28.2081, Review: Lang Acquisition; Ling Theories; Psycholing: Keßler, Lenzing, Liebner (2016)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2081. Wed May 03 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.2081, Review: Lang Acquisition; Ling Theories; Psycholing: Keßler, Lenzing, Liebner (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 17:24:53
From: David Alfter [david.alfter at svenska.gu.se]
Subject: Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36224517


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-2842.html

EDITOR: Jörg-U.  Keßler
EDITOR: Anke  Lenzing
EDITOR: Mathias  Liebner
TITLE: Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages
SERIES TITLE: Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 5
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: David Alfter, University of Gothenburg

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

Part I: Theory Development

Anke Lenzing: Modelling and assessing second languages. 30 years onward.
(ix–xiv).

In the introduction, Lenzing briefly sketches the joint history of, on the one
hand, research on developmental stages in second language acquisition (SLA),
focusing on Pienemann’s (1998) Processability Theory (PT), and, on the other
hand, the application of this research in language teaching and testing.
Hyltenstam & Pienemann’s (1985) edited volume Modelling and Assessing Second
Languages Acquisition is taken as a starting point. The title of the reviewed
volume refers to this collection. While being theoretically grounded, PT has
from the beginning had strong bonds to applied linguistics. Lenzing provides a
list of topics and research questions, both theoretical and applied ones, that
have been addressed under the PT framework, e.g. the initial state of the L2
grammatical system, trajectories for typologically different languages, L1
transfer, the acquisition of case, language impairment, assessment/linguistic
profiling, textbook analysis, and classroom studies. Since the lexical
functional grammar (LFG) update (Bresnan 2001), PT has tried to theoretically
explain more phenomena, foremost argument structure and discourse functions
(Pienemann 2005). Thus, Lenzing argues, the theory has proven to be fruitful
while it also continues to develop. This is why the editors of the reviewed
volume “have not sought to impose theoretical agreement on contributors” (p.
xi).

Anke Lenzing: The development of argument structure in the initial L2 mental
grammatical system (3–33)

In the first contribution in Part I, Theory Development, Lenzing investigates
“The development of argument structure in the initial L2 mental grammatical
system”. She argues for the Multiple Constraints Hypothesis (MCH), which she
put forward in Lenzing (2013). MCH, which is based on Bresnan (2001) and
Pienemann (2005), claims that the L2 development is constrained in all three
three levels of grammatical representation: the functional (f) level, the
argument (a) level, and the constituent (c) level. Since grammar, according to
LFG, is lexically driven, problems with argument structure in the initial
state are attributed to the lack of syntactic features in the lexical entries
for verbs. Thus, learners at this stage have to rely on direct mapping, based
on universal hierarchies: the most prominent semantic role (agent) is mapped
onto the most prominent function (subject), which is mapped onto the most
prominent NP constituent (the first one).  

In a cross-sectional and longitudinal study, oral English L2 data were
collected from 24 German school children twice, the first time after one year
or English classes and the second time after two years. Since the study
focuses on absolute beginners, the data set, especially from the first
occasion, is very small: the 24 pupils in total produces 8 questions and 49
statements at this occasion. In the second occasion, the corresponding numbers
are somewhat better: 11 and 131. These utterances are analysed qualitatively
for both traditional PT level and argument structure. Results show that most
learners are still at PT level 1  and have not annotated their lexical entries
for syntactic features after one year of studies. Thus, Lenzing argues that
the initial L2 mental grammar is “highly constrained”. After two years of
studies, however, most learners have reached PT level 2 or 3; moreover, during
the second year of studies, syntactic features are inserted in the lexical
entries for the verbs.

The study is methodologically and theoretically solid. Moreover, it is
well-written. Focusing on absolute beginners is difficult but also important
if we want to understand what SLA actually is. The qualitative approach is
praiseworthy, but the use of “statistics” is problematic: e.g. it is claimed
that 50% is “far more” than 27% even though only 8 tokens are analysed. This
might mislead the reader to assume that the results can be generalized. 

Satomi Kawaguchi: Question constructions, argument mapping, and vocabulary
development in English L2 by Japanese speakers: A cross-sectional study
(35–63)

Just like Lenzing, Kawaguchi studies the relation between traditional PT
stages and argument structure. She also relates these developments to
vocabulary size. The study is cross-sectional, with vocabulary size as
independent variable. Nine participants are chosen, three with a vocabulary
size of around 4,000 words; three with a vocabulary size of around 7,000
words; and three with a vocabulary size of around 11,000 words. With
translation tasks, she elicits structures that need non-default mapping, both
lexical (intransitive unaccusative verbs and transitive psych verbs) and
structural (passives and causatives) non-direct mapping. There are clear
trends: the greater vocabulary, the better grammatical processing. However,
the great divide goes between the three learners with a very small vocabulary
and the rest of the learners. From a vocabulary size of 6,000 words onwards,
the highest developmental stage, with non-default mapping (marked alignment),
is reached. Lexical non-default mapping seemed more difficult than structural
non-default mapping; the former caused problems for both the mid and small
size vocabulary groups, whereas the latter caused problems only for the small
vocabulary size group.

Kawaguchi argues that this research provides insights that can be used in
language teaching in order to make more learners reach an advanced L2 English
level, but how this the results can be used in teaching is not made clear. She
also argues that translation tasks can be used more in PT research, which is
normally based on oral production; translation tasks are easier than oral
elicitation for language teachers wanting to test their students. 

Gisela Håkansson: Processability Theory and language development in children
with Specific Language Impairment (65–78)

With traditional PT analysis, Håkansson conducts a re-analysis of data
elicited from 10 Swedish children with specific language impairment (SLI). SLI
children have been reported to have problems with different phenomena in
different languages, and several explanations for these problems have been put
forward. By looking at the ten children at an individual level, and by
treating them as language learners, having reached different developmental
stages, we can, Håkansson claims, understand what underlies different problems
at the surface structure. One important point is that, e.g., tense morphology
in English and Swedish respectively rely on different processes; that is why
English children with SLI have problems with tense whereas Swedish ones do
not. The main point of the study is that the PT hierarchy seems to hold for
children with SLI, and thus can be used to compare these children
cross-linguistically. This requires that children with the diagnosis are
considered language acquirers and that they, thus, are investigated at an
individual level. 

The article is well written and manages to unify contradictory theories
concerning SLI children's development using PT. It is not clear to us why this
article is placed in the theory part of the book; it is rather a good example
of how the PT can be applied.

Manfred Pienemann, Anke Lenzing & Jörg-U. Kessler: Testing the Developmental
Moderated Transfer Hypothesis: The initial state and the role of the L2 in L3
acquisition (79–98)

In the last contribution of part 1, the theoretical debate becomes intense.
The Developmental Moderated Transfer Hypothesis, one of the original
hypotheses within PT, states that L1–L2 transfer, either positive or negative,
will never take place before the learner is ready to process the structure to
be transferred. This should explain why German speakers learning Swedish and
vice versa have problems with the verb second (V2) rule, despite the same rule
applying to both languages (Håkansson 2002). In the article, the authors first
refute arguments from Bohnacker’s (2006) and Bardel and Falk’s (2007) attempts
to show that this phenomenon is to be explained by the L2 in both cases being
English. The authors are harsh in their criticism of these studies, which are
accused of being both methodologically and theoretically weak. Thereafter,
they present a replication of Bardel and Falk’s second study: a very small
amount of Swedish was taught to seven German speakers. Three of them had
learnt other V2 languages before; four of them had not; but all of them had
learnt English to a high level. They memorized 40 Swedish words and then they
had one communicative Swedish class. They were then tested and no one
productively produced verb–subject inversion. Nor did they use ‘do’ support
with negation, which would be expected from the Bardel and Falk suggestion
that L2 always overrides L1 in L3 acquisition. The study is small but well
conducted. For anyone having an interest in theories of SLA, it’s a joy to
read this article, but the tone can be a bit harsh.

Part II: Theory Assessment

Yanyin Zhang & Bo Liu: The 'tense' issue: Variable past tense marking by
advanced end-state Chinese speakers of L2 English

This article investigates the variable past tense -ed marking in Chinese
learners of English as L2 even at high proficiency levels. The study
concentrates on spoken language, as the Chinese speakers in other studies have
been shown to produce past tense -ed in the written mode at a high level but
fail to produce past tense -ed in the spoken mode with the same accuracy. The
nine participants are interviewed for about 50 minutes each and a quite large
number of obligatory contexts for past tense (of different types of verbs) are
analysed after a thorough exclusion process. The hypothesis is that speakers
who had learned English at top notch universities in China would produce past
tense -ed to a higher degree than speakers who did not attend top notch
universities.

Based on the suggestion from an anonymous reviewer, the authors also analysed
obligatory contexts for plural -s. The idea was to test the hypothesis from
Pienemann (1998) that those learners making “bad choices” at an early stage
will not develop as well as those making better choices. However, it is not
clear how this hypothesis is tested with this data, and even less clear how
the hypothesis is corroborated. The seven participants that produced the past
tense suffix to a high degree also produced to plural –s to a high degree. Of
the two participants that did not produce the past suffix to the same extent,
one also had problems with the plural –s; the other one had not. However, all
learners were better in producing the plural –s than the past tense suffix.
Thus, the conclusion of the authors that the “bad choice” has an effect is far
fetched. Furthermore, the division between lexical and phrasal plural –s
markings, originating from Pienemann (1998), is, we claim, a misconception,
which is also evident from the results in the present study: there is no
difference between plural –s marking on nouns preceded by words like “two” or
“those” and on nouns not preceded by such words.

We do not know how much the participants have studied outside university, but
it is claimed that some have done a considerable amount of self study to
attain near-native competence. As all informants had lived outside of China
for at least 10 years, and quite some in English speaking countries, we are
unsure about the reliability of the conclusion that top notch university
students produce past tense -ed with higher frequency and make fewer ''bad
choices'' than non top notch university students. Moreover, we do not know how
they were selected to the top notch universities – were they better at English
before starting to study at the university? 

Jana Roos: Acquisition as a gradual process: Second language development in
the EFL classroom

The point of departure for this article is three questions: what should be
taught, when and how? According to the author, the two first questions can be
answered by PT. To answer the third questions, she turns to the
theory/methodology of task-based language learning. Using data from an earlier
study, she exemplifies how communicative tasks can be used both for assessing
the readiness of learners and for giving learners opportunities to practice
specifically those structures that they are developmentally ready for. Thus,
the article demonstrates in a clear way how PT and task-based learning can
benefit from each other in an applied context. 

Katharina Hagenfeld: Psychometric approaches to language testing and
linguistic profiling - A complementary relationship?

In this chapter, Hagenfeld investigates whether linguistic profiling can help
with the shortcomings of the CEFR evaluation method. She claims that CEFR is a
broad classification method, whereas PT allows a more fine-grained
classification. However, PT only focusses on grammar, while CEFR is focused on
what tasks can be handled with language. Furthermore, CEFR lists assessment
criteria but it is not a classification tool and does not provide
classification tools; CEFR is also not applicable to the very beginner levels,
as the first level in CEFR (A1) requires some basic language control which is
beyond PT stages 1 and 2, according to a pilot study by Lenzing and Plesser
(2010).

The author investigates the correlation between two Linguistic profiling tools
and the CEFR scale: Rapid Profiling (RP) (Mackey, Pienemann & Thornton 1991;
Pienemann & Mackey 1993; Keßler 2006, 2008) and Autoprofiling (AP) (Lin 2012).

The results show that RP and AP tend to agree on the assigned stage of
development and that this assessment is in line with the CEFR assessment.
However, the tested PT stage (5) covers three different CEFR levels. The only
claim that can be made is that there seems to be a correlation between CEFR
levels and PT stages at the higher stages. The author claims that AP is still
an early project and needs further refinement; eventually it could be a
replacement for RP, which requires a trained human profiler; however, AP only
focuses on written production whereas RP also takes into account spoken
production

The author points out the tentative nature of the results. The study itself is
interesting, but we wonder about its applicability. 

Esther Maier, Lea Neubauer, Katharina Ponto, Stefanie Couve de Murville &
Kristin Kersten: Assessing linguistic levels of L2 English in primary school
programs

In this chapter, the authors compare the outcomes of different study
programmes on the development of English skills in children in three different
German schools. They look at immersive programs, where teaching is done by
native English speakers and exposure to the English language is about 70% or
more; and traditional programs where English is taught two hours per week by
native speakers of German. Furthermore, they investigate whether certain
variables such as sex, prior exposure to the L2 or home language influence the
language acquisition process.

The study is well done and interesting. The number of participants is quite
high (n=105), which gives more weight to the possible conclusions. The authors
devise several tasks for the elicitation of certain linguistic features, all
of which are suitable for children. They also test whether the tasks they have
chosen are motivating and comprehensible for the children.

Not surprisingly, the authors find that L2 exposure and L2 intensity correlate
positively with attained proficiency. They also find that prior
experience/exposure to the L2 such as having attended a bilingual preschool
has a significant effect. However, it is not clear whether this prior exposure
overrides the later immersive programs or whether they are complementary. As
the authors used the old version of PT, they quickly ran into a ceiling effect
where learners reached the highest level at an early stage; hence, they could
not account for further development in the learners.

Jörg-U. Keßler & Mathias Liebner: Diagnosing L2-English in the communicative
EFL Classroom: A task-based approach to individual and developmentally
moderated focus on form in a meaning-focused setting

In this chapter, the authors address the lack of personalized instruction in
heterogenous EFL classrooms. As the range of attained proficiency varies, it
would be favorable to give each learner tasks depending on their stage of
proficiency. The authors use PT as a framework and Rapid Profiling to
determine the PT stages of individual learners. They then use Task-based
Language Teaching (e.g. Ellis 2003, Eckerth & Siepmann 2008)  to provide
learners with tasks suitable for their current level.

The approach is very interesting and of importance if we want to move towards
individualized teaching. The authors claim to have tested the approach on
grade 8 students, but we missed a results and evaluation section.

Henning Rossa: The cognitive processes elicited by L2 listening test tasks - A
validation study

This article focuses on the interface between SLA and language testing, and
specifically on the validity of a listening comprehension task in an EFL test.
Comprehension is described as a complex cognitive process, and the question is
what mental processes test-takers engage in while attempting to solve
comprehension tasks and what the relation between these processes and the test
outcome is. Extreme cases are sampled from a larger population: 9 good
test-takers and 9 ones with bad results; they are all grade 9 students in
Germany studying English. The participants were asked to think aloud while
solving multiple choice tasks. In total 329 instances of think-aloud data were
analysed: did the test-takers recall the necessary informationen needed to
solve the question? Though the study does find instances where the test-taker
draws the right conclusion from faulty reasoning, and instances where there
the test-taker reasons correctly but draws the wrong conclusion, the general
conclusion is that the test is valid: the comprehension test does actually
test the test-takers ability to recall information and generate appropriate
inferences. The study, both qualitative and quantitative in its approach, is
well written and carried out in a thorough way.

EVALUATION

The chapters in this book are loosely held together by the theme of PT. They
are mostly stand-alone contributions that look at different aspects of PT from
different angles. As the editors point out, they want to give the reader an
overview of different positions held by researchers in the PT community and
stimulate the reader's own thinking. As such, the reader can pick selected
chapters or read the chapters out of order. As each article provides
sufficient background information, the articles are easily understandable. 

Overall, the book presents an interesting selection of articles with different
perspectives which give a good overview of recent research in the PT
community.

This book is suitable to students, researchers, people wanting to know how PT
is developing. However, the reader should have a certain familiarity with PT
before reading the book.
 
REFERENCES

Bardel, C. & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third
language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research,
23(4), 459-84.

Bohnacker, U. (2006). When Swedes begin to learn German: From V2 to V2. Second
Language Research, 22, 1-44.

Eckerth, J. & Siepmann, S. (2008). Research on task-based language learning
and teaching. Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Hulstijn, J. H., Ellis, R. & Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). Orders and sequences in
the acquisitoin of L2 morphosyntax, 40 years on: An introduction to the
special issue. Language Learning, 65(1), 1-5.

Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M. & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological
proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language
Research, 18(3), 250-273.

Keßler, J-U. (2006). Englischerwerb im Anfangsunterricht diagnostizieren:
Linguistische Profilanalysen am Übergang von der Primarstufe in die
Sekundarstufe I. Tübingen: Narr.

Keßler, J-U. (2008). Communicative tasks and second language profiling:
Linguistic and pedagogical implications. In J. Eckerth & S. Sieckmann (Eds.),
Task-based language learning and teaching. Theoretical, methodological, and
pedagogical perspectives (pp. 291-310). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Lenzing, A. (2013). The development of the grammatical system in early second
language acquisition - The Multiple Constraints Hypothesis. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Lenzing, A. & Plesser, A. (2010). Challenging the scope-precision dilemma in
language testing: The common European framework and linguistic profiling.
Paper presented at the 10th International Symposium of Processability
Approaches to Language Acquisition (PALA). University of Western Sydney,
Australia, 19-21 September.

Lin, B. J. (2012). Is automatic linguistic profiling feasible in an ESL
context? Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Newcastle.

Mackey, A., Pienemann, M. & Thornton, I. (1991). Rapid Profile: A second
language screening procedure. Language and Language Education, 1(1), 61-82.

Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. 
Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of
languages. Studies in second language acquisition, 6(02), 186-214.

Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.) (1985). Modelling and assessing second
language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Pienemann, M. & Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children's ESL
development and Rapid Profile. In P. McKay (Ed.), ESL development: Language
and literacy in schools, Vol 2: Documents on bandscale development and
language acquisition (pp. 115-259). Canberra: National Languages & Literacy
Institute of Australia and Commonwealth of Australia.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

David Alfter is a PhD students in Computational Linguistics at the University
of Gothenburg. His research focuses on modeling learners in CALL systems.<br
/><br />Anders Agebjörn is a PhD student in Swedish as a second language at
the University of Gothenburg. His interests are grammar and second language
acquisition.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2017
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $70,000. This money
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our 
Student Editors for the coming year.

Don't forget to check out the Fund Drive 2017 site!

http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

We collect donations via the eLinguistics Foundation, a
registered 501(c) Non Profit organization with the federal tax
number 45-4211155. The donations can be offset against your
federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers
only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact
your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program. Contact
your human resources department and send us the necessary form.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-2081	
----------------------------------------------------------