Book contents
- Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editors’ Preface
- Learner Corpus Research and Second Language Acquisition: an attempt at bridging the gap
- Article Use in Russian and Spanish Learner Writing at CEFR B1 and B2 Levels: Effects of Proficiency, Native Language, and Specificity
- L1 Influence vs. Universal Mechanisms: An SLA-Driven Corpus Study on Temporal Expression
- The Interplay between Universal Processes and Cross-Linguistic Influence in the Light of Learner Corpus Data: Examining Shared Features of Non-native Englishes
- Exploring Multi-Word Combinations as Measures of Linguistic Accuracy in Second Language Writing
- Using Syntactic Co-occurrences to Trace Phraseological Complexity Development in Learner Writing: Verb + Object Structures in LONGDALE
- Understanding the Long-Term Evolution of L2 Lexical Diversity: The Contribution of a Longitudinal Learner Corpus
- L2 Developmental Measures from a Dynamic Perspective
- Exploring Individual Variation in Learner Corpus Research: Methodological Suggestions
- Building an Oral and Written Learner Corpus of a School Programme: Methodological Issues
- Commentary: Have Learner Corpus Research and Second Language Acquisition Finally Met?
- Commentary: An SLA Perspective on Learner Corpus Research
- Index
- References
L2 Developmental Measures from a Dynamic Perspective
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 December 2020
Book contents
- Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition
- The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series
- Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Series Editors’ Preface
- Learner Corpus Research and Second Language Acquisition: an attempt at bridging the gap
- Article Use in Russian and Spanish Learner Writing at CEFR B1 and B2 Levels: Effects of Proficiency, Native Language, and Specificity
- L1 Influence vs. Universal Mechanisms: An SLA-Driven Corpus Study on Temporal Expression
- The Interplay between Universal Processes and Cross-Linguistic Influence in the Light of Learner Corpus Data: Examining Shared Features of Non-native Englishes
- Exploring Multi-Word Combinations as Measures of Linguistic Accuracy in Second Language Writing
- Using Syntactic Co-occurrences to Trace Phraseological Complexity Development in Learner Writing: Verb + Object Structures in LONGDALE
- Understanding the Long-Term Evolution of L2 Lexical Diversity: The Contribution of a Longitudinal Learner Corpus
- L2 Developmental Measures from a Dynamic Perspective
- Exploring Individual Variation in Learner Corpus Research: Methodological Suggestions
- Building an Oral and Written Learner Corpus of a School Programme: Methodological Issues
- Commentary: Have Learner Corpus Research and Second Language Acquisition Finally Met?
- Commentary: An SLA Perspective on Learner Corpus Research
- Index
- References
Summary
An important objective of research in Second Language Acquisition has been to find a simple and reliable way to quantify second language use. Corpora have provided a crucial source of information for these studies. In spite of many attempts to determine an optimal “yardstick” to measure the quality of second language use, particularly lexical complexity and syntactic complexity, a reliable and widely applicable instrument has not yet been determined. The difficulty in finding a suitable instrument can be accounted for in a complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) approach to second language development. An important starting point of this approach is that every next step in time “is the emergent product of context and history, and no component has causal priority” (Thelen 2005, p. 271). In this paper we illustrate this by using a dense longitudinal corpus of the development of 22 highly similar L2 learners, consisting of 23 weekly measurements. The analysis of these data show convincingly that L2 development is a highly individually owned and nonlinear process. While complexity yardsticks (like MLTU and Guiraud) may seem functional from a group perspective, their application to individual learners is very limited.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition , pp. 172 - 190Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Bulté, B. (2013). The Development of Complexity in Second Language Acquisition: A Dynamic Systems Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Brussels.Google Scholar
Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In Hatch, E. M. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings, 207–230. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Caspi, T. (2010). A Dynamic Perspective on Second Language Development. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Caspi, T. & Lowie, W. M. (2013). The dynamics of L2 vocabulary development: A case study of receptive and productive knowledge. Revista Brasiliera de Linguistica 13(2), 437–462.Google Scholar
Chan, H., Verspoor, M., & Vahtrick, L. (2015). Dynamic development in speaking versus writing in identical twins. Language Learning 65(2), 298–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., Lowie, W. M., & Verspoor, M. H. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second language. Language Learning 26(2), 321–351.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Do sentences in the second language grow like those in the first? TESOL Quarterly 4(3), 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring Syntactic Development in L2 Writing: Fine Grained Indices of Syntactic Complexity and Usage-Based Indices of Syntactic Sophistication. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly 12(4), 439–448.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27(4), 590–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen‐Freeman, D. & Strom, V. (1977). The construction of a second language acquisition index of development. Language Learning 27(1), 123–134.Google Scholar
Lowie, W. M. & Verspoor, M. H. (2019). Individual differences and the ergodicity problem. Language Learning 69(S1), 184–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W. M., Caspi, T., Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2011). Modeling development and change. In Verspoor, M. H., De Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (eds.), A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques, 22–122. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4), 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02luGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F. (2016). Introduction to the LONGDALE Project. In Castello, E., Ackerley, K., & Coccetta, F. (eds.), Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics. Research and Applications for Foreign Language Teaching and Assessment, 123–126. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M. & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(2), 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4), 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24(4), 492–518.Google Scholar
Penris, W. & Verspoor, M. (2017). Academic writing development: A complex, dynamic process. In Pfenniger, S. & Navracsics, J. (eds.), Future Research Directions for Applied Linguistics, 215–242. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Plat, R., Lowie, W., & de Bot, K. (2018). Word naming in the L1 and L2: A dynamic perspective on automatization and the degree of semantic involvement in naming. Frontiers in Psychology 8(2256). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02256CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology 100(1), 162–174.Google Scholar
Spoelman, M. & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 31(4), 532–553.Google Scholar
Tilma, C. (2014). The Dynamics of Foreign versus Second Language Development in Finnish Writing Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/University of Jÿvaskyla.Google Scholar
Van Hout, R. & Vermeer, A. (2007). Comparing measures of lexical richness. In Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (eds.), Modelling and Assessing Vocabulary Knowledge, 93–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667268Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. & Van Dijk, M. (2012). Variability in a dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. In Chapel, C. (ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., De Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (eds.) (2011). A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques (Vol. 29). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., Chan, H. P., & Vahtrick, L. (2017). Linguistic complexity in second language development: Variability and variation at advanced stages. Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures. Les cahiers de l’Acedle 14(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/rdlc.1450Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(3), 239–263.Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N. (2012). The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal 96(4), 576–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. & Wieling, M. (2016). How to analyze linguistic change using mixed models, Growth Curve Analysis and Generalized Additive Modeling. Journal of Language Evolution 1(1), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Wood, S. (2006) Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
Wood, S. (2017). Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, 2nd Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.