Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T04:08:35.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Monitor Model and Neurofunctional Theory: An Integrated View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

James W. Tollefson ,
Bob Jacobs  and
Elaine J. Selipsky
James W. Tollefson
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Bob Jacobs
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Elaine J. Selipsky
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The acquisition-learning distinction is the foundation for much current research in second language acquisition (SLA), yet we lack an analysis of the applicability of this distinction to the whole of the SLA process, including input, storage, retrieval, and performance. This article details the meaning of the acquisition-learning distinction in the Monitor Model and Neurofunctional Theory. It is argued that the two models provide complementary accounts of different components of the SLA process, with the Monitor Model employing the acquisition-learning distinction in an analysis of input and performance, and Neurofunctional Theory using the distinction to describe the formation of linguistic knowledge. Thus an integrated SLA model is proposed that carries the acquisition-learning distinction to all components of the SLA process and that incorporates the main elements of the Monitor Model and Neurofunctional Theory.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Fall 1983 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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.)

References

Bialystok, E. 1978. ‘A theoretical model of second language learning.’ Language Learning 28:69–83.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1979. ‘Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality.’ Language Learning. 29:81–103.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1981. ‘Some evidence for the integrity and interaction of two knowledge sources.’ In Anderson, R. (ed.), New Dimensions in Second Language Acquisition Research. Rowley: Newbury House, 62–74Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. and Fröhlich, M. 1977. ‘Aspects of second language learning in classroom set tings.’ Working Papers on Bilingualism 13:1–26.Google Scholar
Chomsky, M. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. and Burt, M. 1977. ‘Remarks on creativity in language acquisition.’ In Burt, M., Dulay, H., and Finnochiaro, M. (eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. New York: Regents, 95–126.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. 1958. The Growth of Logical Thinking From Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. 1976. ‘Formal and informal linguistic environments in language learning and language acquisition.’ TESOL Quarterly 10:157–168.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. 1977. ‘Some issues relating to the Monitor Model.’ In Whitaker, H. and Whitaker, A. (eds.), Studies in Neurolinguistics, volume two. New York: Academic Press, 157–191.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. 1978a. ‘Individual variation in the use of the Monitor.’ In Ritchie, W. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Academic Press, 175–183.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. 1978b. ‘Relating theory and practice in adult second language acquisition.’ SPEAQ Journal 2:9–32.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. 1979a. ‘The monitor model.’ In Gingras, R. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Arlington, VA: CAL, 1–26. ED 174 014.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. 1979b. ‘A response to McLaughlin, “The monitor model: some methodological considerations.”’ Language Learning 29:151–167.Google Scholar
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. 1975. ‘Maturational stages in the development of communication systems by the child.’ California Linguistics Association Conference. (Reprinted by ERIC Clearinghouse.)Google Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. 1976. ‘Relations between the ontogeny and phylogeny of language: a neorecapitulationist view.’ In Harnad, S.R., Steklis, J. D., and Lancaster, J. (eds.), Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, Annals of the NYAS 280:396–412.Google Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. 1977. ‘General principles of neurofunctional organization and their manifesta tions in primary and non-primary language acquisition.’ Language Learning 27: 155–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. 1979a. ‘The neurofunctional basis of pattern practice.’ TESOL Quarterly 13:5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. 1979b. ‘A reply to Klosek's comments on “The neurofunctional basis of pattern practice.”’ TESOL Quarterly 13:433–438.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. 1978. ‘The monitor model: some methodological considerations.’ Language Learning 28:309–332.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. and Lamendella, J. T. 1978. ‘Two perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning.’ Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, Utrecht 3:2.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. and Lamendella, J. T. 1979. ‘The role of extrinsic feedback in interlanguage fossilization.’ Language Learning 29:309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevick, E. 1980. ‘The Levertov machine.’ In Scarcella, R. C. and Krashen, S. D. (eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House, 28–35.Google Scholar