Second language assessment and morphosyntactic development

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 529-561

  Spinner, Patti ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859090702     PISSN: 02722631     EISSN: 14701545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0272263111000301     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). (1999). ACTFL profi-ciency guidelines: Speaking. Retrieved April 4, 2010 from http ://www. actfl. org/fi les/public/Guidelinesspeak. pdf
2. Alhawary, M. (2009). Speech processing prerequisites or L1 transfer? Evidence from English and French learners of L2 Arabic. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 367-390.
3. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bachman, L. (1998). Language testing/SLA interfaces. In L. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 177-195). New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bachman, L., & Cohen, A. (1998). Language testing/SLA interfaces: An update. In L. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 1-31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Brindley, G. (1998). Describing language development? Rating scales and SLA. In L. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 112-140). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Chapelle, C. (1998). Construct defi nition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32-70). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Clahsen, H. (1990/1991). Constraints on parameter-setting: A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language. Language Acquisition, 1, 361-391.
10. Clahsen, H., & Penke, M. (1992). The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the Simone corpus. In J. Meisel (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement (pp. 181-223). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
11. Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies and processes in test taking and SLA. In L. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 90-111). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability. London: Arnold.
13. Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2002). Exploring the typological plausibility of processability theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 18, 274-302.
14. Douglas, D. (1998). Testing methods in context-based second language research. In L. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 141-155). New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Dyson, B. (2009). Processability theory and the role of morphology in English as a second language development: A longitudinal study. Second Language Research, 25, 355-376.
16. Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical diffi culty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 4-22.
17. Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., Hvenekilde, A., & Lund, K. (2001). Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 389-416.
18. Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18, 250-273.
19. Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
20. Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: The failed functional features hypothesis. Second Language Research, 13, 187-226.
21. Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Are there optional infi nitives in child L2 acquisition? In E. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual Boston University conference on language development 21 (pp. 257-268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
22. Jansen, L. (2008). Acquisition of German word order in tutored learners: A cross-sectional study in a wider theoretical context. Language Learning, 58, 185-231.
23. Kaplan, R., & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (Ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations (pp. 173-281). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Kawaguchi, S. (2000). Acquisition of Japanese verbal morphology: Applying processability theory to Japanese. Studia Linguistica, 54, 238-248.
25. Kiany, G. (2001). On the relationship between English profi ciency, writing ability, and the use of conjunctions in Iranian EFL learners' compositions. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 133/134, 227-241.
26. Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109-135.
27. Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The overrepresentation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139-168.
28. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
29. Pienemann, M. (2003). Rapid profi le stages. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from University of Paderborn, Linguistics Department, Rapid Profi le Web site: http ://groups. uni-paderborn. de/rapidprofi le/docs/Stages. pdf
30. Pienemann, M. (2005). Discussing PT. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processablity theory (pp. 61-83). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
31. Pienemann, M. (2007 a). Processability theory. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 137-154). London: Routledge.
32. Pienemann, M. (2007 b, September). Processability theory: Theory construction and application. Plenary speech at 17th annual conference of the European Second Language Association, Newcastle, UK.
33. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217-243.
34. Prévost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing surface infl ection or impairment in second language acquisition? Second Language Research, 16, 103-133.
35. Read, J. (2007). Towards a new collaboration: Research in SLA and language testing. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 13, 22-35.
36. Sakai, H. (2008). An analysis of Japanese university students' oral performance in English using processability theory. System, 36, 534-549.
37. Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40-72.
38. Shohamy, E. (1994). The role of language tests in the construction and validation of secondlanguage acquisition theories. In E. E. Tarone, S. M. Gass, & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 133-142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Shohamy, E. (1998). How can language testing and SLA benefi t from each other? The case of discourse. In L. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 156-176). New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Tsimpli, I.-M. (2003). Clitics and determiners in L2 Greek. In J. Liceras, H. Zobl, & H. Goodluck (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th generative approaches to second language acquisition conference (pp. 331-339). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
41. Vainikka, A. (1993/1994). Case in the development of English syntax. Language Acquisition, 3, 257-325.
42. Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct access to X'-theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 265-316). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
43. Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996 a). The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12, 140-176.
44. Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996 b). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12, 7-39.
45. Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998 a). The initial state in the L2 acquisition of phrase structure. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), The generative study of second language acquisition (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998 b). Morphosyntactic triggers in adult SLA. In M. Beck (Ed.), Morphology and its interfaces in second language knowledge (pp. 89-113). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
47. Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2006). The roots of syntax and how they grow: Organic grammar, the basic variety, and processablity theory. In S. Unsworth, T. Parodi, A. Sorace, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition (pp. 77-106). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
48. Young-Scholten, M., Ijuin, C., & Vainikka, A. (2005, March). Organic grammar as a measurement of development. Paper presented at 39th annual TESOL conference, San Antonio, TX.
49. Young-Scholten, M., & Ijuin, C. (2006 a, March). Expanding organic grammar-based assessment. Paper presented at 40th annual TESOL conference, Tampa, FL.
50. Young-Scholten, M., & Ijuin, C. (2006 b, September). How can we best measure adult ESL student progress? TESOL Adult Education Interest Section Newsletter, 4 (2).