Chicago under revision

General Discussion
We predicted that sensitivity to inflectional forms and form-function connections would develop more readily and robustly in L2 Kazak than in L2 Russian, attributing the prolonged and incomplete acquisition in L2 Russian (observed in Thomson, 2000) to the fact that in Russian the nature of form-function relationships is many-to-many in a variety of senses, with a good deal of unpredictability and irregularity. We also predicted that the principles governing the acquisition of sensitivity to case-form and case-function would be of cross-linguistic significance, and hence the overall pattern (as opposed to the pace) of acquisition would be similar in Russian and Kazak.
It appears that, regardless morphological typology, at least as long as a moderate level of complexity exists in the system, inflectional morphosyntactic processing is not readily acquired in second languages!²¹ The typological difference between Russian, a language of the fusional type, and Kazak, a language of the agglutinative type, does not appear to alter this fact in any serious way. In the domain of inflectional morphology, the levels of difficulty of acquisition in Kazak and Russian, as far as we can tell, appear to be quite similar.
From a theoretical perspective, we might expect inflectional processing in general to be challenging for reasons discussed in Thomson (2000). For example, the inflected word combines within a basic processing unit (the prosodic word) both lexical and grammatical elements. Lexical access is thus made more difficult, in that differences between different inflectional variants of the same lexeme must be ignored for that purpose. At the same time, the deviation of non-base forms from the base forms (or lack of deviation) must, simultaneously with lexical access, trigger its own varieties of morphosyntactic processing. In addition, the functions with which inflectional forms must associate are of a different nature from the functions with which lexical forms must associate. Thomson (2000) reasoned that lexical forms associate with components from which conceptual representations are built, while grammatical forms associate with events in the process of conceptual representation building. As a result, we might expect inflectional form-function associations to have less opportunity to become initially established, and then to strengthen, than lexical form-meaning associations. As noted, rich verbal person agreement would be a potential exception, since it is associated with highly concrete and salient referents, and hence with time-stable components of conceptual representations.
In relation to hypothesis 5, we found support for the idea that cross-linguistic factors influence the development of sensitivity to inflectional form. Even if the particular assumptions outlined above to account for relative tendencies of case-anomalies to trigger reactions proves to be far off the mark, we must be open to the possibility that some interesting principles lie behind the substantial amount of shared variance in the tendencies of specific case-anomalies to trigger reactions in L2 Kazak and L2 Russian. So far, any proposed scenario will be based on too few examples of each type of anomaly. We saw that the rank order of anomaly detections predicted by the theoretical assumptions was statistically unrelated to the rank order observed in the Kazak experiment. In fact, however, the pattern seen in Figure 7 is not entirely discouraging, if we allow for the special problem of possessed-case-marked nouns in L2 Kazak. As predicted, for example, nominative-for-oblique substitutions, are at least not highly detectable (only 17% of the participants detected the nominative-for-instrumental substitution in the Listening Only condition, and only 37% detected the nominative-for-locative anomaly; compare this with 77% who detected the instrumental-for-nominative substitution in the same task), in line with the proposal that nominative case marking (the unmarked, or base form) does not readily develop a tendency to trigger inflection-related morphosyntactic processing. Hence nominative forms tend for a long period of time to remain compatible with oblique contexts for many L2 listeners, as long as the oblique contexts themselves have not yet developed a strong requirement for the specific oblique forms. So at least from the standpoint of a qualitative analysis, given the small number of examples in the experiment, we are not inclined to abandon this particular type of explanation of the relative sensitivities to different case-marking anomalies.
Given the somewhat bleak picture the two experiments lead us to paint regarding the limited tendency of L2 learners to become native-like in the area of inflectional processing, we need to excercise caution regarding the accuracy with which the assignment of participants to groups in the experiment reflects L2 developmental levels. Neverthless, most L2 users at a wide range of levels appear to be substantially different from native speakers. In addition, the experiment may disadvantage L2 users in exaggerated ways, such that their normal sensitivity to some inflectional forms and contexts may be somewhat higher than what is reflected in the experiments. On the other hand, much of their normal listening input would presumably lack the advantages of the Listening Only task (the story already being familiar, long pauses following short segments, and simple, highly predicable, highly concrete conceptual content).
We turn now to a brief consideration of some other proposals regarding the relative ease or difficulty of acquisition of grammatical forms. Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) proposed a set of factors (similar to those proposed by Brown, 1973, for L1 English) which, working together, might result in the attested relative readiness with which certain L2 English grammatical morphemes are acquired. The factors they investigated were frequency, phonological salience, semantic complexity, morphophonological regularity, and syntactic category (i.e., free versus bound; lexical versus functional). The issues of phonological salience, semantic complexity and morphological regularity (and syntactic category, if one follows Bybee et al., 1994 in assigning degrees of boundedness) should have favored Kazak over Russian. A positive finding in that regard could have been considered support for Goldschneider's and DeKeyser's proposals. As things stand, this experiment does not support their proposals. If such factors were powerful enough, then we would have expected to see a difference in the degree of readiness with which inflection is acquired in the two languages. On the other hand, a cross-linguistic comparison is very different from Goldschneider and DeKeyser's within-language comparison of different morphemes, since, as noted, there are a host of non-controlled linguistic factors differentiating two typologically distinct languages which can affect the comparison.
Regarding the effect of frequency of inflectional forms, in terms of the analysis of the pattern of development of sensitivity to the different case forms as processing triggers, the relationship of this variable to ease of acquisition appears to be rather complicated. The nominative form, as the unmarked form, is the most frequent form (Greenberg, 1966). After all, every sentence has a subject, while many sentences lack instruments. Yet, according to our proposal, the nominative case is not acquired initially as such. Rather, it is treated as the default form of the word, and for a long time can be substituted in any context without causing processing problems. Frequency may simply result in habituation to a base form, increasing the "surprise" value of non-base forms, and thus easing their acquisition. In that case, the least frequent forms could be the most likely to provoke at least some inflection-related processing reaction.
Goldschneider and DeKeyser also find grammatical status (in terms of bound versus free status and lexical versus functional status) to be a predictor of ease of acquisition, consistent with suggestions by Zobl and Liceras (1994) and Vainikka and Young-Scholten (1998) that for L2 learners function words are more readily acquired than inflectional forms (the opposite of the situation in child L1 learning). Although we did not examine function words, our findings certainly point to considerable difficulty in the acquisition of L2 inflectional form-function relations in general. We have noted that the difficulty of inflectional acquisition could be related to the nature of the mental entities (or rather, mental events) with which the inflectional forms must associate. This does not explain why one category of grammatical morpheme (inflection) should be more difficult than another (free function words). In fact, the grammatical meanings expresses by inflectional forms in one language may be expressed by free function words in another (Beard, 1995). It may be that the need of the processor to deal simultaneously with inflectional form and lexical access (itself made more difficult by inflectional variation) makes inflectional processing more difficult than the processing of function words. However, the alleged advantage of function words might also be a reflection of the reliance of researchers on spoken production data. Function words may be more readily deployable in speech via L2 metalinguistic planning strategies than inflected forms, especially if it is the case that the base form and various inflected forms compete for selection in speech production, as in a spreading activation model (see discussion in Thomson, 2000).
Turning to VanPatten's two processing principles related to grammatical morphology, (1990, 1994, 2000; VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; VanPatten & Sanz, 1995), the first principle is that input is processed for meaning before it is processed for form. This could be understood in terms of the demands created by the rapidity demanded of normal language processing, and an assumption that L2 processors are relatively good at lexical access. We suggested that when the processor is confronted with an inflected word, the lexical access step requires that the inflectional details be ignored for the sake of lexeme identification. Add to this the assumption that the inflectional details need to become associated with relatively brief processing events, and VanPatten's first principle would seem to follow readily. His second principle is that before the learner can process form that is not meaningful (in VanPatten's technical sense) the meaningful aspects of the input must be processes with little effort, consuming relatively limited processing resources. In the scenario we envision, once lexical access is rapid enough, the deviation of a particular inflectional form from the base form can begin to make an impact (the surprise effect), but acquisition will still require a very large number of encounters with those particular formal features simultaneously with the relevant comprehension-processing events with which those formal features must associate. That is, automatic processing of meaningful aspects of sentences may not lead to rapid acquisition of less meaningful aspects, even though it may be essential for their gradual acquisition.
We might also ask what bearing our comprehension-related findings have on the debate discussed in the introduction regarding whether nonnativelike production of inflectional forms reflects an absence of the abstract representations of inflectional affixes or merely involves a problem with their surface realizations (Prévost & White, 2000). The latter position holds that the inflectional units have in some sense been acquired, but cannot be consisitently expressed overtly. It would seem to be important in investigating such a possibility to examine the activeness versus inertness of the inflectional categories in question in the comprehension systems of the same L2 users. If it turned out that an inflectional form in general had no function for an L2 user in comprehension or production, one would be left wondering how it came to be part of the hypothetical underlying grammar.
One piece of evidence that Prévost & White appeal to involves the tendency of two L2 French users and two L2 German users (data from the ZISA corpus) to use infinitives in place of finite verbs, combined with the tendency of the same individuals not to use finite forms in place of infinitive forms. It would be interesting to know whether the comprehension systems of the same L2 users would be sensitive to the substitution of finite forms into nonfinite contexts, and relatively insensitive to the opposite substitution. Such a tendency might be analyzed in a way parallel to our analysis of the tendency of participants in our Russian and Kazak experiments to react to instrumental case-marked nouns in a nominative context and not to react to nominative-marked nouns in an instrumental context. In that case, the distribution of finite and infinitive forms might be taken as evidence that some function or other of the finiteness inflection had been acquired, enough that it triggers clashing processes when placed in nonfinite contexts. On the other hand, it would mean that no function of nonfiniteness inflection had been acquired, allowing it to be compatible with any context. To argue further that abstract nonfiniteness inflection has been acquired (apart from UG theory-internal arguments) would seem odd. Again, if the inflectional form in question were found to have no function in comprehension or production, it would be curious that it nevertheless came to be learned at a more abstract level. In any case, it would seem that examining the level of activeness/inertness of inflectional forms in L2 comprehension in addition to their presence in production would be highly relevant to this particular debate.
Similarly to Prévost and White (2000), Lardiere (1998) argued on theory-internal grounds that the consistent use of nativelike pronominal case in the spoken production of her informant Patty indicate that tense has been acquired in an abstract form, even though the same L2 user only supplied native-like tense inflection in 34% of obligatory contexts. However, we can imagine that tense inflection does not play a nativelike role in her comprehension system. If it did, then in the 66% of the contexts in which she uses nonnativelike inflection, her own comprehension system would presumably experience a processing glitch when processing her own spoken output. That is, she would frequently be in the situation where the form provided by her production system created an anomaly for her comprehension system (in more informal terms, that the form she produced did not work). We can at least wonder whether she could go on that way for the eight and a half years between the two data-collection points, constantly experiencing this problem in her own output, but remaining unaffected by the experience in terms of her spoken production. Perhaps, it is conceivable that an L2 comprehension system could somehow become desensitized to the L2 user's own nonnativelike output while nevertheless processing the speech of other speakers normally. Therefore, it would be of value to investigate the functioning of tense inflection in Patty's comprehension system. Again, if it turned out that tense inflection played no role in comprehension or production for Patty, then apart from ever-changing theory-driven considerations, there would be no motivation for saying that her internal grammar had acquired something that her comprehension and production systems had no awareness of.²²
In conclusion, we found little evidence that form-function connections related to inflectional morphology in the agglutinative language Kazak are acquired any more readily than analogous ones in the fusional language Russian. In fact, in many ways, the pictures that emerges in connection with the two languages are highly similar. It appears that in the case of languages with extensive inflectional morphology, regardless of morphological typology, enormous experience with the language is required in order for inflectional processing to approach nativelikeness—more experience than many L2 users are likely to accumulate. Although some of the form-function connections involved may be acquired more easily than others, there is little evidence that many are driven to completion.
These findings argue against any idea of relatively brief pedagogical treatments (say, three weeks or even a semester) effecting major changes in such slowly acquired domains of L2 ability. On the other hand, teaching practices might be relatively more or less effective in contributing to the long-term (multi-year) developments. The advantage of the Listening Only over the Dual Task suggests that certain properties of the input that can increase the likelihood of inflectional form being processes. VanPatten and colleagues (VanPatten 1990, 1994; VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993; VanPatten & Sanz, 1995) have demonstrated ways to foster the meaningful processing of grammatical form. Although it might be difficult to demonstrate, a large amount of effort during early language learning aimed at making inflectional form meaningful through input instruction could have an impact several thousand hours of meaningful exposure down the road.
Beyond efforts to increase the linguistic processing of inflectional form (and other aspects of grammatical form that appear to require similarly massive experience with the L2 for a high level of development to occur), we need to keep in mind the potential contribution of nonlinguistic learning to making L2 speech appear more nativelike. The idea of two kinds of cognitive systems, linguistic and nonlinguistic, working together in second language use has been proposed by various scholars (Krashen, 1981; Felix, 1987; Towell & Hawkins, 1994). It is an open question to what extent input instruction and other form-focussed instruction impacts the language processor on the one hand, and to what extent they impact the stock of nonlinguistic strategies, on the other. In any case, in languages with rich inflectional morphology, this aspect of form-function connections does not appear to be readily acquired in purely linguistic terms by adult L2 users. In many social contexts there are strongly held values (either the L2 users' values, or the host-language users' values) related to the importance of sounding nativelike in the L2. In such contexts the pedagogical development of compensatory mechanisms may be important, for better or worse. We can imagine a more enlightened and kinder world in which it would finally be accepted that the odds are heavily stacked against the development of fully nativelike mechanisms in adult-acquired L2 processing systems, and where so-called "accuracy" in second languages would therefore not be of great concern.
References:
Andersen, R. W. & Shirai, Y.. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 133-56.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. D. (1974). Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235-43.
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Sentence Processing, pp. 3-73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Buffalo: SUNY press.
Bock, K. & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, Ann (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.
Boots-Ebenfield, M. (1995). The Pragmatics of Grammatical Aspect in the Interlanguage of American College Students of Russian: An Analysis of Oral Proficiency Interviews Before and After Study Abroad. Doctoral dissertation, Bryn Mawr College.
Brown, Nicholas J. (1996). Russian Learner’s Dictionary: 10,000 Words in Frequency Order. London: Routledge.
Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bybee, J. L., Pagliuca, W. & Perkins, R. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of Learners. In Willis, Jane & Willis, Dave (eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, pp. 136-46. London: Heinemann.
Chomsky, N. A. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Davies, W. D. & Kaplan, T. I. (1998). Native Speaker vs. L2 Grammaticality Judgements. Applied Linguistics, 19, 183-203.
de Bleser, R., & Luzzatti, C. (1994). Morphological processing in Italian agrammatic speakers syntactic implementation of inflectional morphology. Brain and Language, 46(1), 21-40.
DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, pp. 42-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 24, 245-58.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.
Dulay, H. Burt, M. K., & Krashen, Stephen D. (1982). Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Epstein, S. D., Flynn, S. & Martohardjono, G. (1996). Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 677-713.
Eubank, L. (1994). Discussion paper—Towards an explanation for the late acquisition of agreement in L2 English. Second Language Research, 10, 84-93.
Felix, S. W. (1987). Cognition and Language Growth. Dordrecht: Foris.
Friederici, A. & Jacobson, T. (1999). Processing grammatical gender during language comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 467-484.
Friederici, A. D., Wessels, J.M.I., Emmorey, K. & Bellugi, U. (1992). Sensitivity to inflectional morphology in aphasia: A real-time perspective. Brain and Language 43, 747-63.
Garrett, M. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In Butterworth, B. (ed.), Language Production: Speech and Talk, pp. 177-270. New York: Academic Press.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvera-Torres, M. J. & Fernández-García, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549-81.
Goldschneider, J. M. & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the "Natural Order of L2 Morpheme Acquisition" in English: A Meta-analysis of Multiple Determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1-50.
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S.A. (1981). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251-99.
Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Juffs, A. (2001) Psycholinguistically-oriented L2 research. In M. McGroarty, ed., Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S.D. & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in second language acquisition and performance. Language Learning 28, pp. 283-300.
Krashen, S., Sferlazza, V., Feldman, L. & Fathman, A. K. (1976). Adult performance on the SLOPE test: More evidence for a natural sequence in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 26, 145-51.
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense the the 'fossilized' steady state. Second Language Research, 14, 1-26.
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent end-state grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359-75.
Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In Archibald, J. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, pp. 102-29. Oxford: Blackwell.
Larsen-Freeman, D.E. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 409-419.
Larsen-Freeman, D.E. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26, 125-135.
Levelt, W.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
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.
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the Competition Model. In de Groot, A. M.B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in Bilingualism, pp. 113-42. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Meisel, J. (1991). Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of second langauge acquisition. in Eubank, L. (ed.) Point Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the Second Language, pp. 231-76. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nicol, J.L., Forster, K.I. & Veres, C. (1997). Subject-Verb Agreement Processes in Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 569-87.
Nunan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pearlmutter, N.J., Garnsey, S.M. & Bock, K. (1999). Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 427-56.
Peters A.M. (1995). Strategies in the acquisition of syntax. In Fletcher, P. & MacWhinney, B. (eds.), The Handbook of Child Language, pp. 462- 82. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Pica, T. (1984). Methods of morpheme quantification: their effect on the interpretation of second langauge dats. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, pp. 69-78.
Pienemann, Manfred. (1999). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Pollock, Y.-I. (1989). Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-434.
Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97-131.
Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103-33.
Rifkin, B. (1995). Error gravity in learners’ spoken Russian: A preliminary study. Modern Language Journal, 79, 477-90.
Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning 27, 205-14.
Schmidt, R. W. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357-85.
Schumman, J. (1978). The Pidginization Hypothesis: A Model for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209-31.
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, Charles A. & Slobin, Dan I. (eds.), Studies of child language development, pp. 175-208. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Slobin, D. I. (ed.). (1985). The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vols. 1 & 2. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
Slobin, D.I. (1991). Aphasia in Turkish: Speech production in Broca’s and Wernicke’s patients. Special Issue: Crosslinguistic studies of aphasia. Brain and Language, 41(2), 149-164.
Stemberger, J. P. (1998). Morphology in language production with special reference to connectionism. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. London: Blackwell.
Takahashi, Noriko, & Frauman-Prickel. (1985). Action English Pictures: Activities for Total Physical Response. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Thomson, G. (2000). Second Language Acquisition and Comprehension Mechanisms: The Problem of Russian Inflectional Morphology. University of Alberta Doctoral Dissertation.
Tiersma, P. (1982). Local and general markedness. Language, 58, 832-49.
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209-253.
Towel, R. & Hawkings, R. (1994). Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103-35.
Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1998). Morphosyntactic triggers in adult SLA. In Beck, Maria-Luise (ed.), Morphology and its Interfaces in Second Language Knowledge. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C.M. & Hagoort, P. (1999). When does gender constrain parsing? Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 555-571.
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225-41.
VanPatten, B. & Sanz, C. (1995). From input to output: Processing instruction and communicative tasks. In Eckman, Fred R., Highland, D., Lee, Peter W., Mileham, Jean & Weber, Rita Rutowski, (eds.), Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2000). Thirty years of input (or intake, the neglected sibling). In Anderson, M., Klee, C. Morris, F, Tarone, E. & Swierzbin, B. (eds.), Interaction of Social and Cognitive Factors in SLA: Selected Proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
Zobl, Helmut & Liceras, Juana (1994). Review article: Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning 44, 159-80.
Appendix: Texts used in the Russian and Kazak experiments: