Cited by 55EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Native Speaker vs. L2 Learner Grammaticality Judgements

DAVIES, W. D, KAPLAN, T. I·1998·Applied Linguistics

Abstract

Although many SLA syntax studies have used non-native speaker (NNS) grammaticality judgements, what underlies NNS grammaticality judgements has recently come under increasing scrutiny Some researchers (Ellis 1991, Goss et at 1994), using speak-aloud protocols and oral group work, have presented evidence that indicates NNSs use very different strategies in making decisions about the grammaticality of particular sentences than do native speakers [NSs) of the same language NNSs' use of strategies such as guessing, operationahizing learned rules, translation, and analogy calls into question whether or not their grammaticality judgements are a reliable indicator of their operational grammar However, heretofore oral protocol data have not been available for NS grammaticality judgements In this paper we report on an experiment comparing group oral protocols of native English-speaking subjects enrolled in a 4th semester college French course making grammaticality judgements in English and French Results indicate that the subjects do not necessarily use the same strategies in rendering grammaticality judgements in L1 and L2. thereby casting doubt on theoretical claims based on data elicited through L2 grammaticality judgements

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/applin/19.2.183

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
DAVIES, W. D., & KAPLAN, T. I.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Venue
Applied Linguistics
Published
1998-06-01
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
183-203
ISSN
  • 0142-6001 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-450X
OpenAlex
W1967955816
Cited by
55
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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
grammaticality judgment, second language acquisition, syntactic processing, translation strategies, analogy, rule-based processing, L1 vs L2 comparison, French as a second language, English as a first language

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