DOCSLIB.ORG

(Morpho)Syntactic and Lexical Complexity in Writing Samples

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Morpho)Syntactic and Lexical Complexity in Writing Samples Instructed isla (print) issn 2398–4155 Second Language isla (online) issn 2398–4163 Acquisition Article Structure-based or dynamic usage-based instruction : long-term effects on (morpho)syntactic and lexical complexity in writing samples Audrey Rousse-Malpat, Rasmus Steinkrauss and Marjolijn Verspoor Abstract This classroom study aims to explore the instructional effects of structure-based (SB) or dynamic usage-based (DUB) instruction with free response, commu- nicative writing tasks after three years of L2-French instruction on linguistic complexity measures in (morpho)syntax and lexicon. We investigated data from forty-three young high school beginner learners of L2-French after three years of instruction with similar amounts of L2 exposure. The SB treatment included a traditional focus on explicit grammar; the DUB group was taught using the Accelerated Integrated Method, a highly communicative, meaning- focused method without explicit instruction, but with a great deal of expo- sure and repetition to induce frequency effects. Results after three years show that DUB instruction leads to more linguistic complexity in terms of various (morpho)syntactic and some lexical measures (multi-word sequences coverage). On other lexical measures (such as Guiraud index and average word length), Affiliations Audrey Rousse-Malpat: University of Groningen, Netherlands email: [email protected] Rasmus Steinkrauss: University of Groningen, Netherlands email: [email protected] Marjolijn Verspoor: University of Groningen, Netherlands email: [email protected] isla vol 3.2 2019 181–205 doi: https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.38054 ©2019, equinox publishing 182 AUDREY ROUSSe-MALPAT, RaSMUS STEINKRAUSS AND MARJOLIJN VERSPOOR no differences were found. The results are discussed using insights from the dynamic usage-based perspective. keywords: (morpho)syntactic; lexical complexity; structure-based (SB) instruction; dynamic usage-based (DUB) instruction; L2 writing; L2 French Introduction Recent developments in the application of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) combined with usage-based (UB) theories on second language instruction, called a dynamic usage-based (DUB) approach for short, might offer a good alternative for foreign language teachers who struggle with an implicit approach to language teaching (see Rousse- Malpat and Verspoor 2018; Verspoor 2017). Teaching methods in line with this approach do not regard language as a set of rules but as conven- tionalised routines, where non-linear learning emerges from the dynamic interaction between input and output. Rather than focusing on grammar, DUB methods focus on ‘iteration’ (Larsen-Freeman 2012), namely, fre- quently repeated exposure to utterances in meaningful contexts (Verspoor 2017) to foster automatisation and routinisation. In several semester-long experiments, these methods have proved as effective or more effective in a foreign language classroom in countries where language teaching is par- ticularly traditional, such as in Vietnam or Sri Lanka (Hong 2013; Irshad 2015), on general English proficiency tested using objective tests and holis- tic scores on written and oral texts, or in Germany for L2-Dutch (Koster 2015). However, few studies have looked at the effects of DUB-inspired L2 instruction on free-production data over a longer period of time and using both analytical and holistic measures that favour SB as well as DUB approaches and compared them to the effects of SB teaching. In this paper, the effectiveness of two L2 teaching methods – SB and DUB – will be evaluated using several (morpho)syntactic complexity mea- sures such as sentence length and morphological complexity, and lexical measures such as diversity (Guiraud), word complexity (average word length) and multi-word (MW) sequences. If anything, we would expect the SB group to outperform the DUB group on (morpho)syntactic linguistic complexity measures and the DUB group to outperform the SB group on MW sequences. After clarifying the fundamental differences between SB and DUB approaches and their implications for instructional methods, we will briefly review studies related to the current one. STRucture-bASED OR DYNAMIC USAGE-BASED INSTRUCTION 183 Structure-based versus dynamic usage-based instructional approaches The fundamental difference between an SB and a DUB approach is the way language itself is viewed. An SB approach assumes language is a complex system in which different autonomous sub-components (such as syntax and lexicon) interact predictably according to ‘rules’. In contrast, a DUB approach assumes language is a complex dynamic system in which there is no fundamental difference between syntax and lexicon, and that language is used on the basis of the speaker’s individual routines. Language learning and use is viewed as a dynamic, non-linear process. These different views have implications for how language should be presented and instructed, and the behaviour that learners should aim for (Verspoor 2017). The term ‘structure based’ (SB) is based on research by Lightbown and Spada (2013), who argue that SB approaches see language learning as rule driven. Generally, it is believed that learning and applying grammatical rules is beneficial in becoming proficient in an L2. There is a high focus on accuracy of the grammatical forms that are presented from ‘simple’ to ‘complex’, and other aspects of language such as vocabulary, formulaic phrases, pronunciation, intonation, pragmatic use and so on are believed to be learned separately. Most of our L2 teaching methods, whether they be audio-lingual, communicative, task-based or skill theory, are structure based in that they implicitly or explicitly build on the premise that grammar forms the core of the language to be learned. Such SB approaches usually rely heavily on explicit grammar teaching, especially in foreign language classes in the Netherlands (cf. West and Verspoor 2016). The term ‘dynamic usage based’ (DUB) is inspired by the title of one of Langacker’s articles (2000), in which he argues that a usage-based view is per definition a complex dynamic systems theory view. In our own use of the term, we accentuate the fact that language development is per defini- tion non-linear, that some subsystems need to be learned before others, and that variability in the use of structures (which includes making errors) is needed to progress (Verspoor 2017). A DUB perspective on L2 learning would predict that language emerges from repetitive exposure to meaning- ful input and language use (Langacker 2000; Tomasello 2003). Linguistic constructions (pairings of form and meaning) are learned through asso- ciation, as they are ‘heard and used frequently and therefore entrenched, which is the result of habit formation, routinization or automatization’ (Verspoor and Schmitt 2013:354). The key difference between an SB and a DUB view is that there is no priority for grammar or syntax in language. Language is not driven by rules. Instead, language forms – from concrete 184 AUDREY ROUSSe-MALPAT, RaSMUS STEINKRAUSS AND MARJOLIJN VERSPOOR morphemes, words, phrases, MW sequences, clauses, sentences and dis- course sequences to abstract lexical categories and morphological and syn- tactic patterns – are all fundamentally similar as they all bear meaning to different degrees and form a continuum. Because learners are expected to discover recurring patterns through frequent exposure, there is no need to explain rules and the approach is mainly implicit. Structure-based methods, with a strong explicit component, are very common in foreign language teaching as there is still a strong belief that explicit grammar instruction is a prerequisite for successful second lan- guage learning. This is not surprising, as many studies and meta-studies point to a positive effect of explicit grammar instruction (Goo et al. 2015; Norris and Ortega 2000; Spada and Tomita 2010). In addition, there have been studies on the effects of type of instruction on linguistic complexity, such as the differential effects on the acquisition of simple versus complex grammatical rules on oral and written skills (cf. Spada and Tomita 2010). These studies also conclude that there is evidence for a beneficial effect of explicit instruction on the use of both simple and complex forms. However, the effects of explicit instruction may be overestimated (e.g. Doughty 2003) because research designs often favour explicit types of instruction using proficiency measures relying on ‘constrained, con- structed responses’ (fill the blanks, metalinguistic judgement responses) (Spada 2011:228) and studying brief treatments only (Spada and Tomita 2010). The problem is that implicitly taught learners have to discover the language patterns on their own, and this process may require com- paratively more hours of exposure (Rousse-Malpat and Verspoor 2018). Therefore, studies looking at brief periods of instruction and at gram- matical complexity only might advantage explicit instructional settings. However, the question remains whether the knowledge acquired in explicit instructional settings can be transferred to learners’ communicative lan- guage use. Therefore, long-term intervention studies on type of instruction with free response tasks – eliciting uncontrolled foreign language use – are called for. The present classroom study aims to explore the instructional effects of an SB and a DUB approach, one with explicit and the other with implicit instruction, with free response, communicative writing tasks after three years
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Second Language Acquisition: an Advanced Resource Book
    September 20062006 Volume 10, Number 2 Top Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book Kees deBot, Wander Lowie & Marjolijn Verspoor Author: (2006) Publisher: New York: Routledge Pages ISBN Price Pp. xvi + 0-41-533870-0 $29.95 U.S. 303 Introduction DeBot, Lowie, and Verspoor have produced a well-written textbook/resource that covers important areas of second language acquisition (SLA). Although the title has the word "advanced" in it, this should not frighten any reader with an interest in how languages are learned and with questions such as whether form-focused instruction is beneficial to the learner. This text can profitably be read as a second book in the field, perhaps after starting with Bill VanPatten's excellent slim text From input to output: A teacher's guide to second language acquisition (2002) or Lightbrown and Spada's How languages are learned (2006). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book is divided into three sections. Unit A covers the field of SLA research in a manner similar to other textbooks. The chapters in this unit are as follows: A1) Defining the field A2) Dynamic aspects of SLA A3) Historical perspectives A4) The multilingual mind A5) The developing system A6) Learners' characteristics A7) The role of instruction. Unit B extends all of these topics by providing hallmark SLA articles along with annotations, commentary, and follow-up and reflection questions. Unit C further TESL-EJ 10.2, Sept. 2006 deBot, Lowie & Verspoor / Kozel 1 explores the same topics and in the process encourages the reader to think about, reflect upon, and do their own research on such topics in SLA.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: Reconciling Approaches to Intra-Individual Variation in Psycholinguistics and Variationist Sociolinguistics
    Linguistics Vanguard 2021; 7(s2): 20200027 Lars Bülow* and Simone E. Pfenninger Introduction: Reconciling approaches to intra-individual variation in psycholinguistics and variationist sociolinguistics https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0027 Abstract: The overall theme of this special issue is intra-individual variation, that is, the observable variation within individuals’ behaviour, which plays an important role in the humanities area as well as in the social sciences. While various fields have recognised the complexity and dynamism of human thought and behav- iour, intra-individual variation has received less attention in regard to language acquisition, use and change. Linguistic research so far lacks both empirical and theoretical work that provides detailed information on the occurrence of intra-individual variation, the reasons for its occurrence and its consequences for language development as well as for language variation and change. The current issue brings together two sub- disciplines – psycholinguistics and variationist sociolinguistics – in juxtaposing systematic and non- systematic intra-individual variation, thereby attempting to build a cross-fertilisation relationship between two disciplines that have had surprisingly little connection so far. In so doing, we address critical stock-taking, meaningful theorizing and methodological innovation. Keywords: psycholinguistics, variationist sociolinguistics, intra-individual variation, intra-speaker variation, SLA, language variation and change, language development 1 Intra-individual variation in psycholinguistics and variationist sociolinguistics The overall theme of this special issue is intra-individual variation, that is, the observable variation within individuals’ behaviour, which plays an important role in the humanities area as well as in the social sciences. While various fields have acknowledged the complexity and dynamism of human behaviour, intra-individual variation has received less attention in regard to language use.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded for Free
    Salem State University From the SelectedWorks of Sovicheth Boun March 24, 2014 A Critical Examination Of Language Ideologies And Identities Of Cambodian Foreign-Trained University Lecturers Of English Sovicheth Boun Available at: https://works.bepress.com/sovicheth-boun/2/ Table of Contents General Conference Information ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-­‐13 Welcome Messages from the President and the Conference Chair ........................................................................................................................ 3 Conference Program Committee .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Registration Information, Exhibit Hall Coffee Hours, Breaks, Internet Access, Conference Evaluation ................................................ 4 Strand Coordinators and Abstract Readers .................................................................................................................................................................. 5-­‐6 Student Volunteers, Individual Sessions and Roundtable Sessions Instructions ............................................................................................ 7 Conference Sponsors .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Usage Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning University of Jyväskylä, Finland, June 17–19, 2019
    The 4th international conference Thinking, doing, learning: Usage based perspectives on second language learning University of Jyväskylä, Finland, June 17–19, 2019 Abstract Book Table of Contents Monday, June 17th 2019 Plenary Tim Greer The ecology of explaining................................... 6 Papers Yumi Matsumoto ”Material actions” in ESL classroom interactions: How students use materials and spaces for negotiating interactional power with teachers.......................... 7 Jirajittra Higgins A development of teaching modules to enhance students’ interactional competence in Thai university EFL classroom....................................... 8 Yuan-Yuan Meng Complex system phenomena in dyadic communication: A case study........ 9 Annekatrin Kaivapalu, Maisa Martin Complexity, accuracy, fluency: empirical attempts of definition 10 Feng-Ming Chi Creating dialogic conversations via Author’s Chair for EFL learners . 11 Tamás Péter Szabó Developing language aware pedagogy in the transition phase between kindergarten and school education: insights from the research of metalanguage .................... 12 Beatriz López-Medina, José Luis Estrada-Chichón Developing plurilingual competence in CLIL set- tings: a case study in Latvian secondary education............................. 13 Taina Tammelin-Laine Digital decade and teaching L2 Finnish literacy skills to non-literate immigrants 14 Keiko Imura Emergence of utterance schemas in young learners’ foreign language development: a longitudinal study of Japanese learners of English............................
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging Learners in Their Individual Zone of Proximal Development Using Pedagogic Developmental Benchmarks of Syntactic Complexity
    Challenging Learners in Their Individual Zone of Proximal Development Using Pedagogic Developmental Benchmarks of Syntactic Complexity Xiaobin Chen and Detmar Meurers LEAD Graduate School and Research Network Department of Linguistics Eberhard Karls Universitat¨ Tubingen,¨ Germany {xiaobin.chen,detmar.meurers}@uni-tuebingen.de Abstract and identify reading material individually chal- lenging learners, essentially instantiating the next This paper introduces an Intelligent Com- stage of acquisition as captured by Krashen’s con- puter Assisted Language Learning system cept of i+1 (Krashen, 1981) or relatedly, but em- designed to provide reading input for lan- phasizing the social perspective, Vygotsky’s Zone guage learners based on the syntactic com- of Proximal Development (ZPD; Vygotsky, 1976). plexity of their language production. The In terms of structure of the paper, we first locate system analyzes the linguistic complexity our approach in terms of the Complexity, Accu- of texts produced by the user and of texts racy, and Fluency (CAF) framework in SLA re- in a pedagogic target language corpus to search. Then we review approaches adopted by identify texts that are well-suited to foster earlier studies in developmental complexity re- acquisition. These texts provide develop- search, including problems they pose for a peda- mental benchmarks offering an individu- gogical approach aimed at offering developmental ally tailored language challenge, making benchmarks. We propose and justify a solution, ideas such as Krashen’s i+1 or Vygotsky’s before presenting the architecture and functional- Zone of Proximal Development concrete ity of the SyB system. and empirically explorable in terms of a broad range of complexity measures in all 2 Development of Syntactic Complexity dimensions of linguistic modeling.
    [Show full text]
  • Audrey Rousse Malpat and Marjolijn Verspoor
    3.2. Case Study 2. Accelerative Integrated Method of foreign language teaching in Canada and the Netherlands Case study authors: Audrey Rousse Malpat and Marjolijn Verspoor Dr. Audrey Rousse-Malpat, assistant professor of Language Learning at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics (University of Groningen). Her PhD project focused on the effectiveness of different types of instruction (implicit vs. explicit) on the development of oral and written skills for L2 French. She is now working on several projects dealing with the implementation of innovative language curricula in universities, vocational education studies and junior high school in the Netherlands and in Germany. She specialises in L2 acquisition in poor-input environment settings and in dynamic usage-based inspired pedagogy. She is also the co-owner of Projectfrans.nl, a platform aimed at informing, training and supporting foreign language high school teachers in changing their practices according to a dynamic usage-based view of language learning. Marjolijn Verspoor is Professor of English Language and English as a Second Language at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, and at the University of Pannonia, Hungary. Her main research interests are second language development from a dynamic usage-based perspective, and instructional approaches in foreign language teaching. Description of the teaching method and its context The accelerated integrated method (AIM), devised by Maxwell (2001), is intended to teach a foreign language38 (also referred in this case study as ‘L2’ or ‘target language’) authentically and playfully through scaffolding techniques, which use story-telling, gestures, active collaboration and repetition. So far it has been used to teach French, English, Spanish and Mandarin to young beginners from around 7 to 15 years old.
    [Show full text]
  • Lourdes Ortega Curriculum Vitae
    Lourdes Ortega Curriculum Vitae Updated: August 2019 Department of Linguistics 1437 37th Street NW Box 571051 Poulton Hall 250 Georgetown University Washington, DC 20057-1051 Department of Linguistics Fax (202) 687-6174 E-mail: [email protected] Webpage: https://sites.google.com/a/georgetown.edu/lourdes-ortega/ EDUCATION 2000 Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Department of Second Language Studies, USA. 1995 M.A. in English as a Second Language. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Department of Second Language Studies, USA. 1993 R.S.A. Dip., Diploma for Overseas Teachers of English. Cambridge University/UCLES, UK. 1987 Licenciatura in Spanish Philology. University of Cádiz, Spain. EMPLOYMENT since 2012 Professor, Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics. 2004-2012 Professor (2010-2012), Associate Professor (2006-2010), Assistant Professor (2004-2006), University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Department of Second Language Studies. 2002-2004 Assistant Professor (tenure-track), Northern Arizona University, Department of English. 2000-2002 Assistant Professor (tenure-track). Georgia State University, Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL. 1999-2000 Visiting Instructor of Applied Linguistics, Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics. 1994-1998 Research and Teaching Graduate Assistant, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, College of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature. 1987-1993 Instructor of Spanish, Instituto Cervantes of Athens, Greece. FELLOWSHIPS 2018: Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, Advanced Research Collaborative (ARC). August through December, 2018. 2010: External Senior Research Fellow at the Freiburg Institute of Advanced Studies (FRIAS), University of Freiburg. One-semester residential fellowship at FRIAS to carry out project titled Pathways to multicompetence: Applying usage-based and constructionist theories to the study of interlanguage development.
    [Show full text]
  • Recherches En Didactique Des Langues Et Des Cultures Les Cahiers De L'acedle
    Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures Les cahiers de l'Acedle 14-1 | 2017 Notions en questions - Emergentisme Linguistic complexity in second language development: variability and variation at advanced stages Marjolijn Verspoor, Wander Lowie, Hui Ping Chan et Louisa Vahtrick Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rdlc/1450 DOI : 10.4000/rdlc.1450 ISSN : 1958-5772 Éditeur ACEDLE Référence électronique Marjolijn Verspoor, Wander Lowie, Hui Ping Chan et Louisa Vahtrick, « Linguistic complexity in second language development: variability and variation at advanced stages », Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures [En ligne], 14-1 | 2017, mis en ligne le 30 janvier 2017, consulté le 19 avril 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rdlc/1450 ; DOI : 10.4000/rdlc.1450 Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 19 avril 2019. Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Linguistic complexity in second language development: variability and variati... 1 Linguistic complexity in second language development: variability and variation at advanced stages Marjolijn Verspoor, Wander Lowie, Hui Ping Chan et Louisa Vahtrick Introduction 1 The current special issue concerns linguistic complexity in second language development. Following Bulté and Housen (2014), we will define our basic construct as follows: linguistic complexity is a quantitative property of language units. Basically, the greater the number of components a construction has and the more levels of embedding it contains, the more complex it is. Linguistic complexity can be regarded as a valid descriptor of L2 performance, as an indicator of proficiency, and as an index of language development and progress.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE DIANE LARSEN-FREEMAN University Of
    CURRICULUM VITAE DIANE LARSEN-FREEMAN University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan e-mail: [email protected] EDUCATION 1975 Ph.D. in Linguistics, University of Michigan 1973 M.A. in Linguistics, University of Michigan 1967 B.A. in Psychology, cum laude, State University of New York at Oswego AWARDS/HONORS 2019 Outstanding Teacher Award 2019, University Putra Malaysia 2019 Lifetime Achievement Award. State University of New York at Oswego. 2016 Selected for TESOL’s “50 at 50” (50 leaders who have made significant contributions to the profession within the past 50 years (on the occasion of the International TESOL Association’s 50th anniversary) 2011 Distinguished Scholarship and Service Award, American Association for Applied Linguistics 2010 Fulbright Distinguished Chair, University of Innsbruck, Austria 2009 Modern Language Association’s Kenneth W. Mildenberger book prize for Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics 2009 Honorary Doctoral Degree in Humanities, Hellenic American University, Athens 2000 Heinle & Heinle Lifetime Achievement Award for 2000 1999 Named as one of 30 American pioneers in the field of ESL in the 20th century by ESL Magazine (January/February 1999) 1997 Inducted into the Vermont Academy of Arts and Sciences 1991 Certificate of Appreciation (for six years of counsel as a member of the English Teaching Advisory Panel) Director, United States Information Agency 1989 Sustained Excellence Award (Highest Award) School for International Training/Experiment in International Living 1986 Distinguished Excellence Award School
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging Learners in Their Individual Zone of Proximal Development Using Pedagogic Developmental Benchmarks of Syntactic Complexity
    Challenging Learners in Their Individual Zone of Proximal Development Using Pedagogic Developmental Benchmarks of Syntactic Complexity Xiaobin Chen and Detmar Meurers LEAD Graduate School and Research Network Department of Linguistics Eberhard Karls Universitat¨ Tubingen,¨ Germany fxiaobin.chen,[email protected] Abstract and identify reading material individually chal- lenging learners, essentially instantiating the next This paper introduces an Intelligent Com- stage of acquisition as captured by Krashen’s con- puter Assisted Language Learning system cept of i+1 (Krashen, 1981) or relatedly, but em- designed to provide reading input for lan- phasizing the social perspective, Vygotsky’s Zone guage learners based on the syntactic com- of Proximal Development (ZPD; Vygotsky, 1976). plexity of their language production. The In terms of structure of the paper, we first locate system analyzes the linguistic complexity our approach in terms of the Complexity, Accu- of texts produced by the user and of texts racy, and Fluency (CAF) framework in SLA re- in a pedagogic target language corpus to search. Then we review approaches adopted by identify texts that are well-suited to foster earlier studies in developmental complexity re- acquisition. These texts provide develop- search, including problems they pose for a peda- mental benchmarks offering an individu- gogical approach aimed at offering developmental ally tailored language challenge, making benchmarks. We propose and justify a solution, ideas such as Krashen’s i+1 or Vygotsky’s before presenting the architecture and functional- Zone of Proximal Development concrete ity of the SyB system. and empirically explorable in terms of a broad range of complexity measures in all 2 Development of Syntactic Complexity dimensions of linguistic modeling.
    [Show full text]
  • About the INTER and the INTRA in Age-Related Research: Evidence
    Linguistics Vanguard 2021; 7(s2): 20200028 Simone E. Pfenninger* About the INTER and the INTRA in age-related research: Evidence from a longitudinal CLIL study with dense time serial measurements https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0028 Abstract: This is the first longitudinal study to explore the best time and timing for regular versus bilingual language exposure in (pre)primary programs, using multiple measures over time so as to focus on fluctuations, trends and interactions in individual data as well as intra-individual variation over time. We studied children who had received 50/50 bilingual instruction in German and English (so-called ‘partial CLIL’ programs) as well as children in ‘minimal CLIL’ programs with almost uniquely monolingual German instruction (90% German, 10% English). Results show that, like other individual differences (ID) variables, the age factor behaves like a dynamic entity that changes over time and affects L2 literacy development differentially at different times. Furthermore, while an early age of first bilingual language exposure has no effect on the L2 development for the children in the minimal CLIL program, early-AO bilinguals in the partial CLIL program (age of first exposure 5) outperform the older-AO bilingual group (age of first exposure 7 and 9) in terms of accuracy and (syntactic and morphological) complexity but not in terms of lexical richness and fluency. Keywords: SLA, age factor, CLIL, complex dynamic systems, young learners, individual differences 1 Introduction The prevailing approach to SLA up to the beginning of this century was to focus on product-based explanations of SLA (Lowie and Verspoor 2015), which is reflected, among other things, in the assumption that the variation in interlanguage is either rather systematic or completely random and can be relegated to “(white) noise”.In particular, it was non-systematic, free intra-individual variation that had often been too readily dismissed as noise or measurement error or attributed to “outliers”.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding the Key to Successful L2 Learning in Groups and Individuals
    Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 7 (1). 2017. 127-148 doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.1.7 http://www.ssllt.amu.edu.pl Finding the key to successful L2 learning in groups and individuals Wander Lowie University of Groningen, The Netherlands [email protected] Marijn van Dijk University of Groningen, The Netherlands [email protected] Huiping Chan University of Groningen, The Netherlands [email protected] Marjolijn Verspoor University of Groningen, The Netherlands [email protected] Abstract A large body studies into individual differences in second language learning has shown that success in second language learning is strongly affected by a set of relevant learner characteristics ranging from the age of onset to moti- vation, aptitude, and personality. Most studies have concentrated on a limited number of learner characteristics and have argued for the relative importance of some of these factors. Clearly, some learners are more successful than oth- ers, and it is tempting to try to find the factor or combination of factors that can crack the code to success. However, isolating one or several global indi- vidual characteristics can only give a partial explanation of success in second language learning. The limitation of this approach is that it only reflects on rather general personality characteristics of learners at one point in time, 127 Wander Lowie, Marijn van Dijk, Huiping Chan, Marjolijn Verspoor while both language development and the factors affecting it are instances of complex dynamic processes that develop over time.
    [Show full text]