1887
Volume 156, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers have yet to map the developmental stages language learners go through as they approach the target language. In studies of English as a Second Language (ESL) writing, the term 'advanced learner' has been applied indiscriminately to learners ranging from freshman ESL composition to graduate students. There is a need to examine the advanced stages of SLA in order to refine SLA theories and pedagogical approaches. A corpus of texts written by non-native English-speaking doctoral students in applied linguistics from several linguistic backgrounds was analyzed to determine the texts’ lexical, morphological and syntactic fluency, accuracy and complexity. A sub-corpus of papers by native-English-speaking peers was used for comparison. The texts were strictly-timed and loosely-timed exams written 2 to 3 years apart. Surveys and interviews were also conducted. Based on findings, the study defines data-based criteria that distinguish four quantitatively and qualitatively distinct developmental stages: the advanced, highly advanced, near-native, and native-like stages. Advanced learners make more frequent and varied errors which can be explained by transfer from the first language. Native-like writers make few errors that can be explained by overgeneralization of conventions from informal English and working memory limitations (similar to native speakers’ errors). The study suggests that SLA is a process of transfer followed by relearning of morpho-syntactic specifications (Herschensohn, 2000), with syntax being used with the greatest accuracy (Bardovi-Harlig & Bofman, 1989) and lexicon with the least. The relationships between accuracy and other social and cognitive factors are considered, and pedagogical recommendations are made.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034421
2008-01-01
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altenberg, B.
    (1998) Connectors and sentence openings in English and Swedish. InS. Johansson & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies (pp.115–143). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bofman, T.
    (1989) Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 17–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Badecker, W., & Straub, K.
    (2002) The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 748–769.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bock, K., & Miller, C.A.
    (1991) Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 45–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Canagarajah, S.
    (2001) The fortunate traveller: Shuttling between communities and literacies by economy class. InD. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (pp.23–37). Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton 1957.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cobb, T.
    (2003) Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. The Canadian Modem Language Review, 59, 393–423.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Corder, S. P.
    (1967) The significance in learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Connor, U., & Mayberry, S.
    (1996) Learning discipline-specific academic writing: A case study of a Finnish graduate student in the United States. InE. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp.231–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cumming, A.
    (1990) Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dörnyei, Z., & Durow, V.
    (2004, May). Individual differences and their effects on formulaic sequences. Paper presented at themeeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dulay, H., & Burt, M.
    (1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, R.
    (1994) The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ene, E.
    (2006) The last stages of second language acquisition: Linguistic evidence from academic writing by advanced non-native English speaker. UMI Dissertation Services.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Flowerdew, J.
    (1999) TESOL Quarterly and non-native speaker-writers: An interview with Sandra McKay. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 9, 99–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Flynn, S.
    (1996) A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition. InW. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp.121–158). San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gottlieb, M.
    (1995) Nurturing student learning through portfolios. TESOL Journal, Autumn 1995.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Granger, S.
    (1998) The stylistic potential of phraseological units in the light of genre analysis. InA. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp.125–144). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hamp-Lyons, L. & Condon, W.
    (1999) Assessing the Portfolio: Principlesfor Practice, Theory, and Research. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Herschensohn, J.
    (2000) The second time around: Minimalism and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hinkel, E.
    (1997) The past tense and temporal verb meanings in a contextual frame. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 289–313.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2003) Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 275–301.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Howarth, P.
    (1998) The phraseology of learners' academic writing. InA. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp.161–186). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
    (2000) Pattern grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kennedy, G.
    (2003) Amplifier collocations in the British National Corpus: Implications for English Language Teaching. TESOL Quarteriy, 37, 467–487.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu, D.
    (2003) The most frequently used spoken American English idioms: A corpus analysis and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 671–700.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Liu, J.
    (2001) Writing from Chinese to English: My cultural transformation. InD. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (Vol.26, pp.121–131). Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Master, P.
    (1995) Consciousness raising and article pedagogy.InD. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp.183–204). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Newport, E.L., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L.R.
    (1977) Mother, I'd rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. InC.E. Snow & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp.109–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ringbom, H.
    (2001) Developing literacy can and should be fun: But only sometimes is. InD. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (Vol.26, pp.60–66). Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Selinker, L.
    (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Spence, J.T., Cotton, J.W., Underwood, B.J., & Duncan, C.P.
    (1983) Elementary statistics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
    (2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vickers, C. & Ene, E.
    (2006) Promoting grammatical accuracy through learner autonomy in advanced ESL courses. English Language Teaching Journal, 60: 109–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. White, E.M.
    (1999) Assigning, responding, evaluating: Awriting teacher's guide (3rd. ed). New York: St. Martin's.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. White, L., Travis, L., & McLachlan, A.
    (1992) The acquisition of wh-question formation by Malagasy learners of English: evidence for Universal Grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 341–368.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wilson, K.G.
    (1993) The Columbia guide to standard American English. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.Y.
    (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. University of Hawaii Press, Manoa.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Zamel, V.
    (1983) The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. MonoConc Pro
    MonoConc Pro (Athelstan 2002)
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034421
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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