Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kl59c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T14:42:43.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functionalism in Second Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Russell S. Tomlin
Russell S. Tomlin
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the role played by functional approaches to linguistics in understanding second language acquisition (SLA). Central premises and tenets of functional approaches are described, and several key theoretical problems with functional efforts are detailed. The problem of referential management (the selection of nominal vs. pronominal NPs) in second language discourse production is examined. The general conclusions are drawn that (a) functional approaches to linguistics have a significant role to play in SLA studies, but (b) functional universals are insufficiently grounded theoretically and empirically at this point to contribute more than heuristic guidance to SLA theory.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 155 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Allwright, R. L. (1980). Turns, topics, and tasks: Patterns of participation in language learning and teaching. In Larsen-Freeman, D. (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 165–187). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bahns, J., & Wode, H. (1980). Form and function in L2 acquisition. In Felix, S. A. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 81–92). Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1979). A functionalist approach to the acquisition of grammar. In Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (Ed.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 167–211). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language acquisition from a functional perspective: Pragmatic, semantic, and perceptual strategies. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 190–214). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (Ed.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C., Devescovi, A., Natale, F., & Venza, V. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55, 341–354.Google Scholar
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., & Smith, S. (1983). Pragmatics and syntax in psycholinguistic research. In Felix, S. & Wode, H. (Eds.), Language development at the crossroads (pp. 11–30). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A., & Smith, S. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition, 11, 245–299.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1975). Dynamics of a creole system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1971). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111–133.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1980a). The deployment of consciousness in the production of narrative. In Chafe, W. (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 9–50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (Ed.). (1980b). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, R. (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Ed.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 32–75). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Lectures on government and binding (4th ed.). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1987). Connecting theories of language processing and (second) language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 103–116). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1990). The comparative study of first and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 135–153.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In Chafe, W. (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 127–201). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, H., & Sengul, C. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory and Cognition, 7, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1984). Form and function in explaining linguistic universals. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., and Dahl, Ö. (Eds.), Explanations for language universals (pp. 87–103). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cooreman, A., & Kilborn, K. (in press). Functionalist linguistics: (We've got to start meeting like this). In Huebner, T. & Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.), Cross-currents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 163–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummins, R. (1980). Functional analysis. In Block, N. (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of psychology (pp. 185–190). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Daneš, F. (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective (pp. 106–128). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Daneš, F. (1987). On Prague school functionalism in linguistics. In Dirven, R. & Fried, V. (Eds.), Functionalism in linguistics (pp. 3–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, K. (1987). M. A. K. Halliday's functional grammar and the Prague school. In Dirven, R. & Fried, V. (Eds.), Functionalism in linguistics (39–79). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1978). Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1987). Some principles of functional grammar. In Dirven, R. & Fried, V. (Eds.), Functionalism in linguistics (pp. 101–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. & Fried, V. (1987). Functionalism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (1988a). Object-verb order and adjective-noun order: Dispelling a myth. Lingua, 74, 185–217.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (1988b). Universals of negative position. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A., & Wirth, J. R. (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 93–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). On identifying communicative strategies in interlanguage production. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 210–238). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communicative strategies. Language Learning, 34, 45–64.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–90). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). The case for case reopened. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. M. (Eds.), Grammatical relations (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Foley, W., & Van Valin, R. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora in written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, J., & Gundel, J. K. (1987). Topic prominence in interlanguage. Language Learning, 37, 1–18.Google Scholar
Gaies, S. J. (1979). Linguistic input in first and second language acquisition. In Eckman, F. R. & Hastings, A. J. (Eds.), Studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 185–193). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1986). An interactionist approach to L2 sentence interpretation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 19–37.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329–350.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1989). How do learners resolve linguistic conflicts? In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J. (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99–156.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979a). Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979b). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1979c). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983a). Topic continuity in discourse: Quantitative cross-language studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983b). Topic continuity in spoken English. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: Quantitative cross-language studies (pp. 343–363). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Universals of discourse structure and second language acquisition. In Rutherford, W. (Ed.), Language universals and second language acquisition (pp. 109–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1988). The pragmatics of word order: Predictability, importance, and attention. In Hammond, M. T., Moravcsik, E. A., & Wirth, J. R. (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 243–284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1989). Mind, code and context: Essays in pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. (1977). The representation and use of focus in dialogue understanding (Report no. 51). Palo Alto: Stanford Research Institute.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., Stenson, N., & Tarone, E. (1984). Acquiring pronouns in a second language: Evidence from hypothesis testing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 215–225.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., & Tarone, E. (1985). Language transfer and the acquisition of pronominal anaphora. In Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 281–296). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. (1981). On the position of Walbiri in a typology of the base. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanania, E., & Gradman, H. (1977). Acquisition of English structures: A case study on an adult native speaker of Arabic in an English-speaking environment. Language Learning, 27, 75–91.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Simplified input and second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 64–86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Long, M. H. (1980). Discourse analysis, what's that? In Larsen-Freeman, D. (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 1–40). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., Shapira, R., & Cough, J. (1978). “Foreigner-talk” discourse. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 39–60.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1983). Word order universals. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1970). The logic of functional analysis. In Brody, B. A. (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 121–147). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. (1987). Social and functional approaches to language and thought. New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, J. (1977). Paragraph structure and pronominalization. Papers in Linguistics, 10, 77–99.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1979). Organizational patterns in discourse. In Givón, T. (Ed)., Discourse and syntax (pp. 135–157). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Givón, T. (Ed), Discourse and syntax (pp. 213–241). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language, 60, 703–752.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981a). Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1981b). Introduction. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (Eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 9–31). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1979). Order-of-acquisition versus dynamic processing: A comparison of methods in interlanguage research. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 21–28.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). Linguistic systems and linguistic change in an interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. M. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Jones, L. B., & Jones, L. K. (1979). Multiple levels of information in discourse. In Jones, L. & Jones, L. (Eds.), Discourse studies in Mesoamerican languages: Discussion (pp. 3–28). Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jones, L. K. (1979). Theme in expository English. Lake Bluff, IL: Jupiter Press.Google Scholar
Jordens, P. (1980). Interlanguage research: Interpretation or explanation. Language Learning, 30, 195–207.Google Scholar
Kasper, G. (1979). Communication strategies: Modality reduction. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4, 266–281.Google Scholar
Kilborn, K. (1987). Sentence processing in a second language: Seeking a performance definition of fluency. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Purdue, C. (1988). Utterance structure. Strasbourg & Nijmegan: European Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Kleinmann, H. H. (1978). The strategy of avoidance in adult second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Issues and implications (pp. 157–174). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972a). Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972b). Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 161–195.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1975). Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. In Grossman, R. E., San, L. J., & Vance, T. J. (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism (pp. 276–336). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1986). Functional syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1985). State of the art on input in second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 433–444). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1983). The acquisition and use of questions by French L2 learners. In Felix, S. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 151–176). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1987). Classroom language as input to second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 169–187). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. (1976). An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity on sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 127–150.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Levy, E., & Tyler, L. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W. (Eds.), Speech, place, and action (pp. 339–378). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1980). Linguistic simplification: A study of immigrant workers' speech and foreigner talk. In Felix, S. W. (Ed.), Second language development: Trends and issues (pp. 13–40). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1983). Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 120–157). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 206–224). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1949). Manifest and latent functions. In Merton, R. K., Social theory and social structure (pp. 19–84). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1970). Mechanistic explanation and organismic biology. In Brody, B. A. (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 296–306). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1979). Teleology revisited. In Nagel, E., Teleology revisited and other essays in the philosophy and history of science (pp. 275–316). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perdue, C. (1984). Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: A field manual. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W. (1987). Functional approaches to interlanguage. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 81–102). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Reichman, R. (1981). Plain speaking: A theory of grammar and spontaneous discourse. Cambridge: Bolt, Beranek and Newman.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. A. (1983). Language typology and language transfer. In Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 358–370). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. C., & Higa, C. (1981). Input, negotiation, and age differences in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 31, 409–437.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 128–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985a). The cross-cultural study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985b). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1157–1249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30(2), 417–441.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, 15(3), 285–295.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1983). On the interaction of syntactic subject, thematic information, and agent in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 411–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1984). The treatment of foreground-background information in the on-line descriptive discourse of second language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 115–142.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1985). Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text, 5, 85–122.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1987). Linguistic reflections of cognitive events. In Tomlin, R. (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 455–480). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1989). Focal attention, activated memory and the referential management of discourse production. Paper presented at the Banff Annual Seminar in Cognitive Science, Banff, Alberta, May 1989.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S., & Nearey, T. M. (1989). Functional interactions: theoretical and empirical constraints on “coding.” Unpublished manuscript, Eugene, Oregon, and Edmonton, Alberta: Departments of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S., & Pu, M. M. (1989). Referential management in Mandarin discourse (Tech. Rep. No. 89–12). Eugene: University of Oregon, Institute of Cognitive Sciences.Google Scholar
Trévise, A. (1987). Toward an analysis of the (inter)language activity of referring to time in narratives. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 225–251). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Trévise, A., & Porquier, R. (1986). Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: Exemplified methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 265–275.Google Scholar
Tyler, L., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1982). The resolution of discourse anaphors: Some outline studies. Text, 2, 263–291.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. (1982). Episodes as units of discourse. In Tannen, D. (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 177–195). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T, & Klintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Véronique, D. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in narratives in L2: Insights from North African Worker's French. In Pfaff, C. W. (Ed.), First and second language acquisition processes (pp. 252–272). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
White, L. (1990). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 121–133.Google Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 17–50). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar