Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T17:05:15.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Developing Lexical Complexity in Oral Production

Limitations and Possibilities of the Advanced L2 Learner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2018

By
Camilla Bardel  and
Anna Gudmundson
Edited by
Kenneth Hyltenstam ,
Inge Bartning  and
Lars Fant
Kenneth Hyltenstam
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Inge Bartning
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Lars Fant
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Get access

Summary

Drawing on oral production data from highly proficient learners of English, French and Italian, this chapter presents findings from a number of studies on lexical complexity, a concept seen as being divided into two classifications: ‘lexical sophistication’ and ‘lexical diversity’. The results show that attaining nativelike levels in lexical sophistication is very rare even after massive exposure to the target language in combination with instruction. Thus, a group of Swedish long-time residents in the UK only reach native levels on one out of three tasks; in this group, however, a few individuals stand out as being equal to the native controls in the test. Also, no highly proficient users of L2 Italian attain native levels, whereas a few highly proficient users of L2 French do. In contrast, a longitudinal case study of one Italian L2 learner shows success within native range. With regard to lexical diversity in comparison with lexical sophistication, the analysis shows even lower targetlikeness both for speakers of L2 Italian and of L2 English.
Type
Chapter
Information
High-Level Language Proficiency in Second Language and Multilingual Contexts , pp. 120 - 145
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

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

Bardel, C. 2016. The lexicon of advanced L2 learners, in Hyltenstam, K. (ed.), Advanced Proficiency and Exceptional Ability in Second Languages. Boston, MA/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 73–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardel, C., Gudmundson, A. & Lindqvist, C. 2012. Aspects of lexical sophistication in advanced learners’ oral production:vocabulary acquisition and use in L2 French and Italian. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34: 269–290.Google Scholar
Bartning, I. & Forsberg Lundell, F. 2018 (this volume, Chapter 2). The last barriers in high-level L2 speech: morphosyntax in focus, in Hyltenstam, K., Bartning, I. & Fant, L. (eds.), High-Level Language Proficiency in Second Language and Multilingual Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bartning, I. & Schlyter, S. 2004. Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2. Journal of French Language Studies 14: 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartning, I. Forsberg, F. & Hancock, V. 2009. Resources and obstacles in very advanced L2 French. Formulaic language, information structure and morphosyntax, in Roberts, L., Véronique, D., Nilsson, A. & Tellier, M. (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 185–211.Google Scholar
Bultè, B. & Housen, A. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity, in Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 21–46.Google Scholar
Campione, E., Véronis, J. & Deulofeu, J. 2005. The French corpus, in Cresti, E. & Moneglia, M. (eds.), C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 111–133.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. Web Vocabprofile [from www.lextutor.ca/vp/], an adaptation of Heatley, Nation & Coxhead’s (2002) Range.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. 2013. Frequency 2.0: incorporating homoforms and multiword units in pedagogical frequency lists, in Bardel, C., Lindqvist, C. & Laufer, B. (eds.), L2 Vocabulary Acquisition, Knowledge and Use: New Perspectives on Assessment and Corpus Analysis. Eurosla Monograph Series 2: 79–108.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. & Horst, M. 2004. Is there room for an academic wordlist in French? in Boogards, P. & Laufer, B. (eds.), Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition, and Testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 15–38.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34: 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E. & Moneglia, M. 2005. C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S. & Jarvis, S. 2011. Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing 28/4: 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cvikić, L. 2007. The importance of language specific features for vocabulary acquisition: an example of Croatian, in Lengyel, Z. & Navracsics, J. (eds.), Second Language Lexical Processes: Applied Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 189–214.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2009. Testing the assumption of complexity invariance: the case of Elfdalian and Swedish, in Sampson, D, Gil, P. & Trudgil, P. (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 50–63.Google Scholar
De Clerq, B. 2015. The development of lexical complexity in second language acquisition. A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. Eurosla Yearbook 15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 69–94.Google Scholar
De Mauro, T., Mancini, F., Vedovelli, M. & Voghera, M. 1993. Lessico di Frequenza dell’Italiano Parlato (1st edn.). Milano: Etaslibri.Google Scholar
Durrant, P. & Schmitt, N. 2009. To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47/2: 157–237.Google Scholar
Engber, C. A. 1995. The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing 4/2: 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, B., Forsberg Lundell, F. & Lewis, M. 2018 (this volume, Chapter 4). Formulaic language in advanced long-residency L2 speakers, in Hyltenstam, K., Bartning, I. & Fant, L. (eds.), High-Level Language Proficiency in Second Language and Multilingual Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erman, B. & Lewis, M. 2013. Vocabulary in advanced L2 English speech, in Johannesson, N.-L., Melchers, G. & Björkman, B. (eds.), Of Butterflies and Birds, Dialects and Genres. Stockholm Studies in English 104. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. 93–108.Google Scholar
Erman, B. & Lewis, M. 2015. There is nothing like native speech: a comparison of native and very advanced non-native speech, in Shaw, P., Erman, B., Melchers, G. & Sundkvist, P. (eds.), From Clerks to Corpora: Essays on the English Language Yesterday and Today. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press. 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, B. & Lewis, M. under review. L2 English vocabulary in three oral tasks by two advanced Swedish groups compared to native speakers.Google Scholar
Fant, L. 2018 (this volume, Chapter 3). Discourse and interaction in highly proficient L2 users, in Hyltenstam, K., Bartning, I. & Fant, L. (eds.), High-Level Language Proficiency in Second Language and Multilingual Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forsberg Lundell, F. & Lindqvist, C. 2012. Vocabulary aspects of advanced L2 French: do lexical formulaic sequences and lexical richness develop at the same rate? Language, Interaction & Acquisition 3/1: 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg Lundell, F., Bartning, I., Engel, H., Gudmundson, A., Hancock, V. & Lindqvist, C. 2014. Beyond advanced stages in high-level spoken L2 French. Journal of French Language Studies 24/2: 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Bolibaugh, C. & Kotula, A. 2014. Knowledge of nativelike selections in a L2: the influence of exposure, memory, age of onset, and motivation in foreign language and immersion settings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36: 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gudmundson, A. & Bardel, C. 2015. Beyond native-like? The lexical profile of a cultural migrant in Italy, in Forsberg Lundell, I. & Bartning, I. (eds.), Cultural Migrants and Optimal Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 17–58.Google Scholar
Heatley, A., Nation, I. S. P. & Coxhead, A. 2002. RANGE and FREQUENCY programs. Available at www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation.aspx.Google Scholar
Henriksen, B. 2013. Research on L2 learners’ collocational competence and development – a progress report, in Bardel, C., Lindqvist, C. & Laufer, B. (eds.), L2 Vocabulary Acquisition, Knowledge and Use: New Perspectives on Assessment and Corpus Analysis. Eurosla Monograph Series 2: 29–56.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (ed.) 2016. Advanced Proficiency and Exceptional Ability in Second Languages. Boston, MA/Berlin: De Gruyter/Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., Bartning, I. & Fant, L. 2018 (this volume, Introduction). Introduction: high-level proficiency and the concept of nativelikeness in second language and multilingual research practice, in Hyltenstam, K., Bartning, I. & Fant, L. (eds.), High-Level Language Proficiency in Second Language and Multilingual Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. 2013a. Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning 63 (supplement 1): 87–106.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. 2013b. Defining and measuring lexical diversity, in Jarvis, S. & Daller, M. (eds.), Vocabulary Knowledge: Human Ratings and Automated Measures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 13–44.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. 1986. Possible changes in attitude toward vocabulary acquisition research. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 24/1: 69–75Google Scholar
Laufer, B. & Nation, P. 1995. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16/3: 307–322.Google Scholar
Lindqvist, C. 2010. La richesse lexicale dans la production orale de l’apprenant avancé de français. Canadian Modern Language Review 66/3: 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, C., Bardel, C. & Gudmundson, A. 2011. Lexical richness in the advanced learner’s oral production of French and Italian L2. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 49/3: 221–240.Google Scholar
Lindqvist, C., Gudmundson, A. & Bardel, C. 2013. A new approach to measuring lexical sophistication in L2 oral production, in Bardel, C., Lindqvist, C. & Laufer, B. (eds.), L2 Vocabulary Acquisition, Knowledge and Use. New Perspectives on Assessment and Corpus Analyses. Eurosla Monographs Series 2. Amsterdam: Eurosla. 109–126.Google Scholar
Linell, P. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. 1990. Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 251–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Malvern, D. D. & Richards, B. J. 1997. A new measure of lexical diversity, in Ryan, A. & Wray, A. (eds.), Evolving Models of Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 58–71.Google Scholar
Malvern, D. D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N. & Durán, P. 2004. Lexical Diversity and Language Development: Quantification and Assessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. & Jarvis, S. 2007. VocD: a theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing 24/4: 459–488.Google Scholar
Milton, J. 2009. Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Milton, J. 2013. Measuring the contribution of vocabulary knowledge to proficiency in the four skills, in Bardel, C., Lindqvist, C. & Laufer, B. (eds.), L2 Vocabulary Acquisition, Knowledge and Use: New Perspectives on Assessment and Corpus Analysis. Eurosla Monograph Series 2. Amsterdam: Eurosla. 57–78.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. 2015. A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research 31/1: 117–134.Google Scholar
Pauletto, F. & Bardel, C. 2016. Pointing backward and forward: be’-prefaced responsive turns in Italian L1 and L2. Language, Interaction & Acquisition 7/1: 89–116.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. & Syder, F. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency, in Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman. 91–106.Google Scholar
Read, J. 2000. Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sanell, A. 2007. Parcours acquisitionnel de la egation et de quelques particules de portée en français L2. Doctoral dissertation: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Tidball, F. & Treffers Daller, J. 2008. Analyzing lexical richness in French learner language: what frequency lists and teachers’ judgement can tell us about basic and advanced words. Journal of French Language Studies 18/3: 299–313.Google Scholar
Ure, J. 1971. Lexical density and register, in Perren, G. E. & Trimm, J. L. M. (eds.), Applications of Linguistics: Selected Papers of the 2nd International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Cambridge 1969. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 443–452.Google Scholar
Vermeer, A. 2001. Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics 22/2: 217–234.Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N. 2012. The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: a longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal 96/4: 576–598.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim, H. Y. 1998. Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Yu, G. 2010. Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics 31/2: 236–259.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×