Second language acquisition: Holes in the parts and parts of a whole

The theme of this article is that much SLA research would gain if it took a ccount of its place within an overall understanding of the component parts of this complex discipline and the relationship between them. In the articl e I first provide comments on UG based accounts of SLA, functionalist accou nts of SLA, and processing accounts of SLA. In each case I seek to examine their specific contribution to an overall understanding of the discipline a nd at the same itme to state the limits of that contribution. I also seek t o examine whether the differences between these approaches derive fro funda mentally contradictory beliefs or whether there is a degree of complementar ity. In doing so, I argue in favour of a view which stresses complementarit y, without seeking to deny the validity of underlying difference of opinion . I argue that the major 'holes' in the discipline arise from the difficult y of dealing with the way in which linguistic knowledge is created either t hrough triggering or through the linking of conceptual knowledge to linguis tic form. The missing element may be a failure to incorporate an awareness of how processing and memory systems work. I examine the contribution of th e limited number of accounts which do assign importance to processing and t o memory before concluding that this is an area on which future research sh ould focus.