Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:17:33.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Production vs. Comprehension: Differences in Underlying Competences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Suzanne Flynn
Suzanne Flynn
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper empirical data are presented that demonstrate significant differences in the manner in which two commonly used experimental tasks evaluate developing linguistic competence in adult second language (L2) learners. Results indicate that production tests principally evaluate a learner's developing structural competence in the L2. On the other hand, comprehension tests provide a less direct measure of structural competence and are significantly influenced by pragmatic context.

Fifty-one adult Spanish speakers at three levels of ESL ability were tested in both their elicited imitation (production) and act-out (comprehension) of complex sentences that were structurally identical. The stimuli varied in terms of the pre- and post-posing of a subordinate adverbial when clause and in terms of the direction of pronoun anaphora (forward and backward). Results from the production test indicate a significant effect of directionality, i.e., a preference for forward pronouns in post-posed clauses at the intermediate level. Results from the comprehension test did not show a significant directionality constraint at any level. They did, however, demonstrate a significant effect due to the use of a biasing pragmatic lead. Such findings are comparable to those found in early first language acquisition (Lust, Loveland, & Kornet, 1980). Implications of these findings for experimental methodology are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 135 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

REFERENCES

Brandsford, J.D. & Johnson, M.K.. 1972. Contextual prerequisites for understanding some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Language and Verbal Behavior 11; 717–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrell, P. 1983. Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning 33; 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaslain, K. 1979. Testing comprehension tests. TESOL Quarterly 13; 81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1984. Changing perspectives on knowledge and use of language. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. 1981. The effects of first language branching direction on the acquisition of second language. In Harbert, W. & Herschensohn, J. (eds), Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 50–63. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. 1983a. A study of the effects of principal branching direction in second language acquisition: The generalization of a parameter of universal grammar from first to second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. 1983b. Differences between first and second language acquisition: Setting the parameters of universal grammar. In Rogers, D. & Sloboda, J. (eds.), Acquisition of symbolic skills, pp. 485–500. London: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, S. 1984. A universal in L2 acquisition based on a PBD typology. In Eckman, F.. Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (eds.), Universals of second language acquisition, pp. 75–87. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. In press. L2 acquisition of pronoun anaphora: Resetting the parameter. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora: Applying the constraints, Vol. II. Dordrecht: Reidel Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. forthcoming. Adult L2 acquisition: Resetting the parameters of universal grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. & Espinal, I.. 1985. Head-initial/head-final parameter in adult Chinese L2 acquisition of English. Second Language Acquisition Research I; 93–117.Google Scholar
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U., & Brown, R.. 1963. Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension, and production. Journal of Verbal Language and Verbal Behavior 2; 121–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallimore, R. & Tharp, R.. 1981. The interpretation of elicited sentence imitation in a standardized context. Language Learning 2; 349–92.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1983. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.), Language transfer in language learning, pp. 69–82. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hamayan, E., Saegert, J., & Larudee, P.. 1975. Elicited imitation in second language learners. Working Papers in Bilingualism 6; 46–8.Google Scholar
Hood, L. & Lightbown, P.. 1978. What children do when asked to “say what I say”: Does elicited imitation measure linguistic knowledge? Allied Health and Behavioral Sciences I; 195–219.Google Scholar
Hust, J. & Brame, M.. 1976. Jackendoff on interpretive semantics. Linguistic Analysis 2; 243–77.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. 1980. On some phonologically null elements in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keppel, G. 1973. Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 1984. The syntax of verbs: From verb-movement rules in Kru languages to universal grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publishers.Google Scholar
LoCoco, V. 1976. A comparison of the three methods for the collection of L2 data: Free compositions, translations, and picture description. Working Papers in Bilingualism 8; 59–96.Google Scholar
Lust, B. 1981. A constraint on anaphora in early child language: A prediction for a universal. In Tavakolian, S. (ed.), Linguistic theory and first language acquisition, pp. 74–96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lust, B. In press. Introduction. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, defining the constraints, Vol. I. Dordrecht: Reidel Press.Google Scholar
Lust, B. & Barazagni, N.. The structure of coordination in first language acquisition of Syrian Arabic. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Lust, B. & Wakayama, T.. 1979. The structure of coordination in young children's acquisition of Japanese. In Eckman, F. & Hastings, A. (eds.). Studies in first and second language acquisition, pp. 134–52. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lust, B.Loveland, K., & Kornet, R.. 1980. The development of anaphora in first language: Syntactic and pragmatic constraints. Linguistic Analysis 6; 359–92.Google Scholar
Lust, B. & Mervis, C.. 1980. Coordination in the natural speech of young children. Journal of Child Language 7; 279–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lust, B. & Mangione, L.. 1983. The principal branching direction parameter in first language acquisition of anaphora. In Sells, P. and Jones, C. (eds.), North East Linguistic Society 13, pp. 145–60. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Lust, B. & Chien, Y. C.. 1984. The structure of coordination in first language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence for a universal. Cognition 17; 49–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lust, B.Chien, Y. C., & Flynn, S.. In press. What Children Know: Comparison of experimental methods for the study of first language acquisition. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora: Defining the Constraints Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. 1983. Some current issues in the study of the acquisition of grammar. In Flavell, J. & Markman, E. (eds.), P. Mussen Carmichael's handbook of child psychology (4th ed.). Vol. 3, Cognitive Development, pp. 707–86. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Naiman, N. 1974. The use of elicited imitation in second language acquisition research. Working Papers in Bilingualism 2; 1–37.Google Scholar
Nurss, J. R. & Day, D. E.. 1971. Imitation, comprehension and production of grammatical structures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10; 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oiler, J. 1973. Cloze tests of second language proficiency and what they measure. Language Learning 23; 105–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Kent, England: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1982. Wh movement, negation, and the pro-drop parameter. In Rizzi, L. (ed.). Issues in Italian Syntax, pp. 55–90. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. 1984. Description and exploration in inter-language syntax. Language Learning 3; 127–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savignon, S. 1982. Dictation as a measure of communicative competence in French as a second language. Language Learning 32; 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. & Tucker, G.. 1974. Errors analysis and English language strategies of Arab students. Language Learning 24; 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solan, L. 1983. Pronominal reference: Language acquisition and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Dumas, G., & Naiman, N.. 1974. Alternatives to spontaneous speech: Elicited translation and imitation as indicators of second language competence. Working Papers in Bilingualism 3; 68–79.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. 1981. On the non-evidence for a special comp. structure in Spanish. Unpublished manuscript. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar