Applied Psycholinguistics 9:1 106

Book reviews

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32, 365-387.
Kintsch, W. (1980). Psychological processes in discourse production. Technical report no. 99.
Boulder, CO: Institute of Cognitive Science.
Olson, D. R. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard
Educational Review, 47, 257-281.
(1981). Writing: The divorce of the author from the text. In B. Kroll & R. Vann (Eds.),
Exploring speaking-writing relationships: Connections and contrasts. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.

Jean Chandler
New England Conservatory of Music

Theories of second language learning. Barry McLaughlin. London: Edward Ar-

nold, 1987. Pp. viii + 184.

Theories of second language learning is really two books. The first is an ex-
tended argument that, whatever pedagogical merits it may have, Stephen
Krashen's monitor model is not to be taken seriously as a scientific theory. The
second is a review of more empirically based, and therefore more scientifically
defensible, models of second-language acquisition.
The opening chapter is a short disquisition on the philosophy of science. The
main purpose of this discussion - which includes such things as deductive versus
inductive theories and the falsifiability criterion - is apparently to load the
cannons for the critique of Krashen. McLaughlin begins this critique by ac-
knowledging the impetus that the monitor model has given to interest in second
languages. But he makes it clear from the outset that, in his opinion, much of this
has been misguided. In particular, he believes that many language instructors
have flocked uncritically to the "inner tennis" approach (my term), in large part
because Krashen is good at "packaging" his theory. As a good scientist,
McLaughlin believes that teachers can benefit from psychological or linguistic
theory only when that theory has adequate grounding in facts established by
means of accepted scientific methods. This is not the case for the monitor model.
Krashen's theory has been criticized in a number of important ways - most of
which are unknown to the true believers - and it is McLaughlin's intention in the
second chapter to pull these together and thus to provide an overall evaluation of
the monitor model. And who better than McLaughlin to lead us in an extended
and thorough bout of "Krashen-bashin"?
I will not recapitulate all of the arguments here. What McLaughlin does is to
partition the monitor model into five central hypotheses: the acquisition-learning
hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural-order hypothesis, the input hy-
pothesis, and the affective-filter hypothesis. For each, he reviews both the-
oretical arguments and empirical studies relevant to its evaluation. While he
finds that some of the hypotheses are most likely false, the majority are simply
too vague, general, and metaphorical to be evaluated properly. For example, the
claim that the only linguistic factor of importance for second-language acquisi-
tion is "comprehensible input" rests crucially on the operational definition of
this term. By examining Krashen's use of the concept in a variety of his writings,
McLaughlin concludes that the term has not been adequately operationalized and
thus the claim cannot be falsified. This is counter to several of the precepts of
Applied Psycholinguistics 9:1 107
Book reviews

scientific method outlined in the first chapter. In fact, in applying his philosophy
of science to Krashen's theorizing, one gets the distinct impression that
McLaughlin does not believe that the monitor model is science at all.
As a researcher of first-language acquisition, I would like to draw attention to
just one point in the critique. Krashen's theory rests crucially on the assumption
that second-language acquisition is just like first-language acquisition. In terms
of practice, this means that classroom work should attempt to recreate the condi-
tions of first-language acquisition; it should avoid grammar exercises, pronuncia-
tion drills, and anything else that is not a part of first-language acquisition. But
McLaughlin raises an important point that is not appreciated by most linguists
and psycholinguists. Despite the claims of Chomsky and others that first-lan-
guage acquisition is easy and effortless, young children in actuality spend the
better part of five years becoming proficient in their native languages. This
means that by their sixth birthday, children, by a very conservative estimate (5
hours per day), have engaged in something over 9,000 hours of linguistic interac-
tion. Certainly, the best way to learn a second language would be 9,000 hours of
immersion in another culture! The pedagogical question is simply whether or not
classroom exercises such as practice with infrequent forms, systematic correction
of errors, and explicit lessons of specific grammar points may facilitate and
expedite the acquisition process in some important ways. This is obviously a
question for empirical research.
The second book is much more expository and far less critical. It focuses on
what McLaughlin considers more scientifically based approaches to second-
language acquisition. These theories were derived more inductively than
Krashen's, they deal with a more restricted range of phenomena, and they are
thus more easily falsifiable. In chapter 3, McLaughlin begins by discussing the
concept of interlanguage - because all of the other theories rely on this concept.
In discussing the work of Selinker, Corder, et al., McLaughlin emphasizes that
this concept has helped to focus attention on second-language acquisition as a
process — with different stages of development that entail different learning
strategies. This work also has helped to focus attention on "transfer" and "in-
terference" from the first language to the second.
The three theoretical approaches discussed in the remainder of the book repre-
sent applications of concepts from related fields to the field of second-language
acquisition. McLaughlin is quick to point out that, in his opinion, none of the
three can be the whole story and that any complete theory will need to incorpo-
rate the best from each. The first approach relies on the use of linguistic theory,
specifically that concerned with linguistic universals. This has been done in two
ways. The first is the application of concepts and methods from linguistic ty-
pology d la Greenberg. By comparing various languages, this approach attempts
to predict acquisitional sequences in particular languages and the role of transfer
from the first language in that process (e.g., the work of Gass and Eckman).
McLaughlin concludes that the utility of this approach has so far been confined to
the role of markedness in the acquisition of a few structures, though one hopes
that it will be extended to other areas as well. The other approach is Chomsky's
universal grammar. While Chomsky himself sees no application to second lan-
guages, others (e.g., Zobl, Cook, and Flynn) have used his parameter-setting
model to make predictions as to the acquisition sequences of both core and
Applied Psycholinguistics 9:1 108
Book reviews

peripheral aspects of grammatical competence. Again, McLaughlin concludes

that this approach has some potential, but that so far its application has been
confined to a small range of syntactic phenomena.
The second theoretical approach is the ethnolinguistic (acculturation) ap-
proach, which emphasizes language as one part of a larger cultural complex. The
roots of this approach lie in Schumann's (and also Andersen's) characterization
of the social and psychological "distance" of the learner, at any given point in
development, from the culture of those who speak the target language. This led
to work by researchers such as Bickerton and Valdman on parallels between
pidginization/creolization and second-language acquisition. For example, this
approach attempts to use cultural factors to explain why some second-language
learners fossilize at nonnative levels (i.e., use 'primitive' strategies and forms)
while others proceed to fluency. McLaughlin acknowledges the value of this
approach, while noting that it is only applicable to cases of natural second-
language learning and has yet to be applied to classroom contexts.
The third and final theoretical approach is derived from cognitive psychology.
McLaughlin himself has been a leading proponent of this approach, along with
researchers such as Karmiloff-Smith, Faerch, and Kasper. In general, these
researchers treat second-language learning as a skill subject to the same princi-
ples as other forms of skill acquisition. The vast majority of research has focused
on the process by which skills (e.g. lexical decision) become automatized or
restructured so that they may be executed more rapidly and efficiently. Mc-
Laughlin believes that this approach, and others deriving from cognitive psychol-
ogy, hold great promise. He acknowledges, however, that the cognitive ap-
proach is only one part of the explanation; research on the nature of the linguistic
material to be acquired must complement this approach.
McLaughlin attempts to 'bring it all together' in a final section of the book. In
my opinion, he is only moderately successful. He makes ten empirical gener-
alizations from existing research: some tightly tied to data, others less so; some
discussed fully in the body of the book, others less so; some very important,
others less so. He concludes with a section on theory and practice that attempts to
explicate (briefly) a model of second-language learning that integrates instruc-
tion, exposure, practice, and internal processing. My opinion is that the field is
not quite ready for such a synthesis and that is why McLaughlin's attempt does
not fully succeed.
Overall, McLaughlin has performed a great service. The field of second-
foreign-bilingual language acquisition is not an easy one to master; now we see
why. The picture painted in this book is of a discipline struggling to find a
theoretical paradigm, or perhaps several related paradigms, to help distinguish
itself from the various allied disciplines of linguistics, psycholinguistics, and
ethnolinguistics. McLaughlin has laid out the interconnections between these
fields and second language research and he has packaged it in a clear and
nontechnical manner. That, along with his critique of monitor theory, should
make this a very useful book for researchers and teachers alike.

Michael Tomasello
Emory University