Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Comprehension Theory and Second Language PedagogyAuthor(s): Stephen J. Nagle and Sara L. SandersReviewed work(s):Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 9-26Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586386 .Accessed: 29/11/2011 02:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 1986

Comprehension Theory and Second Language Pedagogy STEPHEN J. NAGLE University of South Carolina-Coastal

SARA L. SANDERS University of South Carolina-Columbia

Second language acquisition theories and models over the past 10 years have focused primarily on learner variables, long-term language storage, and retrieval for production. This article presents a synthesis of second language acquisition research and adds interpretations of research on memory and verbal-input processing which relate to second language acquisition. From these perspectives, a theoretical model of listening comprehension in the adult language learner is developed. Implications of comprehension theory for second language teaching are then examined in light of suggestions in the pedagogical literature for increased emphasis on listening comprehension in the classroom.

In the last 10 years, much attention in second language acquisition (SLA) research has been devoted to devising theories and models which describe and explain crucial factors and processes involved in adult L2 learning. The wealth of influential variables makes modeling the adult L2 learning process quite complex, since the adult language learner's affective makeup and conscious awareness of language rules can greatly influence, positively or negatively, L2 achievement.

In the developing literature on adult L2 learning, most models have been selective, focusing upon and emphasizing various elements, processes, or activities critical to a given theory. Curiously, there has often been a tendency in the SLA literature to use theory and model almost synonymously. A model must graphically represent theory in an economical way, but a theory does not in itself constitute a model.

In recent years SLA model building has become increasingly sophisticated, as is reflected in the trend toward representing adult language-learning theory in an information-processing framework.

9

A great deal of important, insightful theoretical research is being incorporated in formal models. However, the process of language comprehension, which furnishes new information to be assimilated by a language learner, is generally assumed rather than specifically examined in the theoretical literature, though some literature on second language teaching has strongly emphasized listening comprehension activities.

This article first reviews theoretical foundations of current SLA models. This research as well as various studies on memory and verbal-input processing are drawn upon to present a model of adult L2 comprehension. Finally, the implications of comprehension theory for second language pedagogy are discussed.

CURRENT MODELS OF SLA

Beginning with Taylor (1974), SLA researchers have placed considerable emphasis on learner variables. Taylor has proposed that the principal difference between first language acquisition and adult second language acquisition lies in the complex affective makeup of the adult. Schumann (1976), Yorio (1976), and Strevens (1977) have presented schematizations of the interrelationships among important affective, cognitive, instructional, and other variables. None of these analyses, it may be noted, directly attempts to describe linguistic production or comprehension, but many of the crucial factors identified must be taken into account in a theory of L2 comprehension.

Krashen's (1977) Monitor Model and accompanying theory have had the most powerful impact to date on SLA research (and on second language teaching). The Monitor Model, linked in more recent form with Dulay and Burt's (1977) Affective Filter Hypothesis (see Figures 1 and 2), provides a persuasive scheme of processes and activities in L2 learning. Krashen's theory rests on several fundamental principles: 1. Acquisition and learning are technical terms representing

separate phenomena. Acquisition is motivated by a focus on communication and is not conscious; learning is motivated by a focus on form, is conscious, and results in metalinguistic knowledge.

2. In speech production, acquired and learned forms are generated separately, with monitoring and conscious attention to performance often modifying output; the amount of monitoring is a variable. The Monitor, as presented by its proponents, is an output component and has no effect on acquisition.

TESOL QUARTERLY 10

3. The conditions for optimal Monitor use are a focus on form, sufficient time, and knowledge of a pertinent rule.

4. The Monitor can be overused or misused, resulting in hesitant and/or deficient target language production.

5. In decoding L2 input, affective variables can impede acquisition and learning. This phenomenon is represented schematically by an Affective Filter.

Recent work by Krashen and others incorporates extensive observations on and recommendations for language teaching and the treatment of errors. Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982) elaborate on implications of the theory, as does Krashen (1982). The strong reception accorded to Dulay, Burt, and Krashen's work has resulted from the fact that their ideas are systematically elaborated and that they fit with L2 experiences that learners undergo, such as the frustration that occurs when conscious output processing (moni- toring) is inhibitive. Too much attention to form can result in an inability to communicate.

FIGURE 1

Acquisition and Learning in Second Language Acquisition (Krashen, 1982)

From Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (p. 16) by S. Krashen, 1982, Oxford: Pergamon. Copyright 1982 by Pergamon Institute of English. Reprinted by permission.

Learned competence (the Monitor)

Acquired / \ competence ,z Output

N

FIGURE 2

Internal Processors (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982)

From Language Two (p. 46) by H.C. Dulay, M.K. Burt, and S. Krashen, 1982, New York: Oxford University Press. Copyright 1982 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Reprinted by permission.

r _

lAMniArp-J ~^ -LEARNER'S LANGUAGE LEARNER'S NGIRUMET-- Filter - Organizer -- Monitor < VERBAL ENVIRONMENT PERFORMANCE '? I PERFORMANCE

I I

K^ ~ ~ t 2

COMPREHENSION THEORY AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 11

The principal objections to the theories most closely associated with the work of Krashen have dealt with the rigid separation of acquisition and learning, both as memory stores and components in speech production. Indeed, the notion that learned forms can never be transferred to acquisition is difficult if not impossible to verify, and Krashen and his co-theorists provide little objective support.

Bialystok (1978) prefers implicit and explicit to acquired and learned. Her model of second language learning (see Figure 3), which deals with strategies as well as processes, allows for the

FIGURE 3 The Bialystok (1978) Model of Second Language Learning

From "A Theoretical Model of Second Language Learning" by E.B. Bialystok, 1978, Language Learning, 28, p. 71. Copyright 1978 by the University of Michigan Research Club in Language Learning. Reprinted by permission.

INPUT

KNOWLEDGE

OUTPUT

Processes

_ _ _-_ Strategies

transfer of linguistic knowledge from the explicit to the implicit domain and suggests that formal practicing can motivate the shift. Similarly, Stevick (1980) argues for "seepage" (p. 276) from learning to acquisition. Adherents to the Krashen approach argue strongly that formal activities result in learning, not acquisition. Another

TESOL QUARTERLY 12

difference between Bialystok and Krashen is Bialystok's emphasis on the importance of nonlinguistic knowledge in language learning and her inclusion of other knowledge as a component in her model.

Implicit support for viewing learned and acquired forms as transferable is found in Lamendella's (1977) outline of the neurofunctional system, a system of hierarchical networks, or infra- systems, of information processing. Lamendella's two principal hierarchies, the cognition hierarchy and the communication hierarchy, are viewed as related "neurofunctional metasystems" (p. 159) which differ in function. In adults, the cognition hierarchy is essentially a problem-solving component involved in foreign language learning, while the communication hierarchy is responsi- ble for "primary" and "secondary" language acquisition. The important part here is that the systems are not dichotomous, as are Krashen's acquisition and learning.

Subsequent to Lamendella (1977), Selinker and Lamendella (1978) proposed an executive component which oversees pro- cessing operations and controls the flow of information. The executive component transmits input to either hierarchy and thus is responsible for the learning or acquisition of linguistic forms. We will return to this concept shortly.

Tollefson, Jacobs, and Selipsky (1983) have presented a model (see Figure 4) which integrates components of the Bialystok, Krashen, and Lamendella models. In their view, learned and acquired knowledge, though stored separately, may be transferred to another hierarchy. The Monitor, as suggested by Bialystok (1978), affects input as well as output. Thus, the Monitor and the Affective Filter operate on input directed to the executive component, presumably influencing its processing choices. This model, which is quite advanced in both its synthesis of current theory and its representation of important theoretical constructs in an information-processing design, is a cogent example of how a model can represent a multiplicity of theoretical notions.

Like most L2 models, however, this model primarily depicts components involved in acquisition/learning and is not specifically applicable to listening comprehension. Since linguistic knowledge derives from comprehended input, which is in the learner a subset of the available raw language input, researchers and teachers alike may find an acquaintance with the psycholinguistic foundations of comprehension to be highly instructive. Therefore, we will review briefly some well-known contributions to memory and information- processing theory to see how they may support, complement, and enrich SLA theory.

COMPREHENSION TIEORY AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 13

FIGURE 4

The Monitor Model and Neurofunctional Theory: An Integrated View (Tollefson, Jacobs, & Selipsky, 1983)

From "The Monitor Model and Neurofunctional Theory: An Integrated View" by J.W. Tollefson, B. Jacobs, and E.J. Selipsky, 1983, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, p. 13. Copyright 1984 by the Indiana University Committee for Research and Development in Language Instruction. Reprinted by permission.

PSYCHOLINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS OF COMPREHENSION

Memory Most recent models of second language acquisition have assumed

discrete linguistic knowledge stores, whether learned/acquired or implicit/explicit. Major disagreements have involved the possibility of transferring knowledge from one to the other. Bialystok (1978, 1981) has stressed the importance of nonlinguistic other knowledge in processing. All three components are involved in long-term storage of information, which has been the principal concern of

TESOL QUARTERLY 14

SLA researchers. With the noteworthy exception of Stevick (1976), these researchers have devoted little attention to other aspects of human memory.

Most contemporary analyses of human memory have distin- guished between short-term and long-term memory. Since Miller (1956), J. Brown (1958), and Peterson and Peterson (1959), short- term retention has been the subject of intensive investigation. An influential outline of memory by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) includes a short-term store (STS) of limited capacity and time span and a long-term store (LTS) of much greater capacity and duration. Atkinson and Shiffrin further include a sensory register of very brief duration. In auditory processing, sensory memory has also been called echoic memory (Neisser, 1967) and precategorical acoustic storage (Crowder & Morton, 1969), though a boundary between purely sensory retention (which involves no processing) and short- term retention (in which items are subject to processing) has been difficult to establish.

Input-Processing Activities

When information is temporarily stored in initial memories (sensory and short-term), activities such as scanning, searching, and comparing may relate it to other information in long-term storage, resulting in comprehension. Two factors, however, impede the processing of new information: trace decay (fading of the sensory input) and interference from newly arriving input. On the other hand, rehearsal (conscious and unconscious repetition) may strengthen an item in short-term memory.' More important for second language acquisition theory, there is a consensus among researchers in memory that rehearsal is an important variable in fostering long-term retention as well. This viewpoint is reflected in the role accorded to practicing in the Bialystok (1978) and Tollefson et al. (1983) models but is overlooked in and, in fact, directly contradicts the acquisition/learning distinction propounded by Krashen.

McLaughlin (1978) and McLaughlin, Rossman, and McLeod (1983) have presented a strong theoretical challenge to the notion of dichotomous long-term language storage. Drawing upon extensive research by Schneider and Shiffrin (1977) and Shiffrin and Schneider (1977), McLaughlin (1978) argues that the equating of learning with conscious processing is an overgeneralization. 1 Rehearsal is a natural process of which an individual may or may not be aware. Rote

rehearsal does not correlate well with probability of recall in lists of words held (rehearsed) for varying lengths of time (Craik & Watkins, 1973) but has been shown (Woodward, Bjork, & Jongeward, 1973) to correlate positively with probability of recognition.

COMPREHENSION THEORY AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 15

Schneider and Shiffrin (1977) and Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) identify two principal processing modes: controlled processing and automatic processing. A controlled process, according to Shiffrin and Schneider, "utilizes a temporary sequence of nodes activated under control of, and through attention by, the subject" (p. 156). Certain task demands may encourage this type of processing, and it is not necessarily conscious in all cases. An automatic process is a "sequence of nodes that nearly always becomes active in response to a particular input configuration" and is "activated without the necessity of active control or attention by the subject" (p. 155). Automatic processes require sufficient training to develop, since they depend upon a relatively permanent set of node associations. This training is provided by controlled processing.

McLaughlin et al. (1983) note that most automatic processing occurs incidentally (see Figure 5, Cell D) in normal communication activities, while most controlled processing occurs in performing new language skills (Cell A in Figure 5) which require a high degree of focal attention. They note that the development of the skills necessary to deal with complex tasks such as language processing "involves building up a set of well-learned, automatic processes so that controlled processes will be freed up for new tasks" (p. 144). Automatic processing is critical to comprehension because too much controlled processing may lead to overload and breakdown.

FIGURE 5 Performance as a Function of Information Processing and Focus of Attention

(McLaughlin, Rossman, & McLeod, 1983) From "Second Language Learning: An Information-Processing Perspective" by B. McLaughlin, T. Rossman, and B. McLeod, 1983, Language Learning, 33, p. 141. Cop ,right 1983 by The University of Michigan. Reprinted by permission.

Focus of Information processing attention Controlled Automatic

(Cell A) (Cell B) Focal "Intentional" performance "Intentional" performance

of a new skill of a well-trained skill

(Cell C) (Cell D) Peripheral "Incidental" performance Incidental" performance

of a new skill of a well-trained skill

If appropriate automatic processes are not available or are not activated in a given comprehension task, the primary resource at the individual's disposal is attention (as used here, McLaughlin et al.'s

TESOL QUARTERLY 16

focal attention). Attending involves the application of mental energy to processing tasks and may range from focusing on specific features of input to controlled processing for retrieval. In a recent critique of their earlier model of visual processing (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974), Samuels and LaBerge (1983) have stressed the limited amount of energy (attention) available and propose that tasks may be divided into smaller processing units when attention capacity is exceeded. Each unit can then be dealt with individually, but too much subdivision can result in slow, laborious processing. With practice, however, input that once required subdivision can be dealt with automatically, allowing attention to be held in reserve for more complex tasks.

The role of attention in input processing is similar in many respects to Krashen's (1977, 1982) view of the Monitor's role in language production. The Monitor focuses on form(s); that is, it analyzes (or subdivides) linguistic units into smaller components. If one views the Monitor as an input processor as well, monitoring may be described as the directing of attention to specific input (or output) items. Thus, attention (or monitoring) is an important variable, since too much subdivision can overload the attention system, filtering out other input items and causing a breakdown in processing.

A major factor in activating attention is arousal, which entails an increase of activity in the nervous system. Baddeley (1972), among others, has presented evidence that an increase in the level of arousal may lead a subject to concentrate on a smaller number of environmental cues. Hamilton, Hockey, and Quinn (1972), in testing recall of items presented in associated word pairs, found that noisy conditions (which may cause arousal) enhanced recall performance when items were elicited in the same order in which they were presented, but impaired recall when items were tested in scrambled order. Arousal, then, may foster attention to explicit matters such as order or form. Hulstijn and Hulstijn (1984) have demonstrated that L2 learners with varying degrees of explicit and implicit knowledge show increased correctness in performance when asked to pay attention to form, that is, in teacher-controlled arousal situations. Arousal may have a similar effect on comprehension tasks, activating attention and encouraging appropriate controlled processing and monitoring.

A MODEL OF ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE LISTENING COMPREHENSION

The interrelatedness among arousal, attention, monitoring, and

COMPREHENSION THEORY AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 17

controlled and automatic processing suggests some sort of general control mechanism for dealing with input, such as Selinker and Lamendella's (1978) executive component. Shiffrin (1970) has posited an executive decision maker, Craik and Lockhart (1972) and Craik (1973) have proposed a central processor in the short-term memory system, and Baddeley and Hitch (1974) have suggested that short-term memory contains a working memory component.2

Adams (1971) has proposed that human monitor behavior is closed-loop rather than open-loop. In a closed-loop system, information about success or errors in processing is fed back to the control center, which may then reprocess if necessary. An open- loop system has no such feedback mechanism. In language comprehension, one may continue to process input by directing attention to items not immediately comprehended; in SLA terminology, extended processing involves monitoring of input and application of explicit knowledge (learning). Viewing input processing as closed-loop also provides insight into the relationship between comprehension and acquisition/learning. The basis for meaning is the synthesis of retrieved knowledge and the individual's judgments (inference) about unfamiliar data; processing results (even if "incorrect") returned to the executive are available for long- term storage.

The choice made by the executive, involving activation and direction of attention and the degree to which various long-term stores will be accessed, is subject to variables such as task complexity, content, time constraints, and affective factors. If we view the executive, or working memory, as a part of the short-term memory system, we may plausibly view affective filtering and overuse of monitoring as interrelated in weakening the processing of a portion of the items in short-term storage at a given time.

In contrast with other second language models, the model in Figure 6 represents listening comprehension, not learning. Comprehension both adds to and draws upon learning, but it involves more than simple retrieval from discrete long-term storage. Not only is it influenced by various psychological and task-specific variables, it also draws upon an individual's inferences about new data based on all types of knowledge about language and the world. From this perspective comes a sensible view that comprehension

2 We are not suggesting that these notions reflect unanimity in memory theory. There are, of course, similarities in the constructs proposed by these researchers; however, Craik and Lockhart (1972) are strong proponents of a "levels of processing" view of memory which differs from the traditional dichotomous approach.

TESOL QUARTERLY 18

FIGURE 6

A Model of Listening Comprehension Processing in the Adult Language Learner

Attention may stimulate Arousal, triggered by affec- rehearsal and retention in __ - tive factors, task demands, STS, narrowing of focus or context, or complexity of in- monitoring, and initiation put, may activate attention. of controlled processing.

Feedback Loop

Note: STS = short-term storage; LTS = long-term storage.

CI

?

z

0

>-

Qr

0 z 0 ̂

C)

C6

0 C

M

o

M

ti ;-

C)-

and learning are interrelated, interdependent, but distinctive cognitive phenomena.

Because of their interrelationship, however, theoretical learning constructs such as the Monitor and the Affective Filter derive some support, at least as broad generalizations, from psychological investigations of comprehension processes. Further, the gradual progress from controlled to automatic processing outlined by Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) underlies both comprehension and learning and supports the traditional view of teachers that practice leads to learning. Thus, theoretical positions held by second language researchers and psychologists are to a large degree complementary, except in the extreme case of Krashen's view of linguistic memory.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Since comprehension makes material available for learning, it is reasonable to assume that comprehension is an optimal starting point of instruction in the target language and, further, that comprehension activities should be incorporated at all instructional levels. Systematic investigation of listening comprehension as a skill was not of great concern until the 1970s (Dirven & Oakeshott- Taylor, 1984, 1985); however, there is an increasing conviction among language teachers that listening comprehension is a global skill which can be taught (Byrnes, 1984, p. 325). While investigation of listening comprehension as a skill is just now coming into its own, concern with the role of listening in teaching languages is not new. Nida (1957), Asher, Kusudo, and de la Torre (1983), Postovsky (1974), Winitz (1981), Belasco (1981), Stevick (1976, 1980), and Krashen and Terrell (1983) are among those who have advocated a listening comprehension approach to language instruction and whose work reflects a heightened interest in giving listening comprehension a significant role in language instruction.

Nord (1981) proposes three progressive phases in the develop- ment of listening fluency: (a) semantic decoding; (b) listening ahead or anticipating the next word, phrase, or sentence; and (c) discrepancy detection. He notes that progressing through these stages produces a "rather complete cognitive map" (p. 98) which has a beneficial effect on the development of speaking, reading, and writing skills. Nord's "cognitive map" might be viewed in terms of the model in Figure 6 as sets of related material in the long-term store, automatic processes for dealing with much of the retrieval, and efficient strategies for controlled processing of new information.

TESOL QUARTERLY 20

Students new to hearing the target language may not even be familiar with its sounds. Active listening of the kind used in the Total Physical Response approach (Asher, 1977) gives students an opportunity to separate a stream of sound into meaningful units. Supporters of comprehension training providing an initial silent period for the learner argue that a solid foundation in listening comprehension appears to lay the foundation for language learning so successfully that speaking, writing, and reading skills are acquired relatively quickly in its wake. It is important for a comprehension approach to language teaching to be based on comprehensible input (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). At the beginning stage, the teacher may make the input comprehensible by associating it with visual cues and/or demonstrated actions. Students always need to provide an active response to the input.

Novel input which receives little or no attention is likely to decay in the initial phases of the comprehension process; however, language learners can benefit from guidance in directing their attention to input in profitable ways. While attention to language input may have desirable effects (stimulating rehearsal and retention in the short-term store, conscious/unconscious narrowing of focus, appropriate monitoring, and subdividing complex input), it may also result in a breakdown of the comprehension process when there is (a) too much attention given to details, (b) system overload, or (c) anxiety about failure to understand or being accountable for a response. Overprocessing input results in a loss of information from new input, which cannot be processed because the system is already fully occupied by prior input.

Instead of giving excessive attention to details, students need to develop strategies for dealing with contextual clues which will help them decipher the meaning of an utterance. Learning anything at all from an utterance should allow the language learner "to construct a hypothesis about the sort of thing the speaker must have said" (G. Brown, 1977, p. 167). G. Brown and Yule (1983) propose that "the aim of a listening comprehension exercise should be for the student to arrive successfully at a reasonable interpretation" (p. 57) of the utterance.

In the classroom, teachers can guard against system overload by limiting the number of new variables the learner has to deal with at one time and by allowing the learner time to process the new material. According to Stevick (1976), silence "gives the mind maximum opportunity to extract information from a short bit of aural input" (p. 139), while introducing new material before previous material has been processed interferes with the processing of the earlier material.

COMPREHENSION THEORY AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 21

Anxiety about failure to understand can be alleviated by providing students with maximum opportunities for successful response (nonverbal or verbal) to comprehensible input. Upon receiving input in a low-anxiety environment, the language learner's executive component is free to recognize the utterance as part of an exchange that has become "automatic" in processing, to compare unfamiliar data with already stored linguistic and nonlinguistic knowledge, and to make correct judgments about this new data.

A learner receiving verbal input is actively involved in the process of problem solving-matching the new input with appropriate meaning on the basis of previous experience (Diller, 1981, p. 152; Winitz, 1981, p. xvii). The listening comprehension material provided to the language learner must be rich and varied in order to allow the learner to build up a network of meaning relationships in the target language. In addition, both content and instructional approach are best geared toward fostering low anxiety response in the learner. At every stage of language learning, carefully designed exercises in listening comprehension can facilitate further development of the cognitive map for the target language. More advanced students who are beyond their initial anxiety about learning a new language can profit from hearing connected, real speech, from learning to listen for meaning, and from learning to make predictions and judgments on the basis of what they have heard.

CONCLUSION

Comprehension becomes more efficient as knowledge increases, processes become automatic, and experience confirms the reliability of the learner's decoding, inferring, and predicting. Successful language processing may influence the learner's affective disposition toward continued activity in the target language. Thus, a theory of comprehension contributes to and draws upon a theory of learning, a theory of affect, and an overall theory of cognition.

Most recent SLA theorists have emphasized the role of the adult learner's affective state in promoting or hindering the assimilation of both implicit and explicit information about the target language. Comprehension theory suggests that listening comprehension activities facilitate the natural development of linguistic knowledge in a setting which is affectively conducive to language acquisition. U

TESOL QUARTERLY 22

THE AUTHORS

Stephen J. Nagle is Assistant Professor of English at the University of South Carolina's Coastal Carolina College, where he teaches English to native and nonnative speakers as well as courses in linguistics. His areas of interest include psycholinguistics, reading theory, and historical linguistics.

Sara L. Sanders is Director of the intensive English Program for Internationals at the University of South Carolina and Adjunct Professor of Linguistics. Her research interests include ESL teacher training, curriculum design, and oral proficiency testing.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.A. (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111-149.

Asher, J.J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher's guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.

Asher, J.J., Kusudo, J.A., & de la Torre, R. (1983). Learning a second language through commands: The second field test. In J.W. Oiler, Jr., & P.A. Richard-Amato (Eds.), Methods that work (pp. 59-71). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Atkinson, R.C., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press.

Baddeley, A.D. (1972). Selective attention and performance in dangerous environments. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 537-546.

Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G.J. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-90). New York: Academic Press.

Belasco, S. (1981). Aital cal aprene las lengas estrangieras, Comprehension: The key to second-language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction (pp. 14-33). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Bialystok, E.B. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69-83.

Bialystok, E.B. (1981). Some evidence for the integrity and interaction of two knowledge sources. In R.W. Anderson (Ed.), New dimensions in second language acquisition research (pp. 62-74). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Brown, G. (1977). Listening to spoken English. London: Longman. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: An approach

based on the analysis of conversational English. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 12-21.

Byrnes, H. (1984). The role of listening comprehension: A theoretical base. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 317-329.

COMPREHENSION THEORY AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 23

Craik, F.I. (1973). A 'levels of analysis' view of memory. In P. Pliner, L. Krames, & T. Alloway (Eds.), Communication and affect (pp. 45-65). New York: Academic Press.

Craik, F.I., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Craik, F.I., & Watkins, M.J. (1973). The role of rehearsal in short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 599-607.

Crowder, R.G., & Morton, J. (1969). Precategorical acoustic storage (PAS). Perception and Psychophysics, 5, 365-373.

Diller, K.C. (1981). Neurolinguistic clues to the essentials of a good language teaching methodology: Comprehension, problem solving, and meaningful practice. In H. Winitz (Ed.), The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction (pp. 141-153). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Dirven, R., & Oakeshott-Taylor, J. (1984). Listening comprehension (Part I). Language Teaching, 17, 326-343.

Dirven, R., & Oakeshott-Taylor, J. (1985). Listening comprehension (Part II). Language Teaching, 18, 2-20.

Dulay, H.C., & Burt, M.K. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In M.K. Burt & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 95-126). New York: Regents.

Dulay, H.C., Burt, M.K., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, P.G., Hockey, R.J., & Quinn, J.G. (1972). Information, selection, arousal and memory. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 181- 189.

Hulstijn, J.H., & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23-43.

Krashen, S. (1977). The monitor model for adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 152-161). New York: Regents.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S.D., & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. New York: Pergamon.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

Lamendella, J.T. (1977). General principles of neurofunctional organiza- tion and their manifestations in primary and non-primary language acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 155-196.

McLaughlin, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28, 309-332.

McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135-158.

TESOL QUARTERLY 24

Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.

Nida, E.A. (1957). Learning a foreign language. New York: Friendship Press.

Nord, J.R. (1981). Three steps leading to listening fluency: A beginning. In H. Winitz (Ed.), The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction (pp. 69-100). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Peterson, L.R., & Peterson, M.J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193-198.

Postovsky, V.A. (1974). Effects of delay in oral practice at the beginning of second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 58, 229-239.

Samuels, S.J., & LaBerge, D. (1983). A critique of, A theory of automaticity in reading: Looking back: A retrospective analysis of the LaBerge-Samuels Reading Model. In L.M. Gentile, M.J. Kamil, & J.S. Blanchard (Eds.), Reading research revisited (pp. 39-55). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychologi- cal Review, 84, 1-55.

Schumann, J.H. (1976). Second language acquisition research: Getting a more global look at the learner. Language Learning [Special Issue No. 4], 15-28.

Selinker, L., & Lamendella, J.T. (1978). Two perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3, 2.

Shiffrin, R.M. (1970). Forgetting: Trace erosion or retrieval failure? Science, 168, 1601-1603.

Shiffrin, R.M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.

Stevick, E.W. (1976). Memory, meaning and method: Some psychological perspectives on language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Stevick, E.W. (1980). Teaching languages: A way and ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Strevens, P. (1977). Causes of failure and conditions for success in the learning and teaching of foreign languages. In H.D. Brown, C.D. Yorio, & R.H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77 (pp. 267-277). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Taylor, B.P. (1974). Toward a theory of language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 23-35.

Tollefson, J.W., Jacobs, B., & Selipsky, E.J. (1983). The monitor model and neurofunctional theory: An integrated view. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 1-16.

Winitz, H. (Ed.). (1981). The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

COMPREHENSION THEORY AND SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY 25

Woodward, A.E., Bjork, R.A., & Jongeward, R.H., Jr. (1973). Recall and recognition as a function of primary rehearsal. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 608-617.

Yorio, C.A. (1976). Discussion of "Explaining sequences and variation in second language acquisition." Language Learning [Special Issue No. 4], 59-63.

TESOL QUARTERLY 26