Unlocking the Secrets of Morphosyntactic Development by Examining Acquisition Order Disparities in an EFL Context

Andrew D. Schenck, Wonkyung Choi

Pai Chai University, Daejeon, South Korea.
Pai Chai University,Daejeon, South Korea.

DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2013.31006                

Abstract

This study examined acquisition order disparities and their associated causes in an EFL context, so that pedagogical means of enhancing the process of morphosyntactic development could be discovered. Twenty-six South Korean EFL middle school students were given an extensive timed writing test. Following the administration of this test, an acquisition order for 16 morphosyntactic features was constructed. The EFL order was first compared to others found in ESL contexts. It was then compared to six hypothesized causes of acquisition: EFL input frequency, L1 similarity, morphosyntactic variability, semantic complexity, sonority, and morphosyntactic complexity. Results suggest that while input frequency and L1 similarity are the most significant predictors, all causal variables have a role in the manifestation of acquisition order within an EFL context. Suggestions for curricular reform that utilize the unique causal characteristics of each morphosyntactic feature have been proposed.

Keywords

Acquisition; Morphosyntactic Features; L1 Transfer; Sonority; EFL Input; Korean

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1-17. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00983.x
[2]	Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[3]	Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson, Inc.
[4]	Chamot, A. U. (2009). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
[5]	Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245-258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x
[6]	Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x
[7]	Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1975). A new approach to discovering universals of child second language acquisition. In D. Dato (Ed.), Developmental psycholinguistics (monograph series on language and linguistics) (pp. 209-33). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
[8]	Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
[9]	Dyson, B. (2008). What we can learn from questions: ESL question development and its implications for language assessment. Prospect, 23, 16-27. doi:10.1177/0267658309104578
[10]	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.
[11]	Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model. New York: Pearson.
[12]	Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188. doi:10.1017/S0272263102002024
[13]	Ellis, N., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 329-335. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00893.x
[14]	Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050096
[15]	Folse, K. S., Muchmore-Vokoun, A., & Solomon, E. V. (2005). Great sentences for great paragraphs (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
[16]	Fotos, S. (2001). Cognitive approaches to grammar instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second language (3rd ed., pp. 267-283). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
[17]	Goh, G. Y. (2007). How authentic is the language of Korean middle school English textbooks? A corpus-based analysis. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 7, 191-210.
[18]	Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2005). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants, Language Learning, 55, 27-77.
[19]	James, S., & Khan, L. M. (1982). Grammatical morpheme acquisition: An approximately invariant order? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 381-388. doi:10.1007/BF01067588
[20]	Johnston, M. (1985). Syntactic and morphological progressions in learner English. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
[21]	Johnston, M. (1994). Second language acquisition: A classroom perspective. Australian studies in language acquisition No. 1. ERIC database. (ED411701)
[22]	Kim, S. S. (2002). A corpus-based analysis of the words in the elementary school English textbooks. English Teaching, 57, 253-277.
[23]	Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach. New York: Alemany Press.
[24]	Kwon, E. Y. (2004). The comparative fallacy: An analysis and discussion of selected research. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 1-6.
[25]	Krashen, S., Butler, J., Birnbaum, R., & Robertson, J. (1978). Two studies in language acquisition and language learning. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 39-40, 73-92.
[26]	Luk, Z. P.-S., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles, and possessive ’s. Language Learning, 59, 721-754. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00524.x
[27]	Makino, T. (1979). English morpheme acquisition order of Japanese secondary school students. Doctoral Dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 8228138)
[28]	Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
[29]	Nekrasova, T. (2009). English L1 and L2 speaker’s knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning, 59, 647-686. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00520.x
[30]	Pienemann, M. (1995). Second language acquisition: A first introducetion. ASLA Australian studies in language acquisition No. 2. ERIC database. (ED425637)
[31]	Pienemann, M. (1999). Language processing and second-language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[32]	Pienemann, M. (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[33]	Pienemann, M. (2008). Language processing capacity. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 679-714). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9780470756492.ch20
[34]	Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (199-251). New York: John Benjamins.
[35]	Schenck, A. (2012). Examining the influence of multiple factors on acquisition order in a South Korean EFL context: A pilot study. Manuscript Submitted for Publication. doi:10.4236/ojml.2012.23015
[36]	Schenck, A., & Choi, W. K. (2012). Taking the guesswork out of curriculum design: Learning to engineer explicit grammar curricula through the analysis of multiple influences on the acquisition process. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2, 114-124.
[37]	Schenck, A., & Lee, C. I. (2009). Evaluating the application of SLA research to explicit grammar lessons within EFL textbooks. Journal of the Modern Linguistic Society of Korea, 25, 1-25.
[38]	Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263-308. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x
[39]	Yang, H. (2008). On teaching strategies in second language acquisition. US-China Education Review, 5, 61-67.
[40]	Yavas, M. (2010). Applied English phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.