CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

Individual variation and the role of L1 in the L2 development of English grammatical morphemes: insights from learner corpora

Open access
Murakami, Akira·2014·Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository
DOI 10.17863/cam.16509
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The overarching goal of the dissertation is to illustrate the relevance of learner corpus research to the field of second language acquisition (SLA). The possibility that learner corpora can be useful in mainstream SLA research has a significant implication given that they have not been systematically explored in relation to SLA theories. The thesis contributes to building a methodological framework to utilize learner corpora beneficially to SLA and argues that learner corpus research contributes to other disciplines. This is achieved by a series of case studies that quantitatively analyze individual variation and the role of native language (L1) in second language (L2) development of English grammatical morphemes and explain the findings with existing SLA theories. The dissertation investigates the L2 development of morphemes based on two largescale learner corpora. It first reviews the literature and points out that the L2 acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes that has been believed universal in SLA research may, in fact, vary across the learners with different L1 backgrounds and that individual differences in morpheme studies have been relatively neglected in previous literature. The present research, thus, provides empirical evidence testing the universality of the order and the extent of individual differences. In the first study, the thesis investigates L1 influence on the L2 acquisition order of six English grammatical morphemes across seven L1 groups and five proficiency levels. Data drawn from approximately 12,000 essays from the Cambridge Learner Corpus establish clear L1 influence on this issue. The study also reveals that learners without the equivalent morpheme in L1 tend to achieve an accuracy level of below 90% with respect to the morpheme even at the highest proficiency level, and that morphemes requiring learners to learn to pay attention to the relevant distinctions in their acquisition show a stronger effect of L1 than those which only require new form-meaning mappings. The findings are interpreted under the framework of thinking-for-speaking proposed by Dan Slobin. Following the first study, the dissertation exploits EF-Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCamDat) and analyzes the developmental patterns of morphemes, L1 influence on the patterns, and the extent to which individual variation is observed in the development. Based on approximately 140,000 essays written by 46,700 learners of 10 L1 groups across a wide range of proficiency levels, the study found that (i) certain developmental patterns of accuracy are observed irrespective of target morphemes, (ii) inverted U-shaped development is rare irrespective of morphemes, (iii) proficiency influences the within-learner developmental patterns of morphemes, (iv) the developmental patterns at least slightly vary depending on morphemes, and (v) significant individual variation is observed in absolute accuracy, the accuracy difference between morphemes, and the rate of development. The findings are interpreted with dynamic systems theory (DST), a theory of development that has recently been applied to SLA research. The thesis further examines whether any systematic relationship is observed between the developmental patterns of morphemes. Although DST expects that their development is interlinked, the study did not find any strong relationships between the developmental patterns. However, it revealed a weak supportive relationship in the developmental pattern between articles and plural -s. That is, within individual learners, when the accuracy of articles increases, the accuracy of plural -s tends to increase as well, and vice versa.

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

DataCite · 10.17863/cam.16509

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The finding replicated Murakami (2014), who did not identify a clear effect of L1 on third person -s or progressive -ing but found some L1 influence on plural -s.

    “The finding, however, replicated Murakami (2014), who did not identify a clear effect of L1 on third person -s or progressive -ing but found some L1 influence on plural -s in an earlier version of EFCAMDAT.”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Murakami (2014)

    The Summary of the regression analysis says plural -s is mildly affected by L1 and third person -s is relatively immune, supporting those parts of the claim. But it places progressive -ing among the morphemes most sensitive to L1 influence, rather than finding no clear effect. The longitudinal clustering analysis reports little apparent L1 effect for progressive -ing, so the claim reflects one analysis but overgeneralizes the paper’s findings. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The noise in teacher corrections in EFCAMDAT should not have impacted the conclusions drawn about the general pattern of accuracy of grammatical morphemes.

    “Insofar as we focused on the general pattern of the accuracy of grammatical morphemes, therefore, the noise in teacher corrections should not have impacted the conclusions that we have drawn.”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Murakami (2014)

    Section 3.2.5 (page unavailable) acknowledges that EFCamDat’s teacher corrections may not exhaustively annotate errors, while arguing that guidance to teachers should make annotation of the target morphemes fairly comprehensive. Section 3.5 reports broadly similar morpheme-accuracy findings across EFCamDat and another corpus. These passages support confidence in the general pattern, but do not establish that noise in teacher corrections did not affect the conclusions. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Conducting inferential analyses of morphological salience is inappropriate because the limited variability across predictors at the morpheme level leads to overfitting and unreliable results.

    “This issue was pointed out by Murakami (2014) for the approach used by Goldschneider and DeKeyser;s (2001), where the limited variability across predictors at the morpheme level leads to overfitting and unreliable results. Given the fundamental limitation, conducting inferential analyses is inappropriate.”

    From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Murakami (2014)

  • The results of the accuracy analysis of grammatical morphemes in EFCAMDAT largely match those based on the Cambridge Learner Corpus.

    “Murakami (2014), however, showed that the results of the accuracy analysis of grammatical morphemes in EFCAMDAT largely match those based on the Cambridge Learner Corpus, which has been manually error-tagged for the sake of error annotation (Nicholls, 2003).”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Murakami (2014)

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 155

  1. Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Development and recoverability of L2 codas: A longitudinal study of Chinese/Swedish interphonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 313-349. doi: 10.1017/S0272263103000147 · DOI
  2. Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical ap- proaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Andersen, R. W. (1978). An implicational model for second language research. Language Learning, 28(2), 221-282.
  4. Anderson, D. R. (2004). Model based inference in the life sciences: A primer on evidence. Fort Collins, CO: Springer.
  5. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
  6. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory. An integrated approach. New York, NY: Wiley.
  7. Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater V.2. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1650/1492
  8. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Baayen, R. H. (2010). Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 436-461.
  10. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Baayen, R. H., Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R. (2010). Frequency effects in compound processing. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 257-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  12. Balling, L. W., & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Probability and surprisal in auditory com- prehension of morphologically complex words. Cognition, 125(1), 80-106. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.003 · DOI
  13. Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing 'visual world' eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 457-474. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.09.002 · DOI
  14. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Battye, A., & Hintze, A. (1992). The French language today. London: Routledge.
  16. Berdan, R. (1996). Disentagling language acquisition from linguistic variation. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 203-244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  17. Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematic- ity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00983.x · DOI
  18. Blom, E., Paradis, J., & Sorenson Duncan, T. (2012). Effects of input properties, vocabulary size, and L1 on the development of third person singular -s in child L2 English. Language Learning, 62(3), 965-994. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00715.x · DOI
  19. Briscoe, E., Carroll, J., & Watson, R. (2006). The second release of the RASP system. In Proceed- ings of the coling/acl 2006 interactive presentation sessions (pp. 77-80). Sydney, Australia.
  20. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Compmlexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  21. Butler, Y. G. (2002). Second language learners' theories on the use of English articles: An analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese students in acquiring the En- glish article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 451-480. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102003042 · DOI
  22. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Themes and issues in the self-regulation of behavior. In R. S. J. Wyer (Ed.), Perspectives on behavioral self-regulation (pp. 1-105). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  23. Caspi, T. (2010). A dynamic perspective on second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen.
  24. Chen, P. (2004). Identifiability and definiteness in Chinese. Linguistics, 42(6), 1129-1184. doi: 10.1515/ling.2004.42.6.1129 · DOI
  25. Cheung, H. S., Liu, S., & Shih, L. (1994). A practical Chinese grammar. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
  26. Choi, M.-h. (2005). Testing Eubank's optional verb-raising in L2 grammars of Korean speakers. Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, 58-67.
  27. Collins, L. M. (2006). Analysis of longitudinal data: The integration of theoretical model, temporal design, and statistical model. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 505-528. doi: 10.1146/an- nurev.psych.57.102904.190146 · DOI
  28. Cook, V. (1995). Multi-competence and the learning of many languages. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(2), 93-98. doi: 10.1080/07908319509525193 · DOI
  29. Crawley, M. J. (2007). The R book. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
  30. Crawley, M. J. (2013). The R book (second edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
  31. Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language learners' motivational profiles and their mo- tivated learning behavior. Language Learning, 55(4), 613-659. doi: 10.1111/j.0023- 8333.2005.00319.x · DOI
  32. Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language re- searchers. Second Language Research, 28(3), 369-382. doi: 10.1177/0267658312443651 · DOI
  33. de Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 166-178. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00712.x · DOI
  34. de Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D. E. (2011). Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Method and techniques (pp. 5-23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  35. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. Oxon: Routledge.
  36. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007a). A Dyamic Systems Theory approach to sec- ond language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7-21. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002732 · DOI
  37. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007b). A dynamic view as a complementary perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 51-55. doi: 10.1017/S1366728906002811 · DOI
  38. DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 125-151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill Acquisition Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  40. Dekeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyn- tax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195-221.
  41. Deshors, S. C., & Gries, S. Th. (in press). A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language: The uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage.
  42. de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of gram- matical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2(3), 267-278.
  43. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  44. Duff, P. A., & Li, D. (2002). The acquisition and use of perfective aspect in Mandarin. In R. Sal- aberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology (pp. 415-453). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  45. Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23(2), 245-258.
  46. Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37-53.
  47. In Z. H. Han & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking (pp. 125-153). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  48. Ekmekci, F. O. (1982). Acquisition of verbal inflections in Turkish. METU Journal of Human Sciences, 1(2), 227-241.
  49. Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164-194. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml015 · DOI
  50. Ellis, N. C. (2008). The Dynamics of second language emergence : Cycles of language use , language change , and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 232-249. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00716.x · DOI
  51. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (second edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  52. Field, A. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage Publications.
  53. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multidimensional perspective (pp. 223-237). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  54. Flach, P. (2012). Machine learning: The art and science of algorithms that make sense of data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Genolini, C., & Falissard, B. (2010). KmL: K-means for longitudinal data. Computational Statistics, 25(2), 317-328. doi: 10.1007/s00180-009-0178-4 · DOI
  56. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Oxon: Routledge.
  57. Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, D. (2001). Explaining the "natural order of L2 morpheme acquisi- tion" in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-50. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00147 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Gor, K., & Chernigovskaya, T. (2004). Generation of complex verbal morphology in first and second language acquisition : Evidence from Russian. The proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 819-833.
  59. Görgülü, E. (2005). Plural marking in Turkish: Additive or associative ? Working papers of the Linguistics Circle: Proceedings of the 27th Northwest Linguistics Conference, 21(1), 70-80.
  60. Gries, S. Th. (2013). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction (second edition). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  61. Gries, S. Th., & Stoll, S. (2009). Finding developmental groups in acquisition data: Variability- based neighbour clustering. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 16(3), 217-242. doi: 10.1080/0929617090297569 · DOI
  62. Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 construc- tions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 163-186. doi: 10.1075/arcl. · DOI
  63. 07gri Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S. (in press). The genitive alternation in Chinese and Ger- man ESL learners: Towards multifactorial notion of context in learner cor- pus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/research/overview-research.html
  64. Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as a second language. Language Learning, 26(2), 321-351.
  65. Harvey, W. C. (2006). Complete Spanish: Grammar review. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series.
  66. Hawkins, J. A. (1991). On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics, 27(2), 405-442. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700012731 · DOI
  67. Hawkins, J. A., & Buttery, P. (2010). Criterial features in learner corpora: Theory and illustrations. English Profile Journal, 1(1), e5. doi: 10.1017/S2041536210000103 · DOI
  68. Hawkins, J. A., & Filipović, L. (2012). Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  69. Hawkins, R. (1981). Towards an account of the possessive constructions: NP's N and the N of NP. Journal of Linguistics, 17(2), 247. doi: 10.1017/S002222670000699X · DOI
  70. Hiki, M. (1991). A study of learners' judgments of noun countability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
  71. Hilpert, M., & Gries, S. Th. (2009). Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literacy and Linguistic Computing, 24(4), 385-401. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqn012 · DOI
  72. Hout, R., & Vermeer, A. (2007). Comparing measures of lexical richness. In H. Dallar, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 93-115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  73. Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (second edition). New York:
  74. Hsin, A.-l. (2002). On indefinite subject NPs in Chinese. Chinese Studies, 20(2), 353-376. Re- trieved from http://ccs.ncl.edu.tw/chinese_studies_20_2/353_376.pdf
  75. Huang, S. (1999). The emergence of a grammatical category definite article in spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(1), 77-94. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00052-6 · DOI
  76. Ionin, T. (2006). This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics, 14(2), 175-234. doi: 10.1007/s11050-005-5255-9 · DOI
  77. Ionin, T. (2008). Progressive aspect in child L2 English. In B. Haznedar & GavrusevaE. (Eds.), Current trends in child second language acquisition: A generative perspective (pp. 17-53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  78. Ionin, T., & Montrul, S. (2009). Article use and generic reference: Parallels between L1-and L2-acquisition. In M. García-Mayo & R. Hawkins (Eds.), Second language acquisition of articles: Empirical findings and theoretical implications (pp. 147-173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  79. Ionin, T., & Montrul, S. (2010). The role of L1 transfer in the interpretation of articles with definite plurals in L2 English. Language Learning, 60(4), 877-925. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9922.2010.00577.x · DOI
  80. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434-446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007 · DOI · Paper page
  81. Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245-309.
  82. Jarvis, S. (2007). Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-71.
  83. Jarvis, S., Castañeda Jiménez, G., & Nielsen, R. (2012). Detecting L2 writers' L1s on the basis of their lexical styles. In S. Jarvis & S. A. Crossley (Eds.), Approaching language trans- fer through text classification: Explorations in the detection-based approach (pp. 34-70). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  84. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.
  85. Jelinek, E. (1984). Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 39-76. doi: 10.1007/BF00233713 · DOI
  86. Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K., & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency and the acquisition of L2 morpheme. Language Learning, 61(3), 940-967. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9922.2010.00627.x · DOI
  87. King, L. D., & Suñer, M. (1980). The meaning of the progressive in Spanish and Portuguese. Bilingual Review, 7(3), 222-238.
  88. Köpcke, K. (1988). Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua, 74(4), 303-335. doi: 10.1016/0024-3841(88)90064-2, · DOI
  89. Krashen, S. D. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77: Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 144-158). Washington D. C.: TESOL.
  90. Larsen-Freeman, D. E. (1975). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 9(4), 409-430.
  91. Larsen-Freeman, D. E. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition of second language learners. Language Learning, 26(1), 125-134.
  92. Larsen-Freeman, D. E. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165. doi: 10.1093/applin/18.2.141 · DOI · Paper page
  93. Larsen-Freeman, D. E., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language develop- ment from a complex systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x · DOI · Paper page
  94. Larson-Hall, J., & Herrington, R. (2010). Improving data analysis in second language acquisition by utilizing modern developments in applied statistics. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 368-390. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp038 · DOI
  95. Lee, E.-H. (2006). Dynamic and stative information in temporal reasoning: Interpretation of Korean past markers in narrative discourse. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16(1), 1-25. doi: 10.1007/s10831-006-9003-z · DOI
  96. Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 217-243).
  97. Lindauer, T. (1998). Attributive genitive constructions in German. In A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, predicates, and movement in the determiner phrase (pp. 109-140). Ams- terdam: John Benjamins.
  98. Long, J. D. (2012). Longitudinal data analysis for the behavioral sciences using R. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  99. Long, M. H., & Sato, C. (1984). Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: An interactionist perspective. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 253-279). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  100. Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474-496. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu Luk, Z. P., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles, and possessive 's. Language Learning, 59(4), 721-754. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00524.x · DOI
  101. MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 341-371). New York: Routledge.
  102. Meisel, J. M. (2011). First and second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  103. Meunier, F., & Littré, D. (2013). Tracking learners' progress: Adopting a dual 'corpus cum ex- perimental data' approach. Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 61-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2012.01424.x · DOI
  104. Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus di- alogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(3), 241-259. doi: 10.1515/IRAL.2007.011 · DOI
  105. Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories (second edition). Oxon: Routledge.
  106. In O. Arnaudova, W. Browne, M. L. Rivero, & D. Stojanovic (Eds.), Formal approaches to slavic linguistics #12: The Ottawa meeting 2003 (pp. 353-374). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
  107. Musher-Eizenman, D. R., Nesselroade, J. R., & Schmitz, B. (2002). Perceived control and aca- demic performance: A comparison of high-and low-performing children on within-person change patterns. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(6), 540-547. doi: 10.1080/01650250143000517 · DOI
  108. Myles, F. (2008). Investigating learner language development with electronic longitudinal corpora: Theoretical and methodological issues. In L. Ortega & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capabilities (pp. 58-72). London: Routledge.
  109. Myung, I. J. (2003). Tutorial on maximum likelihood estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psy- chology, 47(1), 90-100. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2496(02)00028-7 · DOI · Paper page
  110. Nicholls, D. (2003). The Cambridge Learner Corpus: Error coding and analysis for lexicography and ELT. In Proceedings of the corpus linguistics 2003 (pp. 572-581).
  111. Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R., & Zochowski, M. (2005). The emergence of personality: Dy- namic foundations of individual variation. Developmental Review, 25(3-4), 351-385. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2005.10.004 · DOI
  112. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  113. Papadopoulou, D. (2006). Cross-linguistic variation in sentence processing: Evidence from RC attachment preferences in Greek. Dordrecht: Springer.
  114. Parkinson, S. (1988). Portuguese. In M. Harris & N. Vincent (Eds.), The Romance languages (pp. 131-169). Oxon: Routledge.
  115. Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33(4), 465-497.
  116. Plaza-Pust, C. (2008). Dynamic systems theory and Universal Grammar: Holding up a turbu- lent mirror to development in grammars. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 250-269. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00717.x · DOI
  117. Proudfoot, A., & Cardo, F. (2005). Modern Italian grammar: A practical guide (second edition). Oxon: Routledge.
  118. Regan, V. (1996). Variation in French interlanguage. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 177-201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  119. Ringbom, H., & Jarvis, S. (2009). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 106-118). West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
  120. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. doi: 1093/applin/22.1.27
  121. Rysiewicz, J. (2008). Cognitive profiles of (un)successful FL learners: A cluster analytical study. Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 87-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00688.x · DOI
  122. In R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), The L2 acquisition of tense-aspect morphology (pp. 397- 415). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  123. Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing (pp. 44-49). Manchester, UK.
  124. Sercu, L., De Wachter, L., Peters, E., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2006). The effect of task complexity and task conditions on foreign language development and performance: Three empirical studies. ITL -International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 55-84. doi: 10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017863 · DOI
  125. Shirai, Y. (1998a). The emergence of tense-aspect morphology in Japanese: universal predisposi- tion? First Language, 18(3), 281-309. doi: 10.1177/014272379801805403 · DOI
  126. Shirai, Y. (1998b). Where the progressive and the resultative meet: Imperfective aspect in Japanese, Chinese, Korean and English. Studies in Language, 22(3), 661-692. doi: 10.1075/sl.22.3.06shi Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Hand- book of child psychology: Volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language (sixth edition) (pp. 464-510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. · DOI
  127. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
  128. Slobin, D. I. (1996). From "thought to language" to "thinking for speaking". In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  129. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157-192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  130. Slobin, D. I. (2008). The child learns to think for speaking: Puzzles of crosslinguistic diversity in form-meaning mappings. In T. Ogura, H. Kobayashi, S. Inagaki, M. Hirakawa, S. Arita, & Y. Terao (Eds.), Studies in language sciences 7 (pp. 1-13). Tokyo: Kurosio.
  131. Slobin, D. I., & Aksu, A. A. (1982). Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish eviden- tial. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (pp. 185-200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  132. Snape, N. (2008). Resetting the nominal mapping parameter in L2 English: Definite article use and the count-mass distinction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 63-79. doi: 10.1017/S1366728907003215 · DOI
  133. Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., & Ganschow, L. (2012). Profiles of more and less successful L2 learn- ers: A cluster analysis study. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4), 463-472. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.009 · DOI
  134. Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and com- plexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics:, 31(4), 532-553. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq001 · DOI
  135. Stoll, S., & Gries, S. Th. (2009). How to measure development in corpora? An as- sociation strength approach. Journal of Child Language, 36(5), 1075-1090. doi: 10.1017/S0305000909009337 · DOI
  136. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Massachusetts, MA: MIT Press.
  137. Thewissen, J. (2013). Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 77-101.
  138. van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 55-84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  139. van Geert, P. (1995). Growth dynamics in development. In R. F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: The dynamics of cognition (pp. 313-337). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  140. van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition : An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 179-199. doi: 10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2008.00713.x · DOI
  141. van Geert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior & Development, 25(4), 340-374. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00140-6 · DOI
  142. VanPatten, B. (1984). Morphemes and processing strategies. In F. Eckman, L. Bell, & D. Nelson (Eds.), Universals and second language acquisition (pp. 88-98). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
  143. Verspoor, M., & Behrens, H. (2011). Dynamic Systems Theory and a usage-based approach to second language development. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 25-38).
  144. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214-231. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x · DOI
  145. Verspoor, M., & van Dijk, M. (2011). Visualizing interactions between variables. In M. H. Ver- spoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 85-98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  146. Wieling, M., Nerbonne, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2011). Quantitative social dialectology: Explaining linguistic variation geographically and socially. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23613. doi: 10.1371/jour- nal.pone.0023613 · DOI
  147. Wilson, M. (1988). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database: Machine readable dictionary, ver- sion 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20(1), 6-11. doi: 10.3758/BF03202594 · DOI
  148. Wulff, S., Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Leblanc, C. (2009). The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora and telicity ratings. Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 354-369. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00895.x · DOI
  149. Yashima, T., & Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2008). The impact of learning contexts on proficiency, attitudes, and L2 communication: Creating an imagined international community. System, 36(4), 566- 585. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.03.006 · DOI · Paper page
  150. Yoon, K. K. (1993). Challenging prototype descriptions: Perception of noun countability and indefinite vs. zero article use. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 269-289.
  151. Young, R. (1988). Variation and the Interlanguage Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acqui- sition, 10(3), 281-302. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100007464 · DOI
  152. Young, R. (1996). Form-function relations in articles in English interlanguage. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 135-175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  153. Zdorenko, T., & Paradis, J. (2012). Article in child L2 English: When L1 and L2 acquisition meet at the interface. First Language, 32(1-2), 38-62. doi: 10.1177/0142723710396797 · DOI
  154. Zobl, H. (1984). Cross-language generalizations and the contrastive dimension of the interlan- guage hypothesis. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 79-97). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  155. Zobl, H., & Liceras, J. (1994). Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning, 44(1), 159-180.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murakami, A.
Corresponding author
Murakami, Akira
ORCID
Murakami, Akira
Venue
Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository
Publisher
Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository
Published
2014-04-08
DOI
10.17863/cam.16509
OpenAlex
W2300493416
Cited by
20
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 6
Type
dissertation
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
second language acquisition, learner corpus, grammatical morphemes, interindividual variability, L1 influence, acquisition order, proficiency effects, thinking for speaking, English as a second language, student essays, L1 background, form-meaning mapping

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