Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Little is known about the link between Second Language Acquisition (SLA) developmental stages (Pienemann 1998) and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) proficiency levels. Therefore, this study examines the inversion (INV) and verb-end (VEND) stages in L2 German MERLIN texts rated B1 ( = 104) or A2 ( = 32). Two acquisition criteria are applied to individual texts (emergence, Pienemann 1998; 75%-correct, Ellis 1989) and combined with analyses of texts grouped at CEFR levels. Results suggest links between developmental stages and CEFR levels: VEND was emerged in 44% of B1 texts, while most A2 texts did not contain VEND. Many B1 texts (61.5%), but only 37.5% of A2 texts showed emergence of INV. However, analyses also revealed persisting problems with INV accuracy at B1. More generally, the study points out shared challenges for Learner Corpus Research, SLA, and proficiency/assessment research related to the availability of linguistic evidence in learner texts.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abrahamsson, N.
    2013 “Developmental sequences”. InP. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition. London: Routledge, 173–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abel, A., Nicolas, L., Wisniewski, K., Boyd, A. & Hana, J.
    2014 “A Trilingual Learner Corpus illustrating European Reference Levels”, Ricognizioni. Rivista di Lingue e Letterature e Culture Moderne2 (1), 111–126. www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ricognizioni/index
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alderson, J. C.
    2005Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2007 “The CEFR and the need for more research”, The Modern Language Journal91(4), 659–663. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00627_4.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_4.x [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010 “Language testing-informed SLA? SLA-informed language testing?”. InI. Bartning, M. Martin & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: intersections between SLA and language testing research. eurosla.org/monographs/EM01/EM01home.html, 239–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Alexopoulou, T., Michel, M., Murakami, A. & Meurers, D.
    2017 “Task Effects on Linguistic Complexity and Accuracy: A Large-Scale Learner Corpus Analysis Employing Natural Language Processing Techniques”, Language Learning67(S1), 180–208. 10.1111/lang.12232
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12232 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bachman, L. & Cohen, A.
    (Eds.) 1998Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bachman, L. & Palmer, A.
    2010Language Testing in Practice. Developing Language Assessment and Justifying their Use in the Real World. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bärenfänger, O., & Tschirner, E.
    2012Assessing Evidence of Validity of Assigning CEFR Ratings to the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and the Oral Proficiency Interview by computer (OPIc) (Technical Report 2012-US-PUB-1). Leipzig: ITT.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bohnacker, U.
    2006 “When Swedes begin to learn German: from V2 to V2”, Second Language Research22(4), 443–486. 10.1191/0267658306sr275oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr275oa [Google Scholar]
  11. Boss, B.
    2004 “Wann ich habe Freizeit, ich koche gern. Zum Erwerb der deutschen Inversion und Nebensatzwortstellung durch australische Studierende”, Deutsch als Fremdsprache41(1), 28–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Callies, M. & Götz, S.
    (Eds.) 2015Learner corpora in language testing and assessment. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Callies, M. & Paquot, M.
    2015 “Learner corpus research: An interdisciplinary field on the move”, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research1(1), 1–6. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.00edi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.00edi [Google Scholar]
  14. Callies, M., Díez-Bedmar, M. B. & Zaytseva, E.
    2014 “Using learner corpora for testing and assessing L2 proficiency”. InP. Leclercq, A. Edmonds & H. Hilton (Eds.), Measuring L2 proficiency. Perspectives from SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 71–90. 10.21832/9781783092291‑007
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092291-007 [Google Scholar]
  15. Clahsen, H.
    1984 “The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development”. InR. W. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 219–242.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Clahsen, H., Meisel, J. M. & Pienemann, M.
    1983Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Council of Europe (Ed.)
    Council of Europe (Ed.) 2001Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Deygers, B.
    2019 “The CEFR Companion Volume: Between Research-Based Policy and Policy-Based Research”, Applied Linguistics, 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Diehl, E., Christen, H. & Leuenberger, S.
    2000Grammatikunterricht: Alles für der Katz? Untersuchungen zum Zweitsprachenerwerb Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, R.
    1989 “Are Classroom and Naturalistic Acquisition the Same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition11(3), 305–328. 10.1017/S0272263100008159
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008159 [Google Scholar]
  21. 1994The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Glaboniat, M., Müller, M., Rusch, P., Schmitz, H. & Wertenschlag, L.
    2005Profile Deutsch. Stuttgart: Klett.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Granfeldt, J. & Ågren, M.
    2013 “Stages of Processability and Levels of Proficiency in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The Case of L3 French”. InA. Flyman-Mattsson & C. Norrby (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Use in Multilingual Contexts. Theory and PracticeLund: Lund University, 28–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Grießhaber, W.
    2012 “Die Profilanalyse”. InB. Ahrenholz (Ed.), Einblicke in die Zweitspracherwerbsforschung und ihre methodischen Verfahren. Berlin u.a.: De Gruyter, 173–194. 10.1515/9783110267822.173
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110267822.173 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2013Die Profilanalyse für Deutsch als Diagnoseinstrument zur Sprachförderung. Online: www.uni-due.de/imperia/md/content/prodaz/griesshaber_profilanalyse_deutsch.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gunnewiek, L.
    2000Sequenzen und Konsequenzen: zur Entwicklung niederländischer Lerner im Deutschen als Fremdsprache. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Haberzettl, S.
    2005Der Erwerb der Verbstellungsregeln in der Zweitsprache Deutsch durch Kinder mit russischer und türkischer Muttersprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110922127
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922127 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hagenfeld, K.
    2016 “Psychometric approaches to language testing and linguistic profiling – A complementary relationship?” InJ.-U. Keßler, A. Lenzing, & M. Liebner (Eds.), Developing and Assessing Second Language Grammars across Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 135–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Håkansson, G.
    2001 “Tense morphology and verb-second in Swedish L1 children, L2 children and children with SLI”, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition4(1), 85–99. 10.1017/S1366728901000141
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000141 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hancke, J.
    2013 Automatic Prediction of CEFR Proficiency Levels Based on Linguistic Features of Learner Language. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Unpublished MA thesis available undermerlin-platform.eu/docs/MA-Thesis-Julia-Hancke.pdf
  31. Harrison, J. & Barker, F.
    2015English Profile in Practice. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hawkins, J. A. & Buttery, P.
    2010 “Criterial features in learner corpora: Theory and illustrations”, English Profile Journal1, 1–23. 10.1017/S2041536210000036
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S2041536210000036 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hawkins, J. A. & Filipovíc, L.
    2012Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Helbig, G. & Buscha, J.
    2001Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Stuttgart: Klett.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hulstijn, J.
    2007 “The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency”, The Modern Language Journal91(4), 663–667. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00627_5.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_5.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Hulstijn, J. H., Alderson, J. C. & Schoonen, R.
    2010 “Developmental stages in second-language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them?” InI. Bartning, M. Martin & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: intersections between SLA and language testing research. eurosla.org/monographs/EM01/EM01home.html, 11–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. HZSK
    HZSK 2010 “HAMATAC – the Hamburg MapTask Corpus.” Archived in Hamburger Zentrum für Sprachkorpora. Version 0.3. Publication date2010-09-16. hdl.handle.net/11022/0000-0000-6330-A
  38. Jansen, L.
    2008 “Acquisition of German Word Order in Tutored Learners: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Wider Theoretical Context”, Language Learning58(1), 185–231. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2007.00438.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00438.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H. & Pienemann, M.
    1981 “On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition3(2), 109–135. 10.1017/S0272263100004137
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004137 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pallotti, G.
    2007 “An Operational Definition of the Emergence Criterion”, Applied Linguistics28(3), 361–382. 10.1093/applin/amm018
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm018 [Google Scholar]
  41. Pienemann, M.
    1981Der Zweitspracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiterkinder. Bonn: Bouvier.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 1989 “Is Language Teachable? Psycholinguistic Experiments and Hypotheses”, Applied Linguistics10(1), 52–79. 10.1093/applin/10.1.52
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.52 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1998Language processing and second language development. Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15 [Google Scholar]
  44. (Ed.) 2005Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.30
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.30 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2015 “An Outline of Processability Theory and Its Relationship to Other Approaches to SLA”, Language Learning65(1), 123–151. 10.1111/lang.12095
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12095 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M. & Brindley, G.
    1988 “Constructing an Acquisition-Based Procedure for Second Language Assessment”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition10(2), 217–243. 10.1017/S0272263100007324
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100007324 [Google Scholar]
  47. Reznicek, M., Walter, M., Schmidt, K., Lüdeling, A., Hirschmann, H., Krummes, C. & Andreas, T.
    2012Das Falko-Handbuch: Korpusaufbau und Annotationen. Berlin: HU Berlin. https://www.linguistik.hu-berlin.de/de/institut/professuren/korpuslinguistik/forschung/falko/standardseite
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tono, Y.
    2012 “International Corpus of Crosslinguistic Interlanguage: Project overview and a case study on the acquisition of new verb co-occurrence patterns”. InY. Tono, Y. Kawaguchi, & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Developmental and crosslinguistic perspectives in learner corpus research. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 27–46. 10.1075/tufs.4.07ton
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tufs.4.07ton [Google Scholar]
  49. Tracy-Ventura, N. & Myles, F.
    2015 “The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research”, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research1(1), 58–95. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.03tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.03tra [Google Scholar]
  50. Tschirner, E. & Meerholz-Härle, B.
    2001 “Processability Theory: Eine empirische Untersuchung”. InK. Aguado & C. Riemer (Eds.), Wege und Ziele: Zur Theorie, Empirie und Praxis des Deutschen als Fremdsprache (und anderer Fremdsprachen). Festschrift für Gert Henrici. Hohengehren: Schneider, 155–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 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. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01401.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01401.x [Google Scholar]
  52. (2016) “KANDEL: A developmental corpus of learner German”, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 2(1), 102–120. 10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.04vya
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.04vya [Google Scholar]
  53. Vyatkina, N., Hirschmann, H. & Golcher, F.
    2015 “Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study”, New developments in the study of L2 writing complexity29, 28–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Weiß, Z.
    2017 Using Measures of Linguistic Complexity to Assess German L2 Proficiency in Learner Corpora under Consideration of Task-Effects. Unpublished MA thesis. www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~zweiss/
  55. Wisniewski, K.
    2017a “The Empirical Validity of the Common European Framework of Reference Scales. An Exemplary Study for the Vocabulary and Fluency Scales in a Language Testing Context”, Applied Linguistics39(6), 933–959. 10.1093/applin/amw057
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw057 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2017b “Empirical Learner Language and the Levels of the Common European Framework of Reference”, Language Learning67(S1), 232–253. 10.1111/lang.12223
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12223 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2018 “Grammatische Korrektheit und L2-Kompetenz: Eine Lernerkorpus-Studie”, Deutsch als Fremdsprache3, 131–142.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): CEFR; developmental stages; inversion; MERLIN corpus; verb-end structures
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error