Analyzing variability in L2 ultimate attainment
Ultimate attainment is typically more heterogeneous among second-language (L2) learners than among native speakers (e.g.
Bley-Vroman, 1990). The present study offers a suite of simple analytical procedures aimed at exploring types and loci of variability in L2 attainment vis-à-vis those in the corresponding first language (L1), with special attention to certain learner-external factors that might condition such variabilities. To demonstrate the methods and their potential, we apply these procedures to learner and native acceptability judgment data published in
Birdsong (1992). Under means analyses of item ratings and coefficients of variation (CV), a group of adult Anglophone learners of L2 French (ENS) are found to resemble native French controls (FNS). In contrast, under correlational analyses of ratings and CVs, ENS resemble FNS on grammatical items, but diverge on ungrammatical items. Correlational and means analyses of both CV and acceptability ratings reveal that ENS-FNS convergence is not predictable from the degree of FNS ratings variability, contra
DeKeyser (2012). For both groups, we observe an interaction between FNS ratings variability and the grammatical status of items (ungrammatical vs. grammatical). Finally, for neither group do we find a relationship between the order of item presentation and ratings severity or CVs. We present our perspectives as a road map for future analyses of variabilities inherent in language learning outcomes.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.A brief look at variability in L2 and L1 attainment
- 3.The nature of L2 variability
- 4.The nature of L1 variability
- 5.The present study
- 5.1Analysis of cumulative deviance
- 5.1.1Between-groups cumulative deviance
- 5.1.2Group-internal cumulative deviance
- 5.2Analysis of item ratings
- 5.2.1ENS-FNS ratings comparisons, all items and grammatical vs. ungrammatical items
- 5.2.2ENS-FNS ratings simple correlation, all items and grammatical vs. ungrammatical items
- 5.2.3Item variability, means analysis of ENS-FNS coefficients of variation
- 5.2.4Item variability, correlational analysis of ENS-FNS coefficients of variation
- 5.3Analysis of ENS-FNS similarity as a function of FNS ratings variability
- 5.4Ordering effects analyses
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (42)
References
Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York and Berlin: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68(4), 706–755. Available at [URL]
Birdsong, D. (1994). Asymmetrical knowledge of ungrammaticality in SLA theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(4), 463–473. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Birdsong, D. (2018). Plasticity, variability and age in second language acquisition and bilingualism. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(81). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20(1–2), 3–49.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bylund, E., Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2021). Age of acquisition – not bilingualism – is the primary determinant of less than nativelike L2 ultimate attainment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
24
(1), 18–30. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63(3), 544–573. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DeKeyser, R. (2013). Age effects in second language learning: Stepping stones toward better understanding. Language Learning, 63(S1), 52–67. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). The relationship between language aptitude and language learning motivation: Individual differences from a dynamic systems perspective. In E. Macaro (Ed.), Continuum companion to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 247–267). New York: Continuum International.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fletcher, J. M. (1981). Linguistic factors in reading acquisition. In F. Pirozzolo & M. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychology and cognitive processes in reading (pp. 261–294). New York, NY: Academic Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 411, 78–104. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hartshorne, J. K., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Pinker, S. (2018). A critical period for second language acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 million English speakers. Cognition, 1771, 263–277. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, Y., & Ferreira, F. (2020). The application of Signal Detection Theory to acceptability judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(73), 1–11. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huettig, F., Singh, N., & Mishra, R. K. (2011). Language-mediated visual orienting behavior in low and high literates. Frontiers in Psychology, 2 (285). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hulstijn, J. H., van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 555–582. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J., & Hedges, L. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 343–365. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Indefrey, P. (2006). It is time to work toward explicit processing models for native and second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 66–69.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 211, 60–99. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kanai, R., & Rees, G. (2011). The structural basis of inter-individual differences in human behavior and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(4), 231–242. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kidd, E., & Donnelly, S. (2020). Individual differences in first language acquisition. Annual Review of Linguistics, 61, 319–340. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kovas, Y., Hayiou-Thomas, M. E., Oliver, B., Dale, P. S., Bishop, D. V. M., & Plomin, R. (2005). Genetic influences in different aspects of language development: The etiology of language skills in 4.5-year-old twins. Child Development, 76(3), 632–651. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langsford, S., Perfors, A., Hendrickson, A., Kennedy, A. T., & Navarro, D. J. (2018). Quantifying sentence acceptability measures: Reliability, bias, and variability. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–34. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langsford, S., Stephens, R. G., Dunn, J. C., & Lewis, R. L. (2019). In search of the factors behind naïve sentence judgments: A state trace analysis of grammaticality and acceptability ratings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2886). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leivada, E., & Westergaard, M. (2020). Acceptable ungrammatical sentences, unacceptable grammatical sentences, and the role of the cognitive parser. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(364). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moyer, A. (2014). Exceptional outcomes in L2 phonology: The critical factors of learner engagement and self-regulation. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 418–440. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Piatteli-Palmarini, M., Ed. (1980). Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pfenninger, S. E., & Singleton, D. (2019). Starting age overshadowed: The primacy of differential environmental and family support effects on second language attainment in an instructional context. Language Learning, 69(S1), 207–234. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Plonsky, L., Marsden, E., Crowther, D., Gass, S. M., & Spinner, P. (2020). A methodological synthesis and meta-analysis of judgment tasks in second language research. Second Language Research, 36(4), 583–621. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Scholes, R. J., & Willis, B. J. (1987). Language and literacy. Journal of Literary Semantics, 16(1), 3–11. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275–298. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2006). Native language predictors of foreign language proficiency and foreign language aptitude. Annals of Dyslexia, 561, 129–160. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Spinner, P. & Gass, S. M. (2019). Using judgments in second language acquisition research. Milton Park Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sprouse, J., Schütze, C., & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua, 1341, 219–248. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H., & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Emergence of syntax: commonalities and differences across children. Developmental Science, 11(1), 84–97. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Chen, Wenjun & Jeroen van de Weijer
2022.
The role of L1-L2 dissimilarity in L2 segment learning – Implications from the acquisition of English post-alveolar fricatives by Mandarin and Mandarin/Wu speakers.
Frontiers in Psychology 13
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Shadrova, Anna, Pia Linscheid, Julia Lukassek, Anke Lüdeling & Sarah Schneider
2021.
A Challenge for Contrastive L1/L2 Corpus Studies: Large Inter- and Intra-Individual Variation Across Morphological, but Not Global Syntactic Categories in Task-Based Corpus Data of a Homogeneous L1 German Group.
Frontiers in Psychology 12
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
[no author supplied]
2024.
Second Language Acquisition. In
A Practical Guide to Second Language Teaching and Learning,
► pp. 22 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.