LOGBOOK

TASK 1: Interlanguage (IL) write an academic reflection addressing the following issues
(800 words)

_ What does IL tell us about learners’ knowledge of language?

_ What are the implications of IL for our understanding of language learning?

_ What is the value of grammar instruction to the development of IL?

What does IL tell us about learners’ knowledge of language?

Proposed by Larry Selinker in 1972, interlanguage (IL) refers to the knowledge of language that
each learner construct during the course of target language (TL) development. The IL hypothesis
was developed as a reaction to the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) due to their opposing
view on learners’ error. While CAH exclusively attributes them to L1 transfer effect, IL hypothesis
takes a number of contributing factors into account. More importantly, learners’ error from IL view
is regarded as an integral part of “transitional competence” rather than a deviation from the
standard of target language (Corder, 1967, p. 167) . It provides evidence for the assessment on
learning progress, for the research on how target language is acquired and for the learners’ attempt
in constructing target language (Corder, 1967). Therefore, an error- free output may not an
indicator of language acquisition but rather, perhaps the result of memorization from the
decontextualized stimuli- response- reinforcement practice. Interlanguage is not just error-
embedded but also systematic and variable.

During the learning process, learners are likely to generate either target- like or non- target like
utterances. The linguistic components of these utterances are not randomly put together but rather
follow an underlying set of rules which emerges from the processes of “building, revising,
expanding and refining L2 representations, as the new grammar develops” (Ortega, 2013, p. 116).
The construction of IL internal grammar also pertains to a number of learning strategies learners
employ to determine the form of target language (Adjemian, 1976). They sometimes simplify the
target structures or overgeneralize the rules to the forms that do not require it and sometimes apply
their L1 grammar to L2 contexts. As a result, learner language develops its own system of rules
which “do not always correspondent to those of native or target language” (Keck & Kim, 2014, p.
125).

Interlanguage is also characterized by its variability. On one hand, variability refers to the
variation in learners’ proficiency. Due to individual differences in age, language aptitude,
motivation, first language (L1). etc. learners are able to construct their own interlanguage or what
Corder (1967, p. 166) refers to as a “built- in syllabus” during the course of development. This
individual syllabus significantly determines learners’ readiness to take the next stage of IL
development (Corder, 1967). Therefore, they may go through the same developmental stages but
have different rate of development. On the other hand, variability is bound with learners’
sociolinguistic competence to shift their communicative styles across registers or situational
contexts in regard with the degree of formality (Tarone, 1982). This variations in language
performance results from the mutual interaction between learners and the social context they are
functioning (Verspoor, Lowie, & Van Dijk, 2008). Therefore, learners’ knowledge of language
comprises not just sets of grammar rules but also sociolinguistic understanding.

What are the implications of IL for our understanding of language learning?

While Behaviorism regards language learning as a habit- forming process which emphasizes the
reinforcement of error- free output, IL Hypothesis views it as a non- linear, dynamic process that
every error can be indicative of what learners have achieved so far and what needs further
developing.

First of all, the construction of target language knowledge does not simply go from mistake-
making stage straight to accuracy stage but rather “continually engage in the process of building,
revising, expanding and refining, as new grammar develop”(Ortega, 2013, p. 116). This constant
reconstructing process makes a qualitative difference between an initial output and the linguistic
production that has undergone the process regardless of their error- free feature. While the
accuracy in the later performance results from the transformation of declarative knowledge into
procedural knowledge, the initial accuracy could be “purely coincidental” (Ortega, 2013, p. 118).
In this light, IL development is graphically represented in the “U-shaped learning curve” (Ortega,
2013, p. 118).
Secondly, IL learning also fluctuates between stages of development as it can progress toward
target- like performance with an increase in level of complexity or regress “toward an IL norm”,
not learners’ first language system (Selinker, 1972, p. 216). Moreover, it could also experience the
state of fossilization when learner language resists any attempts to make progress. Another
characteristic of IL learning resides in the different rate at which each language knowledge and
skills also develop. In this line of thinking, Nunan (1998) metaphorically compared language
learning with the experience of “growing a garden” in which “linguistic flowers” has their own
emerging time and rate of growth (p.102).

Fourthly, the notion of “built-in syllabus” provides support for the reconceptualization of language
learning from a passive- transmitting and absorbing knowledge to an active knowledge-
constructed process. As learners moderate learning progress according to their readiness to reach
the next stage of development, their built- in syllabus or “learnability” put a constraint on what
can be acquired or “teachability” at a given stage of development (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 2014,
p. 280). Therefore, the assessment of learner language should be integrated into classroom
practices in the form of class-based assessment which keeps teachers informed about their learners’
current stage of development and also informs their teaching methods to match the school syllabus
with learners’ internal syllabus.

What is the value of grammar instruction to the development of IL?

Since each learner constructs their own built- in syllabus, grammar instruction seems to play no
role in promoting L2 development. A number of studies in the SLA field have shown its value to
L2 learning. Firstly, it is now widely acknowledged that instructed learners perform better than
those who receives little formal instruction in regard with accuracy and complexity at morphology
(Bardovi-Harlig, 1995; Doughty. C & Varela.E, 1998; Sato, 1990) and syntax level (Doughty,
1991; Jansen, 2008). In addition, form- focused instruction also increases level of accuracy and
fluency in communicative language teaching and content-based instruction (Lyster, 2004; Spada
& Lightbown, 1993). Thirdly, grammar instruction contributes to activate the reconstructing
process. R. Ellis (2008) pointed out, the conscious understanding of grammar promotes gap
noticing between the newly-acquired grammar and their existing interlanguage rules. The
perception of this mismatch, then can facilitate “grammar reconstructing” (Gass & Varonis, 1994,
p. 199), a crucial process for transforming explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge. In
consideration of built- syllabus which determine learners’ readiness acquire new grammar rules,
the value of grammar instruction does not exclusively lie in the hand of teachers but rather co-
construct with learners.

TASK 2 The analysis of the researchers’ belief about language, language learning and
learners based on their study.

The article: Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical gender system
(Sabourin, Stowe, & De Haan, 2006).

The discussion focuses on the underlying theories of language learning that the study based on.
Evidence supporting the assumption was found in the study design, the data analysis techniques
and the selection of independent variables. The analysis reveals that the researchers’ belief in
language and language learning may have connected to their view on L1 transfer effect, frequency
and the relationship of explicit and implicit knowledge.

The role of L1 transfer effect

The correlation analysis in this study indicates that the researchers’ view on the L1 transfer effect
may lend itself to Interlanguage Hypothesis. While the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis puts L1
transfer in charge of every error learners make, Interlanguage Hypothesis regards it as one of the
contributing factors. In the study, despite the main focus on the L1 transfer effect, the researchers
also stressed the importance of frequency and the characteristics of target language in the
acquisition of grammatical gender. Therefore, 3- way ANOVAs was employed to look at the
interaction not just between first language and target language but among three factors: the
participants’ L1 knowledge about grammatical gender, the frequency of noun and the
categorization of gender of noun.

The role of frequency in language learning

With the selection of frequency as one of independent variables, the researchers may have drawn
on the principles of emergentism which relates the language processing systems to “the frequency
of occurrence that are usual in language input” (N. C. Ellis, 2003, p. 82). In the study, the
researchers believes that the regular exposure to the grammatical gender is attributive to the
accumulation of experience and familiarity with its rule (Sabourin et al., 2006). This view on the
role of frequency in language learning may have derived from the conversing effect of token
frequency. Since the researchers did not identify which type of frequency the study focused on,
this inference about the role of token frequency is drawn from the distinction between token and
type frequency on language learning. The former looks at frequency from learners’ exposure to a
target language item as it “counts how often a particular form appear in input”(N. Ellis & Collins,
2009, p. 330) . On the other hand, the latter type defines frequency based on the linguistic feature
of target language which is “the number of distinct lexical items that can be substituted in a given
slot in a construction” (N. Ellis & Collins, 2009, p. 330). Since the study looked at the participants
“experience and familiarity” with the gender of noun in Dutch, token frequency seems to be its
variable. In the study, the role of token frequency in language learning may have derived from the
high frequency’s contribution to the faster retrieval of target language form as the more often
language is used, the easier for language users to get access to it next time (Bybee, 1995).

The role of explicit and implicit knowledge in language learning

The study design provides evidence for the assumption that the researchers attribute IL
development to both explicit and implicit knowledge. Although both the first and second
experience employed grammaticality judgment tasks (GJTs) to investigate the L1 transfer effect
on learning Dutch grammatical gender, each of GJT measures different type of knowledge. The
judgement on the focus of GJTs was based on the three characteristics of implicit and explicit
knowledge, discussed by R. Ellis (2005) which are comprised of awareness, type of knowledge
and accessibility.

In the first experiment, the participants’ explicit knowledge of Dutch grammatical gender rule was
looked at. The participants were required to assign the correct gender to a list of nouns. The
judgement on the gender assignments depends on both conscious attention to the language forms
and the declarative knowledge of grammatical gender rules. Another consideration is about the
type of information processing. Time availability plays a role in determining whether the
processing is controlled or automatic. If the access to knowledge is proceeded under time pressure,
it involved automatic processing (R. Ellis, 2005). As time limit was not specified in this task, the
knowledge was accessed via controlled processing. In the light of these characteristics, explicit
knowledge was the underlying focus of the first experiment.

In the second experiment, the task was designed to measure how the participant apply their
knowledge of grammatical gender in a sentence context. It was divided into two sections. The first
section requires the participant to discriminate between grammatical and deviant sentences within
30 minutes. Performing the task under time pressure requires the participant to access their
knowledge of Dutch grammatical gender via an automatic processing. In addition, an intuitive
judgement is generally made in discrimination tasks (R. Ellis, 1991). Therefore, the implicit
knowledge of grammatical gender was the underlying focus of the first section. The second section
has every feature of a task for measuring explicit knowledge. The participants were required to
correct the ungrammatical sentences. There was no time limit in this task which allows the
participants to take control of their information processing. In addition, explicit knowledge of
syntax rules is essential in any correction tasks (R. Ellis, 1991). In this respect, the second section
was looking at the participants’ explicit knowledge.

A closer look at the study supports the assumption that the cognitive view of language learning
may have underpinned the study. While both Universal Grammar (UG) and Cognition view on
language acquisition draw a clear line between language competence and performance, only
Cognitivists discusses the non- interface as well as interface of explicit and implicit knowledge.
Regarding the researchers’ perspective, the design of GJTs in the second experiment indicates the
emphasis on both type of knowledge. It used the explicit knowledge in the correction task to
evaluate the participants’ judgement which relies on implicit knowledge in the discrimination task.
In this regard, the researchers may view the acquisition of target language as the transformation of
explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge, from a controlled to automatic performance.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis, the researchers may have viewed language learning as a complex, dynamic
process which involves the interaction of a number of contributing factors such as the learners’
first knowledge, the frequent exposure to target language and the linguistic features of TL itself.
More importantly, the study may have laid its underpinning theory on the cognitive view of second
language learning as the study design shows the emphasis on both explicit and implicit knowledge
in the acquisition of grammatical gender rules. A closer look at the order of GJTs task in the two
experiences also support the assumption about the researchers’ belief in language learning: the
development of interlanguage is the transforming process of explicit knowledge into implicit
knowledge.

TASK 3: How does the learners’ first language influence their learning of another language?
(600 words)

Leaners’ knowledge of first language influences target language learning across all layers of its
system including phonology, morphology, syntax and pragmatic level (Oldin, 2003). In this sense,
it contributes to shape the features of learner language during stages of IL development. Attention
should be given to leaners’ L1 background as it can promote or obstruct target language learning.

Both differences and similarities between pairs of languages contribute to speed up or slow down
the interlanguage development. The findings from Jarvis’s study (2002) into the learning of
English article system shows that similarities between English and Swedish article system
contributes to the high degree of accuracy in the Swedes learners’ use of definite and indefinite
articles despite their only two- year of English instruction. However, such similarities also cause
Spanish learners of English to overgeneralize the definite article “the” to other contexts which may
require other articles. In other words, while similarities in the article rule contribute to the faster
acquisition of Sweden learners at their initial stage, it keeps Spanish learners remain longer at a
certain stage of their interlanguage development. Similarly, the incongruence between two
language systems has been well-documented as one of the obstacles to learners’ progress toward
their expected target language- like proficiency. In the case of learning negation rules in English,
the participants who follow the pre-verbal negation norms in their first languages (eg. Italian,
Greek, Russia, Spanish) tend to make slower progress than those whose L1 background shares
similar the post-verbal negation rule in English (Zobl, 1982). On the other hand, differences also
promote TL learning by “facilitating the discovery and learning of new categories” (Ortega, 2013,
p. 43).

In addition to the rate of development, L1 transfer also plays a role in shaping the characteristic of
learner language during the course of IL development. Firstly, it results in the absence or
dominance of certain TL forms in output. In the study on English preposition acquired by L1
Finnish and L1 Swedish, Scott and Terence (2000) found out that most of the Finnish learners use
no prepositions in their written retellings since their first language use suffixes to mark location.
At the same time, they also produced instances of overgeneralizing the preposition “in” to contexts
which require others. Secondly, L1 knowledge also influences the way learners structure
information at syntax and discourse level (Ortega, 2013). There are two ways of organizing ideas
in writings. While subject- prominent languages structure a sentence around a subject and verb,
topic- prominent languages structurally give prominence of a sentence to its topic. L1 principles
of information structure has been deeply embedded in learners’ perception before they start their
TL learning journey. Therefore, instances of subject – prominent structures can be observed in the
writings of learners from “subject- prominent languages” as in the case of Chinese L1 learners of
English (Schachter & Celce-Murcia, 1977). Structuring ideas for spoken output is another feature
of IL resulting from L1 transfer effect. Slobin (1996) suggested that the way learners put ideas into
words also got influenced from their L1 – acquired way of thinking, which he referred to as
“thinking for speaking”. Not only does L1 knowledge affect TL forms, but also determine the
appropriacy of TL use in the intercultural contexts. TL learners may rely on their L1 sociocultural
norms and values make the sociopragmatic judgment which manifests itself in the degree of
formality of their language. A number of studies (Olshtain, 1983; Takahashi, 1996; Yu, 2004)
have showed that most learners judge the appropriacy of their speech act and interactional style in
intercultural communication according to L1 not TL sociocultural values.

In conclusion, L1 transfer effect certainly play a part in shaping the non- linear, dynamic process
of IL learning in that it could be the facilitator of acquisition and also the cause of errors. More
importantly, it also contributes to the formation of IL grammars at every linguistic level. In this
light, understanding learners’ first language background enables teachers to predict what features
of TL may be a challenge for learners and what they can acquire faster. The prediction could be
useful for teachers to adjust their lesson plan to learners’ built- in syllabus.
TASK 4: The dynamic nature of motivation and how it interacts with learners’ social context
(600 words)

The view on motivation has radically changed from a traditionally static state of mind toward a
complex, dynamic process which fluctuates according to “the various intrinsic and extrinsic
influences the learner is exposed to” (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 44). In the light of this contemporary view,
both individuals and their sociocultural context contribute to the understanding of motivation in
language learning. The discussion will focus on the dynamic nature of motivation and its
interaction with learners’ social context.

The dynamic nature of motivation manifests itself in the temporal and social dimension. Since the
sociocultural context of language learning and learners themselves are susceptible to change,
motivation also fluctuates in the non-linear, unpredictable patterns at “different time scales”
ranging from minutes to years (Waninge, Dörnyei, & De Bot, 2014, p. 707). Occasionally,
however, it also goes through stable periods in which learners’ motivation is observed in a number
of predictable, recurring manners (Shoaib & Dörnyei, 2005 ). Therefore, compared with
quantitative cross- sectional research, a qualitative longitudinal research would give more insight
into learners’ motivation which experience stability and fluctuation during the course of their
interlanguage development.

The second dimension of motivation looks at the dynamic relationship between motivation and
the context surrounding language learning. Going beyond the age- old view of language as the
socially neutral system of phonology, morphology, lexis and syntax, the Poststructuralistic
approach to second language acquisition views language as “an array of discourse imbued with
meaning”, underpinning the reconceptualization of language learning as a “situated learning”, an
“symbolic capital” investment and “a site of identity construction” (Pavlenko, 2002, pp.
283,284,286). In this regard, the driving force behind language learning is bound up with the
socioeconomic values a target language will bring to its learners which could be integrative or/
and instrumental. On the other hand, the self- determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) views
learners’ motivation from its direction of emergence, placing it along the intrinsic (self- determined)
– external (controlled) continuum. In consideration of the complex, dynamic nature of motivation,
the process would be better observed in the interplay between integrative and instrumental
orientation with the intrinsic – extrinsic continuum.

The emergence of transnational communities in globalization era has transformed the desire to
interact and identify with target communities into motivation for learning the target language. In
this respect, integrative motivation reflects the relation between learners and the target- language
group, focusing on their sense of identification with the target- language community during the
process of integration. In addition, with the social function of marking group membership, the
acquisition of target language also enables learners to construct and maintain a positive social
identity as an in-group member (Dörnyei, 2000). On the other hand, integrative motivation is also
derived from external influences. At the macro -context, they may come from the social demands
on language proficiency as one of the condition for citizenship qualifications while at the micro
context, parents, teachers, schools and peer group all have play a role in shaping learners’ attitude
toward the target- language community (Dörnyei, 2000). The integrative desire, however seems to
less relevant to EFL learners who is geographically and culturally distant from the target- language
community. They have more interest in the values associated with the attainment of target language
than their socially- constructed identity in relation with the target- language community. Therefore,
integrative motivation in EFL context is identified with four dimensions: the interest in foreign
language cultures, the desire to broaden cross- cultural knowledge and view, the desire to self-
challenged and the integrative desire (Dörnyei, 1990).
While integrative motivation is bound with the view of language as a site of identity construction,
instrumental motivation reflects the role of language as a symbolic capital. The second view on
language, proposed by Bourdieu (1991) looks at the socioeconomic values of a foreign language
which can give learners a place in prestigious schools, a desired job or an opportunity to climb the
social mobility ladder (Pavlenko, 2002). In this sense, learning an additional language is no longer
a pure interest but a business investment that learners make for their future socioeconomic
attainment. Therefore, Norton (1995) suggests that the concept “investment” is more appropriate
to capture the complex relation between target language learning and the increase in cultural capital
that learners anticipate to achieve.

In conclusion, the view on language as a social phenomenon rather than a structural system has
reconceptualized motivation as a complex, dynamic process that fluctuates over time and socially
constructed. Regarding the difference in motivation between EFL and SLA context, motivation
should be measured in specific sociocultural situations in which an additional language learning
occurs. In this regard, understanding the relation between target language, power and identity play
a crucial role in interpreting the driving force behind every effort learners expand on their language
learning. Although motivated learners may perform better those who have less interest in their
language learning, motivation is not the main driving force behind the acquisition of second
language. Language learning itself is also a complex, dynamic process which involves the
interaction of multiple factors such as age, learning strategies, instruction etc. and motivation is
just one of them.

References

Adjemian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language learning, 26(2), 297-320.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995). The interaction of pedagogy and natural sequences in the acquisition
of tense and aspect. Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy, 151-168.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power Cambridge Polity Press.
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and cognitive processes, 10(5),
425-455.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5(1-4), 161-170.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York Plenum.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign‐language learning. Language learning,
40(1), 45-78.
Dörnyei, Z. (2000). Teaching and researching motivation New York: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an
empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(4), 431-
469.
Doughty. C, J., & Varela.E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In J. D. C & J.William (Eds.),
Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). NewYork:
Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency,
form, and function introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3),
329-335.
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: the emergence of
second language structure. In C. a. L. Doughty, M (Ed.), The handbook of second language
acquisitio (pp. 63-103). Oxford: Blackwell Publishin.
Ellis, R. (1991). Grammatically judgments and second language acquisition. Studies in second
language acquisition, 13(2), 161-186.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric
study. Studies in second language acquisition, 27(2), 141-172.
Ellis, R. (2008). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum In E.
Hinkel & S.Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms (pp. 17-34). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies
in second language acquisition, 16(3), 283-302.
Jansen, L. (2008). Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross‐sectional study
in a wider theoretical context. Language learning, 58(1), 185-231.
Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in second language acquisition,
24(3), 387-418.
Keck, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Pedagogical grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (2014). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. NewYork Routledge.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies
in second language acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.
Norton, P. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL quarterly, 29(1), 9-
31.
Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. (1477-4526). http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/
Oldin, T. (2003). Cross- linguistic influence In C. J. Doughty & M.H.Long (Eds.), Handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 436-486). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer: the case of apology. In S. M.
G. a. L. Selinker (Ed.), Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second language
learning and use. Portraits of the L2 user, 277302, 277-302.
Sabourin, L., Stowe, L. A., & De Haan, G. J. (2006). Transfer effects in learning a second language
grammatical gender system. Second Language Research, 22(1), 1-29.
Sato, C. J. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development (Vol. 11): Gunter
Narr Verlag.
Schachter, J., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1977). Some reservations concerning error analysis. TESOL
quarterly, 11, 441-451.
Scott, J., & Terence, O. (2000). Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer.
Studies in second language acquisition, 22(4), 535-556.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(1-4), 209-231.
Shoaib, A., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005 ). Affect in lifelong learning: Exploring learing as a dynamic
process. In P.Benson & D.Nunan (Eds.), Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in
language learning (pp. 22-44). Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In J. J. Gumperz &
a. S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2
classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 15(2), 205-224.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in second language acquisition, 18(2),
189-223.
Tarone, E. E. (1982). Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language learning, 32(1), 69-
84.
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development
from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214-231.
Waninge, F., Dörnyei, Z., & De Bot, K. (2014). Motivational dynamics in language learning:
Change, stability, and context. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 704-723.
Yu, M. C. (2004). Interlinguistic variation and similarity in second language speech act behavior.
The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 102-119.
Zobl, H. (1982). A direction for contrastive analysis: The comparative study of developmental
sequences. TESOL quarterly, 16(2), 169-183.