This paper examines the effects of a first language (L1 ) orthographic system on second language (L2) word recognition strategies. Lexical judgment tests using Japanese kana (a syllabic script consisting of hiragana and katakana) were given to native English and native Chinese learners of Japanese. The visual familiarity and length in test words were controlled to examine the involvement of phonological or visual coding in word recognition strategies. The responses of the English and Chinese subjects were compared on the basis of observed reaction time. The results indicated that (a) Chinese subjects relied more on the visual information in L2 Japanese kana words than did English subjects and (b) English subjects utilized the phonological information in Japanese kana words more than did Chinese subjects. Accordingly, these findings demonstrate that native speakers of English and Chinese utilize different word recognition strategies due to L1 orthographic characteristics, and such L1 word recognition strategies are transferred into L2 Japanese kana word recognition.

The study reported in this paper examined four groups of readers (L2-Intermediate, L2-Advanced, L1-Japanese, and L1-English) when they processed and recalled two passages that varied in degree of causal coherence (Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985). Concurrent verbal reports and recall data were collected. It was found that L1 readers used much of their attention for higher level processes such as the generation of inferences and general knowledge associations. They processed the high- and low-coherence texts differently, generating more elaborations for low-coherence texts than for high-coherence texts. Furthermore, L1 readers generated backward inferences according to the text's causal structure and recalled events with many causal connections more frequently than events with few connections. These findings confirm L1 research findings (Fletcher & Bloom, 1988; Goldman & Varnhargen, 1986; Graesser & Clark, 1985; Singer, 1995; Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985; van den Broek, 1994). On the other hand, L2 readers paid more attention to lower level processes and did not process differently between the high- and low-coherence texts. L2-Advanced readers generated both backward and forward inferences during reading, whereas L2-lntermediate readers did not. Although L2-Advanced readers' generation of backward inferences did not correspond to the text's causal structure, their second recall indicated they were sensitive to it. A closer look at the data suggests that there were some delays in lower level processes such as understanding words and sentences, as well as resolution of anaphoric relations by these readers.

An area of keen interest in applying Chomsky's UG parameter-setting model to SLA has been the Pro-Drop or Null Subject Parameter (Cyrino, 1986; Hilles, 1986; Phinney, 1987; White, 1985, 1986). However, the nature of this parameter changes dramatically from the Jaeggli (1982) and Rizzi (1982) conception with Jaeggli and Safir's (1989) proposal linking uniform morphological agreement paradigms with null subjects. Data reported here show a number of L2 learners exhibit knowledge that English is morphologically nonuniform yet still accept English null subject sentences. This is inconsistent with the predictions of the Morphological Uniformity Hypothesis and renders uncertain its applicability to SLA. The results are considered in light of a number of possible positions that can be adopted when faced with data that disconfirm a hypothesis within the UG SLA research program; it is concluded that the Morphological Uniformity Hypothesis is disconfirmed and that any reformulation of the Null Subject Parameter must take these results into consideration.

This study replicates VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) in an attempt to determine whether or not explicit information given to learners receiving processing instruction is responsible for the beneficial effects of instruction. Fifty-nine subjects were divided into three groups: (1) one receiving processing instruction in object pronouns and word order in Spanish as in VanPatten and Cadierno (1993), (2) another receiving explanation only with no activities or practice, (3) and another receiving only the structured input activities with no explanation. A pretest/post-test assessment was used involving two tests, an interpretation test and a sentence-level production test. Results showed that the beneficial effects of instruction were due to the structured input activities and not to the explicit information (explanation) provided to learners.