Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:19:41.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SECOND LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT AND MORPHOSYNTACTIC DEVELOPMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2011

Patti Spinner
Patti Spinner*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
*
*Address correspondence to: Patti Spinner, A-703 Wells Hall, Department of Linguistics and Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to begin work toward a grammatical assessment measure that could bridge the gap between theoretical work on grammatical development, on the one hand, and tools such as the Michigan Test (which uses multiple-choice questions on vocabulary and grammar) or the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages scale (which uses holistic descriptions of grammar use), on the other hand. Such a measure would need to be practical to administer with large groups. Two proposals of grammatical development (processability theory, Pienemann, 1998, 2005; and organic grammar, Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 2006) were applied to short samples of spontaneous production data from 48 adult second-language learners of English from mixed first-language backgrounds. The rapid profile scale successfully accounted for the learners’ development but is of somewhat limited use with short samples of data. The organic grammar placement scale may need to be further refined, but it includes important indicators of grammatical development. A preliminary proposal for using a combined measure with a rubric is presented.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 529 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). (1999). ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Speaking. Retrieved April 4, 2010 fromhttp://www.actfl.org/files/public/Guidelinesspeak.pdfGoogle Scholar
Alhawary, M. (2009). Speech processing prerequisites or L1 transfer? Evidence from English and French learners of L2 Arabic. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. (1998). Language testing/SLA interfaces. In Bachman, L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 177–195). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L., & Cohen, A. (1998). Language testing/SLA interfaces: An update. In Bachman, L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 1–31). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. (1998). Describing language development? Rating scales and SLA. In Bachman, L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 112–140). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In Bachman, L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32–70). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1990/1991). Constraints on parameter-setting: A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language. Language Acquisition, 1, 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Penke, M. (1992). The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the Simone corpus. In Meisel, J. (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement (pp. 181–223). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies and processes in test taking and SLA. In Bachman, L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 90–111). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of processability theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 18, 274–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D. (1998). Testing methods in context-based second language research. In Bachman, L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 141–155). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dyson, B. (2009). Processability theory and the role of morphology in English as a second language development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research, 25, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 4–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., & Lund, K. (2001). Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18, 250–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The failed functional features hypothesis. Second Language Research, 13, 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual Boston University conference on language development 21 (pp. 257–268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jansen, L. (2008). Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross-sectional study in a wider theoretical context. Language Learning, 58, 185–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173–281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S. (2000). Acquisition of Japanese verbal morphology: Applying processability theory to Japanese. Studia Linguistica, 54, 238–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiany, G. (2001). On the relationship between English proficiency, writing ability, and the use of conjunctions in Iranian EFL learners’ compositions. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 133/134, 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The overrepresentation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2003). Rapid profile stages. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from University of Paderborn, Linguistics Department, Rapid Profile Web site: http://groups.uni-paderborn.de/rapidprofile/docs/Stages.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2005). Discussing PT. In Pienemann, M. (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processablity theory (pp. 61–83). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2007a). Processability theory. In Van Patten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 137–154). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (2007b, September). Processability theory: Theory construction and application. Plenary speech at 17th annual conference of the European Second Language Association, Newcastle, UK.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, J. (2007). Towards a new collaboration: Research in SLA and language testing. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 13, 22–35.Google Scholar
Sakai, H. (2008). An analysis of Japanese university students’ oral performance in English using processability theory. System, 36, 534–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1994). The role of language tests in the construction and validation of second-language acquisition theories. In Tarone, E. E., Gass, S. M., & Cohen, A. D. (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 133–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (1998). How can language testing and SLA benefit from each other? The case of discourse. In Bachman, L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 156–176). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M. (2003). Clitics and determiners in L2 Greek. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H., & Goodluck, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th generative approaches to second language acquisition conference (pp. 331–339). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. (1993/1994). Case in the development of English syntax. Language Acquisition, 3, 257–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct access to X’-theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 265–316). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996a). The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12, 140–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996b). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998a). The initial state in the L2 acquisition of phrase structure. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O’Neil, W. (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998b). Morphosyntactic triggers in adult SLA. In Beck, M. (Ed.), Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge (pp. 89–113). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2006). The roots of syntax and how they grow: Organic grammar, the basic variety, and processablity theory. In Unsworth, S., Parodi, T., Sorace, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.), Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition (pp. 77–106). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young-Scholten, M., Ijuin, C., & Vainikka, A. (2005, March). Organic grammar as a measurement of development. Paper presented at 39th annual TESOL conference, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M., & Ijuin, C. (2006a, March). Expanding organic grammar-based assessment. Paper presented at 40th annual TESOL conference, Tampa, FL.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M., & Ijuin, C. (2006b, September). How can we best measure adult ESL student progress? TESOL Adult Education Interest Section Newsletter, 4(2).Google Scholar