Volume 47, Issue 2

Usage-based models claim that first language learning is based on the frequency-based analysis of memorised phrases. It is not clear though, whether adult second language learning works in the same way. It has been claimed that non-native language lacks idiomatic formulas, suggesting that learners neglect phrases, focusing instead on orthographic words. While a number of studies challenge the claim that non-native language lacks formulaicity, these studies have two important shortcomings: they fail to take account of appropriate frequency information and they pool the writing of different learners in ways that may mask individual differences. Using methodologies which avoid these problems, this study found that non-native writers rely heavily on high-frequency collocations, but that they underuse less frequent, strongly associated collocations (items which are probably highly salient for native speakers). These findings are consistent with usage-based models of acquisition while accounting for the impression that non-native writing lacks idiomatic phraseology.

Acquiring an adequate vocabulary is a cognitive challenge for foreign language learners. Varied exposures to newly acquired words as they occur in meaningful contexts may facilitate the process of vocabulary learning. In this study we investigated the effects of such a multiple-strategy-based vocabulary teaching approach. We conducted an experiment with 115 Taiwanese high school students, interviewed teachers, and engaged in classroom observations. The experiment involved a no-strategy control condition and two experimental conditions which utilized 7 different pedagogical activities. Interviews indicated increased student oral, listening, and reading proficiency. Observation data showed that multiple strategies led to learners' active participation and animated vocabulary teaching. The post-test mean scores of the experimental group participants ranked higher than those of the control group in word knowledge. The results also indicated that overall classroom language performance had been enhanced. The findings suggest that using multiple-strategy approaches, such as this one, are beneficial in the acquisition of L2 vocabulary.

This study investigates the acquisition of post-verbal (temporal) adverbials and post-verbal negation in L2 Dutch. It is based on previous findings for L2 French that post-verbal negation poses less of a problem for L2 learners than post-verbal adverbial placement (Hawkins, Towell, Bazergui, Second Language Research 9: 189–233, 1993; Herschensohn, Minimally raising the verb issue: 325–336, Cascadilla Press, 1998). The current data show that, at first sight, Moroccan and Turkish learners of Dutch also have fewer problems with post-verbal negation than with post-verbal adverbials. However, when a distinction is made between different types of adverbials, it seems that this holds for adverbials of position such as ‘today’ but not for adverbials of contrast such as ‘again’. To account for this difference, it is argued that different types of adverbial occupy different positions in the L2 data for reasons of scope marking. Moreover, the placement of adverbials such as ‘again’ interacts with the acquisition of finiteness marking (resulting in post-verbal placement), while there is no such interaction between adverbials such as ‘today’ and finiteness marking.