See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/297228356

Psycholinguistic Approach to Second Language Acquisition

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
3 11,235

2 authors:

Parviz Maftoon Nima Shakouri

Islamic Azad University Tehran Science and Research Branch Islamic Azad University, Roudbar
104 PUBLICATIONS   335 CITATIONS    93 PUBLICATIONS   179 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Types of Feedback View project

The route of SLA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Parviz Maftoon on 07 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 1 (1), December 2012; 1-9
ISSN: 5389-2100
Copyright IJLLALW, Norway

Psycholinguistic Approach to Second Language Acquisition

Parviz Maftoon
pmaftoon@srbiau.ac.ir
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Nima Shakouri
Shakouri.ni@gmail.com
Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Bio Data
Parviz Maftoon is Associate Professor of teaching English at Islamic Azad University, Science and
Research Branch, Tehran, Iran. He received his Ph.D. degree from New York University in 1978 in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). His primary research interests concern EFL
writing, second language acquisition, SL/FL language teaching methodology, and language syllabus
design. He has published and edited a number of research articles and books. He is currently on the
editorial board of some language journals in Iran.

Nima Shakouri is currently a Ph.D. candidate of TEFL at Islamic Azad University, Science and
Research, Tehran, Iran. He has taught English courses for over a decade at different universities.
Moreover, he has published some articles in international journals and some English textbooks for GE and
ESP courses.

Abstract
The notion of mental representation has been a core assumption led to the revolution in cognitive sciences.
Whether this representation is symbolic or connectionist was always a source of contention. Also, there
has been controversy whether the mind should be viewed as modular or a bundle of modules. The paper
claims in psycholinguistic approaches there is less concern with the interface between syntactic form and
pragmatic function. The shift from competence-oriented theory to performance-oriented theory was an
impetus that motivates the authors to have a theoretical study on the tenets of models suggested.
Key words: competition, psycholinguistics, interlanguage, cline

Introduction
The psycholinguistic approach to second language (L2) learning focuses upon what humans know when
they talk and how they acquire that knowledge and how that knowledge is put to use. Matlin (1994) states
that the central approach of psycholinguistic theory, in general, is that people, especially the young, are
biologically predisposed to language learning and that what is learned is not so much a string of words but
transformational rules that enable the language learner to understand the sentences heard. This means that
developmentally appropriate instruction must be considered in second language learning.

1
The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 1 (1), December 2012; 1-9
ISSN: 5389-2100
Copyright IJLLALW, Norway

In this regard, Reichle (2010) argues that while psycholinguistics has set its sights on many
morphosyntactic phenomena in the existing body of research, for the most part, it has ignored the
intriguing area of information structure. He further continues that information structure can be described
as the interface between syntactic form and pragmatic function, or in other words, the way in which a
speaker uses cues from sentence structure to guide a hearer toward knowing what is more or less
important in a sentence. Henceforth, information structure lies at the intersection of semantics and syntax.
In the present paper, the writers are going to elucidate the thought and language interaction from
psycholinguistic perspectives.

Literature review
Psycholinguistics is simply defined as the study of the relationship between human language and human
mind. Psycholinguistics is a branch of cognitive science that investigates how an individual uses (e.g.,
produce and comprehend) and acquire language (Treiman, Clifton, Meyer, & Wurm, 2003). In short,
three important processes are investigated in psycholinguistics: (1) language production, (2) language
comprehension, and (3) language acquisition. From many questions that psycholinguistics attempts to
answer, it, specifically, addresses two questions (1) what knowledge of language is needed for us to use
language? and (2) what cognitive processes are involved in the ordinary use of language?

The notion of mental representation has been a core assumption led to the revolution in cognitive sciences.
For this purpose the metaphor of network construction provided a tool to deal the mental representations
(Zelewski, 2010). These networks might be either symbolic or connectionist in nature, though both share
in the feature of computation, but what the nature of this computation is raises a question. To Garson
(2010), computation may be considered symbolic manipulators or functional implementers. Symbolic
manipulation holds due to the linear nature of such systems, it does not experience graceful degradation. If
a rule is lost, the system cannot respond at all to any situation which would have employed that rule. In
contrast, functional implementation denotes that there is interconnected processing units, each of which
has an activation level. For computation to take place there are two conditions: they must represent
vehicles of some kind, and the context of those vehicles must represent the probable causal processes
(Garson, 2010). In such a network, if one rule is lost, its quality can be retained. In fact, connectionist
approach, in contrast with symbolic approach to modeling cognition, is called subsymbolic; that is, it
deconstructs symbols into smaller units called microfeatures (Rumelhart & McClleland, 1986);
furthermore, as Zelewski (2010) maintains, they are not meaningful by themselves and their cumulative
meaning depends on the larger pattern of connectivity within which they are being activated.

The re-emergence, in the mid-1980s, of neural networks in the form of parallel distributed processing
(PDP) networks (Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986) usually referred to as the connectionist theory of mind
emanated from the early symbolic tradition of the 1970s. Among the early developments in symbolic
traditions, Rumelhart‟s (1975) schema theory and Rosch‟s (1978) prototype theory are noticeable (cited in
Zelewski, 2010, pp. 94-95). In a nutshell, as to Flower (1994, cited in Zelewski, 2010) asserts
“connectionism is not a theory of how knowledge is remembered but of how it is constructed out of
memory” (p. 95).

2
The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 1 (1), December 2012; 1-9
ISSN: 5389-2100
Copyright IJLLALW, Norway

Psycholinguistic approach to production and comprehension

Unlike socio-cultural approaches that see language and thought highly interwoven, psycholinguistic
approaches view language and thought as related but completely independent phenomena (Claros, 2009,
p. 142). In the same line, Lantolf (2000) says “publicly derived speech completes privately initiated
thought” (p. 7). Meanwhile, Lantolf holds the most fundamental concept of sociocultural theory is the
mediated mind. As Lantolf further adds, human behavior is the result of the integration of mediation into
human activity as a functional system. In fact, it is language that makes it possible for us to gain control over
thought.

From both approaches (i.e., psycholinguistic and sociocultural approaches), interaction plays a significant role
in the process of L2 development. However, there are subtle distinctions; in a way, in the psycholinguistic
approach the individual internal cognitive processes are activated so that activation allows the individual to
access the comprehensible input needed to further advance in the acquisition of the L2 (Long, 1996 cited in
Claros, 2009, p. 143); in socio-cultural approach, however, social interaction allows interlocutors, with the
help of each other to organize their cognitive processes and along the same line to con-construct the
knowledge about the L2 (Lantolf, 2000). Thus, for psycholinguistic theorists learning is viewed as a cognitive
individual process happening within the individual and then takes a social aspect. What is vital for
psycholinguistic theorists is that the exposure to comprehensible input and negative feedback leads to
language learning (Long, 1996, cited in Claros, 2009, p. 143). To sum up, psycholinguistic approaches to
language learning conceive language learning as a cognitive and individual process in which knowledge is
constructed as the learner (1) exposed to comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), (2) is given opportunities to
both negotiate meaning (Long, 1997), and (3) receive negative feedback. These three features are well
supported by Krashen‟s input hypothesis, and Long‟s interaction hypothesis.

Krashen (1985) argues that to understand and learn language, s/he must be exposed to the linguistic input
that is a little beyond his/her current level of competence. Krashen summarizes his view in his famous
i+1 concept which indicates that the input the learner receives must contain some slight amount of
new information in addition to what s/he already knows. To Krashen, comprehensible input is not just a
necessary condition, but it is the sufficient condition.

According to Long‟s (1997) interaction hypothesis, comprehensible input is the result of modified
interaction. By modified interaction, Long means the various modifications that native speakers or other
interlocutors create to render their input comprehensible to learners. For example, native speakers often
slow down their speech to nonnative speakers, speaking more deliberately. According to Long (as cited in
Claros, 2009), input comprehensibility increases as learners interact and use different types of
interactional modifications (i.e., comprehension checks, confirmation checks and clarification requests) to
overcome communication breakdowns.

To many scholars, (Krashen, 1985; Vandegrifff, 1999; Van Patten, 1996), comprehension has cognitive,
affective, and communicative advantages. Cognitively, they (Krashen, 1985: VanPatten, 1996, cited in
Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 140) point out that it is better to concentrate on one skill at a time. Affectively,
speaking in public frightens and embarrasses students. Thus, they have to speak only when they are ready.
Communicatively, listening is inherently interactive in that listeners try to work out a message. In
learning-centered approaches, pedagogists (Krashen, 1985) Prabhu, 1987) believe that comprehension
3
The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 1 (1), December 2012; 1-9
ISSN: 5389-2100
Copyright IJLLALW, Norway

helps learners firm up abstract linguistic structures needed for the establishment of mental representation
of the L2 system. Prabhu (1987) (as cited in Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 140) lists four factors to explain
the importance of comprehension over production: Unlike production, comprehension (1) causes a sense
of security, (2) allows the learners to be imprecise, (3) is readily adjustable, and (4) involves language
features that are already present in the input addressed to the learner.

Claros (2009) states what Long (1997) puts forward seems to sparkle interest among the so-called
interactionists who turned their research agendas to examine how speakers modify their speech and
interaction patterns to allow their interlocutors to participate, understand and keep the flow of
conversation.

Ferreira and Anes (1994) outline the difference between the spoken and written language. They argue
during reading, the language learner can control the rate at which information is taken in; readers can slow
down or speed up the input to suit their level of comprehension, as far as the segmentation of information
available in the perceptual input varies. Furthermore, in the written language, word boundaries are marked
by spaces, and sentence boundaries are marked by terminal punctuation marks. According to Ferreira and
Anes, word and phrasal boundaries are not so clearly marked in the spoken language. Word boundaries
are seldom acoustically indicated; often a pause will occur within a word and not between two adjacent
words. With this background, research shows that reading has been studied more extensively than spoken
language processing.

The most accepted model of language production is that of Levelt (cited in Szito, 2006, p. 157). To his
model,
speech goes through three levels. For the first level, thoughts are formulated in a unit
called Conceptualizer (1). This means that the message is generated here but has no
linguistic form yet – it may appear in pictures. When it is ready, the message is sent to
the next unit, the Formulator (2), where it will be grammatically and phonetically
shaped. The Formulator is connected to the Lexicon, from where it takes the words and
other units of expression. In the third step, the message goes to the Articulator for
articulation (3), that is, for speech. This whole process takes place very fast.

Psycholinguistic models of language acquisition

Similar to the models of first language L1 acquisition, most models of L2 acquisition also emphasize the
role of rules. In the same vein, such models, to date, have depended on a competence-based linguistic
theory. To better appreciate such models of competence-based linguistic theory, two of the most
influential models of this type are the interlanguage hypothesis and monitor theory. The former holds an
L2 learner, at any time in the process of acquisition, develops an interim-stage grammar. This interim
grammar or interlanguage changes in response to incoming data so that with continued exposure to
sufficient and appropriate input, the interlanguage grammar , by a series of successive approximations,
moves closer and closer to the standard grammar of the target language (Kilborn, 1994, p. 919).
According to the monitor theory developed by Krashen (1985), there are two types of knowledge:
acquired and learned. Acquired knowledge is used for communication, while learned knowledge is to edit
the acquired knowledge. The learned knowledge becomes active when there is sufficient time to apply the

4
The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 1 (1), December 2012; 1-9
ISSN: 5389-2100
Copyright IJLLALW, Norway

rules, focus on form: the language user must be focused on correctness or the form of the output and
knowledge of the rules. Accordingly, these two processes, acquisition and learning, jointly contribute to
developing competence in L2. Acquisition is responsible for the ability to know or feel that a sentence is
grammatical or ungrammatical, without explicit reference to the rules of grammar. Learning, as to
Krashen, is responsible for the explicit knowledge of grammatical rules and ability to state them. In sum,
the role of learning is to edit or monitor the form of utterance based on the explicit knowledge base at the
speaker‟s disposal. Thus, an adult‟s competence in L2 derives mainly from the unconscious internalization
of rules; indeed, to Krashen acquisition is responsible for our fluency in L2. However, McLaughlin (1978)
takes issue with the acquisition/learning distinction proposed by Krashen (1985). He proposes that “it is
impossible to know whether subjects are actually operating on the basis of rules or feel” (p. 317). In much
the same way, Kilborn (1994) puts forth the notion of rule may be too rigid to capture a process as
complex and dynamic as language acquisition. Rule-based models have two major shortcomings: (1) they
tend to be all-or-nothing, either a rule is present or it is not, and (2) rule-based models derive from
theoretical accounts of single linguistic systems, considered one at a time (Kilborn, 1994, pp. 920-921).

In contrast with competence-oriented models, notably interlanguage theory and monitor theory, several
models are posited in favor with performance-oriented theory. To better appreciate performance-oriented
models, here we adapt the competition model to the study of language acquisition. In the competition
model, the focus is attached not only to the linguistic forms that are acquired, but also to the cognitive
constraints that govern learning and using forms for communication (Bates & MacWhinney, 1982, cited in
Kilborn, 1994, p. 923). Accordingly, Kilborn (1994) adds that the competition model adheres to
functionalist tenets in that form-function mappings are made as directly as possible. However, the strong
functionalist position which posits one form to one function is rejected in favor of a multiplicity of form-
function mappings. In short, what the competition model holds is that the treatment of obligatory rules are
quantitatively, rather than qualitatively, different.

A basic concept from function-to-form mapping is that acquisition of both L1 and L2 involves a process
of grammaticalization. Grammaticalization, as Hopper and Traugott (2003) refer to, occurs when a lexical
item changes into one that serves a grammatical function, or a grammatical item develops into new
grammatical form. Basic to work on grammaticalization is the concept of cline. Cline has both historical
and synchronic implications:

From a historical perspective, a cline is conceptualized as a natural “pathway” along

which forms evolve, a schema which models the development of forms.
Synchronically, a cline can be thought of as a “continuum”: an arrangement of forms
along an imaginary line at the which is a fuller form of some kind, perhaps “lexical,”
and at the opposite a compacted and reduced form, perhaps “grammatical”. (Hopper
& Traugott, 2003, p. 6)

The term cline, according to Hopper and Traugott (2003, p. 6), is a metaphor for the empirical
observation. From the point of view of change, forms do not shift abruptly from one category to another,
but they go through a series of small transitions, transitions that tend to be similar in type across
languages. Michel and Myles (2004) elucidates such shift in this way that a grammatical function (such as
the expression of past time) is first conveyed by shared extralinguistic knowledge and inferencing based

5
The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 1 (1), December 2012; 1-9
ISSN: 5389-2100
Copyright IJLLALW, Norway

on the context of discourse, then by a lexical word (such as yesterday), and only later by a grammatical
marker (such as the suffix -ed). For example, if you ask a beginning learner of English what he did the
day before he might say I play soccer, relying on context to convey the meaning of past time; a somewhat
more advanced learner might say Yesterday I play soccer, using an adverb to convey the meaning of past;
and a still more advanced learner might say I played soccer, using the grammatical inflection -ed.

To delve into the theoretical background of the competition model, let us elaborate in this way that
competition model of Bates and MacWhinney (1987) explores a position that views both L1 and L2
language acquisition as constructive that rely not on universals of linguistic structure, but on universals
of cognitive structures. Hence, their views reap the benefits of functionalist and connectionist view of
both L1 and L2 learning that attribute the development to learning and transfer rather than to the
principles and parameters of Universal Grammar. Accordingly, MacWhinney (1997) maintains that his
model can be best understood in terms of the commitments it makes to four major theoretical issues: (1)
lexical functionalism, (2) connectionism, (3) input-driven learning, and (4) capacity.

The basic claim of functionalism is that the forms of language are determined and shaped by the
communicative functions to which they are placed. These forms are either standard lexical items (words)
or more complex constructions (idiom). The pressure of communicative function is considered to be the
primary determinant of language development. In order to model the interaction between lexical
mappings, the competition model uses connectionist models. As MacWhinney (1997) claims, competition,
gradience, emergence, and transfer are four properties of these neural network. Of these four, transfer is
the most important for understanding L2 acquisition process. Moreover, in the debate between nativism
and empiricism, MacWhinney (1997) emphasizes the role of input rather than principles or parameters.
The capacity of short term memory must also be regarded, as this model relies on the underlying
conceptual interpretation in determining the utilization of processing capacity. Miller (1956, cited in
Yoshino, 1996, p. 171) pointed out that there are certain limits to the span of memory and the span of
perception in short term memory. His discovery of the limited capacity of short-term memory is now a
prominent landmark in the history of cognitive psychology. Regarding the capacity limitations on short-
term memory, Oyama, Kikuchi, & Chihara (1981), refer to two levels. The first limitation is concerned
with the transfer of information from iconic memory to short term memory, and the second relates to the
saturation of the limited capacity of short-term store (2-8 sec stimulus duration).

Like the competition model, the Autonomous Induction Theory proposed by Carroll (2002) also aims to
account for the constrained nature of acquisition of linguistic knowledge by adopting a generative,
symbolic approach to the representation of knowledge and by specifying the way in which linguistic
information is proposed by parsers. Under this account, parsing procedures are revised overtime, making
novel linguistic information available to the learner (Hulstijn, 2007).

Although Autonomous Induction Theory puts some emphasis on universals, it gives important roles to
induction in explaining L2 acquisition. Carroll (2002) argues against the claim of total access to universal
grammar, especially when comparing L1 and L1 acquisition. A crucial component of Autonomous
Induction theory is Induction Theory. As cited by Selinker, Kim and Bandi-Rao (2004), “induction
learning has a basic property, some components operating autonomously within the theory of modularity”
(p. 83). Carroll took issues with classical induction theory in that it claims that feedback serves key roles

6
The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 1 (1), December 2012; 1-9
ISSN: 5389-2100
Copyright IJLLALW, Norway

guiding learners from one mental state to another. In line with the competition model, she adopts the
notion of competition whereby analyzing a novel form involves competition among various information
sources from different levels.

To delve into the philosophy behind Autonomous Induction Theory, Carroll (2002) makes a distinction
between inductive reasoning and inductive learning. Inductive learning takes place in that part of the mind
computing conceptual structures, and inductive reasoning affects representations within the autonomous
systems of the language faculty. Inductive reasoning appears in the form of inferencing. Although no one
denies the stance of inferencing in interpreting the input, little is stated how information encoded in one
type representation (conceptual) is turned into an autonomous representational formats (phonetics).
According to Carroll, inductive learning is not inductive reasoning. Even it is different from mechanistic
responses to environmental changes in that the results of i-learning depend upon the content of symbolic
representations in working memory and long-term memory. I-learning begins with the failure of current
representations to fit active mental models in conjunction with specific stimuli or some other computation
(Carroll, 2007, p. 168). When parsing system fails to detect such discrepancy, induction learning ends. Put
similarly, when students fail to detect errors, fossilization occurs.

Conclusion
In a nutshell, Chomsky (1957), unanimous with many generative linguists (e.g., Fodor, 1987), makes the
following claims concerning language and cognition: (1) modularity issue: that is, language is a
component of cognition, separate from other components; (2) learnability issue: that is, children can learn
the language of their environment by virtue of an inborn universal grammar (nativism) that restricts the
power of their grammars; and (3) mental representational that connotes knowledge of language must be
represented with symbolic architectures, i.e., systems of principles and rules operating on abstract
categories. What makes a bone of contention is that how this knowledge of learner is going to be
represented. Traditionally, this representation has been viewed as symbolic connectionism. What makes
a connectionist framework distinct with symbolic one is the notion of frequency: the more frequently the
system is exposed to the word CAT, the more readily this string will form a strong bond in contrast to
strings which will never or seldom occur such as ACT or TAC. Thus, learning takes place when the
individual discovers the difference between what s/he experiences and what the outside world represents.

References
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Language universals, individual variation, and the competition
model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum
Carroll, S. E. (2002). Induction in a modular learner. Second Language Research, 18 (3), 224-249.
Carroll, S. E. ( 2007). Autonomous Induction Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, Theories in second
language acquisition (pp. 155-173).London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Paris: Mouton.
Claros, M. S. C. (2009). Psycho-linguistic and socio-cultural approaches to language learning: A never
ending debatetitulo en espanol. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 10(1), 142-154.
Ferreira, F., & Anes. M. (1994). Why study spoken language? In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook
of psycholinguistics, (pp. 33-56). London: Academic Press.
7
The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 1 (1), December 2012; 1-9
ISSN: 5389-2100
Copyright IJLLALW, Norway

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Garson, J. (2010). Connectionism: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved in 2012 from
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/connectionism/
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition. EUROSLA
Yearbook, 7, 191-203.
Kilborn, K. (1994). Learning a language late: second language acquisition in adults. In M. A.
Gernsbacher, Handbooks of psycholinguistics (pp. 917-944). London: Academic Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching from method to post-method. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory and second language
learning, 1-26.
Long, M. H. (1997). Construct Validity in SLA Research: A Response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern
Language Journal, 81(3), 318-323.
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the competition model. In A. M. B. de Groot &
J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorilism in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113-142). New
Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Matlin, M.M. (1994). Cognition. New York: Ted Buchholz.

McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning,
28, 309-332.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Oyama, T., Kikuchi, T., & Ichihara, S. (1981). Span of attention, backward masking, and reaction
time. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 106-112.
Piasecka, L. (2010). Gender differences in L1 and L2 reading. In J. Arabski & & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.),
Neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives on SLA (pp. 145-158). Toronto: Multilingual
Matters.
Reichle, R. V. (2010). The critical period hypothesis: Evidence from information structural processing in
French. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds.), Neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives
on SLA (pp. 17-29). Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Rumelhart, D.E. & McClelland, J.L. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the
microstructure of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Selinker, L., Kim, D.E., & Bandi-Rao, S. (2004). Linguistic structure with processing in second language
research: is a „unified theory‟ possible? Second Language Research, 20 (1), 77-94.
Szito, J. (2006). Speak your mind. Psycholinguistics. In B. Richter (Ed.), First steps in theoretical and
applied linguistics (pp.149-160 ). Budapest: Bolcsesz Konzorcium.
8
 The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW)
Volume 1 (1), December 2012; 1-9
ISSN: 5389-2100
Copyright IJLLALW, Norway

Treiman, R., Clifton, C., Jr, Meyer, A. S., & Wurm, L. H. (2003). Language comprehension and production.
In A.F. Healy & R.W. Proctor (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Vol.4: Experimental
Psychology (pp. 527-548). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language comprehension: acquiring successful strategies. ELT
Journal, 53 (3), 168-176.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Yoshino, R. (1993). Magical numbers of human short-term memory efficient designs of biological
memory systems? Behaviormetrika, 20 (2), 171-186.
Zelewski, J. (2010). A connectionist-enactivist perspective on learning to write. In J. Arabski & A.
Wojtaszek (Eds.), Neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspective on SLA (pp. 96-105). Toronto:
Multilingual Matters.

View publication stats