Cover not available
Article published In:
Learning and Teaching L2 Writing
Guest-edited by Daphne van Weijen, Elke Van Steendam and Gert Rijlaarsdam
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156] 2008
► pp. 53–86

Developmental Stages in Advanced SLA

A Corpus-based Analysis of Academic Writing by ESL Graduate Students

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers have yet to map the developmental stages language learners go through as they approach the target language. In studies of English as a Second Language (ESL) writing, the term 'advanced learner' has been applied indiscriminately to learners ranging from freshman ESL composition to graduate students. There is a need to examine the advanced stages of SLA in order to refine SLA theories and pedagogical approaches. A corpus of texts written by non-native English-speaking doctoral students in applied linguistics from several linguistic backgrounds was analyzed to determine the texts’ lexical, morphological and syntactic fluency, accuracy and complexity. A sub-corpus of papers by native-English-speaking peers was used for comparison. The texts were strictly-timed and loosely-timed exams written 2 to 3 years apart. Surveys and interviews were also conducted. Based on findings, the study defines data-based criteria that distinguish four quantitatively and qualitatively distinct developmental stages: the advanced, highly advanced, near-native, and native-like stages. Advanced learners make more frequent and varied errors which can be explained by transfer from the first language. Native-like writers make few errors that can be explained by overgeneralization of conventions from informal English and working memory limitations (similar to native speakers’ errors). The study suggests that SLA is a process of transfer followed by relearning of morpho-syntactic specifications (Herschensohn, 2000), with syntax being used with the greatest accuracy (Bardovi-Harlig & Bofman, 1989) and lexicon with the least. The relationships between accuracy and other social and cognitive factors are considered, and pedagogical recommendations are made.

Published online: 1 January 2008
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034421
References
Altenberg, B.
(1998) Connectors and sentence openings in English and Swedish. In S. Johansson & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies (pp. 115–143). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bofman, T.
(1989) Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 111, 17–34.Google Scholar
Badecker, W., & Straub, K.
(2002) The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphora. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 281, 748–769.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Miller, C.A.
(1991) Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 231, 45–93.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S.
(2001) The fortunate traveller: Shuttling between communities and literacies by economy class. In D. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (pp. 23–37). Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton 1957.Google Scholar
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cobb, T.
(2003) Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. The Canadian Modem Language Review, 591, 393–423.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P.
(1967) The significance in learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 51, 161–169.Google Scholar
Connor, U., & Mayberry, S.
(1996) Learning discipline-specific academic writing: A case study of a Finnish graduate student in the United States. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 231–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cumming, A.
(1990) Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 71, 482–511.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Durow, V.
(2004, May). Individual differences and their effects on formulaic sequences. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M.
(1974) Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 241, 37–53.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1994) The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ene, E.
(2006) The last stages of second language acquisition: Linguistic evidence from academic writing by advanced non-native English speaker. UMI Dissertation Services.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J.
(1999) TESOL Quarterly and non-native speaker-writers: An interview with Sandra McKay. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 91, 99–103.Google Scholar
Flynn, S.
(1996) A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp. 121–158). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, M.
(1995) Nurturing student learning through portfolios. TESOL Journal, Autumn 1995.Google Scholar
Granger, S.
(1998) The stylistic potential of phraseological units in the light of genre analysis. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L. & Condon, W.
(1999) Assessing the Portfolio: Principlesfor Practice, Theory, and Research. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Herschensohn, J.
(2000) The second time around: Minimalism and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E.
(1997) The past tense and temporal verb meanings in a contextual frame. TESOL Quarterly, 311, 289–313.Google Scholar
(2003) Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 371, 275–301.Google Scholar
Howarth, P.
(1998) The phraseology of learners' academic writing. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
(2000) Pattern grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G.
(2003) Amplifier collocations in the British National Corpus: Implications for English Language Teaching. TESOL Quarteriy, 371, 467–487.Google Scholar
Liu, D.
(2003) The most frequently used spoken American English idioms: A corpus analysis and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 371, 671–700.Google Scholar
Liu, J.
(2001) Writing from Chinese to English: My cultural transformation. In D. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (Vol. 261, pp. 121–131). Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
Master, P.
(1995) Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 183–204). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Newport, E.L., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L.R.
(1977) Mother, I'd rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C.E. Snow & C.A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp. 109–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H.
(2001) Developing literacy can and should be fun: But only sometimes is. In D. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (Vol. 261, pp. 60–66). Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
Selinker, L.
(1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 101, 209–31.Google Scholar
Spence, J.T., Cotton, J.W., Underwood, B.J., & Duncan, C.P.
(1983) Elementary statistics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vickers, C. & Ene, E.
(2006) Promoting grammatical accuracy through learner autonomy in advanced ESL courses. English Language Teaching Journal, 601: 109–116.Google Scholar
White, E.M.
(1999) Assigning, responding, evaluating: Awriting teacher's guide (3rd. ed). New York: St. Martin's.Google Scholar
White, L., Travis, L., & McLachlan, A.
(1992) The acquisition of wh-question formation by Malagasy learners of English: evidence for Universal Grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 291, 341–368.Google Scholar
Wilson, K.G.
(1993) The Columbia guide to standard American English. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.Y.
(1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. University of Hawaii Press, Manoa.Google Scholar
Zamel, V.
(1983) The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 171, 165–187.Google Scholar
MonoConc Pro
(Athelstan 2002)Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Shatz, Itamar
2019. How native language and L2 proficiency affect EFL learners’ capitalisation abilities: a large-scale corpus study. Corpora 14:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 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.