Despite considerable interest in second language (L2) relative clauses (RCs)—one of the most difficult grammatical structures to learn—and in learner agency, few research efforts have been made to investigate how the latter informs the acquisition of the former. The current study looks at a native-like adult L2 Korean learner’s comprehension/production of Korean RCs and the trajectory of his acquisition of the RCs.
Methodology:
The research instruments consisted of RC comprehension/production tasks and autobiographic interviews.
Data and analysis:
The L2 learner’s responses in the comprehension task and those in the production task (audio-recorded) were reviewed for their accuracy. The processes of analyzing the interview data involved labeling themes/concepts forming from the data and interlinking categories to create larger, more general categories.
Findings:
The results indicated that the L2 learner’s performance on the tasks was native-like, and that he had actively exercised his learner agency which had dynamically interacted with context to achieve such native-likeness.
Originality:
This study distinguishes itself from the few previous studies on exceptional adult L2 learners by focusing on grammatical competence in relation to agency.
Significance:
The current interpretive study—which used autobiographical interviews to examine the dynamic trajectory of L2 RC acquisition—indicates the importance of an L2 learner’s agency.
AbrahamssonN.HyltenstamK. (2008). The robustness of aptitude effects in near-native second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 481–509.
AjsicA. (2015). ‘Crossing’ into the L2 and back: Agency and native-like ultimate attainment by a post-critical-period learner. In DetersP.GaoX.MillerE. R.VitanovaG. (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 154–172). Multilingual Matters.
4.
Alcón-SolerE. (2013). Discourse and pragmatics in SLA. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 178–186). Routledge.
5.
AmmarA.LightbownP. M. (2004). Teaching marked linguistic structures: More about the acquisition of relative clauses by Arab learners of English. In HousenA.PierrardM. (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language learning (pp. 167–198). Mouton de Gruyter.
BensonP. (2004). (Auto)biography and learner diversity. In BensonP.NunanD. (Eds.), Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning (pp. 4–21). Cambridge University Press.
8.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
9.
BroadyE.DwyerN. (2008). Bringing the learner back into the process: Identifying learner strategies for grammatical development in independent language learning. In HurdS.LewisT. (Eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings (pp. 141–158). Multilingual Matters.
10.
BrymanA. (2004). Member validation and check. In Lewis-BeckM. S.BrymanA.LiaoT. F. (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (p. 633). SAGE.
11.
ByrnesH.SinicropeC. (2008). Advancedness and the development of relativization in L2 German: A curriculum-based longitudinal study. In OrtegaL.ByrnesH. (Eds.), The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 109–138). Routledge.
12.
CasanaveC. P. (2012). Diary of a dabbler: Ecological influences on an EFL teacher’s efforts to study Japanese informally. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 642–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.47
13.
ChoS. (1999). The acquisition of relative clauses: Experimental studies on Korean (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
14.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
15.
ComrieB. (2007). The acquisition of relative clauses in relation to language typology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 301–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070155
16.
CookH. M. (2008). Socializing identities through speech style: Learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Multilingual Matters.
17.
CreminT. (2014). Reading teachers: Teachers who read and readers who teach. In CreminT.MottramM.CollinsF. M.PowellS.SaffordK. (Eds.), Building communities of engaged readers: Reading for pleasure (pp. 67–88). Routledge.
18.
DaviesB.HarréR. (1999). Positioning and personhood. In HarréR.van LangenhoveL. (Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 32–52). Blackwell.
19.
DeKeyserR. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533.
DetersP.GaoX.MillerE. R.VitanovaG. (Eds.). (2015). Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches. Multilingual Matters.
22.
DócziB.KormosJ. (2016). Longitudinal developments in vocabulary knowledge and lexical organization. Oxford University Press.
23.
DuffP. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In GassS. M.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). Routledge.
24.
DuncanS. (2010). Understanding reading for pleasure for emerging adult readers. National Research and Development Centre for adult literacy and numeracy (NRDC), Institute of Education, University of London. http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/16527/1/doc_4716.pdf
25.
DuranC. S. (2015). Theorizing young language learner agency through the lens of multilingual repertoires: A sociocultural perspective. In DetersP.GaoX.MillerE. R.VitanovaG. (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 73–90). Multilingual Matters.
26.
EllisN. C.SagarraN. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4), 553–580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000264
27.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). Macmillan.
28.
FerrisD. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414–420. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3587446
29.
FlowerdewJ.MillerL. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
30.
García-FuentesC.McDonoughK. (2016). The effect of explicit instruction and task repetition on Colombian EFL students’ use of politeness strategies during disagreements. The Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 470–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1167232
31.
GassS.MackeyA. (2006). Input, interaction and output in SLA. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 173–196). Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
GitlinA.PeckM.AposhianN.HadleyS.PorterA. (2002). Looking again at insider knowledge: A relational approach to knowledge production and assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 303–315.
33.
GkonouC. (2015). Agency, anxiety and activity: Understanding the classroom behavior of EFL learners. In DetersP.GaoX.MillerE. R.VitanovaG. (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 195–212). Multilingual Matters.
HerschensohnJ. (2009). Fundamental and gradient differences in language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 259–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109090305
36.
HollandD.LachicotteW.JrSkinnerD.CainC. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Harvard University Press.
37.
HylandK. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
38.
IoupG.BoustagiE.El TigiM.MoselleM. (1994). Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: A case study of a successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(1), 73–98.
39.
JenksC. J. (2015). The semiotics of learning Korean at home: An ecological autoethnographic perspective. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 688–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1070788
40.
JeonK. S.KimH.-Y. (2007). Development of relativization in Korean as a foreign language: The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy in head-internal and head-external relative clauses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 253–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070131
41.
JohnsonR. R. B.ChristensenL. B. (2010). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE.
42.
KangD.-M. (2013). EFL teachers’ language use for classroom discipline: A look at complex interplay of variables. System, 41(1), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.002
43.
Kayi-AydarH. (2015). Teacher agency, positioning, and English language learners: Voices of pre-service classroom teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.009
44.
KenstowiczM.SohnH.-S. (2008). Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast: Korean liquid verb stems. Phonological Studies, 11, 99–110.
45.
KimA. E. (2009). Global migration and South Korea: Foreign workers, foreign brides and the making of a multicultural society. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(1), 70–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870802044197
46.
KimH.-S. H. (2008). Heritage and nonheritage learners of Korean: Sentence processing differences and their pedagogical implications. In Kondo-BrownK.BrownJ. D. (Eds.), Teaching Chinese, Japanese, and Korean heritage language students: Curriculum needs, materials, and assessment (pp. 99–134). Lawrence Erlbaum.
KormosJ. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In ByrnesH.ManchónR. M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193–216). John Benjamins.
LantolfJ. P.PavlenkoA. (2001). Second language activity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In BreenM. P. (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). Pearson Education.
52.
LantolfJ. P.ThorneS. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
Lee-EllisS. (2011). The elicited production of Korean relative clauses by heritage speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(1), 57–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000537
55.
LeslieH.StoreyD. (2003). Entering the field. In ScheyvensR.StoreyD. (Eds.), Development fieldwork: A practical guide (pp. 119–138). SAGE.
56.
LoewenS. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. Routledge.
57.
MackeyA. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami051
58.
MackeyA. (2007). Interaction as practice. In DeKeyserR. (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85–110). Cambridge University Press.
59.
MartinP. (2017). Merchants of labor: Recruiters and international labor migration. Oxford University Press.
60.
Menard-WarwickJ. (2005). Intergenerational trajectories and sociopolitical context: Latina immigrants in adult ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 165–185. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3588307
61.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE.
MillerE. R. (2015). Power, resistance and second language learning. In MarkeeN. (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 461–474). John Wiley & Sons.
MoxleyR. (1982). Writing and reading in early childhood: A functional approach. Educational Technology Publications.
66.
Murphy-GrahamE. (2012). Opening minds, improving lives: Education and women’s empowerment in Honduras. Vanderbilt University Press.
67.
NishikawaT. (2014). Nonnativeness in near-native child L2 starters of Japanese: Age and the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 504–529. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu018
68.
NorrisJ. M.ManchónR. M. (2012). Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In ManchónR. M. (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 221–244). de Gruyter Mouton.
Norton PeirceB. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587803
71.
O’GradyW.KwakH.-Y.LeeO.-S.LeeM. (2011). An emergentist perspective on heritage language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 223–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000744
72.
O’GradyW.LeeM.ChooM. (2003). A subject-object asymmetry in the acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 433–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000172
73.
O’GradyW.YamashitaY.LeeM.ChooM.ChoS. (2000). Computational factors in the acquisition of relative clauses. Proceedings of the international conference on the development of the mind (pp. 433–448). Keio University.
74.
OxfordR. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Pearson Longman.
75.
PaivaV. L. M.deO. (2011). Identity, motivation and autonomy in second language acquisition from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. In MurrayG.GaoX.LambT. (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp. 57–72). Multilingual Matters.
76.
ParisS. G.WinogradP. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In JonesB. F.IdolL. (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15–51). Lawrence Erlbaum.
77.
Park-JohnsonS. K. (2019). Case ellipsis: Acquisition of variability by young heritage speakers of Korean. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2018.1492281
78.
PavesiM. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8(1), 38–55.
79.
PavlenkoA. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm008
80.
PavlenkoA.LantolfJ. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In LantolfJ. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford University Press.
81.
PennycookA. (2010). Language as local practice. Routledge.
82.
PienemannM. (1998). Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2 acquisition: Processability theory and generative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(1), 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000017
83.
PillerI. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: Identity and success in second language learning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00184
84.
RichardsJ. C.SchmidtR. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Longman.
RobinsonP. (Ed.). (2002). Effects of individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory on adult incidental SLA: A replication and extension of Reber, Walker and Hernstadt (1991). In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences in instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). John Benjamins.
88.
SchmidtR. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In ChanW. M.ChiS.CinK. N.IstantoJ.NagamiM.SewJ. W.SuthiwanT.WalkerI. (Eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010 (pp. 721–737). National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
SongM.ParkerD. (1995). Commonality, difference and the dynamics of disclosure in in-depth interviewing. Sociology, 29(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038595029002004
91.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
92.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Longman.
93.
SwainM.SuzukiW. (2010). Interaction, output, and communicative language learning. In SpolskyB.HultF. M. (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 557–570). Wiley-Blackwell.
94.
UshiodaE. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity, and the L2 self (pp. 215–228). Multilingual Matters.
95.
van LierL. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In LantolfJ.PoehnerM. (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163–186). Equinox.
96.
VitanovaG.MillerE. R.GaoX.DetersP. (2015). Introduction to theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches. In DetersP.GaoX.MillerE. R.VitanovaG. (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 1–13). Multilingual Matters.
97.
WatsonI. (2014). Foreign aid and emerging powers: Asian perspectives on official development assistance. Routledge.
98.
WiechmannD. (2014). Understanding relative clauses: A usage-based view on the processing of complex constructions. Mouton de Gruyter.
99.
WilliamsJ. D. (2005). The teacher’s grammar book. Lawrence Erlbaum.
100.
WonY. (2016). Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR) and Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK). International Journal of Area Studies, 11(1), 39–58.
101.
Yabuki-SohN. (2007). Teaching relative clauses in Japanese: Exploring alternative types of instruction and the projection effect. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 219–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310707012X
ZembylasM. (2003). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(3), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600309378
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
