Seidlhofer (1994: 55, 58, 91, 159f)
demonstrate how dialogues not designed for pronunciation work can be used
for awareness-raising of the functions of stress and intonation, for example,
pitch height for smooth turn-taking.
• Looking up the pronunciation of new words in a pronunciation dictionary (for
example, Wells, 2008): a good investment in learner autonomy.
Whole Brain Activities, Communication Activities and Games
These are intended to activate the right brain hemisphere and often involve
music, poetry, guided fantasies, relaxation techniques such as yoga breathing,
and kinaesthetic experiences (Laroy 1995). Whilst many of the techniques
already mentioned can contain a game-like element, there are activities which
are primarily focused on a particular communicative purpose or outcome, such
as mini-plays whose interpretation depends entirely on the learners’ use of voice
quality and intonation (Dalton and Seidlhofer, 1994: 162) or many of the games
in Hancock (1996).
Learning Strategies
Learner training with the aim of fostering learner autonomy and enabling students
to develop strategies for coping on their own and for continuing to learn is perhaps
the most valuable thing that can be developed in learners. Ways of working towards
these goals include awareness-raising questionnaires, learner diaries, recording of
learners’ production, dealing with incomprehensibility and employing correction
strategies such as soliciting repetition, paraphrasing and checking feedback ( see
Thornbury, 2005 for many well-founded and practical suggestions).
In conclusion, however ambitious the learning objectives may be, it might be
helpful to think about the different aspects of pronunciation along a teachability–

212 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
learnability scale. Some things, such as the distinction between voiced and voiceless
consonants, are fairly easy to describe and to generalize – they are teachable. Other
aspects, notably the attitudinal function of intonation, are extremely dependent
on individual circumstances and therefore nearly impossible to isolate out for
direct teaching. In other words, some aspects might better be left for learning (or
not) without teacher intervention (Dalton and Seidlhofer, 1994: 72ff).
Further Reading
Burns, A., Joyce, H., Gollin, S. (1996) ‘I see what you mean’ Using Spoken Discourse
in the Classroom: A Handbook for Teachers. Sydney: National Centre for English
Language Teaching and Research. This book contains an introduction to key theoretical
approaches for analysing spoken discourse, offers advice on collecting and transcribing
spoken texts, provides sample analyses of a range of transactional and interactional
texts, and provides frameworks and guidelines for adopting a discourse-based approach
to teaching speaking.
Carter, R., McCarthy, M. (1997) Exploring Spoken English . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. This is a useful collection of 20 samples of authentic spoken data
based on the Cambridge Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE). It
guides teachers and learners in analysing spoken discourse and provides a good basis
for pedagogical language awareness-raising activities.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., Goodwin, J. (1996) Teaching Pronunciation. A Reference
for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages . Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press. This is a comprehensive reference book on the theory
and practice of pronunciation teaching. It focuses on North American English, and an
accompanying training cassette is available for practising the transcription of sounds and
assessing learners’ pronunciation.
Dalton, C., Seidlhofer, B. (1994) Pronunciation (Language Teaching: A Scheme for
Teacher Education) . Oxford: Oxford University Press. This book forms part of the series
‘Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education’. It explains the basic principles
and terminology of pronunciation, and its main objective is to help teachers understand
and evaluate the pronunciation materials available to them and so approach the teaching
of pronunciation with more conﬁdence. It includes over 120 classroom tasks which
readers can use to develop their pronunciation teaching.
Gilbert 2008, J.B. (2008) Teaching Pronunciation. Using the Prosody Pyramid . New
York: Cambridge University Press. This booklet of only 50 pages is an excellent, succinct
resource for teachers who wish to develop an understanding of how pronunciation is
inextricably bound up with various aspects of English speech, and how to help their
learners achieve pronunciation that is listener-friendly.
Jenkins, J. (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language . Oxford:
Oxford University Press. English is increasingly recognized as different from other
languages, often taught as a language for intercultural communication rather than as a
traditional foreign language, which entails a shift in pedagogic priorities. This innovative
book is a must for those concerned with mutual intelligibility among ‘non-native’ speakers

213 Speaking and Pronunciation
in contexts where English is used as an international lingua franca. The author proposes
a new pronunciation syllabus, the ‘Lingua Franca Core’, as an alternative to traditional
approaches based on imitation of native speakers.
Riggenbach, H. (1999) Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom. Vol 1. The
Spoken Language . Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Students as
discourse analysts is a major focus of this book. The author encourages teachers to
develop their students’ skills as researchers in acquiring their new language. Numerous
useful awareness-raising activities are presented including techniques for training
students to be researchers, methods for using discourse analysis tools in the classroom
and options for incorporating discourse analysis for different teaching situations and
student groups.
Thornbury, S., Slade, D. (2006) Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book introduces readers to a comprehensive
description of conversational English, ranging from vocabulary, to grammar, discourse
and genre. It goes on to discuss a variety of methodological approaches to teaching
conversational skills, offering an integrated approach to the teaching of speaking as well
as practical classroom activities.
Hands-on Activity
Doing hands-on work on spoken language is a challenge if you only have the
printed text in front of you. However, it is an activity that does happen in the
‘real world’: for instance, in courts of law minutes are taken during trials, and
these then constitute the only record of ‘what was said’ – which means that
people reading the minutes in an attempt to ﬁnd out ‘what happened’ in a sense
have to reconstruct how things were said: for example, a witness can say ‘Her
husband telephoned me on the Friday’ , and depending on which word is made most
prominent, this utterance will carry different implications – compare, for instance:
// her HUSBAND telephoned me on the friday// (not anybody else)
// her husband TELEPHONED me on the friday// (he did not talk to me face to face)
// her husband telephoned ME on the friday// (not anybody else)
// her husband telephoned me on the FRIDAY // (not on another day)
Similarly, when we read, say, a bedtime story to a child, we enact and bring to life
all the meanings conveyed by the use of sounds, all from the inert printed words
in front of us – by the way we use intonation, pauses, voice quality, stress and
segmental sounds.
It is in a similar spirit that readers are invited to bring the record of the interaction
below to life. Since this chapter deals with speaking and pronunciation in second
or foreign language learning and teaching, it seemed appropriate to focus on an
instructional setting and on protagonists who are (intermediate/low advanced)
learners of English.
Read the conversation transcript below and answer the questions following it.
The conversation took place in the following context: A and B are students at a
London college, studying for an examination in advanced spoken English (as a
foreign language). They are engaged in a communication task: B, a Japanese female
student is describing an alpine scene to her male Swiss-German interlocutor, A.

214 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
He has the same set of six pictures as her, although in a different order. His task is
to identify in his set the picture being described.
B1: Mm there are a lot of cars around the hotel and the cars,
some cars are f-covered with snow, and I can see three red
[pronounced /led/] cars in front of the hotel
A1: Pardon, three?
B2: Three red /led/ cars in front of hotels. And there are some
people who are going to skiing I think. And it’s quite shi-mm
it’s very sh-sun the sun is shining very brightly . . . and I can
see the mark, ‘P’ on the wall of the ﬁrst ﬂoor of the hotel
[laughs]
A2: Ah yeah . . . Do you see the sky on the picture?
B3: Yes, yes.
A3: Okay, then I know which one it is [identiﬁes the picture to B]
B4: Yeah, yes xx [unintelligible]
A4: I didn’t understand the let cars. What do you mean with
this?
B5: Let cars? Three red [pronounced /red/] cars.
A5: Ah red.
B6: Red.
A6: Now I understand. I understood car to hire, to let. Ah red,
yeah I see.
(From Jenkins, 2000: 81; supplemented by more co-text provided by J. Jenkins.)
Questions
• How does the text unfold? Does it have an overall generic structure?
• How do the speakers’ choices of grammar and vocabulary reﬂect the various stages
of the text?
• What features of ‘online’ processing of speech are evident?
• What strategies does A use to manage and negotiate the topic?
• Where are follow-up turns made? What do you notice about them?
• On which level (segmental or suprasegmental) does the main pronunciation problem
seem to be? How do you explain this problem, and what would you do as a teacher to
try and help with it? Would you only work on the pronunciation or also on the perception
aspects of this problem? How would an understanding of phonology help you in your
teaching task?

Reading
Patricia L. Carrell
Georgia State University
William Grabe
Northern Arizona University
Introduction
Interest in second language reading research and practice has increased
dramatically in the past 15 years. Part of this interest is due to the increasing
recognition that reading abilities are critical for academic learning, and that
L2 reading represents the primary way that L2 students can learn on their own
beyond the classroom. Part of the interest is due to the increasing recognition
that we all live in a multi-lingual and multi-cultural world, one that is becoming
more interconnected through global media and the new global economy. Part
of this interest evolves out of increasing numbers of immigrant and language
minority students in mainstream L1 educational systems around the world and
efforts to address their needs appropriately. Without a doubt, L2 reading research
and instruction will grow in importance in the coming decade.
Reading, as is true of all aspects of language knowledge and use, is complex
and the development of ﬂuent reading abilities by L2 students is a challenging
undertaking. In this chapter we outline some of the complexities involved with
L2 reading, key issues concerning L2 reading processes and learning, and some of
the implications of these issues for instructional practice.
What is Reading?
Because we read for a variety of purposes, we often vary the cognitive processes and
knowledge resources that we use. Therefore, it is not straightforward to identify one
purpose for reading as the single way to interpret what we mean by ‘reading’. The
many purposes for reading, although drawing on the same cognitive processes and
knowledge resources, do so in differing combinations and with varying emphases
on these processes and resources. For example, when we want information from
a manual, we will search for that information by some combination of scanning
for key terms and skimming small segments for meaning to see if we are in the
right area of the text. When we read a newspaper we read headlines and often
skim news stories to see if we want to slow down and read more carefully. When
we read a good novel at night, we generally do not skim (unless we get bored), but
we usually do not read carefully to remember details either. When we are trying to
learn new information, we read more slowly, thinking about how information ﬁts
with prior information in the text and with our own background knowledge. As
we read for all of these different purposes, we shift how we employ our cognitive
processes and knowledge resources (Grabe, 2009).
It is possible to talk about a number of these purposes with general labels, such as
scanning, skimming, reading for general understanding, reading to learn, reading
to integrate information and reading to evaluate critically. To understand these 13

216 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
purposes better, we need to determine how the underlying cognitive processes
and resources systematically relate to the ability to achieve these purposes. Thus,
in line with Carver (1992), scanning is a reading process that requires recognition
of a visual form (number, word or phrase) that can be matched to forms in the
text. It does not require semantic processing and it can usually be carried out at
a rate of 600 words per minute (wpm). Reading for understanding is a process
requiring visual and semantic processing and the construction of the summary
version of what the text means. It is usually carried out by ﬂuent readers at
about 250–300 wpm. Reading to learn is a process that requires, in addition to a
summary version of what the text means, an array of elaborated relations created
among the sets of information being processed. These relations form hierarchies
of text interpretation and they need to be combined with the reader’s prior topical
knowledge. For ﬂuent readers, such a process seems to be carried out at about 200
wpm. (Younger readers do not read ﬂuently, but progress in efﬁciency through
school grades. By the middle to end of secondary level education, most students
read ﬂuently at the rates noted above.)
For this chapter, we will assume that L2 readers in academic settings most often
need to develop ‘reading for understanding’ and ‘reading to learn’. Under both
reading purposes, it is possible to say that ‘comprehension occurs when the reader
extracts and integrates various information from the text and combines it with
what is already known’ (Koda, 2005: 4). At the same time, this deﬁnition does
not indicate the many components of the required cognitive processing or the
knowledge bases being integrated during the reading process. Thus, a deﬁnition
of reading requires some recognition that a reader engages in processing at the
phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and discourse levels, and also
engages in goal setting, text-summary building, interpretive elaborating from
knowledge resources, monitoring and assessment of goal achievement, adjusting
processing to enhance comprehension, and repairing comprehension processing
as needed. Moreover, these activated processes and resources (in working memory)
are integrated under intense processing-time constraints. With this more elaborate
deﬁnition of reading, it becomes apparent that the nature and development of
L2 reading is complex. It is also apparent that developing ﬂuent L2 readers is a
challenging task requiring much time, resources and effort.
Reading in a Second Language
Aside from the complexity involved in understanding the nature of reading,
there are further complexities for L2 readers. L2 readers exhibit the full range of
variation that can be found for L1 readers (variation in training, age, schooling,
motivation, socio-economic level, as well as individual cognition). In addition,
these L2 readers are usually acquiring a complex cognitive ability that is in some
ways distinct from L1 reading. L2 readers do not have the same language resources
as L1 readers at the outset of learning; they do not share all the social and cultural
assumptions and knowledge bases that L1 readers use when reading in their own
language; they do not share all the background knowledge that is often assumed
about ‘how the world works’; they often are learning in the second language for
various reasons – to return to their home country, to integrate in the L2 society,
to build on an educational base that is already in place from earlier L1 schooling
– and they are working with cognitive resources and processing that involve two
different languages.

217 Reading
These differences have at least three consequences. First, research in L2 reading
will need to examine the potential impact of these differences and cannot simply
assume that results of research on L1 reading will apply in L2 contexts. Second, these
differences suggest that L2 readers may employ cognitive resources in somewhat
different ways from L1 readers, especially where there are clear differences
between the L1 and the L2 (for example, the mapping of sounds and graphemic or
orthographic forms may differ in two languages) (Grabe, 2009; Koda, 2005). Third,
the actual cognitive processes themselves may be somewhat different simply as a
result of working with more than one language (for example, L1 and L2 words may
be stored and accessed differently in the lexicon; transfer from the L1 may affect L2
reading) and these possibilities need to be explored (Cook and Bassetti, 2005; Koda,
2007). The recognition that L2 reading is in some ways similar to and in some ways
different from L1 reading deserves attention because the differences represent a
major reason for carrying out L2 reading research.
L2 Reading Versus L1 Reading
In some cases, the differences between L1 and L2 reading contexts are matters
of degree; in other cases there are strong qualitative differences between the
two that motivate important research questions and instructional practices.
Major differences between L1 and L2 reading can be categorized according to
three groupings: linguistic and processing differences; other individual and
experiential differences; and socio-cultural and institutional differences (Grabe,
2009; Grabe and Stoller, 2002; Koda, 2005). Within these groupings, the following
12 differences represent important elements in understanding the nature of L2
reading development, which also serve to drive L2 reading research.
Key Linguistic and Processing Differences
1 Differing amounts of lexical, grammatical, and discourse knowledge at
beginning stages of L1 and L2 reading. L1 students usually know several
thousand words orally in their L1 before starting to read. They also implicitly
know most of the basic syntactic structures of the language, and they have
already had experiences with the way stories and other genres are structured.
2 Varying linguistic differences across any two languages and varying language-
transfer inﬂuences. L2 students often come from languages that use different
orthographies or different ways to encode information in orthography. These
differences across languages also may generate signiﬁcant differences in the
way the print is processed and in the types of transfer that may or may not
occur.
3 Interacting inﬂuences of working with two languages. L2 students build and
use a bilingual mental lexicon of some type ( see Chapter 8, Psycholinguistics );
they engage in bilingual processing of language structures and semantic
interpretations; they engage in translating; they have relatively varying
ﬂuencies in the two languages; they make varying uses of each language in
differing sociolinguistic domains. They also learn their L2 at different times in
their lives and they experience varying degrees of interdependence between
the two languages.
4 Varying L2 proﬁciencies as a foundation for L2 reading. L2 students come to
reading tasks with a wide range of L2 proﬁciencies. The obvious consequences

218 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
of this variation is demonstrated by their abilities to carry out different reading
tasks successfully and to read for multiple purposes. Less obvious consequences
also involve motivation, the role of language transfer, socio-cultural factors
and several other issues (many noted below).
Key Individual and Experiential Differences
This second set of factors that separate L1 and L2 reading are less commonly
investigated, but the results available suggest that these differences play important
roles in L2 reading development. In particular, they suggest that L1 reading ﬁndings
and their implications need to be examined in light of L2 research ﬁndings rather
than be assumed to apply to L2 instruction.
5 Differing levels of L1 reading abilities among the L2 students.
6 Differing amounts of exposure to L2 print.
7 Differing motivations for reading in the L2.
8 Differing kinds of texts in L2 settings.
9 Differing language learning resources for L2 readers.
Key Socio-cultural and Institutional factors
Socio-cultural topics for L2 reading are relatively unexplored empirically except for
the work under contrastive rhetoric, and further research is needed (Goldenberg,
Rueda and August, 2006). The L2 research to date suggests that these differences
can inﬂuence the development of L2 reading abilities above and beyond the
differences noted above (Grabe, 2009; Hudson, 2007).
10 Differing socio-cultural backgrounds of L2 readers.
11 Differing ways to organize discourse and texts in L1 and L2 settings.
12 Differing expectations of educational institutions in L1 and L2 settings.
Issues in L2 Reading
Automaticity and Word Recognition
Word recognition is at the centre of reading ﬂuency and automaticity. Given the
importance of words in reading, it is not surprising that much of the research in
second or foreign language reading has focused on vocabulary issues ( see below ;
see also Chapter 3, Vocabulary ). An increasing amount of L2 research has focused
more speciﬁcally on processes of L2 word recognition, with the ﬁndings having
real implications for instruction.
Koda (2005) makes the case that word recognition in second language reading
must be viewed as a major factor in its own right and not just as a facet of overall
second language proﬁciency. She argues that L2 word recognition is affected
by the amount of L2 orthographic processing experience, the distance between
the orthographies of the L1 and L2, and the interaction between L1 and L2
orthographic knowledge.
Earlier word recognition studies have shown differences in word recognition
efﬁciency among learners with different amounts of L2 experience. Favreau and
Segalowitz (1983) showed that even for otherwise ﬂuent bilinguals, if a second
language is weaker than the ﬁrst language and reading is slower in the second

219 Reading
language, word recognition in the L2 is less automatic than in the L1. In a follow-
up study of the development of automaticity in French speakers learning ESL,
Segalowitz and Segalowitz (1993) showed that practice on word recognition tasks
leads to faster and more stable (less variable) responses. These faster and more
stable responses indicated that processing had not merely become faster across the
board, but that a qualitative change or restructuring of processing had occurred.
They maintained that this reﬂected the attainment of automatization, not just a
simple speeding up of the processing mechanisms.
Although Segalowitz’s various studies have examined mature, literate adult
readers, Geva, Wade-Woolley and Shany (1997) have focused on younger learners
learning to read simultaneously in English (L1) and Hebrew (L2). Geva et al. (1997)
conclude that steps associated with the development of L1 reading efﬁciency (that
is, accuracy attained before speed) may be applicable to the development of word
recognition skills in L2, but they do not emerge concurrently in both languages.
They also conclude that linguistic features, such as ‘orthographic depth’ (the degree
to which the written system of a language corresponds to its spoken system) and
morphosyntactic complexity ‘may interact with more global L2 proﬁciency effects’
(Geva et al ., 1997: 119) to determine the course of early L2 reading development
(see also Geva and Wang, 2001; Lesaux, Lipka and Siegal, 2006).
Implications: Word recognition exercises are probably useful for both older and
younger L2 readers, enhancing ﬂuency and raising student awareness of the
processing demands of extended independent reading.
L2 Word Recognition Differences across L1s
According to the orthographic depth hypothesis (Frost, 2005; Seymour, 2006),
pre-lexical phonology (the immediate and automatic matching of graphemes
and phones to produce word recognition) plays a more important role in lexical
access in ‘shallow orthographies’, where the correspondences of graphemes
to phonemes are more direct and consistent (for example, Finnish, Spanish,
Turkish) than in ‘deep orthographies’, where the mapping of letters to sounds is
less direct and less consistent (for example, English, unmarked Arabic, Chinese).
Cross-linguistic research comparing L2 learners with different L1 backgrounds
has consistently demonstrated superior word recognition performance for those
with L1 orthographic backgrounds more similar to the L2. For example, Koda
(1989) found better word recognition for L2 learners of Japanese with related L1
backgrounds (Chinese and Korean) than she did for unrelated ones (English).
Muljani, Koda and Moates (1998) showed this effect again for ESL learners from
related (Indonesian [Roman alphabet]) versus unrelated (Chinese [logographic])
L1 orthographic backgrounds ( see also Koda, 2005).
Green and Meara (1987) showed differences between three groups of ESL
learners with contrasting L1 orthographic backgrounds: Spanish speakers (Roman
alphabetic orthography), Arabic speakers (non-Roman alphabetic orthography)
and Chinese speakers (non-alphabetic orthography). The researchers concluded
that the three groups used different visual processing strategies when pursuing
a search task not only in their L1s but also in their L2s. Green and Meara (1987)
concluded that L1 writing systems have a deep and lasting effect on the ways
in which L2 materials are processed. Ryan and Meara (1991) investigated the

220 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
hypothesis that Arabic speakers, because of the emphasis on consonants in the
lexical structure and orthography of their L1, would also tend to rely heavily on
consonants when attempting to recognize L2 English words. In a task that required
participants to detect missing vowels, the researchers found that Arabic ESL
learners were considerably slower and less accurate than non-Arabic counterparts.
Ryan and Meara (1991) conclude that their ﬁndings conﬁrm the earlier results
that L1 orthography has a long and lasting impact on L2 processing.
In addition to the inﬂuences of L1 orthography, researchers have also investigated
the inﬂuences of L1 phonology on L2 word recognition and, consequently, on L2
reading. L1 learners show preferences for acquiring new vocabulary (in their L1)
with phonological patterns (‘phonotactics’) that are already familiar to them or
that are already in their repertoire. They tend to avoid or acquire less readily words
with unfamiliar sound patterns (Gathercole and Baddeley, 1989). In L2 contexts,
Feldman and Healy (1998) reported an interesting experiment designed to test
whether L2 students might actually avoid learning the meanings of L2 words with
phonotactic patterns unfamiliar to them from their L1. These authors studied a
group of native speakers of Japanese at intermediate levels of ESL instruction and
found that the learning of common, high-frequency English words was affected
by the similarity or difference of the phonological patterns of those words from
phonological patterns in Japanese. Meanings of common English words with
familiar L1 phonotactic patterns were easier to acquire than the meanings of
common English words with unfamiliar L1 phonotactic patterns.
Implications: Teachers need to be aware that L2 learners coming from an L1 with
a different orthographic system may be disadvantaged – particularly at beginning
reading levels – not only because they have to learn a new orthographic system,
but because they may also need to develop new processing mechanisms more
suitable to the L2.
Vocabulary
Issues in Vocabulary and L2 Reading Development
There are a number of issues that centre on the contributing role of vocabulary
knowledge for L2 reading abilities:
• The number of words needed to read L2 texts independently and for instructional
uses.
• The role of context in L2 vocabulary acquisition and in the guessing/guessability
of word meaning in L2 reading.
• The role of dictionaries of various kinds and the use of cognates in L2 vocabulary
acquisition and in L2 reading.
• The ways L2 learners go about the task of acquiring vocabulary in the L2.
• The role of extensive or pleasure reading in the ‘incidental’ acquisition of L2
vocabulary and the role of vocabulary instruction.
• The impact of various kinds of vocabulary instruction on L2 vocabulary
development.
The ﬁrst three issues above are surveyed brieﬂy in this section. ( See Chapter 3,
Vocabulary , for more on these issues and for discussion of the last three issues.)

221 Reading
How Much L2 Lexis is Needed?
Several researchers have addressed the issue of how much vocabulary is necessary
for L2 reading, from different perspectives. Laufer (1989) addressed the question
in terms of percentage of text-lexis necessary for comprehension of academic
literature by native speakers of Hebrew and Arabic in a university EAP course.
She found signiﬁcant differences at the 95 per cent level of text coverage, and
concluded that L2 readers had a signiﬁcantly higher chance of being a ‘reader’
if they understood 95 per cent of the text’s word tokens. Nation (2006; Hu and
Nation, 2000) found that the percentage necessary might be closer to 98 per cent.
Nation (2006) addressed the question in terms of the vocabulary size needed to
read short, unsimpliﬁed novels for pleasure. Their results showed that in order to
achieve 98 per cent coverage of the running words in such texts, that a vocabulary
size of about 8000–9000 word families would be needed (and 9000 word families
is likely to translate into more than 35,000 individual word forms) (see Cobb,
2009; Schmitt, Jiang & Grabe, in press).
The seminal study in this area was conducted by Hazenberg and Hulstijn
(1996). In a very carefully designed and executed study with Dutch native
speakers reading ﬁrst-year university level materials, Hazenberg and Hulstijn
(1996) ﬁrst assessed the representativeness of more than 23,000 words (lemmas)
taken from a dictionary to cover a 42 million-word corpus of contemporary
written Dutch. They found that, with frequency as a criterion, text coverage
substantially increased with up to 11,123 words but not beyond. Next, Hazenberg
and Hulstijn (1996) assessed the representativeness of the same 23,000 words to
cover ﬁrst-year university reading materials. They found that the coverage of the
academic corpus did not differ from the coverage of the larger general corpus. In
the third part of the study, they developed and administered a vocabulary test
aimed at measuring receptive knowledge of more than 18,000 content words
of the 23,000 words. From these results they concluded that the minimal size
vocabulary needed for university study is 10,000 base words, clearly a larger
vocabulary size than required for reading everyday unsimpliﬁed texts such as
newspapers or novels.
The major transforming study identifying the wider range of vocabulary
needed for academic L2 reading is that of Nation (2006). He ﬁrst argued
persuasively that adequate text comprehension is typically achieved when a
reader knows at least 98 per cent of the words appearing on a page. He then
analysed word-family frequency lists from the British National Corpus and
determined that good comprehension of written texts requires between 8000
and 9000 word families (or somewhat more than 36,000 individual word types;
see Schmitt, 2008).
The Role of Context in Guessing/Guessability of Word Meaning
in L2 Reading
In a seminal L2 study, Bensoussan and Laufer (1984) investigated use of context
by university-level EFL students in translating words into their native language.
Through analysis of student answering patterns they determined that context
helped lexical guessing in only 13 per cent of the responses and for only 24 per
cent of the words. Moreover, word guessability was shown to be less a function
of using the context than of applying ‘preconceived notions’. And, although
more proﬁcient students knew more words than less proﬁcient students, they

222 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
were not any more effective in the use of context. Haynes (1984) also showed
that students make greater use of local, rather than global, contextual clues in
their contextual guessing of word meanings, and that what may appear to be
transparent, ‘guessable’ contexts to native speakers are often incomprehensible
contexts to non-native speakers.
In a study which examined both guessing from context as well as retention,
Mondria and Wit-de Boer (1991) found that factors such as ‘subject’, ‘verb’ and
‘function’ contribute to the guessability of a word in a sentence context, and
that correctly guessing a word did not lead to improved retention as compared
with guessing a word incorrectly. In fact, retention of correctly guessed words was
sometimes even worse than it was for incorrectly guessed words. Mondria and
Wit-de Boer (1991) conclude that factors that are conducive to guessing are not
conducive to retention. Since these early studies, there has been accumulating
evidence that guessing words from context is not very accurate nor very effective
for speciﬁc word meaning retention ( see also Nassaji, 2003; Nation, 2001). At the
same time, it is important to recognize ‘guessing word meanings from context’ as
a crucial strategy for attempting to maintain comprehension (but not speciﬁcally
learn new word meanings) while reading more difﬁcult texts. Gradually, over
time, guessing word meanings while maintaining comprehension will also lead
to important vocabulary gains because of multiple exposures to these words ( see
Grabe, 2009; Schmitt, 2008).
Dictionary Use and L2 Reading
The role of dictionaries in both word learning as well as in reading comprehension
in second language reading has been of much interest. The early study by
Bensoussan, Sim and Weiss (1984) of relatively proﬁcient ﬁrst-year university-
level EFL students in Israel found that use of dictionaries during reading had no
signiﬁcant effect on multiple-choice comprehension test scores. Hulstijn (1993)
found that students with high inferencing ability (that is, were able to guess word
meaning from context) used a dictionary to the same extent as students with low
inferencing ability, suggesting that some students may use a dictionary when it
may not be necessary for comprehension. Thus, these two studies together suggest
that dictionary use during reading may not be facilitative of second language
reading comprehension, and possibly unnecessary for higher-proﬁciency students
and ineffective for lower-proﬁciency students.
Implications: In order for L2 learners to read well, they must have an adequately
sized vocabulary and must be able to recognize the words in that vocabulary
quickly and accurately. Guessing from context and dictionary use can help in
acquiring this vocabulary over time, but these skills are not automatic. Rather, they
need to be developed and practised in order to be used effectively in conjunction
with reading.
Reading Rate
In L1 reading research studies, there is considerable evidence that ﬂuent readers
read at rates between 200 wpm and 300 wpm for most types of texts (Carver, 1992).
Moreover, evidence demonstrated that this ﬂuency develops consistently across

223 Reading
age and grade levels. Unfortunately, L2 students typically do not have 12 years
to develop ﬂuent reading rates, so recommendations are regularly made to use
speed reading and reading rate activities in L2 reading classes ( see Anderson, 2008;
Nation 2009, for examples). While there are relatively few published studies of the
relationship between reading rate development or training and foreign or second
language reading comprehension, some studies have pointed to the beneﬁts of
ﬂuency and rate training for improving reading ﬂuency and comprehension.
Anderson (1991) worked with students to increase reading rate during a 14-week
semester in a university-level intensive ESL programme and measured students’
comprehension scores as well. Students in the experimental group signiﬁcantly
increased their reading rate (from 161 wpm to 275 wpm), whereas readers
in the control group showed an insigniﬁcant increase (from 160 wpm to 167
wpm). Although students in the experimental group did not make signiﬁcant
comprehension gains, whilst students in the control group did, the good news
was that these students’ comprehension did not suffer while their reading rate
increased dramatically. The results from this study suggest that it is indeed possible
to help students improve their reading rate. Weigle and Jensen (1996), although
not including a control group, similarly found signiﬁcant increases in reading rate
after training.
In an important set of ﬂuency training studies, Taguchi and Gorsuch (Taguchi,
Takayasu-Maass and Gorsuch, 2004; Gorsuch and Taguchi, 2008) demonstrated
that students could improve both their reading ﬂuency and their reading
comprehension through repeated reading activities. Studies in both Japan and
Vietnam involved students reading read short texts multiple times to gain practice
in ﬂuent reading. After a period of treatment, students gained in both reading
ﬂuency (in terms of WPM reading) and reading comprehension.
Implications: Exercises aimed at improving reading rate seem to help L2 learners, in
particular those who have already developed their word recognition skills.
Language Threshold
A major research topic for L2 reading is the extent to which L2 language proﬁciency
is needed as a support for L2 reading before L1 reading strategies and skills can
be used effectively in an L2 context. Alderson (1984) posed the question most
cogently in a book chapter entitled ‘Reading in a foreign language: a reading
problem or a language problem?’. Research results at that time pointed in both
directions, and led to the formulation of two apparently contradictory positions:
the so-called ‘language threshold’ or ‘short-circuit hypothesis’ and the ‘linguistic
interdependence hypothesis’. The language threshold hypothesis maintained
that some minimal threshold of proﬁciency in the L2 must be attained in order
for the reader’s ﬁrst language reading skills to transfer to reading in the second
language. The linguistic interdependence hypothesis maintained that reading or
learning to read is accomplished only once, and that once learners have matured
in their ability to read in the ﬁrst language, the awareness of the reading process
transfers to the second language and does not need to be relearned. Thus, reading
performance in the second language was claimed to share a common underlying
proﬁciency with reading ability in the ﬁrst language (Cummins, 1979).

224 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
In the ﬁrst widely available empirical study to use a cross-linguistic research
design with learners of varying L1 reading ability, L2 language proﬁciency and
L2 reading ability, and utilizing multiple regression analyses, Carrell (1991)
investigated two groups of second language learners in the USA: native speakers of
Spanish learning English, and native speakers of English learning Spanish. Results
showed that both independent variables (L1 reading ability and L2 proﬁciency),
when taken together, were statistically signiﬁcant predictors of second language
reading ability, together accounting for 35 per cent (for the native Spanish
group) and 53 per cent (for the native English group) of the variance in second
language reading. However, in the native Spanish group (whose L2 proﬁciency
was higher than the native English group), L1 reading ability appeared to be the
more important predictor of L2 reading. Conversely, in the native English group
(with lower overall L2 proﬁciency), second language proﬁciency appeared to be
the more important predictor of L2 reading.
Bernhardt and Kamil (1995) further tested the language threshold and language
interdependence hypotheses with adult native English speakers learning Spanish
as the L2 at university level in the USA. Proﬁciency levels consisted of beginning
freshmen, intermediate juniors and seniors who had had up to ﬁve semesters
of Spanish study, and advanced learners who had had up to seven semesters of
Spanish. Bernhardt and Kamil (1995) were able to account for 48 per cent of the
variance in L2 reading by both L1 reading and L2 proﬁciency. Between 10 per cent
and 16 per cent of the 48 per cent was due to L1 reading; between 32 per cent and
38 per cent was due to L2 proﬁciency. For these learners, as with the similar group
in Carrell’s (1991) study, second language proﬁciency was a stronger predictor of
second language reading than was ﬁrst language reading ability.
Lee and Schallert (1997) also tested the language threshold hypothesis directly,
and did so in an EFL context, with a large sample ( n = 809) of Korean middle and
high school students exhibiting a wide range of abilities in both their L1 and
L2 English reading, and in their L2 proﬁciency. Basic results yielded a squared
multiple correlation coefﬁcient indicating 62 per cent of the variance in L2
reading due to the two independent variables. Approximately twice as much of
the variance in L2 reading was due to L2 proﬁciency as was due to L1 reading (57
per cent versus 30 per cent). More recently Yamashita (2002) studied 241 Japanese
university students, assessing their L1 reading abilities, L2 language proﬁciency
and L2 reading abilities. The total shared variance with the two predictor variables
(L1 reading, L2 proﬁciency) was 40 per cent. The L2 language proﬁciency variable
was the much stronger predictor of the two.
Although all the ﬁndings of the studies summarized above are consistent with
the existence of a language threshold, the evidence is complicated and is also
interpretable in terms of a continuously changing relationship as L2 proﬁciency
increases, and not necessarily in terms of the existence of a speciﬁc ‘threshold’.
Moreover, assuming that a threshold exists, it is not likely that it could be
determined in absolute terms, even for a given population of learners.
Implications: It seems that a certain level of L2 proﬁciency is necessary before L1
reading strategies and skills can be utilized effectively in L2 reading. Therefore,
L2 reading development must take place in a learning context that also promotes
overall L2 language proﬁciency, at least for lower-level students.

225 Reading
The Role of Background Knowledge in Reading
Work done in the 1970s and 1980s (Steffensen, Joag-dev and Anderson, 1979;
Johnson, 1981) clearly established the role of background knowledge in second
language reading. Further training studies showed that for students who lacked
appropriate cultural background knowledge (or ‘content schemata’) for particular
texts, explicit teaching of appropriate background information could facilitate
second language reading (Floyd and Carrell, 1987).
Bernhardt (1991) was one of the ﬁrst to caution against a predictive relationship
between background knowledge and second or foreign language reading
comprehension. Whilst ﬁnding that the effects of background knowledge were
statistically signiﬁcantly correlated with recall protocol scores on the topic
(Pearson’s r = 0.27; p<0.05), Bernhardt (1991) pointed out the weak nature of the
correlation. Moreover, when results were broken out by individual texts, which
had been controlled for similarity in style and text-readability, correlations ranged
from 0.11 to 0.59, all weak to moderate correlations. Thus, there were deﬁnite text
content effects above and beyond prior knowledge effects.
More recent research has continued to show strong effects for background
knowledge, but has also shown that there are complex interactions between
background knowledge and other factors in second or foreign language reading.
For example, Pritchard (1990) demonstrated the interaction of cultural content
schemata and reading strategies, with students using different sets of strategies for
culturally familiar than for culturally unfamiliar passages. Carrell and Wise (1998),
exploring the relationship between background knowledge and topic interest,
found a signiﬁcant interaction between the two. If either prior knowledge or topic
interest is high, students perform better than if both prior knowledge and topic
interest are low.
Implications: Appropriate background knowledge about the topic being read
helps learners understand the reading better. It is an important element in reading
comprehension, but only one of many.
Knowledge of Text Structure and Discourse Cues
Beyond background knowledge of the content domain of a text, empirical
research has conﬁrmed that texts have particular rhetorical organizational
patterns and that readers’ background knowledge of text structure and discourse
cues signiﬁcantly affect their reading in a second or foreign language (Carrell,
1984a, 1984b). Moreover, training studies have also been conducted which show
the facilitating effects on foreign or second language reading of teaching students
to recognize and use text mapping strategies to represent the rhetorical structure
of texts (Carrell, 1985; Carrell, Pharis and Liberto, 1989; Raymond, 1993; Tang,
1992).
Carrell (1992), in a study of university-level ESL students’ awareness (recognition
and use) of text structure and reading comprehension, found that those students
who used the structure of the original passages to organize their written recalls
remembered signiﬁcantly more total ideas from the original passage than did
those who did not. Thus, this study shows that students who possess a specialized

226 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
kind of background knowledge – awareness of different patterns used by authors
to organize expository texts – are more likely to use a structure strategy when they
read and, therefore, are also more likely to understand and remember more of
what they read.
While there are relatively few additional studies of reading and discourse
structure awareness in the past ten years, Jiang and Grabe (2007) highlighted the
positive inﬂuence of discourse structure awareness on reading abilities, providing
a comprehensive review of research on visual representations of text structure
on reading comprehension. Their review showed that training with graphic
representations which explicitly showed how the text information is organized
(for example, cause–effect, comparison–contrast, problem–solution) improved
students’ reading comprehension abilities.
Implications: L2 readers can beneﬁt from an understanding of the text structures
which organize L2 texts, and can proﬁt from making those structures explicit.
Training in awareness of text structure, and speciﬁcally how it organizes information
in texts, will improve students reading comprehension over time.
Meta-cognition and Reading Strategies
In the 1980s, researchers pointed out the importance of meta-cognition as a
factor that inﬂuences students’ reading abilities (Brown, Armbruster and Baker,
1986). They asserted that ‘meta-cognition plays a vital role in reading’. One’s
‘knowledge’ (for example, of strategies for learning from texts, of the differing
demands of various reading tasks, of text structures and of one’s own strengths
and weaknesses as a reader and learner) as well as ‘control’ or ‘regulation’ of one’s
own actions while reading for different purposes are two different aspects of
meta-cognition. Successful readers demonstrate higher levels of meta-cognitive
knowledge as well as control of their reading; less successful and novice readers
show less sophistication in meta-cognition (Baker, 2008; Baker and Beall, 2009).
One important aspect of meta-cognition is controlling one’s reading process
through the use of strategies ( see Chapter 10, Focus on the Language Learner: Styles,
Strategies, and Motivation for more on strategies). It has been a long-standing tenet
of ﬁrst-language reading research that expert readers use a variety of reading
strategies to aid comprehension (Block and Pressley, 2002; Pressley, 2006), and
that ‘strategic reading is a prime characteristic of expert readers’ (Paris, Wasik
and Turner, 1991). Block (1986), in a study of generally non-proﬁcient L1 and
L2 English readers, found that four characteristics seem to differentiate the more
successful from the less successful:
• Ability to integrate information.
• Ability to recognize aspects of text structure.
• Ability to use general knowledge, personal experiences and associations.
• Ability to address information in the text rather than respond personally.
It may be the skilful use of clusters of strategies that is most important: Anderson
(1991) found that subjects who utilized more strategies tended to score higher on
reading comprehension tasks. He concluded that successful strategic reading was
not only ‘a matter of knowing what strategy to use, but also … know[ing] how

227 Reading
to use a strategy successfully and [to] orchestrate its use with other strategies’
(Anderson, 1991: 468–469).
In addition, it seems that L2 readers can be successfully trained in strategy use.
Learners who were taught mapping strategies to recognize and use the rhetorical
structure of texts (Carrell, 1985; Raymond, 1993), strategies for word, sentence
and discourse analysis (Kern, 1989) and strategies relating to Experience–Text–
Relationship (ETR) and semantic mapping (Carrell, Pharis and Liberto, 1989)
all improved their reading skills. Moreover, the improvements may prove to
be durable; Carrell (1985) still found evidence of the training three weeks later.
Strategy training may be especially helpful for weaker students, as Kern’s (1989)
study showed that the strategy instruction beneﬁted low-proﬁciency students to a
greater extent than middle and high proﬁciency students.
Implications: Better learners actively control their reading and strategy use.
Fortunately, it seems that these meta-cognitive skills can be taught, with lower
proﬁciency students gaining the most. Therefore, reading instruction should include
some training in these ‘management’ skills.
Implications: Teaching appropriate reading strategies directly and consistently is
likely to lead to improved reading abilities for students.In a recent meta-analysis, Taylor, Stevens and Asher (2006) reviewed 10 published
journal articles, 9 dissertations and 4 other studies that involved controlled
training studies. Their analysis of effect-size outcomes demonstrated a moderate
effect of explicit strategy training on improved reading comprehension.
Overall, more recent studies have shown a more complex situation, where
the use of certain reading strategies does not always lead to successful reading
comprehension, whereas other strategies do not always result in unsuccessful
reading comprehension ( see Anderson, 2005; Grabe, 2009; Hudson, 2007). There
are no simple answers. Nonetheless, strategy instruction, when done well is an
important part of effective reading instruction.
Extensive Reading/Impact of Exposure to Print
Day and Bamford (1998) and Krashen (2004) provide extended overviews of a
number of studies that have investigated the impact of extensive reading on second
language reading. What seems clear from the reviewed research is that second or
foreign language readers at various ages and proﬁciency levels can beneﬁt from
extensive reading (Elley, 2000, Horst, 2009; Nation 2009). For example, Haﬁz and
Tudor (1989) found that a three-month extensive reading programme yielded
signiﬁcant improvement in secondary school ESL students’ reading and writing,
whereas two control groups failed to show signiﬁcant improvement over the same
three-month period. In addition, groups of Japanese EFL learners using extensive
reading performed better than similar traditionally instructed control groups
(Mason and Krashen, 1997).

228 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
In the past decade, additional studies have strengthened the argument for
incorporating extensive reading into L2 reading instruction. Elley (2000)
described multiple large-scale training studies of book-ﬂood and extensive reading
programmes that have proven to be much more successful than comparison L2
curricula. Pichette (2005) reported that French-speaking ESL students in Canada
showed a correlation between amount of reading and reading comprehension of
r=0.55. Tanaka and Stapleton (2007) carried out a training study with 96 Japanese
high school students. They showed that students in the extensive reading group
outperformed a control group in reading rate and reading comprehension. Horst
(2009) demonstrated that students who read extensively over a ﬁve-week period
increased their vocabulary knowledge signiﬁcantly more than students who did
not engage in extensive reading. Moreover, the number of words learned in the
study indicated that students who read extensively (on average three graded
readers in ﬁve weeks) actually learned a considerable percentage of low-frequency
unknown words assessed (approximately a 50 per cent gain for extensive readers).
Implications: Extensive reading provides many beneﬁts for ﬂuency, comprehension
and vocabulary learning. It should be a component of almost any reading
programme.
Further Issues
This review of speciﬁc areas of second language research does not purport to
exhaust the many other studies that have contributed important insights into
L2 reading. Moreover, due to space limitations, there are other areas that have
not been covered but which deserve important attention and much continued
research. Some of these other areas include: the interplay between higher and
lower level processes, motivation in L2 reading, reading and writing relations,
social context factors inﬂuencing L2 reading, assessment practices in L2 reading,
the increasing role of ﬂuency in reading instruction, neurolinguistics and reading,
reading with new multimedia and computer technologies, teacher training for
reading instruction, and the increasing similarities of L2 reading processes across
languages as students reach advanced levels. Many of these issues can be explored
in a number of sources: Grabe (2009), Han and Anderson (2009), Hudson (2007),
Kamil (2009), Kamil and Chou (2009), Khalifa and Weir (2009), Koda (2005),
Nation (2009), Wolf (2007). There are assuredly other issues that also deserve
further attention.
Implications of L2 Research for Instruction
L2 reading research ﬁndings, when combined with appropriate L1 reading
research, highlight important implications for instructional practices. While it
is true that each instructional context has local factors that make it unique, and
therefore not fully amenable to a generalized set of recommendations, it is also
true that the research to date suggests general implications and guidelines as a
starting point for planning L2 reading curricula. Based on the research reported
in this chapter, we would like to propose the following ten implications for L2
reading instruction, at least as a starting point for curriculum planning.

229 Reading
• The need to develop reading ﬂuency and word-recognition automaticity.
• The need to develop a large recognition vocabulary.
• The importance of discourse structure and the instructional beneﬁts of using
graphic representations.
• The need for language awareness and attention to language (structure) and
genre form (meta-linguistic knowledge).
• The importance of meta-cognitive awareness and strategic reading.
• The importance of speciﬁc reading strategies to support word learning and
reading to learn goals.
• The need for extensive reading.
• The importance of motivation.
• The beneﬁts of integrated skills instruction and content-based instruction.
• The need for a supportive (classroom and institutional) environment for
reading.
Suggesting implications for reading instruction represents part of the bridge to an
effective reading curriculum. A second part is a needs analysis for each instructional
context. Issues that a needs analysis might address include: What are the reading
goals and why? Do the goals ﬁt with institutional expectations? Are the goals
achievable given students’ L2 proﬁciency levels? Are there sufﬁcient resources and
sufﬁcient time to achieve instructional goals? These and other questions need to
be considered to establish viable goals for instruction and determine the extent to
which L2 reading abilities can be developed.
A third part, once a curriculum plan and customized goals are established, is to
determine priorities for speciﬁc instructional practices to achieve these goals. It is
beyond the scope of this chapter to comment on the numerous speciﬁc practices
themselves, though there are many sources that provide useful suggestions for
instruction (Anderson, 1999, 2008; Calderón, 2007; Carrell et al., 1989; Grabe,
2009; Grabe and Stoller, 2002; Hedgcock and Ferris, 2009; Nation, 2009; Silberstein,
1994). There are also many excellent and appropriate ideas for instruction that can
be drawn from L1 resources (Blachowicz and Ogle, 2008; Block and Parris, 2008;
Dymock and Nicholson, 2007; Gambrell, Morrow and Pressley, 2007; Pressley,
2006; Rasinski, 2003; Wilhelm, 2001).
Further Reading
Anderson, N. (1999) Exploring Second Language Reading . Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle. The volume offers a concise and coherent interpretation of reading research for
L2 reading instruction. The book is very accessible, but covers a wider range of key
topics than other books devoted speciﬁcally to reading instruction.
Anderson, N. (2008) Reading . New York: McGraw-Hill. This volume shifts the focus
of translating L2 reading research into instructional practices and options from his
earlier volume. Organized in terms of beginning, intermediate and advanced students,
it addresses many instructional activities and provides many resources for practicing
teachers.
Calderón, M. (2007) Teaching Reading to English Language Learners. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press. This volume addresses academic reading instruction for ESL students
in grades 6–12 in North American contexts. It offers many practical suggestions for

230 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
reading instruction that is supported by evidence-based research. It also addresses ways
to combine reading instruction with content-area instruction.
Grabe, W. (2009) Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice .
New York: Cambridge University Press. This volume provides an overview of both L1
and L2 reading theory as well as implications for instruction. The sub-title, ‘moving from
theory to practice’, identiﬁes the goal of the book. Many instructional implications are
suggested from the research reviewed.
Grabe, W., Stoller, F. (2002) Teaching and Researching Reading. New York: Longman.
This volume addresses current reading research from both L1 and L2 contexts and
develops a set of general principles for reading instruction and action research inquiry.
The book presents an explanation for how reading comprehension works, how L2 reading
is different from L1 reading, and the issues for instruction that are created by these
differences. It also outlines 30 possible action research projects on a range of reading
instruction topics.
Hudson, T. (2007) Teaching Second Language Reading . New York: Oxford University
Press. This volume provides a comprehensive review of existing L2 reading research,
focusing strongly on issues of background knowledge, reading strategies, vocabulary
and reading/writing relationships.
Kamil, M. (ed). (2009) Handbook of Reading Research . Volume IV. New York: Routledge.
This major edited collection summarizes current thinking by leading reading and education
researchers in English L1 contexts. Although the chapters in this volume focus less on
the cognitive aspects of reading, in comparison to Volume II (1991), there are many
important chapters that anyone seeking greater knowledge about reading would need
to review.
Koda, K. (2005) Insights into Second Language Reading . New York: Cambridge
University Press. This volume provides an authoritative overview of L2 reading theory
and research, focusing especially on issues of component skills development and cross-
linguistic issues in L2 reading development.
Pressley, M. (2006) Reading Instruction that Works, (third edition) . New York: Guilford.
This is the best L1 reading volume on issues in translating reading research into
implications for reading instruction. It is both authoritative and very accessible. It presents
a coherent balanced perspective on English L1 reading issues and instructional practices.
Hands-on Activity
Text: Select a substantial text (two to three pages) excerpt from a textbook or
other reading resource in the social sciences (for example, psychology, economics,
sociology).
Students: Imagine a group of high-intermediate or low-advanced students of
English from either heterogeneous or homogeneous L1 backgrounds (you decide
which), whose language requirements include reading skills in the social sciences
(for example, in an EAP programme).

231 Reading
Activity: The activity focuses on reading strategies to comprehend the text and
to use the information for other tasks. These strategies may include setting a
purpose for reading, previewing the text, predicting key information, skimming
the text to determine main ideas, note-taking, summarizing, clarifying difﬁcult
concepts, identifying supporting ideas and evidence.
Task for the reader:
• How might you model the application of the reading strategies listed above
(and others) to the selected text?
• How can you help students make their use of each strategy ‘meta-cognitive,’ to
include student awareness of what the strategy is, how to use the strategy, why
the strategy should be used, when and where to use the strategy, and how to help
students evaluate their use of the strategy?

Writing
Paul Kei Matsuda
Arizona State University
Tony Silva
Purdue University
Introduction
Writing has always been part of applied linguistics. Even before the 1960s,
when writing was considered as a mere representation of speech, it provided a
way of monitoring students’ language production and of providing linguistic
material because the technology for sound recording was not widely available.
For researchers, it has always provided a source of tangible and relatively stable
data for analysis as well as a way of recording speech. In the early years of applied
linguistics, however, writing was not considered to be one of the proper goals of
language learning; it was used only to the extent that it assisted the learning of
speech. ( See Matsuda, 2001a, for an account of the place of writing in early applied
linguistics.)
In the latter half of the twentieth century, writing, or written discourse, and the
teaching of writing began to receive signiﬁcant attention as an important area of
inquiry within applied linguistics. With the growth of composition studies in the
USA and the parallel development of the ﬁeld of second language writing, the
act of writing also became an important focus of research and instruction in L1
and L2 writing. More recently, prompted by the recognition of the complexity of
writing and the teaching of writing, second language writing has evolved into an
interdisciplinary ﬁeld of inquiry involving many related ﬁelds, including applied
linguistics and composition studies, which are themselves highly interdisciplinary
(Leki, 2000; Matsuda, 2003).
Aspects of Writing
Writing is one of the three modes of linguistic expression and communication –
along with speaking and signing. Writing is not just a representation of speech, as
it was once thought; rather, speaking, writing and signing are all manifestations
of language users’ knowledge, perspective and communicative competence
(Canale and Swain, 1980; Bachman, 1990). Writing is both a noun and a verb:
it refers both to the written text and to the act of constructing written texts. The
process of writing involves a series of highly complex cognitive activities that
takes place in response to a rhetorical situation (Bitzer, 1968) – a complex web of
relationship among the elements of writing, including the writer, the reader, the
text and reality (Silva, 1990). Those relationships are constantly shifting, and it
is quite possible for writers and readers to develop different perceptions of any
particular rhetorical situation. For this reason, the writer’s task is not as simple as
constructing an accurate representation of reality; the writer also has to negotiate
his or her own view of these elements of writing with the views held by the
readers – the process which is mediated by the way the way the text is constructed 14

233 Writing
(Matsuda, 1997). Writing involves the consideration of the relationship among the
elements of writing (relational aspect), the use of various strategies for developing
and communicating ideas (strategic aspect), and the use of available discursive
repertoire (textual aspect).
Relational Aspect of Writing
Writing does not happen in a vacuum; it is always embedded in a rhetorical situation
– a particular social and material condition under which written expression and
communication take place. No two rhetorical situations are exactly the same, but
similar situations do tend to recur. This gives rise to typiﬁed responses (that is,
genre as typiﬁed rhetorical action) that are developed and shared by a network
of writers who work in a particular context of interaction (Miller, 1984; Bakhtin,
1986). ‘Genre knowledge’, that is, the knowledge that helps shape possible
responses to particular rhetorical situations, functions as a scaffolding that assists
writers in managing the complexity of writing and readers in interpreting the
text ( see Bazerman, 1988; Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1995; Swales, 1990; Tardy, in
press).
The writer’s task is complicated by the varying and ever-changing nature of the
elements of writing. The notion of the writer is more complex than it may appear
at ﬁrst because the writer is more than just the physical person who creates texts.
Writers are not only presenting their view of reality but also constructing their
discursive identity (Goffman, 1959; Ivanic, 1998), which may affect the way the
text is read and responded to. The writer, however, does not have full control
over their discursive identity because, ultimately, the resulting image of the writer
is co-constructed by the writer and the reader with the mediation of the text
(Matsuda and Tardy, 2007). A writer’s self-representation may also be constrained
by his or her past work, especially if the writer is writing in the same discursive
network; a sudden change in self-representation can be highly marked and even
distracting (Matsuda, 2001b).
Writers who are learning to write in new rhetorical situations may struggle (for
example, writing a book review for the ﬁrst time) not only because the genre
knowledge may not be sufﬁciently developed but also because conventional self-
representation in the particular situation may not be compatible with the writer’s
self-image. A piece of written discourse may also be co-authored by two or more
writers – or sometimes even by a committee. In professional settings, it is also
possible to write on behalf of an organization or a client, in which case the writer’s
discursive identity, if represented in the text, can be distracting. Even when the
author is singular, the text may have been shaped by feedback and interventions
from peers, tutors, teachers, mentors and editors.
The reader is not a simple concept either. Like the writer, the reader may be
one person or many. In most cases, the writer is the ﬁrst reader who provides
comments, asks questions and makes suggestions for revision; in some cases, such
as private diaries, the writer may be the only intended reader (Murray, 1982).
Readers may play different roles, such as that of a friend, critic, coach, evaluator,
learner or bystander. Those roles may belong to real audiences addressed by the
writer, but they may also be imagined roles invoked in the text (Ede and Lunsford,
1984). For example, this chapter addresses you, the reader, who may be beginning
applied linguists – perhaps a graduate student in an introductory applied
linguistics course. At the same time, this chapter invokes readers who may not be

234 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
familiar with writing issues but are certainly intelligent and inquisitive, wanting
to understand theory and research as well as pedagogy. This imagined audience
role is invoked by the ‘content’ (for example, the choice of topics, the amount of
and type of explanations and examples) as well as the ‘form’ (for example, the use
or non-use of certain technical terms, strategies for referencing sources).
The text is also complicated. Although each text is unique in some ways, a text
cannot be understood only in terms of itself because the text is always situated
in a network of other texts, to which it may respond explicitly or implicitly
(Bakhtin, 1986). Other texts also provide a pool of discursive features that may be
appropriated by the writer in order to achieve similar rhetorical effects, and by the
reader in interpreting the text. In many cases, each local ‘discourse community’
develops its own network of texts that are shared by its members. However, the
formal and functional features of those texts continue to evolve as members of
local discourse communities bring in practices from other discourse communities.
When new rhetorical situations arise, writers often draw on practices in existing
discourse communities in developing hybrid discourses (Berkenkotter and Huckin,
1995; Hyland, 2000).
Reality may seem stable, but it can be interpreted in many ways – in fact, reality
cannot be accessed without going through interpretive layers. Although there is a
reality people can interact with physically, reality is also socially and discursively
constructed to the extent that people understand, communicate and agree upon
versions of reality through language and other semiotic systems (see Berger and
Luckmann, 1966). Knowledge is not simply discovered or represented, but also
transformed in the process of writing (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987). Because
people conceive of and relate to reality in various ways, and because writers and
readers have varying degrees of access to different aspects of reality, the writer has
to use the text to construct a version of reality and negotiate it with readers within
the local and historical context of interaction.
As we have seen, writing is a complex phenomenon because writers have to
negotiate all the above elements of writer, reader, text and reality, and construct
written discourse accordingly. In order to manage this complex process, writers
adopt, develop and use various strategies.
Strategic Aspect of Writing
Writers draw on various strategies (or ‘heuristics’) to assess the rhetorical situation
and respond to it by developing written text. Those strategies are often internalized:
some writers may have acquired them so naturally through practice that they may
not even be aware of some of the strategies they use. For most writers – especially
less experienced ones – it is often helpful to have an explicit understanding of
some of the strategies that can be internalized through practice. Understanding
the strategic aspect of writing is important for writing teachers because it enables
them to teach ‘writing’ rather than teach ‘about writing’.
In order for the process of writing to begin, the writer has to assess the rhetorical
situation and identify the primary purpose or aim of writing, with an emphasis on
one of the elements of writing. The aim of writing may be ‘expressive’ (emphasis
on the writer), ‘persuasive’ (emphasis on the reader), ‘referential’ (emphasis on
reality) or ‘textual’ (emphasis on the text) (Kinneavy, 1971). The writer may also
identify and develop ideas for writing by focusing on one or more of the elements,
such as:

235 Writing
• Exploring or discovering what the writer already knows, feels or believes through
techniques such as clustering, listening and free writing (focus on the writer).
• Looking for dissonance or conﬂict in the community (focus on the reader).
• Examining reality through reading or observation (focus on reality).
• Choosing a form of writing, such as sonnet, personal narrative or conference
proposal (focus on the text).
Once the topic is identiﬁed, the writer needs to explore, develop and sometimes
redeﬁne the topic. One of the most commonly known heuristics for exploration is
journalists’ ‘5W1H’ ( who, what, when, where, why and how). Burke’s (1969) ‘pentad’
(act, scene, agent, agency and purpose ) is a similar heuristic designed to aid the
exploration process. Another example of an exploration heuristic is ‘Tagmemics’
(Young, Becker and Pike, 1970) which facilitates the exploration of the topic by
focusing on its distinctive features, on changes over time and on classiﬁcation.
Reading on the subject may also be a way of exploring topics and generating
responses. Visually oriented writers may map out their ideas on paper in order to
explore and organize as well as present various aspects of the topic. The writer’s
intuitive sense of what is to be discussed in a certain rhetorical situation – an
aspect of genre knowledge – can also guide the writer as an implicit exploration
heuristic. For example, in empirical studies, writers’ methods of exploration are
often directly guided by accepted research procedures and conventionalized ways
of reporting that research.
Writers also need to identify, develop and assess rhetorical appeals. The
Aristotelian conception of ‘ethos’ (ethical or credibility appeal), ‘pathos’
(emotional or affective appeal) and ‘logos’ (logical or rational appeal) have been
widely taught in writing classrooms. They have also been used in text analysis
(Connor and Lauer, 1985). Although ethos and pathos are especially important
when the primary aim of writing is persuasive, they also contribute, to varying
degrees, to the success of discourse with other aims. Traditional approaches to the
analysis of logos focused on the evaluation of arguments according to the rules
of formal logic and the identiﬁcation of logical fallacies. More recently, writing
teachers have come to use situationally based theories of informal argumentation
that consider audience and discourse communities as important criteria in
generating and evaluating arguments (Toulmin, 1958; Perelman, 1982).
‘Drafting’ can be a challenge for writers because factors such as the writer’s
self-image and anxiety about writing can make the writing task overwhelming,
sometimes resulting in writing inhibition, commonly referred to as ‘writer’s block’
(Rose, 1980). Various strategies have been suggested for reducing anxiety levels
and facilitating the production of written text. Writers may choose to ignore one
or more of the elements of writing, such as grammar and audience, in the early
stages of drafting (Flower, 1979; Elbow, 1987). Some writers may draw on their
spoken language or their knowledge of other genres to develop and revise written
texts. Second language writers may also translate from texts generated in their L1,
although the effectiveness of this strategy may vary depending on the writer’s L2
proﬁciency level (Kobayashi and Rinnert, 1992; Wang, 2003).
‘Revision’ is an important part of the writing process. Writers often revise based
on comments and suggestions from peers and teachers. The writer may also be
able to revise the text by letting it sit for a while, which allows the writer to see
the text from a somewhat different perspective. Editing and proofreading – the
processes of checking and changing grammatical and stylistic features – is also

236 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
an important part of the revision process. In the writing classroom, students are
often advised to focus on content before focusing on form.
These strategies are not always used consciously by writers. Furthermore, writers
do not always go through these stages (planning, drafting and revising) in a linear
and orderly fashion; rather, the process of writing is often ‘recursive’ (Flower
and Hayes, 1981). Most writers go through numerous revisions – both during
the process of drafting and after the draft is completed. Some of the revisions
are invisible because they take place in writers’ minds as they rehearse particular
passages. In fact, experienced writers writing in a familiar rhetorical situation
may be able to rehearse so extensively in their heads that their ﬁrst drafts require
relatively few revisions. Genre knowledge also functions heuristically to assist
the writers in planning, developing and organizing ideas as well as in choosing
appropriate linguistic features for the speciﬁc rhetorical context.
Textual Aspect of Writing
We discuss the textual aspect of writing last, not because it is least important
but because it is the material realization of the other two aspects of writing. It is
through written text that the writer constructs, represents and negotiates his or her
conceptions of the elements of writing. Writers do not simply encode ‘ideational
meaning’ (the meaning of their ideas); they also create ‘textual meaning’ (the
meaning that helps the readers navigate through the text) as well as ‘interpersonal
meaning’ (the meaning about the relationship between the writer and the reader)
(Halliday, 1973). The knowledge of how these meanings can be constructed
through the use of particular written discourse features is therefore an important
part of the writer’s competence.
Whereas spoken discourse represents additional meaning through prosodic
features such as tone, pitch, intonation, volume and pauses ( see Chapter 12,
Speaking and Pronunciation ), written discourse achieves similar functions through
typographical features such as punctuation marks, capitalization, italics, bold
face, font sizes and indentation. In formalized writing situations, where the use
of typographical features is constrained by stylistic conventions established by
publishers and academic societies, writers have to rely more heavily on structural
means (for example, topicalization, nominalization) as well as discursive
features such as the use of hedges (for example, may, probably ) and boosters (for
example, must, deﬁnitely ) (Hyland, 2000). Writers also construct – intentionally
or unintentionally – their discursive identity or ‘voice’ by using various written
discourse features and by aligning themselves with certain discursive networks
(Ivanic, 1998; Matsuda, 2001b; Tardy and Matsuda, 2009).
Although the ability to write presupposes some level of morphological, lexical
and syntactic as well as idiomatic knowledge, such knowledge alone does not
guarantee the ability to write well because writing involves much more than
constructing grammatical sentences. Sentences need to be ‘cohesive’, that is, they
have to be connected by cohesive devices in ways that can be followed by readers
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976). The whole text also needs to be ‘coherent’, that is,
various parts of the text have to work together conceptually in the particular
rhetorical context. Although cohesion and coherence are related concepts,
cohesive text is not necessarily coherent (Witte and Faigley, 1981; Carrell, 1982).
Furthermore, coherence is not universal; rather, what is considered coherent differs
from one discourse community to another. Research in ‘contrastive rhetoric’ has

237 Writing
shown, for example, that the standard of coherence may vary across languages
and cultures (Connor and Johns, 1990; Leki, 1991, Connor, 1996), although the
differences cannot simply be attributed to language or culture alone (Mohan
and Lo, 1985; Kubota, 1997; Matsuda, 1997). For this reason, the assessment of
the quality of writing requires an understanding of the context in which it was
written and especially the audience for which it was intended.
Deﬁning Second Language Writers
Deﬁning second language writers is more complex a task than it may seem at
ﬁrst because of the diversity of second language writers with a wide variety of
backgrounds, characteristics, needs and goals. The term ‘second language writer’
is usually deﬁned broadly to include anyone who is writing or learning to write in
a language other than their native language. It includes both second and foreign
language writers as well as writers who are writing in their third, fourth, ﬁfth
language, and so on. The boundary between ﬁrst and second language writers is
a fuzzy one; the very notion of the ‘native speaker’ is being contested, and users
of different varieties of the target language also encounter similar issues as they
learn to write in a dominant variety – due not only to the structural differences
but also to functional differences among different varieties of the language (Nero,
2001). The issue is further complicated when the political nature of the distinction
between language and dialect is taken into account.
Writing, unlike speech, is not learned naturally by everyone but through explicit
instruction (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996); as Leki (1992: 10) put it, ‘no one is a “native
speaker” of writing’ . Yet, that does not mean there is no difference between L1
and L2 writers. While learning to write – especially in academic genres – may feel
like writing in a foreign language even for life-long users of the target language, it
is also important to keep in mind that second language writers are often learning
to write as they are also acquiring the structures and uses of the second language
(Matsuda and Jablonski, 2001). A synthesis of early studies comparing adult ﬁrst
and second language writers of English have also indicated that writing in a
second language is ‘distinct from and simpler and less effective (in the eyes of L1
readers) than L1 writing’ (Silva, 1993/2001: 200). Aside from the acquisition of
the second language grammar, the difference between L1 and L2 writing is largely
a matter of degree, for all writers continue to develop their language proﬁciency
and genre knowledge.
For many years, the largest body of research has been on ESL writers in North
American higher education, partly because of the ubiquitous ﬁrst-year writing
requirement that necessitated the rise of ESL writing instruction. Within this context,
the dominant focus has been on international students. More recently, there has
been a growth of interest in resident second language writers – permanent residents
and citizens of the USA and Canada (Harklau, Losey, and Siegal, 1999; Roberge,
Siegal and Harklau, 2009). With the diversiﬁcation of second language writers in
North American higher education, identifying various types of writers and creating
a wide variety of placement and instructional options have also become important
issues (Ferris, 2009; Silva, 1994) – a task that is further complicated by students’
own identity positioning that does not match categories used by researchers and
teachers (Ortmeier-Hooper, 2008; Costino and Hyon, 2007).
Another broad category that has been used is ‘foreign language writers’ – writers
writing in languages in contexts where the target language is not prevalent. This

238 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
group can be subdivided into two major groups – EFL writers and other foreign
language writers. The distinction is signiﬁcant even in so-called EFL contexts
where English and other foreign languages are located in the same academic
unit because of the status of the English language as the dominant language
of global communication. While research on foreign language writing did not
gain momentum until well into the 1980s, the interest has grown tremendously
over the last few decades (Manchón, 2008; Reichelt, 1999). The popular binary
between ESL and EFL has been problematized because it does not account for post-
colonial contexts such as India and Hong Kong, where English has been ﬁrmly
institutionalized along with other local languages, or for Anglophone Canadian
writers learning to write in Canadian French. Yet, the term EFL writing does not
seem to be disappearing from the literature because, even within those contexts,
there are many situations that are better described as EFL (Lee, 2008).
Second language writing has also expanded considerably in terms of age groups
being studied. While the traditional emphasis had been on ﬁrst-year college
students, the growing recognition of the importance of writing has prompted the
rise of interest in studies of early second language writers (Matsuda and DePew,
2001). The success of writing and language across the curriculum movements have
also increased the need for writing in courses across the discipline, further creating
the need for attention to second language writing issues in broader contexts. With
the dominance of English as a lingua franca of scholarly communication, writing in
academic contexts for graduate students and researchers has also become a major
emphasis not only in North America but in many other countries (Casanave and
Vandrick, 2003; Flowerdew, 2005; Lillis and Curry, 2006; Swales, 2004).
Second Language Writing: Theory, Research and
Pedagogy
This section will, drawing on Silva (1990), survey major developments during the
last 50 years or so in second language writing with regard to theory, research and
pedagogy. (For alternative perspectives, see Raimes, 1991; Blanton, 1995.) We have
limited our attention to second language writing here because applied linguists
interface primarily with professionals in second language studies; we focus on
ESL writing because, to date, most of the research on second language writing has
been done in this area.
Although developments in second language writing have been inﬂuenced by
work in mainstream composition studies, the unique contexts of second language
writing require distinct perspectives, models and practices. In the recent history
of second language writing, a number of approaches or orientations (more or
less speciﬁc to second language writing) have vied for the attention of second
language writing professionals. These approaches or traditions will be addressed
below in order of their appearance on the second language writing stage.
Controlled Composition
‘Controlled composition’ can be seen as an offshoot of the audiolingual approach
to second language teaching in that it shares two of its central tenets: the idea
that language is speech (from structural linguistics) and that learning is habit
formation (from behaviourist psychology). Thus, it is not difﬁcult to understand

239 Writing
why, within this tradition, writing is regarded essentially as reinforcement for oral
habits and as a secondary concern ( see Fries, 1945; Rivers, 1968; for theoretical
background for this approach).
Linguistic analysis dominated the research in this tradition and is still a major
focus, though it has become more functional and less formal over the years.
Early work in the linguistic analysis of second language writers’ texts involved
‘contrastive analysis’ (comparing the grammatical structures of two languages, for
example, Spanish and English, in an attempt to ascertain structural differences,
which were believed to pose the greatest problems for second language writers)
and ‘error analysis’ (locating, counting and categorizing errors to discern patterns
of error in written texts). Formal features examined include primarily lexical and
syntactic phenomena; features such as number of words per t-unit and clause
structure have been used to measure ﬂuency, accuracy and complexity in second
language writers’ texts.
In the controlled composition classroom the primary focus is on formal accuracy.
The teacher employs a controlled programme of systematic habit formation in an
attempt to avoid errors (presumed to be related to ﬁrst language interference) and to
reinforce appropriate second language behaviour. Practice with previously learned
discrete units of language is privileged over concerns about ideas, organization
and style; imitation and manipulation of carefully constructed and graded model
passages is the central activity. Overall, in the controlled composition tradition,
writing functions as a service activity, reinforcing other language skills. The goal
of writing instruction is habit formation. Students manipulate familiar language
structures; the teacher is an editor, privileging linguistic features over ideas. The
text is seen as a collection of vocabulary and sentence patterns; there is negligible
concern for audience or purpose. (For accounts of this pedagogical approach, see
Dykstra and Paulston, 1967; Paulston and Dykstra, 1973.)
The Paragraph Pattern Approach
Increasing awareness of second language writers’ need to produce extended
written texts led to the realization that there was more to writing than constructing
grammatical sentences. The result of this realization was what Raimes (1983b: 7)
has called the ‘paragraph pattern approach’, which emphasized the importance
of organization at the above-sentence level. This approach owes much to Kaplan’s
(1966) notion of ‘contrastive rhetoric’ – the notion that writers’ different cultural
and linguistic backgrounds will be reﬂected in their ‘rhetoric’, with rhetoric
typically seen as primarily a matter of textual structure. Thus, ﬁrst language
inﬂuence was believed to extend beyond the sentence to paragraphs and longer
stretches of text.
The basic concern in this tradition was the logical construction and arrangement
of discourse forms. Of primary interest, especially in the early years, was the
paragraph, where the focus was on its elements (for example, topic sentences)
as well as options for its development (for example, comparison and contrast).
Another important concern was ‘essay’ development, actually an extrapolation
of paragraph principles to complete texts. This involved larger structural entities
(for example, introductions) and organizational patterns or modes (for example,
exposition).
By far, the largest single concern in second language writing research has been
‘contrastive rhetoric’ (for overviews, see Leki, 1991; Connor, 1996; Purves, 1988).

240 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
The focus of this work has been on characterizing how ﬁrst language ‘cultural
thought patterns’ are reﬂected in second language writers’ texts, how some cultures
put the responsibility for successful written communication on the writer and
others on the reader, and how differences between ‘collectivist’ and ‘individualist’
tendencies manifest themselves in second language writing. The most commonly
compared linguistic or cultural backgrounds have been Arabic, Chinese, English,
Japanese and Spanish. A number of other speciﬁc rhetorical features have been
addressed in the literature. These include assertions, hedging, indirectness, reader
orientation, introductions, meta-discourse, rhetorical preferences and voice ( see
Hyland, 2000).
Contrastive rhetoric has been and still is a controversial issue, with some of
its critics arguing that the notion can lead to stereotypes (Kubota, 1997, 1998;
Spack, 1997) and others suggesting that the differences seen between groups are a
matter of development rather than transfer (Mohan and Lo, 1985). More recently
efforts have been made to reconceptualize and rename contrastive rhetoric in
order to move out of the unproductive discussion based on the limitations of early
contrastive rhetoric (for example Connor, Nagelhout and Rozycki, 2008; Kubota
and Lehner, 2004; Matsuda, 1997).
Classroom procedures associated with this tradition have tended to focus
students’ attention primarily on ‘form’. At the most basic level, students are asked
to choose among alternative sentences within the context of a provided paragraph
or text. At a higher level, learners are instructed to read and analyse a model text
and then apply the knowledge gleaned from this analysis to a parallel piece of
original writing. At their most complex, exercises require students (already given
a topic to write on) to list and group relevant facts, develop topic and supporting
sentences on the basis of these facts, put together an outline and compose their
text from that outline.
In short, this tradition sees writing as basically a matter of arranging sentences
and paragraphs into particular patterns; learning to write requires developing
skills in identifying, internalizing and producing these patterns. The writer uses
provided or self-generated data to ﬁll out a pattern; thus, the reader is not confused
by an unfamiliar pattern of expression. The text is made up of increasingly
complex discourse structures (that is, sentences, paragraphs, sections and so
on), each embedded in the next largest form; and all of this takes place within
an academic context, wherein the instructor’s evaluation is assumed to reﬂect a
community of educated native speakers.
The Process Approach
Dissatisfaction with controlled composition and the paragraph-pattern approach,
due to the belief that neither adequately engendered thought or its expression
and to their perceived linearity and prescriptivism, paved the way for the process
approach, another import from mainstream composition studies. This tradition
saw the composing process as a recursive, exploratory and generative process
wherein ideas were discovered and meaning made. It was believed that guidance
through and intervention in the process was preferable to the imposition of
organizational patterns or syntactic or lexical constraints, and that, where there
was a need or desire to communicate, content would determine form so as to
convey meaning successfully. (For early work in second language composing, see
Zamel, 1976, 1982; Raimes, 1983a, 1985.)

241 Writing
The advent of the ‘process approach’ prompted research on composing that
focused on the person (that is, the writer) and the process (that is, strategies)
involved in writing. Many variables affecting second language writers have
been identiﬁed and addressed in the literature. The second language writer has
been looked at primarily in terms of the extent of transfer of ﬁrst language
proﬁciency or writing ability to second language writing and the relationship
between general second language proﬁciency and second language writing
ability. Also of interest are the possible connections between second language
writing ability and ﬁrst language writing experience and expertise, writing
apprehension, gender, learning style, language and instructional background,
the second language writer’s perceptions with regard to writing and writing
instruction, and the amount of reading (in both ﬁrst and second languages) a
second language writer engages in. Research in this area has gone from seeing
writer variables as simple and relatively discrete to very complex and greatly
intertwined.
There is also a substantial body of scholarship on second language writers’
composing processes (for overviews, see Krapels, 1990; Sasaki, 2000; Manchón,
2001). Predominant in this area are general ‘composing process’ studies, that is,
research that looks at second language writing processes holistically. There are
also studies that focus on particular sub-processes and elements of the composing
process. The most common of these are studies of planning, drafting, revising and
editing. However, a number of other elements have also been examined. These
include translating, backtracking, restructuring, formulating, monitoring, the use
of the ﬁrst language when writing in the second, language switching and the use
of dictionaries and background texts when composing.
In the classroom, the process tradition calls for providing and maintaining
a positive, encouraging and collaborative workshop environment, and for
providing ample time and minimal interference so as to allow students to work
through their composing processes. The objective is to help students develop
viable strategies for getting started, drafting, revising and editing. From a process
perspective, then, writing is a complex, recursive and creative process that is very
similar in its general outlines for ﬁrst and second language writers; learning to
write requires the development of an efﬁcient and effective composing process.
The writer is engaged in the discovery and expression of meaning; the reader, on
interpreting that intended meaning. The product (that is, the written text) is a
secondary concern, whose form is a function of its content and purpose. In the
process tradition it is up to the writer to identify a task and an audience and to
make the response to the former meet the needs of the latter.
Genre-Based Approach
Perceiving theoretical and practical problems and omissions with regard to the
process approach, critics suggested that the emphasis in ESL composition research
and instruction be shifted from the writer to the reader, in particular academic
and professional discourse communities. Most of the aforementioned criticism of
the process approach came from proponents of an English for academic purposes
orientation wanting to consider more seriously issues such as developing schemata
for academic discourse, deriving insights from research on contrastive rhetoric,
understanding what constitutes realistic preparation for academic work, learning
about the nature of high stakes academic writing tasks, giving students a better

242 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
idea of how university writing is evaluated, and, generally, understanding the
socio-cultural context of academic writing (Reid, 1984; Horowitz, 1986).
Research in writing English for academic purposes has looked primarily at the
issues of audience and, more recently, ‘genre’. The audience research has focused
primarily on one particular readership: the academic discourse community, in
particular college and university professors (Vann, Meyer and Lorenz, 1984;
Santos, 1988) and, to a lesser extent, on editors of scholarly journals (Gosden,
1992). This research has been done primarily through surveys and addresses
academics’ beliefs, practices, expectations and reactions with regard to errors,
literacy skills and writing problems. The question of whether and how students
should be initiated into the academic discourse community has also been debated.
In recent years, the study of genre in second language writing has become very
popular. In addition to general treatments of genre, many studies of particular
written genres have appeared. Some address general types or modes of writing,
such as narrative, descriptive and argumentative writing as well as personal,
academic, business, technical and legal texts. A number of more speciﬁc text types
addressed include summaries, essay examinations, laboratory reports, research
papers, theses, dissertations, research articles, experimental research reports and
letters of reference.
Instruction in writing English for academic purposes focuses primarily on
academic discourse genres and the range and nature of academic writing tasks
(Swales, 1990; Hyon, 1996). This instruction is meant to help students work
successfully within the academic context. The instructional methodology
suggested aims at recreating, as well as is possible, the conditions under which
actual university writing takes place and involves closely examining and
analysing academic discourse genres and writing task speciﬁcations; selecting and
intensively studying materials appropriate for a given task; evaluating, screening,
synthesizing and organizing relevant information from these sources; and
presenting these data in a form acceptable to the academy.
To sum up, in the English for academic purposes tradition, the emphasis is
placed on the production of texts that will be acceptable at an English-medium
institution of higher education; learning to write is part of becoming socialized
into the academic community. The writer is pragmatic and interested primarily
in meeting the standards necessary for academic success; the reader is a player in
the academic community who has clear and speciﬁc expectations for academic
discourse. The text is viewed as a more or less conventional response to a particular
writing task that ﬁts a recognizable genre; the context is the academic discourse
community.
Issues that Transcend Traditions
There are a number of important issues in second language writing that transcend
the traditions described above and need to be touched upon in even the most
cursory survey of this research area. These include programmatic, contextual,
disciplinary and political issues.
A number of ‘programmatic’ issues have been addressed in the research. These
include second language writing programmes and programme administration,
needs analyses and placement. A great deal has been written on speciﬁc instructional
practices and issues. These include writing conferences and workshops, the use of
model texts, peer and teacher response, peer tutoring, the use of journals, writing

243 Writing
about literature, sentence combining, reformulation, plagiarism, sequenced
writing assignments and content-based instruction ( see Reid, 1993; Grabe and
Kaplan, 1996; Ferris and Hedgcock, 2005).
However, the programmatic issue that has received by far the most recognition
is the assessment of second language writing ( see Hamp-Lyons, 1991, 2001;
Hamp-Lyons and Kroll, 1996). Second language writing assessment has been
written about from a number of perspectives. These include test types, speciﬁcally
‘indirect’ or ‘objective’ (wherein no written text is produced or examined) and
‘direct’ tests (wherein a text is produced and examined), for example, holistic,
analytic/multiple trait and primary trait tests. Another basic issue is ‘text rating’
or grading; here issues such as rater training, rater judgements and the difference
between rating done by individuals with and without experience with second
language writers. Also central are questions of test validity and reliability. In
addition, a number of variables that could potentially affect ratings have been
explored. These include ‘linguistic variables’ (primarily lexical and syntactic);
‘rhetorical variables’ and the writer’s subject matter knowledge, cultural
expectations, nationality, reading comprehension and amount of reading done in
both the ﬁrst and second languages. Elements such as writing prompts, topics and
time constraints have also been explored. Different types of tests, for example,
writing proﬁciency exams, entrance and exit exams and placement exams have
been described. Finally, some speciﬁc second language writing tests: the Test of
Written English (TWE), the English as a Second Language Composition Proﬁle
(Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartﬁel and Hughey, 1981) and the writing sub-
test of the International English Language Testing Service (IELTS) test have been
developed, deployed and critiqued.
A number of instructional contexts have been described in the literature. These
include, most generally, the academic discourse community (at both the graduate
and undergraduate levels) and a number of speciﬁc programme or course types
therein: basic or ‘remedial’ writing courses, bilingual education programmes,
immersion and submersion programmes, sheltered ESL courses, mainstream
(native English speaker dominant) courses, cross-cultural composition courses,
writing across the curriculum programmes, intensive language programmes and
writing centres. Also addressed are particular instructional contexts in academia
(engineering, natural sciences, science and technology, and sociology courses) or in
the private sector (corporate and medical contexts) (s ee Belcher and Braine, 1995).
In recent years, and following from work in composition studies, interest has
grown in disciplinary matters; for example, the nature of L2 writing as a discipline
or area of research; its standing in relation to ﬁelds like rhetoric, composition
studies, second language studies/acquisition and linguistics; and the future
direction of research in second language writing (Matsuda, 2003; Santos, Atkinson,
Erickson, Matsuda and Silva, 2000). The last two decades or so have also seen
increased interest in and explicit treatment of matters of politics and ideology
growing out of post-modern thought, social constructionist inquiry and critical
theory and pedagogy (Santos, 1992, 2001; Severino, 1993; Benesch, 2001).
The current situation in second language writing studies is one of reﬂection on
and re-examination of basic assumptions about the nature of second language
writing and writing instruction, of rejecting easy answers to complex problems, of
taking stock of what has been learned and trying to put it together as a coherent
whole, of synthesis and model building, of realizing that there will be no magic
bullet, no particular approach or procedure that will work with all people in all

244 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
places at all times. It is a situation in which second language writing professionals
are beginning to seize the opportunity to escape the conﬁnes of a particular
tradition, to resist simplistic methods of ‘teacher training’, to reﬂect critically on
‘what the research means’, to discard off-the-shelf instructional approaches, to
use their knowledge of theory and the results of inquiry to decide for themselves
what makes sense for their students, for their objectives and teaching styles and
for their instructional contexts. In short, it is an exciting time to be involved in
such a vital, vibrant and evolving area of research and instruction.
Further Reading
Here we provide some basic works on second language writing and writing instruction.
For a more extensive listing, see the annotated bibliographies of Tannacito (1995), Silva,
Brice and Reichelt (1999) and the brief bibliographies that appear in each issue of the
Journal of Second Language Writing .
Ferris, D.R., and Hedgcock, J.S. (2005) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process,
and Practice (second edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. This
book presents approaches to teaching ESL composition that are informed by current
theoretical perspectives on second language writing and writers. The authors provide a
comprehensive review of theoretical and research issues and discuss various pedagogical
matters, including reading–writing relations, course design, teaching materials, teacher
response, peer response, grammar, assessment and technology.
Kroll, B. (ed). (2003) Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. This edited volume presents a state-of-art overview
of key issues and insights related to second language writing by well-established
researchers. The volume consists of ﬁve sections that explore issues related to the
nature and development of the ﬁeld, voices of teachers and students, writers’ texts,
contextualities of texts, and technology.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., and Silva, T. (2008) A Synthesis of Research on Second Language
Writing in English. New York: Taylor & Francis. This book provides a comprehensive
overview of research on second language writing in English. It consists of three sections,
including contexts of L2 writing, instruction and assessment, and basic research on
second language writing.
Matsuda, P.K., and Silva, T. (eds). (2005) Second Language Writing Research: Perspectives
on the Process of Knowledge Construction . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
This volume provides insiders’ perspectives on the process of conducting various types
of second language writing research. Deﬁning research broadly as inquiry – the act of
constructing new knowledge and insights – this volume provides an understanding of
various issues in conceptualizing a research project as well as collecting and analysing data.
Hands-on Activity
The texts below are a call for proposals for a professional conference and a draft
version of one of the proposals. Read the draft proposal and answer the questions
that follow.

245 Writing
Call for Proposals
The 2009 Symposium Organizing Committee seeks proposals for 20-minute
presentations that address various topics within the ﬁeld of second language
writing – broadly deﬁned. Any topic related to second language writing is
welcome, but we particularly welcome proposals that seek to challenge the
status quo in the ﬁeld by introducing new topics as well as theoretical and
methodological approaches.
As always, we are interested in L2 writing issues in any second or foreign
language and at various levels of education – from emerging literacy and
adult literacy to L2 writing across the disciplines and in the professions.
We also encourage proposals that connect L2 writing with other related
areas of inquiry, such as computer assisted instruction, computers
and composition, corpus analysis, language testing, rhetoric, writing
programme administration and world Englishes. We welcome proposals
from around the world.
Although there will not be a separate graduate student conference this year,
graduate students are encouraged to submit proposals. After all, the future of
the ﬁeld of second language writing depends on today’s graduate students.
To submit your proposal, please use the online proposal submission form.
Proposals must be received by April 30, 2009 (Arizona Time/MST).
We look forward to receiving your proposal!
Paul Kei Matsuda and Tony Silva, Chairs
Symposium on Second Language Writing
An in-depth look at the education of EFL writing teachers
When it comes to teaching writing, few upper level faculty shoulder such
responsibilities, and most tend to relegate this task to lower-level faculty or
colleagues in the English Department. Due to the lack of speciﬁc training
for faculty in dealing with the issues in student writing development
and the time-consuming/ labor-intensive nature of writing courses, these
courses are passed on to part-time writing instructors. Even though most of
these teachers hold master degrees in TESOL (or related areas), they may or
may not have the training to deal with the challenges of writing courses.
Some are not prepared to handle the overwhelming essay grading tasks,
and may not be fully competent to respond to student writing. In some
cases, the writing proﬁciency of these teachers is questionable. The quality
of writing instruction, therefore, suffers.
The purpose of this study is ﬁrst to observe the practice of English
writing education in four universities in Taiwan. Next, it investigates the
preparation 20 EFL writing instructors have, and linguistic knowledge these
teachers come with, prior to teaching writing classes in these universities.
The recognition and ability to treat errors are also explored. Ultimately, by
interviewing each teacher as an individual, this study identiﬁes issues that
may impact the value of current writing curriculum in higher education and
further provide teachers with the knowledge and tools they need to work
effectively with their student writers. The ﬁndings of this study not only

246 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
enhance our understanding of the essence of writing teacher education,
but also consolidate and extend scholarship in studies of English writing,
particularly in a foreign language setting.
Questions
• Describe the rhetorical situation for this writing task. Who is the author? Who are the
readers? What genre is being used? What pieces of information does the author need
to provide?
• How well established does this writer sound? A novice researcher? An experienced
researcher? A well-established authority? What are some of the textual features that
gave you a sense of the author’s level of expertise?
• How well does the author relate local issues to the international audience?
• Overall, how effective do you think this proposal is in responding to the rhetorical
situation? What aspects of the proposal are particularly effective? What aspects of the
text could be improved?
• Suppose the writer of the proposal has asked you to read and comment on the proposal
before submitting it. Provide one page of written feedback for the writer.

Assessment
Carol A. Chapelle
Iowa State University
Geoff Brindley
Macquarie University
What is Language Assessment?
In the context of language teaching and learning, ‘assessment’ refers to the act
of collecting information and making judgements about a language learner’s
knowledge of a language and ability to use it. Although some people consider
‘testing’ and ‘assessment’ to be synonymous (Clapham, 1997), many use the latter
term in a broader sense to include both formal measurement tools, which yield
quantiﬁable scores, and other types of qualitative assessment, such as observation,
journals and portfolios (Davies, Brown, Elder, Hill, Lumley and McNamara,
1999: 11). What uniﬁes the variety of tests and assessments is that they all involve
the process of making inferences about learners’ language capacity on the basis of
‘observed performance’.
Despite this common feature, assessment practices vary according to the
purpose for which assessment information is required. Broadfoot (1987) identiﬁes
a number of broad purposes for educational assessment:
• ‘Assessment for curriculum’ (providing diagnostic information and motivating
learners).
• ‘Assessment for communication’ (informing certiﬁcation and selection).
• ‘Assessment for accountability’ (publicly demonstrating achievement of
outcomes).
In language programmes, one purpose-related distinction that has conventionally
been made is between ‘proﬁciency assessment’, which is concerned with measuring
a person’s general ability, typically for selection decisions, and ‘achievement
assessment’, which focuses on determining what has been learned as part of a
speciﬁc programme of instruction, usually for assigning marks.
Assessment purpose is closely tied to the ‘stakes’ attached to testing, and it
therefore governs the type of assessment tool that is used and the resources that
are invested in its development. In ‘high-stakes’ situations where the results of
assessment may have a signiﬁcant effect on test-taker’s lives (for example, selection
for university entry), the instrument should have been developed with great care by
suitably qualiﬁed professionals and subjected to rigorous piloting and validation.
In this and other testing situations, many stakeholders are involved in language
assessment, either as those who construct and/or research tests and assessment
tools (for example, test development agencies, curriculum developers, teachers,
university researchers), as test-takers (students hoping to be certiﬁed for a job) or as
‘consumers’ of assessment information (for example, policy-makers, government
ofﬁcials, educational administrators, parents, employers and the media).
In recent years, language tests have begun to be used by governments and
policy makers for an increasingly wide range of purposes, including citizenship 15

248 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
and immigration decisions and teacher certiﬁcation. This has increased the need
for language testing researchers to explore and understand the ways in which
test scores are used, and therefore much has been written in recent years about
the intersection of language assessment with language policy (McNamara and
Roever, 2006; Spolsky, 2009). One of the important insights that has emerged
from this line of research is that the stakeholders in language testing are likely
to have different and, at times, conﬂicting perspectives on the role and purpose
of assessment in language programmes, which, according to some writers, can
lead to a disproportionate emphasis on assessment for accountability (McKay,
2000; Mencken, 2008). For this reason, it has been suggested that the process of
test development needs to become more democratic and to involve a wide range
of stakeholders so as to ensure fairness to all (Brindley 1998; Shohamy, 2006).
However, the ideal of involvement needs to be balanced against the realities of
implementation and technical concerns of validity and reliability, which language
assessment experts are able to address.
Fundamental issues in Language Assessment
On the surface, language assessment may appear to be a simple process of
writing test questions and scoring examinees’ responses; however, in view
of the important uses that are made of test scores, as well as the complexity
of language, one has to examine the process more carefully in order to
understand technical issues in language assessment. Figure 15.1 illustrates one
way of conceptualizing the factors that come into play in a more complex view
of language assessment. The writing of test questions needs to be seen as a
choice about the ‘test method’ that is most appropriate for obtaining ‘examinee’s
language performance’ that is relevant to the speciﬁc language capacities of
interest. As the dotted line in Figure 15.1 suggests, the examinee’s language
capacity of interest is behind the choice concerning what performance should
be elicited. Examinees’ language performance is scored, and the result is the test
score, which is assumed to bear some systematic relationship to the language
performance, that is, to summarize the quality of the performance in a relevant
way. The dotted line between the score and the ‘examinee’s language capacities’
denotes the assumption that the examinee’s score is related to the examinee’s
capacities that the test was intended to measure. That test score is used for some
purpose, typically for making a ‘decision about the examinee,’ but it might also
be used for other purposes such as to allow examinees to make decisions about
their own subsequent study or to classify participants for research on second
language acquisition.
The connections among the components in Figure 15.1 form the basis for
the more complex view of language assessment that professionals work with.
These concepts should be sufﬁcient for readers new to language assessment to
grasp the fundamentals underpinning the process of language assessment. The
examinee’s language capacities refer to the ‘construct’ (the examinee’s knowledge
and abilities) that the test is intended to measure. The ‘test method’ is what
the test designer speciﬁes to elicit a particular type of performance from the
examinee. The test score, which serves as a summary of performance that is used
for decision making, requires ‘validation’, which refers to the justiﬁcation of the
interpretation made of the test scores and their use. Let us look at each of these
three concepts in turn.

249 Assessment
Figure 15.1 Fundamental components of testing
Construct Deﬁnition
On the surface, terms such as ‘language proﬁciency’ may make the construct of
language ability seem simple and easily deﬁned. However, researchers who develop
language tests and validate score use ﬁnd that such a general term is of little use.
They confront issues such as whether or not examinees’ selection of the correct
verb tense on a multiple-choice question should be considered to reﬂect language
proﬁciency, writing ability, grammatical competence or knowledge of verb tense.
In other words, language testing researchers need to be precise about what a test
is intended to measure, and so they develop the conceptual apparatus to do so.
Ability/Performance Constructs
Construct deﬁnition is connected to all aspects of the testing process, as illustrated
in Figure 15.1, because the construct is what inﬂuences the test developers choice of
testing method, the intended meaning of the test scores, and the appropriateness
of the test use. What is important to note here is that the construct is not one
and the same as the test method, test score or test use, but that the link between
the construct and these other aspects of the testing process involves drawing an
inference across two components. For example, when test users interpret a test
score, they are engaged in a process of inference which involves, for example,
drawing conclusions about language capacities on the basis of evidence from
test performance. An inference might be made about test-takers’ ‘grammatical
competence’ on the basis of their responses to questions such as the verb tense
question mentioned above, as well as questions on other linguistic features such
as relative clauses, placement of adverbs and subordinating conjunctions. The
fact that inferences are made on the basis of a test score denotes an important fact Decision about
examinee
Examinee’s
language
performanceExaminee’s
language
capacitiesTest score
Testing methods

250 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
in language testing: that the score itself is not the object of interest to test users.
What is of interest is the test taker’s level with respect to the construct the test
measures, which in turn is connected to what a test-taker might be expected to be
capable of in non-test settings. If the concept of a construct deﬁnition is viewed
in this way, it is possible to see the two distinct approaches that have been taken
to construct deﬁnition by the language testing researchers.
Unobservable ability
Performance on a testPerformance in non-
test settingsInference Inference
Figure 15.2 The conceptualization of inference in ability testing
One is the ‘ability’ approach, which deﬁnes the construct as an unobservable
trait that is not tied to any particular context of language use. Ability testing
is based on the point of view that performance on a test is the result of some
underlying capacities, which are also responsible for performance in non-test
settings, as illustrated in Figure 15.2. Constructs such as grammatical ability reﬂect
an ability perspective toward construct deﬁnition because they refer to something
which would affect performance across many different contexts from talking on
the phone to a plumber to writing a letter of application for a job at home. Other
ability constructs would be reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge.
Performance on a testPerformance in non-
test settingsInference
Figure 15.3 The conceptualization of inference in performance testing
Another is the ‘performance’ approach, as illustrated in Figure 15.3, which
aims to make inferences more ‘directly’ from test performance to performance
outside the test setting. ‘A deﬁning characteristic [of a performance test] is that
actual performances of relevant tasks are required of candidates, rather than more
abstract demonstration of knowledge’ such as that required by tests of ability
(McNamara, 1996: 6). Tests used to measure writing and speaking are often
referred to as ‘performance tests’ because examinees are asked to use language
with a simulated purpose, and an inference is made about their probable success
in speaking or writing in other similar situations.
An ability test is sometimes referred to as ‘indirect’ because of the abstract
relationship between what examinees do on the test and their potential future
performance. Performance tests, in contrast, are sometimes called ‘direct’ because
of the relative directness of the inference. However, this dichotomy is misleading

251 Assessment
because as Bachman (1990) pointed out, all test performance bears an indirect
relationship to what is being assessed. Test users are always interested not in test
performance and test scores themselves, but in what test scores mean, that is,
the inferences that can be drawn from them and what decisions they can make
with the scores. Moreover, in many testing situations, applied linguists need
to deﬁne the constructs they measure as hybrid ability-performance constructs
which include an ability as well as a set of contexts in which the ability would be
relevant (Chapelle, 1998; Bachman, 2007).
Speciﬁc/General Purpose Constructs
A second important distinction drawn among various types of construct deﬁnitions
is their degree of speciﬁcity, as illustrated by the continuum in Figure 15.4. On
the left end is the type of construct underlying a speciﬁc purpose test for which:
… content and methods are derived from an analysis of a speciﬁc purpose target language
use situation, so that test tasks and content are authentically representative of tasks in
the target situation. Such a test allows [test users] to make inferences about a test taker’s
capacity to use language in a speciﬁc purpose domain.
(Douglas, 2000: 19)
Specific purpose General purpose
Figure 15.4 Degree of speciﬁcity in construct deﬁnition
An example comes from a project whose purpose was to develop the Occupational
English Test in Australia (McNamara, 1996). One of the testing procedures on this
language test required the examinee to play the role of a physiotherapist who was
interacting with a patient. The construct of interest in this test was the ability to use
English for speaking with patients. The detailed construct deﬁnition would consist
of the many questions and statements of advice that physiotherapists would need
to give as well as the lexico-grammatical constructions required to interact in this
context. Such a test would not require the examinee to listen to the daily news about
animals in the wildlife preserve west of Melbourne, nor would the examinee be
asked to read materials from a textbook on brain surgery. The construct of speaking
for particular types of medical interactions would deﬁne the test tasks.
A general purpose construct deﬁnition, in contrast, is intended to assess
language without reference to a particular context of language use. For example,
the Vocabulary Levels Test (Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham, 2001) is intended
to assess developmental level of vocabulary knowledge in general and therefore
words are chosen on the basis of their frequencies of occurrence across a wide
range of linguistic registers. At a mid-point on the continuum would be a test of
academic English such as the TOEFL, which includes materials that have been
drawn from a variety of topics but within academic registers.
Construct Perspective and Speciﬁcity
At ﬁrst it may appear that speciﬁc purpose constructs and performance type
constructs may be a natural match, whereas general purpose constructs naturally

252 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
go with ability constructs. In the examples provided above, the Occupational
English and the Vocabulary Levels Test, this was the case. These two tests would
be examples for numbers ‘3’ and ‘2’ in Figure 15.5, but one can also ﬁnd examples
of tests of speciﬁc purpose ability (1) and those intended to assess general purpose
through performance (4).
Specific purpose General purpose1 2
3 4Language ability
Language performance
Figure 15.5 Dimensions deﬁning the options for construct deﬁnition
An example of the former would be ChemSPEAK (Douglas and Selinker, 1993),
a test that requires examinees to perform tasks that use the lexico-grammatical
constructions from chemistry in order to test ability to speak about chemistry.
The test does not, however, ask examinees to simulate the performance of ‘doing’
chemistry. An example of a ‘general performance’ test would be the oral proﬁciency
interview of the American Council for Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). It
requires examinees to engage in conversation about themselves and family that
might come up in a social situation. In contrast to the speciﬁc language content
of the various modules of the Occupational English Test, this test avoids requiring
the examinee to talk about ﬁeld speciﬁc topics so that the test score can be used
to indicate capacity for speaking performance in general.
Construct theory is obviously slippery conceptual business, which needs to
be anchored in the practices of test design and empirical research. Some steps
toward understanding construct theory from the perspective of test design have
appeared recently (Read and Chapelle, 2001), but perhaps the most sweeping
impact on rethinking construct deﬁnition is coming from the use of technology
for developing test methods. Bachman’s (2000) review of the state of the art of
language testing at the turn of the century included the following observation
on the contribution of technology in language testing, ‘… the new task formats
and modes of presentation that multi-media computer-based test administration
makes possible … may require us to redeﬁne the very constructs we believe we are
assessing’ (Bachman, 2000: 9). Today test developers regularly take into account
the role of technology in the way they deﬁne constructs, and the test methods
they develop (Chapelle and Douglas, 2006). For example, score interpretation
for a test of writing which requires learners to compose their response at the
keyboard needs to include the construct of composing at the keyboard. Similarly,

253 Assessment
core interpretation for a test of listening comprehension that provides video and
audio input for the examinee needs to take into account the learner’s ability to
productively use the visual channel in addition to the aural one.
Test Methods
Having deﬁned assessment as ‘the act of collecting information and making
judgements’, we can deﬁne test methods as the systematic procedures set out for
collecting information and making judgements for a particular assessment event.
Language testers consider test methods as a set of procedures and describe them
as sets of characteristics rather than by cover-all terms such as ‘multiple-choice’.
Multiple-choice refers only to one characteristic of a test – the manner by which
the examinee responds – but any given testing event is composed of a number
of other factors which should be expected to affect performance. Ideally, the test
performance (as outlined in Figure 15.1) would be free from any outside inﬂuence.
However, test methods do affect test performance in various ways.
Douglas (1998) theorizes how test methods affect test performance, suggesting a
series of processes though which the test-taker perceives cues in the test method,
interprets them and uses them to set goals for task completion, as illustrated in
Figure 15.6. Consistent with Bachman (1990) and Bachman and Palmer (1996),
Douglas (1998) suggests that these strategies are key to the manifestation of
particular language abilities. Figure 15.6 summarizes Douglas’ view, showing
language capacity and test method as responsible for test performance. Testing
experts differ on how to interpret and deal with the fact of test method inﬂuence
on performance; however, most agree that it is essential to identify those aspects
of test method that may play a role.
Characteristics of the test
tasks or testing method
Test-taker’s interpretation
of test tasks or method
Test-taker’s goals and
plans for participation Test-taker’s language ability
Test-taker’s performance
Figure 15.6 Factors involved in the relationship between a test method and performance as
outlined by Douglas (1998)
The most encompassing framework for describing test methods has been
developed in two stages, ﬁrst as ‘test method facets’ (Bachman, 1990) and,
more recently, ‘test task characteristics’ (Bachman and Palmer, 1996). Test task
characteristics are deﬁned as:

254 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• The test ‘setting’, such as the physical speciﬁcations of the room and the
participants.
• The testing ‘rubrics’, including the instructions, test structure, allotted time,
response evaluation and calculation of scores.
• The ‘input’ to the test-taker, such as test length and grammatical and topical
characteristics of test questions.
• The ‘output’ expected from the learner, such as the length and grammatical and
topical features of responses.
• The relationship between input and output, such as whether or not the answers
to questions the examinee is asked depend on previous responses.
These test task characteristics provide the analytic tools needed for both
construction and analysis of language tests, and therefore have played a role in
test validation research.
Validation
The term ‘validity’ carries some meaning for almost everyone, but in educational
measurement, including language testing, this term has an extensive technical
sense about which volumes have been written. Many applied linguists learned at
one time that validity was deﬁned as consisting of three sub-types:
• ‘Content validity’ (whether the content of the test questions is appropriate).
• ‘Criterion-related validity’ (whether other tests measuring similar linguistic
abilities correlated with the test in question).
• ‘Construct validity’ (whether research shows that the test measures the
‘construct’ discussed above).
In addition, many people think of validity of a test being established by
measurement experts through statistical analysis of test scores. Although current
perspectives retain traces of these ideas, both the theory and practice of validation
are now markedly different from this view (Chapelle, 1999). One big change
is typically associated with a seminal paper by Messick (1989), which deﬁned
validation as the process of constructing an argument about the interpretations
and uses made from test scores. Such an argument may draw upon criterion-
related evidence, for example, but the goal of validation would be to establish an
argument by integrating a variety of evidence to support test score interpretation
and use. As an ‘argument’, rather than a black and white ‘proof’, validation may
draw upon a number of different types of data.
Such an argument is made on the basis of both qualitative and quantitative
research, and it relies on the perspectives obtained from technical work on
language testing and the perspectives of applied linguists, language teachers
and other test users. An ESL reading test provides an example of how these
perspectives worked together (Chapelle, Jamieson and Hegelheimer, 2003). A
publishing company contracted testing researchers to develop an ESL test to be
delivered on the world-wide web to ESL learners at a wide variety of proﬁciency
levels. Because the test-takers would have a great deal of variation in their reading
ability, the test developers decided to include three modules in the test, one with
beginning level texts for the examinees to read, one with somewhat simpliﬁed
texts and a third with advanced-level texts. Once this decision had been made,
however, the test developers needed to be able to show that the tests on the texts

255 Assessment
actually represented the intended differences in levels, and therefore three types
of evidence were used.
One type of evidence was the judgement of ESL teachers. Teams of ESL teachers
were formed and they worked together to form an understanding of what they
should be looking for in texts of various levels in ESL books. Then each passage
that had been selected for its potential as a reading text on the test was evaluated
by two members of the team to give it a rating of ‘beginning’, ‘intermediate’ or
‘advanced’. An interesting ﬁnding during this part of the work was that the two
ESL teachers did not always agree on the level of the text, nor did they always agree
with the original author’s assignment of the text to a particular level. This part of
the test development process resulted in a pool of texts about which two raters
agreed. In other words, if two raters thought that a text was a beginning level one,
it was retained in the pool of possible texts of the test, but if one rater thought it
was a beginning level one and the other rater thought it was intermediate, it was
eliminated. The text agreed upon then proceeded to the next stage of analysis.
The second type of analysis drew on the expertise of a corpus linguist, who
did a quantitative analysis of the language of each of the texts. The texts were
scanned to copy them into electronic ﬁles, which were then tagged and analysed
by use of a computer program that quantiﬁed characteristics of the texts that
signal difﬁculty, such as word length, sentence length and syntactic complexity.
The corpus linguist set cut scores for each of these features and then selected texts
that, on the basis of these characteristics, were clear examples of each level. These
texts formed the basis of the reading comprehension modules at the three levels
of difﬁculty. Test writers developed questions to test comprehension as well as
other aspects of reading comprehension and then the three module tests were
given to a group of examinees.
The third type of analysis was quantitative. The researchers wanted to see if
the texts that had been so carefully selected as beginning level actually produced
test items that were easier than those that had been selected as intermediate and
advanced. The question was whether or not the predicted number of examinees
got test questions correct for the beginning, intermediate and advanced level tests.
As Table 15.1 shows, the researchers predicted that a high percentage of examinees
would obtain correct responses on the beginning level texts and so on. The table
also shows the results that were obtained when a group of 47 learners took the
tests. In fact, the percentages of correct responses turned out as anticipated.
Predicted and
actual resultsIntended test level
Beginning Intermediate Advanced
Predicted High percentage Medium percentage Low percentage
Actual mean
percentage of
correct responses85 74 68
Table 15.1 Summary of predictions and results in a quantitative validity argument
These three types of evidence about the reading test modules are obviously not
all that we would want to know about their validity as tests of reading, but these
data form one part of the validity argument. A second important development in

256 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
validation practices has been evolving over the past several years to help testing
researchers to specify the types of evidence that are needed in view of the types
of inferences that that underlie the score interpretation and use (Kane, 2006).
These advances have been inﬂuential and useful in language testing (Bachman,
2005; Chapelle, Enright and Jamieson, 2008). The many types of qualitative and
quantitative analysis that are used in validity research would be too much to
describe in this introduction, but the idea of how testing researchers evaluate
test data can be illustrated through the description of two basic test analysis
procedures.
Test Analysis
Two types of analysis form the basis for much of the quantitative test analysis:
‘difﬁculty analysis’ and ‘correlational analysis’. Difﬁculty analysis refers to the type
of analysis that was described above, in which the concern is to determine how
difﬁcult the items on the test are. Correlational analysis is a means of obtaining
a statistical estimate of the strength of the relationship between two sets of test
scores. Computationally, each of these analyses is straightforward. The challenge
in language testing research is to design a study in which the results of the analysis
can be used to provide information about the questions that are relevant to the
validity of test use.
Item Difﬁculty
In the example above, the researchers were concerned that their intended levels of
text difﬁculty would actually hold true when examinees took the three modules
of the reading test. In the description of the results, we summarized the item
difﬁculties of each of the tests. However, in the actual study the researchers also
examined the item difﬁculties of each item on each of the tests. The item difﬁculty
is deﬁned as the percentage of examinees who answered the item correctly. To
obtain this percentage, the researchers divided the number who scored correctly
by the total number who took the test and multiplied by 100. On the reading test
described above, if 40 correct responses were obtained on an item, that would be
(40/47 = 0.85, and then 0.85 /H11503 100 = 85). People who write tests professionally
use this and other item statistics to decide which items are good and which ones
should be revised or deleted from a test during test development.
As illustrated above, the concept of difﬁculty can be used several different ways,
but it is best used in view of the construct that the test is intended to measure,
and the use of the test. If all of the items on a test have high values for item
difﬁculty, for example, the person analysing the test knows that the test is very
easy. But whether or not this means that the items should be changed depends
on the test construct, the examinees tested and the test use. In this regard, testing
researchers distinguish between ‘norm-referenced’ tests, which are intended to
make distinctions among examinees, and ‘criterion-referenced’ decisions, which
are intended to be used to make decisions about an individual’s knowledge of the
material reﬂected on the test. A test that is easy for a group of examinees would
not be successful in distinguishing between examinees, but it may have shown
correctly that individuals in that group knew the material tested. Moreover, when
difﬁculty is interpreted in view of the construct that an item of a test is intended
to measure, it can be used as one part of a validity argument.

257 Assessment
Correlation
A second statistical analysis used in validation research is ‘correlation’. When
testing researchers or teachers look at how similar two tests are, they are considering
the correlation between tests. For example, if a group of students takes two tests at
the beginning of the semester, their scores can be lined up next to each other and,
if the number of students is small, the degree of relationship between them may
be apparent, as shown in Table 15.2. With this small number, it is evident that the
student who performed well on the ﬁrst test also did so on the second. Student 5
scored the lowest on both tests, and the others line up in between. The correlation
allows for an exact number to be used to express the observation that the students
scored approximately the same on the two tests. The correlation is 0.97.
Examinees Test 1 Test 2
Student 1 35 35
Student 2 25 26
Student 3 30 26
Student 4 34 32
Student 5 17 16
Table 15.2 The use of correlation in validation research
A correlation can range from 1.00 to –1.00, indicating a perfect positive
relationship or a perfect negative relationship. A correlation of 0.00 would indicate
no relationship. Table 15.3 illustrates two sets of scores that show a negative
relationship. The correlation among the scores in Table 15.3 is –0.79. Typically,
in language testing, correlations in the positive range are found when tests of
different language skills are correlated. However, like the analysis of difﬁculty, the
analysis of correlations requires an understanding of the constructs and test uses
of the tests investigated.
Examinees Test 1 Test 2
Student 1 35 17
Student 2 25 26
Student 3 30 26
Student 4 34 28
Student 5 17 35
Table 15.3 Two sets of scores that show a negative relationship
The direction and strength of a correlation depend on many factors, including
the number of subjects and the distributions of scores, and therefore correlations
should be interpreted in view of both the construct that the test is intended
to measure and the data used to do the analysis. Correlational techniques are
the conceptual building blocks for many of the complex test analyses that are
conducted, which also require a clear understanding of the basic principles
outlined in the ﬁrst part of the chapter.

258 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Language Assessment and Language Teaching
The relationships between assessment and teaching are as multifaceted as the
contexts and purposes of assessment; however, some trends are worth noting.
The ﬁrst is an increased interest in social and political inﬂuences on assessment
(see McNamara and Roever, 2006 for a comprehensive overview). In this
context, most professional language testers, under the inﬂuence of Messick’s
(1989) argument that validation should ‘trace the social consequences’ of a test,
have embraced the idea that tests should be designed and used so as to have
a positive impact on teaching and learning. In recent years, researchers have
begun to study this impact in a range of educational contexts. Another notable
shift in the assessment landscape is a loss of faith in the capacity of ‘traditional’
forms of educational measurement such as standardized tests to capture learning
outcomes accurately and a corresponding move towards greater alignment of
curriculum and instruction through the adoption by teachers of new forms of
performance assessment (Leung and Rea-Dickins, 2007). A third aspect of language
assessment which is found in recent literature is the way in which governments
in many countries, under increasing pressure to demonstrate accountability and
measurable outcomes, are using assessment as a policy tool. Let us look at each
of these trends in more detail.
Washback
One result of Messick’s (1989) expansion of the concept of validity to include the
social consequences of test use, has been an increased focus on ‘washback’, a term
commonly used by writers on language assessment to denote the inﬂuence of
testing on teaching (Hughes, 2003: 1). This inﬂuence often tends to be presented
as harmful – it has been claimed, for example, that tests (particularly high-
stakes standardized tests) exercise a negative inﬂuence due to the temptation for
teachers to spend time on activities that will help students to succeed in the test
(for example, learning test-taking strategies) rather than on developing the skills
and knowledge which should be the object of instruction (Alderson and Hamp-
Lyons, 1996: 280–281). Conversely, it is also believed that ‘positive washback’ can
be brought about through the introduction of tests that target the skills needed
by language learners in real life (Cheng, 1998: 279). Seen in this way, a test could
be considered more or less valid according to how beneﬁcial its washback effects
were thought to be.
Although some washback studies have identiﬁed detrimental effects of
standardized testing on teaching practice ( see, for example, Fox and Cheng,
2007; Slomp, 2008), Alderson and Wall (1993), reject such a view of washback
as simplistic and unsupported by evidence. They argue that ‘washback, if it
exists … is likely to be a complex phenomenon which cannot be related to a
test’s validity’ (Alderson and Wall, 1993: 116). The ﬁndings of research into
washback in a range of language teaching contexts support Alderson and Wall’s
(1993) contention that washback effects are complex. In a study of the impact of
two national tests used in Israel, Shohamy, Donitsa-Schmidt and Ferman (1996)
found that washback patterns ‘can change over time and that the impact of tests
is not necessarily stable’. Wall and Alderson’s (1993) study of the introduction of
a new examination into the Sri Lankan educational system showed that a range
of constraints may inﬂuence the intended effects of an examination, including

259 Assessment
inadequate communication of information by educational authorities, low levels
of teacher awareness and lack of professional development support. These authors
conclude that ‘an exam on its own cannot reinforce an approach to teaching
the educational system has not adequately prepared its teachers for’ (Wall and
Alderson, 1993: 67). Cheng’s (1998) research into the introduction of a new task-
based examination into the Hong Kong examination system suggests that the
impact of assessment reform may be limited unless there is genuine change in
‘how teachers teach and how textbooks are designed’.
The role of the teacher emerges as a major factor in many washback studies.
Alderson and Hamp-Lyons (1996) investigated teacher attitudes and behaviour
in TOEFL preparation classes and concluded that washback effects may vary
signiﬁcantly according to individual teacher characteristics. Burrows (2004)
reached a similar conclusion in a study of adult ESL teachers’ reactions to the
introduction of a new competency-based assessment system in the Adult
Migrant English Program in Australia. She concluded that teachers’ responses are
related to their attitudes towards and experiences of the implementation of the
assessment, their perceptions of the quality of the assessment; the extent to which
the assessment represented a departure from their previous practices; and their
attitudes to change itself. All of these ﬁndings suggest that the nature and extent
of washback are governed by a wide range of individual, educational and social
factors. These include the political context in which a test or assessment system
is introduced, the time that has elapsed since adoption, the knowledge, attitudes
and beliefs of teachers and educational managers, the role of test agencies and
publishers, the relationships between participants and the resources available. An
adequate model of impact, according to Wall (1997: 297) needs to include all of
these inﬂuences and to describe the relationships between them.
‘Alternative’ Assessment
The close interrelationship between teaching and assessment which is depicted in
many of the washback studies described above has not always been reﬂected in
the language testing literature. In comparison to standardized proﬁciency testing,
the pedagogical role of assessment has until recently received relatively little
attention (Rea-Dickins and Gardner, 2000; Brindley, 2007). However, over the last
decade, there has been a growing acknowledgement of the need for closer links
between assessment and instruction (Shohomy, 1992; Genesee and Hamayan,
1994) accompanied by a recognition on the part of educational authorities in
many countries that teacher-conducted assessments have an important role to play
in determining learners’ achievement. As a result, we have seen the widespread
adoption of ‘alternative’ assessment methods which directly reﬂect learning
activities and which are carried out by practitioners in the context in which
learning takes place (Brown and Hudson, 1998). Some of the more commonly
used methods include the following.
Observation
Informal observation of learners’ language use is one of the most widely used
methods of assessment in language classrooms (Brindley, 2001a; Brown, 2004).
As Brown (2004: 266–7) notes, on the basis of the information that they build
up through observing their students’ behaviour, experienced teachers’ estimates

260 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
of student ability are frequently highly correlated with more formal test results.
Information derived from teacher observations may be used in a variety of ways to
inform classroom decision-making (for example, whether learners have achieved
the learning objectives for a particular unit of instruction and are ready to progress
to the next unit). Types of observation that can be used to monitor progress and
identify individual learning difﬁculties range from anecdotal records to checklists
and rating scales.
In some educational systems, teachers’ observations of learner performance
may form an important part of the evidence that is used for external reporting to
authorities, and may thus require detailed recording of classroom language use.
However, when used for this purpose, observation needs to be conducted with
a great deal of care and attention if it is to yield valid and reliable information.
In this context, Rea-Dickins and Gardner (2000) have identiﬁed a number of
sources of potential unreliability in teachers’ transcription and interpretation of
classroom language samples that may affect the validity of the inferences that are
made. They call for more research into the validity and reliability of observational
assessment and highlight the need to include classroom observation skills in
teacher professional development programmes (Rea-Dickins and Gardner, 2000:
238–239).
Portfolios
A portfolio is a purposeful collection of students’ work over time that contains
samples of their language performance at different stages of completion, as well as
the student’s own observations on his or her progress.
Three types of portfolio have been identiﬁed, reﬂecting different purposes
and features (Valencia and Calfee, 1991). These are ﬁrst, the ‘showcase’ portfolio
which represents a collection of student’s best or favourite work. The entries in
the showcase portfolio are selected by the student and thus portray an individual’s
learning over time. No comparison with external standards or with other students
is involved. Second, there is the ‘documentation’ portfolio which contains
systematic ongoing records of progress. The documentation portfolio may
include observations, checklists, anecdotal records, interviews, classroom tests
and performance assessments. The selection of entries may be made by either
the teacher or the student. According to Valencia and Calfee (1991: 337), ‘the
documentation resembles a scrapbook, providing evidence but not judging the
quality of the activities’. Finally, the ‘evaluation’ portfolio which is used as public
evidence of learners’ achievement is more standardized than either the showcase
or documentation portfolio because of the need for comparability. The contents
of the evaluation portfolio and the assessment criteria used are largely determined
by external requirements, although there is some room for individual selection
and reﬂection activities. In the context of language education programmes in the
USA, Gottlieb and Nguyen (2007) describe what they call a ‘pivotal portfolio’ that
combines the features of the showcase and documentation portfolio. It contains
essential evidence of the student’s work, along with common assessments
administered by all teachers, and follows the learner for the duration of the
programme.
The use of portfolios as a means of recording and assessing progress offers a
number of advantages to language teachers and learners. Not only does it provide
a way of relating assessment closely to instruction and motivating learners

261 Assessment
(Fulcher, 1997) but it also offers learners the opportunity to reﬂect on their
learning goals and strategies, thus promoting learner independence (Gottlieb
and Nguyen, 2007). Another claimed advantage of assessment portfolios is that
they provide concrete evidence of development that can be used to demonstrate
tangible achievement to external stakeholders in language programmes (Genesee
and Upshur, 1996: 100).
However, the introduction of portfolio assessment has not been without
problems. There has been considerable debate in the research literature concerning
issues such as the type and amount of student work that should be included in
a portfolio, the extent to which students should be involved in selection of the
entries and the amount of external assistance they should be allowed (Fulcher,
1997; Brown and Hudson, 1998; Hamp-Lyons and Condon, 2000). In addition,
research studies have highlighted both technical and practical difﬁculties
associated with portfolio use. These include:
• Low levels of agreement between assessors on the quality of language samples
(Brindley, 20001b).
• Lack of comparability between the samples submitted (Hamp-Lyons and
Condon, 2000).
• The time and expense associated with collecting and grading large numbers of
student texts on a continuing basis, conducting standard-setting meetings and
discussing portfolios with students on an individual basis (Weigle, 2002).
In spite of these potential difﬁculties, however, it has been argued that the positive
impact of portfolios on both teachers and learners is in itself sufﬁcient reason to
continue their use, even if it cannot be demonstrated that portfolio assessment
is technically more reliable than more traditional means of assessment (Fulcher,
1997; Hamp-Lyons and Condon, 2000). In addition, with the advent of new
technology, the practical problems of data management and storage associated
with paper-based portfolios do not arise, since the contents can be stored,
displayed and transmitted electronically. A wide variety of work samples can now
be captured in different electronic formats, ranging from video-recorded speech
samples to writing assignments and used by teachers, learners and relevant third
parties for all of the purposes identiﬁed above.
One example that illustrates the potential of a portfolio-based assessment and
reporting system is the European Language Portfolio (ELP) (Little and Perclová,
2001) which has been developed as part of the Common European Framework
of Reference (Council of Europe, 2001). The ELP consists of a Language Passport
showing the learner’s ability level and intercultural experience, a Language
Biography to facilitate reﬂection, and a Dossier containing examples of learners’
personal work that demonstrate progress and achievement. An electronic version
of the portfolio is available which allows learners to create their language proﬁle,
assess their skills and document their learning experiences over the course of their
language learning career.
Self-Assessment
The process of self-assessment involves learners in making judgements of their
language ability and/or their achievement of learning goals and objectives.
Self-assessment is an integral part of learner-centred approaches to instruction
which aim to encourage the active participation of the learner in each stage

262 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
of the teaching or learning process, including assessment (Ekbatani, 2000).
Proponents have argued that using self-assessment can help learners to become
skilled judges of their own strengths and weaknesses and to set realistic goals for
themselves, thus developing their capacity to become self-directed (Oscarson,
1997). For example, DIALANG, a diagnostic/placement test in 14 European
languages which is delivered via the Internet (Alderson, 2005) allows learners to
compare their self-assessed level with their test result in different language skills.
Learners receive feedback on their test performance based on the Common
European Framework of Reference language levels which raises their awareness
of their own proﬁciency level and of the various factors involved in the language
learning process (Huhta and Figueras, 2004). At the same time, score reports can
be used for communication with a range of third parties, including employers
and educational institutions. Such innovations, along with initiatives such as
the electronic portfolios described above, show how advances in technology can
be harnessed to meet the needs of multiple stakeholders in the language learning
enterprise.
Self-assessment techniques that are commonly used in language programmes
include self-corrected tests and exercises, rating scales, learner progress grids,
standardized questionnaires and self-assessment test batteries ( see Oscarson,
1984; Brindley, 1989; Brown, 2004 for discussion and a range of examples). These
procedures can be used by learners to estimate their general level of ability (for
example, at the beginning of a course of instruction) or as a means of monitoring
their progress relative to particular instructional objectives or performance tasks
during the course.
Research into the use of self-assessment in a variety of educational contexts has
provided a number of insights that can usefully inform language teaching practice.
First, it has become apparent that the ability to carry out self-assessment cannot
be taken for granted and that it is important to provide learners with adequate
training in the use of self-assessment techniques ( see Cram, 1995, for an example
of such a programme). Second, the ability of learners to self-assess accurately
appears to be related to the transparency of the instruments used. In this regard,
the ﬁndings of a study by Bachman and Palmer (1989) suggest that learners ﬁnd it
easier to say what they ‘cannot’ do or what they have difﬁculty doing than what
they ‘can’ do. This ﬁnding has clear implications for the design of self-assessment
instruments, since most self-assessment scales are typically presented as ‘can do’
statements. Third, research studies indicate that self-assessment scales work best
when the self-assessment statements are situation-speciﬁc and closely related to
learners’ personal experience (Oscarson, 1997; Ross, 1998). There is also some
evidence to suggest that cultural factors, as well as personality and psychological
traits, may affect both learners’ willingness to self-assess and the accuracy of their
self-assessments (von Elek, 1985; Blue, 1994, AlFallay, 2004; Matsuno, 2009).
However, studies that have examined these questions have yielded somewhat
mixed results and further research will be needed before clear patterns begin to
emerge.
Other types of alternative assessment include learning journals, project work,
teacher-developed tasks and simulations and peer-assessment. In many education
systems, evidence from these assessments is being used increasingly, sometimes
in combination with external tests, as a basis for reporting student progress and
achievement against pre-speciﬁed outcomes statements or standards (Brindley,
1998; Snow, 2000; Brown, 2004) which will be described in greater detail below.

263 Assessment
‘Alternative’ assessment: Advantages and disadvantages
The various kinds of ‘non-test’ assessment listed above offer a number of
potential beneﬁts for all stakeholders in language learning programmes. First,
they allow teaching and curriculum goals to be closely aligned, thus improving
communication between teachers, students and other external stakeholders (Katz,
2000). Second, the detailed diagnostic information yielded by such assessments
can motivate learners to set their own goals and become more involved in their
own learning. Third, the close observation of individual learner performance
which accompanies some forms of qualitative monitoring and assessment can
provide rich insights into student learning processes, and thus serve a useful
professional development function for teachers (Mohan and Low, 1995). Fourth,
the use of various forms of alternative assessment in combination enables teachers
to obtain a wide sample of learners’ language performance in a range of contexts,
thus providing more valid and dependable evidence of progress and achievement
(Shohamy, 1998). Finally, since alternative assessment is less threatening to
learners than formal tests that are administered under controlled conditions, it is
more likely to elicit their optimal level of performance.
Despite these advantages, however, a range of concerns has been expressed
about the use of alternative assessment as the basis for reporting student outcomes,
particularly in high-stakes contexts. These concerns relate to:
• The validity and reliability of the assessment tools that are used.
• Their administrative feasibility and cost effectiveness.
• Teachers’ preparedness to take on an enhanced assessment role.
Research in both general education and language learning contexts suggests that
using a small number of context-speciﬁc assessment tasks results in low levels
of generalizability, thus severely limiting the inferences that can be made about
a learner’s ability (Brindley, 2000a). At the same time, considerable variability
has been identiﬁed in teacher-developed assessment tasks (Wigglesworth, 2000),
making comparability across tasks difﬁcult and potentially diminishing the value
of information on student learning outcomes. Other reliability issues which have
been identiﬁed include the difﬁculties of obtaining acceptable levels of agreement
between raters on the quality of student writing portfolios (Hamp-Lyons, 1996)
and inconsistencies in teachers’ observations of student performance (Rea-Dickins
and Gardner, 2000; Brindley, 2001b). These issues of reliability have served to
highlight some inherent problems related to teacher-conducted assessment and
rating, not the least of which is teacher expertise. In this regard, researchers have
pointed out that teachers cannot necessarily be expected to possess the skills
needed to develop and administer high quality assessments that can be used in
high stakes situations. For this reason, it has been argued that a serious investment
in ongoing professional development on the part of educational authorities is
necessary if teachers are to become the principal agents of assessment (Brindley,
2001a; Inbar-Lourie, 2008). In terms of practicality, research studies have
consistently demonstrated that as well as requiring higher levels of skill on the
part of teachers, alternative assessment is more time-consuming and expensive to
conduct than traditional testing (Hardy, 1995; Breen, Barrett-Pugh, Derewianka,
House, Hudson, Lumley and Rohl, 1997; Hardy 1995). Decision-makers are, not
surprisingly, often reluctant to commit extra funding to complex teacher-led
assessment systems that require high levels of infrastructural support, particularly

264 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
when resources are scarce. However, as assessment researchers involved in
assessment reform have argued, without such a commitment the possibilities of
implementing such systems are seriously compromised (Eckes et al., 2005).
Outcomes-based Assessment
In recent years, the shift towards alternative assessment has been paralleled by a
move towards greater accountability. Under increasing pressure to demonstrate
‘value for money’ to taxpayers, and/or to standardize curricula and outcomes
within and across national boundaries, governments worldwide have identiﬁed
a need for system-wide indicators for monitoring the outcomes of educational
programmes. This has led to the widespread introduction of ‘outcomes-based’
approaches to assessment and reporting, whereby the results of teacher-
developed performance assessments are used as the basis for reporting student
learning outcomes against pre-speciﬁed attainment standards, known, inter alia ,
as ’frameworks’ ‘benchmarks’, ‘bandscales’ or ‘competencies’ (Norton Peirce and
Stewart, 1997; Brindley, 1998; McKay 2000; Hudson, 2005). Examples of this
type of approach are the Common European Framework of Reference in Europe
(Council of Europe, 2001), the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment in
Canada (Pawlikowska-Smith, 2000) and the Certiﬁcates in Spoken and Written
English in Australia (Burrows, 2004).
Over the last decade or so, the implementation of outcomes-based approaches
has raised many of the issues and problems associated with the use of alternative
assessment that are mentioned above (Brindley, 1998). In addition, the history
of their adoption shows that in many cases the development of such assessment
systems is driven more by government policy and ideology than by educational
considerations (Shohamy, 2006; McNamara and Roever, 2006; Mencken, 2008).
This policiticization of language testing has prompted the emergence of ‘critical
language testing’, an approach which questions the ideologies and assumptions
that underlie language assessment and calls for a radical re-examination of the
power structures while advocating greater attention to issues of fairness and
equity for test-takers (Shohamy, 2001, 2006).
Conclusion
The fundamental concepts, beliefs and practices in language assessment have
changed in recent years, in part because of the shifting relationship between
assessment and teaching. Previously, assessment tended to take the form of
proﬁciency testing, based on general ability constructs, which was largely
unconnected to the curriculum. Now there is a widespread recognition of the need
for close links between the desired outcomes of instruction, curriculum content
and assessment, and this new emphasis is increasingly reﬂected in assessment
policies, materials and methods. However, although the integration of assessment
and learning is supported by strong educational arguments (Black and William,
1998), as yet relatively little research has been conducted in language learning
contexts to determine whether or not ‘embedded’ assessment results in improved
learning. This important question will need to be investigated through washback
studies that not only investigate the impact of tests on society at large but also
explore ways in which classroom assessment occurs as socially situated practice
(see, for example, Rea-Dickins, 2006; Davison, 2007). At the same time, in order

265 Assessment
to ensure that the tests and assessments that are used in language programmes are
optimally fair and valid, a continuing research effort will be required to clarify the
nature of the constructs that underlie them.
Further Reading
Bachman, L.F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing . Oxford:
Oxford University Press. This classic work on language assessment develops issues
of construct deﬁnition, test method, and validation in depth. It connects work in applied
linguistics (for example, communicative competence theory) with the fundamentals of
educational measurement.
Bachman, L.F., Palmer, A.S. (1996) Language Testing in Practice . Oxford: Oxford
University Press. This book takes readers through test development and formative
evaluation – detailing each step of the way in view of the theoretical and practical concerns
that should inform decisions. The book contributes substantively to current discussion of
validity by proposing a means for evaluating language tests which incorporates current
validation theory but which is framed in a manner which is sufﬁciently comprehensible,
and appropriately slanted toward language testing.
Bachman, L.F., Alderson, J.C. (eds), Cambridge Language Assessment Series. This
series offers authoritative treatments of practical issues in areas of language assessment,
such as reading (Alderson, 2000), vocabulary (Read, 2000), language for speciﬁc
purposes (Douglas, 2000), listening (Buck, 2001), writing (Weigle, 2002), speaking,
(Luoma, 2004), grammar (Purpura, 2004) and assessing young language learners
(McKay, 2006). Each volume contains an up-to-date overview of theory and research,
accompanied by useful discussion and examples of testing principles and techniques.
Fulcher, G., Davidson, F. (2007) Language Testing and Assessment: An Advanced
Resource Book . London and New York: Routledge. This volume provides a
comprehensive and interestingly-presented treatment of the issues involved in designing
and validating language tests. It includes a thorough examination of different models of
language ability, along with detailed guidance on test construction and delivery. Practical
issues of test administration and staff training, often glossed over or ignored in testing
texts, are discussed in some detail, and issues of fairness, ethics and standards are
also addressed. The volume includes a range of tasks aimed at encouraging readers to
engage with the material as well as a selection of key readings that illustrate the concepts
discussed.
Hughes, A. (2003) Testing for Language Teachers (second edition). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. This widely-used text is a clearly-written practical guide
to the principles and practice of language testing. It covers a range of essential topics,
including test purpose, relationships between teaching and testing, stages of test
development, and techniques for testing different language skills.
McNamara, T. (1996) Measuring Second Language Performance . London: Longman.
This book is an in-depth examination of the issues and problems involved in assessing
language performance. The ﬁrst half of the book looks at approaches and theories in

266 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
performance assessment and identiﬁes the dimensions of an adequate model of language
performance. The second half of the book is concerned with ways in which Rasch
measurement technology can be used to model variability in language performance and
rater behaviour.
McNamara, T. and Roever, C. (2006) Language Testing: The Social Dimension . Malden,
MA and Oxford: Blackwell. In this book, the authors explore the social dimensions of
language testing from a validity theory perspective. They critique the lack of a social
perspective in psychometric approaches to testing and outline various ways in which
social dimensions of language use can be incorporated into test construction. The uses
and abuses of language tests as policy instruments are also critically examined. The book
provides a thorough and theoretically-grounded overview of the issues and problems
associated with a socially situated view of language assessment.
Hands-on Activity
Question 1
In a short ESL vocabulary test, the test developers wanted to be sure to include
vocabulary items at a wide variety of difﬁculty levels, and so they included items
such as the following: ‘The main focus of the course’, ‘People’s stereotypes of other
social groups’ and ‘My name is Sandy’. The examinee had to select the correct
word (the underlined one) from four choices. Since the items were intended to
reveal different ability levels, the test developers looked at the item difﬁculty of
each of the items. They found a range of difﬁculties for the three items (100, 74
and 42). Complete Table 15.4 with your analysis of where each item ﬁts, the level
of predicted item difﬁculties (low, medium, high) and actual item difﬁculties.
Item, predicted and
actual resultsBeginning Intermediate Advanced
Item
Predicted
Actual item difﬁculty
Table 15.4 Summary of predictions and results for ESL vocabulary items
Question 2
Test developers were attempting to develop two forms of a language test that they
could claim measured the same thing. They started by developing three forms
of the test, each of which had the same types of items. They gave the three tests
to a group of students and they found that the correlation between Form 1 and
Form 2 was 0.74. The correlation between Form 1 and Form 3 was 0.75, and the
correlation between Form 2 and Form 3 was 0.85. Which two forms should the
test developers choose?
Question 3
Test developers were attempting to write a test of ESL Business English, and
therefore as one part of the validity study they needed to ﬁnd evidence that the

267 Assessment
test was measuring this construct. They did this, in part, by examining the scores
obtained on the tests by four different groups of examinees. The four groups were
chosen because of their predicted differences in ability in Business English. Can
you predict which group the researchers hoped would perform the best on the
test, the second best, etc? Place each of the four groups in the appropriate place in
Table 15.5:
• Native speakers of English, business majors (NSBM).
• Non-native speakers of English, business majors (NNSBM).
• Native speakers, non-business majors (NSNBM).
• Non-native speakers, non-business majors (NNSNBM).
Predicted test
performanceLowest scores Third-highest
scoresSecond-highest
scoresHighest scores
Group
Table 15.5 Developing a test of ESL Business English
Question 4
In order to improve their testing of language ability, many testing programmes
are attempting to develop tests that are delivered and scored by computer, and
as a part of the development process, validation studies are conducted. One type
of validation study looks at the correlation of performance on the computer-
delivered test with performance on a similar paper and pencil test. If the purpose
of the computer-delivered test is to assess language ability better than has been
possible with paper and pencil tests, what kind of relationship should be expected
as the ideal outcome from such a study and why? (A strong correlation would
be approaching 1 (for example, Pearson’s r = 0.92), and a low correlation would
approach 0 (for example, Pearson’s r = 0.23).)
Question 5
In a large test revision project, testing researchers were hoping to develop a better
test of academic language ability. To do so they tested several different tests,
including tests of listening, vocabulary, grammar and reading. They found that
they only had enough time to include either the reading or the grammar test in
the ﬁnal version, and they found that the correlations of the grammar test with
the other language tests were somewhat stronger than those between the reading
test and other tests, but in the end they chose to include the reading test rather
than the grammar test. Why do you think they would do this?
Question 6
As a teacher in a language programme, you have developed an achievement test for
your course that helps you to focus your teaching on particular reading strategies
throughout the semester, and that seems to assess your students in a manner
that is fair and useful as input to the grading process. In looking for a means of
reporting outcomes to an external agency, your programme administrator takes a
look at your test and then starts questioning its validity for the purpose that she
is concerned about. She wants you to do a correlational study of your ﬁnal exam
with another reading test to see if it is valid. What should you tell her?

Suggested Solutions
Chapter 2, Grammar
1 Form. In English, a speciﬁc number or number-like phrase in English used as an
adjective is always singular before the noun it modiﬁes.
2 Meaning. This sentence is accurate and meaningful, but it is not likely the
meaning that the student intends. The -ing participle refers to the cause, not
the experiencer of the emotion.
3 Use. It is not as acceptable to use a stative verb (for example, want ) with the
passive voice as it is to use a verb denoting physical action (for example, score).
4 Meaning. The logical connector ‘on the contrary’ usually denies a proposition.
A connector like ‘in contrast’, to compare two things, would be better.
5 Use. The historical present modal form, that is, will, is likely to be used in a
response to a request, for example, ‘Of course, I will’ .
6 Meaning. Few has a negative connotation. Although signals a contrast. One
would therefore expect either a quantiﬁer with a positive connotation to be
used, such as a few or a causal connector, such as because . Thus we would expect
either: ‘Although he had a few close friends, he was very lonely’ or ‘Because he had
few close friends, he was very lonely’ .
7 Form. The direct object ( a house ) precedes the indirect object ( my parents ) when
the indirect object is in a prepositional phrase. Without the preposition, this
sentence would have been accurate.
Here is an example of an activity that would promote noticing of number phrases
used in singular form before a noun ( see Question 1).
Bring into class some advertisements from the real estate section of the newspaper.
Such advertisements contain phrases such as ‘3-bedroom house’, ‘two-car garage’, ‘two-
bathroom apartment’, ‘5-acre lot’, etc. See how many of these number phrases before
nouns students can ﬁnd. They may need help with any abbreviations that are used.
Here is an example of a practice activity that would help students work on the
order of direct and indirect objects ( see Question 7).
Think of ﬁve friends or relatives that you have. What gifts would you buy for each?
For example, I would buy a book for my sister. OR I would buy my sister a book.
Chapter 3, Vocabulary
Research has shown that vocabulary size is directly related to the ability to use
English in various ways. Although around 2000 to 3000 word families should
supply the bulk of the lexical resources required for basic everyday conversation
(chat), Nation (2006) found that it takes 6000 to 7000 word families to engage 16

269 Suggested Solutions
easily in a wide variety of oral discourse. For written discourse, the ﬁgures are
closer to 8000 to 9000 word families. Second language learners with a knowledge
of the most frequent 9000 words in English can be considered to have a wide
vocabulary, which should allow them to operate in a university environment ( see
Chapter 13, Reading ).
It is important to note that these sizes are approximations, and the ability to
accomplish the things in English also depends on many other factors, including
speaking and reading skills, background knowledge and strategy use. However,
they do provide useful ‘rules of thumb’ which can be used as lexical goals by both
teachers and learners.
Suggested solutions
Four vocabulary learning strands
Strand General conditions Activities and techniques
Meaning focused
inputFocus on the message
Some unfamiliar items (2%)
Understanding
NoticingReading graded readers
Listening to stories
Communication activities
Language focused
learningFocus on language items
Deliberate studyDirect teaching of vocabulary
Direct learning
Intensive reading
Training in vocabulary strategies
Meaning focused
outputFocus on the message
Some unfamiliar items
Understanding
NoticingCommunication activities with
written input
Prepared writing
Linked skills
Fluency development Focus on the message
Little or no unfamiliar language
Pressure to perform faster
Quantity of practiceReading easy graded readers
Repeated reading
Speed reading
Listening to easy input
4/3/2
Rehearsed tasks
10 minute writing
Linked skills
Chapter 4, Discourse Analysis
Both these texts are about the same topic – cockroaches – but they are clearly
different in many respects. Perhaps the most obvious difference between the two
texts, is that the ﬁrst text is a written text about cockroaches (taken from the
Encyclopaedia Britannica , Volume 5, p 909) and the second text is an anecdote told
by a woman to her friends during an informal chat over lunch at work.
Text 1 is characterized by the following features typical of written discourse:
• Context independent : as the written text must be able to make sense away from
the physical context in which it was produced, it must be self-explanatory and
the reader needs to be able to access the meanings from the text itself ( see Burns
and Joyce, 1997).

270 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• Lexical density : In Text 1 the lexical words have been underlined. There are nine
clauses, with 29 lexical items, giving a lexical density of 3.2 items per clause;
whereas in Text 2, there are 10 clauses, with 18 lexical items, giving a lexical density
of 1.8. The information is therefore more densely packed in written discourse.
• Formal and specialized vocabulary : for example: eminently tropical , species , widely
disseminated , cosmopolitan .
On the other hand, Text 2 displays features typical of spoken English. These are:
• Context dependent : spoken discourse is more context dependent, in that speakers
constantly refer to things in the context, for example ‘there was this cockroach like this’.
• Lexically sparse : spoken discourse is lexically less dense.
• Grammatical intricacy : the text is made up mainly of simple main clauses
connected to one another by and. However, sentence grammar in speech can
be very complex with clause after clause being added on, with extensive use
of conjunctions, such as and, because , then , to link the clauses. For example in
Text 2, Turn 3, there are 16 clauses in one clause complex (totalling 95 words).
• Use of paralinguistic features (for example, Pat’s hand gesture of size of cockroach).
• Because spoken language is produced as ‘process’ not as a completed product, it
contains spontaneity phenomena, such as false starts, hesitations, incomplete
clauses.
These differences between spoken and written discourse are summarized in Table
16.1 below.
Spoken discourse Written discourse
Context dependent : relies on shared knowledge
between participants; greater use of exophoric
(external context) referenceContext independent : must recreate
the context for readers
Less explicit/relies strongly on shared
knowledge between participantsQuite explicit marking out of what is
going to be said (for example, in the
ﬁrst place , ﬁrstly , ﬁnally )
Spontaneous and therefore displays spontaneity
phenomena, such as false starts, hesitations,
incomplete clausesPlanned, edited and redrafted
All interactants are engaged in the creation of
the text, so there is turntaking, interruptions,
overlaps, etc.Written text is only implicitly interactive
(reader is assumed but not involved in
the creation of the text)
Multilogue (casual conversation very often
involves more than two speakers, that is, it is
usually multilogue rather than dialogue)Dialogic : Writer engages in a dialogue
with the projected reader
Grammatical complexity : in terms of the
chaining of clauses and the inclusion of non-
linguistic support to the construction of meaningGrammatical complexity : in terms of
density of structure within sentences
Lexically sparse Lexically dense
Vocabulary is everyday/non-specialized Vocabulary more specialized
Table 16.1 Differences between spoken and written discourse

271 Suggested Solutions
Chapter 5, Pragmatics
Reference
There are numerous deictic expressions that need interpreting (for example, it
[03], that [05, 06]), as well as the expression the South [05] meaning the South
of the United States . However, none of them pose any signiﬁcant interpretation
problems.
Illocutionary Force
For example, Everything’s ready now [03] is an invitation to come to the table to
eat; but that’s so much that is FAR TOO MUCH rice [06] functions as a complaint.
Both of these speech acts are performed indirectly. Although they are interpreted
with ease in this dialogue, they could carry a different force in a different context.
For example, if the ‘complaint’ was uttered with soft intonation and in a country
where polite refusals are expected out of modesty, this could function as a
ritualistic expression of modesty.
Agreement/Disagreement
Andi does not adhere to Leech’s politeness maxim of agreement, and this disturbs
the social equilibrium.
Face-threatening behaviour
Brian was hoping to please Andi [03], so Andi’s complaint is likely to be face-
threatening to him (threatening to his positive face).
Context
In a retrospective interview, Brian commented that in this communicative activity
(a social dinner) he was expecting to indulge in ‘small talk’ rather than to be
‘talked at’. If they had known each other better, or if they were in a different
context (for example, in a university seminar), a debate of this kind might have
seemed more appropriate to Brian.
Conversational Pattern/Structure
Andi took longer turns than Brian and interrupted him when Brian attempted
to speak. This pattern of turn-taking was not what Brian was expecting in this
context, and made him feel he was being talked at.
Chapter 6, Corpus Linguistics
First, it is important to remember that these concordance lines do not represent an
exhaustive study. However, there are several interesting observations that can be
made from the patterns seen in the concordance lines. Although think of and think
about do have some overlap in use and meaning, there are situations when there is
a strong preference for one form over the other. Here are some of the observations
that can be made from the concordance lines presented in the activity.

272 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
• Think of is often used with indeﬁnite references (for example, something , nothing ).
However, the words something and nothing never occur with think about (for
example, think about nothing ).
• Although it occurs after both think of and think about , think of continues its
preference for a non-referential use. The concordance lines show that think of it
is a non-referential use of it, whereas the it reference in think about it is usually
referring back to a speciﬁc reference in the text. This may be difﬁcult to see
from the limited text available. However, if you were actually carrying out this
exploration with a concordance program you could increase the ‘window’ of
words available to help you ﬁnd out the reference patterns.
• Come to think of it is quite common and quite idiomatic, yet come to think about
it does not occur.
• Think about it is often preceded by the pronoun you (that is, you think about it ).
• The examples of think about + that also demonstrate the preference for think
about to be used with referential situations (for example, Think about that train.
Think about that sort of place ).
Chapter 7, Second Language Acquisition
Student A Student B Student C
1 . 323
2 . 525
3 . 545
4 . 453
5 . 543
6. N/A 2 3
7 . 523
8 . 423
9 . 333
10. 4 4 3
11. 4 3 4
Who is the Most/Least Advanced?
Student A is the most advanced. He uses several stage 5 questions that appear to be
original rather than formulaic. In addition, he shows the ability to use his sense of
humour while completing the task, suggesting that he is at ease with his English
language use.
Student B is the least advanced. Many of his questions are stage 2 questions.
He is able to use some more advanced questions, including one stage 5 question.
This may be an example of a formulaic question, that is, one that he has learned
from classroom activities. On the other hand, it may be an original question, but
the fact that most of his questions are from lower stages suggests that it is more
difﬁcult for him to produce these advanced questions.

273 Suggested Solutions
Student C’s questions are mostly stage 3 questions, but there is evidence that he
is able to create more advanced questions. It is never possible to be sure whether
a particular question is formulaic when it is correct. Sometimes, a question which
seems a little odd or which contains an error is a clearer indication of the fact
that the learner has created the sentence rather than repeating something heard
elsewhere. Thus, a question such as ‘Can I know witch one is my trunk?’ suggests
that the learner is putting the pieces together himself.
Written versus Oral Interaction Task
A written task permits learners to take the time to recall what they have learned
in class. These more advanced questions may be either chunk-learned items or
they may reﬂect the learners’ meta-linguistic ability, which may be in advance of
the language they use spontaneously. On an oral task, there is pressure to respond
more quickly and there is no opportunity to review what has been produced and
to make changes. Therefore, their oral performance is more likely to reﬂect their
true level of development.
Interlanguage Features
The use of Mrs and Mister , without a family name, as a polite form of address
matches French usage of Madame and Monsieur .
The use of questions without inversion is typical of spoken or informal French,
and students were clearly writing what they considered to be appropriate for
informal oral interaction. Recall, however, that even learners whose L1 requires
inversion with questions will nevertheless pass through stages of development at
which they do not use inversion.
Chapter 8, Psycholinguistics
Evidence in Data
Yes, the data show that the less proﬁcient learners were signiﬁcantly slower and
less accurate to judge form-related pairs than unrelated control pairs. The more
proﬁcient learners also show some sensitivity to lexical form in that it took them
longer to reject form-related pairs than controls and they were signiﬁcantly less
accurate than in the control condition. However, the magnitude of the form
interference effect was larger for less than for more proﬁcient learners.
Support for the Prediction
The results for the semantically related pairs are almost the reverse of those for the
form-related pairs. Here, the more proﬁcient group appears to be more vulnerable
to semantic interference, particularly if we focus on the response latencies where
only the more proﬁcient group is signiﬁcantly longer to reject semantically
related pairs relative to controls. However, for both groups there is evidence in the
accuracy data that they were sometimes fooled by the presentation of a second
word that was semantically related to the correct translation.

274 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Characterizing L2 Lexical Development
The overall pattern of results supports a general characterization of L2 lexical
development as proceeding from reliance on lexical form to reliance on meaning
(Kroll and Stewart, 1994). However, the course of development does not appear
to be discrete; there is evidence that even less skilled learners are sensitive to the
semantics of L2 words to some degree (Dufour and Kroll, 1995) and that even
more skilled learners are still vulnerable to consequences of competition among
lexical form relatives. The changes with increasing proﬁciency appear to reﬂect a
change in the relative activation of different lexical codes.
Implications of Observed Form Interference
The presence of form interference for even the more skilled group is consistent
with the evidence for non-selective lexical access in ﬂuent bilinguals reviewed in
the chapter. Although the magnitude of the form interference effect is smaller
for the more proﬁcient participants, the fact that it is still present suggests that it
reﬂects a basic property of the developed lexicon.
Chapter 9, Sociolinguistics
Middlesbrough English Standard English
Phonological examples
Ee Oh (but also to indicate scandalization,
exasperation, surprise)
eh? Tag inviting agreement
yer you
Hey Attention-grabbing tag
wanna want to
fest ﬁrst
Lexical examples
like Informality tag
class excellent
reckon Used more than think
rubbishy bad
mucky dirty, rude
smart good, cool
anyroad anyway
mind however
Our Lass my wife/girlfriend
Our Tony my brother Tony
Our House my house
right cob on is in a mood

275 Suggested Solutions
learning teaching
owt/nowt anything/nothing
gadgie man, like codger
parmo a parmesan , as explained
eggheads Educated people
choice swearing (euphemistically)
gobsmacked surprised
plonked placed
croggie/tan different words for giving someone a ride on a
bicycle
Grammatical examples
us Nominatively used for we, accusatively
meaning me
we only get a mention only for actually
I didn’t know there
were that many words
in the world, me me as reﬂexive intensiﬁer
what it is, right Topic introduction
there’s this there is a
way what we talk what for subordinating particle that
ones what all the eggheads As above
underlined in red, and that and so on
on the news and everything Tag phrase as intensiﬁer
them rubbishy efforts them (for demonstrative those )
this dictionary, it’s huge Topicalization
don’t give a hoot about
no Italian cars Multiple negation
I swear down dead Emphatic idiom
down Oxford down (meaning anywhere southwards)
get yerselves round Imperative get
had a right chew on complained loudly
Discoursal examples
Questions Did yer see it?
Elicitations eh?
Exclamations honest
that’s rubbish, that is
so anyroad like
Empathy markers get this
way what we talk, eh?

276 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Chapter 10, Focus on the Language Learner:
Motivation, Styles and Strategies
The following are general descriptions of your learning style preferences. It does
not describe you all of the time, but gives you an idea of your tendencies when
you learn.
Part 1: How I Use my Physical Senses
If you are a visual person, you rely more on the sense of sight, and you learn
best through visual means (books, video, charts, pictures). If you are an auditory
person, you prefer listening and speaking activities (discussions, debates, audio
tapes, role-plays, lectures). If you are a tactile/kinesthetic person, you beneﬁt
from doing projects, working with objects and moving around the room (games,
building models, conducting experiments).
Part 2: How I Expose Myself to Learning Situations
If you are extroverted, you enjoy a wide range of social, interactive learning
tasks (games, conversations, discussions, debates, role-plays, simulations). If you
are introverted, you like to do more independent work (studying or reading by
yourself or learning with the computer) or enjoy working with one other person
you know well.
Part 3: How I Handle Possibilities
If you are a random-intuitive, you are more future-oriented, prefer what can be
over what is, like to speculate about possibilities, enjoy abstract thinking and
avoid step-by-step instruction. If your preference is concrete-sequential, you are
present-oriented, prefer one-step-at-a-time activities, and want to know where
you are going in your learning at every moment.
Part 4: How I Approach Tasks
If you are more closure-oriented, you focus carefully on all learning tasks, meet
deadlines, plan ahead for assignments and want explicit directions. If you are
more open in your orientation, you enjoy discovery learning (in which you pick
up information naturally) and prefer to relax and enjoy your learning without
concern for deadlines or rules.
Part 5: How I Deal with Ideas
If you are a synthesizing person, you can summarize material well, enjoy guessing
meanings and predicting outcomes, and notice similarities quickly. If you are
analytic, you can pull ideas apart, do well on logical analysis and contrast tasks,
and tend to focus on grammar rules.
Part 6: How I Deal with Input
If you are a global person, you enjoy getting the main idea and are comfortable
communicating even if you don’t know all the words or concepts. If you are a

277 Suggested Solutions
particular person, you focus more on details, and remember speciﬁc information
about a topic well.
Chapter 11, Listening
Question 1: Listening Sub-skills
Examples of cases where the learner found it difﬁcult to discriminate between the
sounds include: conversing/convergent , context/contact and doubts/done . Examples
of misperceived word boundaries are: on seventy (for uncertainty ) and everywhere
(for every word ). As far as tackling unfamiliar words is concerned, he produced
a plausible alternative, decide , for the unusual word decipher , but was totally
confused by catch the words , which he interpreted as catch the dog .
Question 2: Overall Comprehension
One way of assessing what the listener made of the text as a whole is to focus on
the right-hand version and treat it as a text in its own right. What does it seem
to be about? When you do that, it is hard to see any overall coherence. Although
some of his versions of sentences (2, 9 and perhaps 10) are relatively accurate,
they all have some detail missing. Others (for example, 3, 5 and certainly 7) make
no obvious sense to the reader. Although the class was told in advance that the
topic of the text was the problems of talking to native speakers, it seems clear that
the Japanese learner either did not understand that or did not hear it, because it is
only in the ﬁnal two sentences that he seems to have been writing about language.
The learner was an undergraduate in economics. There is some lexical evidence
of that in his version: convergent (sentence 1) and consumption (sentence 6), and
also perhaps in his hearing the nouns demand and beneﬁt (sentence 10) instead of
their respective adjectives.
Question 3: Intercultural Misunderstanding
Although the language of this extract was simple, it still provided the opportunity
for conﬂicting interpretations. The reporter said the food was hot, (meaning too
spicy for his taste), which the interviewee changed to tasty (spicy enough) and
justiﬁed (you want plenty of spice when you are celebrating). The reporter then
picked up the word tasty, but with a slight pause and a glance at the camera,
suggesting that he felt the need to be polite. His next sentence is the most
interesting, for our purposes: ‘I don’t suppose you have a carry-out do you?’ The
reporter seemed to be looking for a polite excuse not to eat any more of the food:
his ‘I don’t suppose you have a carry-out?’ implied that he was asking for a portion
to take away with him to eat later. But the interviewee seems to have interpreted
what he said as ‘I don’t suppose you have a take-away restaurant?’ and so replied that
he was a doctor, and not a restaurateur.
This could be seen as a simple lexical misinterpretation. On the other hand,
Pakistani immigrants in the UK may be so used to being stereotyped as working
in certain occupations, such as catering, that the doctor here assumes that the
reporter assumes just that. This extract seems to carry echoes of many other
conversations the doctor has had with British people! Real-life misunderstandings
like this can provide valuable material for discussion with L2 listeners, especially

278 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
when the examples come from interaction between competent users of a language,
as was the case here. Adult L2 learners, in particular, can gain conﬁdence (perhaps
paradoxically) from analysing the problems that arise in listening, even in their
own L1.
Chapter 12, Speaking and Pronunciation
Question 1
The ﬁrst part of the interaction (B1–B4) is mediated by the fact that this is a
pedagogical task requiring description of a picture. The text unfolds as:
Description (B1)^(Clariﬁcation)(A1)^Description (B2)^(Reaction)
(A2-B3)^Task closure (A3)
Clariﬁcation and Reaction can be regarded as Optional stages. The second part
(A4–A6) is a kind of Coda, a commentary on the overall interaction, which clears
up the central misunderstanding.
Question 2
Many of the lexico-grammatical choices in the Description stage reﬂect the goal
of the task – describing and identifying a picture. The major human and material
participants are named – cars, hotel, snow, people, sun, mark, ﬁrst ﬂoor – as well as
the location circumstances – around the hotel, in front of the hotel, on the wall of the
ﬁrst ﬂoor of the hotel . The main verb choice, reﬂecting the existence of the things
or people in the picture is the verb ‘to be’ and the tense used is present simple. In
some instances present continuous – are going to skiing – is used, reﬂecting the still
ongoing nature of the actions portrayed.
Other choices, outside the stage of Description reﬂect the fact that the speakers
are involved in a joint ‘here and now’ task. Personal pronouns I, you are used to
refer to each other, whilst major verb choices refer to the conduct of the task – see,
know, understand, mean, understood .
Question 3
B1 is a ﬂuent speaker; in her initial turns (B1, B2), she uses a series of independent
clauses linked by the conjunction and. There are some examples of backtracking
(‘the cars, some cars are f-’ ) and false starts ( ‘And it’s quite shi-mm it’s very sh-sun
the sun’ ) as she searches for an appropriate structure. The laughter that ends
B2 may be to relieve the ongoing pressure to speak, to signal a turn to A, or to
allow her time to think further about what she can say. There are no examples
of ellipsis in the text, but A uses ‘substitution’ in ‘I know which one it is’ , where
one refers out into the shared context of the task and the materials (pictures)
they are using.
Question 4
A uses clariﬁcation checks (A1), backchannels ( ‘Ah, yeah’ … A2), the turn type of
question (A2) (a question usually ‘obliges’ the person questioned to respond), and
repetition (A4, A5, A6) to negotiate the topic and achieve his purpose.

279 Suggested Solutions
Question 5
Unlike the three-part exchange we noted in the spider text, this interaction
has an example of a more extended series of follow-ups (B5, A5, B6) where the
two speakers go on checking each other’s utterances (by echoing) until they are
sure they have reached a common understanding. The last turn (A6) is a ﬁnal
conﬁrmation that this understanding has been reached.
Question 6
Segmental: the Japanese student pronounces /red/ as /led/. This is because /l/ and /r/
are not distinct phonemes in Japanese, but are perceived as allophones. It is only from
her interlocutor’s reaction that B knows she needs to correct the initial consonant
in red. Interestingly, also, A does not hear led but let (another minimal pair) – which
may be due to a tendency in German speakers to pronounce the ﬁnal consonant with
more force (for example, /t/ rather than /d/). This problem illustrates very clearly
that generally speaking, in pronunciation learning the perception of signiﬁcant
differences needs to be in place before students can successfully work on production.
An understanding of phonology is extremely helpful to teachers as it enables
them to analyse and describe the systematic sound pattern of the language they
teach, and, ideally, to contrast it with the phoneme inventories of their students’
ﬁrst language(s). Such an understanding is also useful for the setting up of teaching
tasks, for example, work on contextualized minimal pairs which are relevant given
the students’ L1.
Chapter 13, Reading
An Example of a Response by the Authors
Reading strategy : previewing and predicting.
• What : the reader examines the title, headings, sub-headings and any graphics,
and makes predictions about what the text (as a whole) or the next section, will
be about.
• How : the reader guesses (sometimes in the form of questions, sometimes in the
form of statements) what the text will be about. For example: ‘I see from the title
that this chapter is about the “other economy” and the subtitle says something
about the “unofﬁcial untaxed sector”.’ So I think that the next section is going
to talk about parts of a country’s economy that do not get reported ofﬁcially.
• Why : the goal is to prepare the reader for the upcoming text information and to
enhance comprehension. It also allows the reader to form a mental picture, or
model, of the text’s development and overall meaning.
• When and Where : the reader can use this strategy before beginning to read,
and at the beginnings and ends of paragraphs and sections. In fact, the reader
can use this strategy throughout the reading. Explicit use of this strategy may
work best with academic texts and other information texts. Implicit use of this
strategy may be sufﬁcient when reading for pleasure, with texts intended to be
enjoyed and not remembered in detail.
• Evaluation : the reader should ask herself whether this strategy is working for
her, to help enhance her understanding of the text’s meaning, and whether it is
worth the effort being exerted.

280 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Chapter 14, Writing
Suggested Answers
Describe the rhetorical situation for this writing task. Who is the author? Who are the
readers? What genre is being used? What pieces of information does the author need to
provide?
The rhetorical situation is to respond to the call for papers for a well-established
international conference on second language writing. The task is to write a proposal
for a 20-minute paper presentation. The call for papers states that the organizers
‘welcome proposals from around the world’ , which means submissions from outside the
USA are encouraged. The author is a second language writing researcher working in
Taiwan, and the readers are anonymous proposal reviewers who are knowledgeable
members in the ﬁeld. The proposal would need to provide information about
the purpose and focus of the presentation, rationale for the particular topic, a
description of how new knowledge will be attained (that is, method, including
setting, data collection and analysis), a brief summary of the ﬁndings (if the study
has been completed), and a brief discussion of the implications or contributions to
the ﬁeld.
How well established does this writer sound? A novice researcher? An experienced
researcher? A well-established authority? What are some of the textual features that
gave you a sense of the author’s level of expertise?
The author seems to be an insider in the ﬁeld with some research experience,
though she or he is probably a relative newcomer. The proposal identiﬁes an
important issue in the ﬁeld that has been underexplored, and includes all of
the essential components for a conference proposal. The presentation of the
information seems somewhat unconventional; some of the key information (for
example, purpose and focus, data collection method) is buried in other details that
are presented in the narrative mode. It may be an indication that the person is
not fully versed in the genre of conference proposals. For example, the entire ﬁrst
paragraph provides the background information without any explicit reference
to the presentation or the study, and the purpose of the study is not mentioned
explicitly until the beginning of the second paragraph. The second paragraph
focuses on what the study will likely accomplish (expected outcomes) but not
enough on how (method). In fact, the method (that is, interviews) is introduced
in a sub-clause (‘ by interviewing each teacher ’), as if it is background information.
How well does the author relate local issues to the international audience?
The author relates local issues of writing teacher education by casting the issues in
general terms (‘ When it comes to teaching writing, few upper level faculty shoulder such
responsibilities …’) and by stating the possible implications (‘… this study identiﬁes
issues that may impact the value of current writing curriculum in higher education ’;
‘The ﬁndings of this study not only enhance our understanding of the essence of writing
teacher education, but also consolidate and extend scholarship in studies of English
writing, particularly in a foreign language setting .’)
Overall, how effective do you think this proposal is in responding to the rhetorical
situation? What aspects of the proposal are particularly effective? What aspects of the
text could be improved?

281 Suggested Solutions
Overall, the proposal does what it needs to do. The most obvious strength is the
study itself as well as the ways in which the author emphasizes the implications of
this study to the ﬁeld and to other contexts. To improve this proposal, the author
might foreground the purpose of the presentation by mentioning it earlier, and by
condensing the background information in the ﬁrst paragraph. That would create
more space for more thorough descriptions of the overall design of the study as
well as the data collection and analysis procedures.
Suppose the writer of the proposal has asked you to read and comment on the proposal
before submitting it. Provide one page of written feedback for the writer.
Thank you for sharing your draft proposal with me – I enjoyed reading it. This
study presents a much needed critical examination of teacher preparation and
teacher preparedness in the context of EFL writing instruction. Overall, the
proposal presents the necessary information – the background information about
an important issue in the ﬁeld, a brief description of the components of the study
and data collection, an indication of the possible outcomes and its relevance to
the ﬁeld and to other contexts.
There are a number of ways in which this proposal could be strengthened. First,
this proposal refers primarily to the study along with its background and some
implications, but it does not refer directly to the presentation itself. It might be useful
to state early in the proposal what you are going to do at the time of the presentation
(for example, ‘This presentation will explore the issue of second language writing
teacher education by drawing on a qualitative multiple-case study of EFL college
writing teachers in Taiwan’). Specifying the geographic or institutional context in the
ﬁrst paragraph would also be important because, as it stands, the entire ﬁrst paragraph
seems to make a sweeping generalization about the teaching of writing in general.
Another suggestion would be to reduce the amount of background information
in the ﬁrst paragraph and spend more time describing the overall design of
the study. While the information about the type of data collection (that is,
observations of writing classes at four institutions and interviews with 20 writing
teachers) is included, they seem to be buried in other details. In fact, it reads like
a narrative (a chronological sequencing of different segments of the study) rather
than a description (a mapping of the overall design and its components).
Hope you ﬁnd these comments useful. Thanks again for sharing this proposal. I
look forward to learning how the study turns out!
Chapter 15, Assessment
Question 1
Summary of predictions and results in a quantitative validity argument
Item, predicted and
actual resultsBeginning Intermediate Advanced
Item My name is
SandyThe main focus of
the coursePeople’s stereotypes of
other social groups
Predicted High Medium Low
Actual item
difﬁculty100 74 42

282 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Question 2
The correlations suggest that forms 2 and 3 are the most similar of the three tests
and therefore these are the ones that should be chosen, all other things being
equal.
Question 3
Placing predicted differences in ability in Business English
Predicted test
performanceLowest scores Third-highest
scoresSecond-
highest scores Highest
scores
Group NNSNBM NNSBM NSNBM NSBM
NNSNBM = Non-native speakers of English, non-business majors; NNSBM = Non-native speakers of English,
business majors; NSNBM = Native speakers of English, non-business majors; NSBM = native speakers of
English, business majors.
Question 4
We would hope for a correlation of around 0.70–0.80. We do not want the tests to
correlate near perfectly, because the hope is that the tests will not measure exactly
the same language abilities. The computer-based test is supposed to be better.
Question 5
They were concerned not only with the correlations but also with the construct
that the test measured and the inﬂuence that the test would have on students
studying English for the test.
Question 6
Your test is a criterion-referenced test that is appropriate for your grading purposes,
but there is no reason to expect that it would correlate with a test for another
purpose. You do not want your test judged on the basis of a single analysis that is
affected in ways that neither you nor your administrator understand.

References
Chapter 1, An Overview of Applied Linguistics
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (1999) Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English . Harlow: Longman.
Birdsong, D. (2006) Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective
overview. Language Learning 56 (S1): 9–49.
Brown, C.M., Hagoort, P. (eds) (1999) The Neurocognition of Language . New York:
Oxford University Press.
Carter, R., Nunan, D. (eds). (2001) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. and Olshtain, E. (2000) Discourse and Context in Language
Teaching . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1959) Review of ‘Verbal Behavior’ by B.F. Skinner. Language 35: 26–58.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J. (2006) Styles and Strategies-based Instruction: A
Teachers’ Guide . Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Conklin, K. and Schmitt, N. (2008) Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more
quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied
Linguistics 29, 1: 72–89.
Cook, V. (1996) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching . London: Arnold.
Crystal, D. (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Crystal, D. (1995) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Verspoor, M. (2007) A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to
second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10, 1: 7–21.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology Of The Language Learner: Individual Differences
In Second Language Acquisition . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009) The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Doughty, C., Williams, J. (eds). (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second
Language Acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Egbert, J.E., Hanson-Smith, E. (eds). (1999) CALL Environments: Research, Practice,
and Critical Issues . Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Ellis, N.C. (2008) Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The
associative learning of constructions, learnt-attention, and the limited L2 endstate.

284 References
In Robinson, P. and Ellis, N.C. (eds) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second
Language Acquisition . New York: Routledge. pp. 372–405.
Ellis, N.C., Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied
linguistics – Introduction to the Special issue. Applied Linguistics 17/4: 558–589.
Elman, J.L. (2001) Connectionism and language acquisition. In Tomasello M. and Bates
E. (eds) Language Development: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell; pp.
295–306.
Field, J. (2003) Psycholinguistics: A Resource Book for Students . London: Routledge.
Fromkin, V.A. (ed.) (1973) Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence . The Hague: Mouton.
Fromkin, V.A. (ed.) (1980) Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear,
Pen, and Hand . New York: Academic Press.
Gaskell, G. (ed.) (2009) Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Grifﬁths, C. (ed.) (2008) Lessons from Good Language Learners . Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language . London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic . London: Arnold.
Harley, T. (2008) The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory (third edition).
Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Howatt, A.P.R. (1984) A History of English Language Teaching . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Howatt, A.P.R. (1999) History of second language teaching. In Spolsky, B. (ed.).
Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics . Amsterdam: Elsevier; pp. 618–625.
Hymes, D. (1972) On communicative competence. In Pride, J.B., Holmes, J. (eds).
Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books; pp. 269–293.
Kelly, L.G. (1969) 25 Centuries of Language Teaching . Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition . Oxford:
Pergamon.
Labov, W. (1970) The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale 23:
30–87.
Larsen-Freeman, D., Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics .
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., Carter, R. (1997) Written and spoken vocabulary. In Schmitt, N.,
McCarthy, M. (eds). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; pp. 20–39.
Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In Linn, R. (ed.). Educational Measurement (third edition).
New York: Macmillan; pp. 13–103.

285 References
Moon, R. (1997) Vocabulary connections: multi-word items in English. In Schmitt, N.,
McCarthy, M. (eds). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; pp. 40–63.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H., Todesco, A. (1978) The Good Language
Learner . Research in Education Series 7. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R.L. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know .
Boston, MA: Newbury House.
Paradis, M. (2004) A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Pawley, A., Syder, F.H. (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native like selection and
native like ﬂuency. In Richards, J., Schmidt, R. (eds). Language and Communication .
London: Longman; 191–225.
Richards, J., Platt, J., Weber, H. (1985) Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics .
Harlow: Longman.
Saussure, F. de (1966) (transl. Baskin, W.). Course in General Linguistics . New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Schmitt, N. (2000) Vocabulary in Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmitt, N. (in press). Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual .
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schumann, J.H., Crowell, S.E., Jones, N.E., Lee, N., Schuchert, S.A., Wood. L.A.
(2004) The Neurobiology of Learning: Perspectives from Second Language Acquisition .
Mahwaw, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sinclair, J. (1996) The search for units of meaning. Textus IX: 75–106.
Tarone, E. (1979) Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29: 181–192.
Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language
Acquisition . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
van Ek, J.A. (1976) The Threshold Level for Modern Language Learning in Schools .
Council of Europe, London: Longman.
van Ek, J.A., Trim, J.L.M. (1998) Threshold 1990 . Council of Europe, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume 1. Thinking and
Speaking. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
West, M. (1953) A General Service List of English Words . London: Longman, Green & Co.
Wilkins, D.A. (1999) Applied linguistics. In Spolsky, B. (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of
Educational Linguistics . Amsterdam: Elsevier; pp. 6–17.
Wray, A. (2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

286 References
Chapter 2, Grammar
Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., Cumo-Johanssen, P. (2000) Using a story-based
approach to teach grammar. In Shrum, J., Glisan, E. (eds). Teacher’s Handbook
(second edition). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Aljaafreh, A., Lantolf, J. (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language
learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal 78: 465–483.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (1999) The Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English . Harlow: Longman.
Carter, R., McCarthy, M. (1995) Grammar and the spoken language. Applied
Linguistics 16: 141–158.
Carter, R., McCarthy, M. (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1998) Discourse analysis and grammar instruction. In Oaks, D.D.
(ed.). Linguistics at Work: A Reader of Applications . Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
College Publishers.
Celce-Murcia, M., Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999) The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL
Teacher’s Course (second edition). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures . The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding . Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins COBUILD English Grammar . (1990) London: HarperCollins.
DeCarrico, J.S. (1998) Syntax, lexis, and discourse: issues in redeﬁning the
boundaries. In Haastrup, K., Viberg, A. (eds). Perspectives on Lexical Acquisition in a
Second Language . Lund: Lund University Press.
DeCarrico, J.S. (2000) The Structure of English: Studies in Form and Function for
Language Teaching . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
DeKeyser, R. (ed.) (2007) Practice in a Second Language . New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Donato, R. (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J.,
Appel, G. (eds). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research . Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Doughty, C., Williams, J. (eds) (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. (1998) Emergentism, connectionism, and language learning. Language
Learning 48: 631–644.
Ellis, N.C., Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied
linguistics—Introduction to this special issue. Applied Linguistics 27: 558–589.
Ellis, N.C., Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009) Constructing a second language: Analyses and
computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage.
Language Learning , Special Issue.

287 References
Ellis, R. (1993) The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL
Quarterly 27: 91–113.
Feldman, M. (2006) From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language .
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., O’Connor, C. (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical
constructions: The Case of let alone. Language 64: 501–38.
Fotos, S., Ellis, R. (1991) Communicating about grammar: a task-based approach.
TESOL Quarterly 25: 605–628.
Goldberg, A. (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in
Language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinkel, E., Fotos, S. (eds) (2002) New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second
Language Classrooms . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hughes, R., McCarthy, M. (1998) From sentence to discourse: discourse grammar and
English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 32: 263–287.
Hunston, S., Francis, G. (2000) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the
Lexical Grammar of English . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hymes, D. (1972) On communicative competence. In Pride, J.B., Holmes, J. (eds).
Sociolinguistics . New York, NY: Penguin; pp. 269–293.
Krashen, S., Terrell, T. (1983) The Natural Approach . New York, NY: Pergamon.
Langacker, R. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1 . Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995) On the teaching and learning of grammar: challenging the
myths. In Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., Mileham, J., Rukowski Weber, R. (eds).
Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001) Teaching grammar. In Celce-Murica, M. (ed.). Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language (third edition). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002) The grammar of choice. In Hinkel, E., Fotos, S. (eds.). New
Perspectives on Grammar Teaching . Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring .
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) The emergence of complexity, ﬂuency, and accuracy in the
oral and written production of ﬁve Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27:
590–619.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009) Teaching and testing grammar. In Long, M., Doughty, C.
(eds.), Handbook of Language Teaching and Testing . Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Larsen-Freeman, D., Cameron, L. (2008 ) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics .
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. (2000) Grammars and spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented
research. Language Learning 50: 675–724
Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1975) A Communicative Grammar of English . London:
Longman.

288 References
Linell, P. (2005) The Written Language Bias in Linguistics . London: Routledge.
Long, M. (1991) Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology.
In De Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., Kramsch, C. (eds). Foreign Language Research in Cross-
Cultural Perspective . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Loschky, L., Bley-Vroman, R. (1993) Grammar and task-based methodology. In
Crookes, G., Gass, S. (eds). Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and
Practice . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lyster, R. (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 399–432.
Lyster, R., Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of forms
in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 37–66.
McCarthy, M. (1998) Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., Carter, R. (1994) Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language
Teaching . London: Longman.
Nattinger, J.R., DeCarrico, J.S. (1992) Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching .
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norris, J., Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analyses . Language Learning 50: 417–528.
Odlin, T. (1994) Introduction to Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pawley, A., Syder, F.H. (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and
nativelike ﬂuency. In Richards, J., Schmidt, R. (eds). Language and Communication .
London: Longman.
Peters, A. (1983) The Units of Language Acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pica, T. (2002) Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and
linguistic needs of classroom language learners? Modern Language Journal 86: 1–19.
Pienemann, M. (1984) Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6: 186–214.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary
English . London: Longman.
Rutherford, W. (1987) Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching . London:
Longman.
Rutherford, W., Sharwood Smith, M. (eds) (1988) Grammar and Second Language
Teaching . New York, NY: Newbury House.
Schleppegrell, M., Achugar, M., Oteíza, T. (2004) The grammar of history: Enhancing
content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly 38:
67–93.
Schmidt, R. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics 11: 129–158.

289 References
Segalowitz, N. (2003) Automaticity and second languages. In C. Doughty and M. Long
(eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition . Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993) Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Theoretical bases.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 165–179.
Spada, N., Lightbown, P. (1993) Instruction and the development of questions in the L2
classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 205–221.
Spada, N, Lightbown, P. (2008) Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated?
TESOL Quarterly 42: 181–207.
Sinclair, J.M. (1985) Selected issues. In Quirk, R., Widdowson, H.G. (eds). English in
the World . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent
French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82:
320–337.
Thompson, S. (1985) Grammar and written discourse: initial vs. ﬁnal purpose clauses in
English. Text 5: 56–84.
Tomasello, M., Herron, C. (1989) Feedback for language transfer errors. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 11: 384–395.
Van Patten, B. (1996) Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language
Acquisition . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
White, L. (1987) Against comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 8: 95–110.
Widdowson, H.G. (1979) Explorations in Applied Linguistics . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1989) Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied
Linguistics 10: 128–137.
Widdowson, H.G. (1990) Aspects of Language Teaching . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wray, A. (2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chapter 3, Vocabulary
Baddeley, A. (1990) Human Memory . London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bauer, L., Nation, I.S.P. (1993) Word families. International Journal of Lexicography
6:253–279.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Omanson, R.C. (1987) The effects and uses of diverse
vocabulary instructional techniques. In McKeown, M.G. and Curtis, M.E. (eds.). The
Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition . Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
pp. 147–163.
Beglar, D. (in press). A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test. Language
Testing .
Brown, G.D.A., Ellis, N.C. (1994) Handbook of Spelling . Chichester: John Wiley and
Sons.

290 References
Chung, M., Nation, P. (2003) Technical vocabulary in specialised texts. Reading in a
Foreign Language l 15(2): 103–116.
Corson, D. (1995) Using English Words . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Coxhead, A. (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34: 213–238.
Day, R.R., Bamford, J. (1998) Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elley, W.B. (1989) Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research
Quarterly 24: 174–187.
Ellis, R. (1994) Factors in the incidental acquisition of second language vocabulary from
oral input: a review essay. Applied Language Learning 5: 1–32.
Ellis, R. (1995) Modiﬁed oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied
Linguistics 16: 409–441.
Ellis, R., He, X. (1999) The roles of modiﬁed input and output in the incidental
acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 285–301.
Ellis, R., Heimbach, R. (1997) Bugs and birds: children’s acquisition of second language
vocabulary through interaction. System 25: 247–259.
Elgort, I. (2007) Role of intentional decontextualised learning in second language
vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from primed lexical decision tasks with advanced
bilinguals. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Fountain, R.L., Nation, I.S.P. (2000) A vocabulary-based graded dictation test. RELC
Journal 31(2): 29–44.
Fukkink, R.G., de Glopper, K. (1998) Effects of instruction in deriving word meaning
from context: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 68: 450–469.
Goulden, R., Nation, P., Read, J. (1990) How large can a receptive vocabulary be?
Applied Linguistics 11: 341–363.
Grant, L., Nation, I.S.P. (2006) How many idioms are there in English? ITL International
Journal of Applied Linguistics 151: 1–14.
Higa, M. (1963) Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2: 170–175.
Hu, M., Nation, I.S.P. (2000) Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language 13(1), 403–430 .
Joe, A, Nation, P., Newton, J. (1996) Speaking activities and vocabulary learning.
English Teaching Forum 34: 2–7.
Kuhn, M.R., Stahl, S.A. (1998) Teaching children to learn word meanings from context.
Journal of Literacy Research 30: 119–138.
Laufer, B., Kimmel, M. (1997) Bilingualised dictionaries: How learners really use them.
System , 25: 361–369.
Laufer, B., Hadar, L. (1997) Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual and
‘bilingualised’ dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. Modern
Language Journal 81(2): 189–196.

291 References
Laufer, B., Nation, P. (1999) A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability.
Language Testing 16: 36–55.
Laufer, B., Osimo, H. (1991) Facilitating long-term retention of vocabulary: the second-
hand cloze. System 19: 217–224.
Miller, G.A., Fellbaum, C. (1991) Semantic networks in English. Cognition 41:
197–229.
Nagy, W.E., Anderson, R.C., Schommer, M., Scott, J.A., Stallman, A. (1989)
Morphological families in the internal lexicon. Reading Research Quarterly 24:
263–282.
Nagy, W.E., Herman, P., Anderson, R.C. (1985) Learning words from context. Reading
Research Quarterly 20: 233–253.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I.S.P. (2006) How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?
Canadian Modern Language Review 63(1): 59–82.
Nation, I.S.P. (2007) The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
1(1): 1–12.
Nation, I.S.P., Beglar, D. (2007) A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher 31(7):
9–13.
Nation, P. (2000) Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: dangers and guidelines. TESOL
Journal 9: 6–10.
Nation, P., Wang, K. (1999) Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in Foreign
Language 12: 355–380.
Newton, J. (1995) Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary learning: a case
study. Second Language Research 11: 159–177.
Pawley, A., Syder, F.H. (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection
and nativelike ﬂuency. In Richards J.C and Schmidt R.W. (eds.), Language and
Communication . London: Longman; pp. 191–225.
Read, J. (2000) Assessing Vocabulary . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ringbom, H. (1983) On the distinctions of item learning vs. system learning, and
receptive vs. productive competence in relation to the role of L1 in foreign language
learning. In Ringbom, H. (ed.) Psycholinguistics and Foreign Language Learning . Åbo:
Åbo Akademi.
Schmidt, R (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics 11: 129–158.
Schmitt, N. (2000) Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2008) Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language
Teaching Research 12: 329–363.
Schmitt, N. (in press) Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual .
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

292 References
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., Clapham, C. (2001) Developing and exploring the behaviour
of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18: 55–88.
Shin, D., Nation, I.S.P. (2008) Beyond single words: the most frequent collocations in
spoken English. ELT Journal 62(4): 339–348.
Stahl, S.A., Fairbanks, M.M. (1986) The effects of vocabulary instruction: a
model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 56: 72–110.
Tinkham, T. (1997) The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of
second language vocabulary. Second Language Research 13: 138–163.
Waring, R. (ed.) (1997a) Special issue on extensive reading. The Language Teacher
21: 5.
Waring, R. (1997b) The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets: a
replication. System 25: 261–274.
Watanabe, Y. (1997) Input, intake and retention: effects of increased processing on
incidental learning of foreign vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
19: 287–307.
West, M. (1953) A General Service List of English Words . London: Longman, Green &
Co.
Wijk, A. (1966) Rules of Pronunciation for the English Language . London: Oxford
University Press.
Venezky, R.L. (1970) The Structure of English Orthography . Janua Linguarum Series
Minor 82, The Hague: Mouton.
Chapter 4, Discourse Analysis
Beattie, G. (1983) Talk: An Analysis of Speech and Non-Verbal Behaviour in
Conversation . Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (1999) Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English . Harlow: Longman.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R. (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language
Structure and Use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R.A., McCarthy, M.J. (1995) Grammar and the spoken language. Applied
Linguistics 16: 141–158.
Carter, R., Hughes R., McCarthy, M.J. (2001) Exploring Grammar in Context .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, G. (1989) Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coulthard, M. (1985) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis . London: Longman.
Eggins, S., Slade, D. (1997) Analysing Casual Conversation . London: Cassell.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power . London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change . Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis . London: Longman.

293 References
Francis, G., Hunston, S. (1992) Analysing everyday conversation. In Coulthard, R. (ed.)
Advances in Spoken Discourse . London: Routledge; 123–161.
Gardner, R. (1987) The identiﬁcation and role of topic in spoken interaction. Semiotica
65: 129–141.
Garﬁnkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience . New
York, NY: Harper & Row. [Reprinted by Northeastern University Press, Boston, MA,
1986.]
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gumperz, J., Hymes, D. (eds) (1972) Directions in Sociolinguistics . Winston, NY: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1966) Lexis as a linguistic level. In Bazell, C.E., Catford, J.C.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning . London and Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold and University
Park Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) Spoken and Written Language . Geelong, Australia: Deakin
University Press. [Republished by Oxford University Press, 1989.]
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition).
London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K., Robins, R.H. (eds) (1966) In Memory of J.R. Firth . London: Longman;
148–162.
Hoey, M.P. (1991) Some properties of spoken discourse. In Bowers, R., Brumﬁt, C.
(eds). Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching . Basingstoke: Macmillan/MEP.
Hughes, R. (1996) English in Speech and Writing . London: Routledge.
Hymes, D. (1972a) Towards ethnographies of communication: the analysis
of communicative events. In Giglioli, P. (ed.). Language and Social Context .
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books; 21–33.
Hymes, D. (1972b) Models of the interaction of language and social life. In
Gumperz, J., Hymes, D. (eds). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of
Communication . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 35–71.
Hymes, D. (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics . Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Jefferson, G. (1972) Side sequences. In Sudnow, D. (ed.). Studies in Social
Interaction . New York, NY: The Free Press; 294–338.
Labov, W. (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns . Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Labov, W., Waletzky, J. (1967) Narrative analysis: oral versions of personal
experiences. In Helm, J. (ed.). Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts . American
Ethnological Society, Proceedings of Spring Meeting 1966. Washington DC: University
of Washington Press.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

294 References
McCarthy, M.J. (1988) Some vocabulary patterns in conversation. In Carter, R.A.,
McCarthy, M.J. Vocabulary and Language Teaching . London: Longman; 181–200.
McCarthy, M.J. (1991) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1998) Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M.J. (2001) I ssues in Applied Linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Miller, C.R. (1984) Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–167.
Pomeranz, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of
preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J., Heritage, J. (eds) Structures of
Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 57–101.
Sacks, H. (1992a) Lectures on Conversation . Volumes I and II. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the
organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.
Saville-Troike, M. (1989) The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction
(second edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E.A. (1972) Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In
Sudnow, D. (ed.). Studies in Social Interaction . New York, NY: Free Press; 75–117.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. (1977) The preference for self-correction in
the organisation of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382.
Schegloff, E.A., Sacks, H. (1973) Opening up closings. Semiotica 8: 289–327.
Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Schmitt, N. (2000) Vocabulary in Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sinclair, J.McH. (1966) Beginning the study of lexis. In Bazell, C.E., Catford J.C.,
Halliday M.A.K., Robins, R.H. (eds). In Memory of J.R. Firth . London: Longman;
410–430.
Sinclair, J. McH., Coulthard, R.M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse . Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends . Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Tannen, D. (1989) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yngve, V.H. (1970) On getting a word in edgewise. In Papers from the 6th Regional
Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society . Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Chapter 5, Pragmatics
Austin, J. (1975) How to Do Things with Words (second edition). Oxford: Clarendon
Press.

295 References
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001) Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction
in pragmatics? In Rose K. R. and Kasper G. (eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp. 13–32.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. (1996) Input in an institutional setting. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 17: 171–188.
Blakemore, Diane (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance . Oxford: Blackwell.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness. Some Universals in Language
Usage . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Originally published as Universals in
language usage: politeness phenomenon. In: Goody, E. (ed.) (1978) Questions and
Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. (2004) Relevance theory and the saying implicating distinction. In: Horn, L.
and Ward, R. (eds) Handbook of Pragmatics . Oxford: Blackwell.
Carter, R. (1998) Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication and culture. ELT
Journal 52 (1): 43–56.
Clark, R., Ivanic, R. (1997) The Politics of Writing. London: Routledge.
Grice, H. P. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words . Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Hacking, I. (1995) The looping effects of human kinds. In: Sperber, D., Premack, D. and
Premack, A.J (eds) Causal Cognition , Oxford: Clarendon Press; pp. 351–384.
Holmes, J., Joe, A., Marra, M., Newton, J., Riddiford, N., Vine, B. (forthcoming)
Applying linguistic research to real world problems: the social meaning of talk in
workplace interaction. To be published in Candlin, C. and Sarangi, S. (eds) Handbook
of Professional Communication . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Horn, L., Ward, G. (eds) (2005) Handbook of Pragmatics . Oxford: Blackwell.
House, J. (2000) Understanding misunderstanding: a pragmatic-discourse approach
to analysing mismanaged rapport in talk across cultures. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.)
(2000) Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures , (ﬁrst
edition). London: Continuum; pp. 145–164.
Kasper, G. (1992) Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8(3): 203–231.
Kasper, G. (1997) Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTML
document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum
Center. Retrieved 25 May 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nﬂrc.hawaii.
edu/NetWorks/NW06/.
Kasper, G. (2000) Data collection in pragmatics research. In: Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.)
(2000) Culturally Speaking. Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures, (ﬁrst
edition). London: Continuum; pp. 316–341.
Kawamura, A. (2006) Problems in incorporating Pragmatics into EFL Lexicography.
In Ishikawa, S., Minamide, K. Murata, M. and Tono, Y. (eds), English Lexicography in
Japan . Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten, pp. 168–81.
Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics . London: Longman.
Marra, M., Holmes, J., Riddiford, N. (in preparation) New Zealand’s Language in the
Workplace Project: Workplace Communication for Skilled Migrants.

296 References
Mey, Jacob (2000) Pragmatics. An Introduction (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Morris, C. H. (1938) Foundations of the theory of signs. In: Carnap R. et al . (eds)
International Encyclopedia of Uniﬁed Science , I, 2. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Newton, J. (2007) Adapting authentic workplace talk for workplace communication
training. In Kotthoff, H. and Spencer-Oatey, H. (eds) Handbook of Intercultural
Communication . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; pp. 519–535.
Riddiford, N. (2007) Making requests appropriate in a second language: does
instruction help to develop pragmatic proﬁciency? TESOLANZ Journal 15: 88–102.
Rose, K. R. (2005) On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics.
System, 33: 385–399.
Schmidt, R.( 1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics 11 (2): 129–158.
Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in The Philosophy Of Language . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Siﬁanou, M. (1992) Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece. A Cross-Cultural
Perspective . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition .
Oxford: Blackwell.
Tateyama, Y. (2001) Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese
sumimasen . In Rose, K. R. and Kasper, G. (eds), Pragmatics in Language Teaching .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp. 200–222.
Thomas, J. (1983) Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2): 91–112.
Vallena, H. (2004) Learning pragmatics from ESL and EFL textbooks: How likely?
TESL-EJ 8 (2) Available at http://cwp60.berkeley.edu:16080/TESL-EJ/ej30/a3.html
[accessed 25 May 2009]
Verschueren, J. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics . London: Arnold.
Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics . Oxford: OUP.
Žegarac, V. and Pennington, M. (2008) Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication.
In Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) (2008) Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and
Politeness Theory, (second edition). London: Continuum; pp. 141–163.
Chapter 6, Corpus Linguistics
Barnbrook, G. (1996) Language and Computers: A Practical Introduction to the
Computer Analysis of Language . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Biber, D. (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing . New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Biber, D. (1990) Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic
variation. Literary and Linguistic Computing 5: 257–269.
Biber, D. (1993a) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic
Computing 8: 243–257.

297 References
Biber, D. (1993b) Using register-diversiﬁed corpora for general language studies.
Computational Linguistics 19: 219–241.
Biber, D. Conrad, S., Reppen, R. (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language
Structure and Use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (1999) The Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English . London: Longman.
Carter, R. , Adolphs, S. (2008) Linking the verbal and visual: New directions for Corpus
Linguistics. Language and Computers special issue ‘Language, People, Numbers’ , 64:
275–291.
Carter, R., McCarthy, M. (1997) Exploring Spoken Language . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Warren, M. (2008) A Corpus-driven Study of Discourse
Intonation . Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Cook, G. (1998) The uses of reality: a reply to Ronald Carter. English Language
Teaching Journal 52: 57–63.
Dahlmann, I. and Adolphs, S. (in press). Multi-modal spoken corpus analysis
and language description: The case of multi-word expressions. In Baker, P. (ed.)
Contemporary Approaches to Corpus Linguistics . London: Continuum Press.
Donley, K.M., Reppen, R. (2001) Using corpus tools to highlight academic vocabulary
in sustained content language teaching. TESOL Journal 10: 2–3.
Edwards, J.A., Lampert, M.D. (eds) (1993) Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in
Discourse Research . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flowerdew, L., Tong, A. (eds) (1994) Entering Text . Hong Kong: Language Centre.
Friginal, E. (2009) The Language of Outsourced Call Centers: A Corpus-Based Study
of Cross-Cultural Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Johns, T. (1994) From printout to handout: grammar and vocabulary teaching in
the context of data-driven learning. In Odlin, T. (ed.). Perspectives on Pedagogical
Grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knight, D., Adolphs, S. (2008) Multi-modal corpus pragmatics: The case of active
Listenership. In Romeo, J. (ed.) Corpus and Pragmatics . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter;
pp. 175–190.
O’Keefe, A., McCarthy, M., Carter, R. (2007) From Corpus To Classroom: Language
Use And Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quaglio, P. (2009) Television Dialogue: The Sitcom ‘Friends’ versus Natural
Conversation . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reppen, R. (in press) Building a corpus: Key considerations. In O’Keefe, A. and
McCarthy, M. (eds) Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics . New York:
Routledge.
Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus Concordance and Collocation . Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

298 References
Simpson, R., Swales, J. (eds) (2001) Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections
from the 1999 Symposium . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S., McEnery, T., Knowles, G. (eds) (1997) Teaching and
Language Corpora . London: Longman.
Chapter 7, Second Language Acquisition
Ammar, A., Lightbown, P. M. (2005) Teaching marked linguistic structures – more
about the acquisition of relative clauses by Arab learners of English. In Housen, A.
and Pierrard, M. (eds), Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acquisition .
Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter; pp. 167–198.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989) What is the logical problem of foreign language learning?
In Gass, S., Schachter, J. (eds), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language
Acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp. 41–68.
Brown, R. (1973) A First Language: The Early Stages . Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1968) Language and Mind . New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Corder, S.P. (1967) The signiﬁcance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics 5: 161–169.
DeKeyser, R. (1997) Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language
morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19: 195–221.
DeKeyser, R. (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J., and Long, M. (eds).
(2003) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell;
pp. 313–348.
Doughty, C. J., Long, M. (eds) (2003) The Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. (1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.
Language Learning 24: 37–53.
Dulay, H., Burt, M. (1976) Creative construction in second language learning and
teaching. Language Learning Special Issue No. 4: 65–79.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., Krashen, S. (1982) Language Two . Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, N. (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second
language structure. In Doughty, C. and Long, M. (eds), The Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell; pp. 63–103.
Ellis, N., Schmidt, R. (1997) Morphology and longer distance dependencies: laboratory
research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19:
145–71.
Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition . Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2001) Investigating form-focused instruction . Language Learning 51:
Supplement 1. Form-Focused Instruction And Second Language Learning; pp. 1–46.

299 References
Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition (second edition). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Elman, J.L., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., Plunkett, K.
(1996) Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development .
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, A Bradford Book.
Gass, S., Selinker, L. (2000 ) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course
(second edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hakuta, K. (1976) A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second
language. Language Learning 26: 321–351.
Hamilton, R.L. (1994) Is implicational generalization unidirectional and maximal?
Language Learning 44: 123–157.
Harley, B., Swain, M. (1984) The interlanguage of immersion students and its
implications for second language teaching. In Davies, A., Criper, C., Howatt, A.P.R.
(eds). Interlanguage . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; pp. 291–311.
Kellerman, E. (1986) Crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon.
In Kellerman, E., Sharwood Smith, M. (eds). Crosslinguistic Inﬂuence in Second
Language Acquisition . New York, NY: Pergamon; pp. 35–48.
Kellerman, E., Sharwood Smith, M. (eds) (1986) Crosslinguistic Inﬂuence in Second
Language Acquisition . New York, NY: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition . Oxford:
Pergamon.
Kupferberg, I., Olshtain, E. (1996) Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates the
acquisition of difﬁcult L2 forms. Language Awareness 5: 149–165.
Lado, R. (1964) Language Teaching: A Scientiﬁc Approach . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lantolf, J.P. (2000) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning . Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976) An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of
second language learners. Language Learning 26: 125–134.
Lightbown, P.M. (1998) The importance of timing in focus on form. In Doughty, C.,
Williams, J. (eds). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp. 177–196.
Lightbown, P. M. (2000) Classroom SLA research and second language teaching.
Applied Linguistics 21: 431–462.
Lightbown, P.M., Spada, N. (1990) Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in
communicative language teaching: effects on second language learning. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 12: 429–448.
Lightbown, P.M., Spada, N. (2006) How Languages Are Learned, (third edition).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M.H. (1985) Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S.M.,
Madden, C.G. (eds). Input in Second Language Acquisition . Rowley, MA: Newbury
House; pp. 377–393.

300 References
Long, M.H. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In Ritchie, W., Bhatia, T. (eds) Handbook of Research on Second Language
Acquisition . New York, NY: Academic; 413–468.
Lyster, R. (1994) The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French
immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15: 263–287.
Mackey, A. (ed.) (2007) Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition:
A Collection of Empirical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., Philip, J. (1998) Conversational interaction and second language
development: recasts, responses and red herrings? Modern Language Journal 82:
338–356.
McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of Second Language Learning . London: Edward
Arnold.
McLaughlin, B. (1990) ‘Conscious’ versus ‘unconscious’ learning. TESOL Quarterly
24: 617–634.
McLaughlin, B., Heredia, J.L.C. (1996) Information-processing approaches to research
on second language acquisition and use. In Ritchie, W.C., Bhatia, T. (eds). Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition . New York, NY: Academic.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F. (2004) Second Language Learning Theories (second edition).
London: Edward Arnold. Norris, J.M., Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction:
a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50: 417–528.
Odlin, T. (1989) Language Transfer: Cross-Linguistic Inﬂuence in Language Learning .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ohta, A. (2000) Rethinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective
feedback in the Japanese classroom. In Hall, J.K., Verplaeste, L. (eds). The
Construction of Second and Foreign Language Learning Through Classroom
Interaction . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; pp. 47–71.
Ortega, L. (2007) Second Language Acquisition , London: Hodder Education.
Pienemann, M. (1989) Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and
hypotheses. Applied Linguistics 10: 52–79.
Pienemann, M. (1998) Language Processing and Second Language Development:
Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., Brindley, J. (1988) Constructing an acquisition-based
procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
10: 217–243.
Richards, J. (1974) A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. In Richards, J. (ed.).
Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition . London: Longman;
pp. 172–188.
Ringbom, H. (1986) Crosslinguistic inﬂuence and the foreign language learning
process. In Kellerman, E., Sharwood Smith, M. (eds). Crosslinguistic Inﬂuence in
Second Language Acquisition . New York, NY: Pergamon; pp. 150–162.
Rumelhart, D., McClelland, J. (1986) On learning the past tense of English verbs.
In McClelland, J., Rumelhard, D. (eds). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations

301 References
in the Microstructure of Cognition: Volume 2. Psychological and Biological Models .
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; pp. 216–217.
Schmidt, R. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics 11: 129–156.
Schmidt, R. (2001) Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.) Cognition and Second Language
Instruction New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; pp.3–32.
Segalowitz, N. (2003) Automaticity and second languages. In Doughty, C. J., and
Long, M. (eds). (2003) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition . Oxford:
Blackwell; pp. 382–408.
Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209–231.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981) Consciousness-raising and the second language learner.
Applied Linguistics 2: 159–168.
Skinner, B.F. (1957) Verbal Behavior . New York, NY: Appleton–Century–Crofts.
Slobin, D. (1973) Cognitive prerequisites for the acquisition of grammar. In
Ferguson, C., Slobin, D. (eds). Studies of Child Language Development . New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; pp. 175–208.
Spada, N. (1997) Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: a review
of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching 30: 73–87.
Spada, N., Lightbown, P.M. (1999) Instruction, L1 inﬂuence and developmental
‘readiness’ in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 83: 1–22.
Spada, N., Lightbown, P.M., White, J. (2005) The importance of meaning in explicit
form-focussed instruction. In Housen, A., and Pierrard, M. (eds), Current Issues in
Instructed Second Language Learning . Brussels: Mouton De Gruyter.
Spada, N., Tomita, Y. (in press). Interactions between type of instruction and type of
language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning .
Swain, M. (1988) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize
second language learning. TESL Canada Journal 6: 68–83.
Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J.P. (ed.). Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press; pp. 97–114.
Tarone, E., Swain, M. (1995) A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in
immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal 79: 166–178.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume 1. Thinking and
Speaking . New York, NY: Plenum Press.
White, L. (1987) Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the
development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics 8(2): 95–110
White, L. (1989) Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition . Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
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.

302 References
White, L. (2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar . Cambridge
University Press.
Wode, H. (1981) Learning a Second Language: An Integrated View of Language
Acquisition . Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Wray, A. (1999) Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language
Teaching 32: 213–231.
Wray, A. (2007) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Zobl, H. (1980) The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 inﬂuence on L2
acquisition. Language Learning 30: 43–57.
Chapter 8, Psycholinguistics
Abutalebi, J., Annoni, J.M., Zimine, I., Pegna, A.J., Seghier, M.L., Lee-Jahnke, H.,
Lazeyras, F., Cappa, S.F., Khateb, A. (2008) Language Control and Lexical
Competition in Bilinguals: An Event-Related fMRI Study. Cerebral Cortex 18:
1496–1505.
Abutalebi, J., Green, D. (2007) Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of
language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics 20: 242–275 .
Abutalebi, J., Brambati, S., Annoni, J., Moro, A., Cappa, S., Perani, D. (2007) The
Neural Cost of the Auditory Perception of Language Switches: An Event-Related
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study in Bilinguals. Journal of Neuroscience
27: 13762–1.
Altarriba, J., Mathis, K.M. (1997) Conceptual and lexical development in second
language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 550–568.
Anderson, J. (1983) The Architecture of Cognition . Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2005) Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In
Kroll, J. F. , De Groot, A. M. B. (eds.). Lexical access in bilingual production. Handbook
of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches . New York: Oxford University Press;
pp. 417–432.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., Viswanathan, M. (2004) Bilingualism, aging,
and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon Task. Psychology and Aging 19:
290–303.
Bijeljac-Babic, R., Biardeau, A., Grainger, J. (1997) Masked orthographic priming in
bilingual word recognition. Memory & Cognition 25: 447–457.
Broersma, M., Isurin, L., Bultena, S., de Bot, K. (2009) Triggered code switching:
evidence from Dutch-English and Russian-English bilinguals. In Isurin, L., Winford, D.,
de Bot, K. (eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches To Code Swtiching . Amsterdam: John
Benjamins; pp. 85–128.
Brown, R., McNeill, D. (1966) The ‘tip of the tongue’ phenomenon. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior 5: 325–337.

303 References
Carroll, D.W. (1999) Psychology of Language (third edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Chen, H.-C., Leung, Y.-S. (1989) Patterns of lexical processing in a nonnative
language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
15: 316–325.
Christoffels, I. K., Firk, C., Schiller, N. O. (2007) Bilingual language control: An event-
related brain potential study. Brain Research 1147 : 192–208.
Clyne, M. (1987) Constraints on code switching: how universal are they? Linguistics
25: 739–764.
Costa, A. (2005) Lexical access in bilingual production. In Kroll, J. F., de Groot, J. M.
B (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. New York: Oxford
University Press; pp. 308–325.
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., Sebastian-Galles, N. (2000) The cognate facilitation effect:
Implications for the model of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26: 1283–1296.
Costa, A., Hernandez, M., Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008) Bilingualism aids conﬂict
resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition 106: 59–86.
Costa, A., Miozzo, M., Caramazza, A. (1999) Lexical selection in bilinguals: do words
in the bilingual’s two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of Memory and Language
41: 365–397.
de Bot, K. (1996) Language attrition. In Nelde, P., Wölck, W. Handbuch Sprach
Kontakt . Berlin, Mouton; pp. 579–585.
de Bot, K. (2000) Psycholinguistics in applied linguistics: trends and perspectives.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 224–237.
de Bot, K., Stoessel, S. (2000) In search of yesterday’s words: reactivating a long
forgotten language. Applied Linguistics 21: 364–388.
de Groot, A.M.B. (1992) Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18: 1001–1018.
de Groot, A.M.B., Kroll, J.F. (eds) (1997) Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic
Perspectives . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
de Groot, A.M.B., Delmaar, P., Lupker, S.J. (2000) The processing of interlexical
homographs in a bilingual and a monolingual task: support for nonselective access to
bilingual memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 53A: 397–428.
de Ruiter, J. (2000) The production of gesture and speech. In McNeill, D. (ed.),
Language and Gesture . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp. 284–311.
Dijkstra, T. (2005) Bilingual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll, J. F.,
de Groot, A. M. B (eds), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. New
York: Oxford University Press; pp. 179–201.
Dijkstra, A., De Bruijn, E., Schriefers, H., Ten Brinke, S. (2000) More on interlingual
homograph recognition: language intermixing versus explicitness of instruction.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3: 69–78.

304 References
Dijkstra, A., Grainger, J., Van Heuven, W.J.B. (1999) Recognizing cognates and
interlingual homographs: the neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and
Language 41: 496–518.
Dijkstra, A., Van Heuven, W.J.B. (1998) The BIA model and bilingual word recognition.
In Grainger, J., Jacobs, A. (eds). Localist Connectionist Approaches to Human
Cognition . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 189–225.
Dijkstra, A., Van Heuven, W.J.B., Grainger, J. (1998) Simulating cross-language
competition with the Bilingual Interactive Activation model. Psychologica Belgica
38: 177–197.
Dijkstra, A., Van Jaarsveld, H., Ten Brinke, S. (1998) Interlingual homograph
recognition: effects of task demands and language intermixing. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition 1: 51–66.
Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R., Gollan, T. H. (2008) Bimodal bilingualism.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11: 43–61.
Gerard, L.D., Scarborough, D.L. (1989) Language-speciﬁc access of homographs by
bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
15: 305–315.
Gollan, T., Forster, K.I., Frost, R. (1997) Translation priming with different scripts:
masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23: 1122–1139.
Gollan, T.H., Montoya, R.I., Fennema-Notestine, C., Morris, S.K., (2005) Bilingualism
affects picture naming but not picture classiﬁcation. Memory & Cognition 33: 1220–
1234.
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., Werner, G. A. (2002) Semantic and letter ﬂuency in
Spanish-English bilinguals. Neuropsychology 16: 562–576.
Grosjean, F., Miller, J. L. (1994) Going in and out of languages: an example of bilingual
ﬂexibility. Psychological Science 5: 201–206.
Green, D.W. (1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 67–81.
Gullberg, M., de Bot, K., Volterra, V. (2008) Gestures and some key issues in the
study of language development. Gesture 8: 149–179.
Hakuta, K. (1986) Mirror of Language. The Debate on Bilingualism . New York, Basic
Books.
Hansen, L. (2001) Language attrition: the fate of the start. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 21: 60–73.
Harley, B. (1994) Maintaining French as a second language in adulthood. Canadian
Modern Language Review 50: 688–713.
Hartsuiker, R., Pickering, M., Veltkamp, E. (2004) Is syntax separate or shared
between languages? Psychological Science 15: 409–414.
Hermans, D. (2000) Word Production in a Foreign Language. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

305 References
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., Schreuder, R. (1998) Producing words
in a foreign language: can speakers prevent interference from their ﬁrst language?
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 213–230.
Hoshino, N., Kroll, J. F. (2008) Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross
language activation survive a change of script? Cognition 106: 501–511.
Jackson, G., Swainson, R., Cunnington, R., Jackson, S. (2001) ERP correlates of
executive control during repeated language switching. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 4: 169–178.
Jared, D., Kroll, J.F. (2001) Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one
or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language
44: 2–31.
Jescheniak, J.D., Schriefers, K.I. (1998) Discrete serial versus cascading processing
in lexical access in speech production: further evidence from the coactivation of near-
synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
24: 1256–1274.
Jiang, N. (1999) Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-
language priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2: 59–75.
Jones, G., Langford, S. (1987) Phonological blocking in the tip of the tongue state.
Cognition 26: 115–122.
Kootstra, G. J., van Hell, J., Dijkstra, T. (2009) Two speakers, one dialogue. An
interactive alignment perspective on code-switching in bilingual speakers. In Isurin,L.,
Winford,D., de Bot, K. (eds), Cross-Disciplinary Approaches To Code-Switching .
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M. M., Guo, T. (2008) Language selection in bilingual
speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes . Acta Psychologica 128: 416–430.
Kroll, J. F., de Groot, A. M. B. (eds) (2005) Handbook of Bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. (Paperback edition
published 2009.)
Kroll, J.F., Curley, J. (1988) Lexical memory in novice bilinguals: the role of concepts
in retrieving second language words. In Gruneberg, M., Morris, P., Sykes, R. (eds).
Practical Aspects of Memory, Volume 2 . London: John Wiley and Sons; pp. 389–395.
Kroll, J.F., Stewart, E. (1994) Category interference in translation and picture naming:
evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations.
Journal of Memory and Language 33: 149–174.
La Heij, W., Kerling, R., Van der Velden, E. (1996) Nonverbal context effects in
forward and backward translation: evidence for concept mediation. Journal of Memory
and Language 35: 648–665.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989) Speaking. From Intention to Articulation . Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Levelt, W. (1993) Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In Blanken, G.,
Dittman, E., Grimm, H., Marshall, J., Wallasch, C. Linguistic Disorders and
Pathologies. An International Handbook . Berlin: Walther de Gruyter; pp. 1–15.

306 References
Levelt, W. (1999) Producing spoken language. In Brown, C., Haagoord, P. (eds). The
Neurocognition of Language . Oxford: Oxford University Press; pp. 83–122.
Levelt, W.J.M., Roelofs, A., Meyer, A.S. (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech
production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 1–75.
Levelt, W.J.M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A.S., Pechman, T., Havinga, J.
(1991) The time course of lexical access in speech production: a study of picture
naming. Psychological Review 98: 122–142.
Marian, V., Spivey, M. J. (2003) Competing activation in bilingual language processing:
Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
6: 97–115.
McCafferty, S. Stam, G. (2008) Preface. In McCafferty, S., and Stam, G. (eds),
Gesture : Second Language Acquisition And Classroom Research . New York:
Routledge; pp. IX–XII.
Meuter, R., Allport, A. (1999) Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical
costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 25–40.
Nicol, J.L. (ed.). (2001) One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing .
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Paradis, M. (1981) Neurolinguistic organization of a bilingual’s two languages. In
Copeland, J.E., Davis, P.W. The Seventh LACUS Forum . Columbia, SC: Hornbeam
Press; pp. 486–494.
Peterson, R.R., Savoy, P. (1998) Lexical selection and phonological encoding during
language production: evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24: 539–557 .
Pickering, M., Garrod, S. (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–190.
Potter, M.C., So, K.-F., Von Eckardt, B., Feldman, L.B. (1984) Lexical and conceptual
representation in beginning and more proﬁcient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior 23: 23–38.
Poulisse, N. (1997) Language production in bilinguals. In de Groot, A.M.B., Kroll, J.F.
(eds). Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum; 201–224.
Poulisse, N. (1999) Slips of the Tongue: Speech Errors in First and Second Language
Production . Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T. (1994) First language use in second language production.
Applied Linguistics 15: 36–57.
Pyers, J. E., Emmorey, K. (2008) The face of bimodal bilingualism: Grammatical
markers in American Sign Language are produced when bilinguals speak to English
monolinguals. Psychological Science 19: 531–536.
Schneider, W., Shiffrin, R. (1977) Controlled and automatic human processing.
I: Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review 84: 1–66.
Schreuder, R., Weltens, B. (eds) (1993) The Bilingual Lexicon . Amsterdam/
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

307 References
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A.S., Levelt, W.J.M. (1990) Exploring the time-course of lexical
access in production: picture–word interference studies. Journal of Memory and
Language 29: 86–102.
Starreveld, P.A. (2000) On the interpretation of onsets of auditory context effects in
word production. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 497–525.
Starreveld, P.A., La Heij, W. (1995) Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation,
and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition 21: 686–698.
Sunderman, G., Kroll, J.F. (2006) First language activation during second language
lexical processing: An investigation of lexical form meaning and grammatical class.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 387–422.
Talamas, A., Kroll, J.F., Dufour, R. (1999) From form to meaning: stages in the
acquisition of second language vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
2: 45–58.
Thierry, G., Wu, Y. J. (2007) Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during
foreign language comprehension. Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences
104: 12530–12535.
Verhoef, K. Roelofs, A., Chwilla, D. (2009) The role of inhibition in language switching:
Evidence from event-related brain potentials in overt picture naming. Cognition
110: 84–99.
Chapter 9, Sociolinguistics
Auer, P. (2007) Mobility, context and accommodation. In Llamas, C., Mullany, L. and
Stockwell, P. (eds). The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics . London: Routledge;
pp. 109–15.
Ball, M., Rahilly, J. (1999) Phonetics: The Science of Speech . London: Arnold.
Bell, R.T. (1976) Sociolinguistics: Goals, Approaches and Problems . London: Batsford.
Bex, A.R., Watts, R. (eds) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate . London:
Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene . London: Routledge.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., Goodwin, J.M. (1996) Teaching Pronunciation .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chambers, J.K. (2003) Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and Its Social
Signiﬁcance (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, P. (1998) Dialectology (second edition). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Coates, J. (2004) Women, Men and Language (third edition). London: Longman.
Coates, J., Cameron, D. (eds) (1986) Women in Their Speech Communities . London:
Longman.
Collins, B., Mees, I. (2008) Practical Phonetics and Phonology: A Resource Book for
Students (second edition). London: Routledge.

308 References
Coulmas, F. (1997) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics . Oxford: Blackwell.
Coupland, N., Jaworski, A. (1997) Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook .
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Crawford, M. (1995) Talking Difference: On Gender and Language . London: Sage.
Downes, W. (1984) Language and Society . London: Fontana.
Dyer, J. (2007) Language and identity. In Llamas, C., Mullany, L. and Stockwell, P.
(eds). The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics . London: Routledge; pp. 101–8.
Eckert, P. (2000) Linguistic Variation as Social Practice . Oxford: Blackwell.
Foulkes, P., Docherty, G.J. (1999) Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles .
London: Arnold.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., Williams, A. (2003) Investigating Language Attitudes:
Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance . Cardiff: University of Wales
Press.
Holm, J. (1988, 1989) Pidgins and Creoles (two volumes). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Holmes, J., Meyerhoff, M. (2003) The Handbook of Language and Gender . Oxford:
Blackwell.
Holmes, J. (2008) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (third edition). London: Longman.
Hudson, R. (1996) Sociolinguistics (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jackson, H., Stockwell, P. (2010) An Introduction to the Nature and Functions of
Language (second edition). London: Continuum.
Kochman, T. (1981) Black and White Styles in Conﬂict . Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kouwenberg, S., Singler, J. (eds) (2005) The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies .
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Labov, W. (1972) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular .
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1994) Principles of Linguistic Change: Volume 1 Internal Factors . Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Labov, W. (2001) Principles of Linguistic Change: Volume 2 Social Factors . Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination
in the United States . London: Routledge.
Llamas, C. (2006) Shifting identities and orientations in a border town. In Tope, O.,
White, G. (eds) Sociolinguistics of Identity . London: Continuum; pp 92–112.
Llamas, C. (2007a) ‘A place between places’: language and identities in a border town.
Language in Society . 36(4): 579–604.
Llamas, C. (2007b) Age. In Llamas, C., Mullany, L. and Stockwell, P. (eds). The
Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics . London: Routledge; pp. 69–76.

309 References
Llamas, C., Mullany, L., Stockwell, P. (eds) (2007) The Routledge Companion to
Sociolinguistics . London: Routledge.
Llamas, C., Watt, D. (2009) Language and Identities . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Kerswill, P., Llamas, C., Upton, C. (1999) The First SuRE Moves: early steps towards
a large dialect project. Leeds Studies in English Volume XXX: 257–269.
Llamas, C. (2001) The sociolinguistic proﬁling of (r) in Middlesbrough English. In Van
de Velde, H., van Hout, R. (eds). r-atics: Sociolinguistic, Phonetic and Phonological
Characteristics of /r/. Brussels: ILVP; pp. 123–139.
McGregor, W. (2009) Linguistics: An Introduction . London: Continuum.
Mills, S. (1995) Language and Gender . London: Longman.
Milroy, J. (1992) Linguistic Variation and Change: On the Historical Sociolinguistics of
English . Oxford: Blackwell.
Milroy, J., Milroy, L. (eds) (1993) Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in
the British Isles. London: Longman.
Milroy, J., Milroy, L. (1999) Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English
(third edition). London: Routledge.
Milroy, L. (1987) Language and Social Networks (second edition). Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Mufwene, S. (2001) The Ecology of Language Evolution . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mugglestone, L. (2003) ‘Talking Proper’: The Rise of Accent as Social Symbol .
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mullany, L. (2007) Gendered Discourse in the Professional Workplace . Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Mullany, L., Stockwell, P. (2010) The English Language: A Resource Book for
Students . London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language .
London: Longman.
Romaine, S. (1988) Pidgin and Creole Languages . London: Longman.
Sebba, M. (1997) Contact Languages: Pidgins and Creoles . London: Macmillan.
Stockwell, P. (2007) Sociolinguistics: A Resource Book for Students (second edition).
London: Routledge
Trudgill, P. (2000) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society (fourth
edition). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Wardhaugh, R. (2005) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (ﬁfth edition). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wolfram, W., Schilling-Estes, N. (1998) American English: Dialects and Variation .
Oxford: Blackwell.

310 References
Chapter 10, Focus on the Language Learner: Styles,
Strategies and Motivation
Alison, J. (1993) Not Bothered? Motivating Reluctant Language Learners in Key
Stage 4 . London: CILT.
Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and Researching: Autonomy in Language Learning .
Harlow: Pearson.
Birdsong, D. (2006) Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective
overview. Language Learning 56 (S1): 9–49.
Brown, H.D. (1994) Teaching by Principles . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chamot, A.U. (1987) The learning strategies of ESL students. In Wenden, A., Rubin, J.
(eds). Learner Strategies in Language Learning . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall;
pp. 71–84.
Chamot, A. U. (2008) Strategy instruction and good language learners. In Grifﬁths, C.
(ed.), Lessons From Good Language Learners . Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press; pp. 266–281.
Clément, R. (1980) Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second
language. In Giles, H., Robinson, W.P., Smith, P.M. (eds). Language: Social
Psychological Perspectives , Oxford: Pergamon; pp. 147–154.
Clément, R., Gardner, R. (2001) Second language mastery. In Giles, H., Robinson, W.P.
(eds). The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (second edition). New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; pp. 489–504.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., Noels, K.A. (1994) Motivation, self-conﬁdence and group
cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning 44: 417–448.
Cohen, A.D. (1990) Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and
Researchers . New York, NY: Newbury House/Harper & Row.
Cohen, A.D. (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language . Harlow:
Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (2003) The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do styles,
strategies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching 41: 279–291.
Cohen, A. D., Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Taking My Motivational Temperature on a Language
Task. [In Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., Lassegard, J. P., 2006:
170–171] http://www.tc.umn.edu/~adcohen/publications.html#strategies
Cohen, A. D., Macaro, E. (2007) Language Learner Strategies: 30 Y ears Of Research
And Practice . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., Chi, J. C. (2002a) Language Strategy Use Survey .
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University
of Minnesota. [In Cohen & Weaver, 2006: 68–74] http://www.tc.umn.edu/~adcohen/
publications.html#strategies
Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., Chi, J. C. (2002b) Learning Style Survey: Assessing Your
Own Learning Styles. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language

311 References
Acquisition, University of Minnesota. [In Cohen and Weaver, 2006: 15–21] http://www.
tc.umn.edu/~adcohen/publications.html#strategies
Cohen, A. D., Pinilla-Herrera, A. (2009) Communicating grammatically: Constructing
a learner strategies website for Spanish. In Wu, J. (ed.), A New Look At Language
Teaching And Testing: English As Subject And Vehicle . Proceedings of the 2009 LTTC
International Conference. Taipei, Taiwan: Language Teaching and Testing Center.
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J. (2006) Styles And Strategies-Based Instruction: A
Teachers’ Guide . Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Corno, L., Kanfer, R. (1993) The role of volition in learning and performance. Review of
Research in Education 19: 301–341.
Covington, M. (1999) Caring about learning: the nature and nurturing of subject-matter
appreciation. Educational Psychologist 34: 127–136.
Dörnyei, Z. (1995) On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly
29: 55–85.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001a) Teaching and Researching Motivation . Harlow: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001b) Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology Of The Language Learner: Individual Differences
In Second Language Acquisition . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K. (1998) Ten commandments for motivating language learners:
results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research 2: 203–229.
Dörnyei, Z., Scott, M.L. (1997) Communication strategies in a second language:
deﬁnitions and taxonomies. Language Learning 47: 173–210.
Ehrman, M.E. (1996) Understanding Second Language Learning Difﬁculties .
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erard, M. (2007) Um…: Slips, Stumbles, And Verbal Blunders, And What They Mean .
NY: Pantheum.
Faerch, C., Kasper, G. (1983) Plans and strategies in foreign language communication.
In Faerch, C., Kasper, G. (eds). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication . London:
Longman; 20–60.
Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of
Attitudes and Motivation . London: Edward Arnold.
Grifﬁths, C. (ed.) (2008) Lessons From Good Language Learners . Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., Kellerman, E. (1997) Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and
Sociolinguistic Perspectives . Harlow: Longman.
Kuhl, J. (1987) Action control: the maintenance of motivational states. In Halish, F.,
Kuhl, J. (eds). Motivation, Intention, and Volition . Berlin: Springer; pp. 279–291.
Noels, K.A. (2001) Learning Spanish as a second language: learners’ orientations and
perceptions of their teachers’ communication style. Language Learning 51: 107–144.

312 References
Noels, K.A., Clément, R., Pelletier, L.G. (1999) Perceptions of teachers’
communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language
Journal 83: 23–34.
Oxford, R.L. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know .
New York, NY: Newbury House/Harper Collins.
Oxford, R. L., Lee, K. R. with Park, G. (2007) L2 grammar strategies: The second
Cinderella and beyond. In Cohen, A. D., Macaro, E. (eds). Language Learner
Strategies: 30 Y ears Of Research And Practice . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press;
pp. 117–139.
Oxford, R.L., Shearin, J. (1994) Language learning motivation: expanding the
theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal 78: 12–28.
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., Lassegard, J. P. (2006) Maximizing
Study Abroad: A Students’ Guide To Strategies For Language And Culture Learning
And Use . (second edition) Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on
Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Poulisse, N. (1990) The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch Learners of
English . Dordrecht: Foris.
Reid, J.M. (ed.) (1995) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom . Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle.
Rubin, J. (1975) What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly
9: 41–51.
Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., Anderson, N. J. (2007) Intervening in the use of
strategies. In Cohen, A. D., Macaro, E. (eds), Language Learner Strategies: 30 Y ears
Of Research And Practice . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; pp. 141–160.
Schumann, J.H. (1997) The Neurobiology of Affect in Language . Oxford: Blackwell.
Tarone, E., Yule, G. (1989) Focus on the Learner . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ushioda, E. (1996) Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation . Dublin: Authentik.
Weaver, S.J., Cohen, A.D. (1997) Strategies-based Instruction: A Teacher-training
Manual . Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition,
University of Minnesota.
Williams, M. (1994) Motivation in foreign and second language learning: an interactive
perspective. Educational and Child Psychology 11: 77–84.
Williams, M., Burden, R. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 11, Listening
Anderson, A. and T. Lynch. (1988) Listening . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, J.R. (1985) Cognitive Psychology And Its Implications . New York: Freeman.
Barsalou, L. (1999) Language comprehension: archival memory or preparation for
situated action? Discourse Processes 28, 1: 61–80.

313 References
Bell, A. (1984) ‘Language style as audience design.’ Language in Society 13: 145–204.
Berne, J.E. (1996) Current trends in L2 listening comprehension research: Are
researchers and language instructors on the same wavelength? Minnesota Language
Review 24, 3: 6–10.
Berne, J.E. (1998) Examining the relationship between L2 listening research,
pedagogical theory, and practice. Foreign Language Annals. 31, 2: 169–190.
Bond, Z. and S. Garnes. (1980) Misperceptions of ﬂuent speech. In Cole, R. (ed.)
Perception and Production of Fluent Speech . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur M., Simonot, M., Broeder. P. (1996) Achieving
Understanding: Discourse In International Encounters . London: Longman.
Brown, G. (1986) Investigating listening comprehension in context. Applied Linguistics
7, 3. 284–302.
Brown, G. (1990) Listening to Spoken English . (Second Edition). London: Longman.
Brown, G. (1995a) Dimensions of difﬁculty in listening comprehension. In
Mendelsohn, D.J. and Rubin, J. (eds) A Guide for the Teaching of Second Language
Listening . San Diego: Dominie Press; pp. 59–73.
Brown, G. (1995b) Speakers, Listeners and Communication . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, G., Anderson, A. Shillcock, R., Yule, G. (1984) Teaching Talk. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G.,Yule, G. (1983) Teaching the Spoken Language: An Approach Based on the
Analysis of Spoken English. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Buck, G. (2001) Assessing Listening . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byrnes, H. (1984) The role of listening comprehension: A theoretical base. Foreign
Language Annals 17, 4: 317–329.
Carrell, P., Dunkel, P., Mollaun, P. (2004) The effects of note-taking, lecture length,
and topic on a computer-based test of EFL listening comprehension. Applied Language
Learning 14: 83–105.
Chamot, A.U. (1987) The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden and
J. Rubin (eds) Learning Strategies in Language Learning . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall; pp. 71–83.
Chaudron, C., Richards. J. (1986) The effect of discourse markers on the
comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics 7, 2: 113–127.
Cutler, A. (2001) Listening to a second language through the ears of a ﬁrst. Interpreting
5: 1–23.
Delabatie, B., Bradley, D. (1995) Resolving word boundaries in spoken French: native
and nonnative strategies. Applied Psycholinguistics 16, 1: 59–81.
Field, J. (1998) Skills and strategies: Towards a new methodology for listening. ELT
Journal . 52, 2: 110–118.
Field, J. (2004) ‘An insight into listeners’ problems: too much bottom-up or too much
top-down?’ System 32: 363–377.

314 References
Flowerdew, J. (1994) Research of relevance to second language lecture
comprehension – an overview. In Flowerdew, J. (ed.) Academic Listening: Research
Perspectives . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp. 7–29.
Flowerdew, J., Miller. L. (2005) Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geddes, M., White, R. (1979) The use of semi-scripted simulated authentic speech and
listening comprehension. British Journal of Language Teaching 17, 1: 137–145.
Goh, C. (2002) Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns.
System 30: 185–206.
Kondo, D., Yang. Y-L (2004) Strategies for coping with language anxiety: the case of
students of English in Japan. ELT Journal 58/3: 258–265.
Licklider, J., Miller, G. (1951) The perception of speech. In Stevens, S. (ed.) Handbook
of Experimental Psychology . New York: Wiley.
Lynch, T. (1995) The development of interactive listening strategies in second language
academic settings. In Mendelsohn, D.J. and Rubin, J. (eds) A Guide for the Teaching of
Second Language Listening . San Diego: Dominie Press: pp. 166–185.
Lynch, T. (1997) Life in the slow lane: Observations of a limited L2 listener. System
25, 3: 385–398.
Lynch, T. (2009) Teaching Second Language Listening . Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mendelsohn, D.J. (1994) Learning to Listen: A Strategy-Based Approach for the
Second-Language Learner . San Diego: Dominie Press.
Mendelsohn, D.J. (1998) Teaching listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
18: 81–101.
Mendelsohn, D.J. (2001) Listening comprehension: We’ve come a long way, but … .
Proceedings of Research Symposiums held at the TESL Ontario Conference , Toronto,
November 2000.
Mendelsohn, D.J. and Rubin, J. (eds) (1995) A Guide for the Teaching of Second
Language Listening . San Diego: Dominie Press.
Ohta, A. (2000) Rethinking interaction in second language acquisition: Developmentally
appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2
grammar. In Lantolf, J. (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning .
Oxford: Oxford University Press; pp.51–78.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R.P, Kupper, L.
(1985) Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language
Learning 35: 21–46.
Oprandy, R. (1994) Listening/speaking in second and foreign language teaching.
System 22, 2: 153–175.
Oxford, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher should Know .
New York: Newbury House.

315 References
Porter, D., Roberts., J. (1981) Authentic listening activities. ELT Journal 36, 1: 37–47.
Richards, J.C. (1983) Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL
Quarterly 17, 2: 219–240.
Richards, J.C. (2007) Materials development and research: towards a form-focused
perspective. In Fotos, S. and Nassaji, H. (eds.): Form-Focused Instruction and Teacher
Education . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rings, L. (1986) Authentic language and authentic conversational texts. Foreign
Language Annals 19, 3: 203–208.
Ross, S. (1997) An introspective analysis of listener inferencing on a second language
listening test. In Kasper, G. and Kellerman, E. (eds): Communication Strategies:
Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives . London: Longman; pp. 216–237.
Rost, M. (1990) Listening in Language Learning . London: Longman.
Rubin, J. (1975) What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly
9:41–51.
Rubin, J. (1994) A review of second language listening research. Modern Language
Journal . 78, 2: 199–221.
Shannon, C., Weaver, W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication .
Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition . (second
edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Thompson, I., Rubin, J. (1996) Can strategy instruction improve listening
comprehension? Foreign Language Annals . 29: 331–342.
Tsui, A., Fullilove J. (1998) Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2
listening performance. Applied Linguistics 19, 4: 432–451.
Vandergrift, L. (2003) Orchestrating strategy use: toward a model of the skilled second
language listener. Language Learning 53: 463–496.
Vandergrift, L. (2007) Recent developments in second and foreign language listening
comprehension research. Language Teaching 40: 191–210.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., Tafaghodtari, M. (2006) The Metacognitive
Awareness Listening Questionnaire: development and validation. Language Learning
56/3: 431–462.
van Lier, L. (1996) Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and
Authenticity . London: Longman.
van Lier, L. (2000) From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an
ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J. (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language
Learning . Oxford: Oxford University Press; pp. 245–259.
Vidal, K. (2003) Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? Applied
Linguistics 24, 1: 56–89.
Wenden, A., Rubin, J. (eds) (1987) Learning Strategies in Language Learning .
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Widdowson, H.G. (1979) Explorations in Applied Linguistics 1 . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

316 References
Wu, Y. (1998) What do tests of listening comprehension test? A retrospection study of
EFL test-takers performing a multiple-choice task. Language Testing 15,1: 21–44.
Yule, G. (1997) Referential Communication Tasks . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yule, G., Powers, M. (1994) Investigating the communicative outcomes of task-based
interaction. System 22, 1: 81–91.
Chapter 12, Speaking and Pronunciation
Abercrombie, D. (1972) Paralanguage. In Laver, J., Hutcheson, S. (eds).
Communication in Face-to-face Interaction . Harmondsworth: Penguin; pp. 64–70.
Bowen, T., Marks, J. (1992) The Pronunciation Book. Student-centred Activities for
Pronunciation Work . London: Longman.
Brazil, D. (1997) The Communicative Value of Intonation in English . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., Johns, C. (1980) Discourse Intonation and Language
Teaching . London: Longman.
Burns, A. (2001) Analysing spoken discourse: Implications for TESOL. In Burns, A.,
Cofﬁn, C. (eds). Analysing English in a Global Context . London: Routledge; pp. 123–
148.
Burns, A. (2006) Teaching speaking; A text-based syllabus approach. In Usó-Juan, E.,
Martinéz-Flor, A., (eds) Current Issues in the Development and Teaching of the Four
Language Skills . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; pp. 235–258.
Burns, A., Joyce, H. (1997) Focus on Speaking . Sydney: National Centre for English
Language Teaching and Research.
Burns, A., Joyce, H., Gollin, S. (1996) ‘I see what you mean’ Using Spoken Discourse
in the Classroom: A Handbook for Teachers . Sydney: National Centre for English
Language Teaching and Research.
Carter, R. (1997) Speaking Englishes, speaking cultures, using CANCODE. Prospect
12: 4–11.
Carter, R., McCarthy, M. (1997) Exploring Spoken English . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., Goodwin, J. (1996) Teaching Pronunciation. A
Reference for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages . Cambridge and
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, G. (1989) Discourse. (Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cornbleet, S, Carter, R. (2001 ) The Language of Speech and Writing . London:
Routledge.
Dalton, C., Seidlhofer, B. (1994) Pronunciation (Language Teaching: A Scheme for
Teacher Education) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Silva Joyce, H., Burns, A. (1999) Focus on Gram mar. Sydney: National Centre for
English Language Teaching and Research.

317 References
Eggins, S., Slade, D. (1997) Analysing Casual Conversation . London: Cassell.
Gilbert, J. (2005) Clear Speech. Pronunciation and Listening Comprehension in
American English (third edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, J.B. (2008) Teaching Pronunciation. Using the Prosody Pyramid . New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H. (1975) Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., Morgan, J. (eds). Syntax and
Semantics 3: Speech Acts . New York, NY: Academic; pp. 41–58.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1989) Spoken and Written Language . Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hancock, M. (1996) Pronunciation Games . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hewings, M. (2007 ) English Pronunciation in Use Advanced . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hughes, R. (ed.) (2006) Spoken English, TESOL and Applied Linguistics . London:
Palgrave Macmillan
Hutchby, I., Wooﬁtt, R. (2008) Conversation Analysis (second edition). Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language . Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Labov, W., Waletzky, J. (1967) Narrative analysis: oral versions of personal
experiences. In Helm, J. (ed.). Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. American
Ethnological Society, Proceedings of the Spring Meeting 1966 . Washington, DC:
University of Washington Press; 12–44.
Laroy, C. (1995) Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation . Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Martin, J.R. (2001) Language, register and genre. In Burns, A., Cofﬁn, C. (eds).
Analysing English in a Global Context . London: Routledge; 149–166.
Martin, J.R., Rothery, J. (1980–1981) Writing Project Reports 1 & 2 (Working Papers in
Linguistics). Department of Linguistics, Sydney University.
McCarthy, M. (1998) Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., Carter, R. (1994) Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language
Teachers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Connor, J.D., Arnold, G.F. (1973) Intonation of Colloquial English (second edition).
London: Longman.
O’Keeffe A, McCarthy, M., Carter, R. (2007) From Corpus to Classroom Language
Use and Language Teaching . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Painter, C. (2001) Understanding genre and register: implications for language
teaching. In Burns, A., Cofﬁn, C. (eds). Analysing English in a Global Context . London:
Routledge; pp. 167–180.

318 References
Riggenbach, H. (1999) Discourse Analysis in the Classroom. Volume 1. The Spoken
Language . Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systemic for the organisation
of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.
Schmitt, N. (ed) (2004) Formulaic Sequences . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001) Pronunciation. In Carter, R., Nunan, D. (eds). The Cambridge
Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 56–65.
Seidlhofer, B. (2009) Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua
franca. Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics 6/2:195–215.
Sinclair, J., Coulthard, R.M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Slade, D. (1997) Stories and gossip in English: the micro-structure of casual talk.
Prospect 12: 43–71.
Thornbury, S. (2005) How to Teach Speaking . Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Thornbury, S., Slade, D. (2006) Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy .
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wells, J.C. (2008) Longman Pronunciation Dictionary , (third edition). Harlow: Pearson
Longman.
Widdowson, H.G. (1979) Explorations in Applied Linguistics 1 . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (2003) Deﬁning Issues in English Language Teaching . Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Chapter 13, Reading
Alderson, J.C. (1984) Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language
problem? In Alderson, J.C., Urquhart, A.H. (eds). Reading in a Foreign Language .
London: Longman; pp. 1–24.
Anderson, N.J. (1991) Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading
and testing. Modern Language Journal 75: 460–472.
Anderson, N.J. (1999) Exploring Second Language Reading . Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Anderson, N. (2005) L2 strategy research. In Hinkel, E. (ed.) Handbook of Research in
Second Language Teaching and Learning . Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum; pp. 757–772.
Anderson, N. (2008) Reading . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Baker, L. (2008) Metacognitive development in reading: Contributions and consequences.
In Mokhtari, K., Sheorey, R. (eds) Reading Strategies of First- and Second-language
Learners: See How They Read . Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon; pp. 25–42.
Baker, L., Beall, L. (2009) Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In
Israel, S., Duffy, G. (eds) Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension . New
York: Routledge; pp. 373–388

319 References
Bensoussan, M., Laufer, B. (1984) Lexical guessing in context in EFL reading
comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading 7: 15–32.
Bensoussan, M., Sim, D., Weiss, R. (1984) The effect of dictionary usage on ESL text
performance compared with student and teacher attitudes and expectations. Reading in
a Foreign Language 2: 262–276.
Bernhardt, E.B. (1991) Reading Development in a Second Language: Theoretical,
Empirical, and Classroom Perspectives . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bernhardt, E.B., Kamil, M.L. (1995) Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2
reading: consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence
hypotheses. Applied Linguistics 16: 15–34.
Blachowicz, C., Ogle, D. (2008) Reading Comprehension: Strategies for Independent
Learners (second edition). New York: Guilford.
Block, E. (1986) The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL
Quarterly 20: 463–494.
Block, C., Parris, S. (2008) Comprehension Instruction: Research-based Best
Practices (second edition). New York: Guilford.
Block, C., Pressley, M. (eds) (2002) Comprehension Instruction: Research-based
Best Practices . New York: Guilford Press.
Brown, A.L., Armbruster, B.B., Baker, L. (1986) The role of metacognition in reading
and studying. In Orasanu, J. (ed.). Reading Comprehension: From Research to
Practice . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; pp. 49–75.
Calderón, M. (2007) Teaching Reading to English Language Learners, Grades 6–12 .
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Carrell, P.L. (1984a) Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension.
Language Learning 34: 87–112.
Carrell, P.L. (1984b) The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL
Quarterly 18: 441–469.
Carrell, P.L. (1985) Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL
Quarterly 19: 727–752.
Carrell, P.L. (1991) Second language reading: reading ability or language proﬁciency?
Applied Linguistics 12: 159–179.
Carrell, P.L. (1992) Awareness of text structure: effects on recall. Language Learning
42: 1–20.
Carrell, P.L., Pharis, B.G., Liberto, J.C. (1989) Metacognitive strategy training for ESL
reading. TESOL Quarterly 23: 647–678.
Carrell, P.L., Wise, T.E. (1998) The relationship between prior knowledge and topic
interest in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition
20: 285–309.
Carver, R. (1992) Reading rate: Theory, research, and practical implications. Journal of
Reading 36: 84–95.

320 References
Cobb, T. (2009) Necessary or nice? Computers in second language reading. In Han,
Z-H., Anderson, N. (eds) Second Language Reading: Research and Instruction .
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum; pp. 44–172.
Cook, V., Bassetti, B. (2005) An introduction to researching second language writing
systems. In Cook, V., Bassetti, B. (eds) Second Language Writing Systems . Buffalo,
NY: Multilingual Matters; pp. 1–67.
Cummins, J. (1979) Linguistic interdependence and the development of bilingual
children. Review of Educational Research 49: 222–251.
Day, R.R., Bamford, J. (1998) Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom .
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dymock, S., Nicholson, T. (2007) Teaching Text Structures: A key to Nonﬁction
Reading Success . New York: Scholastic.
Elley, W. (2000) The potential of book ﬂoods for raising literacy levels. International
Journal of Education 46: 233–255.
Favreau, M., Segalowitz, N.S. (1983) Automatic and controlled processes in the ﬁrst-
and second-language reading of ﬂuent bilinguals. Memory & Cognition 11: 565–574.
Feldman, A., Healy, A.F. (1998) Effect of ﬁrst language phonological conﬁguration on
lexical acquisition in a second language. In Healy, A.F., Bourne, A.E. Jr. (eds). Foreign
Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention . Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum; pp. 57–76.
Floyd, P., Carrell, P.L. (1987) Effects on ESL reading of teaching cultural content
schemata. Language Learning 37: 89–108.
Frost, R. (2005) Orthographic systems and skilled word recognition. In Snowling, M.,
Hulme, C. (eds) The Science of Reading . Malden, MA: Blackwell; pp. 272–295.
Gambrell, L., Morrow, L., Pressley, M. (eds) (2007) Best Practices in Literacy
Instruction (third edition). New York: Guilford Press.
Gathercole, S.E., Baddeley, A.D. (1989) Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in
the development of vocabulary in children: a longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and
Language 28: 200–213.
Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L., Shany, M. (1997) Development of reading efﬁciency in
ﬁrst and second language. Scientiﬁc Studies of Reading 1: 119–144.
Geva, E., Wang, M. (2001) The development of basic reading skills in children: A cross-
language perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21: 182–204.
Goldenberg, C., Rueda, R., August, D. (2006) Synthesis: Sociocultural contexts and
literacy development. In August, D., Shanahan, T. (eds) Developing Literacy in Second
Language Learning . Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum; pp. 249–267.
Gorsuch, G., Taguchi, E. (2008) Repeated reading for developing reading ﬂuency and
reading comprehension: The case of EFL learners in Vietnam. System 36: 253–278.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice .
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., Stoller, F. (2002) Teaching and Researching Reading . New York: Longman.

321 References
Green, D.W., Meara, P. (1987) The effects of script on visual search. Second
Language Research 3: 102–117.
Haﬁz, F. M., Tudor, I. (1989) Extensive reading and the development of language skills.
ELT Journal 43: 4–13.
Han, Z-H., Anderson, N. (eds) (2009) Second Language Reading Research and
Instruction: Crossing the Boundaries . Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Haynes, M. (1984) Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. In
Handscombe, J., Orem, R., Taylor, B. (eds). On TESOL ’83: The Question of Control.
Washington , DC: TESOL; 163–176.
Hazenberg, S., Hulstijn, J.H. (1996) Deﬁning a minimal receptive second-language
vocabulary for non-native university students: an empirical investigation. Applied
Linguistics 17: 145–163.
Hedgcock, J., Ferris, D. (2009) Teaching Readers of English . New York: Routledge.
Horst, M. (2009) Developing deﬁnitional vocabulary knowledge and lexical access
speed through extensive reading. In Han, Z-H., Anderson, N. (eds) Second Language
Reading: Research and Instruction . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press;
pp. 40–64.
Hu, H.M., Nation, P. (2000) Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language 13: 403–430.
Hudson, T. (2007) Teaching Second Language Reading . New York: Oxford University
Press.
Hulstijn, J.H. (1993) When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of
unfamiliar words? The inﬂuence of task and learner variables. Modern Language
Journal 77: 139–147.
Jensen, L. (1986) Advanced reading skills in a comprehensive course. In Dubin, F.,
Eskey, D., Grabe, W. (eds). Teaching Second Language Reading for Academic
Purposes . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; pp. 103–124.
Jiang, X., Grabe, W. (2007) Graphic organizers in reading instruction: Research ﬁndings
and issues. Reading in a Foreign Language 19: 34–55.
Johnson, P. (1981) Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and
cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly 15: 169–181.
Kamil, M. (ed) (2009) Handbook of Reading Research . Volume IV. New York:
Routledge.
Kamil, M., Chou, H. (2009) Comprehension and computer technology. In Israel, S.,
Duffy, G. (eds) Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension . New York:
Routledge; pp. 289–304.
Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P., Pearson, P.D., Barr, R. (eds) (2000) Handbook of Reading
Research. Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kern, R.G. (1989) Second language reading strategy instruction: its effects on
comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal 73: 135–148.
Khalifa, H., Weir, C. (2009) Evaluating Reading: Studies in Language Testing 29 .
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

322 References
Koda, K. (1989) The effects of transferred vocabulary knowledge on the development
of L2 reading proﬁciency. Foreign Language Annals 22: 529–542.
Koda, K. (2005) Insights into Second Language Reading . New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Koda, K. (2007) Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second
language reading development. In Koda, K. (ed.) Reading and Language Learning.
Language Learning Supplement 57: 1–44.
Krashen, S. (2004) The Power of Reading (second edition). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Laufer, B. (1989) What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In
Lauren, C., Nordman, M. (eds). Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking
Machines. Clevedon and Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters ; pp. 316–323.
Lee, J-W., Schallert, D.L. (1997) The relative contribution of L2 language proﬁciency
and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: a test of the threshold hypothesis in
an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly 31: 713–739.
Lesaux, N., Lipka, O., Siegal, L. (2006) Investigating cognitive and linguistic abilities
that inﬂuence the reading comprehension skills of children from diverse linguistic
backgrounds. Reading and Writing 19:99–131.
Mason, B., Krashen, S. (1997) Extensive reading in English as a foreign language.
System 25: 91–102.
Mikulecky, B. (1990) A Short Course in Teaching Reading Skills . Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Mondria, J.-A., Wit-de Boer, M. (1991) The effects of contextual richness on the
guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied Linguistics
12: 249–267.
Muljani, D., Koda, K., Moates, D.R. (1998) The development of word recognition in a
second language. Applied Psycholingustics 19: 99–113.
Nassaji, H. (2003) L2 vocabulary learning form context: Strategies, knowledge
sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly
37: 645–670.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) Learning Vocabulary in Another Language . New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006) How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?
Canadian Modern Languages Review 63: 59–82.
Nation, I. S. P. (2009) Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing . New York: Routledge.
Opitz, M. (2007) Don’t Speed. Read! 12 Steps to Smart and Sensible Fluency
Instruction . New York: Scholastic.
Paris, S.G., Lipson, M.Y., Wixson, K.K. (1983) Becoming a strategic reader.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 8: 293–316.
Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., Turner, J.C. (1991) The development of strategic readers.
In Barr, R., Kamil, M.L., Mosenthal, P.B., Pearson, P.D. (eds). Handbook of Reading
Research, Volume II . New York: Longman; pp. 609–640.

323 References
Pichette, F. (2005) Time spent reading and reading comprehension in second language
learning. Canadian Modern Languages Review 62: 243–262.
Pressley, M. (2006) Reading Instruction that Works (third edition). New York: Guilford
Press.
Pritchard, R.H. (1990) The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly 25: 273–295.
Rasinski, T. (2003) The Fluent Reader: Oral Reading Strategies for Building Word
Recognition, Fluency,and Comprehension . New York: Scholastic Books.
Raymond, P.M. (1993) The effects of structure strategy training on the recall of
expository prose for university students reading French as a second language. Modern
Language Journal 77: 445–458.
Ryan, A., Meara, P. (1991) The case of the invisible vowels: Arabic speakers reading
English words. Reading in a Foreign Language 7: 531–540.
Schmitt, N. (2008) Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning.
Language Teaching Research 12: 329–363.
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., Grabe, W. (in press) The percentage of words known in a text
and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal .
Segalowitz, N.S., Segalowitz, S.J. (1993) Skilled performance, practice, and the
differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: evidence from second language
word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics 14: 369–385.
Seymour, P. (2006) Theoretical framework for beginning reading in different
orthographies. In Joshi, R.,Aaron, P. (eds) Handbook of Orthography and Literacy .
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum; pp. 441–462.
Silberstein, S. (1994) Techniques and Resources in Teaching Reading . New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Steffensen, M.S., Joag-dev, C., Anderson, R.C. (1979) A cross-cultural perspective on
reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 1: 10–29.
Taguchi, E., Takyasu-Maass, M., Gorsuch, G. (2004) Developing reading ﬂuency in
EFL: How assisted repeated reading and extensive reading affect ﬂuency development.
Reading in a Foreign Language 16: 70–96.
Tanaka, H., Stapleton, P. (2007) Increasing reading input in Japanese high school EFL
classrooms: An empirical study exploring the efﬁcacy of extensive reading. The Reading
Matrix 7(1): 115–126.
Tang, G. (1992) The effect of graphic representation of knowledge structures on ESL
reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14: 177–195.
Taylor, A., Stevens, J., Asher, J. W. (2006) The Effects of Explicit Reading Strategy
Training on L2 Reading Comprehension: A Meta-analysis. In Norris, J., Ortega, L
(eds) Synthesizing Research on LanguageLearning and Teaching . Philadelphia: J.
Benjamins; pp. 213–244.
Weigle, S.C., Jensen L. (1996) Reading rate improvement in university ESL classes.
The CATESOL Journal 9: 55–71.

324 References
Wilhelm, J. (2001) Improving Comprehension with Think-aloud Strategies . New York:
Scholastic.
Wolf, M. (2007) Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain .
New York: Harper.
Yamashita, J. (2002) Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 language
proﬁciency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading 25: 81–95.
Chapter 14, Writing
Bachman, L. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (V.W. McGee, trans.;
C. Emerson & M. Holquist, eds). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bazerman, C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity Of The
Experimental Article In Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Belcher, D., Braine, G. (eds). (1995) Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays
On Research and Pedagogy . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Benesch, S. (2001) Critical pragmatism: A politics of L2 composition. In Silva, T.
and Matsuda, P.K. (eds), On Second Language Writing . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum;
pp. 161–172..
Berger, P. L., Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise In
The Sociology Of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M. (1987) The Psychology of Written Composition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T. (1995) Genre Knowledge In Disciplinary Communication:
Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bitzer, L. (1968) The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1: 1–14.
Blanton, L. (1995) Elephants and paradigms: Conversations about teaching writing.
College ESL , 5(1): 1 21.
Burke, K. (1969) A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Canale, M., Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1): 1–47.
Carrell, P. (1982) Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly 16: 479–488.
Casanave, C. P., Vandrick, S. (eds) (2003) Writing For Publication: Behind the Scenes
in Language Education . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Connor, U. (1996) Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second Language
Writing . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U., Johns, A. (eds) (1990) Coherence in Writing: Research And Pedagogical
Perspectives. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Connor, U., Lauer, J. M. (1985) Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/
rhetorical approach. Text 5(4): 309–326.

325 References
Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., Rozycki, W. (eds) (2008) Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching
To Intercultural Rhetoric . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Costino, K. A., Hyon, S. (2007) ‘A class for students like me’: Reconsidering
relationships among identity labels, residency status, and students’ preferences for
mainstream or multilingual composition. Journal of Second Language Writing
16(2): 63–81.
Dykstra, G., Paulston, C. (1967) Guided composition. English Language Teaching
21: 136–141.
Ede, L., Lunsford, A. (1984) Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role
of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and
Communication 35(2): 155–171.
Elbow, P. (1987) Closing my eyes as I speak: An argument for ignoring audience.
College English 49: 50–69.
Ferris, D. (2009) Teaching College Writing To Diverse Student Populations. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D., Hedgcock, J. (2005) T eaching ESL composition: Purpose, Process, And
Practice (second edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flower, L. (1979) Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College
English 41: 19–37.
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R. (1981) A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication 32(4): 365–387.
Flowerdew, J. (ed.) (2005) Academic Discourse. New York: Pearson ESL.
Fries, C. (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor/
Doubleday.
Gosden, H. (1992) Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second
Language Writing 1(2): 123–139.
Grabe, W., Kaplan, R. B. (1996) Theory and Practice Of Writing: An Applied Linguistic
Perspective. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions Of Language. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (ed.) (1991) Assessing ESL Writing in Academic Contexts . Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2001) Fourth generation writing assessment. In Silva, T. and Matsuda,
P.K. (eds.), On Second Language Writing . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; pp. 117–127.
Hamp-Lyons, L., Kroll, B. (1996) Issues in ESL writing assessment: An overview.
College ESL 6(1): 52–72.
Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., Siegal, M. (eds) (1999) Generation 1.5 Meets College
Composition: Issues in the Teaching Of Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners Of ESL.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

326 References
Horowitz, D. (1986) Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly
20(1), 141–144.
Hyland, K. (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing.
New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Hyon, S. (1996) Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly 30(4),
693–722.
Ivanic ˇ, R. (1998) Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in
Academic Writing . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartﬁel, V., Hughey, J. (1981) Testing ESL
Composition: A Practical Approach . Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Leki, I., and Manchón, R. (eds) Journal of Second Language Writing . New York, NY:
Elsevier. http://www.jslw.org/
Kaplan, R. (1966) Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language
Learning , 16(1): 1–20.
Kinneavy, J. (1971) A Theory Of Discourse: The Aims Of Discourse. New York:
Norton.
Kobayashi, H., Rinnert, C. (1992) Effects of ﬁrst language on second language writing:
Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning 42(2): 183–215.
Krapels, A. R. (1990) An overview of second language writing process research. In
Kroll, B. (ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights For The Classroom New
York: Cambridge University Press; pp. 37–56.
Kubota, R. (1997) A reevaluation of the uniqueness of Japanese written discourse:
Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Written Communication 14(4): 460–480.
Kubota, R. (1998) An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese
university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language
Writing 7(1): 69–100.
Kubota, R., Lehner, A. (2004) Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second
Language Writing 13: 7–27.
Lee, I. (2008, June) Issues and challenges in teaching and learning EFL writing: the
case of Hong Kong . Paper presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing,
West Lafayette, IN.
Leki, I. (1991) Twenty-ﬁve years of contrastive rhetoric: Text analysis and writing
pedagogies. TESOL Quarterly 25(1): 123–143.
Leki, I. (2000) Writing, literacy, and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 20: 99–115.
Lillis, T., Curry, M. J. (2006) Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars:
Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written
Communication 23(1): 3–35.
Manchón, R. (2001) Second language learners’ composing strategies: A review of the
research. In R. Manchón (ed.), Writing in the L2 Classroom: Issues In Research And
Pedagogy. Murcia, Spain: Universidad de Murcia.

327 References
Manchón, R. (2008, June) The language learning potential of writing in foreign
Language contexts: Lessons from research . Paper presented at the Symposium on
Second Language Writing, West Lafayette, IN.
Matsuda, P. K. (1997) Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing 6(1): 45–60.
Matsuda, P. K. (2001a) Reexamining audiolingualism: On the genesis of reading
and writing in L2 studies. In Belcher, D. and Hirvela, A. (eds.), Linking Literacies:
Perspectives On Second Language Reading/Writing Connections Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press; pp. 84–105.
Matsuda, P. K. (2001b) Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second
language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 10(1–2): 1–19.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003) Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated
historical perspective. In Kroll, B. (ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language
Writing . New York: Cambridge University Press; pp. 15–34.
Matsuda, P. K., DePew, K. E. (ed.) (2002) Early second language writing [Special
issue]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(4).
Matsuda, P. K., Jablonski, J. (2000) Beyond the L2 metaphor: Towards a mutually
transformative model of ESL/WAC collaboration. Academic.Writing, 1. Available:
http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/articles/matsuda_jablonski2000.htm.
Matsuda, P. K., Tardy, C. M. (2007) Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical
construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Speciﬁc Purposes
26: 235–249.
Miller, C. (1984) Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–167.
Moffett, J. (1968/1983) Teaching The Universe Of Discourse. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook.
Mohan, B. A., Lo, W. A. (1985) Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and
developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly 19: 515–534.
Murray, D. (1982) Teaching the other self: The writer’s ﬁrst reader. College
Composition and Communication 33: 140–147.
Ortmeier-Hooper, C. (2008) English may be my second language, but I’m not ‘ESL’.
College Composition and Communication 59(3): 389–419.
Paulston, C., Dykstra, G. (1973) Controlled Composition In English as a Second
Language . New York: Regents.
Perelman, C. H. (1982) The Realm of Rhetoric (W. Kluback, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press.
Purves, A. (1988) Writing Across Languages And Cultures: Issues in Contrastive
Rhetoric . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Raimes, A. (1983a) Anguish as a second language? Remedies for composition
teachers. In Freedman, A., Pringle, I. and Yalden, J. (eds.), Learning To Write: First
Language/Second Language . London: Longman; pp. 258–272.
Raimes, A. (1983b) Techniques in Teaching Writing . New York: Oxford University Press.

328 References
Raimes, A. (1985) What unskilled writers do as they write: A classroom study of
composing. TESOL Quarterly 19(2): 229–258.
Raimes, A. (1991) Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.
TESOL Quarterly 25(3): 407–430.
Reichelt, M. (1999) Toward more comprehensive view of L2 writing: Foreign language
writing in the US. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(2): 181–204.
Reid, J. (1984) The radical outliner and the radical brainstormer: A perspective on
composing processes. TESOL Quarterly 18(3): 529–533.
Reid, J.M. (1993) Teaching ESL Writing . Englewood Cliff, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Rivers, W. (1968) Teaching Foreign Language Skills . Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Roberge, M., Siegal, M., Harklau, L. (eds) (2009) Generation 1.5 in College
Composition: Teaching Academic Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL . London:
Taylor & Francis.
Rose, M. (1980) Rigid rules, inﬂexible plans, and the stiﬂing of language: A cognitivist
analysis of writer’s block. College Composition and Communication 31(4): 389–400.
Santos, T. (1988) Professors’ reaction to the academic writing of nonnative speaking
students. TESOL Quarterly 22(1): 69–90.
Santos, T. (1992) Ideology in composition: L1 and ESL. Journal of Second Language
Writing , 1(1): 1–15.
Santos, T. (2001) The place of politics in second language writing. In Silva, T. and
Matsuda, P.K. (eds.), On Second Language Writing . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; pp. 173–
190.
Santos, T., Atkinson, D., Erickson, M., Matsuda, P.K., Silva, T. (2000) On the future of
second language writing: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing
9(1): 1–20.
Sasaki, M. (2000) Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory
study. Journal of Second Language Writing 9(3): 259–291.
Severino, C. (1993) The sociopolitical implications of response to second language and
second dialect writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 2(3): 181–201.
Silva, T. (1990) Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and
directions in ESL. In Kroll, B. (ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for
the Classroom . New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–23.
Silva, T. (2001) Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL
research and its implications. In Silva, T. and Matsuda, P.K. (eds.), Landmark Essays on
ESL Writing . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Originally published 1993);
pp. 191–208.
Silva, T. (1994) An examination of writing program administrators’ options for the
placement of ESL students in ﬁrst-year writing classes. WPA: Writing Program
Administration 18(1–2): 37–43.
Silva, T., Brice, C., Reichelt, M. (eds) (1999) Annotated Bibliography Of Scholarship
In Second Language Writing: 1993–1997 . Stamford, CT: Ablex.

329 References
Spack, R. (1997) The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL Quarterly
31(4): 765–774.
Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English is Academic And Research Settings . New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2004) Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tannacito, D. (ed.) (1995) A Guide to Writing in English as a Second or Foreign
Language: An Annotated Bibliography of Research And Pedagogy. Alexandria, VA:
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Tardy, C. M. (in press). Building Genre Knowledge: Pathways of Four Multilingual
Writers. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Tardy, C., Matsuda, P. K. (2009) The construction of author voice by editorial board
members. Written Communication 26(1): 32–52.
Toulmin, S. (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Vann, R., Meyer, D., Lorenz, F. (1984) Error gravity: A study of faculty opinion of ESL
errors. TESOL Quarterly 18(3): 427–440.
Wang, L. (2003) Switching to ﬁrst language among writers with differing second-
language proﬁciency . Journal of Second Language Writing 12(4): 347–375.
Witte, S., Faigley, L. (1981) Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College
Composition and Communication 32(2): 189–204.
Young, R. E., Becker, A. L., Pike, K. L. (1970) Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Zamel, V. (1976) Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What can we learn from
the research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly 10(1): 67–76.
Zamel, V. (1982) Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly 16(2):
195–209.
Chapter 15, Assessment
Alderson, C. (2000) Assessing Reading . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C. (2005) Diagnosing Foreign Language Proﬁciency: The Interface
between Learning and Assessment . London: Continuum.
Alderson, J.C., Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996) TESOL preparation courses: a study of
washback. Language Testing 13: 280–297.
Alderson, J.C., Wall, D. (1993) Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics 14: 115–
129.
AlFally, I. (2004) The role of some selected psychological and personality traits of the
rater in the accuracy of self- and peer-assessment. System 32: 407–425.
Bachman L.F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing . Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

330 References
Bachman, L.F. (2000) Modern language testing at the turn of the century: assuring that
what we count counts. Language Testing 17: 1–42.
Bachman, L. F. (2005) Building and supporting a case for test use. Language
Assessment Quarterly 2: 1–34.
Bachman, L. F. (2007) What is the construct? The dialectic of abilities and contexts
in deﬁning constructs in language assessment. In Fox, J., Wesche, M., Bayliss, D.,
Cheng, L., Turner, C., Doe, C. (eds). What are we Measuring? Language Testing
Reconsidered . Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press; pp. 41–71 .
Bachman, L.F., Palmer, A.S. (1989) The construct validation of self-ratings of
communicative language ability. Language Testing 6: 14–25.
Bachman, L.F., Palmer, A.S. (1996) Language Testing in Practice . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Black, P., Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education 5: 7–74.
Blue, G. (1994) Self-assessment of foreign language skills: does it work? CLE Working
Papers 3: 18–35.
Breen, M., Barratt-Pugh, C., Derewianka, B., House, H., Hudson, C., Lumley, T.,
Rohl, M. (1997) Proﬁling ESL Children. Volume 1: Key Issues and Findings . Canberra:
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Brindley, G. (1989) Assessing Achievement in the Learner-centred Curriculum .
Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie
University.
Brindley, G. (1998) Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language programs:
a review of the issues. Language Testing 15: 45–85.
Brindley, G. (2000a) Task difﬁculty and task generalisability in competency-based
writing assessment. In Brindley, G. (ed.). Issues in Immigrant English Language
Assessment . Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research,
Macquarie University; pp. 45–80.
Brindley, G. (2000b) Implementing Alternative Assessment. Paper presented at AAAL
annual conference, Vancouver, Canada, March 11–14.
Brindley, G. (2001a) Language assessment and professional development. In
Elder, C., Brown, A., Hill, K., Iwashita, N., Lumley, T., McNamara, T., O’Loughlin, K.
(eds). Experimenting with Uncertainty: Essays in Honour of Alan Davies . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 126–136.
Brindley, G. (2001b) Investigating rater consistency in competency-based language
assessment. In Brindley, G, Burrows, C. (eds). Studies in Immigrant English Language
Assessment . Volume 2. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and
Research, Macquarie University; pp. 59–91.
Brindley. G. (2007) Editorial. Language Assessment Quarterly 4: 1–5.
Broadfoot, P. (1987) Introducing Proﬁling . London: Macmillan.
Brown, H.D (2004) Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice . White
Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

331 References
Brown, J.D., Hudson, T. (1998) The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL
Quarterly 32: 653–675.
Buck, G. (2001) Assessing Listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burrows, C. (2004) Washback in classroom-based assessment: A study of the
washback effect in the Australian Adult Migrant English Program. In Cheng, L.,
Watanabe, Y., Curtis, A. (eds) Washback in Language Testing . Mahwah, N. J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum; pp. 113–128.
Chapelle, C. (1998) Construct deﬁnition and validity enquiry in SLA research. In
Bachman, L.F., Cohen, A.D. (eds). Second Language Acquisition and Language
Testing Interfaces . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. (1999) Validity in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 19: 254–272.
Chapelle, C. A., Douglas, D. (2006) Assessing Language Through Computer
Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M., Jamieson, J. (eds) (2008) Building a Validity Argument
for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. New York and London: Routledge.
Chapelle, C. A., Jamieson, J., Hegelheimer, V. (2003) Validation of a web-based ESL
test. Language Testing 20: 409–439.
Cheng, L. (1998) Impact of a public English examination change on students’
perceptions and attitudes toward their English learning. Studies in Educational
Evaluation 24, 3: 279–301.
Clapham, C. (1997) Introduction. In Clapham, C., Corson, D. (eds). Encyclopedia of
Language and Education. Volume 7: Language Testing and Assessment . Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers; xiii–xix.
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Language
Learning and Teaching . Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Cram, B. (1995) Self-assessment: from theory to practice. Developing a workshop
guide for teachers. In Brindley, G. (ed.). Language Assessment in Action . Sydney:
National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University;
pp. 271–305.
Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., McNamara, T. (1999) Dictionary
of Language Testing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davison, C. (2007) Views from the chalkface: English language school-based
assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly 3: 37–68.
Douglas, D. (1998) Testing methods in context-based second language research. In
Bachman, L.F., Cohen, A.D. (eds). Interfaces between Second Language Acquisition
and Language Testing Research . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp.
141–155.
Douglas, D. (2000) Testing Language for Speciﬁc Purposes: Theory and Practice .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

332 References
Douglas, D., Selinker, L. (1993) Performance on general vs. ﬁeld-speciﬁc tests of
speaking proﬁciency. In Douglas, D., Chapelle, C. (eds) A New Decade of Language
Testing Research . Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications; pp. 235–256.
Eckes, T., Ellis, M., Kalnberzina, V., Pižorn, K., Springer, C., Szollás, K., Tsagari, C.
(2005) Progress and problems in reforming public examinations in Europe: Cameos
from the Baltic states, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, France and Germany.
Language Testing 22: 355–377.
Ekbatani, G. (2000) Moving towards learner-directed assessment. In Ekbatani, G.,
Pierson, H. (eds). Learner-directed Assessment in ESL . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates; pp. 1–11.
Fox, J., Cheng, L. (2007) Did we take the same test? Differing accounts of the Ontario
Secondary School Literacy test by ﬁrst and second language test-takers. Assessment
in Education 14:9–26.
Fulcher, G. (1997) Assessing writing. In Fulcher, G. (ed.). Writing in the English
Language Classroom . Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall ELT/The British Council;
pp. 91–107.
Genesee, F., Hamayan, E. (1994) Classroom-based assessment. In Genessee, F. (ed.).
Educating Second Language Children . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press;
pp. 212–239.
Genesee, F., Upshur, J. (1996) Classroom-based Evaluation in Second Language
Education . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gottlieb, M., Nguyen, D. (2007) Assessment and Accountability in Language
Education Programs . Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996) Applying ethical standards to portfolio assessment. In
Milanovic, M., Saville, N. (eds). Performance Testing, Cognition and Assessment .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp. 151–164.
Hamp-Lyons, L., Condon, W. (2000) Assessing the Portfolio: Principles for Practice
Theory and Research . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Hardy, R.A. (1995) Examining the costs of performance assessment. Applied
Measurement in Education 8: 121–134.
Hudson, T. (2005) Trends in assessment scales and criterion-referenced language
assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics : 205–227.
Hughes, A. (2003) Testing for Language Teachers . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Huhta, A., Figueras, N. (2004) Using the CEF to promote language learning through
diagnostic testing. In Morrow, K. (ed.). Insights from the Common European
Framework . Oxford: Oxford University Press; pp. 65–76.
Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008) Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus
on language assessment courses. Language Testing 25: 385–402.
Kane, M. (2006) Validation. In Brennan, R. (ed.). Educational Measurement , (fourth
edition) Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing; pp. 17–64.

333 References
Katz, A. (2000) Changing paradigms for assessment. In Snow, M.A. (ed.).
Implementing the ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students through Teacher Education .
Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL, Inc.; 137–166.
Leung, C., Rea-Dickins, P. (2007) Teacher assessment as policy instrument:
contradictions and capacities. Language Assessment Quarterly 4: 6–36.
Little, D, Perclová, R. (2001) European Language Portfolio. Guide for Teachers and
Teacher Trainers . Strasbourg: EC Language Policy Division.
Luoma, S. (2004) Assessing Speaking . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matsuno, S. (2009) Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL
writing classrooms. Language Testing 26: 75 –100.
McKay, P. (2000) On ESL standards for school-age learners. Language Testing
17: 185–214.
McKay, P. (2006) Assessing Young Language Learners . Cambridge Cambridge
University Press.
McNamara, T., Roever, C. (2006) Language Testing: The Social Dimension . Malden,
MA and Oxford: Blackwell.
McNamara, T.F. (1996) Measuring Second Language Performance . London: Longman.
Mencken, K. (2008) Tests as language policy. In Shohamy, E. and Hornberger, N.
(eds.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education , Volume 7. Language Testing and
Assessment . Second Edition. New York: Springer; pp. 401–413.
Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In Linn, R. (ed.). Educational Measurement (third edition).
New York, NY: Macmillan; pp. 13–103.
Mohan, B., Low, M. (1995) Collaborative teacher assessment of ESL writers:
conceptual and practical issues. TESOL Journal 5: 28–31.
Norton Peirce, B., Stewart, G. (1997) The development of the Canadian Language
Benchmarks Assessment. TESL Canada Journal 14: 17–31.
Oscarson, M. (1984) Self-assessment of Foreign Language Skills: A Survey of
Research and Development . Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Co-operation, Council of
Europe.
Oscarson, M. (1997) Self-assessment of foreign and second language proﬁciency. In
Clapham, C., Corson, D. (eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Volume 7:
Language Testing and Assessment . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers; pp. 175–187.
Pawlikowska-Smith, G. (2000) Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000 . Ottawa:
Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks.
Purpura, J. (2004) Assessing Grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Read, J. (2000) Assessing Vocabulary . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Read, J., Chapelle, C.A. (2001) A framework for second language vocabulary
assessment. Language Testing 18: 1–32.
Rea-Dickins, P. (2006) Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: A learning-
focused interpretation. International Journal of Applied Linguistic s 16: 163–188.

334 References
Rea-Dickins, P., Gardner, S. (2000) Snares and silver bullets: disentangling the
construct of formative assessment. Language Testing 17: 215–243.
Ross, S. (1998) Self-assessment in language testing: a meta-analysis and analysis of
experiential factors. Language Testing 15: 1–20.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., Clapham, C. (2001) Developing and exploring the behaviour
of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18: 55–88.
Shohamy, E. (1992) Connecting testing and learning in the classroom and on the
program level. In Phillips, J. (ed.). Building Bridges and Making Connections .
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company/ACTFL; pp. 154–176.
Shohamy, E. (1998) Alternative assessment in language testing. In Li, E., James, G.
(eds). Testing and Evaluation in Second Language Education . Hong Kong: Language
Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; 99–114.
Shohamy, E. (2001) The Power of Tests . London: Longman.
Shohamy, E. (2006) Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. Oxford
and New York: Routledge.
Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., Ferman, I. (1996) Test impact revisited: washback
effect over time. Language Testing 13: 298–317.
Slomp, D. (2008) Harming not helping: The impact of a Canadian standardized writing
assessment on curriculum and pedagogy. Assessing Writing 13: 180–200.
Snow, M.A. (ed.) (2000) Implementing the ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students
through Teacher Education . Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL, Inc.
Spolsky, B. (ed.) (2009) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Volume 29: Language
Policy and Language Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valencia, S.W., Calfee, R. (1991) The development and use of literacy portfolios for
students, classes and teachers. Applied Measurement in Education 4: 333–345.
von Elek, T. (1985) A test of Swedish as a second language: an experiment in self-
assessment. In Lee, Y.P., Fok, A.C.Y.Y., Lord, R., Low, G. (eds). New Directions in
Language Testing . Oxford: Pergamon; pp. 47–57.
Wall, D. (1997) Impact and washback in language testing. In Clapham, C., Corson, D.
(eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Volume 7. Language Testing and
Assessment . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; pp. 291–302.
Wall, D., Alderson, J.C. (1993) Examining washback: the Sri Lankan impact study.
Language Testing 10: 41–69.
Weigle, S.C. (2002) Assessing Writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wigglesworth, G. (2000) Issues in the development of oral tasks for competency-
based assessments of second language performance. In Brindley, G. (ed.). Issues
in Immigrant English Language Assessment . Sydney: National Centre for English
Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University; pp. 81–123.

Index
NOTES: Abbreviations used
L1 = ﬁrst/native language
L2 = second/foreign language
ability/performance constructs 249–51
abstract, in speaking 200–1
Academic Word List (AWL) 37
accent 145, 147, 153
accommodation 151, 153
accuracy 5
error analysis studies 115
inﬂuence of errors on language instruction
119
achievement/compensatory strategies 165
adjacency pairs 58–9, 202–3
affective ﬁlter hypothesis 110
affective learner strategies 166, 186–7
African-American vernacular English (AAVE)
147–8
age
inﬂuence on language 151, 154–6
of language learners 109–10, 136, 161–2
allophones 154–5, 207, 279
American Association of Applied Linguistics
(AAAL) 1
American Council for Teachers of Foreign
Languages (ACTFL) 252
anthropological linguistics see sociolinguistics
antonyms and synonyms 65–6, 98, 131
aphasia 127, 131
apparent time hypothesis 151
applied linguistics
deﬁning 1–2, 10–11, 146
historical development 3–8
trends in 10–13
approximation 165
Archer Corpus 92
Army method 4
artiﬁcial intelligence 57
assessment see language assessment
assimilation 180, 195, 206, 211
attention, directed/selective 187
audiolingualism 4–5
authenticity, of task/text 192
authorship identiﬁcation 2
avoidance/reduction strategies 165back-channelling 58, 203, 278
behaviourism 4–5, 8, 12, 110–11
bilingualism 124–5 see also psycholinguistics
Birmingham School 57, 61–2
bottom-up processing 13, 27, 181, 183–4
British National Corpus (BNC) 90–2, 221
Brown Corpus 90–1
Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of
Discourse in English (CANCODE) 66, 92
Cambridge International Corpus (CIC) 66
Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment
264
Certiﬁcates in Spoken and Written English
(Australia) 264
chain-shift model 152
ChemSPEAK 252
choice motivation 170–1
Chomsky, Noam 5, 8–9, 20, 27, 108–11
chunks/multi-word units 12, 25, 200, 204, 210
circumlocution 165
clariﬁcation 166, 278
Co-operative Principle 73–5
COBUILD Bank of English Corpus 23
code-model, of communication 70–1
code-switching 127–8, 134–5, 149, 165
codiﬁcation 144, 200–1
cognitive learning strategies 163–4, 166,
186–7, 211–12
cognitive linguistics 9
cognitive pragmatics 79–81
cognitive psychology 111–12
cohesive devices 236–7
collocations 9, 98–100, 103
commitment control strategies 175
Common European Framework of Reference
(Council of Europe) 261–2, 264
communication, non-verbal 135–6, 139, 165, 204
communication strategies 164–6, 176
communication theory (CT)
Co-operative Principle 73–5
and context, role of 78–9

336 Index
factors inﬂuencing 75–7
listening model 181
Politeness Principle 75–6
communicative competence, concept of 5, 20,
110
communicative language teaching (CLT) 6
competence 5, 8, 20, 109–10
completions, in conversation 58
comprehensible input hypothesis 110
comprehension, listening models 181–2, 187
computers, use in language learning 7–8, 89,
138, 252, 261–2
computer-assisted language learning (CALL) 7
concordance programs 98–100, 102
confederate paradigm 135
conﬁdence 10, 171–2, 174–5
connectionism 9, 27, 112–13
construction grammar 9
contamination, risk of 190
context, role of 208, 270
guessing from context 42–3, 221–2
independence 269–70
in listening comprehension 181–2, 187
in pragmatics 78–9
contextualization 187
contrastive rhetoric 233, 236–7, 239–40
contrastive stress 205
controlled composition 238–9
conversation analysis 57–9, 63
adjacency pairs 58–9, 202–3
openings and closings 59
overlaps 58
and pragmatics 78–9
turn-taking 58–9, 149, 202–5, 208
cooperation 187
core idioms 35
corpora (singular corpus) 7–8, 23, 66
corpus design/compilation criteria 91–5
markup/annotation 94–5
tagged text 95, 100
types of 89–92
word frequency counts 36–7, 95–100
corpus linguistics 66–7, 104–5, 271–2
deﬁning 89–90
grammar, ﬁndings on 23–4
uses for 100–1
concordance programs 98–100, 102
in language teaching 101–3
Corpus of Contemporary American English
(COCA) 90–1
correctional feedback 119–20
correlational analysis, of language tests 256–7
Council of Europe, Common European
Framework of Reference 261–2, 264cover strategies 164
covert prestige 150, 156
creoles 150
criterion-referenced decisions 256
critical discourse analysis (CDA) 57, 63
cultural factors 114 see also sociolinguistics
gender 150–1, 154–6, 162
identity, inﬂuence on language 151, 198
inﬂuence on communication 76–7
and listening 188–9, 277–8
and pragmatic transfer 82–6
and reading 225–6
declarative knowledge 111–12
diachronic axis 143
dialect 145, 148–53
dialect chains 150
dialect-levelling model 152–3, 155
dialogue vs. monologue 125, 139
dictionaries 44, 85, 103, 222
Dictionary of the English Language 3
difﬁculty analysis, of language tests 256–7
diffusion models 153, 155
diglossia 149
direct method 4
discourse analysis 8, 68–9, 269–70
approaches to 56–63
linguistics 61–3
sociolinguistics 57, 59–61
sociology 57–9
Birmingham School 57, 61–2
corpus linguistics 66–7
critical discourse analysis (CDA) 57, 63
deﬁning 53–4
of speaking and writing 54–6, 63–4, 270
systemic functional linguistics (SFL) 57, 62–3
and teaching, implications for 67
variation theory 57, 61, 66–7, 149
discourse markers 61–2
dispreferred sequences 59
distance-closeness (PDR model) 77–8
documentation portfolios 260
drafting 235
elaboration 187
elision 206, 211
ellipsis 199
emergentism 9, 27–8
emotion control strategies 175
enacting, listening comprehension skill 186
English, as foreign/second language 2
and language proﬁciency 48–50
lexical bar 47–8
lexical properties, comparison of 47–50

337 Index
vocabulary size 46–50
English as a Second Language Composition
Proﬁle 243
environmental control strategies 175
error analysis studies 115, 119–20
ethnography 57, 59–60
ethos 235
European Language Portfolio (ELP) 261
evaluation portfolios 260
event-related potentials (ERP) 9, 131, 133–4
exchange see turn-taking
executive motivation/volition 170–2
Extensive Reading Foundation 39
eye-movement studies 9
face interpretation model 76–7, 80
feedback 29, 119–20
ﬁguratives 35
ﬁlters 165
ﬁxation 187
ﬂuency development 41–2, 52
follow-ups 202, 279
foreignizing 165
forensic linguistics 2
forgetting and relearning 137
form interference 274
form vs. function 20–2, 30–1
formulaic sequences 12, 25–6, 28, 35, 202
frequency
of grammatical use 27–8
high-frequency words 36–7, 41–2, 44–5, 50
word counts 36–7, 95–100
functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
10, 131, 134
gender 150–1, 154–6, 162
General Service List of English Words (GSL)
4, 36
genre 60, 63, 199–200, 241–2
geographical mobility 150
gestures 135–6, 139, 165, 204
graded readers 38–9
grammar 33, 268
cognitive grammar 21
communicative grammar 20–1
construction grammar 9, 21
deﬁning 18–26
descriptive grammar 18–22
dimensions of 22, 28
direct method 4
discourse grammar 23–4
feedback 29
form vs. function 20–2, 30–1
generative/transformational 20grammaring 29–30
grammatical variation 147–8
historical development 3–4
in L2 language acquisition 27–9
learner strategies 168
learning 26–9
lexico-grammar 12, 25–6
and lexis, interdependence 25–6
limitations of 25–6
mental grammar 18, 20
models of 18–22
overlearning 26
pedagogical grammar 18–19, 22
prescriptive grammar 18
repetition 29
rule formation 26–7
spoken vs. written grammar 24, 63–4
and syllabus design, inﬂuence on 21
systemic-functional grammar 5
teaching methods 4, 29–31
trends in 11–12
type vs. token 22–3
types of 18–22
Universal Grammar (UG) 5, 27, 108–10
grammaring 29–30
Helsinki Corpus of British Texts 90, 92
hesitation devices 165
heuristics 234–6
high-frequency words 36–7, 41–2, 44–5, 50
high stakes testing 247–8
Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English 92
hypercorrection 150
ideational function, of language 5
identity, inﬂuence on language 151, 198
idiolect 144
illocutionary force 271
immersion 6, 118–19, 243
inferencing 187
inﬂuential motivation 170–1
information processing model 112, 181
inhibitory control model 130–1
initiating-responding-follow up moves 61–2
input ﬂooding/processing 29
instantial lexical meanings 65–6
instrumental orientation 171
integrative motive/orientation 171
interactional strategies 113–14, 165–6, 182–3
interlanguage 27–8, 115 see also
psycholinguistics
contamination, risk of 190
International Corpus of English (ICE) 92
International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) 92

338 Index
International English Language Testing Service
(IELTS) 243
International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) 147–8
interpersonal function, of language 5
interpretation 166, 186
intonation 204–6
introspection studies 189–90
item difﬁculty 191, 256–7
keyword in context (KWIC) 98–9
keywords 43–4
L2 language acquisition 120–3, 272–3
behaviourism 110–11
cognitive psychology 111–12
connectionism 9, 27, 112–13
errors in 115, 119–20
focus of 108
and formulaic sequences 28
gestures, use of 135–6, 139, 165, 204
grammar, learning 27–9
immersion programmes 6
instruction, inﬂuence of 118–20
interactionist perspectives 113–14
L1, inﬂuence of 9, 115–17
language choice 128–9
language production models 125–31
language separation 128, 131
learners
age of 109–10, 136, 151, 154–6, 161–2
developmental sequences 115–18
Monitor theory 6, 110
processability theory 113–14
psycholinguistic studies in 124–31
sociocultural theory, of language learning 8,
114, 169–70
theories of 8, 108–15
timing, of language production 129–30
Universal Grammar (UG) 5, 27, 108–10
Lancaster/Oslo-Bergen Corpus (LOB) 90–1
language see also L2 language acquisition;
language assessment
aptitude for 162
change ( see sociolinguistics)
chunks/multi-word units 12, 25, 200, 204, 210
as common denominator 1–2
competence vs. performance 8
functions of 5–6
historical development of 100
loyalty 145, 150
planning 149, 157
social factors, impact on ( see sociolinguistics)
teaching methods 3–4, 6–7, 11–14, 110
variation ( see under sociolinguistics)language acquisition device (LAD) 109
language assessment 247–8, 264–7, 281–2
alternative assessment methods 259–64
advantages/disadvantages 263–4
observation 189, 259–60
outcomes-based assessment 264
portfolios 260–1
self-assessment 261–2
historical development 7
purposes of 247–8, 258
and teaching, inﬂuences and implications
258–62
by testing
ability/performance constructs 249–51
analysis, quantitative 256–7
criteria for 7, 248–51
difﬁculty, concept of 256–7
direct/indirect 250–1
methods 253–4
for reading 254–6
social consequences of 258
speciﬁc/general purpose constructs 251–3
technology, use of 252–3
validity/validation 7, 248–9, 254–6, 258
for writing 243
washback studies 7, 258–9, 264
Language in the Workplace Project (LWP) 85
language production models 125–31
language threshold 223–4
language variation see under sociolinguistics
learner strategies 12–13, 175–8
cognitive/meta-cognitive strategies 166–7,
186–7, 226–7
grammar 168
interactional strategies 113–14, 165–6,
182–3
language learning/language use strategies
164–5
listening 167–8, 186–7
made-to-measure strategies 172
motivation 169–75
reading 168, 226–7, 230–1, 279
social and affective strategies 166–7, 186–7,
226–7
speaking 168, 211–12
teaching methods for 173–5, 192–4
vocabulary 42–4, 168–9
writing 168
learners
age of 109–10, 136, 151, 154–6, 161–2
gender 150–1, 154–6, 162
identity, and pragmatic performance 85–6
language aptitude 162
learning style preferences 162–4, 276–7

339 Index
lemma 34–5, 126–7, 129
lexeme 126–7, 129
lexical access 129, 132–3
lexical bar 47–8
lexical density 55–6, 270
lexical patterning 7–8, 64–6
lexical phrases 25–6, 35
lexico-grammar 12, 25–6
lexis 25–6, 126–7
lingua franca 1–2, 238
linguistic competence 109–10
linguistic interdependence hypothesis 223–4
linking 206–7
listening 195–6, 277–8
analysis methods 188–90
and authenticity, of task/text 190
cultural factors, inﬂuence of 188–9, 277–8
deﬁning 180
inﬂuences on ease/difﬁculty 191
learner strategies 167–8, 186–7
models of 181–2
processes of 183–5
teaching methods 190, 192–4
types of 182–3, 185–6
and vocabulary learning 39
literals 35
logos 235
The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written
English 101
message abandonment/replacement 165
meta-cognitive strategies 166–7, 175, 186–7,
226–7
Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English
(MICASE) 96–7, 101
Middlesbrough English see Teeside Study
minimal pairs 210
Monitor theory 6, 110
monologue vs. dialogue 125, 139
morpheme studies 115–16
morphosyntax 22
motivation
choice motivation 170–1
cycle of 170
executive motivation/volition 170–2
self-motivation and self-conﬁdence 171–2,
174–5
social nature of 169–70
techniques 172–3
motivational retrospection 170, 172
multi-word units 12, 25, 200, 204, 210
narratives, characteristics of 200–1, 203
natural order hypothesis 110negative evidence 5, 27
neuroscience 9, 131, 133–4, 139
non-verbal communication 135–6, 139, 165,
204
norm-referenced tests 256
noticing hypothesis 83–4, 112
notional–functional syllabus 5
observation 189, 259–60
observer’s paradox 80, 152
Occupational English Test (Australia) 251–2
one-way listening 182–3
openings and closings, conversational 59
optical character recognition (OCR) 94
orthographic depth hypothesis 219–20
outcomes-based language assessment 264
overlaps, in conversation 58
paragraph pattern approach 239–40
pathos 235
pattern extraction 9
PDR model 77–8
peer interaction 29
pentad 235
perception, listening skill 186
performance
ability/performance constructs 249–51
pragmatic performance 85–6
self-assessment of 261–2
tests ( see language assessment)
vs. competence 8
personality-based learning style preferences
163–4
philosophy 57
phonemes 127–8, 154, 207, 210–11, 219, 279
phonetics 11, 126–7, 146–8, 207, 211
phonotactics 220
picture–word interference 130–1
pidgin languages 149–50
pitch 204–6, 210
politeness 59, 66, 149
Politeness Principle 75–7, 80
portfolios 260–1
power differential (PDR model) 77–8
pragmalinguist perspectives 76
pragmatics 8, 57, 87–8, 271
assigning reference 72–3
Co-operative Principle 73–5
and conversational analysis 78–9
deﬁning 70–1
and direct/indirect communication 73–5
and grammar 22
inﬂuences on, context/social factors 74–9,
82–6

340 Index
pragmatics – cont.
and language teaching/learning, role in 81–6
noticing hypothesis 83–4
pragmatic meaning 71–2
pragmatic performance 85–6
pragmatic proﬁciency 83–6
pragmatic transfer 82–6
research methods 79–81
and semantics 71–2
socio-psychological pragmatics 79–81, 83
sociopragmatic perspectives 76
predicting 187
prestige 145–6, 150, 156
processability theory 113–14
processing, controlled vs. automatic 112
Productive Levels Test 45
proﬁciency 10, 83–6, 223–4
pronunciation 197, 203–7, 209–14
chunks/multi-word units 12, 25, 200, 204, 210
intonation 204–6
pitch/tone 204–6, 210
sound segments 206–7
stress/unstress 206
and topic management 205
turn-taking 204–5, 208
psycholinguistics 9, 124–5, 140–2, 273–4
code-switching 127–8, 134–5, 149, 165
cognitive consequences of 136–8
deﬁning 124
and different language forms/scripts 131,
133, 217–18
forgetting and relearning 137
gestures, use of 135–6, 139, 165, 204
historical attitudes towards 138
language choice 128–9
language production models 125–31
language separation 128, 131
lexical access 129, 132–3
picture–word interference 130–1
proﬁciency development, studies of 133–4
Speaking model 126–7
sub-set hypothesis 128
timing, of language production 129–30
trends in 139
psychological approaches, to language learning
111–14
question–answer–feedback 61–2
questioning 187, 203
reaction-timing studies 9
reading
deﬁning 215–16
extensive reading programmes 227–8graded readers 38–9
in L2 216–17
and background knowledge 225–6
differences from L1 131, 133, 217–18
guessing 221–2
language threshold 223–4
orthographic depth hypothesis 219–20
reading rate, ﬂuency/recognition 222–3
teaching implications 228–9
and text structure awareness 225–6
vocabulary 220–2
word recognition 218–20
learner strategies 168, 226–7, 230–1, 279
readers, roles of 233–4
tests for 254–6
and vocabulary learning 38–9
reading method, of teaching language 4
reciprocal/interactional listening 182
rehearsal strategies 164
relaxation 187
relevance theory 74–5
relexicalization 65–6
repetition 29, 40, 65–6, 165, 203, 210
restructuring, of language 112
retrieval strategies 164
retrospection studies 190
revision 235–6
rhetoric 3, 233, 236–7, 239–40
rich instruction 41
rule formation 26–7
satiation control strategies 175
savings method 137
schema (plural schemata) 184–5
self-assessment, of language performance 261–2
self-determination 172
semantics 22, 129
sense relation network sheets 152, 154
sensory/perceptual learning style preferences
163–4
short-circuit hypothesis 223–4
Short Introduction to the English Grammar 3
showcase portfolios 260
sign language 136, 232
situated action model, listening 182
social/affective learner strategies 166–7,
186–7, 226–7
social/contextual model, listening 181–2, 187
social mobility 150
social network relations 151
social semiotic linguistics 57
socio-psychological pragmatics 79–81, 83
sociocultural theory, of language learning 8,
114, 169–70

341 Index
sociolect 144
sociolinguistics 8, 157–60
data collection and analysis 151–6
deﬁning 143
diachronic/synchronic axis 143
discourse analysis 57, 59–61
ethnography 57, 59–60
idiolect and sociolect 144
language variation 57, 61, 66–7, 146–51, 157
birth and death, of languages 149–50
chain-shift model 152
dialect-levelling model 152–3, 155
diffusion models 153, 155
discoursal variation 57, 61, 66–7, 149
grammatical variation 147–8
lexical variation 148–9
linguistic variation 146–7, 149–50
phonological variation 147
social inﬂuences on 150–1
Teeside Study 153–6, 274–5
SPEAKING grid 60
speech, categorizing characteristics of 143–6
sociology 57–9, 63, 113–14
sociopragmatic perspectives 76
sound segments 206–7
spaced repetition 40
speaking 197, 213–14, 278–9
abstract and coda in 200–1
accommodation 151, 153
characteristics of speech 143–6
chunks/multi-word units 12, 25, 200, 204, 210
codiﬁcation 144, 200–1
dialect 145, 148–53
discourse analysis 54–9, 63–4, 270
formal vs. informal 56, 198–9
generic/schematic structures 200–2, 208
genres of 199–200
gestures, use of 135–6, 139, 165, 204
grammar, spoken vs. written 24, 63–4
idiolect and sociolect 144
intonation 204–6
learner strategies 168, 211–12
lexical patterns in 64–6
part-of-speech tagging 95, 100
pitch/tone 204–6, 210
prestige and stigmatization 145, 150, 156
and pronunciation 197, 203–7, 209–14
sentence vs. text format 207–9
speech communities 145–6, 149
speech disorders 2
standard/non-standard 144–5, 149, 153
teaching, implications for 207–12
topic management 59, 203, 205
turn-taking/exchange 58–9, 149, 202–5, 208and vocabulary learning 39
and writing, differences between 11, 55–6,
100–1, 198, 270
SPEAKING grid 60
Speaking model 126–7
speech act theory 57
spiral syllabus 29
stalling/time-gaining strategies 165
strategies see learner strategies
structural functional linguistics 57
sub-set hypothesis 128
summarization 187
syllabus 5, 21, 29
synchronic axis 143
synonyms and antonyms 65–6, 98, 131
syntax/morphosyntax 22
systemic functional linguistics (SFL) 57, 62–3
tagmenics 235
teachability hypothesis 113
teachers, motivational inﬂuence of 171–2
technology, use in language learning 7–8, 89,
138, 252–3, 261–2
Teeside Study 153–6, 274–5
Test of Written English (TWE) 243
testing, of language proﬁciency see language
assessment
textbooks 84, 101
textual function, of language 5
thinking-out-loud/ think-aloud protocols (TOL/
TAP) 151–2, 189
time, language change over see sociolinguistics
tip-of-the-tongue phenomena 127, 131
TOEFL-2000 Spoken and Written Academic
Language Corpus 92
tokens 22–3, 34, 36–7
tone 204–6, 210
top-down processing 13, 27, 181, 183–5
topic avoidance 165
topic management 59, 203, 205
Transcortical Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) 139
translation 140–2, 165, 168, 187
turn-taking 58–9, 149, 202–5, 208
two-way listening 182–3
Universal Grammar (UG) 5, 27, 108–10
urban dialectology 150
usage/exemplar-based theory 9
utterances 74–5, 197
context, role of 78–9
deﬁning 72–3
paired 58–9, 78, 202–3, 210
validation 7, 248–9, 254–6, 258

342 Index
variation, of language see under
sociolinguistics
vocabulary 50–2, 268–9
deﬁning 34
frequency counts 36–7
learner strategies 42–4, 168–9
learning
and corpus linguistics 102–3
dictionaries, use of 44, 222
direct/deliberate learning methods 40–1,
52
ﬂuency development 41–2, 52
four strands 269
guessing from context 42–3, 221–2
how to learn 38–42
meaning-focused input/output 38–9, 52
what to learn, considerations for 35–8
word cards/parts 40, 43–4, 52
and reading, in L2 220–2
teaching trends 11–12
technical 37–8, 47–8
tests 44–6
Vocabulary Control Movement 4
Vocabulary Dictation tests 45
Vocabulary Levels Test 44–5, 251–2
Vocabulary Size Test 45–6
washback studies 7, 258–9, 264
who, what, where, when, why and how (5W1H)
235
willingness to communicate (WTC) 10
women see gender
words
all-purpose 165
chunks/multi-word units 12, 25, 200, 204,
210
coinage of 165
content words 206
frequency counts 36–7, 95–100
function words 206high-frequency words 36–7, 41–2, 44–5, 50
picture-word interference 130–1
tokens 22–3, 34, 36–7
word cards/parts 40, 43–4, 52
word families 34, 38–9, 221, 268–9
word types 34–5
writers
discursive identity 233
writer’s block 235
writing 244–6, 280–1
cohesive devices 236–7
discourse analysis 54–6, 63–4, 270
drafting and revision 235–6
grammar, spoken vs. written 24, 63–4
in L2 237–44
for academic purposes 37, 237–8,
241–2
assessment/tests 243–4
controlled composition 238–9
genre-based approach 241–2
and learning to write 237
linguistic analysis 239
paragraph pattern approach 239–40
process approach 240–1
programmatic issues in 242–4
teaching implications 238–44
vs. foreign language writing 237–8
learner strategies 168
and readers 233–4
relational aspect of 233–4
role of 232–7
and speaking, differences between 11, 55–6,
100–1, 198, 270
strategic aspect of 234–6
textual aspect of 236–7
and vocabulary learning 39
X_Lex 45
Y_Lex 45

Copyright Notice

© Licențiada.org respectă drepturile de proprietate intelectuală și așteaptă ca toți utilizatorii să facă același lucru. Dacă consideri că un conținut de pe site încalcă drepturile tale de autor, te rugăm să trimiți o notificare DMCA.

Acest articol: Applied An Introduction to [627837] (ID: 627837)

Dacă considerați că acest conținut vă încalcă drepturile de autor, vă rugăm să depuneți o cerere pe pagina noastră Copyright Takedown.

Applied An Introduction to [627837]

Copyright Notice

Nume Prenume Nr. Telefon Data na șterii E-mail [620390]

1.1 Arta de a povesti. Între basm și ,,story” Succesul unui reportaj este garantizat de o introducere clară în tema ce urmează a fi tratată. Limbajul… [302573]

Roboti Industriali Ppt (2) [309088]

1 Dr. Cosmin STOICA Drd. Ana-Maria MARINOIU POLITICA VAMAL Ă 2 3 CUPRINS Cap 1. REGLEMENTAREA CONCEPTUAL Ă, PROCEDURAL Ă ȘI OPERA ȚIONALĂ A APLIC… [600685]

Academia de Studii Economice din București [629478]

Iulia-Varvara Cioarba [305991]

Copyright Notice

Similar Posts