This study aimed to identify whether input-related factors such as comprehension-oriented input training plus immediate feedback could contribute to understanding syntactic representation entrenchment in late second-language (L2) acquisition.
Methodology:
A pre-test-training-post-test experimental design was adopted to offset the shortcoming of the non-experimental effect of previous research of L2 field. During the training session, the experimental group (EG) learned subject-verb structures through a comprehension-oriented method, and the control group (CG) read other syntactic structures. After reading, a comprehension-related question was provided for participants to answer, and immediate feedback was given.
Data and analysis:
Analysis of variance was run on reaction time of key regions and comprehension accuracy. The key regions of the sentence were the verb and the words right after the verb in the experimental sentences.
Findings/conclusions:
After two sessions of continuously intensive training of subject-verb agreement, structures were presented in a comprehension-oriented method, and significantly longer reading times in the post key regions of the sentences with syntactic violation sentences were evident in EG in the post-test, compared with the corresponding parts of the correct versions. There were no such differences in CG from pre-test to post-test. The results indicated that comprehension-oriented training method plus feedback played an important role in consolidating L2 syntactic representation of late L2 learners in the syntactic aspect not even evident in their L1.
Originality:
In the field of adult second-language syntax research, current study empirically and directly explored the role of comprehension-oriented training method plus feedback in entrenching L2 syntactic representation.
Significance/implications:
The study suggests that late L2 adults can entrench their relatively shallow representation through comprehension-oriented training plus feedback. Results of the current study provide evidence in favor of the usage-based theory and dynamic system theory.
AbrahamssonN.HyltenstamK. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59(2), 249–306.
2.
Armon-LotemS.WaltersJ.GagarinaN. (2011). The impact of internal and external factors on linguistic performance in the home language and in L2 among Russian Hebrew and Russian-German preschool children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(3), 291–317.
3.
AukrustV. G. (2007). Young children acquiring second language vocabulary in preschool group-time: Does amount, diversity, and discourse complexity of teacher talk matter?Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22, 17–37.
4.
BarlowM. (2000). Usage, blends and grammar. Usage-based models of language, 315–345.
5.
BarlowM.KemmerS. (Eds.). (2000). Usage based models of language. CSLI Publications.
6.
BirdsongD.MolisM. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 235–249.
7.
Blumenthal-DraméA. (2012). Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Walter de Gruyter.
8.
BohmanT. M.BedoreL. M.PeñaE. D.Mendez-PerezA.GillamR. B. (2010). What you hear and what you say: Language performance in early sequential Spanish–English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13, 325–344.
9.
BoswijkV.ColerM. (2020). What is salience?Open Linguistics, 6(1), 713–722.
10.
BrooksP. J.SekerinaI. (2006). Shortcuts to quantifier interpretation in children and adults. Language Acquisition, 13(3), 177–206.
11.
ButcherK.KintschW. (2013). Text comprehension and discourse processing. In HealyA. F.ProcterR. W.WeinerI. B. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 4). Experimental psychology (pp. 578–604). Wiley.
12.
BybeeJ. L. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press.
13.
BybeeJ. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.
14.
ChenL.ShuH.LiuY.ZhaoJ.LiP. (2007). ERP signatures of subject–verb agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(2), 161–174.
15.
ChipereN. (2003). Current theories of individual differences. Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
ChondrogianniV.MarinisT. (2011). Differential effects of internal and external factors on the development of vocabulary, morphology and complex syntax in successive bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 223–248.
17.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2006a). Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 107–126.
18.
ClahsenH.FelserC. (2006b). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
19.
CroftW. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.
20.
DabrowskaE. (1997). The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics, 35, 735–766.
21.
DabrowskaE. (2008a). The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 931–951.
22.
DabrowskaE. (2008b). The later development of an early-emerging system: The curious case of the Polish genitive. Linguistics, 46, 629–650.
23.
DąbrowskaE.SchmidH. J.HandlS. (2010). The mean lean grammar machine meets the human mind: Empirical investigations of the mental status of linguistic rules. In Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns: Empirical approaches (pp. 151–170). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216035
24.
De BotK.LowieW.VerspoorM. (2005). Second language acquisition, an advanced resource book. Routledge.
25.
DengT. P.DunlapS.ChenB. G. (2017). Effects of input training on second language syntactic representation entrenchment. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(1), 3–20.
26.
DöpkeS. (1992). One parent-one language: An interactional approach. John Benjamins.
27.
DörnyeiZ. (2010). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 230–248.
28.
DuongP. T.Montero PerezM.DesmetP.PetersE. (2021a). Differential effects of input-based and output-based tasks on L2 vocabulary learning. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 120–144.
29.
DuongP. T.Montero-PerezM.DesmetP.PetersE. (2021b). Learning vocabulary in spoken input- and output-based tasks. TASK, 1(1), 100–126.
30.
DussiasP. E.PinarP. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the analysis of wh-gaps by Chinese-English L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 26(4), 443–472
31.
DussiasP. E.SagarraN. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish-English bilinguals. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101
32.
EberhandK. M.CuttingJ. C.BockJ. K. (2005). Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review, 112(3), 531–559.
33.
EllisN. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
34.
EllisN. C. (2017). Salience in language usage, learning and change. In HundtM.MollinS.PfenningerS. (Eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 71–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FerreiraF.CliftonC.Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348–368.
37.
FlegeJ. E. (1992). Talker and listener effects on degree of perceived foreign accent. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91(1), 370–389.
38.
FlegeJ. E. (2009). Give input a chance! In PiskeT.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 175–190). Multilingual Matters.
39.
FlegeJ. E.LiuS. (2001). The effect of experience on adults’ acquisition of a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 527–552.
40.
GassS. M.MackeyA. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 180–206). Routledge.
41.
GathercoleV. C. M. (2002a). Grammatical gender in bilingual and monolingual children: A Spanish morphosyntactic distinction. In OllerD. K.EilersR. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 207–219). Multilingual Matters.
42.
GathercoleV. C. M. (2002b). Monolingual and bilingual acquisition: Learning different treatments of that-trace phenomena in English and Spanish. In OllerD. K.EilersR. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 220–254). Multilingual Matters.
43.
GathercoleV. C. M. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: A constructivist account of morphosyntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 224–247.
44.
GoldbergA. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago.
45.
GoldbergA. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.
46.
Gutiérrez-ClellenV. F.KreiterJ. (2003). Understanding child bilingual acquisition using parent and teacher reports. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 267–288.
47.
HardingE.RileyP. (1986). The bilingual family: A handbook for parents. Cambridge University Press.
48.
HarleyB.CumminsJ.SwainM.AllenP. (1990). The nature of language proficiency. In HarleyB.AllenP.CumminsJ.SwainM. (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 7–25). Cambridge University Press.
49.
HaskellT. R.ThorntonR.MacDonaldM. C. (2010). Experience and grammatical agreement: Statistical learning shapes number agreement production. Cognition, 114(2), 151–164.
50.
HjenA.HoffE.BlesesD.DaleP. S. (2021). The relation of home literacy environments to language and preliteracy skills in single- and dual-language children in Danish childcare. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 55, 312–325.
51.
HoffE. (2006). Special issue: Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to longitudinal data|| the uses of longitudinal data and person-centered analyses in the study of cognitive and language development. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 52(3), 633–644.
52.
HoffE. (2018). Lessons from the study of input effects on bilingual development. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006918768370
53.
HoffE.CoreC.PlaceS.RumicheR.SeñorM.ParraM. (2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 39, 1–27.
54.
HoffmannC. (1985). Language acquisition in two trilingual children. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(6), 479–495.
55.
HoppH. (2006). Syntactic features and reanalysis in near-native processing. Second Language Research, 22(3), 369–397.
56.
HoppH. (2015). Individual differences in the second language processing of object–subject ambiguities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 129–173.
57.
HuangB.ChangY.-H. S.ZhiM.NiuL. (2020). The effect of input on bilingual adolescents’ long-term language outcomes in a foreign language instruction context. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24, 8–25.
58.
IzumiS. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24, 168–196.
59.
JiaG.FuseA. (2007). Acquisition of English grammatical morphology by native Mandarin-speaking children and adolescents: Age-related differences. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 50(5), 1280–1299.
60.
JiangN. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603–634.
61.
JiangN. (2007). Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learning. Language Learning, 57(1), 1–33.
62.
JohnsonJ. S.NewportE. L. (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.
63.
JustM. A.CarpenterP. A.WoolleyJ. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.
64.
KaltsaM.PrentzaA.TsimpliI. M. (2017). The acquisition of gender by Greek-Albanian bilingual children: The role of input and bi/monolingual schooling. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 37, 315–326.
65.
KayneR. S. (2000). A note on prepositions, complementizers, and word order universals. In KayneR. S. (Eds.), Parameters and universals (pp. 314–326). New York: Oxford University Press.
66.
KeckC.Iberri-SheaG.Tracy-VenturaN.Wa-MbalekaS. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). John Benjamins.
67.
KimY. S. (2015). Language and cognitive prediction of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development, 86(1), 128–144.
68.
KinsellaC. (2009). An investigation into the proficiency of successful late learners of French [Unpublished doctoral thesis, Trinity College].
69.
KuoL. J.KuY. M.ChenZ.GezerM. Ü. (2020). The relationship between input and literacy and metalinguistic development: A study with Chinese–English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(1), 26–45.
70.
LangackerR. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In BarlowM.KemmerS. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). CSLI Publications.
71.
LangackerR. W. (2004). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press.
72.
LangackerR. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
73.
Larsen-FreemanD. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.
74.
LennebergE. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.
75.
LeVineR. A.LeVineS.SchnellB. (2001). “Improve the women”: Mass schooling, female literacy, and worldwide social change. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 1–51.
76.
LeVineR. A.LeVineS.Schnell-AnzolaB.RoweM. L.DexterE. (2011). Literacy and mothering: How women’s schooling changes the lives of the world’s children. Oxford University Press.
77.
LiP.BatesE.MacWhinneyB. (1993). Processing a language without inflections: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 169–192.
78.
LiP.JinZ.TanL. (2004). Neural representations of nouns and verbs in Chinese: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 21, 1533–1541.
79.
LiuH.BatesE.LiP. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(4), 451–484.
80.
LongD. L.PratC. S. (2008). Individual differences in syntactic ambiguity resolution: Readers vary in their use of plausibility information. Memory and Cognition, 36, 375–391.
81.
LukaB. J.BarsalouL. W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 436–459.
82.
LukaB. J.ChoiH. (2012). Dynamic grammar in adults: Incidental learning of natural syntactic structures extends over 48 hours. Journal of Memory & Language, 66, 345–360.
83.
LysterR.MoriH. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
84.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
85.
LysterR.SaitoK. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302.
86.
MacDonaldM. C.ChristiansenM. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just & Carpenter (1992) and Waters & Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109(1), 35–54.
87.
MontrulS.de la FuenteI.DavidsonJ.FooteR. (2013). The role of experience in the acquisition and production of diminutives and gender in Spanish: Evidence from L2 learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 29(1), 87–118.
88.
MontrulS.PotowskiK. (2007). Command of gender agreement in school-age Spanish– English bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11, 301–328.
89.
MoraJ. C.Valls-FerrerM. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 610–641.
90.
Morgan-ShortK.FingerI.GreyS.UllmanM. T. (2012). Second language processing shows increased native-like neural responses after months of no exposure. PLOS ONE, 7(3), Article e32974. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032974
91.
Morgan-ShortK.SteinhauerK.SanzC.UllmanM. T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(4), 933–947.
92.
MoyerA. (2004). Age, accent and experience in second language acquisition. An integrated approach to critical period inquiry. Multilingual Matters.
93.
MuellerJ. L.ObereckerR.FriedericiA. D. (2009). Syntactic learning by mere exposure: An ERP study in adult learners. BMC Neuroscience, 10, 89–97.
94.
MuñozC. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF project. In MuñozC. (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 1–40). Multilingual Matters.
95.
MuñozC. (2011). Input and long-term effects of starting age in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(2), 113–133.
96.
MuñozC. (2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35, 463–482.
97.
MuñozC.SingletonD. (2007). Foreign accent in advanced learners: Two successful profiles. EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 171–190.
98.
MurphyV. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years: Trends and contexts. Oxford University Press.
NorrisJ. M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
101.
OllerD. K.Cobo-LewisA. (2002). The ability of bilingual and monolingual children to perform phonological translation. In OllerD. K.EilersR. E. (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 255–280). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595721-012
102.
OswaldF. L.PlonskyL. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000115
103.
ParadisJ. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(3), 213–237.
104.
ParadisJ.GrüterT. (2014). Introduction to “Input and experience in bilingual development”. In GrüterT.ParadisJ. (Eds.), Input and experience in bilingual development (pp. 1–14). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.13.01int
105.
ParadisJ.RuskB.Sorenson DuncanT.GovindarajanK. (2017). Children’s second language acquisition of English complex syntax. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 148–167.
106.
ParadisJ.Soto-CorominasA.DaskalakiE.ChenX.GottardoA. (2021). Morphosyntactic development in first generation Arabic-English children: The effect of cognitive, age, and input factors over time and across languages. Languages, 6(1), 51.
107.
ParadisJ.TulparY.ArppeA. (2016). Chinese L1 children’s English L2 verb morphology over time: Individual variation in long-term outcomes. Journal of Child Language, 43, 553–580.
108.
PeñaE. D.BedoreL. M.ShivabasappaP.NiuL. (2020). Effects of divided input on bilingual children with language impairment. International Journal of Bilingualism, 24, 62–78.
109.
PlonskyL. (2011). Study quality in SLA: A cumulative and developmental assessment of designs, analyses, reporting practices, and outcomes in quantitative L2 research [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University].
110.
PlonskyL. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 655–687.
111.
PlonskyL. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 450–470.
112.
RantaL.MeckelborgA. (2002a). Development of the language activity log. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta.
113.
RantaL.MeckelborgA. (2002b). The Language Activity Log [software]. Unpublished instrument.
114.
ReitererS.PeredaE.BhattacharyaJ. (2009). Measuring second language proficiency with EEG synchronization: How functional cortical networks and hemispheric involvement differ as a function of proficiency level in second language speakers. Second Language Research, 25(1), 77–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658308098997
115.
RévészA. (2017). Replication in task-based language teaching research: Kim (2012) and Shintani (2012). Language Teaching, 52(3), 374–384.
116.
RoeschA. D.ChondrogianniV. (2016). “Which mouse kissed the frog?” Effects of age of onset, length of exposure, and knowledge of case marking on the comprehension of “Wh”-questions in German-speaking simultaneous and early sequential bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 43(3), 635–661.
117.
RogoffB. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.
118.
SaitoK.HanzawaK. (2018). The role of input in second language oral ability development in foreign language classrooms: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 22(4), 398–417.
119.
SchmidH.-J. (2007). Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In GeeraertsD.Cuyck-ensH. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–138). Oxford University Press.
120.
SchmidH.-J. (2013). Is usage more than usage after all? The case of English not that. Linguistics, 51(5), 75–116.
121.
SchmidH.-J. (2014). Entrenchment, memory and automaticity [Draft of the introduction to the volume]. American Psychology Association and Walter de Gruyter.
122.
SchmidtR. W. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–22). Cambridge University Press.
123.
SchöenpflugU.Küepping-FaturikovaL. (2018). Bilingual children’s story comprehension across language boundaries: Does retelling improve comprehension?International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(6), 657–675.
124.
SchöenpflugU.Küepping-FaturikovaL. (2020). Bilingual children’s narrative comprehension: Do pauses during retelling buy time for understanding?Journal of Genetic Psychology, 181(4), 206–222.
125.
ShintaniN. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research, 16(2), 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811431378
126.
Sorenson DuncanT.ParadisJ. (2020). How does maternal education influence the linguistic environment supporting bilingual language development in child second language learners of English?International Journal of Bilingualism, 24(1), 46–61.
127.
SseidA. E.AliH.DallaL. O. B. (2020). Children at learning a second language, and indeed might even be better: A literature review(LR). International Journal of Education and Modern Technology, 6(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29677.82401
128.
SteinhauerK.WhiteE. J.DruryJ. E. (2009). Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research, 25, 13–41.
129.
ThomasE. M.WilliamsN.Jones LlA.DaviesS.BinksH. (2014). Acquiring complex structures under minority language conditions: Bilingual acquisition of plural morphology in Welsh. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(3), 478–494.
130.
TomaselloM. (2000). First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1–2), 61–82.
131.
UnsworthS. (2016). Early child L2 acquisition: Age or input effects? Neither, or both?Journal of Child Language, 43(3), 608–634.
132.
UnsworthS.PerssonL.PrinsT.BotK. D. (2014). An investigation of factors affecting early foreign language learning in the Netherlands. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 527–548.
133.
Van DijkM.van GeertP. (2005). Disentangling behavior in early child development: Interpretability of early child language and the problem of filler syllables and growing utterance length. Infant Behavior and Development, 28(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.12.003
134.
Van GeertP. (1991). A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological Review, 98(1), 3–53.
135.
Van GeertP. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond. Psychological Review, 5, 634–677.
136.
Van GeertP. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 92, 179–199.
137.
VercellottiM. L. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistic, 38(1), 90–111.
138.
VerspoorM.de BotK.LowieW. (2004). Dynamic systems theory and variation: A case study in L2 writing. In AertsenH.HannayM.LyallR. (Eds.), Words in their places. A Festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie (pp. 407–421). Free University Press.
139.
VerspoorM.LowieW.de BotK. (2008) Input and second language development from a dynamic perspective. In PiskeT.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), Input matters in SLA (pp. 62–80). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691118-006
140.
WellsJ. B.ChristiansenM. H.RaceD. S.AchesonD. J.MacDonaldM. C. (2009). Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 250–271.
141.
WhiteE. J.GeneseeF.SteinhauerK. (2012). Brain responses before and after intensive second language learning: Proficiency based changes and first language background effects in adult learners. PLOS ONE, 7(12), e52318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052318
142.
WhiteL. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.
143.
WulffS. (2020). Usage-based approaches. In Tracy-VenturaN.PaquotM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and corpora (pp. 175–188). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351137904
144.
YamamotoM. (2001). Language use in interlingual families: A Japanese-English sociolinguistic study. Multilingual Matters.
145.
ZwaanR. A.LangstonM. C.GraesserA. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292–297.
