Metalinguistic Knowledge and Language Ability in University-Level L2 Learners

Existing research indicates that instructed learners' L2 proficiency and their metalinguistic knowledge are moderately correlated. However, the operationalization of the construct of metalinguistic knowledge has varied somewhat across studies. Metalinguistic knowledge has typically been operationalized as learners' ability to correct, describe, and explain L2 errors. More recently, this operationalization has been extended to additionally include learners' L1 language-analytic ability as measured by tests traditionally used to assess components of language learning aptitude. This article reports on a study which employed a narrowly focused measure of L2 proficiency and incorporated L2 language-analytic ability into a measure of metalinguistic knowledge. It was found that the linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge of advanced university-level L1 English learners of L2 German correlated strongly. Moreover, the outcome of a principal components analysis suggests that learners' ability to correct, describe, and explain highlighted L2 errors and their L2 language-analytic ability may constitute components of the same construct. The theoretical implications of these findings for the concept of metalinguistic knowledge in L2 learning are considered. © Oxford University Press 2007

Distributional effects and individual differences in L2 morphology learning

Second language (L2) learning outcomes may depend on the structure of the input and learners’ cognitive abilities. This study tested whether less predictable input might facilitate learning and generalization of L2 morphology while evaluating contributions of statistical learning ability, nonverbal intelligence, phonological short-term memory, and verbal working memory. Over three sessions, 54 adults were exposed to a Russian case-marking paradigm with a balanced or skewed item distribution in the input. Whereas statistical learning ability and nonverbal intelligence predicted learning of trained items, only nonverbal intelligence also predicted generalization of case-marking inflections to new vocabulary. Neither measure of temporary storage capacity predicted learning. Balanced, less predictable input was associated with higher accuracy in generalization but only in the initial test session. These results suggest that individual differences in pattern extraction play a more sustained role in L2 acquisition than instructional manipulations that vary the predictability of lexical items in the input

Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorization

The automated categorization (or classification) of texts into predefined categories has witnessed a booming interest in the last ten years, due to the increased availability of documents in digital form and the ensuing need to organize them. In the research community the dominant approach to this problem is based on machine learning techniques: a general inductive process automatically builds a classifier by learning, from a set of preclassified documents, the characteristics of the categories. The advantages of this approach over the knowledge engineering approach (consisting in the manual definition of a classifier by domain experts) are a very good effectiveness, considerable savings in terms of expert manpower, and straightforward portability to different domains. This survey discusses the main approaches to text categorization that fall within the machine learning paradigm. We will discuss in detail issues pertaining to three different problems, namely document representation, classifier construction, and classifier evaluation.Comment: Accepted for publication on ACM Computing Survey

Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo

Addressing the grammar needs of Chinese EAP students: an account of a CALL materials development project

This study investigated the grammar needs of Chinese EAP Foundation students and developed electronic self-access grammar materials for them. The research process consisted of three phases. In the first phase, a corpus linguistics based error analysis was conducted, in which 50 student essays were compiled and scrutinized for formal errors. A tagging system was specially devised and employed in the analysis. The EA results, together with an examination of Foundation tutors’ perceptions of error frequency and gravity led me to prioritise article errors for treatment; in the second phase, remedial materials were drafted based on the EA results and insights drawn from my investigations into four research areas (article pedagogy, SLA theory, grammar teaching approaches and CALL methodologies) and existing grammar materials; in the third phase, the materials were refined and evaluated for their effectiveness as a means of improving the Chinese Foundation students’ use of the article. Findings confirm the claim that L2 learner errors are systematic in nature and lend support to the value of Error Analysis. L1 transfer appears to be one of the main contributing factors in L2 errors. The salient errors identified in the Chinese Foundation corpus show that mismanagement of the article system is the most frequent cause of grammatical errors; Foundation tutors, however, perceive article errors to be neither frequent nor serious. An examination of existing materials reveals that the article is given low priority in ELT textbooks and treatments provided in pedagogical grammar books are inappropriate in terms of presentation, language and exercise types. The devised remedial materials employ both consciousness-raising activities and production exercises, using EAP language and authentic learner errors. Preliminary evaluation results suggest that the EA-informed customised materials have the potential to help learners to perform better in proofreading article errors in academic texts

Teaching complex grammar in Dutch EFL classrooms. A study on the effectiveness of deductive, inductive, implicit and incidental instruction

This study investigates the effectiveness of four types of grammar instruction and the extent to which students' learning style affects the learning outcomes of these instruction types. Our focus is on a complex grammar structure, viz. English conditionals. A total of fourteen Dutch classes with senior secondary school students aged 15-17 and their ten teachers participated in the study. Teachers and their classes were randomly distributed among implicit, incidental, inductive and deductive treatment groups and a control group. A pretest-posttest design, including a grammaticality judgement test and a semi-free writing test, was used to study the effectiveness of the treatment groups for students with a learning style focused on either learning from active experimentation or from reflective observation. Results of a multilevel covariance analysis indicate that explicit-inductive instruction effectively raises students' performance concerning complex grammatical sentences and it does so more effectively than incidental instruction but no more than other forms of grammar instruction. Post hoc comparisons reveal that these outcomes hold for all students, irrespective of their learning style.</p

Teaching complex grammar in Dutch EFL classrooms. A study on the effectiveness of deductive, inductive, implicit and incidental instruction

This study investigates the effectiveness of four types of grammar instruction and the extent to which students' learning style affects the learning outcomes of these instruction types. Our focus is on a complex grammar structure, viz. English conditionals. A total of fourteen Dutch classes with senior secondary school students aged 15-17 and their ten teachers participated in the study. Teachers and their classes were randomly distributed among implicit, incidental, inductive and deductive treatment groups and a control group. A pretest-posttest design, including a grammaticality judgement test and a semi-free writing test, was used to study the effectiveness of the treatment groups for students with a learning style focused on either learning from active experimentation or from reflective observation. Results of a multilevel covariance analysis indicate that explicit-inductive instruction effectively raises students' performance concerning complex grammatical sentences and it does so more effectively than incidental instruction but no more than other forms of grammar instruction. Post hoc comparisons reveal that these outcomes hold for all students, irrespective of their learning style.</p

Teaching complex grammar in Dutch EFL classrooms. A study on the effectiveness of deductive, inductive, implicit and incidental instruction

This study investigates the effectiveness of four types of grammar instruction and the extent to which students' learning style affects the learning outcomes of these instruction types. Our focus is on a complex grammar structure, viz. English conditionals. A total of fourteen Dutch classes with senior secondary school students aged 15-17 and their ten teachers participated in the study. Teachers and their classes were randomly distributed among implicit, incidental, inductive and deductive treatment groups and a control group. A pretest-posttest design, including a grammaticality judgement test and a semi-free writing test, was used to study the effectiveness of the treatment groups for students with a learning style focused on either learning from active experimentation or from reflective observation. Results of a multilevel covariance analysis indicate that explicit-inductive instruction effectively raises students' performance concerning complex grammatical sentences and it does so more effectively than incidental instruction but no more than other forms of grammar instruction. Post hoc comparisons reveal that these outcomes hold for all students, irrespective of their learning style.</p