Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:40:22.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Acceptability Studies in L2 Populations

from Part III - Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Tania Ionin
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses the use of acceptability judgment tasks in second language (L2) and bilingual populations. L2 studies that use AJTs can be divided into those that test a variety of phenomena, with the goal of investigating such issues as age effects and ultimate attainment, and those that focus on specific grammatical phenomena. Studies that use AJTs with L2 populations need to consider a number of issues, including task modality, time pressure, the use of context, the type of rating scale, and participants' reasons for accepting or rejecting a sentence. Finally, this chapter addresses the question of what AJTs measure with L2/bilingual populations, and whether AJTs run the risk of overestimating and/or underestimating L2 knowledge. Like any other tasks, AJTs have both advantages and disadvantages, and may best be used in conjunction with other types of data collection methodologies.

Keywords

second language (L2)bilingualsexplicit vs. implicit knowledgetask modalitycontext-based AJTstruth-value judgment task (TVJT)
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 373 - 393
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 481–509.Google Scholar
Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D., & Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72, 32–68.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706–755.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A. & Bates, E. (1995). Inducing agrammatic profiles in normals: Evidence for the selective vulnerability of morphology under cognitive resource limitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(2), 228–257.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A., Bates, E., & Fisher, D. (1996). The time course of grammaticality judgment. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 337–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruhn de Garavito, J. (2011). Subject/object asymmetries in the grammar of bilingual and monolingual Spanish speakers: Evidence against connectionism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 111–148.Google Scholar
Christensen, R. H. B. (2018). ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2018.4–19. www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/Google Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63, 544–573.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental Syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L. & Hathorn, J. (2005). Quelque chose … de remarquable in English–French acquisition: Mandatory, informationally encapsulated computations in second language interpretation. Second Language Research, 21, 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, F., Bates, E., Wulfeck, B., Utman, J. A., Dronkers, N., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2001). Language deficits, localization, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neurologically intact individuals. Psychological Review, 108(4), 759–788.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Loewen, S. (2007). Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicit knowledge in Ellis (2005): Responding to Isemonger. Second Language Research, 29, 119–126.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philip, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing, and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Falk, Y. & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27, 59–82.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(1), 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriele, A. (2009). Transfer and transition in the SLA of aspect: A bidirectional study of learners of English and Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Alvarez Torres, M. J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J.-H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grier, J. B. (1971). Non-parametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: Computing formulas. Psychological Bulletin, 75(6), 424–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. & Ellis, R., eds. (2005). Implicit and Explicit Second-Language Learning (Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2) (special issue)).Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S., eds., Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 30–52.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Montrul, S., & Crivos, M. (2013). A bidirectional study on the acquisition of plural noun phrase interpretation in English and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 483–518.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Zyzik, E. (2014). Judgment and interpretation tasks in second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–28. DOI:10.1017/S0267190514000026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1991). Critical period effects on universal properties of languages: The status of subjacency in the acquisition of a second language. Cognition, 39, 215–258.Google Scholar
Kim, B. (2015). Sensitivity to islands in Korean-English bilinguals. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego,Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2009). Grammaticality judgment tests and the measurement of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philip, J., & Reinders, H., eds., Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing, and Teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 65–93.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(3), 395–423.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. L. (2006). Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(3), 381–401.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2005). On knowledge and development of unaccusativity in Spanish L2-acquisition. Linguistics, 43(6), 1153–1190.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. (2008). Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A., Bhatt, R., & Girju, R. (2015). Differential object marking in Spanish, Hindi, and Romanian as heritage languages. Language, 91(3), 564–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. A., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27, 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. A., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: The effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 503–553.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A. & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351–398.Google Scholar
Murphy, V. A. (1997). The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task. Second Language Research, 13(1), 34–65.Google Scholar
Orfitelli, R. & Grüter, T. (2014). Do null subjects really transfer? In Cabrelli-Amaro, J., Judy, T., & y Cabo, D. Pascual, eds., Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Orfitelli, R. & Polinsky, M. (2017). When performance masquerades as comprehension: Grammaticality judgments in non-native speakers. In Kopotev, M., Lyashevskaya, O., & Mustajoki, A., eds., Quantitative Approaches to the Russian Language. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
Pollack, I. & Norman, D. A. (1964). A nonparametric analysis of signal detection experiments. Psychonomic Science, 1, 125–126.Google Scholar
Prévost, P. & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (2012). Review article: Psycholinguistic techniques and resources in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 28, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (2000). When syntactic theories evolve: Consequences for L2 acquisition research. In Archibald, J., ed., Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 156–186.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (1999). The parameter of aspect in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 15(3), 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2010). Using Magnitude Estimation in developmental linguistic research. In Blom, E. & Unsworth, S., eds., Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinner, P. & Gass, S. M. (2019). Using Judgments In Second Language Acquisition Research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language, 87, 274–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2012). A test of the relation between working-memory capacity and syntactic island effects. Language, 88, 82–123.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K. (2014). Event-related potentials (ERPs) in second language research: A brief introduction to the technique, a selected review, and an invitation to reconsider critical periods in L2. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 393–417.Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N. & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 173–204.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2005). Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the use of grammaticality judgment tasks in linguistic theory. Second Language Studies, 24, 129–167.Google Scholar
Waters, G., Caplan, D., & Rochon, E. (1995). Processing capacity and sentence comprehension in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12(1), 1–30. DOI:10.1080/02643299508251990Google Scholar
Waters, G., Caplan, D., & Yampolsky, S. (2003). On-line syntactic processing under concurrent memory load. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 88–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westcott, T. & Fanselow, G. (2011). On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. & Genesee, F. (1996). How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whong-Barr, M. & Schwartz, B. D. (2002). Morphological and syntactic transfer in child L2 acquisition of the English dative alternation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 579–616.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×