ABSTRACT
Some years ago, I argued that SLA research could not tell teachers what to teach or how (Lightbown, 1985a). In the 1970s and early 1980s, SLA research had touched on only a few isolated language features, and there was no general framework for deciding which of the nearly innumerable details of a language could or should be the focus of instruction. Furthermore, I suggested that, although there was much in SLA research to support the movement away from rigid audio lingual instruction to more communicative language teaching, it seemed that such trends regarding how to teach were confirmed-not causedby SLA research. Over the years, many SLA researchers have emphasized their separateness from language pedagogy, insisting, with considerable justification, that SLA was a field in its own right, and that it was appropriate for SLA researchers to seek to understand how language is acquired, without always having to answer the question, “but what does that say about teaching?” They left the pedagogy to others. Bill VanPatten was an exception to this. His research and that of a circle of colleagues and graduate students always had one foot firmly planted in the classroom. That commitment to improving second language teaching has not changed and the chapters that are the subject of my commentary provide a rich resource for teachers, researchers, and teacher/researchers whose goal is to find ways to help classroom language learners get beyond roadblocks that limit their progress in second language development.
