The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rethinking Language Proficiency: Commentary on Hulstijn (2024)
Abstract
We enjoyed reading Jan Hustijn’s update of his Basic Language Cognition (BLC) theory in the pages of Languages (Hulstijn, 2024), and we are honored to provide a commentary here. Researchers, language learners, and educators hold varying definitions and understandings of language proficiency. Innovative work that helps researchers in the field rethink proficiency is therefore of utmost importance. Hulstijn’s BLC theory offers a clear, well-motivated, and comprehensive framework for investigating what language proficiency may be, what ceilings there may be in what can be attained, and what causes there may be for attainment differences. Hulstijn tells us that BLC rests on a metatheory (i.e., a foundation of assumptions) of language and language learning grounded in two areas familiar to most scholars in second language acquisition (SLA): usage-based linguistics and complex systems. He offers BLC as a theory, that is, a tool to empirically investigate the causation and development of a phenomenon, in this case, proficiency, through a well-articulated research program. In this commentary, we highlight some aspects of the updated BLC theory that we find most useful. Following the Popperian spirit embraced by Hulstijn, we also introduce some critical probes subjects for refinements that may benefit BLC theory in the future.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“L2 proficiency has repeatedly been associated with greater phonological sensitivity, better phonology-pragmatics alignment, and reduced L1 interference (Bachman & Palmer, 2010;Mennen, 2015;Ortega & Wu, 2025).”
From On English Language Learners’ Prosody: The Possible Impact of L2 Aptitude, Musical Ability, and Proficiency on Nuclear Accent Placement in Spanish L1 Contexts (2026) · cites this paper as Ortega & Wu, 2025
Citations
Cites
THE EVOLVING CONTEXT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE HYPOTHESIS
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109090275 · Cited by 335 · cited 1×
“The theory leaves the door open to the possibility, for now, that the two types of users are not fundamentally different—an SLA debate that remains unresolved (e.g., Bley-Vroman, 2009; MacWhinney, 2022).”
On Bilinguals and Bilingualism
Grosjean, F. (2024) · doi:10.1017/9781009210409 · Cited by 24
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Andringa, 2014, The use of native speaker norms in critical period hypothesis research, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 565, 10.1017/S0272263113000600 · DOI
- Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison, Cambridge University Press. · DOI
- Brown, 2008, Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1–L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 225, 10.1017/S0272263108080327 · DOI
- Chapelle, C. A. (2012). Multi-competence. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, Wiley-Blackwell. · DOI
- Street, 2006, Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers, Language Sciences, 28, 604, 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.014 · DOI
- De Houwer, A. (2021). Bilingual development in childhood, Cambridge University Press. · DOI
- Gedik, 2024, Print exposure leads to individual differences in the Turkish aorist, Language Sciences, 104, 101632, 10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101632 · DOI
- Hulstijn, J. (2024). Predictions of individual differences in the acquisition of native and non-native languages: An update of BLC theory. Languages, 9, (5). · DOI
- Janko, E., Dąbrowska, E., and Street, J. A. (2019). Education and input as predictors of second language attainment in naturalistic contexts. Languages, 4, (3). · DOI
- Ke, C. (2018). The Routledge handbook of Chinese second language acquisition, Routledge. · DOI
- Gervain, J., Csibra, G., and Kovács, K. (2022). The competition model: Past and future. A life in cognition: Studies in cognitive science in Honor of Csaba Pléh, Springer. · DOI
- Peyton, J. K., and Young-Scholten, M. (2020). Teaching adult immigrants with limited formal education: Theory, research and practice, Multilingual Matters. · DOI
- Saiegh-Haddad, E., and Joshi, R. M. (2014). Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and perspectives, Springer. · DOI
- Saiegh-Haddad, E., Laks, L., and McBride, C. (2022). Handbook of literacy in diglossia and in dialectal contexts, Springer. · DOI
- Backus, 2019, Anxiety, language use and linguistic competence in an immigrant context: A vicious circle?, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 706, 10.1080/13670050.2017.1306021 · DOI
- Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., and Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and second language oracy, Oxford University Press.
- Wang, 2018, Becoming literate in Chinese: A comparison of native-speaking and non-native-speaking children, Journal of Research in Reading, 41, 511, 10.1111/1467-9817.12122 · DOI
- Wu, S.-L., Huang, L., and Polley, C. (2024). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition of Chinese: Theories and applications, Cambridge University Press. · DOI
- Wu, 2013, Measuring global oral proficiency in SLA research: Anew elicited imitation test of L2 Chinese, Foreign Language Annals, 46, 680, 10.1111/flan.12063 · DOI
- Wu, 2022, Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 proficiency: New insights from a comparison of two L2 English parallel forms, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 271, 10.1017/S0272263121000103 · DOI
- Wu, 2023, Examining the comparability of parallel English and Chinese elicited imitation tasks, Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2, 10058, 10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100058 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barra–García, C. F., Véliz-Campos, M., Figueroa Candia, M. A., Pereira-Reyes, Y., & Kartsevski Dune, M. (2026) · Language Teaching Research Quarterly · doi:10.32038/ltrq.2026.55.04
Metadata
- Authors
- Ortega, L., & Wu, S.-L.
- Affiliations
- Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, 1421 37th Street N.W., Washington, DC 20057, USA
- School of Languages and Linguistics, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, 1000 Faner Drive, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA
- Venue
- Languages
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-03-24
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 58
- ISSN
- 2226-471X
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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
