Reviews 79

makes its findings and insights especially valuable for research in second language acquisition—
a discipline which itself can be thought of as a kind of branch of applied psycholinguistics.

(Received 22 January 1987)

Marcel Danesi
University of Toronto

UNDERSTANDING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION. Rod Ellis.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Pp. 327.

The aim of Understanding Second Language Acquisition (USLA) is "to provide a thorough
account of what is known about second language acquisition (SLA) . . . for two kinds of readers:
students taking an initial course in second language acquisition (SLA) who want an overview
of the current state of the art in S L A studies, and [language] teachers . . . " (Introduction, p.
I). For this audience, Ellis has written a very good book. Complex material is explained succinctly
and its relevance for teaching made clear. A variety of theoretical perspectives are presented
on the issues addressed, and the author is not afraid to take a clear stand on them. I have some
reservations concerning the comprehensiveness (and on some topics, the currentness) of the
treatment, but overall, Ellis and Oxford University Press have performed a valuable and timely
service.
After a brief introductory overview chapter in which the reader is presented with several key
issues in S L A , Ellis starts (chapter 2) with "the role of the first language." Perhaps intentionally,
this is a rather gentle introduction to the topic. The treatment is lucid and competent as far as
it goes but, in fact, mainly concerns the origins and limitations of the contrastive analysis hypothesis
and transfer viewed as a learning strategy. More current approaches to cross-linguistic influence
and constraints on it in the form of language umversals and markedness are postponed until later
in the book (chapter 8).
Chapter 3 provides a careful overview of the error and performance analysis work on natural
sequences in interlanguage (IL) development, focusing principally on the morpheme studies and
work on negation, interrogation, and relativization. Ellis makes a distinction here between (a)
small differences observed in the order of some substages, including if—and when-—certain
grammatical features appear, and (b) regularities in the sequences (general acquisitional stages)
that have been observed across learners of different first language backgrounds (Ellis, 1984).
He emphasizes the gradual re-creation (as opposed to restructuring) view of IL development
and its characteristic permeability, dynamism, and systematicity. He argues for the interlanguage
hypothesis, which regards S L A as the emergence of an autonomous linguistic system but (perhaps
because of his preference for longitudinal studies) omits reference to some of the clearest evidence
for it, such as the work on relative clauses by Pavesi (1984). All in all, however, this is one
of the strongest and best written chapters.
Chapter 4, on variability in IL, is central for understanding Ellis' own views on S L A . Ellis
believes that new target language ( T L ) forms first enter the IL (are first acquired) in the careful
style used in planned discourse, when the learner is monitoring, or attending to speech, causing
80 Reviews

that style to show greater variability than the more natural, systematic vernacular. During this
first acquisition phase of Gatbonton's diffusion model (Gatbonton, 1978), which Ellis adopts,
the new forms occur in free variation with prior forms. Later, in a second, replacement phase,
first one and then the other form in a pair are gradually restricted in use to specific environments,
that is, the forms become progressively differentiated by the functions they serve in the IL (not
necessarily T L functions, of course).
For Ellis, free variability serves as the initial impetus for development in the sense that it
accounts for (describes?) the introduction of a new form in the IL. Subsequently, systematic
variability takes over with that form in the following manner: Forms which initially occur only
in the learner's careful style spread along the continuum of IL speech styles, from formal to
informal styles, from linguistically simple to linguistically complex contexts. They eventually
permeate the most natural, systematic style, the vernacular, in which they appear deeply analyzed
and fully automatized. The shift in availability of the forms, Ellis claims, is motivated by "the
learner's felt need to be socially acceptable" (p. 96) and by the need to make the IL commu-
nicatively efficient by removing free variability. The shift is accomplished, Ellis claims, by practice
in use of the forms, with a resulting need for less and less attention in their production (cf.
McLaughlin, Rossman, & McLeod, 1983).
The debt to general principles of historical linguistics and language change is obvious in Ellis'
model. I see this as a strength, although wish it were made explicit. Obvious problems include
one which Ellis recognizes, the paucity of supporting data, and some which he does not. Among
the latter are the lack of any measures of monitoring, attention to speech, or of the speech styles
independent of the IL data themselves. This, of course, is an issue never addressed in the original
work by Labov; there needs to be an independent method of classifying tasks used to elicit
(supposedly) different styles for the model to be testable. Even accepting the post hoc classification
procedures used in the literature, however, one notes that results are in any case mixed as to
whether T L forms occur either first or more frequently in so-called careful style speech samples
(Parrish & Tarone, 1986; Sato, 1985).
Chapter 5, on individual differences (learner variables), is the least satisfactory in the book.
Ellis tries to cover a lot of ground and ends up providing rather superficial introductions to the
role of age, attitude, motivation, intelligence, aptitude, cognitive style, and personality factors
in S L A . Age, which receives the most attention (six pages), will serve as an example.
Ellis cites but 7 of the over 50 relevant studies on age effects in S L A . On this basis, he finds
(a) no effect for starting age on route of development, (b) a (permanent) rate advantage for
adult and (especially) adolescent over child learners, and (c) an ultimate attainment advantage
for children in pronunciation only. Each of these conclusions is open to criticism, (a) may well
turn out to be true, but as Ellis himself emphasizes, there has scarcely been any research in this
area as yet. (b) is based exclusively on findings by Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978); yet,
their study of Americans acquiring Dutch naturalistically in Holland shows that the child learners
had caught up with both adolescents and adults by the time of the third and final observation
just 9 to 10 months after first exposure to the second language. On that evidence, therefore, the
rate advantage for older learners could at most be only temporary, (c) ignores several widely
accepted studies (e.g., Patkowski, 1980, for morphosyntax; and Scarcella, 1983, for dis-
course/pragmatics) demonstrating age and/or sensitive period effects in linguistic domains other
than phonology.
This last (and in my view erroneous) conclusion, that only pronunciation is permanently affected
by starting age, then leads Ellis to dismiss most of the potential explanations of age effects he
considers as either inadequate or irrelevant on the grounds that they attempt to explain age
effects in pronunciation and other areas. Thus, he writes:
Reviews 81

The critical period hypothesis is an inadequate account of the role played by age in S L A because
this assumption [that language acquisition is easier for children] was only partially correct. Only
where pronunciation is concerned is an early start an advantage, (p. 107)

and

The problem with Rosansky's [cognitive] arguments is the same as that with the neurological
explanations. They are both based on the false assumption that post-puberty learners are less efficient
and less successful than younger learners, (p. 109)

In contrast, chapter 6, on input, interaction, and S L A , is very good. Ellis demonstrates his
familiarity with the extensive literature on foreigner talk, native speaker/nonnative speaker con-
versation, teacher talk, and the potential roles of all three in S L A and is simultaneously modest
about his own research contributions in the area. He summarizes a representative sample of
empirical findings clearly and succinctly and presents alternative theoretical interpretations fairly,
adopting an interactionist position himself. He rightly emphasizes the gap between what has
actually been established by the studies and some of the claims made, (ostensibly) based upon
them. We know a lot about speech adjustments to nonnative speakers but very little as yet about
their effects on either comprehension or acquisition. Ellis' linking of the naturalistic and laboratory
research findings with related observations in second language (SL) classrooms is particularly
welcome. Readers interested in finding out more about classroom S L learning and teaching
considered from this perspective should consult Chaudron (1987).
Chapter 7, "Learner Strategies," deals with work on internal mental processes (hypothesis
formation, testing, etc.); learning strategies (simplification, mferencing, etc.) supposedly used to
process input, with various planning and correcting strategies involved in speech production; and
with communication strategies. Ellis does his best to put some order into the plethora of vaguely
defined, overlapping, and inadequately researched taxonomies for which this area is notorious,
but eventually admits that "peering into the 'black box' to identify the different learner strategies
at work in S L A is rather like stumbling blindfold around a room to find a hidden object" (p.
188).
Chapter 8, on the so-called universal hypothesis, provides an extremely lucid account of what
is surely one of the most technical areas of modern S L A research, namely, work on the role of
linguistic universal (of both nativist and typological varieties) and of markedness in interlanguage
development. The problem, familiar to anyone who has recently taught introductory S L A courses
which include work in this area, is the linguistic ante required before the S L A research motivated
by it can be digested. My own experience using USLA in an introductory S L A course in a
Master's in English as a Second Language program has been that Ellis' chapter makes handling
work by Bley-Vroman, Eckman, Gass, Liceras, Rutherford, White, Zobl, and others a lot
easier for instructor and students alike.
The focus of chapter 9 is the role of formal instruction in S L A . From his review of the
literature, Ellis concludes that formal instruction (roughly, overt focus by teachers and students
on the language as object) (a) has no effect on learning sequences, (b) affects speech production
in minor ways and only when the learner is attending to form, and (c) probably facilitates rate
of acquisition, although he thinks its apparently positive effects here may be partly due to other
factors, such as motivation. Ellis is unwilling to draw pedagogical implications from what most
would agree is an inadequate research base. My own view is that the evidence for beneficial
effects is somewhat stronger than Ellis recognizes, particularly if one looks at findings from some
more recent process and ultimate attainment studies of instructed IL development (Long, 1987).
82 Reviews

I agree that the jury is still out, however, and generally find Ellis' chapter a balanced presentation
of the data, as well as of some of the better known theoretical positions on the issue.
Chapter 10 consists of a brief statement of the function of theory in S L A research, followed
by a review of seven "theories" of S L A : the acculturation model, the monitor model, and so
forth. A brief summary of each position is followed by a short evaluation, focusing mainly on
the empirical status of the views being discussed. The points covered are pertinent and generally
fair. The chapter would be stronger, however, with some evaluation of the theories as theories,
along the lines of Gregg's (in press) discussion of Krashen's work. The treatment of some positions
is also based on rather outdated sources; Schumann, Hatch, and Krashen, among others, have
each published major books or articles since those (mostly 1982 or earlier) discussed by Ellis.
Instructors will need to do some updating.
The book finishes with some pointers for future research, a glossary, a list of references, and
(an increasingly rare item these days) an accurate and useful index. Each chapter also has some
carefully chosen suggestions for further reading.
As stated at the outset, USLA achieves its stated aim of providing a digestible introduction
to S L A theory and research. I would have liked discussion of more of the important Dutch,
West German, Israeli, and Australian research of the last few years. However, the literature
surveyed is, for the most part, a representative sample of work to date, and Ellis has generally
done a good job of presenting divergent points of view fairly, while making his own opinions
clear. Indeed, the coverage is surprisingly broad, given how difficult it is becoming for any single
individual to keep abreast of what is a rapidly diversifying field of study. As its title suggests,
Ellis' book really does help us understand S L A .

REFERENCES
Chaudron, C. (1987). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon.
Gatbonton, E. (1978). Patterned phonetic variability in second language speech: A gradual diffusion model.
Canadian Modem Language Review, 34, 335—347.
Gregg, K. (in press). Krashen's theory, acquisition theory, and theory. In R. Barasch (Ed.), Responses
to Krashen. Cambridge, M A : Newbury House.
Long, M . H . (1987). Instructed interlanguage development. Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple
perspectives. Cambridge, M A : Newbury House.
McLaughlin, B . , Rossman, T . , & McLeod, B . (1983). Second language learning: A n information-
processing perspective. Language Learning, 33 (2), 135—158.
Parrish, B . , & Tarone, E. (1986). Article use in interlanguage: A study in task-related variability. Paper
presented at the 20th T E S O L Convention, Anaheim, C A .
Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period and the acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language
Learning, 30 (2), 4 4 9 - 4 7 2 .
Pavesi, M . (1984). The acquisition of relative clauses in a formal and in an informal setting: Further
evidence in support of the markedness hypothesis. In D . M. Singleton & D . G. Little (Eds.), Language
learning in formal and informal contexts. Dublin: I R A A L .
Sato, C. J. (1985). Task variation in interlanguage phonology. In S. M . Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.),
Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, M A : Newbury House.
Scarcella, R. C. (1983). Discourse accent in second language performance. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker
(Eds.), Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, M A : Newbury House.
Snow, C , & Hoefhagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from
second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114-1128.

(Received 2 February 1987)

Michael Long
University of Hawaii at Manoa