An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

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.
3
2
3
2.
5
2
5
3.
5
4
5
4.
4
5
3
5.
5
4
3
6.
N/A
2
3
7.
5
2
3
8.
4
2
3
9.
3
3
3
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