Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 32:1 (2019) ► pp.82–124

Using learner corpus methods in L2 acquisition research

The morpheme order studies revisited with Interlanguage Annotation

| Universidad de Granada
| Universidad de Granada
Since the 1970s, findings from Morpheme Order Studies (MOS) have suggested that the emergence of morphemes follows a predictable order in L2 English. In this paper we show how the tools and practices in Learner Corpus Research (LCR) offer a richer descriptive basis, which is achieved with Interlanguage Annotation (ILA), a manual, fined-grained, purpose-oriented type of annotation. Additionally, we use a standardised placement test, since proficiency level has been overlooked in most previous MOS. Both of these practices provide a more detailed description of morpheme accuracy order across different levels. We analyse four proficiency levels (A1-B2) in a subcorpus of L1 Spanish-L2 English secondary-school learners from the CORpus of English as a Foreign Language (COREFL). Our results partially confirm findings from previous MOS, but also reveal key findings that had gone previously unnoticed regarding the role of proficiency level and the subtype of errors, which are relevant factors for SLA research.
Keywords: Interlanguage Annotation (ILA), fine-grained, manual annotation, Morpheme Order Studies (MOS), learner corpora, CORpus of English as a Foreign Language (COREFL), second language acquisition, L2 English acquisition, acquisition of morphology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Revisiting the Morpheme Order Studies (MOS)
    • 2.1Key findings from the MOS
    • 2.2MOS based on learner corpus data
    • 2.3Main conclusions from the MOS
    • 2.4Methodological limitations of previous MOS research
    • 2.5Methodological limitations in LCR for SLA research purposes: Annotation
    • 2.6Research questions
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Corpus: CORpus of English as a Foreign Language (COREFL)
    • 3.2Annotation scheme
    • 3.3Tagging procedure and analysis
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1General results
    • 4.2Progressive -ing
    • 4.3Contrasting be: Copula vs. auxiliary
    • 4.4Articles
    • 4.5Comparing plural, 3rd person singular, and possessive
    • 4.6Contrasting past regular -ed vs. past irregular
    • 4.7Historical present or past tense?
    • 4.8Summary of results
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.17019.loz
References (64)
References
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. D. (1974). Is there a ‘natural sequence’ in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24 (2), 235–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Regular-irregular dissociations in L2 acquisition of English morphology. Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 123–132). Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Cambridge University Press (2010). English unlimited placement test. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz Negrillo, A. (2009). EARS: A user’s manual. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, A., & Fernández-Domínguez, J. (2006). Error tagging systems for learner corpora. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 19 1, 83–102.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23 (2), 245–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24 (1), 37–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). Researching acquisition sequences: Idealization and de-idealization in SLA. Language Learning, 65 (1), 181–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Hawkins, R. (Eds.). (2009). Second Language Acquisition of articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. En K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in Contrast: Text-based cross-linguistic studies (pp. 37–51). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Learner corpora. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 259–275). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009). The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 13–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). The international corpus of learner English. Version 2. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51 (1), 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., & Lozano, C. (2006). Second Language Acquisition of phonology, morphology and syntax. In K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and Linguistics (2nd Edition) (pp. 67–74). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Ellis, R., & Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). Orders and sequences in the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax, 40 years on: An introduction to the special issue. Language Learning, 65 (1), 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, E., & Isahara, H. (2005). Investigation into language learners’ acquisition order based on an error analysis of a learner corpus. In L. Anthony, S. Fujita & Y. Harada (Eds.), Proceedings of IWLeL 2004 (pp. 63–71). Tokyo: Waseda University.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1977). The monitor model for adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 152–161). New York: Regents Publishing.Google Scholar
Kwon, E.-Y. (2005). The ‘Natural Order’ of morpheme acquisition: A historical survey and discussion of three putative determinants. Columbia University Working Papers in TESL & Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Reinders, H. (2011). Key concepts in Second Language Acquisition. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lozano, C. (2009). Selective deficits at the syntax-discourse interface: Evidence from the CEDEL2 corpus. In Y.-I. Leung, N. Snape & M. Sharwood-Smith (Eds.), Representational deficits in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 127–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Pragmatic principles in anaphora resolution at the syntax-discourse interface: advanced English learners of Spanish in the CEDEL2 corpus. In M. Alonso Ramos (Ed.), Spanish learner corpus research: Current trends and future perspectives (pp. 235–265). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming). Formal and generative approaches. In N. Tracy-Ventura & M. Paquot (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Second Language Acquisition and corpora. New York: Routledge.
Lozano, C., & Mendikoetxea, A. (2013). Learner corpora and second language acquisition: the design and collection of CEDEL2. In A. Díaz-Negrillo, N. Ballier & P. Thompson (Eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 65–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lozano, C., Díaz-Negrillo, A., & Callies, M. (forthcoming). Designing and compiling a learner corpus of written and spoken narratives: COREFL. In C. Bongartz & J. Torregrossa (Eds.), What’s in a narrative? Variation in story-telling at the interface between language and literacy. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Luk, Z. P., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order or grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles, and possessive ’s . Language Learning, 59 (4), 721–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makino, T. (1980). The acquisition order of English morphemes by Japanese secondary school students. Journal of Hokkaido University of Education, 30 1, 101–148.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, R. J., & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57 (4), 1–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Domínguez, L., Arche, M., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2008). SPLLOC: A new database for Spanish second language acquisition research. En L. Roberts, F. Myles, & A. David (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 8 (pp. 287–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2006). Accuracy orders, rate of learning and age in morphological acquisition. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 107–126). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murakami, A. (2013a). Cross-linguistic influence on the accuracy order of L2 English grammatical morphemes. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp. 325–334). Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
(2013b). Individual variation and the role of L1 in the L2 development of English grammatical morphemes: Insights from learner corpora. Unpublished PhD dissertation: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Murakami, A., & Alexopoulou, T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38 (3), 365–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, V. A. (2004). Dissociable systems in second language inflectional morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (3), 433–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myles, F. (2015). Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 309–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2004). Learner corpora and their potential in language teaching. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 125–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M. (2009). The UAM Corpus Tool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. In C. M. Bretones, J. E. Fernández Sánchez, J. R. Íbañez Íbañez, M. E. García Sánchez, M. E. Cortés de los Ríos, S. Salaberri Ramiro, M. S. Cruz Martínez, N. Perdú Honeyman & B. Cantizano Márquez (Eds.), Applied Linguistics now: Understanding language and mind/la Lingüística Aplicada actual: comprendiendo el lenguaje y la mente (pp. 1433–1447). Almería: Universidad de Almería.Google Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, P., & Sánchez-Tornel, M. (2015). A multidimensional analysis of learner language during story reconstruction in interviews. In M. Callies & S. Götz (Eds.), Learner corpora in language testing and assessment (pp. 141–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33 1, 465–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984). Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6 1, 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. (2000). Irregular past tense formation in English interlanguage. In I. Plag & K. P. Schneider (Eds.), Language use, language acquisition and language history: (Mostly) empirical studies in honour of Rüdiger Zimmermann (pp. 134–149). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Porte, G. (Ed.). (2012). Replication research in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Prieto, J. P. (2009). Acquisitional patterns of the Spanish copular verbs ‘ser’ and ‘estar’: Data from L2 beginning learners in favor of the declarative/procedural model. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 22 1, 307–325.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (2005). How to build a corpus. In M. Wynne (Ed.), Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice (pp. 79–83). Oxford: Oxbow books.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., & Swierzbin, B. (2009). Exploring learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tono, Y. (2000). A computer learner corpus based analysis of the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes. In L. Burnard & T. McEnery (Eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective (pp. 123–132). London: Peter Lang.Google 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
Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Adult Second Language Acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Van Patten, B., & Benati, A. G. (2010). Key terms in Second Language Acquisition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wei, L. (2003). An implicational Hierarchy of Morpheme Acquisition Order in second language learning. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 139/140 1, 77–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H. (1998). Representational changes: From listed representations to independent representations of verbal affixes. In M.-L. Beck (Ed.), Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge (pp. 339–371). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zobl, H., & Liceras, J. (1994). Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning, 44 (1), 159–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Riegler, Stefanie
2023. Annotating VOICE for Pedagogic Purposes: The Case for a Mark-up Scheme of Pragmatic Functions in ELF Interactions. In Demystifying Corpus Linguistics for English Language Teaching, ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Wei, Yi
2023. The Development and Teaching Application of Japanese Peripheral Language Phenomenon Based on Big Data Corpus. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing DOI logo
Myles, Florence
2020. Commentary: An SLA Perspective on Learner Corpus Research. In Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition, ► pp. 258 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.