Ultimate attainment in the use of lexical collocations among heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany and Turkish-German returnees

In this paper we show that heritage speakers and returnees are fundamentally different from the majority of adult second language learners with respect to their use of collocations (Laufer & Waldman, 2011). We compare the use of lexical collocations involving yap- “do” and et- “do” among heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany (n=45) with those found among Turkish returnees (n=65) and Turkish monolinguals (n=69). Language use by returnees is an understudied resource although this group can provide crucial insights into the specific language ability of heritage speakers. Results show that returnees who had been back for one year avoid collocations with yap- and use some hypercorrect forms in et-, whilst returnees who had been back for seven years upon recording produce collocations that are quantitatively and qualitatively similar to those of monolingual speakers of Turkish. We discuss implications for theories of ultimate attainment and incomplete acquisition in heritage speakers.

Perfective marking in L2 Mandarin: agreement with inherent lexical aspect or the derived Sentential Aspectual class?

This study evaluates the differing claims of the Aspect Hypothesis (Anderson & Shirai 1996) and the Sentential Aspect Hypothesis (Sharma & Deo 2009) for perfective marking by L1 English learners of Mandarin. The AH predicts a narrow focus on inherent lexical aspect (the verb and predicate) in determining the use of the perfective marker le, whilst the SAH suggests that – subject to L1 influence – perfective marking agrees with the final derived aspectual class of the sentence. To test these claims data were collected using a controlled le-insertion task, combined with oral corpus data. The results show that learners’ perfective marking patterns with the sentential aspectual class and not inherent lexical aspect (where these differ), and that overall the sentential aspectual class better predicts learners’ assignment of perfective marking than lexical aspect.

Back to basics: how measures of lexical diversity can help discriminate between CEFR levels

This study contributes to ongoing discussions on how measures of lexical diversity (LD) can help discriminate between essays from second language learners of English, whose work has been assessed as belonging to levels B1 to C2 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The focus is in particular on how different operationalisations of what constitutes a “different word” (type) impact on the LD measures themselves and on their ability to discriminate between CEFR levels. The results show that basic measures of LD, such as the number of different words, the TTR (Templin 1957) and the Index of Guiraud (Guiraud 1954) explain more variance in the CEFR levels than sophisticated measures, such as D (Malvern et al. 2004), HD-D (McCarthy and Jarvis 2007) and MTLD (McCarthy 2005) provided text length is kept constant across texts. A simple count of different words (defined as lemma’s and not as word families) was the best predictor of CEFR levels and explained 22 percent of the variance in overall scores on the Pearson Test of English Academic in essays written by 176 test takers.

Assessing multilingual lexical incorporation hypotheses through a primed picture-naming task

The incorporation of new representations into the mental lexicon has raised numerous questions about the organisational principles that govern the process. A number of studies have argued that similarity between the new L3 items and existing representations in the L1 and L2 is the main incorporating force (Hall & Ecke, 2003; Herwig, 2001). Experimental evidence obtained through a primed picture-naming task with L1 Polish-L2 English learners of L3 Russian supports Hall and Ecke’s Parasitic Model of L3 vocabulary acquisition, displaying a significant main effect for both priming and proficiency. These results complement current models of vocabulary acquisition and lexical access in multilingual speakers.