Getting the measure of derivational morphology in adult speech a corpus analysis using MorphoQuantics

This paper describes the methodology used to compile a corpus called MorphoQuantics that contains a comprehensive set of 17,943 complex word types extracted from the spoken component of the British National Corpus (BNC). The categorisation of these complex words was derived primarily from the classification of Prefixes, Suffixes and Combining Forms proposed by Stein (2007). The MorphoQuantics corpus has been made available on a website of the same name; it lists 554 word-initial and 281 word-final morphemes in English, their etymology and meaning, and records the type and token frequencies of all the associated complex words containing these morphemes from the spoken element of the BNC, together with their Part of Speech. The results show that, although the number of word-initial affixes is nearly double that of word-final affixes, the relative number of each observed in the BNC is very similar; however, word-final affixes are more productive in that, on average, the frequency with which they attach to different bases is three times that of word-initial affixes. Finally, this paper considers how linguists, psycholinguists and psychologists may use MorphoQuantics to support their empirical work in first and second language acquisition, and clinical and educational research.

The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels

Learners’ strategy use has been widely researched over the past few decades. However, studies which focus on the impact of strategy instruction on strategy use, and how far learners of different proficiency levels are able to use the strategies taught in an effective manner, are somewhat rare. The focus of this paper is the impact of writing strategy instruction on writing strategy use of a group of 12 second language learners learning to write in English for Academic Purposes classes. Stimulated recall was used to explore whether this impact differed according to the proficiency level of the students, and revealed that for both high and low proficiency learners’ strategy use developed as a result of the instruction. The implications of these findings for strategy instruction design are discussed

Pragmatic solutions for syntactic problems: Understanding some L2 syntactic errors in terms of discourse-pragmatic deficits

Contemporary research in generative second language (L2) acquisition has attempted to address observable target-deviant aspects of L2 grammars within a UG-continuity framework (e.g. Lardiere 2000; Schwartz 2003; Sprouse 2004; Prévost & White 1999, 2000). With the aforementioned in mind, the independence of pragmatic and syntactic development, independently observed elsewhere (e.g. Grodzinsky & Reinhart 1993; Lust et al. 1986; Pacheco & Flynn 2005; Serratrice, Sorace & Paoli 2004), becomes particularly interesting. In what follows, I examine the resetting of the Null-Subject Parameter (NSP) for English learners of L2 Spanish. I argue that insensitivity to associated discoursepragmatic constraints on the discursive distribution of overt/null subjects accounts for what appear to be particular errors as a result of syntactic deficits. It is demonstrated that despite target-deviant performance, the majority must have native-like syntactic competence given their knowledge of the Overt Pronoun Constraint (Montalbetti 1984), a principle associated with the Spanish-type setting of the NSP.

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.

Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies: can it actually inform linguistic/ language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications?

This special issue is a testament to the recent burgeoning interest by theoretical linguists, language acquisitionists and teaching practitioners in the neuroscience of language. It offers a highly valuable, state-of-the-art overview of the neurophysiological methods that are currently being applied to questions in the field of second language (L2) acquisition, teaching and processing. Research in the area of neurolinguistics has developed dramatically in the past twenty years, providing a wealth of exciting findings, many of which are discussed in the papers in this volume. The goal of this commentary is twofold. The first is to critically assess the current state of neurolinguistic data from the point of view of language acquisition and processing—informed by the papers that comprise this special issue and the literature as a whole—pondering how the neuroscience of language/processing might inform us with respect to linguistic and language acquisition theories. The second goal is to offer some links from implications of exploring the first goal towards informing language teachers and the creation of linguistically and neurolinguistically-informed evidence-based pedagogies for non-native language teaching.

Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French

Second language listening has historically proved to be a difficult skill. Strategy instruction studies have sought to bring about improvements in subjects’ listening but with mixed results. This lack of success might be due to the nature of listening strategy theory and its influence on conceptualizations of listening strategy instruction. The current study, based on an initial descriptive investigation of a specific population of learners, measured the effects of strategy instruction on both the listening performance and self-efficacy of 68 lower-intermediate learners of French in England, against a comparison group. Moreover, the effects of high- and low-scaffolded interventions were compared. Results suggest that the program improved listening proficiency and learners’ confidence about listening. Implications for pedagogy and strategy theory are discussed.

Bilingual 'tagging' of financial accounts in Demotic and Greek

‘Bilingual’ documents, with text in both Demotic and Greek, can be of several sorts, ranging from complete translations of the same information (e.g. Ptolemaic decrees) to those where the information presented in the two languages is complementary (e.g. mummy labels). The texts discussed in this paper consist of a number of examples of financial records where a full account in one language (L1) is annotated with brief pieces of information in a second language (L2). These L2 ‘tags’ are designed to facilitate extraction of summary data at another level of the administration, functioning in a different language, and probably also to make the document accessible to those who are not literate in the L1.

Thinking for speaking and linguistic relativity among bilinguals: towards a new research agenda

This article evaluates how the different papers in this special issue fill a gap in our understanding of cognitive processes that are being activated when second language learners or bilinguals prepare to speak. All papers are framed in Slobin’s (1987) Thinking for Speaking theory, and aim to test whether the conceptualisation patterns that were learned in early childhood can be relearned or restructured in L2 acquisition. In many papers the focus is on identifying constraints on this restructuring process. Among these constraints, the role of typological differences between languages is investigated in great depth. The studies involve different types of learners, language combinations and tasks. As all informants were given verbal rather than non-verbal tasks, the focus is here on the effects of conceptual transfer from one language on another, and not on the effects of language on non-linguistic cognition. The paper also sketches different avenues for further research in this field and proposes that researchers working in this field might want to take up the challenge of investigating whether speakers of different languages perceive motion outside explicitly verbal contexts differently, as this will enable us to gain an understanding of linguistic relativity effects in this domain. Studying which teaching methods can help learners to restructure their conceptualisation patterns may also shed new light on the aspects of discourse organization and motion event construal that are most difficult for learners.

Investigating task difficulty: learners’ and teachers’ perceptions

This paper presents an investigation into learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of and criteria for task difficulty. Ten second language learners performed four oral narrative tasks and were retrospectively interviewed about which tasks they perceived as difficult, what factors affected this difficulty and how they identified and defined this task difficulty. Ten EFL/ESOL teachers were given the same tasks and asked to consider the difficulty of the tasks for their learners, and were invited to discuss the factors they believed contributed to this difficulty. Qualitative analysis of the data revealed that, although there were some differences between the two groups’ perceptions of task difficulty, there was substantial similarity between them in terms of the criteria they considered in identifying and defining task difficulty. The findings of this study lend support to the tenets of a cognitive approach to task-based language learning, and demonstrate which aspects of two models of task difficulty reflect the teachers’ and learners’ perceptions and perspectives.

Native speakers and task performance: comparing effects on complexity, fluency, and lexical diversity

This article argues that a native-speaker baseline is a neglected dimension of studies into second language (L2) performance. If we investigate how learners perform language tasks, we should distinguish what performance features are due to their processing an L2 and which are due to their performing a particular task. Having defined what we mean by “native speaker,” we present the background to a research study into task features on nonnative task performance, designed to include native-speaker data as a baseline for interpreting nonnative-speaker performance. The nonnative results, published in this journal (Tavakoli & Foster, 2008) are recapitulated and then the native-speaker results are presented and discussed in the light of them. The study is guided by the assumption that limited attentional resources impact on L2 performance and explores how narrative design features—namely complexity of storyline and tightness of narrative structure— affect complexity, fluency, accuracy, and lexical diversity in language. The results show that both native and nonnative speakers are prompted by storyline complexity to use more subordinated language, but narrative structure had different effects on native and nonnative fluency. The learners, who were based in either London or Tehran, did not differ in their performance when compared to each other, except in lexical diversity, where the learners in London were close to native-speaker levels. The implications of the results for the applicability of Levelt’s model of speaking to an L2 are discussed, as is the potential for further L2 research using native speakers as a baseline.