LEADER 05657nam 2200685 a 450 001 9910785922903321 005 20230801225136.0 010 $a1-283-89482-3 010 $a90-272-7326-X 035 $a(CKB)2670000000272562 035 $a(EBL)1040791 035 $a(OCoLC)815668618 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000832188 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12282295 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000832188 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10881985 035 $a(PQKB)10769793 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1040791 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1040791 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10611429 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL420732 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000272562 100 $a20120625d2012 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aDimensions of L2 performance and proficiency$b[electronic resource] $ecomplexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA /$fedited by Alex Housen, Folkert Kuiken, Ineke Vedder 210 $aAmsterdam ;$aPhiladelphia $cJohn Benjamins Pub. Co.$d2012 215 $a1 online resource (317 p.) 225 0$aLanguage learning and language teaching ;$vv. 32 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-1305-4 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aDimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Acknowledgements; Notes on contributors; Complexity, accuracy and fluency; 1. Introduction; 1.1 The origins of CAF; 1.2 Complexity, accuracy and fluency as research variables; 2. Challenges for CAF research; 2.1 How can complexity, accuracy and fluency be conceptualised and defined as constructs?; 2.2 What are the cognitive, linguistic and psycholinguistic correlates and underpinnings of CAF?; 2.3 How are the CAF components interconnected?; 2.4 How can CAF be operationalised and measured? 327 $a2.5 Which factors affect CAF?3. This volume; 4. Conclusion; References; Defining and operationalising L2 complexity; 1. Complexity in SLA research; 2. Defining complexity; 3. L2 complexity; 4. A survey of complexity measurement; 5. A closer look at syntactic complexity measures; 6. Conclusion; References; Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency from the perspective of psycholinguistic Second Language Acquisition research; 1. Introduction; 2. A model of second language acquisition; 2.1 Mental representation; 2.2 Kinds of learning; 2.3 Frequency; 2.4 Memory 327 $a3. Definitions of the constructs and relationship with the background assumptions 3.1 Accuracy; 3.2 Complexity; 3.3 Fluency; 4. Empirical investigations; 4.1 Linguistic competence: Triggering in L2; 4.2 Building mental representations for learned linguistic knowledge; 4.3 Mental representations in language processing: Proceduralisation; 5. Conclusion; References; Complexity, accuracy and fluency*; 1. Introduction; 2. Methodological issues; 2.1 Definition; 2.2 Identification; 2.2.1 Greater length and complexity; 2.2.2 Greater phonological coherence 327 $a2.2.3 Inappropriate use and overgeneralization 2.2.4 Non-substitutability; 2.2.5 Accuracy; 3. The study; 3.1 Participants; 3.1.1 Beginners; 3.1.2 Post-beginners; 3.2 Formulaic sequences investigated and their development; 3.2.1 Verb sequences: j'aime, j'adore, j'habite (I like, I love, I live); 3.2.2 Interrogative sequences; 3.2.2.1 Development of the interrogative system. Thirteen out of the sixteen beginner learners produce comment t'appelles-tu from the very first round of data collection, without any internal modification. By contrast, if we examine the interrogative 327 $a3.2.2.2 The development of interrogative sequences. This section analyses the development of the formulaic sequence comment t'appelles-tu? ("what's your name?"), as well as the different contexts in which it is used. More specifically, as this FS is in t4. Discussion; 4.1 Relationship between learnt knowledge and acquired knowledge; 4.2 Grammatical status of formulaic sequences; 4.3 Contribution of FS to the development of complexity, accuracy and fluency; 5. Conclusion; References; The growth of complexity and accuracy in L2 French; 1. Introduction 327 $a2. Past observations on developmental stages 330 $aThis chapter presents the results of a study on interlanguage variation. The production of four L2 learners of Italian, tested four times at yearly intervals while engaged in four oral tasks, is compared to that of two native speakers, and analysed with quantitative CAF measures. Thus, time, task type, nativeness, as well as group vs. individual scores are the independent variables and complexity, accuracy, and fluency are the dependent ones. Results show how both L2 learners and native speakers display situational variation, but with clear differences amongst the two groups. Longitudinally 410 0$aLanguage Learning & Language Teaching 606 $aSecond language acquisition$xResearch$xMethodology 606 $aLanguage and languages$xResearch$xMethodology 606 $aLiteracy$xResearch 615 0$aSecond language acquisition$xResearch$xMethodology. 615 0$aLanguage and languages$xResearch$xMethodology. 615 0$aLiteracy$xResearch. 676 $a418.0072 701 $aHousen$b Alex$f1964-$01534289 701 $aKuiken$b Folkert$f1953-$01576628 701 $aVedder$b Ineke$0508377 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910785922903321 996 $aDimensions of L2 performance and proficiency$93854505 997 $aUNINA