Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T11:12:09.137Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Apply with Caution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Evelyn Hatch
Evelyn Hatch
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Perhaps we are no worse than any other, but I think our field must soon be known for the incredible leaps in logic we make in applying our research findings to classroom teaching. When contrasts drawn between first and second languages showed differences and those differences seemed to match errors our students made in the classroom, we leapt to say that Contrastive Analysis alone should form the basis of the language teaching curriculum. When a so-called invariant order of acquisition of morphemes was found, we made two leaps in logic––one to say that this was the best evidence of a creative language acquisition process and a second to say that this research shows that learners should just be exposed to, rather than taught, the language. When we found traits shared by good language learners, we suggested that the curriculum should be altered to make sure everyone does what good learners do. We have looked at conversational analysis and declared that teaching materials should reflect true conversational data. No matter what the finding, we have taught ourselves to ask ‘What -does this mean for the classroom teacher?’ and made suggestions without careful thought. There is hardly a publisher or a political group that won't find (or hasn't already found) something in all these leaps of logic to call giant strides. It shouldn't be hard to find the basis to sell almost any program to almost everyone on the strength of someone's research findings.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , Fall 1979 , pp. 123 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Adams, M. S. 1977 “Methodology for Examining Second Language Acquisition”, in Hatch (ed.), 277–296.Google Scholar
Allwright, R., Bailey, K., Gasser, M., Lim, C. 1977 “Turns, Topics and Tasks,” abstract in Hatch (ed.), 439.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. 1977 “The Impoverished State of Cross-sectional Morpheme Acquisition/Accuracy Methodology.” In Henning (ed.), 308–319.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. W. 1978. “An Implicational Model for Second Language Research”. Multilith paper, University of Puerto Rico.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, N., Madden, C. & Krashen, S. D. 1974. “Is there a Natural Sequence in Adult Second Language Learning?” Language Learning, 24, 2, 235–243. Also in Hatch (ed.), 362–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. 1973. “Should We Teach Children Syntax?” Language Learning, 23, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. ↦ Burt, M. 1974. “Natural Sequences in Child Second Language Acquisition.” Language Learning, 24, 1, 37–53 Also in Hatch (ed.), 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, J. 1977. “Beyond Rashomon.” TESOL Quarterly, 11, 1, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamayan, E., Genesee, F. ↦ Tucker, G. R. 1977 “Affective Factors and Language Exposure in Second Language Learning.” Language Learning 27., 2, 225–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartnett, D. D. 1976. “Cognitive Style and Second Language Learning.” In. Celce-Murcia, M. (ed.), Introduction to TESL (Vol. 2). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, in press.Google Scholar
Hassan, F. 1978. “First and Subsequent Drafts of Compositions.” MA-TEFL Thesis, American University in Cairo.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. 1977 “Discourse Analysis and Second Language Acquisition.” In Hatch (ed.), 401–435.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. 1977 Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. 1978. “Discourse Analysis, Speech Acts, and Second Language Acquisition.” In Ritchie (ed.), 137–156.Google Scholar
Henning, C. 1977. Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum. Los Angeles: UCLA English-TESL Department.Google Scholar
Hensley, G. A. ↦ Lukmani, Y. 1975. “The Student-Centered Classroom.” TESL-Psycholinguistics Project, UCLA, 1975.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 1977. “Implicational Patterns in Interlanguage Syntax Variation,” Language Learning, 27, 2, 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. 1977. “Social and Psychological Factors at Work in Second Language Acquisition: Descriptive Study.” MA-TESL Thesis, UCLA. Also in Henning (ed.), 331–341.Google Scholar
Katz, J. 1977 “Foreigner Talk Input in Child Second Language Acquisition: Form and Function Over Time.” In Henning (ed.), 61–75Google Scholar
Knapp, D. 1972. “A Focused, Efficient Method to Relate Composition Correction to Teaching Aims.” In Allen, H. B. & Campbell, R. N. (eds.) Teaching English as a Second Language. New York: McGraw Hill, 213–221.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1976. “Formal and Informal Learning Environments in Language Acquisition and Language Learning,” TESOL Quarterly, 10, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1977 “The Monitor Model for Adult Second Language Performance.” In Burt, M., Dulay, H. & Finocchairo, M. (eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. New York: Regents, 152–161.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1978. “Individual Variation in the Use of the Monitor.” In Ritchie (ed.), 175–184.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. & Pon, P. 1975. “An Error Analysis of an Advanced ESL Performer: the Importance of the Monitor,” Working Papers on Billingualism, 7, 125–129.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1977 “An Explanation for the Morpheme Accuracy Order of Learners of ESL.” In Hatch (ed.), 371–383.Google Scholar
Naiman, N., Frolich, M. & Stern, H. 1975. The Good Language Learner. Toronto: OISE (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education).Google Scholar
Newmark, L. 1966. “How Not to Interfere with Language Learning.” In Najam, E. & Hodge, C. (eds.), Language Learning: The Individual and the Process. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Olmstead-Gary, J. 1978. “Why Speak if You Don't Have to?” In Ritchie (ed.), 185–200.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. 1977. “Bilingualism and Aphasia,” In Whittaker, H. & Whittaker, H. A. (eds.), Studies in Neurolinguistics, Vol. 3, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Peck, S. 1977 “Child-child Discourse in Second Language Acquisition.” In Hatch (ed.), 383–401.Google Scholar
Pimpaporn, S. 1976. “Accuracy Under Varying Social Conditions.” TESL-Psycholinguistics Project, UCLA.Google Scholar
Postovsky, V. 1970. “Effects of Delay in Oral Practice at the Beginning of Second Language Learning.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ritchie, W. 1978. Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosansky, E. J. 1976. “Methods and Morphemes in Second Language Acquisition.” Paper presented at the Child Language Research Forum, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosansky, E. J. 1977. “Explaining Morpheme Acquisition Orders: Focus on Frequency.” In Henning (ed.), 320–331.Google Scholar
Schlue, K. 1977. “An Inside View of Inter language” MA-TESL Thesis, UCLA, abstract in Henning (ed.), 342–348.Google Scholar
Schumann, F. 1978. “The Intensive Journal as a Research Methodology for Second Language Acquisition.” MA-TESL Thesis, UCLA. Paper also presented at TESOL Conference, Miami, 1977Google Scholar
Schumann, J. 1978. “The Acquisition of English Negative by Speakers of Spanish: a Review of the Literature.” Paper presented at TESOL Conference, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seliger, H. 1977 “Does Practice Make Perfect? A Study of Interaction Patterns and Second Language Competence.” Language Learning, 27, 2, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, C. & Covitt, R. 1976. “An Investigation of Monitor Theory.” TESL-Psycholinguistics Project, UCLA. Abstract in Hatch (ed.), 469.Google Scholar
Wagner-Gough, J. & Hatch, E. 1975 “The Importance of Input Data in Second Language Acquisition,” Language Learning, 25, 297–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesche, M. 1977 “Learning Behaviors of Successful Adult Students on Intensive Language Training.” In Henning (ed.), 355–370.Google Scholar
Winitz, H. & Reeds, J. 1973. “Rapid Acquisition of a Foreign Language by the Avoidance of Speaking,” IRAL, 11, 4, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. 1977. “The Second Time Around.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Abstract in Hatch (ed.), 472.Google Scholar