Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:50:18.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elicited imitation as a measure of morphemic accuracy: Evidence from L2 Spanish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Donna E. West
Donna E. West*
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Cortland
*
Correspondence addresses: Donna E. West, Department of Modern Languages, State University of New York at Cortland, P.O. Box 2000, Cortland, NY 13045USA. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study measures whether number and type of morphemes in an elicited imitation string result in a greater number of modifications with L2 experience. Rationale is drawn from L2 working memory processing limitations at distinct levels of proficiency. 38 subjects (L2 Spanish university students) comprise three proficiency groups: beginning, undergraduate majors and graduate students. Number of morphemes was varied within each syllable count; and responses were either correct or modified (lexemically/inflectionally as deletions or substitutions). One or two way ANOVAs determined significance between mean proportions for each group. Findings indicate that increases in number of morphemes yielded significant differences, and that while the lowest proficiency group produced higher proportions of lexical deletions, the modifications made by more advanced groups were inflectional substitutions.

Keywords

elicited imitationworking memorysecond language acquisitionSpanishinflectionsmorphemic processing
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 203 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2012

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

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 1999. ACTFL Proficiency Levels Revised 1999. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science 4(11). 417–423.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. 2003. Working memory: Humans. In Byrne, J. H. (ed.), Learning and memory, 672–676. New York: Thomson-Gale.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. 2007. Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1986. Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child Development 57(2). 498–510.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. & Chaudron, C.. 1994. Elicited imitation as a measure of second-language competence. In Tarone, E., Gass, S. & Cohen, A. (eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition, 245–262. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Corrigan, R. 1982. Methodological issues in language acquisition with very young children. Developmental Review 2(2). 162–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. 2001. Memory for language. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 33–68. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. 2006. Cognitive processes in the emergence of second language as a dynamic system. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. 2008. Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 372–405. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. & Cadierno, T.. 2009. Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7. 111–139.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 2008. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2009. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In Ellis, R.Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J. & Reinders, H. (eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing, and teaching, 31–64. Tonawanda NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. 2006. Elicited Imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics 27(3). 464–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlam, R. 2009. The elicited oral imitation test as a measure of implicit knowledge. In Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C.Erlam, R., Philp, J. & Reinders, H. (eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing, and teaching, 65–93. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Eysenck, M. 2001. Principles of cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gathercole, S. E. & Baddeley, A. D.. 1993. Working memory and language. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hameyer, K. 1980. Testing oral proficiency via elicited imitation. Revue de phonétique appliquée 53. 11–24.Google Scholar
Hamayan, E., Saegert, J. & Larudee, P.. 1977. Elicited imitation in second language learners. Language and Speech 20. 86–97.Google Scholar
Jessop, L., Suzuki, W. & Tomita, Y.. 2007. Elicited imitation in second language acquisition research. Canadian Modern Language Review 61(1). 215–238.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. 2000. The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In Riggenbach, H. (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, 25–42. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S. & Murdock, B. B.. 1989. Memory for serial order. Psychological Review 96(1). 25–57.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Chien, Y.-C. & Flynn, S.. 1987. What children know: Methods for the study of first language acquisition. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora: Volume 2. Applying the constraints, 271–356. Dordrecht: Reidel Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, B., Flynn, S. & Foley, C.. 1996. What children know about what they say: Elicited imitation as a research method for assessing children's syntax. In McDaniel, D., McKee, C. & Cairns, H. S. (eds.), Methods for assessing children's syntax, 55–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. & Tatsumi, T.. 2002. Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning, 181–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miller, G. 1956. The magical number seven plus-or-minus two: Some limits of our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63. 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munnich, E., Flynn, S. & Martohardjono, G.. 1994. Elicited imitation and grammaticality judgment tasks: What they measure and how they relate to each other. In Tarone, E., Gass, S. & Cohen, A. (eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition, 227–245. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Naiman, N. 1974. The use of elicited imitation in second language acquisition research. Working Papers in Bilingualism 2. 1–37.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, N. 2000. The importance of recurring sequences for nonnative speaker fluency and cognition. In Riggenbach, H. (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, 220–240. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L. & Rubin, D. B.. 2000. Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. 2008. Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms. In Han, Z.-H. (ed.), Understanding second language process, 133–147. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. 2000. Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In Riggenbach, H. (ed.), Perspectives on fluency, 200–219. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1974. How big is a chunk? Science 183. 482–488.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Temple, L. 1997. Memory and processing modes in language learner speech production. Communication and Cognition 30(1/2). 75–90.Google Scholar
Valian, V. & Aubry, S.. 2005. When opportunity knocks twice: Two-year-olds' repetition of sentence subjects. Journal of Child Language 32. 617–641.Google Scholar
Valian, V., Hoeffner, J. & Aubry, S.. 1996. Young children's imitation of sentence subjects: Evidence of processing limitations. Developmental Psychology 32. 153–164.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. 2004. Input processing in SLA. In VanPatten, B. (ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary, 5–32. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Vinther, T. 2002. Elicited imitation: A brief overview. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(1). 54–73.Google Scholar
West, D. 2010a. Elicited imitation to measure L2 working memory capacity: Lexemic or inflectional alterations. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
West, D. 2010b. The role of proto-morphemes in the emergence of speaker inflections: Evidence for L1 scaffolding in Spanish. Hipertexto 12. 189–205.Google Scholar