Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 6:1 (2020) ► pp.1–37

SLA developmental stages in the CEFR-related learner corpus MERLIN

Inversion and verb-end structures in German A2 and B1 learner texts

| Leipzig University
Little is known about the link between Second Language Acquisition (SLA) developmental stages (Pienemann 1998) and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) proficiency levels. Therefore, this study examines the inversion (INV) and verb-end (VEND) stages in L2 German MERLIN texts rated B1 (N = 104) or A2 (N = 32). Two acquisition criteria are applied to individual texts (emergence, Pienemann 1998; 75%-correct, Ellis 1989) and combined with analyses of texts grouped at CEFR levels. Results suggest links between developmental stages and CEFR levels: VEND was emerged in 44% of B1 texts, while most A2 texts did not contain VEND. Many B1 texts (61.5%), but only 37.5% of A2 texts showed emergence of INV. However, analyses also revealed persisting problems with INV accuracy at B1. More generally, the study points out shared challenges for Learner Corpus Research, SLA, and proficiency/assessment research related to the availability of linguistic evidence in learner texts.
Keywords: developmental stages, inversion, verb-end structures, CEFR, MERLIN corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Inversion and verb-end in German L2
    • 2.2Literature review
  • 3.Research questions
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1Data: The MERLIN corpus
    • 4.2Sampling strategy
    • 4.3Data preparation
    • 4.4Methods of data analysis
      • 4.4.1Frequency of INV/VEND at A2 and B1 (RQ1)
      • 4.4.2Application of the criteria of L2 acquisition (emergence/75% correct, RQ2)
      • 4.4.3Relating INV and VEND to CEFR levels
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1RQ1: Frequency of INV and VEND at A2 and B1
    • 5.2RQ2: Acquisition of INV and VEND at A2 and B1
      • 5.2.1Emergence of INV and VEND
      • 5.2.2Frequency-based accuracy of INV and VEND
      • 5.2.3Comparing acquisition criteria
    • 5.3RQ3: INV and VEND and their relationship to CEFR levels A2 and B1
      • 5.3.1Further frequency analyses with a focus on accuracy
      • 5.3.2INV and VEND as potential criterial features
      • 5.3.3Correlations of INV and VEND with proficiency ratings
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.18008.wis
References (57)
References
Abrahamsson, N. 2013. “Developmental sequences”. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition. London: Routledge, 173–177.Google Scholar
Abel, A., Nicolas, L., Wisniewski, K., Boyd, A. & Hana, J. 2014. “A Trilingual Learner Corpus illustrating European Reference Levels”, Ricognizioni. Rivista di Lingue e Letterature e Culture Moderne 2 (1), 111–126. [URL]
Alderson, J. C. 2005. Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2007. “The CEFR and the need for more research”, The Modern Language Journal 91(4), 659–663. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Language testing-informed SLA? SLA-informed language testing?”. In I. Bartning, M. Martin & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: intersections between SLA and language testing research. [URL], 239–248.
Alexopoulou, T., Michel, M., Murakami, A. & Meurers, D. 2017. “Task Effects on Linguistic Complexity and Accuracy: A Large-Scale Learner Corpus Analysis Employing Natural Language Processing Techniques”, Language Learning 67(S1), 180–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. & Cohen, A. (Eds.). 1998. Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. 2010. Language Testing in Practice. Developing Language Assessment and Justifying their Use in the Real World. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bärenfänger, O., & Tschirner, E. 2012. Assessing Evidence of Validity of Assigning CEFR Ratings to the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and the Oral Proficiency Interview by computer (OPIc) (Technical Report 2012-US-PUB-1). Leipzig: ITT.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U. 2006. “When Swedes begin to learn German: from V2 to V2”, Second Language Research 22(4), 443–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boss, B. 2004. “Wann ich habe Freizeit, ich koche gern. Zum Erwerb der deutschen Inversion und Nebensatzwortstellung durch australische Studierende”, Deutsch als Fremdsprache 41(1), 28–32.Google Scholar
Callies, M. & Götz, S. (Eds.). 2015. Learner corpora in language testing and assessment. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Callies, M. & Paquot, M. 2015. “Learner corpus research: An interdisciplinary field on the move”, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1), 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callies, M., Díez-Bedmar, M. B. & Zaytseva, E. 2014. “Using learner corpora for testing and assessing L2 proficiency”. In P. Leclercq, A. Edmonds & H. Hilton (Eds.), Measuring L2 proficiency. Perspectives from SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 71–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1984. “The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to L2 development”. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 219–242.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J. M. & Pienemann, M. 1983. Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (Ed.). 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Deygers, B. 2019. “The CEFR Companion Volume: Between Research-Based Policy and Policy-Based Research”, Applied Linguistics, 1–7.Google Scholar
Diehl, E., Christen, H. & Leuenberger, S. 2000. Grammatikunterricht: Alles für der Katz? Untersuchungen zum Zweitsprachenerwerb Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 1989. “Are Classroom and Naturalistic Acquisition the Same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11(3), 305–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Glaboniat, M., Müller, M., Rusch, P., Schmitz, H. & Wertenschlag, L. 2005. Profile Deutsch. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Granfeldt, J. & Ågren, M. 2013. “Stages of Processability and Levels of Proficiency in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. The Case of L3 French”. In A. Flyman-Mattsson & C. Norrby (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Use in Multilingual Contexts. Theory and Practice Lund: Lund University, 28–38.Google Scholar
Grießhaber, W. 2012. “Die Profilanalyse”. In B. Ahrenholz (Ed.), Einblicke in die Zweitspracherwerbsforschung und ihre methodischen Verfahren. Berlin u.a.: De Gruyter, 173–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Die Profilanalyse für Deutsch als Diagnoseinstrument zur Sprachförderung. Online: [URL]
Gunnewiek, L. 2000. Sequenzen und Konsequenzen: zur Entwicklung niederländischer Lerner im Deutschen als Fremdsprache. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Haberzettl, S. 2005. Der Erwerb der Verbstellungsregeln in der Zweitsprache Deutsch durch Kinder mit russischer und türkischer Muttersprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagenfeld, K. 2016. “Psychometric approaches to language testing and linguistic profiling – A complementary relationship?” In J.-U. Keßler, A. Lenzing, & M. Liebner (Eds.), Developing and Assessing Second Language Grammars across Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 135–162.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G. 2001. “Tense morphology and verb-second in Swedish L1 children, L2 children and children with SLI”, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4(1), 85–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancke, J. 2013. Automatic Prediction of CEFR Proficiency Levels Based on Linguistic Features of Learner Language. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Unpublished MA thesis available under [URL]
Harrison, J. & Barker, F. 2015. English Profile in Practice. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. & Buttery, P. 2010. “Criterial features in learner corpora: Theory and illustrations”, English Profile Journal 11, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. & Filipovíc, L. 2012. Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Helbig, G. & Buscha, J. 2001. Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. 2007. “The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency”, The Modern Language Journal 91(4), 663–667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Alderson, J. C. & Schoonen, R. 2010. “Developmental stages in second-language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them?” In I. Bartning, M. Martin & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: intersections between SLA and language testing research. [URL], 11–20.
HZSK. 2010. “HAMATAC – the Hamburg MapTask Corpus.” Archived in Hamburger Zentrum für Sprachkorpora. Version 0.3. Publication date 2010-09-16. [URL]
Jansen, L. 2008. “Acquisition of German Word Order in Tutored Learners: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Wider Theoretical Context”, Language Learning 58(1), 185–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H. & Pienemann, M. 1981. “On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3(2), 109–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. 2007. “An Operational Definition of the Emergence Criterion”, Applied Linguistics 28(3), 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. 1981. Der Zweitspracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiterkinder. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
1989. “Is Language Teachable? Psycholinguistic Experiments and Hypotheses”, Applied Linguistics 10(1), 52–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). 2005. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “An Outline of Processability Theory and Its Relationship to Other Approaches to SLA”, Language Learning 65(1), 123–151. DOI logo
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M. & Brindley, G. 1988. “Constructing an Acquisition-Based Procedure for Second Language Assessment”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10(2), 217–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reznicek, M., Walter, M., Schmidt, K., Lüdeling, A., Hirschmann, H., Krummes, C. & Andreas, T. 2012. Das Falko-Handbuch: Korpusaufbau und Annotationen. Berlin: HU Berlin. [URL]
Tono, Y. 2012. “International Corpus of Crosslinguistic Interlanguage: Project overview and a case study on the acquisition of new verb co-occurrence patterns”. In Y. Tono, Y. Kawaguchi, & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Developmental and crosslinguistic perspectives in learner corpus research. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 27–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N. & Myles, F. 2015. “The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research”, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1), 58–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tschirner, E. & Meerholz-Härle, B. 2001. “Processability Theory: Eine empirische Untersuchung”. In K. Aguado & C. Riemer (Eds.), Wege und Ziele: Zur Theorie, Empirie und Praxis des Deutschen als Fremdsprache (und anderer Fremdsprachen). Festschrift für Gert Henrici. Hohengehren: Schneider, 155–175.Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N. 2012. “The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study”, The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 576–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). “KANDEL: A developmental corpus of learner German”, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 2(1), 102–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vyatkina, N., Hirschmann, H. & Golcher, F. 2015. “Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study”, New developments in the study of L2 writing complexity 291, 28–50.Google Scholar
Weiß, Z. 2017. Using Measures of Linguistic Complexity to Assess German L2 Proficiency in Learner Corpora under Consideration of Task-Effects. Unpublished MA thesis. [URL]
Wisniewski, K. 2017a. “The Empirical Validity of the Common European Framework of Reference Scales. An Exemplary Study for the Vocabulary and Fluency Scales in a Language Testing Context”, Applied Linguistics 39(6), 933–959. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b. “Empirical Learner Language and the Levels of the Common European Framework of Reference”, Language Learning 67(S1), 232–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. “Grammatische Korrektheit und L2-Kompetenz: Eine Lernerkorpus-Studie”, Deutsch als Fremdsprache 31, 131–142.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Wisniewski, Katrin
2021. „Ist es B2-Niveau genug?“. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 2021:75 ► pp. 364 ff. DOI logo
Wisniewski, Katrin
2022. Gesprochene Lernerkorpora des Deutschen: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 50:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.