Pedagogical Rules and their Relationship to …...rules, guided by UG and relatively independent of...

Applied Linguistics 282 286ndash308 Oxford University Press 2007

doi101093applinamm015 Advance Access Published on 7 June 2007

Pedagogical Rules and theirRelationship to Frequency in theInput Observational and EmpiricalData from L2 French

BRUCE ANDERSON

University of California Davis

Corpus-based research has shown that the frequency of use of particular

grammatical structures and lexis in English is not always congruent with the

content or ordering of explicit rules in pedagogical materials The present study

provides an additional example from French focusing on word-order rules

related to adjective position and the (in)congruity of those rules with classroom

input and texts written for and by native French speakers In addition it

demonstrates how this (in)congruity leads to a particular and particularly

nonnativelike performance on the part of even highly proficient L1 English-

speaking learners in their evaluation of the acceptability of contextualized

French sentences This state of affairs leads us to re-examine the debate

surrounding native speaker usage as both the basis of pedagogical norms and the

goal of foreign language instruction

Frequency of use of particular grammatical constructions and lexis has played

an important role in both linguistic theory and (second) language acquisition

The present study examines frequency of use from the perspective of the

applied linguist as intermediary between the worlds of the theorist-

researcher and the teacher-practitioner (Koike and Liskin-Gasparro 2003

263) We investigate the extent to which the pedagogical treatment of

French adjective position typically found in American textbooks is congruent

with word-order frequency patterns in corpora based on authentic French-

language texts andor with oral input on adjective position in a typical

American university classroom setting This leads us to an investigation of

how certain (in)congruities may manifest themselves in learnersrsquo accept-

ability judgments when they are presented with lsquoexpectedrsquo and lsquounexpected

but nativelikersquo word orders within context The cumulative results from these

investigations and the importance of frequency patterns in the field of

applied linguistics more generally are discussed with respect to the on-going

pedagogical versus descriptive norm debate (Owen 1993 Widdowson 2000

see also Gass et al 2002) and the related native-speaker-usage-as-goal debate

(Blyth 2003)

THREE PERSPECTIVES ON FREQUENCY

Within linguistic theory frequency has long been associated with the notion of

markedness Greenberg (1966 67) in fact suggested that frequency is the

primary criterion for unmarked versus marked word order though one must be

careful to distinguish markedness in cross-linguistic terms from markedness

within a given language For example whereas van Riemsdijk (1978) argued

for preposition pied-piping in wh-questions (eg To whom did Cathy give a book)

as the more frequent and thus unmarked construction cross-linguistically Ross

(1977) observed that pied-piping has been undergoing neutralization in favor

of preposition stranding (eg Who[m] did Cathy give the book to) making it the

more frequent and thus unmarked construction in modern (colloquial) English

The relationship between frequency and markedness within linguistic

theory as exemplified above has in turn been investigated from a second

perspectivemdashthat of (second) language acquisition theorymdashby Mazurkewich

(1984) and Bardovi-Harlig (1987) Although Mazurkewichrsquos study appeared

to illustrate the strength of cross-linguistic markedness in determining

acquisitional sequences through empirical data suggesting the acquisition of

pied-piping before stranding among French- and Inuktitut-speaking ESL

learners Bardovi-Harligrsquos replication and re-interpretation of that study

showed just the opposite order illustrating the equal or greater importance of

the lsquodistribution of data available as inputrsquo (1987 400)1

Some twenty years later frequency effects in (second) language acquisition

continue to be addressed in the literature most particularly concerning the

extent to which first (L1) andor second (L2) language epistemology can be

defined in such terms Ellis (2002) for example provided a sweeping

examination of studies on input frequency effects in L1 processing claiming

that such effects are not simply a key determinant of acquisition but its sole

determinant Linguistic units are abstracted from language use and language

rules are in effect lsquostructural regularities that emerge from learnersrsquo lifetime

analysis of the distributional characteristics of the language inputrsquo (2002

144) This stands in stark contrast to so-called rationalist or innatist accounts

in which frequency effects are epiphenomenal (see for example Eubank and

Greggrsquos (2002) peer commentary of Ellis)

Bley-Vroman (2004) has taken an intermediate stance in arguing that

language acquisition at least in L1 involves both the lsquoformation of abstract

rules guided by UG and relatively independent of frequency effectsrsquo and

the lsquopiecemeal instance-based acquisition of particular structures which can

be substantially affected by the statistical structure of languagersquo (2004 269)

L2 acquisition according to Bley-Vroman appears to depart significantly

from this two-part process resulting in learner grammars that are based

significantly moremdashor perhaps whollymdashon lsquowhat they have heard and how

oftenrsquo (2004 263)

Bley-Vromanrsquos (2004) claims are partly based on data from Bley-Vroman

and Yoshinaga (2000) a study in which native English speakers and L1

BRUCE ANDERSON 287

Japanese learners of English were asked to judge the acceptability of multiple

wh-questions of the type Who ate what and Who sat where wherein

the sentence-final wh-word is a complement of the verb versus questions of

the type Who sang where wherein the sentence-final wh-word is an adjunct

Irrespective of this complementndashadjunct distinction the frequency of use of

the three question types was found to be quite low Only 122 examplars

beginning with who could be found in the 56 million word corpus

Bley-Vroman consulted 106 (or 87 percent) were specifically of the

who what type Native English speakers whose judgments were hypothe-

sized to follow from abstract rules favored both who wh[complement]

structures and disfavored the who wh[adjunct] structure despite the across-

the-board low frequency of all such structures in the corpus consulted The

learner group as expected favored the (relatively) predominant who what

type to the near exclusion of the other two seemingly paying no heed to the

complementndashadjunct distinction

Though certainly useful from the standpoint of L2 acquisition studies both

in terms of methodology and epistemological arguments frequency patterns

culled from authentic native-speaker corpora do not as Bley-Vroman (2004

270) pointed out necessarily reflect what learners are exposed to and it is

this latter type of corpus that is crucial in L2 acquisition studies because it

represents the input with which a learning algorithm would interact

The potential dichotomy between frequency patterns in native-speaker

usage and what classroom-based learners are exposed to (viewed broadly as

the sum total of textbook presentations authentic texts used in the

classroom and lsquoteacher talkrsquo) represents a third and especially applied

linguistic perspective on frequency An early study by Holmes (1988) on the

presentation of expressions of doubt and uncertainty in ESL textbooks for

example found that textbooks largely favored modal verbs while

simultaneously neglecting alternatives such as adjectives tag questions and

fallndashrise intonation (1988 40) This led her to raise concerns that a simplicity

criterion in the formulation of textbook rules may come at the cost of

naturalness and thus she concurred with Kasper (1979 277) that the

reduced range of expressions of modality witnessed in learnersrsquo production

can in some cases be viewed as teaching induced

More recent cases of mismatch have come to light through the corpus-

based methodology of Biber (1988 1995) and Biber et al (1998) and the

corpus-based Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al

1999) A recent study by Biber and Reppen (2002) for instance examined

six ESL textbooks all of which presented attributive adjectives as the

principle means of modifying nouns Two-thirds of these textbooks included

some treatment of participial adjectives (those ending in -ed and -ing)

but only one discussed the use of nouns rather than adjectives as

prenominal modifiers (eg tomato sauce pencil case) However Biber et alrsquos

(1999) analysis of Englishmdashbased on a corpus of conversational transcripts

fictional literature newspaper writing and academic prosemdashshowed

288 PEDAGOGICAL RULES AND THEIR FREQUENCY IN THE INPUT

that (a) participial adjectives are quite rare across the four registers

(b) common attributive adjectives are in fact used the most in conversation

to modify nouns but most nouns actually have no modification at all in that

register and (c) nouns as prenominal modifiers are quite frequent in

newspaper writing and nearly as common as adjectives

Such corpus-based findings Biber and Reppen (2002) suggested should

result in participial forms being given little attention in intermediate to

advanced ESL materials and nouns as prenominal modifiers (and the various

and complex meaning relations they evince) being given more prominent

coverage In other words a descriptive norm for noun modification established

through corpus-based research should serve asmdashor at the very least

significantly inform the elaboration ofmdasha pedagogical norm (See OrsquoConnor Di

Vito 1991 for a similar argument based on frequency data from French) This

seemingly simple equation is not without its critics however (eg Owen 1993

Widdowson 2000) and we re-examine their criticisms in the discussion section

in light of the findings presented here on French adjective position

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Although the potential for mismatch between native-speaker usage and

pedagogical materials has received some attention in the field of applied

linguistics the present study is unique in also offering a glimpse of the

potential for mismatch between pedagogical materials and ambient language

use in the classroom and as a result the potential for mismatch between

native speaker and L2 learner intuitions of acceptable word order(s) The

following three research questions are therefore addressed

1 To what extent are textbook presentations of French adjective position

congruent with authentic text sources across a number of genres

2 What is the nature of ambient language use involving adjective position

in the L2 French classroom and to what extent is it congruent with

textbook presentations of adjective position

3 To what extent are intuitions of acceptability among classroom learners

biased by any such (in)congruities

Because each of the three research questions represents a mini-study in

and of itself involving a different study methodology and type of data

analysis I address each question in its own section providing first an

overview of the methodology used and then a presentation of results

FRENCH ADJECTIVE POSITION IN TEXTBOOKS ANDAUTHENTIC SOURCES

The complexity of English adjectival modification pointed out in Biber and

Reppen (2002) is compounded in French by the fact that adjectives appear

BRUCE ANDERSON 289

in both adnominal positions prenominally (pre-N) and postnominally

(post-N) following certain lexical and contextual (pragmatic) constraints as

to their interpretation in one position versus the other (see eg Delmonier

1980 for a general review Delbecque 1990 for an account within cognitive

grammar Anderson 2002 for a compositional account within generative

syntax) This state of affairs leads us to question whether the traditional

textbook rules relating to adjectival modification in French reflect

attested native-speaker language use any better than that uncovered by

Biber and Reppen in authentic English-language texts across a number of

genres

English-speaking learners of French at least in the typical American

university setting are provided with three adjective placement rules

which take the form of a general rule with two exceptions Most adjectives

in French are said to be post-N (as in (1)) though a few are pre-N (as in (2))

and a few more are said to change meaning based on their position

(as in (3))

(1) une voiture rougelsquoa red carrsquo

(2) une petite maisonlsquoa small housersquo

(3) a un bijou cher un cher bijoulsquoan expensive jewelrsquo lsquoa cherished jewelrsquob une eglise ancienne une ancienne eglise

lsquoan ancient churchrsquo lsquoa former churchrsquo

First- and second-year textbooks of French published in the USA are

strikingly similar in the statement of such rules and in their order of

presentation though they differ to some degree as to which adjectives are to

be included in the (putative) lexical classes constituting exceptions to the

general post-N rule The textbooks used in the classrooms observed for the

present study are no different In the first-year textbook Chez nous (Valdman

and Pons 1997) students are first told that most adjectives follow the noun

(1997 73) but that the twelve adjectives listed in (4) typically and

exceptionally precede the noun (1997 241)

(4) a jeune vieux lsquoyoung oldrsquob nouveau lsquonewrsquoc petit grand gros lsquosmalllittle bigtall largersquod beau lsquohandsomersquoe joli lsquoprettyrsquof bon mauvais lsquogood badrsquog premier dernier lsquofirst lastrsquo

In the second-year textbook Quant a moi (Bragger and Rice 1996) the basic

post-N rule is reviewed as is the class of adjectives that exceptionally appear

prenominally (1996 33) Note however that this class of exceptions has

eleven members instead of twelve having lost some members from the Chez


Nous list in (4) (eg bon premier dernier gros) but gaining others (eg long

lsquolongrsquo court lsquoshortrsquo and autre lsquootherrsquo)

Bragger and Rice (1996) then present the second exception to the basic

post-N rule wherein students are told that lsquoa number of adjectives change

meaning depending on whether theyrsquore placed after or before a noun

In general an adjective placed after the noun retains its basic concrete

meaning The same adjective placed before the noun is used in an abstract or

figurative mannerrsquo (1996 34 emphasis in original) The seven adjectives that

apparently fall into this class are listed in (5) The first English gloss captures

the meaning derived from pre-N position the second gloss that derived from

post-N position Note that Bragger and Rice put the adjective grand in both

lists of exceptions In other words grand is apparently exceptionally pre-N

and exceptionally variable at the same time2

(5) ADJECTIVE PRE-N POST-Na ancien lsquoformerrsquo vs lsquoold ancientrsquob cher lsquodear well-lovedrsquo vs lsquoexpensiversquoc dernier lsquolast latest (in a series)rsquo vs lsquolast (before this one)rsquod grand lsquogreatrsquo vs lsquotall largersquoe pauvre lsquopoor (unfortunate)rsquo vs lsquopoor (not rich)rsquof prochain lsquonext (in a series)rsquo vs lsquonext (after this one)rsquog propre lsquoownrsquo vs lsquocleanrsquo

To summarize the pedagogical treatment of French adjective position

commonly found in university-level American textbooks presents post-N

position as the most frequent and typical (frac14unmarked) adjective order

the less frequent and exceptional (frac14marked) pre-N order is either required

when the adjective is a member of a seemingly fixed lexical class such as

the list in (4) or licensed by a particular interpretation that differs from that

obtained in post-N position such as the list in (5) This difference in

interpretation is often though not always captured through distinct English

glosses

Methodology

In order to determine the extent to which the pedagogical treatment just

summarized is congruent with authentic French texts three corpora were

consulted Wilmetrsquos (1980) corpus of literary texts (approximately 10 million

words 3835 adjectives) Forsgrenrsquos (1978) corpus of newspaper texts from Le

Monde and LrsquoExpress (1 million words 829 adjectives) and Larssonrsquos (1993)

corpus of travel catalogues travel guides and other non-literary prose (15

million words 113 adjectives)3 Using Wilmetrsquos corpus as the point of

comparison given that it contains the highest number of discrete lexemes

(3835 adjectives) an arbitrary cut-off point of 25 attestations or more was

used creating a list of 205 adjectives4 The total number of attestations pre-N

attestations and post-N attestations for each of the 205 adjectives across

BRUCE ANDERSON 291

the three corpora was then determined by adding Forsgrenrsquos and Larssonrsquos

data to that found in Wilmet if available

Results

The 205 most frequently attested adjectives in French texts appear to fall

along a continuum at one end of which we find 68 adjectives (or 332

percent) appearing either only in post-N position (nfrac1434) or typically in that

position (nfrac14 34) and at the other end of which we find 15 adjectives (or 73

percent) typically appearing in pre-N position as shown in Table 1 Note that

there are no adjectives appearing only in pre-N position The remaining 122

adjectives (or 595 percent) are regularly attested in both positions with

some having what we might call an affinity for post-N position (nfrac1441) or

pre-N position (nfrac14 29) but others being highly variable (nfrac1452)

Reminiscent of Holmesrsquo (1988) critique of the simplicity versus naturalness

of textbook rules such data raise some problems for the seemingly

straightforward fixed-order rules of adjective position exemplified in (1)ndash(3)

and the associated lists in (4) and (5) A textbook rule to the effect that

adjectives typically appear after the noun in Frenchmdasha word order that

clearly contrasts with what one finds in Englishmdashis only partly descriptively

Table 1 Frequency groupings of adjective position in written French texts

Frequency grouping Type count(nfrac14 205)

Percent oftotal

Examples

Exclusively pre-N (0post-N position)

0 0 mdash

Typically pre-N (below10 post-N position)

15 75 bon lsquogoodrsquo fameuxlsquo(in)famousrsquo petit lsquosmallrsquo

Variable but with anaffinity for pre-Nposition (10ndash39post-N position)

29 14 charmant lsquocharmingrsquo etrangelsquostrangersquo miserable lsquomiserablersquo

Highly variable (40ndash59post-N position)

52 255 delicieux lsquodeliciousrsquo joyeuxlsquojoyousrsquo puissant lsquopowerfulrsquo

Variable but with anaffinity for post-Nposition (60ndash90post-N position)

41 20 amer lsquobitterrsquo tiede lsquolukewarmrsquoserieux lsquoseriousrsquo

Typically post-N (above90 post-N)

34 17 blanc lsquowhitersquo inconnulsquounknownrsquo sauvage lsquowildrsquo

Exclusively post-N(100 post-Nposition)

34 17 allemand lsquoGermanrsquo dorelsquogoldenrsquo quotidien lsquodailyrsquo


accurate It is accurate in the sense that the ends of the continuum are

not equivalent in their percentages There are many more adjectives

appearing either only or typically in post-N position than is the case for pre-N

position It is inaccurate in the sense that it ignores the distributional

behavior of 595 percent of the most frequently used adjectives which can

appear in both positions French is not as the rule implies the mirror

opposite of English but instead is more accurately viewed as an lsquoANArsquo

(adjectivendashnounndashadjective) language as opposed to both lsquosystematic ANrsquo

languages like English and German and lsquosystematic NArsquo languages like

Indonesian and Thai (Cinque 1994 99ndash101)

The data also lead us to question the criteria textbooks use for including

certain adjectives in the two lists in (4) and (5) For the so-called prenominal

adjectives a frequency of 90 percent or greater in that position would

establish that adjectives such as excellent fameux lsquo(in)famousrsquo moindre

lsquoslightestrsquo and vrai lsquorealtruersquo need to be added That list itself implies a fixed

lexical class to be memorized though in reality it does nothing more

than provide a handful of frequently attested adjectives (nfrac14 15 [75 percent])

that typically appear just in that position Many more adjectives can

appear in pre-N position as well For the so-called change-of-meaning

adjectives the data show that the list in (5) falls woefully short in terms of

representing those adjectives that actually do regularly appear in both

positions (nfrac14 52)

Even if it were to be established that such rules are accurate with respect

to colloquial French as spoken between native speakers and thus appropriate

for oral proficiency-oriented classrooms such rules obviously fail to capture

the state of affairs in written texts particularly literature to which learners at

later course levels are exposed Yet even students at earlier course levels

occasionally find counter-examples to what they are taught The four cases of

lsquounexpectedrsquo pre-N position in (6) come from the cultural readings of two

first-year and two second-year US textbooks respectively

(6) a La France a un excellent systeme de transports publics(Magnan et al 2002 223)lsquoFrance has an excellent system of public transportrsquo

b Cela explique le grand nombre de magnifiques chateauxdans la region (Valdman and Pons 1997 395)lsquoThis explains the great number of magnificent chateaux inthe regionrsquo

c [U]ne veritable explosion de la technologie (St Onge etal 2003 71) lsquoa veritable explosion of technologyrsquo

d Lrsquohistoire est une douloureuse suite de tragedieshumaines (Oates and Dubois 2003 208)lsquoIts history is a painful series of human tragediesrsquo

One might wish to argue that the examples provided in (6) demonstrate

that inputmdashat least classroom-related inputmdashis not as contradictory to

descriptive norms as argued in this section Examples of the type in (6)

BRUCE ANDERSON 293

however are only occasionally found in textbook reading materials they are

included here to demonstrate that even when making a concerted effort to

write level-appropriate cultural readings textbook authors sometimes break

the very grammar rules they present elsewhere in the textbook suggesting a

true disparity between rules and lsquonaturalisticrsquo usage5 (I return to the issue of

descriptively accurate statements about French adjective position in the

discussion section)

FREQUENCY OF ADJECTIVE USE AND POSITIONIN CLASSROOM INPUT

Methodology

In order to get a general sense of how well the classroom setting as primary

input source reflects either textbook rules or the corpora-based descriptive

norm just summarized frequency counts of adjective type (ie discrete

lexemes) and their position in classroom input were collected by the

researcher from 60 hours of in-class observations of university-level French

courses at a large Midwestern American university Ten hours were spent in

each of six courses spanning the curriculummdashfrom the four semesters

comprising the first- and second-year language skills curriculum (referred to

as Levels 1a 1b 2a and 2b below) to a third-year conversation course

(Level 3) and a fourth-year lecture course on French civilization (Level 4)

Each of these courses was taught almost exclusively in French by a mix of

native and nonnative instructors none of whom were aware of the purpose

of this observation period Class observations were conducted on days when

adjective position was not the focus of explicit instruction as this would have

more than likely biased the frequency counts

The first- and second-year courses consisted of explicit grammar

instruction drills and communicative activities normally involving students

in pair or group work The conversation and civilization courses involved

no explicit grammar instruction the former involved mostly teacherndash

student and studentndashstudent oral communication based on previous course

readings and video segments whereas the latter was almost exclusively

devoted to instructor-delivered lectures Error correction was minimal in all

courses and no case of error correction involving adjective position was

witnessed during the observation period (despite the fact that some errors

were made)

Oral input on adjective position in all courses came from one of three

sources the instructor audio aides (such as cassette and videotape) and

the students themselves Written input in the first- and second-year

courses came from two sources visual aids (such as handouts transparencies

writing on the blackboard) and passages from the textbook that were read

silently or aloud in class At Level 3 written materials included authentic

newspaper and magazine articles in addition to visual aides at Level 4


a number of works of French literature were read outside of class Note

that written input in these latter two course levels is qualitatively the same

as that used in the corpora compiled by Forsgren (1978) Wilmet (1980) and

Larsson (1993)

At issue during this period of investigation was classroom input that could

be seen andor heard by all students in the classroom (as well as the

researcher) Input from students involved in pair and group work was

therefore excluded from analysis Material to be read outside of class was

also excluded as there was no guarantee that all students had actually

read such material Although the totality of inputmdashincluding sources of input

the learner might have voluntarily sought out outside of classmdashcould

obviously never be exhaustively tallied the exclusion of certain forms of

input was first and foremost a matter of logistics (ie not having the

appropriate funds equipment facilities and time to sound record then

transcribe all classroom input from every participant in every situation of

use) Despite this drawback I see no reason to suspect that student-delivered

input to other students during pair- or group-work would be qualitatively

different (at least in terms of adjective position) from the input delivered by

students that was audible to the entire class this latter source of input

already constitutes 10ndash30 percent of all sources of input tallied as part of the

observation period

Each instance of adjective use during each class session was recorded with

pen and paper by the researcher A coding scheme was devised whereby an

11 17-inch sheet of paper was divided into quadrants labeled according to

the source of the input lsquoinstructorrsquo lsquostudentrsquo lsquoaudiorsquo and lsquowrittenrsquo Each

quadrant was then subdivided according to the position of adjectival

modification lsquopre-Nrsquo lsquopost-Nrsquo lsquopredicatersquo and lsquootherrsquo (to be described

below) Input of the form une bonne idee lsquoa good idearsquo by the instructor was

therefore recorded as an instance of the adjective bonne in the instructor

quadrant pre-N sub-quadrant Hatch marks next to the adjective bonne were

used for any further exemplars of this adjective (including its masculine form

bon) in this position from this source I acknowledge that mere human error

caused by fatigue etc may have resulted in tallies that are less accurate than

if each session were recorded on tape Though the results presented below

should be considered with some caution then occasional errors could not

have reached a significant enough level to detract from the highly salient

patterns of usage that we will find

The resulting sixty sheets each representing one 50-minute class session

were then tallied in order to determine (a) the relative contribution of the

four sources of input (b) the average token (exemplar) count of adjectives

per 50-minute class period (c) the ratio of pre-N to post-Npredicate tokens

(d) the type count (number of discrete lexemes) entering into pre-N and

post-N positions and (e) the frequency of variation in positionmdashthat is the

extent to which a given adjective appeared at least once in both pre-N and

post-N position during the ten hours of observation

BRUCE ANDERSON 295

Results

The instructor not surprisingly was the primary provider of input in the

classroom (See Figure 1 available to online subscribers at http

applijoxfordjournalsorg) This was especially the case in the first-year

courses (Levels 1a 1b) the second- and third-year courses (Levels 2a 2b 3)

showed a greater proportion of input from students and from audio aides

The instructor was by far the predominant source of input in the fourth-year

course (Level 4) given that it involved instructor-delivered lectures on

French civilization with minimal class participation on the part of students

Concerning the average number of times an adjective occurred in the

input during any one 50-minute class period we find a general increase with

level from 42 tokens at Level 1a to 156 tokens per class at Level 4 (See

Figure 2 available to online subscribers at httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg)

Students therefore heard an adjective used anywhere from one to three

times per minute on average

Aggregate data on the frequency with which adjectives appeared in pre-N

post-N and predicate positions or in other constructions (eg used in

isolation in elliptical constructions such as la charmante lsquothe charming [one]rsquo

and following indefinite pronouns as in quelqursquoun de charmant lsquosomeone

charmingrsquo) demonstrate that post-N and predicate positions were generally

equally frequent and together constitute fully 75 percent of the ratio whereas

pre-N position never surpassed 27 percent across course levels Other

constructions were minimal (See Figure 3 available to online subscribers at

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg)

This roughly 75 percentndash25 percent ratio was then reanalyzed in order to

consider the number of distinct lexemes (lsquotypesrsquo) that make up the

percentages We find for example that only 15 lexemes make up the 14

percent of pre-N adjective use at Level 1a This number gradually increased

with course level but only reached a total of 41 by Level 4 Post-N position

on the other hand admitted a much larger variety of adjectives in classroom

input from 71 at Level 1a to 323 by Level 4 (See Figure 4 available to online

subscribers at httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg) Students therefore got

relatively little input on pre-N position and what input they did get was

made up of a relatively small class of adjectives being used over and over

again and which already figure in the textbook-determined list of pre-N

adjectives in (4) (See Appendix A available to online subscribers at http

applijoxfordjournalsorg for a list of adjectives appearing in pre-N position

by course level)

Finally we find that very few adjectives varied in position during the 10

hours of in-class observation There was no variation attested at Level 1a

and only four to seven adjectives varied in position from Level 1b through to

Level 3 Moreover some of the input provided to learners in these courses

in the form of other studentsrsquo output was nonnativelike6 At the most

advanced undergraduate level learners got somewhat more input involving


variation in position where 20 adjectives did so (See Figure 5 available to

online subscribers at httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg) Again most (but not

all) of these adjectives already figure into the textbook-determined list of

variable adjectives in (5) (See Appendix B available to online subscribers at

httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg for a list of adjectives varying in position by

course level)

To summarize the observational data just presented the ambient language

of the classroom clearly mimics the pedagogical treatment that American

university-level classroom learners receive from textbooks Although

adjectives are in general a very frequent part of the input the rate of

pre-N position (at roughly 25 percent) is essentially static across levels

pointing to the fact that classroom input across levels is in no way

contradictory to what learners are initially taught Post-N position is basic

(unmarked) and pre-N position is exceptional (marked) The adjectives that

do appear in pre-N position in classroom input are in most cases those that

learners already expect to appear in that position (cf the list in (4) and

Appendix A) The few adjectives that appear in both positions are again in

most cases those that learners expect to do so (cf the list in (5) and

Appendix B)

By the end of the first-year level then both instruction and classroom

input would lead learners to expect that adjectives will appear in post-N

position with the notable exception of the class of adjectives in (4) (those in

(5) having not yet been introduced) By the second-year level it could be

argued that instruction provides examples in the form of so-called change of

meaning adjectives that variation in position is to be associated with

variation in interpretation (and perhaps by implication always to

interpretation) However learnersrsquo explicit knowledge of interpretative

differences as exemplified by the adjectives in (5) typically consists of

arbitrary and unsystematic English glosses By arbitrary I mean that

instruction never provides an adequate explanation for why the pre-N

position of cher should correspond to beloved or for its post-N position to

correspond to expensive7 Though telling students following Bragger and Rice

(1996) that the meaning in post-N position is lsquoconcretersquo and the meaning in

pre-N position is lsquofigurativersquo might (somehow) help it does not account for

other adjectives in (5) like prochain lsquonextrsquo This latter adjective also

demonstrates the fact that English glosses are unsystematic in that prochain

translates as lsquonextrsquo in either position

Before considering our final research question I note that no research on

adjective position in native French speaker discourse is available to date

An anonymous Applied Linguistics reviewer questions the validity of compar-

ing primarily spoken classroom discoursemdashor any other kind of spoken

discoursemdashto written texts without first demonstrating that adjective position

is insensitive to this difference in medium While recognizing the potentially

important distinction in medium and the need for further research in this

area the validity of comparing classroom input to written texts in the present

BRUCE ANDERSON 297

study lies in the fact that such a comparison roughly corresponds to the

curriculum of typical university-level courses an emphasis on listening

comprehension and oral communication in the first- and second-year

language courses leading to an emphasis on reading comprehension

(typically literature-based) and proficiency in writing in the third- and

fourth-year courses Were it to turn out that the degree of variation in

adjective position found in written texts is restricted to just that medium

revisions to pedagogy would necessarily be restricted to writing-intensive

(composition creative composition stylistics) courses at the third- and

fourth-year levels (I return to this issue in the discussion section)

LEARNER INTUITIONS OF ACCEPTABILITY

Thus far we have seen an incongruity between textbook presentations of

adjective position and authentic text sources across a number of written text

genres (research question 1) and that ambient language use involving

adjective position in the classroom is clearly more congruent with and might

therefore be taken to reinforce the explicit rules found in textbooks

(research question 2) We are now in a position to address our third research

questionmdashthe extent to which intuitions of acceptability among classroom

learners are biased by the congruity between pedagogical treatment and

classroom input frequency patterns An empirical study previously reported

in Anderson (2002 2007) can shed some light on this question

Methodology

Anderson (2002 2007) investigated the acquisition of various morphosyn-

tactic properties of French noun phrases by administering an acceptability

judgment task in which participants had to evaluate the appropriateness of

sentences featuring among other things the pre- versus post-N position of

adjectives Each of the adjectives selected were lsquohighly variablersquo with respect

to position (cf Table 1) yet crucially do not figure in textbook lists of

adjectives said to change meaning based on position (cf the list in (10))

These include lourd lsquoheavyrsquo violent lsquoviolentrsquo charmant lsquocharmingrsquo precieux

lsquopreciousrsquo epais lsquothickrsquo etrange lsquostrangersquo and delicieux lsquodeliciousrsquo (See

Appendix C available to online subscribers at httpapplijoxfordjournals

org for test sentences) Study participants included English-speaking learners

of French in the second third and fourth years of undergraduate study

(nfrac14 80) who were attending courses at the same institution at which the

observational data were collected a group of advanced learners (nfrac14 20)

consisting of graduate student instructors at that same institution as well as

secondary education teachers and a group of native French speakers (nfrac14 27)

roughly matched in age and education level

Each adjective appeared in test sentences once prenominally and once

postnominally with each test sentence preceded once by a context


motivating acceptance and once by a context motivating rejection of one or

the other adjective order for a total of four positionndashinterpretation pairings

per adjective These were randomly distributed across two testing

instruments administered a week apart After reading each context and

paired test sentence study participants were directed to check boxes

labeled lsquofinersquo lsquooddrsquo or lsquocannot decidersquo to the prompt This particular sentence

sounds ___ in this context

As an example each of the sentences in (7) featuring the adjective lourd

lsquoheavyrsquo was paired with each of two contexts

(7) a Pierre doit laisser la lourde valise avec son amib Pierre doit laisser la valise lourde a lrsquoaeroport

lsquoPierre has to leave the heavy suitcase with his friendatthe airportrsquo

In the first context motivating a unique noun-referent interpretation

there was one and only one suitcase which happened to be heavy and

which lsquoPierrersquo had to leave behind with his friend In the second context

motivating a multiple noun-referent interpretation there were a number of

suitcases only one of which was heavy and it was this one that lsquoPierrersquo had

to leave behind at the airport (See Appendix D available to online

subscribers at httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg for the complete version of

each context)

When viewed solely in terms of truth-conditional semantics each of the

four positionndashinterpretation pairings is compatible save for one pre-N

position (7a) in a multiple noun-referent context This is because the singular

definite article la and pre-N adjective lourde together presuppose a unique

suitcase in context (which happens to be heavy) This presupposition

does not hold when the adjective is in post-N position where all that is

required is that there be at least one such suitcase in context The testing

instrument then allows us to examine how classroom learners react to

an lsquoexpectedrsquo word order (ie sentences like (7b) in either context) as well

as to an lsquounexpectedrsquo but semantically and pragmatically appropriate

word order (ie sentences like (7a) but only in the unique noun-referent

context)

Results

As the mean acceptance rates from native French speakers in Table 2 show

truth-conditional semantics was not the only factor determining acceptance

rates Two of the pairings received essentially chance-level rates of

acceptance (pre-N position in a multiple noun-referent context at 49

percent and post-N position in a unique context at 52 percent) whereas the

other two pairings showed much clearer above- or below-chance rates (pre-N

position in a unique noun-referent context at 74 percent and post-N

position in a multiple noun-referent context at 37 percent)

BRUCE ANDERSON 299

As was argued in Anderson (2002 2007) results for each of the four

positionndashinterpretation pairings among the native French speakers are

explainable in terms of a disproportionate interaction between semantics and

pragmatic implicature in particular the Gricean maxim of quantity An

utterance should be no more and no less informative than is required for the

current purposes of the exchange (Grice 1975) The positionndashinterpretation

pairing that was lsquotruersquo in terms of semantics and also the most pragmatically

appropriate was accepted at the highest rate (74 percent) the pairing that

was also lsquotruersquo in terms of semantics but was pragmatically the least

appropriate was accepted at the lowest rate (37 percent)8

Do learner group response patterns show the same bias toward pragmatic

implicature in their acceptance rates The comparison of mean acceptance

rates between native French speakers and learner groups in Table 3 shows

that learners performed in a particular (and particularly non-Frenchlike) way

in which the interaction goes in the opposite direction favoring semantics

over pragmatics

Recall that the only positionndashinterpretation pairing that was semantically

incompatible was pre-N position (7a) in a multiple noun-referent context

given the presupposition of uniqueness of the noun referent All learner

groups did indeed accept this pairing at the lowest rate of the four and with

the exception of the second-year learners (at thorn9 percent) did so more

strongly than the native French speakers at mean acceptance rates that were

11ndash15 percent lower)9 However they also accepted at much lower mean

rates (12 to 23 percent) the most felicitous positionndashinterpretation pairing

for the native French speakers pre-N position in a unique noun-referent

context Recall also that post-N position (7b) was semantically compatible

under either interpretation All learner groups accepted these two positionndash

interpretation pairings at much higher rates than the native French speakers

(thorn23 to thorn31 percent) including the least felicitous positionndashinterpretation

pairing for the native French speakersmdashpost-N position in a multiple noun-

referent context This is precisely what one would expect from the

pedagogical treatment these learners are provided and the congruity of

that treatment with classroom input which under-represents actual usage in

Table 2 Native French speaker mean acceptance rates for the uniquenonunique noun-referent distinction

Prenominal (AN)order ()

Postnominal (NA)order ()

Unique noun referent 74 52

Nonunique noun referent 49 37

Source Adapted from Anderson 2002 2007


text-based corpora and as we have now seen differs from native speaker

intuitions of overall (semantico-pragmatic) acceptability

Although a bias toward or even strict adherence to explicit pedagogical

rules in evaluating such sentences may not seem all that surprising what does

stand out in the data from Anderson (2002 2007) is that these differential

rates in acceptance between native and nonnative speakers are as true for the

advanced group in that studymdashconsisting of graduate student instructors and

second education teachersmdashas they are for the intermediate (second-year)

learner group This would seem to indicate no increased sensitivity to

contextual (pragmatic) factors in adjective position over the course of studying

French even though the advanced group had been exposed to much more

authentic input through texts written for and by native French speakers (ie

the descriptive norm uncovered in our examination of authentic text corpora)

DISCUSSION

What should be clear from the findings presented here is that rules of French

adjective placement that one typically finds in (at least American) textbooks

though not plainly incorrect are not fully descriptively accurate either at

least with respect to written French across several text genres In particular

such rules portray pre-N and post-N positions as mutually exclusive for

almost all adjectives when in fact they are not

Similar discrepancies are often found between rules for and by native

speakers and what those speakers actually do One need look no further than

the French for an example with colloquial speech often at odds with the

prescriptive bon usage and the admonishments of the Academie francaise One

might therefore also expect to find a discrepancy between textbook rules and

what teachers do in the classroom andor what students find to be

lsquoacceptablersquo in terms of word order As we have seen however this is not

the case These rules are faithfully reflected in classroom language use by

instructors to such an extent that when asked to evaluate the acceptability

of lsquoexpectedrsquo and lsquounexpected but nativelikersquo word orders (and one would

presume in production as well) both instructors and students paid much

less attention to problems in pragmatic implicature than did native speakers

a situation which does not appear to change even in the face of counter-

examples occasionally provided in the textbooks they use (see (6) above) and

most certainly in the written texts that they read at later course levels As

pointed out by an anonymous reviewer this situation can be considered a

testament to the power of classroom instruction (instructor input in

particular) if instruction is changed he or she reasons it is likely that

classroom learners will reflect this change

But should instruction be changed If so who along the continuum from

the theorist-researcher to the teacher-practitioner should inform and guide

this change At which level In what way Such questions are at the very

heart of two on-going debates that I re-examine before proposing some

BRUCE ANDERSON 301

answers the pedagogical versus descriptive norm debate (eg Owen 1993

Widdowson 2000 and the collection of articles in Gass et al 2002) and

the interrelated native-speaker-usage-as-goal debate in foreign language

pedagogy (eg the collection of articles in Blyth 2003)

On the whole the approach to instruction on French adjective

position outlined earlier appears advantageous in its simplicity providing

easily remembered rules of thumb that learners can apply in language

production That this approach to instruction does not as we have seen

straightforwardly follow the descriptive norm is a situation that linguists

utilizing a corpus-based methodology believe can and should be remedied

Conrad (2000) for instance sees in corpus-based research an immediate way

in which linguistics can inform language pedagogy freeing language teachers

from lsquohav[ing] to rely on judgments of grammatical accuracy or on native

speakersrsquo intuition about what sounds naturalrsquo (2000 555) Although the

subsequent study by Biber and Reppen (2002) uses a disclaimer to the effect

that frequency should not be the sole factor in material design they

nevertheless suggest that lsquoa selective revision of pedagogy to reflect actual

use as shown by frequency studies could result in radical changes that

facilitate the learning process for studentsrsquo (2002 199) Owen (1993)

however provides examples of how a total reliance on a corpus does not

necessarily yield better observation and more importantly questions

whether better observation automatically equates to better explanation

(1993 168) (but see Francis and Sinclair 1994 for rebuttal) For his part

Widdowson (2000) objects to the kind of equation just described as a

case of linguistics applied a mistaken belief that what is textually attested

lsquouniquely represents real language and that this reality should define the

foreign language subjectrsquo (2000 8) (but see Stubbs 2001 for rebuttal) What

is needed according to Widdowson is not simply linguistics applied

to pedagogy but a true role for applied linguistics an approach to usage that

also recognizes native speakersrsquo awareness of and opinions about such usage

The need for a truly applied linguistics perspective on native speaker

usage (including frequency patterns) is embodied in a pedagogical norm

originally conceptualized in Valdman (1989) and elaborated upon in

Bardovi-Harlig and Gass (2002) as

[A] combination of language systems and forms selected by linguistsand pedagogues to serve as the immediate language target ortargets that learners seek to acquire during their language studyIn other words pedagogical norms represent a mid-point or seriesof mid-points for learners as they progress toward acquiringnative language norms [thus constituting] a form of languagethat is acceptable to native speakers but easier to learn than the fullnative language system (p 3)

The textbook word-order rules for French adjective position reviewed

earlier would first appear to constitute an appropriate pedagogical norm


under Bardovi-Harlig and Gassrsquos (2002) definition because the learner is able

to produce a subset of the totality of possible utterances deemed acceptable to

native speakers which may turn out to be even more the case in spoken than

in written French (though the difference in mediums remains to be studied)

The learner data presented here from Anderson (2002 2007) however

provides one piece of evidence that textbook rules and classroom input do not

constitute a sufficient pedagogical norm as learners have stopped in their

progress toward acquiring native speaker (ie descriptively accurate) norms

As the articles in Blyth (2003) attest however it is highly debatable

whether the lsquoNative Speakerrsquo (as an idealized abstraction) should be the

appropriate model for the contemporary learner For Kramsch (2002 2003)

too much of a focus on an authentic native speaker norm reduces

foreign language (FL) study to a constant lsquoapproximation to and conformity

with stereotypical native speakers thus often silencing other FL-specific

forms of language potentialrsquo (2002 60) Language learning in instructional

settings on my understanding of Kramschrsquos (2003) argument should not be

viewed solely in a teleological sensemdashas language acquisition directed

toward a fixed nativelike end-pointmdashbut rather as language appropriation

by learners in the sense that they are constructing a linguistic and even

cultural identity lsquoin the interstices of national languages and on the

margins of monolingual speakersrsquo territoriesrsquo (2003 260) The political nature

of the debate as highlighted by Kramsch becomes all the more apparent

when one additionally considers the status of the foreign language on

the world stage (eg French as an international language in retreat)

and how deeply the normative attitudes of its speakers run (eg Francersquos

three-century-long history of acceptance and maintenance of the standard

(Lodge 1993))

The foregoing synopsis of the debates surrounding native speaker usage as

both the goal of foreign language instruction and the extent to which

pedagogical norms need apply has highlighted the real world complexities

involved in what would otherwise seem to be a simple equation Revise

pedagogy to reflect actual use as shown by frequency studies and this

will result in a more targetlike performance on the part of learners So we

return then to the questions posed earlier (1) Should instruction be

changed (2) If so who along the continuum from the theorist-researcher to

the teacher-practitioner should inform and guide this change (3) At which

level (4) In what ways

With respect to our first question because one can empirically

demonstrate that the pedagogical norm for French adjective position

prevents learners from eventually acquiring native speaker (ie descriptively

accurate) norms instruction should be changed so thatmdashirrespective of

whether the attainment of such a norm is necessarily desirablemdashlearners

have both a choice in selecting one grammatical or lexical form over the other

and an awareness of the meaning potential of each choice (following Kramsch

2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

Because researchers utilizing authentic corpora are the only ones who can

empirically demonstrate incongruities between pedagogical rules and native

speaker usage they are the ones who should play the most significant role in

guiding such changes Yet they must do so following Widdowson (2000)

within a sociolinguistic framework an approach to usage that also recognizes

native speakersrsquo awareness of and opinions about such usage Stated in other

terms and following Kerr (2002) the application of corpus-based findings to

pedagogy entails asking to what extent the frequency patterns of native

speaker usage culled from native-speaker corpora in both written and

spoken mediums can help us establish a more refined pedagogical norm

rather than a pedagogical norm that is necessarily congruous with a

descriptive norm at each stage

In response to our third question Kerr (2002) has already suggested that

instruction on variant word-order constructions be delayed until the third-

year level of undergraduate instruction and beyond particularly for those

constructions in which variant word orders are correlated with preceding

contextual information (as is the present case) since learners cannot be

expected to use such constructions appropriately until their focus of attention

can go beyond the sentence frame (2002 195)

Finally with respect to our fourth question the foregoing discussion

would seem to indicate that within American universities at least the

traditional third-year undergraduate Advanced Grammar course represents

the most appropriate venue for increased attention to variant word-

order constructions which would in turn serve to transform such courses

into ones that truly are advanced and not simply remedial In order for this

transformation to take place at least with respect to French adjective

position one must first recognize that the acceptability of pre-N

versus post-N order is not a matter of grammaticality in French as it is in

English but rather a matter of permissibility given lexical and contextual

(pragmatic) factors (Waugh 1977) This entails that we should treat

differences in adjective position and any other instances of flexible yet

grammatical word order as cases of pragmatically marked and unmarked

structures

Following Dryer (1995) a particular word order can be described as

pragmatically unmarked (even if it is not the most frequently attested order)

if one can show that it is the default ordermdashthat is the order that is used

elsewhere once the contexts(s) of use of the pragmatically marked order have

been characterized (1995 103) The task of concisely characterizing contexts

in which the other word order or orders are used falls most naturally upon

the corpus-based applied linguist Anderson (2002) demonstrated that

uniqueness of the noun referent is one such situation in which pragmatically

marked pre-N adjective order is used though there are likely more contexts

to be discovered As suggested by research on data-driven language learning

(in eg Aston 2001) this same discovery task might then be mimicked


as the primary pedagogical activity for instructors and learners to engage in

within a truly advanced grammar course

Final version received May 2006

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

The supplementary material mentioned in the text is available to online

subscribers at httpapplijoxfordjournalsorg

NOTES

1 Bardovi-Harligrsquos (1987) use of the

phrase lsquodistribution of data available as

inputrsquo (1987 400) is equated here with

frequency though she herself equates it

with saliency Use of either term carries

with it the assumption that what is

more frequent is more easily apperceived

(to use Gassrsquos (1997) terminology) and

thus more likely to be incorporated

into the interlanguage grammar

This assumption is clearly evident in

Bardovi-Harligrsquos claim that lsquohigh sal-

ience encourages the acquisition of a

construction before it would otherwise

be expected [on the basis of cross-

linguistic markedness]rsquo (1987 402)

2 Though a third-year remedial gram-

mar course was not observed for the

present study an examination of one

popular textbook for such courses

La grammaire a lrsquoœuvre (Barson 1996

225ndash8) offers only slightly more

information in its overview of adjec-

tive position Post-N position is again

presented as the general rule and a

list of adjectives that exceptionally

appear in pre-N position is provided

this list now contains a total of fifteen

adjectives again including some not

found in the lists provided in the first-

and second-year textbooks but exclud-

ing others The treatment of variable

adjective position is a bit more

nuanced than that found in the

other textbooks Variation in position

is again correctly equated with varia-

tion in interpretation but capturing

this change in interpretation through

the use of English glossesmdashthe sole

strategy in second-year textbooksmdashis

restricted to just six adjectives (cher

ancien pauvre propre already included

in (5) but also meme lsquosamersquo vs lsquoitselfrsquo

and seul lsquoonlyrsquo vs lsquoalonersquo) The

adjectives dernier and prochain also

already included in (5) are explained

as post-N in expressions of time

(eg le week-end dernier lsquolast weekendrsquo)

but pre-N when construed as part of a

series similar to ordinal adjectives

(eg la derniere fois lsquothe last timersquo cf

le dernier acte de cette piece lsquothe last act

of this playrsquo) Three more adjectivesmdash

certain different and diversmdashare said to

have a literal meaning in post-N

position (as lsquocertain [sure]rsquo lsquodif-

ferent [not similar]rsquo and lsquodiverse

[varied]rsquo respectively) whereas in

pre-N position all three signify a vague

number (eg certaines erreurs de calcul

lsquo[a] certain [number of] calculus

errorsrsquo)

3 Larsson (1993) limits his study to 113

adjectives having a valorisation positive

lsquopositive valuersquo because his source

material is principally travel catalo-

gues and tourist guides both of which

tend to play up the positive attributes

BRUCE ANDERSON 305

of the locales they are describing

The lists of adjectives from Forsgren

(1978) and Wilmet (1980) are not

limited by such lexical semantic

considerations

4 As pointed out to me by A Valdman

(personal communication 10 Decem-

ber 1999) the frequency counts pro-

vided in the three corpora synthesized

in Table 1 are potentially inaccurate

representations of the extent to which

adjectives vary in position because no

indication of the range of nouns with

which the adjectives appear is provided

Thus although an adjective like plein

lsquofullrsquo may appear roughly half the time

in pre-N position it may do so only in a

number of fixed expressions such as la

pleine lune lsquothe full moonrsquo Though this

may be so the cutoff point of 25 or

greater total attestations goes some way

in ensuring that collocations like la

pleine lune were not the only source of

variable position data Moreover in the

results I later present from Anderson

(2002 2007) the adjectives used in the

test sentences in Appendix C varied

in position with a range of nouns as

shown by a concordance run on texts

found in the ARTFL database

5 One might additionally question as

did an anonymous Applied Linguistics

reviewer why variation in adjective

position in textbooks was not also

examined during the observational

study As discussed in the following

section no classroom input corpus

could exhaustively tally the totality of

input directed at students (especially

sources of input the learner has a

choice in seeking out outside of class)

Because there was no assurance that

cultural readings such as the ones

serving as the source of the

examples in (6) actually constituted

input in or outside of the class they

were excluded from the tally If

however a cultural reading was read

silently or aloud in class the tokens of

adjective position in that reading were

included

6 Unfortunately the contexts within

which these specific instances of non-

nativelike use in student output

occurred could not be fully recorded

The researcher (himself an advanced

nonnative speaker of French) simply

determined that the use of a particular

adjective in a particular position

sounded odd given the contextual

information in the studentrsquos utterance

by placing an asterisk next to the

adjective in the appropriate adjective

position sub-quadrant on the tally

sheet

7 Such an explanation involves a base

meaning for the adjective cher as

lsquogreater than average in valuersquo with

its two polysemes determined syntac-

tically In post-N position an objective

interpretation obtains (ie greater

than average in value according to

some objective criterion such as

monetary value [frac14 expensive]) In

pre-N position a subjective interpreta-

tion obtains (ie greater than average

in value according to some subjective

criterion such as emotional value

[frac14 beloved])

8 Use of the noun phrase la valise lourde

lsquothe heavy suitcasersquo in a sentence

following a context in which the

reader has been told that there were

several suitcases would be lsquofinersquo in

semantic terms (as all that is required

is at least one such suitcase to be left)

but particularly lsquooddrsquo in pragmatic

terms (as it creates for a sentence

that is less informative than it could

be for the current purposes of the

exchange)

9 I argue elsewhere (Anderson 2002

2007) that this finding contradicts the

claim that learner grammars in con-

trast to native speaker grammars are

wholly based on lsquowhat they have

heard and how oftenrsquo (a possibility


that Bley-Vroman 2004 263 enter-

tains) This is because there is nothing

in classroom input frequency to pre-

vent generalizing the acceptability of

pre-N position of an adjective such as

lourde in (7a) from one interpretation

to the other Knowledge of syntaxndash

semantic composition in a poverty-

of-the-stimulus situation such as this

(ie knowledge to the effect that the

pairing of (7a) with a multiple noun-

referent context is the least acceptable

in truth-conditional semantic terms

despite impoverished input on the

part of L2 French learners) implies

an interlanguage grammar that is

epistemologically equivalent to that

of native speakers

REFERENCES

AndersonB2002 The fundamental equivalence

of native and interlanguage grammars Evi-

dence from argument licensing and adjective

position in L2 French Unpublished doctoral

dissertation Indiana University

Anderson B 2007 lsquoLearnability and parametric

change in the nominal system of L2 Frenchrsquo

Language Acquisition 14 forthcoming

Aston G (ed) 2001 Learning with Corpora

Houston TX Athelstan

Bardovi-Harlig K 1987 lsquoMarkedness and

salience in second-language acquisitionrsquo

Language Learning 37 385ndash407

Bardovi-Harlig K and S Gass 2002 lsquoIntroduc-

tionrsquo in S Gass K Bardovi-Harlig S S Magnan

and J Walz (eds) Pedagogical Norms for Second

and Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

Amsterdam Benjamins pp 1ndash12

Barson J 1996 La grammaire a lrsquoœuvre 5th edn

Boston Heinle amp Heinle

Biber D 1988 Variation across Speech and Writing

Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Biber D 1995 Dimensions of Register Variation

A Cross-linguistic Perspective Cambridge Cam-

bridge University Press

Biber D and R Reppen 2002 lsquoWhat does

frequency have to do with grammar teachingrsquo

Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24

199ndash208

Biber D S Conrad and R Reppen 1998

Corpus Linguistics Investigating Language Structure

and Use Cambridge Cambridge University

Press

Biber D S Johansson G Leech S Conrad

and E Finegan 1999 Longman Grammar of

Spoken and Written English London Longman

Bley-Vroman R 2004 lsquoCorpus linguistics and

second language acquisition Rules and fre-

quency in the acquisition of English multiple

wh-questionsrsquo in P Leistyna and C F Meyer

(eds) Corpus Analysis Language Structure and

Language Use Amsterdam Rodopi pp 255ndash72

Bley-Vroman R and N Yoskinaga 2000 lsquoThe

acquisition of multiple wh-questions by high-

proficiency non-native speakers of Englishrsquo

Second Language Research 16 3ndash26

Blyth C S (ed) 2003 The Sociolinguistics of

Foreign-language Classrooms Contributions of the

Native the Near-native and the Non-native Speaker

Boston MA Heinle

Bragger J D and D B Rice 1996 Quant a moi


Cinque G 1994 lsquoOn the evidence for partial

N-movement in the Romance DPrsquo in

G Cinque J Koster J-Y Pollock L Rizzi and

R Zanuttini (eds) Paths Towards Universal

Grammar Washington DC Georgetown

University Press pp 85ndash110

Conrad S 2000 lsquoWill corpus linguistics revolu-

tionize grammar teaching in the 21st centuryrsquo

TESOL Quarterly 34 548ndash60

Delbecque N 1990 lsquoWord order as a reflection

of alternate conceptual construals in French

and Spanish Similarities and divergences

in adjective positionrsquo Cognitive Linguistics 1

349ndash416

Delmonier D 1980 lsquoLa place de lrsquoadjectif en

francais Bilan des points de vue et theories du

XXe sieclersquo Cahiers de Lexicologie 37 5ndash24

Dryer M S 1995 lsquoFrequency and pragmatically

unmarked word orderrsquo in P Downing and

M Noonan (eds) Word Order in Discourse


Ellis N C 2002 lsquoFrequency effects in language

processing A review with implications for the-

ories of implicit and explicit language acquisi-

tionrsquo Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24

143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307

Eubank L and K R Gregg 2002 lsquoNews flashmdash

Hume still deadrsquo Studies in Second Language

Acquisition 24 237ndash47

Forsgren M 1978 La place de lrsquoadjectif epithete en

francais contemporain [Studia Romanica Upsa-

liensia 20] Uppsala Sweden Almqvist and

Wiksell

Francis G and J Sinclair 1994 lsquolsquolsquoI bet he drinks

Carling Black Labelrsquorsquo A riposte to Owen on

corpus grammarrsquo Applied Linguistics 15

190ndash200

Gass S 1997 Input Interaction and the Second

Language Learner Mahwah NJ Erlbaum

Gass S K Bardovi-Harlig S S Magnan and

J Walz (eds) 2002 Pedagogical Norms for Second


Amsterdam Benjamins

Greenberg J 1966 Language Universals The

Hague Mouton

Grice H P 1975 lsquoLogic and conversationrsquo in

P Cole and J L Morgan (eds) Syntax and

Semantics Vol 3 Speech Acts New York Academic

Press pp 41ndash58

Holmes J 1988 lsquoDoubt and uncertainty in ESL

textbooksrsquo Applied Linguistics 9 21ndash44

Kasper G 1979 lsquoCommunication strategies

Modality reductionrsquo Interlanguage Studies

Bulletin 42 266ndash83

Kerr B J 2002 lsquoVariant word-order construc-

tionsrsquo in S Gass K Bardovi-Harlig S S

Magnan and J Walz (eds) Pedagogical Norms

for Second and Foreign Language Learning and

Teaching Amsterdam Benjamins pp 183ndash98

Koike D A and J E Liskin-Gasparro 2003

lsquoPrivilege of the nonnative speaker meets

practical needs of the language teacherrsquo in C

S Blyth (ed) The Sociolinguistics of Foreign Lan-

guage Classrooms Boston MA Heinle pp 263ndash6

Kramsch C 2002 lsquoStandard norm and varia-

bility in language learningrsquo in S Gass K

Bardovi-Harlig S S Magnan and J Walz

(eds) Pedagogical Norms for Second and Foreign

Language Learning and Teaching Amsterdam

Benjamins pp 59ndash79

Kramsch C 2003 lsquoThe privilege of the non-

native speakerrsquo in C S Blyth (ed) The Socio-

linguistics of Foreign-language Classrooms Boston

MA Heinle pp 251ndash62

Larsson B 1993 La place et le sens des adjectifs

epithetes de valorisation positive [Etudes romanes

de Lund 50] Lund Sweden Lund University

Press

Lodge RA 1993 French From Dialect to Standard

London Routledge

Magnan S S L Martin-Berg W J Berg and

Y Rochette Ozzello 2002 Paroles 2nd edn

Fort Worth TX Harcourt College

Mazurkewich I 1984 lsquoAcquisition of dative

alternation by second language learners

and linguistic theoryrsquo Language Learning 34

91ndash109

Oates M D and J F Dubois 2003 Personnages

3rd edn Boston Houghton Mifflin

OrsquoConnorDiVitoN 1991 lsquoIncorporating native

speaker norms in second language materialsrsquo

Applied Linguistics 12 383ndash95

Owen C 1993 lsquoCorpus-based grammar and the

Heineken effect Lexico-grammatical descrip-

tion for language learnersrsquo Applied Linguistics

14 167ndash87

Ross J 1977 lsquoGood-bye to whom hello who torsquo

in the CLS Book of Squibs Cumulative Index

1968ndash1977 Chicago Chicago Linguistics

Society pp 88ndash90

St Onge S R St Onge and K Kulick 2003

Interaction Boston Heinle amp Heinle

Stubbs M 2001 lsquoTexts corpora and problems of

interpretation A response to Widdowsonrsquo


Valdman A 1989 lsquoClassroom foreign language

learning and language variation The notion of

pedagogical normsrsquo in R Eisenstein-Miriam

(ed) The Dynamic Interlanguage Empirical Studies

in Second Language Variation New York Plenum

pp 261ndash78

Valdman A and C Pons 1997 Chez nous Upper

Saddle River NJ Prentice Hall

van Riemsdijk H 1978 A Case Study in Syntactic

Markedness The Binding Nature of Prepositional

Phrases Lisse The Netherlands Peter de Riddler

Waugh L 1977 A Semantic Analysis of Word Order

Leiden Brill

Widdowson H G 2000 lsquoOn the limitations of

linguistics appliedrsquo Applied Linguistics 21 3ndash25

WilmetM 1980 lsquoAnteposition et postposition de

lrsquoepithete qualificative en francais contempor-

ainrsquo Travaux de Linguistique 7 179ndash204


THREE PERSPECTIVES ON FREQUENCY

Within linguistic theory frequency has long been associated with the notion of

markedness Greenberg (1966 67) in fact suggested that frequency is the

primary criterion for unmarked versus marked word order though one must be

careful to distinguish markedness in cross-linguistic terms from markedness

within a given language For example whereas van Riemsdijk (1978) argued

for preposition pied-piping in wh-questions (eg To whom did Cathy give a book)

as the more frequent and thus unmarked construction cross-linguistically Ross

(1977) observed that pied-piping has been undergoing neutralization in favor

of preposition stranding (eg Who[m] did Cathy give the book to) making it the

more frequent and thus unmarked construction in modern (colloquial) English

The relationship between frequency and markedness within linguistic

theory as exemplified above has in turn been investigated from a second

perspectivemdashthat of (second) language acquisition theorymdashby Mazurkewich

(1984) and Bardovi-Harlig (1987) Although Mazurkewichrsquos study appeared

to illustrate the strength of cross-linguistic markedness in determining

acquisitional sequences through empirical data suggesting the acquisition of

pied-piping before stranding among French- and Inuktitut-speaking ESL

learners Bardovi-Harligrsquos replication and re-interpretation of that study

showed just the opposite order illustrating the equal or greater importance of

the lsquodistribution of data available as inputrsquo (1987 400)1

Some twenty years later frequency effects in (second) language acquisition

continue to be addressed in the literature most particularly concerning the

extent to which first (L1) andor second (L2) language epistemology can be

defined in such terms Ellis (2002) for example provided a sweeping

examination of studies on input frequency effects in L1 processing claiming

that such effects are not simply a key determinant of acquisition but its sole

determinant Linguistic units are abstracted from language use and language

rules are in effect lsquostructural regularities that emerge from learnersrsquo lifetime

analysis of the distributional characteristics of the language inputrsquo (2002

144) This stands in stark contrast to so-called rationalist or innatist accounts

in which frequency effects are epiphenomenal (see for example Eubank and

Greggrsquos (2002) peer commentary of Ellis)

Bley-Vroman (2004) has taken an intermediate stance in arguing that

language acquisition at least in L1 involves both the lsquoformation of abstract

rules guided by UG and relatively independent of frequency effectsrsquo and

the lsquopiecemeal instance-based acquisition of particular structures which can

be substantially affected by the statistical structure of languagersquo (2004 269)

L2 acquisition according to Bley-Vroman appears to depart significantly

from this two-part process resulting in learner grammars that are based

significantly moremdashor perhaps whollymdashon lsquowhat they have heard and how

oftenrsquo (2004 263)

Bley-Vromanrsquos (2004) claims are partly based on data from Bley-Vroman

and Yoshinaga (2000) a study in which native English speakers and L1

BRUCE ANDERSON 287































































RESEARCH QUESTIONS






















BRUCE ANDERSON 289










genres






(as in (3))










































glosses

Methodology












BRUCE ANDERSON 291



Results


















Percent oftotal

Examples


0 0 mdash



















































BRUCE ANDERSON 293







discussion section)


Methodology

























were made)












Larsson (1993)

















observation period

























BRUCE ANDERSON 295

Results





































by course level)













course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill





































































RESEARCH QUESTIONS






















BRUCE ANDERSON 289










genres






(as in (3))










































glosses

Methodology












BRUCE ANDERSON 291



Results


















Percent oftotal

Examples


0 0 mdash



















































BRUCE ANDERSON 293







discussion section)


Methodology

























were made)












Larsson (1993)

















observation period

























BRUCE ANDERSON 295

Results





































by course level)













course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill
















genres






(as in (3))










































glosses

Methodology












BRUCE ANDERSON 291



Results


















Percent oftotal

Examples


0 0 mdash



















































BRUCE ANDERSON 293







discussion section)


Methodology

























were made)












Larsson (1993)

















observation period

























BRUCE ANDERSON 295

Results





































by course level)













course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill





























glosses

Methodology












BRUCE ANDERSON 291



Results


















Percent oftotal

Examples


0 0 mdash



















































BRUCE ANDERSON 293







discussion section)


Methodology

























were made)












Larsson (1993)

















observation period

























BRUCE ANDERSON 295

Results





































by course level)













course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill









Results


















Percent oftotal

Examples


0 0 mdash



















































BRUCE ANDERSON 293







discussion section)


Methodology

























were made)












Larsson (1993)

















observation period

























BRUCE ANDERSON 295

Results





































by course level)













course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill












































BRUCE ANDERSON 293







discussion section)


Methodology

























were made)












Larsson (1993)

















observation period

























BRUCE ANDERSON 295

Results





































by course level)













course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill













discussion section)


Methodology

























were made)












Larsson (1993)

















observation period

























BRUCE ANDERSON 295

Results





































by course level)













course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill










Larsson (1993)

















observation period

























BRUCE ANDERSON 295

Results





































by course level)













course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill







Results





































by course level)













course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill












course level)













Appendix B)



























BRUCE ANDERSON 297






















Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill




























Methodology







































each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill

























each context)












context)

Results









BRUCE ANDERSON 299
















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill






















over pragmatics






































DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill




















DISCUSSION






























BRUCE ANDERSON 301

































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill







































































(Lodge 1993))


















2002 71)

BRUCE ANDERSON 303

































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill







































structures



















NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill













NOTES






























































errorsrsquo)







BRUCE ANDERSON 305





considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill











considerations














































included














sheet














[frac14 beloved])












exchange)

























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill
























of native speakers

REFERENCES





























199ndash208




Press

















Boston MA Heinle
















349ndash416












143ndash88

BRUCE ANDERSON 307







Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill













Wiksell




190ndash200






Amsterdam Benjamins


Hague Mouton




Press pp 41ndash58





























Press


London Routledge







91ndash109









14 167ndash87















pp 261ndash78







Leiden Brill







Pedagogical Rules and their Relationship to …...rules, guided by UG and relatively independent of...

Documents

Transcript of Pedagogical Rules and their Relationship to …...rules, guided by UG and relatively independent of...