Sascha W.

Felix

Language Acquisition and Language

Learning
Today's situation in foreign language teaching is ma~ked
by a feeling of increased confusion and disillusionment.
None of the currently competing teaching methods and
techniques has produced the type of results that its prom o t e r s had promised and that foreign language instructors
had hoped for. Even the m a s s i v e use of language laboratories, a u d i o - v i s u a l aids, and other technical equipment
has failed to s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve students' foreign
language abilities (Jung 1977). A l t h o u g h certain individual teaching techniques appear to be more effective than
others, the crucial dilemma is that we still lack an integrated theory w h i c h will explain and predict differences
in foreign language achievement, teaching success, and
c o m m u n i c a t i v e abilities. Learning a foreign language is
a highly c o m p l e x process, but little is known about the
process itself and its underlying r e g u l a r i t i e s (Butzkamm
1976, Felix 1977c).
In his daily routine the c l a s s r o o m teacher is very much on
his own. N e i t h e r p s y c h o l o g i s t s nor linguists have provided
the kind of theoretical framework necessary to help the
teacher decide on the o r g a n i z a t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n of
foreign language material. It seems that the teacher has
to rely p r i m a r i l y on his own personal experience.
The rather u n p r o m i s i n g state of the art in foreign language
teaching became also apparent in a feeling of d i s o r i e n t a t i o n
that could be o b s e r v e d in the foreign language section of
the 1977 School Radio C o n f e r e n c e held in Munich under the
sponsorship
of the Internationales Z e n t r a l i n s t i t u t fHr das
Jugend- und B i l d u n g s f e r n s e h e n (International Center for
Educational Television). Broadcasters, program planners,
and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e p r e s e n t i n g radio and television station~
in 19 European countries w e l c o m e d the o p p o r t u n i t y to discuss
problems and to propose solutions in the area of educational
broadcasting, in p a r t i c u l a r foreign language instruction.
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of four different radio/TV stations (Sweden,
Finland, Switzerland, and BBC London) showed impressive
examples of w e l l - d e v i s e d foreign language programs. The use
of s o p h i s t i c a t e d technical equipment and the broadcasters'
profound experience in d e a l i n g with acoustic and visual
stimuli will c e r t a i n l y not fail to activate the students'
m o t i v a t i o n to an extent that the o r d i n a r y classroom teacher
can hardly ever compete with.
And yet, broadcasters, teachers, and textbook writers appear
to struggle with e s s e n t i a l l y the same problems. How should

64
foreign language m a t e r i a l be p r e s e n t e d in order to be
e f f e c t i v e ? How does the student r e s p o n d to different
m a t e r i a l ? How can we make sure the student learns what
we want h i m to learn? And most important, how does a student learn a foreign language in the first place? I.e.,
h o w does his linguistic competence d e v e l o p and how does
this d e v e l o p m e n t c o r r e l a t e with the didactic intentions
of the i n s t r u c t o r ?
P a r t i c i p a n t s of the M u n i c h c o n f e r e n c e repeatedly voiced
their belief that in the long run foreign language educational p r o g r a m s c a n n o t be successful unless these and
similar basic q u e s t i o n s are answered. At present, however,
b r o a d c a s t e r s felt themselves to be in very much the same
s i t u a t i o n as c l a s s r o o m teachers who, in the absence of
more a p p r o p r i a t e guidelines, follow their own individual
e x p e r i e n c e and intuition.
Nevertheless, r e s e a r c h on foreign language learning and
teaching has been very intensive during the past years
(see W i e n o l d 1973, C h a s t a i n 1976). It has p r i m a r i l y foc u s e d on the d e s c r i p t i o n and analysis of those situational
v a r i a b l e s that are b e l i e v e d to g o v e r n language learning in
a c l a s s r o o m context. Motivation, aptitude, affectivity,
teaching m e t h o d and teachers' b e h a v i o r are among those
v a r i a b l e s that have been studied in g r e a t detail (see
S c h u m a n n 1975, S o l m e c k e 1976). The rationale behind this
type of r e s e a r c h is that if we s u c c e e d in c o n t r o l l i n g the
c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s of foreign language learning we will
thereby be able to c o n t r o l the learning process itself.
This a s s u m p t i o n reflects the belief that learning a foreign
language is a p r o c e s s totally d e p e n d e n t on and g o v e r n e d by
external factors, a p r o c e s s that is - at least in p r i n c i p l e
- i n f i n i t e l y v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g to the c o n t e x t u a l conditions
under w h i c h it takes place.
Recent studies on second language a c q u i s i t i o n (Dulay & Burt
1974, B a i l e y & M a d d e n & K r a s h e n 1974, F e l i x 1978) indicate,
however, that the p r o c e s s of learning a second language is
not totally a function of its contextual conditions; rather,
there seem to be c e r t a i n universal and i n v a r l a n t regularities in the w a y e v e r y L2 learner a c q u i r e s the target language. T h e s e findings have led to a n e w p e r s p e c t i v e in
w h i c h the learner h i m s e l f and his verbal b e h a v i o r are the
center of attention. The crucial q u e s t i o n s are: how does
a student process the linguistic structures he is e x p o s e d
to? Are there any r e g u l a r i t i e s in the learning process
itself that reflect basic p r i n c i p l e s of m a n ' s a b i l i t y to
acquire l a n g u a g e ( s ) ?
The Kiel P r o j e c t on L a n g u a g e A c q u i s i t i o n (Wode 1976a, F e l i x
1978) has a t t e m p t e d to look at p r o b l e m s of foreign language l e a r n i n g / t e a c h i n g from a still b r o a d e r perspective.
The p r o c e s s of learning a foreign language is not seen as

65

an i s o l a t e d p h e n o m e n o n , but r a t h e r s t u d i e d in the total

c o n t e x t of h u m a n l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . This is d o n e by
s y s t e m a t i c a l l y o b s e r v i n g a n d c o m p a r i n g d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of
l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n w i t h the a i m of d e t e r m i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s and c o m m o n a l i t i e s in the w a y a l e a r n e r ' s c o m p e t e n c e
develops under different conditions. The rationale behind
t h e s e c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d i e s is t h a t o n l y m a n is a b l e to
a c q u i r e l a n g u a g e ( s ) ; he c a n l e a r n m o r e than one, he c a n
f o r g e t and r e l e a r n a l a n g u a g e ; a n d all this u n d e r v e r y
d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s . In o r d e r to e x p l a i n this u n i q u e
a b i l i t y a n d its u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s , it is n e c e s s a r y to
c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n and to
see h o w t h i s a b i l i t y f u n c t i o n s u n d e r v a r i o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e ~
To date, l o n g i t u d i n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s h a v e b e e n m a d e on:
a.

L1 a c q u i s i t i o n , i.e.
tongue.
(Wode 1976b,

how children
1977a)

learn

their mother

b. n a t u r a l i s t i c L2 a c q u i s i t i o n , i.e. h o w c h i l d r e n or
a d u l t s a c q u i r e a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e in a n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t , t h a t is w i t h o u t a n y type of f o r m a l c l a s s r o o m
instruction.
(Felix 1976, 1978; W o d e 1976a)
c.

f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e t e a c h i n g , i.e. h o w s t u d e n t s l e a r n a
s e c o n d l a n g u a g e in a c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n u n d e r formal
instruction.
(Felix 1977b-c)

The s t r i k i n g r e s u l t of t h e s e c o m p a r a t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n s
w a s t h a t d e s p i t e the c o n t e x t u a l d i v e r s i t y a n d d e s p i t e
c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s t h e r e is a c o r e of d e v e l o p m e n t a l r e g u l a r i t i e s c o m m o n to all l e a r n e r s and all
t y p e s of a c q u i s i t i o n . In o t h e r w o r d s , the w a y in w h i c h a
l e a r n e r t a k e s in, p r o c e s s e s , s t o r e s , a n d thus a c q u i r e s
l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s is n o t i n f i n i t e l y v a r i e d , but s h o w s
s i g n i f i c a n t p a r a l l e l s a c r o s s d i f f e r e n t types of l a n g u a g e
learning situations.
T h e s e f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t the p r o c e s s of l e a r n i n g a
l a n g u a g e - e i t h e r as L1 or as L2, e i t h e r w i t h or w i t h o u t
formal instruction - follows certain invariant principles
w h i c h are i n d e p e n d e n t of c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s and w h i c h
a p p e a r to u n d e r l i e m a n ' s a b i l i t y to a c q u i r e language.
At l e a s t for L1 a c q u i s i t i o n t h e r e are s o m e a p r i o r i theoretical reasons suggesting that language learning cannot
be a p r o c e s s t o t a l l y d e p e n d e n t on and d e t e r m i n e d by external v a r i a b l e s . If t h i s w a s the case, t h e n c h i l d r e n f r o m
different cultural, ethnic, socio-economic, religious,
etc. b a c k g r o u n d s s h o u l d v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y in the c o m m a n d
of t h e i r m o t h e r tongue. W h i l e it is t r u e that p e o p l e m a y
d i f f e r in the w a y t h e y m a k e use of t h e i r l a n g u a g e , no
n o r m a l c h i l d has e v e r f a i l e d to a c q u i r e the p h o n o l o g y ,
m o r p h o l o g y or s y n t a x of h i s n a t i v e l a n g u a g e . No c h i l d is
k n o w n to s p e a k w i t h a n o n - n a t i v e a c c e n t or to be u n a b l e
to f o r m i n t e r r o g a t i v e or n e g a t i v e s e n t e n c e s due to unf a v o r a b l e c o n d i t i o n s of l e a r n i n g . C o n s e q u e n t l y t h e r e m u s t

66

be something in man that g u a r a n t e e s

of his m o t h e r tongue no m a t t e r w h a t
stances m a y be like.
A l t h o u g h many, if
ciples underlying
unknown, there is
features of human

successful a c q u i s i t i o n
the external circum-

not most, of the r e g u l a r i t i e s and prinfirst language a c q u i s i t i o n are still

some indication of what are the basic
language learning:

a. children do not a c q u i r e their m o t h e r tongue by imitating

or reproducing the structures they hear as a whole.
Rather, they s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d e c o m p o s e t a r g e t structures,
i.e. they e x t r a c t individual structural features of the
target language and use these to form u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h
in terms of the a d u l t language m a y be u n g r a m m a t i c a l .
This p r o c e s s of d e c o m p o s i n g target s t r u c t u r e s is systematic in the sense that all c h i l d r e n appear to p r o c e e d
in the same way.
In the a c q u i s i t i o n of negative structures, for example,
chuldren c o n s i s t e n t l y use no before they learn not; and
during an early stage of d e v e l o p m e n t they r e g u l a r l y use
no to negate s e n t e n c e s a l t h o u g h the adult language requires n o t in these cases. Thus children will say no
the sun shine in sense of the sun d o e s n ' t shine, similarly, G e r m a n c h i l d r e n a c q u i r e nein before nicht, F r e n c h
children non before pas (see Wode 1977a).
b. children pass t h r o u g h an o r d e r e d sequense of d e v e l o p mental stages. A d u l t structures are first d e c o m p o s e d
and then, in an o r d e r e d sequence of stages, r e - i n t e g r a t e d
towards the target model. The adult language is therefore
a c q u i r e d through a s e q u e n c e of i n t e r m e d i a t e g r a m m a t i c a l
systems w h o s e structural p r o p e r t i e s g r a d u a l l y a p p r o a c h
those of the target language. This sequence is o r d e r e d in
the sense that c e r t a i n stages appear to o c c u r with all
children.
c. the crucial v a r i a b l e w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s the sequence and
the structure of the i n t e r m e d i a t e g r a m m a t i c a l systems
is found in the formal linguistic devices a language
uses to e x p r e s s a g i v e n content. D i f f e r e n t formal structures in the target language lead to d i f f e r e n t d e v e l o p mental sequences; s i m i l a r formal structures result in
similar d e v e l o p m e n t a l sequences.
It should be e m p h a s i z e d that the u n g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s
w h i c h occur in the c o u r s e of d e v e l o p m e n t are not errors in
the usual sense of the word. They are not a c c i d e n t a l phenomena indicating i n s u f f i c i e n t k n o w l e d g e of a rule, but
they represent a d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y n e c e s s a r y step towards
the a c h i e v e m e n t of a d u l t competence. The learner cannot do
w i t h o u t them.

67

A s y s t e m a t i c c o m p a r i s o n of first l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n and
n a t u r a l i s t i c s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n s h o w e d that L2
l e a r n e r s by a n d l a r g e f o l l o w the same or s i m i l a r b a s i c
p r i n c i p l e s as L1 l e a r n e r s (Felix 1978; W o d e 1976a). T h i s
is n o t to say t h a t L1 and n a t u r a l i s t i c L2 a c q u i s i t i o n are
t o t a l l y i d e n t i c a l p r o c e s s e s . In fact, t h e r e are m a n y significant differences
(Felix 1977a). H o w e v e r , b o t h L1 and
L2 a c q u i s i t i o n are s u b j e c t to o r d e r e d d e v e l o p m e n t a l seq u e n c e s . L2 l e a r n e r s - just as L1 l e a r n e r s - d e c o m p o s e
t a r g e t s t r u c t u r e s a n d r e - i n t e g r a t e t h e m by p a s s i n g t h r o u g h
various intermediate grammatical systems. Certain basic
d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t a g e s and the s t r u c t u r e s that c h a r a c t e r i z e
t h e m are, in fact, the s a m e in first a n d s e c o n d l a n g u a g e
acquisition.
The p a r a l l e l s
t h a t a p p e a r in the w a y c h i l d r e n a c q u i r e a
f i r s t and a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a g a i n s u p p o r t the a s s u m p t i o n
that the p r o c e s s of l e a r n i n g a l a n g u a g e is not m e r e l y a
f u n c t i o n of e x t e r n a l and c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s . R a t h e r ,
t h e r e m u s t be c e r t a i n g e n e r a l a n d u n i v e r s a l p r i n c i p l e s
of l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n w h i c h a c c o u n t for the s t r i k i n g
p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n L1 and L2 l e a r n i n g d e s p i t e the e x t r e m e l y
divergent conditions under which a first and a second
language are most frequently learnt.
If t h e r e is i n d i c a t i o n t h a t l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g , in g e n e r a l ,
f o l l o w s c e r t a i n u n i v e r s a l p r i n c i p l e s , an a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t
for t h i s h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d be to see h o w t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s
o p e r a t e - if at all - w h e n a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e is l e a r n t in
a c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n u n d e r f o r m a l i n s t r u c t i o n . It has
frequently been claimed that naturalistic language acquisi
t i o n - in p a r t i c u l a r L1 a c q u i s i t i o n - a n d f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e
t e a c h i n g are two t o t a l l y u n c o m p a r a b l e p r o c e s s e s d u e to
their extremely different situational settings. Not only
do L1 l e a r n e r s d i f f e r from L2 s t u d e n t s in t e r m s of age,
m o t i v a t i o n , c o g n i t i v e m a t u r i t y etc., b u t a l s o the c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the fact t h a t the
l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s is g u i d e d and c o n t r o l l e d by the t e a c h e r ,
w h i l e the L1 l e a r n e r has to c o n s t r u c t the g r a m m a r of the
t a r g e t l a n g u a g e on h i s o w n w i t h o u t the h e l p of f o r m a l
instruction.
F o r a p e r i o d of 8 m o n t h s a c l a s s of 34 G e r m a n h i g h s c h o o l
s t u d e n t s (10 a n d ii y e a r s old) w a s o b s e r v e d d a i l y . T h e s e
s t u d e n t s w e r e t a u g h t E n g l i s h 5 t i m e s a w e e k , * e a c h t i m e for
a p e r i o d of 45 m i n u t e s . All s e s s i o n s w e r e r e c o r d e d on
t a p e w i t h t h r e e o b s e r v e r s in the b a c k of the c l a s s r o o m
t a k i n g n o t e s on the s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t and the s t u d e n t s '
b e h a v i o r (see F e l i x 1977b).
An a n a l y s i s of the s t u d e n t s ' u t t e r a n c e s s h o w e d t h a t a subs t a n t i a l n u m b e r of g r a m m a t i c a l e r r o r s h a d the s a m e s t r u c tural p r o p e r t i e s as t h o s e u t t e r a n c e t y p e s w h i c h in L1 and
n a t u r a l i s t i c L2 a c q u i s i t i o n m a r k c e r t a i n d e v e l o p m e n t a l

68

stages, i.e. i n t e r m e d i a t e g r a m m a t i c a l systems. In fact,

m o s t of the structures typical of the early stages in
n a t u r a l i s t i c L2 a c q u i s i t i o n were also found in the early
p r o d u c t i o n s of the high school students. This evidence
lends support to the a s s u m p t i o n that also u n d e r formal
i n s t r u c t i o n a learner will p r o c e s s - at least in part the linguistic data he is e x p o s e d to a c c o r d i n g to the
same or similar p r i n c i p l e s that g o v e r n language acquisition w i t h o u t formal instruction.
If, however, the process of learning a foreign language
in a c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n follows general r e g u l a r i t i e s
w h i c h are not d e p e n d e n t on e x t e r n a l factors, but w h i c h
c o n s t i t u t e universal p r o p e r t i e s of human language acquisition, then these r e g u l a r i t i e s and p r i n c i p l e s have to be
taken into c o n s i d e r a t i o n when foreign language courses,
programs,
textbooks, etc. are planned. Apparently, formal
i n s t r u c t i o n cannot m a n i p u l a t e or control the learning
process arbitrarily, but o n l y w i t h i n the r e l a t i v e l y n a r r o w
limits set by the p r i n c i p l e s of human language acquisition.
Not e v e r y t h i n g can be taught at any given time. Rather,
the way in w h i c h the h u m a n m i n d p r o c e s s e s u n k n o w n linguistic data is, to a large extent, p r e d e t e r m i n e d . It w o u l d
be r e a s o n a b l e to m a k e use of the m e c h a n i s m s of human language a c q u i s i t i o n in the c o n t e x t of foreign language
teaching. At least t e a c h i n g m e t h o d s and techniques of
p r e s e n t i n g foreign language m a t e r i a l should not counteract
those m e c h a n i s m s . In this sense it is c l e a r l y insufficient
to simply p r e s e n t l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s and to have students
practice these structures. I have shown e l s e w h e r e (Felix
1977b) that students learn c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r e s w i t h practically no t r a i n i n g at all, w h i l e o t h e r structures are consistently a v o i d e d or m i s r e p r o d u c e d in spite of very intensive training. The s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h students tended to
a v o i d or to m i s r e p r o d u c e w e r e those that in n a t u r a l i s t i c
L2 a c q u i s i t i o n are m a s t e r e d c o m p a r a t i v e l y late. This seems
to indicate that p r a c t i c e a l o n e is not the c r u c i a l factor
w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r or not a g i v e n s t r u c t u r e will be
learnt successfully. Rather, the student has to have reached
a certain d e v e l o p m e n t a l stage or standard b e f o r e a given
structure can r e a s o n a b l y be taught.
In this c o n t e x t the n o t i o n of 'error' needs to be reconsidered. In n a t u r a l i s t i c language a c q u i s i t i o n structures
w h i c h in terms of the target language are u n g r a m m a t i c a l may
have an important d e v e l o p m e n t a l function. T h e y are not
accidental, but r e p r e s e n t a regular and n e c e s s a r y developmental step towards the final goal: adult competence. In
foreign language teaching, however, errors are c o n s i d e r e d
to be an i n d i c a t i o n of imperfect teaching and imperfect
learning. T e a c h e r s a t t e m p t to have students produce only
fully g r a m m a t i c a l utterances. Errors are c o r r e c t e d as soon
as they occur. If, however, errors serve a crucial developmental function in n a t u r a l i s t i c language acquisition, and

69

if g r a m m a t i c a l errors that o c c u r under formal instruction

show structural properties similar to those that mark dev e l o p m e n t a l stages in n a t u r a l i s t i c language acquisition,
then we should e x a m i n e w h e t h e r or not c e r t a i n types of
errors are d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y n e c e s s a r y in foreign language
teaching as well. This does not m e a n that e r r o r s should
never be c o r r e c t e d or that e v e r y type of e r r o r be tolerated. Considering, however, the e n o r m o u s - and a f t e r all
futile - e f f o r t s that students have to m a k e in o r d e r to
p r o d u c e only fully g r a m m a t i c a l sentences, it m i g h t be
l e g i t i m a t e to ask w h e t h e r o r not these e f f o r t s should
rather be d i r e c t e d towards a m o r e r e a s o n a b l e goal.
W h i l e practice alone a p p a r e n t l y does n o t g u a r a n t e e creative m a s t e r y (Felix 1977d) of a g i v e n structure, it is
c l e a r that a foreign language can o n l y be a c q u i r e d if the
l e a r n e r is s u f f i c i e n t l y e x p o s e d to the language. Exposure,
here, should not be u n d e r s t o o d as m e r e l i s t e n i n g or
listening-comprehenslon;
rather the s t u d e n t m u s t consistently be g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y to a c t i v e l y handle the
new language, i.e. to a c t i v e l y use it in c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
This active use is d i f f i c u l t to a c h i e v e in the o r d i n a r y
c l a s s r o o m situation where the teacher can c o n c e n t r a t e on
an individual student o n l y for a fraction o f the entire
class period. C o n s e q u e n t l y the student will o n l y rarely
and i r r e g u l a r l y p a r t i c i p a t e in L2 c o m m u n i c a t i o n ; most of
the time his p a r t i c i p a t i o n will be limited to m e r e receptiveness.
In this dilemma, technical equipment, in p a r t i c u l a r the
language laboratory, could be a s s i g n e d a n e w function.
Traditionally, the language l a b o r a t o r y was used to provide s t r u c t u r e d stimuli that were m e a n t to g u i d e and
c o n t r o l the student's a t t e m p t s to p r a c t i c e a g i v e n ling u i s t i c pattern. T h e r e is some e v i d e n c e (Jung 1977) that
p r a c t i c i n g w i t h the language l a b o r a t o r y is not signific a n t l y m o r e e f f e c t i v e than p r a c t i c i n g w i t h o u t the language
laboratory. In the light of our findings on the relationship b e t w e e n n a t u r a l i s t i c language a c q u i s i t i o n and foreign
language teaching this is not surprising. P r a c t i s i n g in
the sense of traditional e x e r c i s e s of r e p e t i t i o n and pattern d r i l l is not crucial for learning success. What the
language l a b o r a t o r y can do, however, is to p r o v i d e a high
d e g r e e of linguistic exposure for each individual student.
S u i t a b l e p r o g r a m s m a y be a b l e to p r o v i d e a c o m m u n i c a t i v e
framework w i t h i n w h i c h each student can a c t i v e l y handle
the l a n g u a g e during the e n t i r e class period. In this sense
the language laboratory w o u l d not be used as a pattern
drill instrument, but as a source of L2 communication.
Department
University

of E n g l i s h
of Kiel

70
REFERENCES
Bailey, N. & Madden, C. & Krashen, S., 1974. Is there a
'natural sequence' in adult second language
learning? Language Learning 24, 235-243.
Butzkamm, W., 1976. Grammatlk bilingual. Fragment einer
Theorie des Grammatikerwerbs. In: Rall, D. et al.
(eds.), Didaktik der Fachsprache. Bonn, 83-95.
Chastain,

J., 1976. Developing second language skills:

to practice. Chicago.

theory

Dulay, H. & Burr, M., 1974. A new perspective On the creative construction process. Language Learning 24,
253-278.
Felix,

S., 1976. Wh-pronouns in first and second language

acquisition. Linguistische Berichte 44, 52-64.

Felix, S., 1977a. Some differences between first and second

language acquisition. To appear in: Snow, C. &
Waterson, N. (eds.) The development of communication. London.
Felix,

S., 1977b. Entwicklungsprozesse im natUrlichen und

gesteuerten Zweitsprachenerwerb. Anglistik und
Englischunterricht i, 39-60.

Felix,

S., 1977c. NatUrlicher

Zweitsprachenerwerb und
Fremdsprachenunterrlcht.
Linguistik und Didaktik
31, 231-248.

Felix, S., 1977d. Kreative und reproduktive Kompetenz Im

Zweitsprachenerwerb. In: Hunfeld, H. (ed.) Neue
Perspektiven der Fremdsprachendldaktik. Kronberg,
25-34.
Felix,

S., 1978. Linguistische Untersuchungen zum natUrlichen Zweitsprachenerwerb. MUnchen.

Jung, U., 1977. Kein Ausweg aus der Krise? Die Sprachlaborarbeit im Lichte neuerer linguistischer und
mediendldaktischer Erkenntnisse. In: Hunfeld, H.
(ed.) Neue Perspektiven der Fremdsprachendidaktik.
Kronberg, 185-198.
Schumann,

J., 1975. Second language acquisition: the pidginization hypothesis. Dissertation Harvard.

Solmecke,

G., 1976. Motivation

Paderborn.

im Fremdsprachenunterricht.

71
Wienold,
Wode,

H.,

G.,

1973. Die E r l e r n b a r k e i t

der S~rachen.

Miinch~n.

1976a. D e v e l o p m e n t a l sequences in n a t u r a l i s t i c
L2 acquisition. Working Papers on B i l i n g u a l i s m
1-31. Toronto.

11,

Wode,

H.,

1976b. Some stages in the acquisition of questions

by monolingual children. In: Raffler-Engel, W. (ed.)
Child Language 1975, Word 27, 26U-310.

Wode,

H.,

1977a. Four early stages in the d e v e l o p m e n t of L|

negation. Journal of Child Language 4, 87-102.

Wode,

H.,

1977b. The L2 a c q u i s i t i o n of /r/. Phonetica

200-217.

34,