American Academy of Political and Social Science

7KHRUHWLFDO/LQJXLVWLFV6HFRQG/DQJXDJH$FTXLVLWLRQDQG/DQJXDJH3HGDJRJ\
$XWKRUV)UDQN+HQ\
6RXUFH$QQDOVRIWKH$PHULFDQ$FDGHP\RI3ROLWLFDODQG6RFLDO6FLHQFH9RO)RUHLJQ
/DQJXDJH,QVWUXFWLRQ$1DWLRQDO$JHQGD0DUSS
3XEOLVKHGE\Sage Publications, Inc.LQDVVRFLDWLRQZLWKWKHAmerican Academy of Political and Social
Science
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/1045245
$FFHVVHG

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org
 ANNALS, AAPSS, 490, March 1987

TheoreticalLinguistics,Second Language
Acquisition,and LanguagePedagogy
By FRANK HENY

ABSTRACT: For three decades theoretical linguistics has had little

impact on language teaching, although sociolinguistics has been employed
in curriculum design and test construction. Applied linguistics has been
eclectic and has seldom applied pure linguistic research. Theoretical
linguists, for their part, have not encouraged attempts to apply their
results. Theory and practice were separated largely because the theoretical
results were so tentative. However, recent theoretical advances suggest
important applications for linguistic theory in foreign language teaching
and in the testing of proficiency. The acquisition of a nonnative language is
probably subject to biological constraints that are closely related to those
factors that guide and control first language acquisition. Methodology and
test construction must allow for this. Research must determine precisely
what the factors are and how they interact. Theoretical linguists interested
in such research should be included in interdisciplinaryteams working on
foreign language learning and testing.

Frank Heny was born in Zimbabwe. He obtained a Ph.D. in 1970from the University of
California at Los Angeles. He was professor of linguistics and philosophy at Groningen
University, The Netherlands,from 1975 until he resigned in 1983 to develop undergraduate
linguistics in the United States. He has since held visiting appointments at the Universitiesof
Vermontand Minnesota, Carleton College, and the State Universityof New Yorkat Albany.
He founded and coedits the journal Natural Languageand LinguisticTheory and a
companion monograph series.

194
THEORETICAL
LINGUISTICS
THEORETICAL linguistics offers
no panacea to language peda-
gogues.In fact, atthe presenttimeit still
has few, if any,concreteresultsthat can
beeffectivelyappliedin secondlanguage
teaching;and no contemporarylinguist
wouldoffera recipeforlanguageteachers
in the waythat the linguistsof a genera-
tion ago developedandfor a timeexclu-
sivelydefendedtheaudiolingualmethod.
Nevertheless,for the first time in three
decades, significantnumbersof theo-
reticallinguistsare seriouslyinterested
intheprocessof secondlanguageacquisi-
tion. Their researchhas taken a turn
that permits-and indeedforces-them
to undertake systematic comparative
workon languagestructure,andthereis
reasonto believethatcurrenttheoretical
researchon languagecould, if properly
encouraged,yieldinsightsof greatrele-
vance to curriculumdevelopment,test
design, and teaching. To investigate
and,if possible,to realizethis potential,
appropriateresearchmustforma signifi-
cant componentof any attemptto in-
creasenationallanguageproficiency.
Although"theoretical linguistics"can
be understood to comprehend any
pure-that is, non-applied-researchon
humanlanguage,I willgenerallyrestrict
the term "theoretical"to researchin-
tended to yield a rigorous, coherent
account of languagestructure,in par-
ticular an explanation of the funda-
mentalprinciplesunderlyingthe organi-
zation of humanlanguage.To date, the
most promisingwork of this sort seeks
to derivethoseorganizationalprinciples
directlyfrom evolved,and thus innate,
characteristicsof the human species.
More specifically, the organizational
principlesarederivedfromthoseproper-
ties of the species that lead to, and
control, the developmentof language
195
duringearlychildhood.Suchanapproach
to the study of languageis allied more
closely to the naturalsciences,in par-
ticular to theoreticalwork in biology
and evolutionarytheory, than to the
socialsciences.Thereareotherkindsof
linguisticsthat are theoreticalin other
senses,suchas sociolinguistics,whichis
theoreticalin roughlythe samewaythat
othersocialsciencesare,butI willnot in
generalbe referringto suchworkwhenI
use the term"theoreticallinguistics."
I wishto narrowthe focusin thisway
becauseit nowseemslikelythatresearch
of the sortjust alludedto could,overthe
relativelyshortterm,yieldinsightsthat
would contribute significantlyto the
learningandteachingof nonnativelan-
guages.Otherpureresearchon human
language-on language use, for ex-
ample-is also obviously relevant to
language pedagogy; this relevance is
more generallytaken for grantedand
needslessemphasis.Moreover,theredo
not appearto have been any very dra-
matic developmentsin such areasthat
might warrantspecial attentionat the
presenttime. Thus my focus will be on
recentattemptsby theoreticiansto map
outthestructureof thementalstructures
that guide earlylanguagedevelopment
in normal members of the human
species.
It mightseemthat if therehavebeen
significantrecentdevelopmentsin theo-
reticallinguistics,thesecould simplybe
appliedto pedagogyandtesting.Thisis
not so. Thetheoreticalresultsaresugges-
tive,buta gooddealof researchremains
to be done to bridgethe gap between
those resultsandthe practicalproblems
of learninga nonnativelanguage.What
is neededis practical,empiricallytested
investigationdone by theoreticallyso-
phisticatedresearchteamsworkingwith
 196 THE ANNALSOF THE AMERICANACADEMY

second languagelearners.Such teams on languagestructuredid not appearto

will consist of theoreticians,"applied" be yieldingresultsof any practicalim-
linguists,and pedagogues.' portance.But,asI havealreadyimplied,
thesituationnowappearsto bechanging
LINGUISTICSAND LANGUAGE veryrapidly.
TEACHING:PAST AND PRESENT

Linguisticsis a youngdiscipline.The Threedecadesof appliedlinguistics

Linguistic Society of America was
founded in 1924, and the field only Linguistsengaged in pure research
have generally had little professional
reallybeganto developa distinctidentity interestin applyingtheirresultsto prac-
in this countryin the thirties.Fromthe
tical problems.This situation will by
verystart,it hasseemednatural,especially andlargepersist:thetheoreticalphysicist
to nonlinguists,thatinsightsgainedfrom
is not professionallyinvolved in the
research on language should be ap-
developmentof warheadsor the uses of
plicable, above all, to the teaching of nuclearpower.Thereexists a field that
languages,nativeand nonnative.Yet it
has seldomprovedpossibleto applythe might seem to bridgethe gap between
results of such research to language purelinguisticresearchandits practical
utility:appliedlinguistics."Appliedlin-
teaching,andoverthe pasttwentyyears
much skepticism has developed re- however,is a peculiarly
guistics," inappro-
gardingthe possibilityof everdoing so. priateterm. It is not primarilyengaged
in the applicationof linguisticresearch
In particular,it has been increasingly
topracticalproblems and,indeed,through-
taken for granted by many of those
out most of its historyhashadfarcloser
involvedin languageteachingthat pure
links with pedagogy, communication
researchon language structureis too
abstract or formal ever to have any studies,and aspectsof psychologyand
sociologythanwithlinguistics.Moreover,
practical implications. Only research it has been concernedwith only a very
into language use-pragmatics, dis-
limitedrangeof problems,mostlyhaving
course analysis, sociolinguistics, and
to do with languageteaching and in
languageprocessing-mightconceivably
be applied to practicalproblems.For particularwith the teachingof English.
much of the recentpast such an assess- There are many practicalproblemsto
mentwasnotunreasonable. whichlinguisticresearchmightbe rele-
Pureresearch
vantthat,to date,havesimplynot fallen
1. Theseteamswillalsoinclude,whereappro- underits domain.
priate,sociolinguistsandpsychologists.Linguists Preciselywhenappliedlinguisticsbe-
primarilyinterestedin experimentalwork on gan to be recognizedas a distinctfieldis
acquisition,or speechprocessing,ratherthan in rather unclear. In this country the
theinvestigationof thelanguagesystemsareoften
called psycholinguists.If the field of theoretical founding of the Center for Applied
linguisticsis identifiedin the way that I have Linguistics(CAL) in 1959 markedits
suggested,it is not clear that there is any real effectivebirth.Language teaching-more
justificationfor makinga sharpdistinctionalong specificallythe teachingof Englishas a
suchlines,sincealltheoreticallinguistsarepsycho-
linguistsin thattheyhaveno goal otherthanthat
foreignor secondlangauge-has always
of understandingthe innateprinciplesof mental beenat the heartof CAL'sconcerns,and
organizationthat resultin the observedstructure in othercountries,suchas GreatBritain,
of language. appliedlinguisticswas alreadymoreor
THEORETICALLINGUISTICS
less identifiedbythattimewithresearch
in the teachingof Englishas a foreignor
secondlanguage.Thusappliedlinguists
have alwaysbeen primarilyengagedin
research related directly to language
pedagogy, especially the teaching of
Englishto nonnativespeakers.
For most of the period since the
emergenceof the discipline,appliedlin-
guistshave,verypragmatically,adopted
techniquesandideasfrommanysources
to solve their problems,and they have
often had relativelylittle exposure to
pure linguistics.Becausethe resultsof
linguistic research,especiallyresearch
on languagestructure,havehadlittleto
sayaboutlanguageteaching,suchadop-
tion was perfectlynatural.However,it
meansthat,contraryto whatis probably
a naturalassumption,the appliedlin-
guistis notnecessarilyatallwellequipped
to interpret and apply the results of
theoreticallinguistics.
Thiswasnot alwaysso. For a while-
until shortlyafterthe foundingof CAL,
in fact-there seemedto be some hope
of applyinglinguisticsto the problems
of languageteaching-and perhapsto
other areas, too. During the fifties,
whichsaw the first movestowardinsti-
tutionalizingthe field in this country,
the most plausibleaccount of human
languagelent itselfvery readilyto such
application. Linguists were confident
thattheyhadthekeyto humanlanguage:
it wasa pairingof hierarchically
arranged
units of sound together with accom-
panying patterns of behavior. Every
part of language was ultimatelycon-
structed out of elements that were
directly present in the sound signal.
Language learning involved no more
than a seriesof behavioralresponsesto
auditorystimuli.Languagein use was a
complexof habitpatternslinkedto the
hierarchicalsoundstructures:theproduc-
197
tion habits-speech-which produced
the sounds, and the habitualmodifica-
tions in behavior that those sounds
inducedin the hearer.This thoroughly
behavioristandpositivisticaccount,de-
riving in large part from the work of
LeonardBloomfield,had clearimplica-
tions for the languagepedagogue.
If languagewereno morethanhierar-
chically structuredpatterns of sound
linkedto varioushabit patterns,and if
learninglanguageinvolvedmakingulti-
mately simple responsesto ultimately
simplestimuli,thenit shouldhavebeen
a simplematterto increasetheeffective-
ness of languagelearning.At least two
things seemed necessary:an accurate
descriptionof the hierarchicalstructure
of the languageto be learned,and a set
of drills based directlyon this analysis
anddesignedto functionas stimulithat
would elicit appropriateresponsesand
henceinculcatethe desiredhabitsin the
learner.Pure linguisticresearchwould
supplythe analyses,in additionto justi-
fyingtheendeavorin the waythatI have
sketched,andtheappliedlinguistwould
use these to develop drills. Also, since
thehabitsof the originallanguagemight
interfere withthatto beacquired,contras-
tive analysesof languageswouldhelpto
highlight and solve problems arising
when the original habit patterns in-
terferedwith the acquisitionof a new
set.
Therewas no questionin those early
days but that the field was applied
linguistics;it involvedthe applicationof
researchon languagestructureto the
practicalproblemsof teachingnonnative
languages.Thepureresearchin question
was not theoreticalin the narrowsense,
for the linguists of the fifties did not
concernthemselveswithtryingto account
for why languagepatternsare as they
are.Theysimplydescribedpatterns;the
198 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
patternsresultedfromhabits-or, better
still,werethemselveshabits.Thetaskof
the appliedlinguistwas simplyto work
out the best way of developingthose
habits.
Manypeoplewhoareneitherlinguists
norinvolvedin languageteachingknow
how this supposedlyscientificapproach
to languageteaching,afterits apparent
successesduring World War II, when
many linguistsbecameinvolvedin de-
vising crash language courses for the
armedforces,beganto come underfire.
The failureof the audiolingualmethod
and the realizationthat thereis a great
deal more to the effective teaching of
nonnativelanguagesthan the mechani-
caldevelopmentof habitpatternsmirror-
ing the formal,grammaticalproperties
of the target language led to a rapid
changein approachanda loss of faithin
the relevanceof linguistics.2Of course,
by the latesixtiesandearlyseventies,the
positivisticview of science and the be-
havioristicpsychologyupon which de-
scriptive,or structuralist,linguisticswas
based were far less firmly entrenched.
Butno accountof languagewasavailable
at thattimethatcouldreplacetheearlier
onethathadprovidedtheinitialfounda-
tions for appliedlinguistics,or for the
audiolingualmethodwith whichit was
so closelyassociatedin theearlyyears.It
was quite clear that languagewas not
simplya passivelyacquiredset of habits
built arounda hierarchicallystructured
sound system.Theoreticallinguists,at
least,wereconvincedthat languagewas
far more complex than this and that
aspects of the system were ultimately
determinedbyevolved,innateproperties
of the humanspecies.But neitherthey
2. See, for example, Wilga Rivers, The
Psychologist and the Foreign-Language Teacher
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).
Rivers was, in fact, ahead of her time.
noranyoneelsewasableto translatethis
intotermsthathadanyclearimplication
for theteachingof nonnativelanguages.
It was duringthisperiodthat applied
linguistics became quite eclectic. The
teachingand evaluationof Englishas a
second or foreignlanguage-or of any
nonnativelanguage-have beenaffected
not by contemporaryresearchon lan-
guage structure,but mainly by work
directedto the use of language:prag-
matics-including the work of philos-
ophers and linguistson speech acts-
discourse analysis, psychology, com-
munication,and sociology-especially
aspectsof sociolinguistics.Fromtimeto
time, this teachingand evaluationhave
attempted to construct independent
approaches to problems of language
teachingand acquisition,as in the work
of Selinker on interlanguage.3Most
recently,someattemptshavebeenmade
to useideasaboutmeaningdevelopedin
the context of artificialintelligence.
Concepts that have influencedlan-
guage pedagogy and testing, a good
examplebeing"communicative compe-
tence," have sometimesresultedfrom
attemptsby sociolinguistsandothersto
extend ideas originatingwithin theo-
retical linguisticsto cover aspects of
languageuse. Theyhavenot themselves
beena partof anyrigorouslytheoretical
attemptto isolateandexplainthefunda-
mental characteristicsof language it-
self-those thatarenarrowlydetermined
by propertiesof the species.4Thusthere
3. Larry Selinker, "Interlanguage," Inter-
national Review of Applied Linguistics, 10:209-31
(1972).
4. Since the notion of"communicativecompe-
tence" has played such an important role at times
in applied linguistics, it may be worth emphasizing
that Hymes himself consciously used the word
"theoretical"in his paper introducing the notion-
but he carefully pointed out how he intended this
to be taken: "This paper is theoretical. One
 THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
has beenno singlesourceof insight,and
therehas beenmuchconflictingadvice;
teachingmethodsand evaluationhave
been based hardly at all upon solid
knowledge about language but upon
ideas drawn from many disparate
sources.
Theoreticallinguisticsin the
sixties and seventies
Two years before the founding of
CAL, Chomsky'sSyntacticStructures
was published.5This work, and the
unpublishedmaterialfromwhichit was
extracted,laid the foundationsfor the
developmentof thetheoreticallinguistics
of the sixties and seventies.The really
importantchangethatChomskyeffected
in linguistics was to provide a new
goal-and anincreasinglyspecificappa-
ratusfor realizingthatgoal. I referredin
the introductionto both: the goal is to
provide a completely rigorous expla-
nationfor an everincreasingsubpartof
the structureof human language;the
methodwas, in broadterms,to develop
hypotheses aboutinnateprinciples govern-
ing languageacquisition,which would
be so constructedas to determinethe
relevantaspectsof structure.
Although the goal was reasonably
well articulatedfromthe start,the ana-
lytical apparatusthat was initiallypro-
posed, transformational grammar,
turned out to be quite inappropriate,
connotationof 'theoretical'is 'programmatic';
a
relatedconnotationis that one knows too little
about the subject to say something practical. Both
connotations apply to this." Dell H. Hymes, "On
Communicative Competence,"in Sociolinguistics,
ed. J. B. Pride and Janet Holmes (London:
Penguin Books, 1972), p. 269. Later in the same
piece, Hymesexplicitlycontrastshis work with
theoreticallinguisticsin somethinglike my sense.
5. Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures(The
Hague: Mouton, 1957).
199
thoughit laid the foundationsfor what
hasfollowed.Analysisin termsof gram-
maticaltransformations was reallyonly
well suited to the descriptionof En-
glish-the languageon whichChomsky
workedin developingit-as manyfield
linguistscomplainedbitterly,rightfrom
the start. Hence there was in principle
no wayin whichtransformational analy-
sis could yield any insight into the
fundamentalstructuralrelationshipsbe-
tweenlanguages.Forexample,although
a long tradition of philological and
linguisticwork on languagehas made
moreor lessvaguereferenceto "passive"
sentencesin manylanguages,therewas
no way within transformationalgram-
mar of determiningsystematicallyfor
any language whether it included a
structurecomparablein significantways
to the Englishpassive-or to any other
structurein any language.
Obviouslysuchanaccountof language
couldyieldno scientificallybasedinsight
into the similaritiesor differencesbe-
tween the native and target languages,
let aloneilluminatetheprocessof second
languageacquisitionin general.It was,
moreover,unlikelythat an approachto
the structureof human languagethat
was so narrowlybasedon the structure
of just one languagewould provide a
useful frameworkfor the investigation
of the use or acquisitioneven of that
language,anditpredictably provedtotally
inadequateas a basis for attemptsto
isolateandexplainthegeneralproperties
of humanlanguage.
Becausethey werewell awareof how
very tentative their hypotheses were,
theoretical
linguistslikeChomskywarned
repeatedlyagainstattemptingto apply
their resultsto practicalproblems,and
they pointed out that although their
ultimategoal wasthat of understanding
the fundamentalnatureof languageand
 200
languagedevelopment,it was too early
to expect this work to yield practically
usefulresults.Theyfeltperfectlyjustified
in attemptingto come to gripswith the
difficultproblemstheywereattempting
to solve-for, despiteappearances,they
werenot simplyplayingabstractmathe-
matical games!-but knew that their
resultswerea longwayfromsolvingthe
reallydeepproblemsandwarnedagainst
overoptimism.A goodexampleof thisis
theoftenquoted-and generallymisinter-
preted-statementof Chomsky'sin 1966:
"I am, frankly, ratherskepticalabout
the significance, for the teaching of
languagesof such insights and under-
standing as have been attainedin lin-
guisticsandpsychology."6 In retrospect,
such caution was well justified. His-
torically,the principalcontributionof
transformational grammarto ourunder-
standing of languagewas that it per-
mittedthedevelopmentof moreeffective
tools for languageanalysis.
Twospecificaspectsoflinguistictheory
in the sixties and seventies made it
especiallyunsuitedto the functionthat
it was intendedto perform,namely,to
characterize thosepropertiesof language
thatresulteddirectlyfrominnatefeatures
of the human species. First, the core
analyticalunitsthatit employedturned
out to be seriouslydeficient;second,the
way in whichhumanlanguagedevelop-
ment was representedwas at best mis-
leading. These problems sound very
abstract, but their effects were con-
crete-and serious.
Languageswererepresented asinfinite
sets of sentences,somesentencesof each
language being structurallyrelated to
othersin ways that weresignificant.In
English, any active sentence, such as
6. Noam Chomsky,"LinguisticTheory,"in
Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar,
ed. MarkLester(NewYork:Holt, 1970;2nded.,
1973),pp. 51-60.
THE ANNALSOF THE AMERICANACADEMY
"Janehas seen Jim,"can be thoughtof
as having a passivecounterpart-"Jim
has beenseenby Jane"-and eachhas a
question counterpart:"Has Jane seen
Jim?"and"HasJimbeenseenbyJane?"
Structuralrelationshipsof thissort,and
the underlyingstructureson whichthey
werebased,yieldedthe basicstructures
oflanguageintransformational grammar.
Thisaccountof structuredifferedprinci-
pallyfrom the earlierview of the struc-
turalists in that transformationalre-
lations betweensentencespermitteda
more adequatedescriptionof language
thanwas possibleunderthe assumption
that the sound pattern of individual
sentencescontainedallthatwasrelevant
to their analysis and processing. But
transformationalanalysis offered no
possibleexplanationof aspectsof lan-
guagestructure.It was a deadend.This
can be seen most clearlyby considering
the accountof acquisitionbasedon it.
The child learningEnglishwas sup-
posed to constructa grammarfor the
language-a finiteset of rulescharacter-
izing or generatingthe infinite set of
sentencesthatcomposedit-making use
of suchelementsas the transformations
definingthe relationshipbetweenactive
and passivesentencesand betweende-
clarativeformsof these and theirques-
tioncounterparts. Theinnateknowledge
of languagethat a child bringsto bear
on the task of learninga languagecon-
sisted,on this account,principallyin the
expectationthat the languageto which
thechildwasexposedwouldbeoptimally
analyzablein termsof such units. This
representation of innatelinguisticability
should have depictedthe task of con-
structinga grammaras rathersimple-
thus explaininghow it is that languages
come to be learned so naturally by
children.Ofcourse,it wouldalsothereby
haveexplainedwhyallhumanlanguages
exhibit such relationships,as well as
THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
accountingfor the rapidityand ease of
languagelearning.Theconstructionof a
transformationalgrammarby a child,
however,wouldnot be a simplematter.
The most obvious problemwith the
modelwas that manylanguagesdid not
seem to exhibitstructuralrelationships
at allanalogousto thosefoundin English,
on the basis of which the theory had
been developed. The underlyingand
more serious failing was that even for
languagescloselyrelatedto Englishand
apparently extremely similar, it was
impossibleto determinewhethera given
transformationin one languagewas or
was not the same as one in another,
whether they were similar, or totally
unrelated.Comparisonof the passivein
German,French,and English,or even
in two dialectsof English,wasmeaning-
less. Linguistscould simply show how
variousconstructionscouldbe analyzed
in transformationalterms. But each
language,definedby itstransformations
and other rules, remainedan isolated,
unexplainedentity.
The theory was devised in order to
reducethe mysteryof initial language
learning,but it offeredremarkablylittle
in this respect and providedeven less
insight into the process of second lan-
guage learning. Whether or not the
resultsof researchon languagestructure
could ever be applied,it was certainly
unlikelythat the resultsof workin this
frameworkcould. Althoughtheoretical
linguistsrepeatedlypointedthis out, it
is not clearthatthey alwaysunderstood
the ultimate significance of having to
do so.
Research on language use: its
relevance and limitations
Quiteclearly,other linguistsdid not
understandthatsignificance.Manywith
201
sociolinguistic or practical interests
wouldhaveappliedto transformational
grammarwhatFishman,one of the first
serioussociolinguists,wroteabout pre-
transformational linguistics:"Linguistics,
particularlyAmericanlinguisticsduring
at leastthe firsthalf of this century,has
beenprimarily a'formaldiscipline,'almost
along the lines of abstractmathemat-
ics."7Fishmanhimself saw clearly, as
indicated by the approvalhe gave to
"mentalistic"linguistics in the para-
graphsafterthisquotation,thattransfor-
mationalgrammarwassonething other
than"abstractmathematics,"but many
others, professionallinguists and po-
tentialusers of linguisticresults,saw it
otherwise. FoxandSkolnick,forexample,
complainedthat "some contemporary
linguists, seeking to establish the in-
dependence and scientific validity of
theirdiscipline,haveisolatedit fromthe
worldof non-linguisticeventsand con-
centratedon abstractandformaltheories
about the natureand structureof lan-
guage."8It is clearfromthe contextthat
they were referringto contemporary
transformational linguistics.
The aim of the "abstractandformal"
theoriesof languagewas not simplyto
establish the scientific validity of the
field. At least that was neverthe aim of
transformational grammar,whichconsti-
tutedthe dominantformalapproachto
languageat the time Fox and Skolnick
wrote. The aim was preciselythat of
theoreticallinguisticsas I have charac-
terizedit: to discoverthose patternsin
language that can be attributed to the
innate humanpropensityto learn lan-
7. Joshua A. Fishman, "Introduction," in
Readingsin theSociologyof Language,ed.Joshua
A. Fishman (The Hague: Mouton, 1972), p. 6.
8. Melvin Fox and Betty Skolnick, Language
in Education (New York: Ford Foundation, 1975),
p. 6.
202
guage-and hence to learn more about
that property of the species. It is not
surprising that this ultimate goal was
lost sight of; a substantial number of
formal linguists of the period did little
more than pay lip service to it. Since the
availablemodel was incapableof yielding
insight into language development or of
permitting meaningful investigation of
what constituted the real core properties
of human languages-those that resulted
crucially from the mechanisms respon-
sible for their development in the
child-it might just as well, for all
practical purposes, have been "abstract
mathematics."
The development in linguistics that
has been most important to language
teachers up to now is the rise of sociolin-
guistics and the realization that language
is itself open to study as a social phenom-
enon. Sociolinguistics may be thought
of as a subfield of linguistics or, instead,
as Fishman has described it, as an
"interdisciplinarytool."9 It has included
a number of distinct, but related, strands
of research: Fishman's work on the
sociology of language and language
planning: Ferguson's on patterns of lan-
guage usage, grounded in the descrip-
tive linguistics of the fifties; the identi-
fication by Labov, G. Sankoff, and
others of precisely quantifiable covar-
iance between aspects of linguistic struc-
ture and the social context of utterances;
and attempts by Dell Hymes and others
to investigate communicative compe-
tence-that knowledgewhich,presumably
as a result of both innate and en-
vironmental factors, develops in human
beings, enabling them to function effec-
tively in society, in interaction with
9. Joshua A. Fishman, Sociolinguistics: A
BriefIntroduction (Rowley, MA: Newbury House,
1970), p. 6.
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
other members of the species.10 Such
researchhas provided a wealth of factual
material and insight that have affected
curricular developments and that have
helped to mold tests aimed at evaluating
the ability of language learners to com-
municate in the target language-the
ultimate goal of much contemporary
language learning.
Emphasis on the use of the learned
language has also very naturally led to
attempts" to combine those insights
yielded by sociolinguistics with ideas
derived from speech act theory and
discourse analysis.12
To the extent that we can increase
systematic knowledge about and insight
into language usage and precise relation-
ships between linguistic features and
features of the social organization and
dynamics of the societies in which lan-
guages function, this will obviously be
of potential significance in teaching, and
evaluating success in learning, a foreign
language. For the majority of learners,
success in learning a foreign language
obviously involves functioning in the
societies in which it is used. The signifi-
cance of researchon the social aspects of
language and its relations to other social
phenomena, however, must be seen in
proper perspective if this research is to
10. For useful references,see the bibliographies
in Ralph Fasold, The Sociolinguistics of Society
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984) and Ronald
Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986).
11. For example, Evelyn M. Hatch, Second
Language Acquisition (Rowley, MA: Newbury
House, 1978).
12. A good example of relevant pure research
is Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, "Univer-
sals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena,"
in Questions and Politeness, ed. Esther N. Goody
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978),
pp. 56-289. For other references, see Stephen
Levinson, Pragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983).
 THEORETICALLINGUISTICS 203

be appropriatelyusedfor practicalpur- proaches,appearto be awareof theneed

poses. Thereis now no doubt at all that for a moreadequatefoundation.
the firstlanguage-and, to a degreestill For example,the ideas of Krashen'5
far from adequatelydetermined,also havecreateda greatdeal of interestand
second and subsequentlanguages-de- havehadconsiderableinfluence.Taking
velop in accordancewith innately de- off fromthe observation,or at leastthe
terminedprinciples,just like physical claim, that errorsmade by secondlan-
organsorthecomplexbehaviorpatterns guagelearnersshowinterestingsimilari-
of other animals.Many aspectsof lan- ties to errorsmadeby childrenlearning
guagestructureresultfromtheparticular theirnativelanguage,he suggestedthat
mechanismsthat control languagede- undercertaincircumstances-thosethat
velopment,probablyin muchthe same are relevantly similar to the circum-
way that the structureof physicalbody stancesunderwhich a first languageis
parts is determinedby those genetic learned-there is no real differencebe-
factors that control physical develop- tweenthe processesof first and second
ment.Thereis nomorehopeof attributing languagelearning,no matterhowlatein
the entire structureof languageto the life the latteroccurs.Analogywith the
contextsin whichit is usedthanthereis developmentof nativelanguageskillsin
of attributingthe entirestructureof the infancyled Krashento suggest,further,
eye-the composition of the vitreous that secondlanguageacquisitionmight
humor, for example, or of the retinal be most successfulto the extent that it
artery-to the propertiesof light.'3 progressedwithoutconsciousreflection.
Sociolinguistics,
pragmatics,andother The underlyingimplication was that
ways of characterizingthe patternsof the innate language acquisition cap-
languageusagearenot likelyto provide abilities, which, since Lenneberg'sre-
a reliablebasis for practicalwork such search,'6had been assumedto atrophy
as language teaching, unless they are duringpuberty,might in principlestill
informedby the realizationthat a lan- be available.Krashenhasnot succeeded
guageis morethanjust its "usersandits in articulatinghis ideasin sucha way as
uses."'4Appliedlinguists,aftera period to permitfruitfulinvestigation
ordevelop-
in which they either looked to pure ment,andthoughtheyseemto relate,in
researchon languageuse for guidance a numberof ratherimpreciseways, to
or developed their own practical ap- contemporarywork in theoreticallin-
guistics,no clearlinks have been made
13. Some contemporary linguistshavenever- and little direct empiricalsupport has
theless apparentlytaken it for grantedthat all emergedfor his claims.
aspectsof linguisticstructurecanberatherdirectly Various other attempts have been
attributedto the functionsof language.See, for
madeto use researchon languagestruc-
example, Talmy Givon, On Understanding
Grammar(New York: AcademicPress, 1979); tureratherthanon languageuse.Several
WilliamA. Foley and RobertD. van Valin,Jr., have been based on the typologiessug-
Functional Syntax and UniversalGrammar(Cam-
bridge:UniversityPress, 1984);GillianSankoff 15. Particularlyas representedin StephenD.
and PenelopeBrown,"TheOriginsof Syntaxin Krashen,Second LanguageAcquisitionand Second
Discourse,"Language,52:632-66(1976). Language Learning (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981).
14. For a contraryview,see Fishman,"Intro- 16. Eric Lenneberg, Biological Foundations
duction,"p. 7. of Language(NewYork:John Wiley,1967).
204 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
gested by Greenberg,17 and others on
suchempirical,descriptiveworkas that
of Keenanand Comrie.'8Some applied
linguistshave attemptedto use aspects
of what has been called markedness
theory. It has been clear, at least since
RomanJakobson,thatcertainlinguistic
structuresarelesscommonintheworld's
languages;some structurestend not to
occurin a languageunlesscertainother,
more common structuresoccur; and
some structurestendto developlaterin
children. There is a tendency for all
threeof thesepropertiesto runtogether,
but no clear,generalaccountof whatis
at issue has yet been given. Duringthe
seventies,when it was unclearto many
theoreticallinguistshow to proceed,a
fair amount of taxonomic work on
markednesswas undertaken,and Eck-
man, among others,attemptedto show
how use of this work could predictthe
difficulties that speakers of a given
languagewouldhavein learningpartic-
ular structuresin another.19 The results
of this work arefar from clear;it is not
based on any solid theoreticalfounda-
tions, since the original investigations
into markednesswereveryinconclusive.
Recentdevelopments
in linguistictheory
In the late seventies,while applied
linguisticswassearchingeclectically,and principle to deal equally well with a
17. For example, as represented in Joseph
Greenberg,ed., Universalsof Language(Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1966).
18. Edward Keenan and Bernard Comrie,
"Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Gram-
mar," Linguistic Inquiry, 8:63-100 (1977).
19. For example, Fred R. Eckman, "Marked-
ness and Degree of Difficulty in Second Language
Learning," in Proceedings of the Fifth Congress,
International Association of Applied Linguists, withthe one basedon transformational
ed. J.-G. Savard and L. Laforge (Montreal:
University of Laval Press, 1981), pp. 115-26.
more or less in vain, for insights into
languagestructurethatmightberelevant
to pedagogy,theoreticallinguisticsunder-
went a quiet, but profound,revolution.
The basic elements of analysis were
radicallychanged,and on the basis of
this a totally new account of language
development and the principles that
control it beganto emerge.This theo-
reticalapproachis not static;in fact,the
detailsarechangingveryrapidly,in part
becauseit has stimulatedso muchnew
research.Dozensof languageshavebeen
investigatedoverthelasttenyears,most
within the last five, and the pace of
relevantresearchis still acceleratingas
more and more non-English-speaking
linguistsbecomeinvolved.All the major
Europeanlanguageshave been investi-
gated, includingthe Scandinavianlan-
guages, Yiddish, dialects of Dutch,
Spanish-includingSouthAmericandia-
lects-Portuguese, Rumanian, Irish,
Welsh,Breton,Finnish,andHungarian,
and so have languages as diverse as
Turkish, several dialects of Arabic,
Hebrew, Japanese, several dialects of
Chinese,Korean,Warlpiri,Navajo,Dog-
rib,Chamorro,Malayalam,Hindi,Ben-
gali, Persian,and a numberof African
languages,includingVataandChichewa.
A singledescriptiveapparatushas been
employed. Its use has permitted the
developmentof a theorythat is able in
greatnumberof superficially verydiverse
systems-and to relate them very pre-
ciselyto eachother,thusin effectbegin-
ning to extractthe essentialproperties
of humanlanguage.
The essence of the theory can be
understood bestbycontrasting theaccount
of language development thatit supports
grammar.I suggestedearlierthata child
facedwiththetaskof learninga language
THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS
by discovering,and hence learning,its
transformationalgrammarwould have
a hardtime:languagesdifferfromeach
otherin apparentlyarbitrarywayswhen
viewedfrom that perspective,and they
would have to be learnedpiecemeal-
essentiallyas the behavioriststhought.
Only the inventoryof basic structural
unitswouldbe availableto the childas a
help.If, on the otherhand,thevariation
betweenlanguagesresultsfromthefixing
of a small numberof ratherunobvious
parameters,which in interactionyield
all the possiblestructuralpropertiesof
humanlanguage,thenlanguagedevelop-
ment consists largely of setting those
parameters.Eachsettingwilldetermine,
ininteraction withtheothers,vastamounts
of apparentlyarbitraryvariation.Learn-
ing a first language is choosing from
the available alternatives those that
yield the best fit with the speechin the
environment.
Theavailableparameters are,ofcourse,
the same for everyinfant and are con-
strained,it is supposed,by somepartof
ourinheritance asmembersof thehuman
species.Each child simplyhas to learn
how they are set for the language or
languageshe orshehears.Thusthechild
does not learn the grammar of any
individuallanguage,butdiscoverswhich
valuesthatlanguageexhibitsfor eachof
the innatelyavailableparameters.The
principlesconstraining thatdevelopment
ultimatelyderive, if thispictureis correct,
from the humangenotype,just like the
principles that control the develop-
ment of the eye;20it is these principles
20. Interestingly, it does not seem to have been
Chomsky or any of his followers, but Thomas
Sebeock in a review in Language, 39:466 (1963),
who first clearly pointed out how reasonable it
would be for the genetic code to play a direct role
in determining the structure of linguistic codes.
205
that make up the innate knowledgeof
language.
The possibilitiesfor variationin lan-
guagesareveryhighlyconstrained-far
more so, it turnsout, than is suggested
by superficialobservation.Muchof the
observedvariationcannowveryplausibly,
and oftenquitespecifically,in detail,be
reducedto the interactionof a small
number of abstractparametersalong
which languages, or subparts of lan-
guagescan vary.
Obviously, the language facts that
haveto be analyzedbythenewapproach
includethosethatweresuccessfullydealt
with before.The effectof the changein
analyticalbasisis to includea far wider
rangeof facts. Above all, it providesa
way of analyzinghumanlanguagethat
is equallyappropriateto the analysisof
English,French,Chamorro,Japanese,
Navajo, Arabic-and accounts for a
numberof hiddendependenciesbetween
structures,foundin a widecrosssection
of theselanguagesoncethe appropriate
analyticaltools areemployed.Theessen-
tially English-baseddescriptiveappa-
ratus of the older model has entirely
disappeared, andmeaningful comparison
of languageshas becomepossibleand,
indeed, forms an essentialpart of lin-
guistic research. Language descrip-
tion-which, incidentally,is not less,
but more, detailedthan ever before-
now concentrateson thosefeaturesthat
appearto be subjectto parametricvaria-
tion, andit attemptsto discoverhowfar
it is possibleto derivethe superficially
unpredictablepropertiesof individual
languagesfromtheinteractionof settings
of universalparameters.2'
21. The approach to theoretical linguistics
that is discussed in this section is not yet well
served by literatureaccessible to the nonspecialist.
It was first developed in detail in Noam Chomsky,
Lectures on Governmentand Binding (Dordrecht:
 206
I will end this very brief account of
thetheorywitha programmaticaccount
of one smallpartof languagestructure.
Considerthe fact that some languages
optionally leave out the pronominal
subjectin a sentencelike"Hewillgo."If
this were an isolated fact about a lan-
guage it would warrantlittle attention,
and while it was assumedto be one, it
receivedverylittle.Butif the possibility
of omittingthe subjectis a consequence
of some unobviousinteractionbetween
severalindependentlinguisticfeatures,
then the droppingof that pronoun-
permittedby Italian,Chinese,andunder
some circumstancesmodern Hebrew
and Irish, but virtually not at all by
English,modernFrench,or German-
becomespartof a structuralnetworkof
potentiallyvastcomplexity,significance,
and interest.
Once the child discovers from the
speech around him or her that the
pronoun in the language in question
may be dropped,there will be a great
numberof automaticconsequences. Some
of those consequenceswill not need to
be learned, once the fact of pronoun
droppingis firmlyestablished;and in-
deed there is virtuallyconclusive evi-
dence that some could not in principle
be learnedfromtheavailabledataalone.
Notice how this account immediately
Foris, 1981). David Lightfoot, The Language
Lottery (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1982),
attemptsan argument,intendedfor the general
reader,for the geneticbasisfor certainlanguage
structures.
ThomasWasow,"Postscript,"in Lectures
on Contemporary Syntactic Theories, by Peter
Sells (Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of
Languageand Information,1986), provides a
good, brief summaryof recentdevelopmentsin
linguistictheory.SeealsoFrederickJ. Newmeyer,
Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Possibilities
(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1983),esp.
chap. 5, "The Applicability of Grammatical
Theory."
THE ANNALSOF THE AMERICANACADEMY
providesa basisfor explainingthe rela-
tivelyfixedpatternsof languagedevelop-
ment.If secondlanguagelearningshould
turnout to be ableto makeevenlimited
useof the apparatuswherebytheparam-
eters were initially set on the basis of
primarylanguagedata,then clearlyit is
of paramountimportanceto applied
linguistsand languageteachersto dis-
coverthisapparatus.Moreover,if certain
structuresarelinkedin waysthatcannot
bepredictedfromsuperficial observation,
as now seems beyond doubt to be the
case,thencurriculumdevelopmentand,
above all, evaluation cannot possibly
ignoresuchrelatedness.
Theoretical research on
language acquisition
This analysisof humanlanguagein
transformationalterms had little or
nothingto offerthoseinterestedinsecond
languagelearning,butit inspireda good
dealof empiricalworkon childlanguage
acquisitionduringthe sixties. At first,
this appearedto be quitepromisingand
suggestedstronglythatacquisitioncould
be profitably viewed in terms of the
additionof transformationsto a develop-
ing grammar,in the sense of grammar
then current. But this researchnever
yieldedinsightsto the extent originally
hopedfor, andjust as manylinguists-
in particular,appliedlinguists-turned,
during the seventies, to attempts to
analyzelanguageuse,so thoseconcerned
with acquisitionbegan to concentrate
theirattentiononchild-caretaker interac-
tions duringthis period,ratherthan on
the internal developmentalprocess.22
22. For example,see the articlescollectedin
CharlesA. FergusenandCatherineE. Snow,eds.,
Talkingto Children:
LanguageInputandAcquisi-
tion (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,
1977).
THEORETICALLINGUISTICS
Morerecently,it has becomeclearthat,
aswasoriginallypredictedon theoretical
grounds,relativelylittle insightinto the
natureof the acquisitionprocesscan be
gained when language acquisition is
viewed solely as a matter of social
interaction.Justas in the fieldof second
language acquisition,there has there-
fore been a renewed interest in the
explanatorypotential of a theoretical
approachto the innate factors deter-
miningstructure.
The developmentof a model of lan-
guage that encourages research on
parametricvariationbetweenlanguages
derivedfrom innatelimits to language
developmentprovidesa frameworkthat
specificallydemandsresearchon first
language acquisition.Such researchis
alreadyunderwayandhasyieldedsome
suggestive,if stillverytentative,results.
A large-scaleempiricalproject at the
Universityof California,Irvine,under
the leadershipof KennethWexlerand
includingboth psychologistsand theo-
reticallinguists,is investigatinglanguage
developmentin termsof parameterset-
ting,especiallyin relationto thedevelop-
ment of the pronounsystem of young
children,and throughthis researchit is
giving new content to the notion of
markedness.Other work on first lan-
guageacquisitionwithinthisframework
is beingundertakenat the Universityof
California at Los Angeles, the City
Universityof NewYorkGraduateCenter,
the University of Massachusetts at
Amherst,McGillUniversityin Montreal,
and many other centers both in the
UnitedStatedand abroad.
Ofmoredirectrelevanceto thepresent
articleis thefactthattherearesomevery
specific ways in which this language
model can drive research on second
languageacquisition.Suchresearchis in
its infancy,but it has begun-at Irvine,
207
among other places. One particularly
strikingaspect of the paradigmthat is
developing is that it encourages,and
providesa meaningfulframeworkfor,
the investigationof claims,like those of
Krashen, to the effect that there are
significantparallelsbetween first and
secondlanguageacquisition,and those
of Eckman regardingmarkedness.It
also providesa precisereinterpretation
of the notion of interference-the orig-
inally behavioristichypothesisthat led
to contrastivestudies-whichis theclaim
that the structureof the learner'sfirst
languageinterferesin specificwayswith
acquisitionof a second.
If the developmentof a firstlanguage
involvesthe settingof parameters,then
theleastmarkedsituationwillcorrespond
to the null settingof all parameters,and
it should be possibleto establishwhat
factorsare necessaryto inducechanges
in these basic neutral settings. Once
parameters areset,thenthisconstellation
of parametersettings constitutes the
position from which a learner of a
second languagesets out. Some ques-
tions that then arise are how far adult
languagelearningcan or should be a
matterof resettingparameters,how the
old settings may interfere, how far
conscious learning or pattern drilling
inducesor interfereswith the settingof
parameters. Nowthatspecificparametric
variationbetweenlanguagesis beginning
to be understood,these are real issues
withspecificcontent.Researchhasbegun
to springup in manycentersaddressing
such issues. Among the researchers and
centers most active are Rutherfordat
the Universityof SouthernCalifornia,
Flynn at the MassachusettsInstituteof
Technology,Bickertonat the University
of Hawaii,Whiteat McGillUniversity,
and Felix at the Universityof Passauin
West Germany.At the Universityof
 208
California,Los Angeles,Hyams,whose
initialworkwason firstlanguageacquisi-
tion,23hasbegunworkingwithgraduate
students from the applied linguistics
program, students of Schumann and
Hatch,andthis workmaywell leadto a
furtherblossomingof relevantresearch
there.
It might be worth citing a specific
example.Somepreliminaryworkat the
State Universityof New York, Stony
Brook, on the use of Englishreflexives
byKoreanspeakers,undertaken byFiner
andBroselow,24 suggeststhatat a certain
stage during the learning process, a
specificerrorpatterntendsto developin
linkinga reflexiveto its antecedent.The
errorsarenot simplyrandom;noris the
interlanguage a system based either
directly on Korean or directly on
English-or explainableon the basisof
simple conceptions of markedness.It
may turnout to be possibleto attribute
the errorpattern,at least in part,to the
influence of that same apparatusthat
leads to the development of a first
language-but is affected in specific
ways by existing settings in the first
language.It is hoped that this research
willprovideconcreteinformationabout
how parametersettingin adulthoodcan
proceed.
Whileit is obviouslytoo earlyto leap
fromtheseverytentativeresultsto con-
clusionsof any realimportance,confir-
mation of these results would clearly
havesignificantimplications forlanguage
pedagogyandtesting.Theworkof Felix
23. Nina Hyams, "The Acquisition of Param-
eterized Grammars"(Ph.D. diss., City University
of New York, Graduate Center, 1985).
24. Dan Finer and Ellen Broselow, "L2 Acqui-
sition of Reflexives," in NELS 16: Proceedings of
the 16th Annual Northeastern Linguistic Society
Meeting (Amherst: University of Massachusetts,
forthcoming).
THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
explores the implications of similar
findings.Suchresearchis significantnot
becauseit providesevidencethatparam-
eter setting is the framework within
whichfirstandsecondlanguagelearning
takes place-it is far too tentativefor
that!-but becauseit permitsa remark-
ably preciseformulationof hypotheses
about the differencesbetweenfirst and
secondlanguagelearningand aboutthe
innatelydeterminedcontrolsthat may
determineaspectsof the latter.25
Importantissuesconcerningfossiliza-
tion, the plateau effect, and language
attrition can clearly be conducted in
such a way as to make use of the
emergingknowledgeabouthiddenrelat-
ednessbetweenlanguagestructures,and
the possibleinfluenceof this upon sec-
ondlanguagedevelopment,butas faras
I knowsuchresearchhasyet to beginon
anysignificantscale.Somewhatrelated
work, not yet explicitlyguided by the
advancesin knowledgeabout language
structureto whichI have drawnatten-
tion, is beingundertaken-for example,
by MichaelLong and his associatesat
the Universityof Hawaii.
THE NATIONAL AGENDA
In the fifties, descriptive linguists
thoughtthey had all the answers.After
that, theoreticallinguists insisted that
they had none, but they neverexcluded
25. William Rutherford makes this point very
effectively in his "Grammatical Theory and L2
Acquisition: A Brief Overview,"in Proceedings of
the MIT Second Language Conference, ed. S.
Flynn (Dordrecht: Reidel, forthcoming). See also
Ellen Broselow, "Second Language Acquisition,"
in Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 4, ed.
F. Newmeyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, forthcoming). Both these papers contain
bibliographies that include the work on second
language acquisition in this framework, and both
discuss its potential relevance to the field.
 THEORETICALLINGUISTICS
the possibility that at a certain stage they
might have some. Notice in particular,
that when Chomsky said in 1966 that no
results up to that date seemed applicable
to second language teaching, he was
speaking at a time when, according to
the account I have given here, he was
absolutely correct. But Chomsky did
not say, and to my knowledge has never
implied, that useful insights would never
be available. In fact he went right on to
assert, after the passage I quoted earlier,
that he thought there would come a time
when they would become available. I do
not claim that that time is here, but I do
believe that there is good reason for
thinking it may be just around the
corner and that research is urgently
needed in order to determine how far
hidden relationships between aspects of
language structure do, in fact, play a
significant role in the process of second
language learning.
A significant change in the attitude of
theoreticallinguistshas now come about.
The most tangible sign is the recent
conference on theoretical linguistics and
second language acquisition at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
This is the first such occasion since the
Ann Arbor conference in the late fifties,
which led to the founding of CAL-and
in this case it was the theoreticians who
organized the conference. I, like a signifi-
cant numberof othertheoreticallinguists,
now believe that under the right circum-
stances we may be able to work out,
along with others involved in practical
problems, new, insightful ways of ap-
proaching those problems, using the
currently available ways of thinking
about language.
At the same time, I believe,a significant
number of applied linguists and perhaps
those directly involved in language
pedagogy-though I admit to having
209
less knowledge about that-are actively
searching for a more satisfactory theo-
retical foundation for their work. It has
become clear that they cannot rely only
on sociolinguistics and other ways of
approaching language solely from the
viewpoint of its use. To do so ignores the
fact that humans do not simply select an
arbitrary code and communicate. The
fundamental problem and challenge for
the language teacher is to bridge the gap
between the desire to communicate and
the specific structuresof language within
which we are forced, as members of the
human species, to conduct our business.
Our inescapable use of specific language
structures is why students have to be
taught not communication, but Chinese,
Japanese, Russian, or French.
From the point of view of evaluation,
the significance of this recent work may
be even greater than it is for curriculum
development and teaching methods. If
second language acquisition is in part
controlled by innate factors, then any
instrument must clearly distinguish be-
tween these factors and those that have a
social origin and may be subject to far
less strict determination from within the
organism. Above all, if there are hidden
dependenciesbetweenvirtuallyall aspects
of language structure,evaluation of pro-
ficiency based in part on structural
criteriamust allowproperlyfor dependen-
cies between aspects of the language that
aredeterminedby the underlyingparam-
eters. Clearly, language testing cannot
simply wait for the results of research-
any more than curriculum and methods
development can be abandoned until all
results are in-but the relevant research
must be undertaken as a matter of
urgency alongside the development of
evaluation, curricula, and methods.
Researchshouldobviouslybe expected
to continue in the areasmentioned briefly
210
in thesectionof thisarticleon theoretical
researchon languageacquisition.It is
importantnot to decreasein any way
existing links between sociolinguistics
or pragmaticsandthe nationallanguage
effort. Proficiencytestingand teaching
must be gearedto the preciseneeds of
society, and, clearly,languageis taught
in orderthatit maybe used.At the same
time, it seems increasinglylikely that
teachingandtestingthatfailto takeinto
THE ANNALSOF THE AMERICANACADEMY
accounttheeffectsof innatelydetermined
controlson languagedevelopmentis, at
best, of dubiousvalidityand, at worst,
useless. It is importantthat research
guided in part by theoreticallinguists
form a modest but crucialpart of any
nationallanguageeffort.Wereit not for
the unfortunatemisunderstandings and
rivalriesof the past thirty years, that
would go without saying, since it is in
principlescarcelyopen to question.