Institutionalized “non-native” varieties of English have developed in countries such as Nigeria and India, where English is widely used as a second, often official, language in a broad range of intranational domains. These varieties are characterized by “nativization” (Kachru, 1981a): systematic changes in their formal features at all linguistic levels, which result from the use of English in new sociocultural settings, in contact with other languages, and in the absence of native speakers of English. This paper demonstrates how non-native varieties are distinct from interlanguages or approximative systems of “established” (Platt & Weber, 1980) varieties of English (e.g., British or American). Crucial differences are illustrated in strategies common to both nativization and second language acquisition—generalization of rules in the established varieties of English and transfer of linguistic features from other languages—in terms of linguistic contexts in which they apply and motivations underlying their application. A survey of positive attitudes toward non-native varieties among their users indicates that certain nativized features are becoming new norms for English usage in many countries. These strategies of and attitudes toward nativization are shown to have important implications for the teaching of English as a second language and for linguistic theory.

Knowledge of a second language includes knowledge of syntax, phonology, lexicon, and so forth. While there is no a priori reason to assume that abilities in these areas develop independently of one another, most studies dealing with the acquisition of L2 grammars treat each of these components singly. In fact, Long and Sato (1984) call for more studies investigating the ways in which grammatical components interact in the acquisition of a second language. This paper deals with the complex issue of sentence processing in an L2, showing how L2 learners resolve the problem of competing factors of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in the processing of L2 utterances. We present the results of a study involving sentence interpretation of compex sentences by 111 L2 learners of English and suggest that the acquisition of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics is an interactive phenomenon. It is further suggested that part of learning the syntax of a language is not only learning the word-order configurations of the language, but also learning the importance of word order in a given language in relation to semantic and pragmatic factors.

Typological markedness has been suggested as a possible explanation or a means of predicting the development of Interlanguage (IL) syntax (Eckman, 1977; Hyltenstam, 1978, 1984; Rutherford, 1982). More specifically, the Accessibility Hierarchy (AH) (Keenan & Comrie, 1977, 1979) has been used to predict the acquisitional order of relative clauses in a second language (Hyltenstam, 1984). No research, however, has been conducted to investigate the possible influence of learning context on relative clause (RC) formation. In this study, English relative clauses were elicited from two groups of Italian learners. The first group was composed of 48 formal learners and the second group of 38 informal learners. It was hypothesized that the order as predicted by the AH would be yielded by both groups with the formal group's IL exhibiting more marked structures than the informal group's. The type of discourse—planned versus unplanned—to which learners were mostly exposed was thought to have an effect on the level of linguistic elaboration achieved.

This paper discusses current literature dealing with the pedagogical implications of the ACTFL Provisional Proficiency Guidelines. In Higgs and Clifford (1982) and Omaggio (1984), for example, it is argued that grammatical accuracy needs to be stressed from the beginning of instruction. In this paper those arguments are reviewed in the light of second language acquisition research, and it is suggested that such emphasis on grammatical correctness is unwarranted.

Although previous work has analyzed the communication strategies (CS) of L2 learners (e.g., Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Tarone, 1980, 1977), this research is an attempt at studying CS used by both 12 speakers and their interviewers during a videotaped interview. Fifty-three beginning French learners were interviewed and the videotape was analyzed for CS used by both interactants; learners' performance was also rated (ACTFL, 1982). Subjects were instructed either by Total Physical Response (Asher, 1977, 1969) or Strategic Interaction (SI) (Di Pietro, 1982, 1979).

Data were subjected to correlational and MANOVA analyses. Significant differences were detected between groups. In general, the higher the proficiency rating, the lower was the use of CS. The method of instruction appeared to have an important bearing on amount and kind of CS used and on proficiency ratings received. SI students and their interviewers used fewer CS; SI learners also received higher ratings.

It appears that SI facilitated students' development of at least two underlying competencies, linguistic and interactional (Palmer, 1979; Canale & Swain, 1980). It is also posited that SI students' diminished use of CS indicates a higher degree of control over the activity, as proposed by the Vygotskian paradigm (Vygotsky, 1962).

Careful observation of the speech of even advanced learners of English often reveals usage that deviates in some way from the target language. One area of difficulty appears to be the system of modality that includes such forms as must, have to, should, had better, can, and may, among others. Some errors are purely grammatical in nature. For example: (1) (a) In fact, they musted to return back home.

(b) Perhaps if I went to France maybe I can do it.

Others are not so much ungrammatical as inappropriate. For example, (2) (a) Should I give you the receipt for this? uttered by a bank teller should actually have been shall, since the teller was not really asking me for my advice but was trying to find out whether I wanted the receipt. In (2b), (2) (b) I should take this English class.

the student was actually trying to ascertain which section of a class to sign up for, and really needed to convey that he was required to take that particular class. In order to ascertain the possible cause for these persistent misuses of the modals, several measures of modal usage were developed and administered to groups of native and non-native speakers. The results showed that the understanding non-natives have of expressions of modality is qualitatively different from the understanding of natives. Some possible causes for this discrepancy in understanding are suggested along with possible solutions for remedying the problem.