The central claim of the cognitive science paradigm is that the mind/brain can be thought of as an information‐processing device. Classical theories require explicitness about the representations in which knowledge is encoded because processes are denned as algorithms computing over them. In much current second‐language acquisition (SLA) research, there is talk of “process” and “processing” without talk of representation or, conversely, proposals about representation with no clarity about how structures are exploited during parsing or production. To accept this state of affairs is not to take the paradigm seriously. I offer an analysis of gender attribution in French L1 and French L2 acquisition to show how one can develop explicit models of acquisition, blending together the findings of linguistics and experimental psycholinguistics.

Every theory of second language acquisition (SLA) hypothesizes that learners come to know the properties of a language by being exposed to instances of it in meaningful conversation. Within SLA, the standard analysis of the ‘input question’ appears to be that input equals objective properties of the stimulus array less the effects of selective attention (the intake). In this paper, I offer a critique of the standard analysis. I claim that it is not interpretable in the absence of a theory of mental representation, theories of speech perception and language parsing, and a theory of language learning. I show that it cannot account for aspects of signal detection, phonetic or phonological learning. The standard treatment is essentially pretheoretical. I define an alternative position which distinguishes input to speech processing and input to language-learning mechanisms, drawing on the Autonomous Induction Theory – a novel theory of learning which is compatible with a modular view of processing and a view of linguistic cognition based on Universal Grammar (UG).

This study looked at the effects of feedback (explicit correction) on the learning of morphological generalizations in an experimental setting. Subjects were 79 adult native speakers of English with intermediate (39) and advanced (40) levels of proficiency in French. All subjects were individually trained on two rules of French suffixation. Experimental subjects received correction if they gave erroneous responses to stimuli in a "feedback" session. Afterward, all subjects "guessed" responses to novel stimuli and were retested (twice) on the feedback items. Comparison subjects dealt with the same stimuli but were never corrected. Analyses of feedback responses indicated differences in favor of the experimental groups, but comparisons of guessing responses between experimental and comparison groups showed no evidence of learned generalizations. The learning of absolute exceptions was more likely among advanced learners.The subject of feedback and its role in language acquisition has recently undergone a revival in interest. In the heyday of behaviorism, there were numerous studies of correction as a form of behavioral conditioning. With the advent of information-processing theories of mind, correction was discussed in terms of "feedback," and the latter term stuck. The focus of much of this information-processing research covers nonlinguistic learning, however. There is, for example, an extensive literature on feedback and its effects on memory for content (see the reviews in Kulhavy, 1977, andLysakowski &Walberg, 1982). By "content" we mean the information expressed by language or the propositional content of sentences. (Therefore,

A growing literature on bilingual development explores relationships between language exposure and learning outcomes. Vocabulary size and pace of grammar learning have been claimed to be causally related to amounts or types of exposure to each language. Strong claims are made about the role of exposure on bilingual outcomes. Some researchers posit a unique learning result: a ‘weak language’. In a critical review, I voice reasons for scepticism that quantity or quality of exposure alone will explain findings. Central constructs are not well defined; inappropriate research methods have been used; the right kind of data is not discussed. Crucially, authors prevaricate on the notion of language itself, switching between cognitive and environmental perspectives. Both are needed to interpret bilingual behaviours but play different roles in the construction of learner grammars.

The relative effects of various types of negative feedback on the acquisition of the English dative alternation by 100 adult Spanish-speaking learners of English as a second language were investigated. Our objective was to determine empirically whether feedback can help learners learn the appropriate abstract constraints on an overgeneral rule. All subjects were trained on the alternation, which was presented in terms of a simple structural change. Subjects were divided into groups according to the type of feedback they received when they made an error. Specifically, upon making an error, Group A subjects were given explicit metalinguistic information about the generalization we hoped they would learn. Group B subjects were told that their response was wrong. Group C subjects were corrected when they erred, giving them a model of the response desired along with implicit negative evidence that their response was incorrect. Group D subjects, having made an error, were asked if they were sure about their response. The comparison group received no feedback.