Book contents
- High-Level Language Proficiency in Second Language and Multilingual Contexts
- High-Level Language Proficiency in Second Language and Multilingual Contexts
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Age Effects on Language Acquisition, Retention and Loss
- 2 The Last Barriers in High-Level L2 Speech
- 3 Discourse and Interaction in Highly Proficient L2 Users
- 4 Formulaic Language in Advanced Long-Residency L2 Speakers
- 5 Developing Lexical Complexity in Oral Production
- 6 Reading Comprehension in Advanced L2 Readers
- 7 Polyglotism
- 8 What’s the Target?
- Index
- References
Introduction
High-Level Proficiency and the Concept of Nativelikeness in Second Language and Multilingual Research Practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 June 2018
Book contents
- High-Level Language Proficiency in Second Language and Multilingual Contexts
- High-Level Language Proficiency in Second Language and Multilingual Contexts
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Age Effects on Language Acquisition, Retention and Loss
- 2 The Last Barriers in High-Level L2 Speech
- 3 Discourse and Interaction in Highly Proficient L2 Users
- 4 Formulaic Language in Advanced Long-Residency L2 Speakers
- 5 Developing Lexical Complexity in Oral Production
- 6 Reading Comprehension in Advanced L2 Readers
- 7 Polyglotism
- 8 What’s the Target?
- Index
- References
Summary
The introductory chapter puts the content of the book in context. It explains that the book discusses results from a large-scale research programme, High-Level Proficiency in Second Language Use, in the various investigations of which a crowd of more than one thousand people in all participated. Participants had Swedish as their L1 and English, French, Italian or Spanish as their L2, or Spanish as their L1 and Swedish as their L2. Theoretically, the book is framed in psycholinguistic, or cognitive, as well as sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition and bi-/multilingualism. The chapter points to the fact that research on second language acquisition, until recently, has been less engaged with the most advanced or near-native stages of second language development than initial or intermediate stages. It underscores that the most advanced stages are decisive for second language theory, as this is where theoretical assumptions can be ultimately put to test. It engages particularly with the notions of native and near-native speaker. For language teaching practice, the book provides new insights into the teaching of languages at the most advanced stages, which is indeed much desired. The chapter, naturally, also comprises a brief summary of the chapters of the book.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Abrahamsson, N. 2013. The critical period hypothesis (CPH), in Robinson, P. (ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K. 2009. Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning 59/2: 249–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andringa, S. 2014. The use of native speaker norms in critical period hypothesis research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 36/3: 565–596.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2000. Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition: Form, Meaning, and Use. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bartning, I., Forsberg Lundell, F. & Hancock, V. 2012. On the role of linguistic contextual factors for morpho-syntactic stabilization in high-level L2 French. High-level L2 acquisition, learning and use. Thematic issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34/2: 243–267.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
Bhatia, T. & Ritchie, W. (eds.) 2009. The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 2nd Edition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bijvoet, E. & Fraurud, K. 2012. Studying high-level (L1–L2) language development and use among young people in multilingual Stockholm: the role of perceptions of ambient sociolinguistic variation. High-level L2 acquisition, learning, and use. Thematic issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34/2: 291–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. 2006. Age and second language acquisition and processing: a selective overview. Language Learning 56: 9–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E., Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K. 2012. Does first language maintenance hamper nativelikeness in a second language? High-level L2 acquisition, learning, and use. Thematic issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34/2: 215–241.Google Scholar
Bylund, E., Hyltenstam, K. & Abrahamsson, N. 2013. Age of acquisition effects or effects of bilingualism in second language ultimate attainment? in Granena, G. & Long, M. (eds.), Sensitive Periods, Language Aptitude, and Ultimate L2 Attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 69–103.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., Murcia-Serra, J., Watorek, M. & Bendiscioli, A. 2000. The relevance of information organization to second language acquisition studies: the descriptive discourse of advanced adult learners of German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 441–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33: 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. 2002. Background to the L2 user, in Cook, V. (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1–28.Google Scholar
Davies, A. 2003. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. & Larson-Hall, J. 2005. What does the Critical Period really mean? In Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 88–108.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. 2017. Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘native versus non-native speaker’. Applied Linguistics, published online January 2017. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds.) 2003. Handbook in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eliaso Magnusson, J. & Stroud, C. (2012). High proficiency in markets of performance: A sociocultural approach to nativelikeness. High-level L2 acquisition, learning, and use. Thematic issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34/2: 321–345.Google Scholar
Forsberg Lundell, F. & Bartning, I. (eds.) 2015. Cultural Migrants and Optimal Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsberg Lundell, F., Bartning, I., Engel, H., Gudmundson, A., Hancock, V. & Lindqvist, C. 2014. Beyond advanced stages in high-level spoken French L2. Journal of French Language Studies 24: 1–26.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (eds.) 2012. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Aacquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M. (eds.) 2013. The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. 2015. Language Proficiency in Native and Non-Native Speakers. Theory and Research. Language Learning & Language Teaching, 41. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 2012. Critical period, in Chapelle, C. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley online library. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI:10.1002/9781405198431.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. 2016. Introduction: perspectives on advanced second language proficiency, in Hyltenstam, K. (ed.), Advanced Proficiency and Exceptional Ability in Second Languages. Boston. MA: de Gruyter Mouton. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. & Abrahamsson, N. 2003. Maturational constraints in SLA, in Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. 539–588.Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. 2006. Language ideology and language prejudice, in Finegan, E. & Rickford, J. R. (eds.), Language in the USA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 289–304.Google Scholar
Long, M. 2013. Maturational constraints on child and adult SLA, in Granena, G. & Long, M. (eds.), Sensitive Periods, Language Aptitude, and Ultimate L2 Attainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 3–41.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2005. A unified model of language acquisition, in Kroll, J. F. & de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 49–67.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. 1985, Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nortier, J. & Svendsen, B. A. (eds.) 2015. Language, Youth and Identity in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. 2013. SLA for the 21st century: disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning 63/1: 1–24.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (eds.) 2004. Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rampton, M. B. H. 1990. Displacing the ‘Native Speaker’: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal 44/2: 97–101.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. 2015. Contemporary urban vernaculars, in Nortier, J. & Svendsen, B. A. (eds.), Language, Youth and Identity in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 24–44.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. 2003. Near-nativeness. In Long, M. & Doughty, C. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. 130–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefson, J. W. 2000. Language ideology and language education, in Shaw, J.,Lubelska, D. &Noullet, M. (eds.), Partnership and Interaction: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology. 43–52.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by