Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T07:38:38.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: RECENT TRENDS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2005

Lourdes Ortega  and
Gina Iberri-Shea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Both common sense and expert knowledge tell us that learning a language other than the mother tongue is a complex process that happens through and over time. Time, indeed, is a construct implicated in many of the problems that second language acquisition researchers investigate. The purpose of this chapter is to survey longitudinal SLA research published in the last three years and to offer a critical reflection of best current longitudinal practices and desirable directions for future longitudinal SLA research. We highlight recent trends in longitudinal SLA research, paying particular attention to broad design choices and foci of research organized around four trends in SLA longitudinal investigation, and we describe key exemplary studies under each trend. We close by reflecting on some of the challenges and opportunities that await these longitudinal research programs in the future.

Type
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 25 , March 2005 , pp. 26 - 45
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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. 2003. Development and recoverability of L2 codas: A longitudinal study of Chinese-Swedish interphonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 313– 349.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig K. 1994. Reverse-order reports and the acquisition of tense: Beyond the principle of chronological order. Language Learning, 44, 243– 282.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig K. 2002. A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input in future expressions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 189– 198.Google Scholar
Belz J. A., & Kinginger C. 2002. The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 189– 214.Google Scholar
Byrnes H. 2002. Toward academic-level foreign language abilities: Reconsidering foundational assumptions, expanding pedagogical options. In B. L. Leaver & B. Shektman (Eds.), Developing professional-level language proficiency (pp. 34– 58). New York: Cambridge University Press
Collier V. P. 1989. How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 509– 531.Google Scholar
Collins L., Halter R. H., Lightbown P. M., & Spada N. 1999. Time and the distribution of time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 655– 680.Google Scholar
Cook V. (Ed.). 2002. Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cooper H., & Hedges L. V. (Eds.). 1994. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Doughty C., & Williams J. 1998. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197– 261). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Entwisle D. R., Alexander K. L., & Olson L. S. 2002. Baltimore Beginning School study in perspective. In E. Phelps, F. F. J. Furstenberg, & A. Colby (Eds.), Looking at lives: American longitudinal studies of the twentieth century (pp. 167– 193). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gebhard M. 2002. Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 15– 52.Google Scholar
Han Z.-H. 2002. A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543– 572.Google Scholar
Han Z.-H. 2004. Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hansen J. G. 2004. Developmental sequences in the acquisition of English L2 syllable codas: A preliminary study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 85– 124.Google Scholar
Harley B., & Hart D. 1997. Language aptitude and second-language proficiency in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 379– 400.Google Scholar
Hatch E., & Lazaraton A. 1991. The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York: HarperCollins/Newbury House.
Huebner T. 1983. A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
Hyltenstam K., & Abrahamsson N. 2003. Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539– 588). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ishida M. 2004. Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form -te i-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language Learning, 54, 311– 394.Google Scholar
Jackson J. 2002. Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and aspirations. System, 30, 65– 84.Google Scholar
Johnson B. 2001. Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educational Researcher, 30 (2), 3– 13.Google Scholar
Johnson R. B., & Onwuegbuzie A. J. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14– 26.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith K., & Karmiloff-Smith A. 2001. Pathways to language: From foetus to adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Keck C., Iberri-Shea G., Tracy N., & Wa-Mbaleka S. (forthcoming). Investigating the empirical link between interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Kim D., & Hall J. K. 2002. The role of an interactive book reading program in the development of second language pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 332– 348.Google Scholar
Klapper J., & Rees J. 2003. Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language learning context. Language Teaching Research, 7, 285– 314.Google Scholar
Kobayashi M. 2003. The role of peer support in ESL students' accomplishment of oral academic tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 337– 368.Google Scholar
Kramsch C. (Ed.) 2002. Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.
Lally C. G. (Ed.) 2001. Foreign language program articulation: Current practice and future prospects. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Lantolf J. P., & Genung P. B. 2002. “I'd rather switch than fight”: An activity-theoretic study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 175– 196). London: Continuum.
Lantolf J. P. & Thorne S. L. (forthcoming). Sociocultural theory and the sociogenesis of second language development. New York: Oxford University Press
Leki I. 2001. "A narrow thinking system:" Non-English-speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 39– 67.Google Scholar
Light R., & Pillemer D. 1984. Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lightbown P., Halter R., White J., & Horst M. 2002. Comprehension-based learning: The limits of “do it yourself.” The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 427– 464.Google Scholar
Loschky L., & Bley-Vroman R. 1993. Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123– 167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lyster R. 2004. Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399– 432.Google Scholar
Marx N. 2002. Never quite a “native speaker:” Accent and identity in the L2- and the L1. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 264– 281.Google Scholar
Maxwell J. A. 2004. Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33 (1), 3– 11.Google Scholar
McCafferty S. 2002. Gesture and creating zones of proximal development for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 192– 203.Google Scholar
Mellow D., Reeder K., & Forster E. 1996. Using time-series research designs to investigate the effects of instruction on SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 325– 350.Google Scholar
Norris J. M., & Ortega L. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417– 528.Google Scholar
Ortega L. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492– 518.Google Scholar
Pavlenko A. 1998. Second language learning by adults: Testimonies of bilingual writers. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 9 (1), 3– 19.Google Scholar
Peirce B. N. 1995. Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9– 31.Google Scholar
Perdue C., Benazzo S., & Giuliano P. 2002. When finiteness gets marked: The relation between morphosyntactic development and use of scopal items in adult language acquisition. Linguistics, 40, 849– 890.Google Scholar
Phelps E., Furstenberg F. F. J. & Colby A. (Eds.). 2002. Looking at lives: American longitudinal studies of the twentieth century. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Robinson P. 2001. Task complexity, cognition and second language syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287– 318). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rogoff B. 1995. Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. Rio & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139– 164). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sato C. 1990. The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Schmidt R. 1983. Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137– 174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schumann J. H. 1978. The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Scovel T. 1988. A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Singer J. D., & Willett J. B. 2003. Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Skehan P. 2002. Theorising and updating aptitude. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69– 93). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Spada N. 1997. Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 29, 1– 15.Google Scholar
Tashakkori A., & Teddlie C. (Eds.). 2002. The handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vavrus J. 2002. Postcoloniality and English: Exploring language policy and the politics of development in Tanzania. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 373– 398.Google Scholar
Watson-Gegeo K. A. 2004. Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 331– 350.Google Scholar