CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

L2 language development in oral and written modalities

Son, Myeongeun·2024·Studies in Second Language Acquisition
DOI 10.1017/s0272263124000329
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study investigates whether second language (L2) learners’ language development and accuracy in production are comparable across oral and written modalities on the basis of Pienemann’s processability theory (PT). Eighty-seven English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, from high beginner to advanced levels, completed comparable speaking and writing tasks designed to elicit particular morphosyntactic structures predicted by PT to correspond to L2 stages of development. Time constraints encouraged participants to respond spontaneously, thus drawing on implicit knowledge. Implicational scaling shows correlations that suggest comparable language development between the modalities. However, accuracy was higher earlier in the written than in the oral modality, and accuracy in the written modality was more stable. The results provide a clearer understanding of the similarities and differences of L2 oral and written development and demonstrate that PT can be applied to L2 writing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263124000329

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Park, J. (2017). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of second language writing proficiency and writing quality [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.
  2. Kaplan, 1982, The mental representation of grammatical relations, 173
  3. Lee, S. , & Spinner, P. (2017, October 12–15). The place of accuracy in processability theory [Paper presentation]. Second Language Research Forum, Columbus, OH.
  4. Lee, S. (2018). Effective planning in real-time speaking test tasks [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan State University.
  5. Hatch, 1991, The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguists
  6. Kormos, 2014, Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing, 193
  7. Kellogg, 1996, The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, 57
  8. Bulté, B. , & Housen, A. (2009, September 13–16). The development of lexical proficiency in L2 speaking and writing tasks by Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels [Paper presentation]. Task-Based Language Teaching Conference, Lancaster, England.
  9. Kormos, J. , & Trebits, A. (2009, September 13–16). Task-related differences across modes of performance [Paper presentation]. Task-Based Language Teaching Conference, Lancaster, England.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Son, M.
Affiliations
Gangneung–Wonju National University (KR)
Corresponding author
Son, Myeongeun
ORCID
Son, Myeongeun
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2024-05-08
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
841-868
ISSN
  • 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1545
DOI
10.1017/s0272263124000329
OpenAlex
W4396745734
Semantic Scholar
0e93411b1ffcf09a86efe8d1522bcf8702afbae7
Cited by
3
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
second language acquisition, processability theory, second language writing, second language speaking, tacit knowledge, EFL learners, developmental stages

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review