Journal of Second Language Studies - Volume 3, Issue 1, 2020

Considerable variability has been observed in sentence comprehension abilities in both native speakers and second language (L2) learner populations. While it has long been established that, in native speakers, this variability is closely linked to individual differences (IDs) in verbal working memory (vWM), previous research on the role of vWM in L2 sentence comprehension has produced mixed results. Moreover, there is an accumulating body of evidence demonstrating that the relationship between vWM and native language comprehension abilities is mediated by language experience. However, to our knowledge, until now, no attempt has been made to integrate language experience measures into the vWM-L2 sentence comprehension relationship. The goal of the present study is twofold: (1) to determine whether and to what extent vWM – as gauged by a reading span (RSPAN) task – correlates with IDs in two proxy estimates of L2 experience and (2) to investigate the effects of vWM on L2 comprehension of three different types of complex sentences. Thirty-four German advanced learners of English participated in this study. Significant positive correlations were found between the RSPAN scores and both proxy estimates of L2 experience. Mixed-effects modeling revealed that vWM exerted a significant effect on L2 sentence comprehension that was not modulated by sentence type. Taken together, these results provide additional evidence in support of the involvement of vWM in L2 sentence comprehension and, to our knowledge, first evidence for the contribution of L2 experience to RSPAN task performance.

This study explored whether the effects of task repetition in drawing learners’ attention to linguistic form could be reinforced through the provision of two types of unfocused direct written corrective feedback. Fifty-seven learners formed three conditions: (1) task repetition with no feedback (TR, control), (2) task repetition with error correction (TR+EC), and (3) task repetition with reformulation (TR+R). All groups repeated an identical writing narrative task but only the experimental groups received feedback after their initial task performance. All participants were then asked to complete a new task of the same type followed by a new task of a different type. Performance was gauged by multiple measures of complexity, accuracy and fluency. Results revealed the persistent superiority of the TR+EC condition on all measures of accuracy while the TR+R condition led to immediate written complexity improvement regarding subordination. Furthermore, both the TR+R and TR conditions resulted in delayed fluency gains.

The purpose of the current study was to examine the extent by which second language breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge (BVK and DVK, respectively) were predictors of successful listening comprehension. To this end, along with a standardized test of listening comprehension ability, aural measures of both BVK and DVK were administered to 262 English learners within a wide range of proficiency level. The data were subjected to structural equation modeling, and the results showed that BVK and DVK were not measured in a psychometrically distinct way in the current study. This did not allow any conclusions about the relative contribution of BVK and DVK to listening ability at the construct level. However, at the measured-variable level, the findings showed that the DVK test scores were better predictors of success in listening comprehension than the ones from the BVK test.

This corpus-based research analysed three lexical features (lexical diversity, lexical sophistication, and cohesion) in English argumentative writing and examined the potential differences in lexical performance (1) between native and nonnative English writers and (2) across all writers from various language backgrounds. The findings revealed that nonnative English writers demonstrated significantly lower performance in lexical sophistication than did native English writers. Significant differences in all three lexical aspects exist between writers from different language backgrounds. Pedagogical implications for vocabulary instruction in academic writing for nonnative writers include emphasizing the mastery of academic, low-frequency, and discipline-specific vocabulary. Additionally, improving nonnative writers’ vocabulary size and lexical diversity is essential for building deeper level cohesion in writing. The results suggest unique writing characteristics of different nonnative writers and their varied learner needs should be acknowledged. Thus, targeted instruction is essential to provide effective enhancement to nonnative English writers’ lexical performance in academic writing.

“*I am not agree with you” is an incorrect use of agree frequently seen in the writing of Taiwanese learners. Yet, not many studies have discussed the use of agree and disagree in the literature. Many studies are concerned more about the politeness of (dis)agreement, especially in detailing the relationship between speaker and hearer. We took a lexical semantic approach to compare the use of agree and disagree in essays written by native English speakers and Taiwanese learners in the ICNALE (International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English). The essays were based on two topics concerning societal issues collected in the corpus – (a) whether smoking should be completely banned in restaurants and (b) whether college students should take a part-time job or not – the writers were asked to respond to each issue by agreeing or disagreeing. Our results showed that when given clear instructions to agree or disagree, both native and learners tended to state (dis)agreement in the very first sentence in their essays, but Taiwanese learners relied more on the uses of agree and disagree more often than the native speakers did. The errors committed by learners on the use of agree (not for disagree) were between 25–35% in our data. The results will bring significant comparisons of the lexical semantics of related verbs (verbs of social interaction) in future studies.