Face to Face With the Ghost in the Machine Psycholinguistics and TESOL

Face to Face With the Ghost in the Machine: Psycholinguistics and TESOL JOHN FIELD University of Reading Reading, England WHAT DOES PSYCHOLINGUISTICS TELL US? sycholinguistics is the study of how the mind handles language There is some lack of consensus as to how far the scope of the field extends, but this special issue of TESOL Quarterly focuses on its most central concerns, namely, how language is acquired, how it is stored in the mind, and how it is processed in use Findings from psycholinguistics are relevant to TESOL in several ways Most obviously, there is a growing body of research into the psychology of second language acquisition Researchers have investigated how learners construct a new language system alongside an existing one (Schwartz & Kroll, 2006) Established concepts from cognitive psychology have been invoked to shed light on the challenges faced by second language (L2) users (Robinson, 2001) There has been particular interest in how bilinguals coordinate their two language systems (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998) and in how the first language (L1) suffers attrition when the second becomes the dominant one (Hansen, 2001) Research into L1 performance also makes an important contribution On the one hand, it provides insights into language as a general phenomenon All language users, whatever their L1, have to deal with the forms in which language is transmitted: They all have, for example, to assemble speech under pressure of time or to use sweeps of the eye to read printed text All human beings share a similar brain configuration, and it is reasonable to suppose that any language maps on to the operations for which the brain is best fitted (Deacon, 1997, pp 115–116) On the other hand, we can also learn from research into processes specific to the L1, which serves to identify routines that the L2 user needs to acquire It is useful to know, for example, that listeners to English use lexical stress to work out where words begin and end (Cutler, 1990); those who not use this technique in their L1 will need to adjust to it Note that the line of argument here is not that the L2 learner must slavishly imitate the native user, but simply that years of exposure to English have enabled the native user to evolve the most efficient ways of producing and making sense of the language P TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 42, No 3, September 2008 361 At this juncture, some clarification is called for The impression may have been given that psycholinguistic enquiry is heavily normative and fails to provide for the diversity of language users and contexts of use Psycholinguists indeed aim to identify the processes which underlie language performance in general, but they also recognize that the processes in question will vary from person to person and from situation to situation For example, cognitive models of L1 and L2 reading recognise that the way in which a text is read will depend upon, inter alia, the reader’s skill, the reader’s experience of this type of text, the reader’s familiarity with any terminology, and the reader’s purpose in reading Similarly, models of how readers construct meaning incorporate the cues provided by their knowledge of the world, the writer, and the topic; they also allow for the way a word’s range of possible senses are constrained by the context within which it occurs PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND TESOL From all that has been said so far, one would expect psycholinguistic findings to be grist for the mill of those working within TESOL, but that has not been the case There are a number of reasons why Most obviously, psycholinguistics demands familiarity with ideas in both language and psychology Linguists and psychologists have different priorities and different ways of thinking As George Miller put it (1990): “Grammarians are more interested in what could be said than in what people actually say, which irritates psychologists, and psychologists insist on supplementing intuition with objective evidence, which irritates linguists” (p 321) In addition, psycholinguistics draws its information from a range of other domains, including discourse analysis, phonetics, language pathology, computer modelling, and neuroscience This eclecticism makes the field exciting to those of us who work in it, but bewildering, to say the least, to somebody who comes to it afresh So psycholinguistics is sometimes perceived as daunting to teach and study It is certainly not, but it is quite often given a lower profile in university courses (including master of arts in TESOL programs) than it deserves, and it may end up being taught by nonspecialists.1 Another complication is that psycholinguistic research has two very different traditions There is an evidence-driven approach, which examines how human beings acquire, produce, and understand language with a 362 This is particularly the case in the United Kingdom, where many departments of applied linguistics and schools of education are underinformed and understaffed in this area The situation appears to be rather better in the United States, Canada, and Australia TESOL QUARTERLY view to tracing similarities of behavior between users It relies heavily on experimental findings and on observation There is also a parallel theorydriven approach, in which researchers adopt the assumption that the accounts of language constructed by linguists correspond closely to what actually takes place in the mind and use them as a framework for investigating the nature of language competence If anything, the gap between the two has widened in recent years The theory-driven approach still adheres to the traditional notion of language as rule-governed behavior, whereas many who espouse the evidence-driven approach are willing to contemplate the possibility that language use is driven by example rather than rule The importance of psycholinguistic theory is increasingly being recognized by specialists in second language acquisition (SLA) A number of distinguished researchers (among them, Segalowitz, Nick Ellis, DeKeyser, Hulstijn, Schmidt, Long, and Robinson) have drawn on concepts such as automaticity, working memory, implicit learning, and attention, in order to provide insights into how L2s are acquired However, it also has to be acknowledged that other writers more immediately concerned with the applications to TESOL have sometimes used the terms psycholinguistic and cognitive very loosely and have explained background theory inadequately The message has to be: Caveat lector All of this makes the present issue of TESOL Quarterly especially timely Its aim is to build bridges to some of the more important ideas in psycholinguistics and to show their relevance to English language teaching All the articles included in this issue fall within the evidence-driven tradition They draw upon well-established principles of cognitive psychology and apply them to the special circumstances of the L2 learner and user There is a particular emphasis on L1 processing and how it can assist our understanding of processing in an L2, but issues connected with vocabulary, bilingualism, and acquisition are also represented The remainder of this introduction outlines some of the ideas that are touched upon by contributors The coverage is by no means comprehensive and is not intended to offer a state-of-the-art picture of psycholinguistics (for more detail on the various topics, see Field, 2004b) The principal concerns of psycholinguistics are taken to be: • How individuals acquire language (whether an L1 or an L2) • How individuals store language in their minds • How individuals use language (how they assemble it into productions and how they understand it when produced by others) These three areas of enquiry provide a structure for the discussion that follows PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND TESOL 363 ACQUIRING It might seem that psycholinguistic studies of first language acquisition (FLA) would have a great deal to offer to our understanding of how an L2 is acquired However, the point has often been made that the situation of ESL learners is very different from that of infants acquiring English as L1 ESL learners possess an already-established L1 and are often fully developed cognitively and capable of analysing input critically Acquiring Expertise One answer has been to treat L2 proficiency not as the outcome of a constrained process that follows the course of FLA, but as a form of expertise that has to be developed over time Widely quoted have been Anderson’s ACT models (e.g., Anderson, 1983), which postulate that a novice in any form of expertise (driving a car, playing chess, etc.) starts out with a form of declarative knowledge (knowledge that) which becomes transformed through practice into procedural knowledge (knowledge how) In the ACT models, practice brings two particular benefits, which serve to reduce the demands on a language user’s working memory Anderson himself has associated them with SLA Firstly, single steps within a larger operation become combined One way of representing this in language learning is in terms of building discrete lexical items into chunks (Wray, 2002) Secondly, and very importantly, the steps become increasingly automatic until they make minimal demands on the attention of the performer A major difference between a novice and a skilled L2 user lies in how automatic the processes are that the user commands (DeKeyser, 2001; Segalowitz, 2003) The concepts of working memory, automaticity, and attention are mentioned in several of the articles in this volume (Farris, Trofimovich, Segalowitz, & Gatbonton; Field; Spelman-Miller, Lindgren, & Sullivan; Walter) Exemplar Models The influence of FLA can be seen more directly when we consider the type of knowledge that is acquired by an L2 learner Recent instance-based theories (or exemplar models) propose that we acquire our L1 by assembling multiple traces of the encounters we have had with speakers Thus, a child builds up a composite representation of the category DOG by 364 TESOL QUARTERLY drawing upon a set of images of most or all of the real-world animals that, over time, have had this particular label attached to them by an adult (Hintzman, 1986) Similarly, the child learns to place an –ing form after enjoy, a to infinitive after want and a simple stem after can because multiple exposures to these patterns are recorded in the child’s mind This hypothesis might seem implausibly wasteful, but it accords with what has been increasingly learned about the massive storage capacity of the human brain (Da˛ browska, 2004, p 18) Exemplar theory has given rise to a view of SLA as • potentially implicit and incidental, with the learner accumulating traces without necessarily being able to express what has been acquired (Schmidt, 1994; Hulstijn, 2003) • emergentist, with patterns of L2 knowledge being built up randomly in a way that is determined by exposure to the target language (LarsenFreeman, 1997; Ellis, 1998) • example based, with the learner matching new examples of words or syntactic structures to examples encountered earlier, rather than relying principally on abstract grammar rules (Tomasello, 2003) • sensitive to relative frequency, since the more examples a learner has encountered of a particular word or pattern, the more firmly established it will be in his or her mind (Bybee & Hopper, 2001) This perspective strongly informs the article in this issue by Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, and Maynard STORING How language is stored receives comparatively little attention within TESOL Teachers speak of learners acquiring a set of phoneme values or a productive vocabulary but tend not to discuss precisely what is being acquired Variability Among the complicating factors is the variable nature of the spoken input to which learners are exposed Words are taught in their citation forms, but in connected speech they are subject to strong reductive influences when they are not the most prominent item in an intonation group Do L2 learners then have to store a range of possible realisations of each word as part of their oral vocabulary? PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND TESOL 365 Two possible answers have just been mentioned We might assume that, instead of a single citation form of the word being stored in the mind, the language user draws upon multiple traces of it, said in different voices on different occasions Another solution is to assume that many words are not only stored individually but are also embedded into recurrent chunks of language (Pawley & Syder, 1983) Within the chunk, their form remains more consistent; the information that is stored may even include a standard prosodic pattern This is the background to an initiative by researchers at the University of Michigan, who aim to establish a dataset of frequent formulaic chunks that are of use to those studying English for academic purposes One of the problems in constructing such a resource lies in defining what is or is not recognized as a formulaic chunk Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, and Maynard (this issue) investigate three factors which cause a language user to regard a chunk as a linguistic unit They are its length, the cumulative frequency of the components of the chunk, and mutual information (MI), the extent to which the components of the chunk co-occur across the corpus in question The writers report that the most important factor for L1 users proved to be MI but that for L2 users tested, it was cumulative frequency This result suggests that, even at quite an advanced level, L2 users continue to process the formulaic chunk as if it were a set of independent words The Bilingual Lexicon A second issue concerns the structure of the vocabulary store that a language learner draws upon Assuming a bilingual has two relatively complete systems of vocabulary, how are they distributed? Are they in separate stores but linked to a single semantic base in which fundamental real-world concepts are held? Are they in separate stores, each with its own semantic base? Or are they in one single store? A number of leading researchers (e.g., Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998) have come to favour the last option There are then interesting consequences for any view of how words are recognised by a bilingual reader The most widely accepted model of word recognition holds that input in the form of a group of letters triggers a process of competition, in which a reader foregrounds a set of possible matches for a group of letters on the page The candidates are favoured (activated) to different degrees according to how frequent they are and how closely they resemble the stimulus As evidence accumu366 TESOL QUARTERLY lates, one item achieves such a high level of activation that it wins out over all the others and becomes recognised.2 If one subscribes to the single-store solution, then one has to accept that candidates from both a bilingual’s languages will enter the competition An English–Spanish bilingual might be operating in English, but the sight of the word animal would trigger access to the identical word in Spanish as well It has indeed been demonstrated that words like animal with shared meanings across two languages are recognised more quickly by bilinguals than they are by monolinguals (Van Hell & Dijkstra, 2002) The contribution by Sunderman and Schwartz (this issue) extends earlier studies by asking what happens in the case of words such as grave, which have (for the reader at least) one sense in Spanish but two in English As the researchers hypothesised, the existence of the additional mismatched sense weakens the advantage that is gained from a shared form The article by Ecke (this issue) also focuses on the bilingual lexicon It examines what occurs when a speaker cannot retrieve a word in his or her L1 Faced with what is known in psycholinguistics as a tip-of-the-tongue state (Brown & McNeill, 1966), speakers draw upon mental cues to the target, including words which resemble it in form Ecke finds evidence that when a group of Spanish–English bilinguals are attempting to retrieve a word in Spanish, they make use of retrieval cues from both their languages The number of English cues used becomes larger as ESL proficiency increases This evidence thus lends further support to the notion of a single lexical store USING A third area of psycholinguistics, often referred to as language processing,3 is concerned with how users of a language assemble utterances and how they understand the productions of others This is potentially the richest vein of all for TESOL practitioners because it can shape understanding of what constitutes expertise in speaking, listening, reading, and writing A problem for the teaching of all four skills is that instructors often lack a clear and detailed idea of the behavior that they wish to induce in their learners and thus a goal towards which their teaching might tend They fall back on conventional methods such as the comprehension approach in reading and listening or the grading of tasks A similar principle has been applied to listening Throughout, the term is used for both production and reception Some commentators limit it to reception PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND TESOL 367 and genres in speaking and writing, but these generalized approaches often fail to address the detail of what it is that constitutes a successful L2 speaker, listener, writer, or reader It is only relatively recently that language processing theory has begun to influence skills instruction in TESOL It is therefore noteworthy that six of the nine studies accepted for this special issue focus on skills Speaking A major concern in constructing models of L1 speaking has lain in an apparent incompatibility between the syntactic complexity of certain utterances and the speed with which they are assembled How speakers manage, in much less than a second, to retrieve appropriate words from a vocabulary of at least 30,000 items and to slot them into a syntactic structure? Two possible answers have already been mentioned First, the speaker is assisted by storing recurrent strings of words in the form of preassembled chunks, in which the syntax is ready-made (Wray, 2002) Second, many of the processes that support L1 speech production are highly automatic (Levelt, 1989, pp 20–22) These two features of skilled L1 speech minimise the cognitive demands that speech production imposes on a speaker However, with many L2 speakers, chunking and automatisation are only partially acquired—with the result that assembling an utterance requires considerably greater resources of attention The problem is that our resources of attention are strictly limited; if they are partly given over to speaking, then there will be fewer available for other possible tasks And vice versa: If there are demanding tasks that have to be done, then the speaker’s ability to assemble an accurate and comprehensible utterance may be affected This is perhaps not an issue in everyday conversation, but it becomes one in conditions where lives may be at stake In a fascinating article, Farris, Trofimovich, Segalowitz, and Gatbonton (this issue) investigate the extent to which the L2 productions of air traffic controllers are successful in conveying their intended message They investigate the communication skills of trainee controllers under conditions which incorporate the other simultaneous demands that are likely to be made on their attention The findings make compelling reading for airline travellers Listening Psycholinguistics distinguishes two operations in listening The first is perceptual, with the listener decoding the signal that reaches the ear 368 TESOL QUARTERLY The second is conceptual, with the listener building meaning by contextualising the words that have been decoded In accounts of L2 listening, writers sometimes imply that the two operations are alternatives rather than mutually dependent (see Field, 2004a, for a discussion) A received view has developed that decoding is the lesser partner because any problems in this area can usually be redressed by the use of what is loosely termed context This line of argument ignores the fact that a small error of word recognition can have an impact on the understanding of the whole utterance and indeed of the whole discourse Recently, opinion has shifted and there has been a renewed interest in how input contributes to the meaning that is extracted (Field, 2008) If we are to learn more about the way in which an L2 listener combines cues from input with cues from context, then it is imperative to know how much of the input is likely to be successfully decoded and if there are biases in the way the listener distributes his or her attention Field (this issue) cites evidence from psycholinguistics that content and function words are processed differently In English, fast-track decoding for function words is assisted by their association with weak quality syllables (Grosjean & Gee, 1987) This characteristic raises the question of how L2 listeners handle function words They might find them easy to identify because of their high frequency or hard to identify because of their low prominence The answer provides an indication of the type of intake that an L2 learner of English derives from an utterance: to what extent it contains elements of syntax and to what extent it is lexically based Writing TESOL practitioners are generally familiar with what is termed a process approach to the teaching of L2 writing, in which learners are encouraged to draft, review, and revise their texts, often working in pairs or groups (White & Arndt, 1991) They may not be aware that this approach largely grew out of early psycholinguistic models of L1 writing which identified the phases through which a writer proceeds Most models (e.g., Hayes & Flower, 1980; Kellogg, 1994) mention four main phases: planning, translation (from ideas to language), execution, and editing.4 The important point about the phases is that they not form a neat sequence: They are recursive, with the writer free to go back at any moment and change what was planned or what was written Insights into these writing decisions are obtained by two methods: (a) by asking writers to produce a verbal report of what is in their minds as they write, and These terms are not universally employed PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND TESOL 369 (b) by maintaining a record of a writer’s keystrokes and thus of all the revisions made Spelman Miller, Lingren, and Sullivan (this issue) are leading exponents of keystroke logging as a means of investigating L2 writing processes In their article they provide a detailed rationale for the method and give concrete examples of the informative data it provides Their particular interest here is to track longitudinally the developments in L2 writing skills across years of study Reading A point shared by two of the three articles on reading in this issue, and one that may appear surprising, is the part played by phonology Firstly, it is now generally accepted that readers of alphabetic scripts use two routes for identifying words: a lexical (or whole word) one and a sublexical one based on grapheme–phoneme relationships (Coltheart, 1978) This dual approach is even employed by users of a relatively opaque spelling system such as the English one However, the ability to recognise discrete phonemes (and thus to make the letter-sound connections that an alphabetic system requires) may not be innate Widely quoted studies in L1 psycholinguistics (e.g., Morais, Cary, Alegria, & Bertelson, 1979) have suggested that illiterate individuals are incapable of recognising and manipulating phonemes (a typical task is to ask them what word remains after deleting the first sound from gold) Commentators have concluded that phonological awareness (the knowledge that speech in any language draws upon a finite system of sound values)5 may be a byproduct of learning to read using an alphabetical writing system (see Goswami & Bryant, 1990 for a critical review of this theory) If one accepts that this faculty is acquired in the way described, then matching regular written forms to their spoken equivalents must be more difficult for those whose L1 does not have an alphabetical system McDowell and Lorch (this issue) compare readers from mainland China who were introduced to alphabetic principles in the form of pinyin (an early reading script) with readers from Hong Kong who mastered logographic Chinese characters without pinyin and thus have had no exposure to phoneme-level analysis in L1 McDowell and Lorch expand on earlier studies by adding a third condition: They include a group of learners with formal phoneme training in the form of exposure to the International Phonetic Alphabet There is a second way in which phonology is implicated in reading 370 Note that this is entirely distinct from the concept of phonological working memory, discussed by Walter (this issue) TESOL QUARTERLY Readers briefly store recently decoded words in their minds while they build them into a unit of meaning Considerable evidence exists (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993, pp 78–91) that readers store them in phonological form.6 It may seem illogical to recode visual input in this way, but it enables our minds to keep apart material that has just been read from material that is currently being scanned by the eyes This particular function of phonology raises intriguing questions as far as L2 readers are concerned Given that language learners often have an imperfect mastery of the phonological values of the target language, what form does this “voice in the head” take? Walter (this issue) investigates the relationship between L2 reading skills and familiarity with the L2 phonological system She draws upon a well-established finding in memory research: Because of the way words are encoded in the mind, subjects find it difficult to remember groups of written words that are phonologically similar Replicating this test with French-speaking readers of English, Walter reports a significant difference between the performance of poor comprehenders and that of more skilled ones She concludes that, for L2 readers, the ability to internalise words and to hold them in the mind in phonological form makes an important contribution to successful meaning construction Where McDowell & Lorch and Walter apply L1 psycholinguistic principles to an L2 context, Crossley, Greenfield, and McNamara (this issue) draw attention to an area of reading studies that has tended to neglect a cognitive perspective altogether Their interest lies in readability: Specifically, they aim to achieve computer-generated measures of the relative difficulty of a text for an L2 reader They point out that the criteria traditionally used in readability studies are text centered rather than reader centered They identify three measures that correspond loosely to the three operations into which some psycholinguists divide reading, namely, decoding, parsing, and meaning building Running their CohMetrix program using these three measures, they achieve outcomes more accurately predictive than earlier ones of level of reading difficulty, as indicated by the responses of Japanese students in an established database CONCLUSION The articles in this special issue illustrate the range and variety of the insights into L2 performance that can be achieved by drawing on find6 Note that, though the stored information is in some kind of phonological form, it is not like a voice articulating the words; if it were, we would not be able to read silently so much faster than we can read aloud PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND TESOL 371 ings in psycholinguistics The strength of the findings in question is that they are not speculative or intuitive but are supported by strong empirical evidence of how language users actually behave The issue demonstrates how a better understanding of language processing might influence the way in which the teaching of all four skills is handled It also adds to what we know of how vocabulary is stored in L2 users’ minds I sincerely hope that it will raise a curtain on some insufficiently explored aspects of learner behavior I hope, too, that it will stimulate new interest in an exciting and rigorous field of enquiry that has enormous relevance to TESOL practitioners ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I express my gratitude to Suresh Canagarajah for having approached me to this special issue—a bold and very welcome initiative given the limited profile that psycholinguistics has received I owe an enormous debt to all who assisted me with the issue, particularly to those who gave so generously of their time and expertise in commenting (perceptively and often in considerable detail) on the submissions Sincere thanks to everyone THE AUTHOR John Field teaches psycholinguistics and child language development at the University of Reading, England, and cognitive approaches to second language acquisition at Cambridge University, England His interests lie in applying psycholinguistic theory to issues in L2 learning, especially listening He is committed to making psycholinguistics available to a wider audience through his writing and teaching REFERENCES Anderson, J R (1983) The architecture of cognition Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Brown, R., & McNeill, D (1966) The “tip-of-the-tongue” phenomenon Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 325–337 Bybee, J L., & Hopper, P (Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of language structure Amsterdam: Benjamins Coltheart, M (1978) Lexical access in simple reading tasks In G Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp 151–216) London: Academic Press Cutler, A (1990) Exploiting prosodic possibilities In Altmann, G (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp 105– 121) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Da˛ browska, E (2004) Language, mind and brain Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press 372 TESOL QUARTERLY Deacon, T (1997) The symbolic species London: Penguin DeKeyser, R M (2001) Automaticity and automatization In P Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp 125–151) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Dijkstra, A., & Van Heuven, W J B (1998) The BIA model and bilingual word recognition In J Grainger & A Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp 189–225) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Ellis, N C (1998) Emergentism, connectionism and language learning Language Learning, 48, 631–664 Field, J (2004a) An insight into listeners’ problems: Too much bottom-up or too much top-down? System, 32, 363–377 Field, J (2004b) Psycholinguistics: The key concepts London: Routledge Field, J (2008) Listening in the language classroom Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gathercole, S E., & Baddeley, A (1993) Working memory and language Hove, England: Psychology Press Goswami, U., & Bryant, P (1990) Phonological skills and learning to read Hove, England: Erlbaum Grosjean, F., & Gee, J (1987) Prosodic structure and spoken word recognition Cognition, 25, 135–155 Hansen, L (2001) Language attrition: The fate of the start Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 60–73 Hayes, J R., & Flower, L S (1980) Identifying the organization of writing processes In L W Gregg & E R Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp 3–30) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Hintzman, D L (1986) Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model Psychological Review, 93, 411–428 Hulstijn, J (2003) Incidental and intentional learning In C J Doughty & M H Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 349–381) Oxford: Blackwell Kellogg, R T (1994) The psychology of writing New York: Oxford University Press Larsen-Freeman, D (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition Applied Linguistics, 18, 141–165 Levelt, W (1989) Speaking Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Miller, G A (1990) Linguists, psychologists, and the cognitive sciences Language, 66, 317–322 Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P (1979) Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323–331 Pawley, A., & Syder, H (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency In J Richards & R Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp 191–226) London: Longman Robinson, P (Ed.) (2001) Cognition and second language instruction Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Schmidt, R (1994) Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics AILA Review, 11, 11–26 Schwartz, A., & Kroll, J (2006) Language processing in bilingual speakers In M J Traxler & M A Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp 967–999) London: Academic Press Segalowitz, N (2003) Automaticity and second languages In C J Doughty & M H Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp 382–408) Oxford: Blackwell PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND TESOL 373 Tomasello, M (2003) Constructing a language Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Van Hell, J G., & Dijkstra, T (2002) Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 780–789 White, R., & Arndt, V (1991) Process writing Harlow, England: Longman Wray, A (2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 374 TESOL QUARTERLY