In this epilogue, I take a teaching practice and teacher education perspective on complexity in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. I take the stance that it is essential to understand if and how linguistic complexity relates to learning challenges, what the implications are for language pedagogy, and how this challenges the role of the teacher. Research shows that differences in task complexity may lead to differences in linguistic complexity in language learners’ speech or writing. Different tasks (e.g. descriptive vs narrative) and different modes (oral vs written) may lead to different types and levels of complexity in language use. On the one hand, this is a challenge for language assessment, as complexity in language performance may be affected by task characteristics. On the other hand, it is an opportunity for language teaching: using a diversity of tasks, modes and text types may evoke and stretch lexically and syntactically complex language use. I maintain that it is essential for teachers to understand that it is at least as important to aim for development in complexity as it is to aim for development in accuracy. Namely, that ‘errors’ in language learning are part of the deal: complex tasks lead to complex language use, including lexical and syntactical errors, but they are a necessary prerequisite for language development.
Posterpresentatie op Conferentie. Introduction: Classifiers are handshapes (sometimes combined with a specific orientation) that, when combined with the other parameters of movement and location form a ‘verb of motion or location’. There is a limited body of research available on the acquisition of classifiers by children. The available studies have focused on deaf children of deaf (DOD) parents, who are native signers. Results show that classifiers emerge at 3 years and approach an adult like level at the age of 9 (Beal Alvarez & Easterbrooks, 2013). This small study was set out to investigate the production of classifiers in DOH children who acquire Sign Language of the Netherlands. Our expectation was that DOH children produce classifiers, but fail to use them correctly in all instances due to lack of pragmatic control (Slobin et al., 2003). Method: Four children (two girls, two boys) were recruited at a school for the Deaf in The Netherlands (5;10 – 6;8 years). All children were deaf or severely hearing-impaired from birth. Children used (sign supported) Dutch at home and sign language at school and had approximately three years of exposure to sign language. Narratives (Frog-story) were recorded. The recordings were transcribed and analyzed using ELAN-software. Analysis focused on type of classifier (entity and handling) and accuracy in production. Results: The children produced 22 classifiers in total, 20 entity classifiers and 2 handling classifiers. Ten percent of the entity classifiers was incorrect; the handshape to express the entity did not match the handshape frequently selected for that entity. Conclusion: DOH children produce classifiers after three years of exposure to sign language. Errors in classifier production involved errors in handshape selection. This compares to type of errors frequently found for DOD children. Results will be discussed in relation to the iconic and gestural properties of classifiers (Cormier et al., 2012). References: Beal-Alvarez, J.S. & Easterbrooks, S.R. (2013). Increasing children’s ASL classifier production: A multicomponent intervention. American Annals of the Deaf, 158, 311 – 333. Cormier, K., Quinto-Pozos, D., Sevcikova, Z., Schembri, A. (2012). Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language & Communication, 32, 329 – 348. Slobin, D., Hoiting, N., Kuntze, K., Lindert, R., Weinberg, A. Pyers, J., Anthony, M., Biederman, Y., Thumann, H. (2003). A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of ‘classifiers’. In: Emmorey, K. (Ed.). Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Pp 297 – 310.
The aim of this dissertation is to examine how adult learners with a spoken language background who are acquiring a signed language, learn how to use the space in front of the body to express grammatical and topographical relations. Moreover, it aims at investigating the effectiveness of different types of instruction, in particular instruction that focuses the learner's attention on the agreement verb paradigm. To that end, existing data from a learner corpus (Boers-Visker, Hammer, Deijn, Kielstra & Van den Bogaerde, 2016) were analyzed, and two novel experimental studies were designed and carried out. These studies are described in detail in Chapters 3–6. Each chapter has been submitted to a scientific journal, and accordingly, can be read independently.1 Yet, the order of the chapters follows the chronological order in which the studies were carried out, and the reader will notice that each study served as a basis to inform the next study. As such, some overlap in the sections describing the theoretical background of each study was unavoidable.
MULTIFILE
