In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

4 Theoretical and Research Considerations Underlying Classroom Practice The Fundamental Role of Input Bill VanPatten University of Illinois-Chicago Michael Leeser Florida State University H ow do second languagelearners construct linguistic systems?This question has been the central concern of L2research sinceits contemporary inception (e.g., Corder 1969; Dulay and Burt 1974). For almost forty years we have seen a number of theories address this question. In the early days, creative construction (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen 1982) and the monitor model (e.g., Krashen 1982) dominated discussion. In the 1980s and 1990s an interest in theory construction emerged that stemmed from theories of languagesuch asthe universalgrammar (UG)approach (e.g., White 1989, 2003),functional approaches (e.g., Pfaff 1987), fusions of linguistic theories with processing theories (e.g., Carroll 2001; Pienemann 1998), and general nativism (e.g., O'Grady 2003). In contradistinction, some theories have taken nonlinguistic approaches that rely more on constructs and theories from psychology such as connectionism (e.g.,Ellis 2003) and generalskill learning (DeKeyser 1998).1 Other theories are more hybrid in nature, borrowing from psychology, linguistics, and language processing, including work on input processing (e.g.,VanPatten 1996,2004a) and interaction (e.g.,Gass 1997). Still other theories fall outside of the scope of inquiry of most of these other theories, focusing instead on processes external to the learner, such as sociocultural theory (e.g., Lantolf 2000). Each theory has proponents and critics, each theory has particular domains of inquiry and (in)appropriate evidence for its domain (see, for example, some of the chapters in Lafford and Salaberry 2003, as well as VanPatten and Williams 2006). It is likely that these various approaches will continue to compete for explanatory adequacy in answering the central question: How do learners construct linguistic systems? To address practical considerations derived from SLAtheory and research, then, is a daunting task. One is immediately confronted with, What theory for what purpose ? Becausetheories treat SLAlike the Brahmin treated the elephant—each grabbing a different piece of the puzzle and unable to encompass the whole—to latch onto one theory in particular to address instructional issues may or may not be tenable or may lead to different instructional conclusions, depending on the theory. Webelieve, however, that there is another route to take by asking the following question: Is there something in common to all or most of the theories and research paradigms in SLA? If there is, are there implications for classroom praxis from such a commonality?We believe there is,and that commonality is the fundamental role that input plays in the creation of a linguistic system. In this chapter,we will review the role of input in SLAand discuss its implications for classroom praxis. We would like to say at the outset that a focus on input for 55 56 VanPatten and Leeser extracting implications for the classroom does not mean there is no role for, say, output and interaction. Indeed, we have argued elsewhere that there is (Leeser 2004; VanPatten 2003). We limit ourselves to input in this chapter due to space considerations and our own research agenda, which has largely been related to input and its role in instructed SLAas well as acquisition in general. We believe that the roles of output and interaction deserve their own treatment. 1.0 Staking Out the Territory: The "What"of Acquisition Confusion and debate over approaches and their implications for instruction are sometimes due to conceptualizations of language or, more explicitly, the nature of a linguistic system. Becausewe cannot address either acquisition or implications of theory and research for instruction without some definition of language,and becausewe hope the reader will interpret the implications for instruction within the particulars we set forth, we turn our attention to the "what" of acquisition. We take language to be a human-specific attribute (e.g., Pinker 1994). As such, it isviewed not so much as a means of communication (because animals certainly communicate in various ways, e.g., crickets do not rub their legs together to keep warm and bees do not dance because of the latest craze) as a mental representation. That is, each and every human possesses some kind of underlying competence that is specifically linguistic in nature and is implicit. It is implicit because it lies outside of awareness ; we may know we have this competence in our minds, but as everyday people we do not really know what it is or what is in it. This competence is clearlydifferent from what...

Share