1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language, Interaction and Acquisition
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1879-7865
  • E-ISSN: 1879-7873
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Ultimate attainment is typically more heterogeneous among second-language (L2) learners than among native speakers (e.g. Bley-Vroman, 1990). The present study offers a suite of simple analytical procedures aimed at exploring types and loci of variability in L2 attainment vis-à-vis those in the corresponding first language (L1), with special attention to certain learner-external factors that might condition such variabilities. To demonstrate the methods and their potential, we apply these procedures to learner and native acceptability judgment data published in Birdsong (1992). Under means analyses of item ratings and coefficients of variation (CV), a group of adult Anglophone learners of L2 French (ENS) are found to resemble native French controls (FNS). In contrast, under correlational analyses of ratings and CVs, ENS resemble FNS on grammatical items, but diverge on ungrammatical items. Correlational and means analyses of both CV and acceptability ratings reveal that ENS-FNS convergence is not predictable from the degree of FNS ratings variability, contra DeKeyser (2012). For both groups, we observe an interaction between FNS ratings variability and the grammatical status of items (ungrammatical vs. grammatical). Finally, for neither group do we find a relationship between the order of item presentation and ratings severity or CVs. We present our perspectives as a road map for future analyses of variabilities inherent in language learning outcomes.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lia.21001.bir
2021-07-27
2024-10-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lia.21001.bir
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Birdsong, D.
    (1989) Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York and Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑74124‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74124-1 [Google Scholar]
  2. (1992) Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68(4), 706–755. Available athttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/416851.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (1994) Asymmetrical knowledge of ungrammaticality in SLA theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(4), 463–473. 10.1017/S0272263100013462
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100013462 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2018) Plasticity, variability and age in second language acquisition and bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(81). doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00081
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00081 [Google Scholar]
  5. Birdsong, D., & Gertken, L. M.
    (2013) In faint praise of folly: A critical review of native/non-native speaker comparisons, with examples from native and bilingual processing of French complex syntax. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 4(2), 107–133. 10.1075/lia.4.2.01bir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.4.2.01bir [Google Scholar]
  6. Bley-Vroman, R.
    (1990) The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20(1–2), 3–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bylund, E., Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N.
    (2021) Age of acquisition – not bilingualism – is the primary determinant of less than nativelike L2 ultimate attainment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1), 18–30. doi:  10.1017/S1366728920000188
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000188 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coppieters, R.
    (1987) Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63(3), 544–573. 10.2307/415005
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415005 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dabrowska, E.
    (2012a) Different speakers, different grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. 10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab [Google Scholar]
  10. (2012b) Explaining individual differences in linguistic proficiency: Responses to the commentaries. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 324–335. 10.1075/lab.2.3.16dab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.16dab [Google Scholar]
  11. DeKeyser, R.
    (2012) Individual differences in native language attainment and their implications for research on second language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 260–263. 10.1075/lab.2.3.03dek
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.03dek [Google Scholar]
  12. (2013) Age effects in second language learning: Stepping stones toward better understanding. Language Learning, 63(S1), 52–67. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00737.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00737.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Dörnyei, Z.
    (2010) The relationship between language aptitude and language learning motivation: Individual differences from a dynamic systems perspective. InE. Macaro (Ed.), Continuum companion to Second Language Acquisition (pp.247–267). New York: Continuum International.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fletcher, J. M.
    (1981) Linguistic factors in reading acquisition. InF. Pirozzolo & M. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychology and cognitive processes in reading (pp.261–294). New York, NY: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑185030‑2.50015‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-185030-2.50015-9 [Google Scholar]
  15. Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S.
    (1999) Age constraints on second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104. 10.1006/jmla.1999.2638
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2638 [Google Scholar]
  16. Harrington, M.
    (2006) The lexical decision task as a measure of L2 proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6, 147–168. 10.1075/eurosla.6.10har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.6.10har [Google Scholar]
  17. Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S.
    (2018) A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 177, 263–277. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  18. Holm, S.
    (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, Y., & Ferreira, F.
    (2020) The application of Signal Detection Theory to acceptability judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(73), 1–11. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00073
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00073 [Google Scholar]
  20. Huettig, F., Singh, N., & Mishra, R. K.
    (2011) Language-mediated visual orienting behavior in low and high literates. Frontiers in Psychology, 2 (285). doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00285
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00285 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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(4), 555–582. 10.1017/S0142716409990014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990014 [Google Scholar]
  22. Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V.
    (2010) Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 343–365. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Indefrey, P.
    (2006) It is time to work toward explicit processing models for native and second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 66–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L.
    (1989) Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. 10.1016/0010‑0285(89)90003‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kanai, R., & Rees, G.
    (2011) The structural basis of inter-individual differences in human behavior and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(4), 231–242. 10.1038/nrn3000
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3000 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kidd, E., & Donnelly, S.
    (2020) Individual differences in first language acquisition. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 319–340. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011619‑030326
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030326 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2018) Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169. 10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kovas, Y., Hayiou-Thomas, M. E., Oliver, B., Dale, P. S., Bishop, D. V. M., & Plomin, R.
    (2005) Genetic influences in different aspects of language development: The etiology of language skills in 4.5-year-old twins. Child Development, 76(3), 632–651. 10.1111/j.1467‑8624.2005.00868.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00868.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Langsford, S., Perfors, A., Hendrickson, A., Kennedy, A. T., & Navarro, D. J.
    (2018) Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–34. 10.5334/gjgl.396
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.396 [Google Scholar]
  30. Langsford, S., Stephens, R. G., Dunn, J. C., & Lewis, R. L.
    (2019) In search of the factors behind naïve sentence judgments: A state trace analysis of grammaticality and acceptability ratings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2886). doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02886
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02886 [Google Scholar]
  31. Leivada, E., & Westergaard, M.
    (2020) Acceptable ungrammatical sentences, unacceptable grammatical sentences, and the role of the cognitive parser. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(364). doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00364
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00364 [Google Scholar]
  32. Moyer, A.
    (2014) Exceptional outcomes in L2 phonology: The critical factors of learner engagement and self-regulation. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 418–440. 10.1093/applin/amu012
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu012 [Google Scholar]
  33. Piatteli-Palmarini, M.
    Ed. (1980) Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Pfenninger, S. E., & Singleton, D.
    (2019) Starting age overshadowed: The primacy of differential environmental and family support effects on second language attainment in an instructional context. Language Learning, 69(S1), 207–234. 10.1111/lang.12318
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12318 [Google Scholar]
  35. Plonsky, L., Marsden, E., Crowther, D., Gass, S. M., & Spinner, P.
    (2020) A methodological synthesis and meta-analysis of judgment tasks in second language research. Second Language Research, 36(4), 583–621. 10.1177/0267658319828413
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319828413 [Google Scholar]
  36. Scholes, R. J., & Willis, B. J.
    (1987) Language and literacy. Journal of Literary Semantics, 16(1), 3–11. 10.1515/jlse.1987.16.1.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.1987.16.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schütze, C. T.
    (1996) The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Skehan, P.
    (1991) Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275–298. 10.1017/S0272263100009979
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009979 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J.
    (2006) Native language predictors of foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 129–160. 10.1007/s11881‑006‑0006‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-006-0006-2 [Google Scholar]
  40. Spinner, P. & Gass, S. M.
    (2019) Using judgments in second language acquisition research. Milton Park Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315463377
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315463377 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sprouse, J., Schütze, C., & Almeida, D.
    (2013) A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 134, 219–248. 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  42. Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H., & Huttenlocher, J.
    (2008) Emergence of syntax: commonalities and differences across children. Developmental Science, 11(1), 84–97. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2007.00656.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00656.x [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lia.21001.bir
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): English; French; second language acquisition; ultimate attainment; variability

Most Cited

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