Literature Review: Just a taste of what I'm working on.

            Elicited imitation (EI) has been used for decades as a means of examining the development of oral language skills in various contexts including normal native language development (Ervin-Tripp, 1964; Menyuk, 1963; Keller-Cohen, 1981) abnormal language development (Menyuk, 1964; Berry, 1976; Lahey, Launer, and Schiff-Myers, 1983) and second language development (Naiman, 1974; Hamayan, Saegert, and Larudee, 1977). In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in its use in the examination of oral language skills in second language learners (Vinther 2002; Chaudron, Prior, and Kozok, 2005; Erlam 2006, Jessop, Suzuki, & Tomita, 2007). For a fairly comprehensive view of this literature see, Gallimore and Tharp (1981), Lust, Chien, and Flynn (1987), Bley-Vroman and Chaudron (1994), and Vinther (2002).

            An examination of the literature on elicited imitation suggests that interest in its use centers around two major investigative efforts, 1) psycholinguistic research into the nature of language competence itself (see, for example, Ellis, 2006 and Erlam, 2006), and 2) research into the possibility of finding an indirect and efficient way to estimate the overall oral language proficiency of second language learners (see Radloff, 1992 and Chaudron, et al 2005). While these two purposes have much in common, it seems to us from the available literature that they may make quite different demands on the design and administration of EI items.  If one is to investigate the nature of interlanguage, certain conditions for the elicitation of responses must be met which assure that, on the one hand, the task taps into the implicit linguistic knowledge of the speaker (Ellis, 2005), and, on the other, that the responses are minimally affected by rote memory (Erlam, 2006). It may be critical, for example, to include specific target structures in the EI stimulus sentences. It may be important, as Erlam (2006) claims, to focus the participant’s attention on meaning with each stimulus sentence, to delay the imitation of stimuli in order to reduce the chances of rote repetition, and to assure that stimulus sentences are repeated under time pressure to simulate conditions of unplanned speech and reduce the likelihood of the examinee’s focusing on the form of the sentence. It may also be crucial to show that the ability of subjects to produce particular forms using the elicitation procedure corresponds to their ability to produce these forms in spontaneous speech.