The papers in this issue were presented at a colloquium on The Role of Instruction in Second Language Acquisition held at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, in July 1991. Participants in the Colloquium were the following:

Birgit Harley, OISE, University of Toronto

Patsy M. Lightbown, Concordia University

Michael Long, University of Hawaii

Manfred Pienemann, Sydney University

Bonnie Schwartz, University of Durham

Michael Sharwood Smith, Utrecht University

Nina Spada, McGill University

Bill VanPatten, University of Illinois

Lydia White, McGill University

The Colloquium was sponsored by Concordia University and McGill University as well as by research grants from the government of Quebec through its Fonds pour la formation de chercheurs et l'aide à la recherche and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Psychologically speaking, all linguistic behavior is the overt manifestation of some type of underlying knowledge that is represented in the mind/brain of an individual. Exposure to linguistic data is necessary for growth of the system of knowledge. On the basis of only overt linguistic behavior, how can we ascertain whether the native and nonnative knowledge systems that people have are of distinct or similar types? Is there a (necessary) relationship between type of knowledge and type of linguistic exposure?

The hypothesis to be defended is that negative data and explicit data result in a type of knowledge that is not to be equated with linguistic competence. The claim is not that negative and explicit data cannot give rise to knowledge; rather, the specific claim is that only positive data can effect the construction of an interlanguage grammar that is comparable to the knowledge system that characterizes the result of first language acquisition.

The concept of input to the language learner is examined with reference to some current theorizing about language processing and the idea of modular systems of knowledge. The question of what this can tell us about the actions taken by teachers and textbook writers is addressed specifically with regard to manipulating, or “enhancing,” the input ideally so that it will affect learner knowledge and thereby learner behavior. The logic of the argumentation is that, in exposing the learner to the second language, we are engaging a whole battery of different processing mechanisms. Input enhancement research and the conclusions drawn from it have to be set within the context of a modular view of language and language learning.

In this paper we show that supplying positive evidence in the second language (L2) classroom does not necessarily trigger the appropriate L2 value of a parameter of Universal Grammar. The parameter we investigate is the verb movement parameter of Pollock (1989), which accounts for the fact that English and French adverbs differ as to where they occur in relation to the verb: In French the verb raises past the adverb, allowing the order SVAO but not SAV, whereas in English the verb does not raise, allowing SAV but not SVAO. Fifty-four francophone children (aged 11) in intensive English-as-a-second-language programs in Quebec, Canada, were exposed to a 2-week input flood of specially prepared materials containing English adverbs used naturalistically. No form-focused instruction or negative evidence on adverb placement was provided. Subjects were pretested immediately prior to the input flood, posttested immediately afterward, and again 3 weeks later, on four different tasks. On all tasks there is a change between pretest and posttest behavior, namely, a dramatic increase in use of the English SAV order but little or no decline in incorrect usage of SVAO. Results are also compared to groups reported in White (1991a, 1991b); the subjects in the present study differ from both groups in the previous studies. The results of the present study suggest that positive evidence does not serve to preempt the first language parameter setting in this case; acquiring the correct English SAV order did not lead to loss of incorrect SVAO. Implications of this result for theories of preemption and parameter setting in L2 acquisition are discussed.

This paper is a report on a quasi-experimental study designed to investigate contributions of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback to the development of interrogative constructions in the oral performance of English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learners. The subjects were young francophone learners of English (age 10–12) receiving intensive ESL instruction. Their accuracy and developmental progress in the use of interrogative structures was measured prior to a 2-week period of instructional treatment. Immediate and delayed posttests were administered after the instruction. The language produced by the instructors while teaching interrogative structures was examined in relation to the learners' oral performance. Similar analyses were carried out with a comparison group. The results support the hypothesis that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative interaction can contribute positively to second language development in both the short and long term.

In this paper we describe an experiment in explicit instruction that compares traditional form-focused instruction and what we call processing instruction. Traditional instruction involves explanation and output practice of a grammatical point. Processing instruction involves explanation and practice/experience processing input data, taking learner strategies in input processing as the starting point for determining what explicit instruction should look like. Pretest and posttest measures involving both a sentence-level interpretation (comprehension) task and a sentence-level production task were submitted to an analysis of variance. Results reveal significant gains in both comprehension and production for subjects who experienced processing instruction. For those experiencing traditional instruction, significant gains were made in production only.

Examining the role of instruction in second language acquisition (SLA) entails not only a specification of what aspects of SLA stand to be affected but also a clear conception of what is meant by instruction. In this paper the potential of various instructional strategies for promoting SLA among child second language (L2) learners is considered in relation to empirical findings in early French immersion programs. Several principles are proposed concerning the what, when, and how of code-focused L2 instruction in a communicatively oriented school-based acquisition context. These proposals need to be put to the test in further experimental research.