Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T12:46:54.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L2 Language Development in Oral and Written Modalities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2024

Myeongeun Son Open the ORCID record for Myeongeun Son [Opens in a new window]
Myeongeun Son*
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung, Gangwon Province, South Korea
*
Email: sonmyeo1@gwnu.ac.kr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates whether second language (L2) learners’ language development and accuracy in production are comparable across oral and written modalities on the basis of Pienemann’s processability theory (PT). Eighty-seven English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, from high beginner to advanced levels, completed comparable speaking and writing tasks designed to elicit particular morphosyntactic structures predicted by PT to correspond to L2 stages of development. Time constraints encouraged participants to respond spontaneously, thus drawing on implicit knowledge. Implicational scaling shows correlations that suggest comparable language development between the modalities. However, accuracy was higher earlier in the written than in the oral modality, and accuracy in the written modality was more stable. The results provide a clearer understanding of the similarities and differences of L2 oral and written development and demonstrate that PT can be applied to L2 writing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , First View , pp. 1 - 28
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 105, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonilla, C. (2015). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for processability theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 31, 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boss, B. (2008). Exploring the acquisition of German verb morphology by instructed learners. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 14.1–14.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 591–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (2000). Is graphic activity cognitively costly? A developmental approach. Reading and Writing, 13, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J., McDonald, J., Brown, T., & Carr, T. (1988). Adapting to processing demands in discourse production: The case of handwriting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 45–59.Google Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2009, September 13–16). The development of lexical proficiency in L2 speaking and writing tasks by Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels [Paper presentation]. Task-Based Language Teaching Conference, Lancaster, England.Google Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1975). Hesitation and semantic planning in speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing: An introduction. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 1–27). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Sinicrope, C. (2009). Advancedness and the development of relativization in L2 German: A curriculum-based longitudinal study. In Ortega, L. & Byrnes, H. (Eds.), The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 125–154). Routledge.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (2012). Goal theory and second-language writing development, two ways. In Manchón, R. (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 165–190). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2015). The development of English as a second language. In Bettoni, C. & Di Biase, B. (Eds.), grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of processability theory (pp. 85–115). European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In Scarcella, R. C. & Krashen, S. D. (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers of the Second Language Acquisition Research Forum: Issues in Second Language Research (pp. 132–141). Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R., Manchón, R., & Vasylets, O. (2016). Mode in theoretical and empirical TBLT research: Advancing research agendas. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J. (2008). Speaking and writing in French L2: Exploring effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. In van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 87–98). University of Brussels.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguists. Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, G. (2007). Processability theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In Mansouri, F. (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81–94). Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us?. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 555–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, L. (2008). Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross-sectional study in a wider theoretical context. Language Learning, 58, 185–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173–281). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S., & Di Biase, B. (2012). Acquiring procedural skills in L2: Processability theory and skill acquisition. Studies in Language Sciences, 11, 68–95.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In Levy, C. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–216). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2009, September 13–16). Task-related differences across modes of performance [Paper presentation]. Task-Based Language Teaching Conference, Lancaster, England.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91–104). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Verspoor, M. (2021). Measuring longitudinal writing development using indices of syntactic complexity and sophistication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43, 781–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. (2018). Effective planning in real-time speaking test tasks [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Lee, S., & Spinner, P. (2017, October 12–15). The place of accuracy in processability theory [Paper presentation]. Second Language Research Forum, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30, 358–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The overrepresentation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lenzing, A., & Ross, J. (2019). How does PT’s view of acquisition relate to the challenge of widening perspectives on SLA? In Lenzing, A., Nicholas, H., & Ross, J. (Eds.), Widening contexts for Processability Theory: Theories and issues (pp. 391–398). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717–761). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 51–80). Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2007). An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 2, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papageorgiou, S., Tannenbaum, R., Bridgeman, B., & Cho, Y. (2015). The association between TOEFL iBT® test scores and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels [Research Memorandum No. RM-15-06]. Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Park, J. (2017). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of second language writing proficiency and writing quality [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2005). An introduction to processability theory. In Pienemann, M. (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 1–60). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G. (2005). Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In Kroll, J. & de Groot, A. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 128–153). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Håkansson, G. (1999). A unified approach toward the development of Swedish as L2: A processability account. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 383–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A. (2020). Processability Theory 1. In VanPatten, B., Keating, G., & Wulff, S. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 162–191). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C. (2017). Second language writing development: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 50, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., & Park, J. (2016). Language development in second language writing. In Manchón, R. & Matsuda, P. (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 287–306). De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C., & Shea, M. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Team, R Core. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29, 417–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Révész, A., Kourtali, N. E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5 year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 54, 525–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In Manchón, R. (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77–101). Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano, R., Tragant, E., & Llanes, À. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of one year abroad. Canadian Modern Language Review, 68, 138–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, M. (2022). The role of modality and working memory capacity in L2 production. Language Teaching Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, P. (2011). Second language assessment and morphosyntactic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 529–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardy, C. (2012). A rhetorical genre theory perspective on L2 writing development. In Manchón, R. (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 165–190). De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P. (2014). Storyline complexity and syntactic complexity in writing and speaking tasks. In Byrnes, H. & Manchón, R. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 217–236). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vasylets, O., Gilabert, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2017). The effects of mode and task complexity on second language production. Language Learning, 67, 394–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, B. (2000). Developmental relationships in the acquisition of English syntax: Writing vs. speech. Learning and Instruction, 10, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, R. (2006). Connecting speaking & writing in second language writing instruction. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalbidea, J. (2017). “One task fits all”? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalbidea, J. (2021). On the scope of output in SLA: Task modality, salience, L2 grammar noticing, and development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43, 50–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar