Ellis Analysing Learner Language Intro

1 Introduction

The primary purpose of this book is to provide an account of what is knownabout how learners acquire a second language (L2) by introducing readersto the methods that have been used to analyse learner language. A secondarypurpose is to equip readers to carry out analyses of learner language bythemselves for research purposes.

There are a number of books that provide overviews of ‘second languageacquisition’ (sla ) as a field of study (for example, Ellis 1985a and 1994; Gassand Selinker 1994; Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991; Mitchell and Myles1998; Towell and Hawkins 1994). There are also books that review specificareas of sla—for example, Tarone (1988) on variability in L2 learning,Skehan (1989) on individual differences, Kasper and Kellerman (1997) onsecond language learners’ communication strategies, Gass (1997) on the roleof input and interaction and Doughty and Williams (1998) on the role ofform-focused instruction. Thus, the field is well-catered for in terms of pub-lished works documenting what is known about L2 learning and L2 learners.

As a field with close links to the social sciences, education and appliedlinguistics, sla is also well-provided with general accounts of researchmethodology. In addition to established works such as Ary, Jacobs, andRazavieh (1990), Brown (1988), Cohen and Manion (1994), Neuman(1994) and Seliger and Shohamy (1989), there are a number of more specificbooks addressing the applications of research methodologies to sla , suchas Brown and Rodgers’ (2002) survey of qualitative and quantitativeresearch techniques, Faerch and Kasper’s (1987) collection of articles onintrospective methods, Brown’s (2001) practical guide to the use of surveysin second-language related research and Gass and Mackey’s (2000) accountof the use of stimulated recall in sla . Other works (for example, Hatch andLazaraton 1991) offer explanations of the statistical procedures availableto sla researchers. Together, these books provide detailed accounts ofthe theoretical underpinnings of different research traditions, the mainresearch approaches and the designs associated with them, methods of datacollection and ways of analysing data.

Given the wealth of the published literature on sla and on researchmethodology, it seems advisable to us to begin this book by explainingwhy we have taken the trouble to write this book. In Analysing Learner

ANALYSING LEARNER LANGUAGE© Oxford University Press www.oup.com/elt

Language we want to bring together a substantive account of sla as a fieldof enquiry through an examination of the methods of data collection andanalysis that have informed research in this field. That is, our main goal is tointroduce readers to what has been discovered about L2 learning and L2learners through a consideration of the methods that have produced thisknowledge. Indeed, our assumption is that understanding sla requires anunderstanding of its established findings (what Long (1990b) calls the ‘facts’of sla ) in relation to the ways in which these findings have been established.Thus, we seek to introduce readers to sla by familiarizing them with thevarious methods of data collection and analysis sla researchers haveemployed.

This approach has been adopted in response to one of the authors’experiences in teaching sla courses over a period of some fifteen years. Theapproach he adopted was initially a fairly traditional one, involving lectureson selected topics (error analysis, variability, language transfer, input andinteraction, learning strategies, etc.) supported by a range of tasks thatrequired some form of application of the material presented in the lectures.These tasks included a number of data analysis activities. For example, inone such task, students were asked to analyse a set of negative utterancesproduced by one L2 learner over a nine-month period. In another, they wereasked to examine how teachers addressed linguistic form in the context ofinteractions derived from communicative activities. It was observed thatthese tasks frequently led to lively discussions of key issues in sla and,crucially, to problems of interpreting what the data showed. In response tothis, a decision was taken to redesign the sla course around these tasks.This required a new way of structuring the content. Instead, of basing thecourse on topics in sla , the new course was organized around the differentways in which learner language has been analysed over the thirty-plus yearsthat sla has existed as a recognized field of study. The purpose, however,was not so much to train students in how to carry out these methods ofanalysis (although this was, hopefully, a useful outcome of the course) as toinvolve the students in ‘doing sla ’ so that their understanding of its findingswere grounded in a hands-on experience of how they were obtained. Thisbook is a direct outcome and extension of this course.

This book, then, is an account of how sla researchers have set aboutanalysing learner language, of the theoretical positions that underlie theirenquiries and of the main empirical findings that have resulted from them. Inaddition, indeed as an essential part of the whole enterprise, the bookprovides opportunities, in the form of data-based tasks, for readers to applythe different methods of analysis themselves. It is also important to notewhat the book does not seek to do. The book does not consider culturelearning, although it does examine the role of cultural factors in languagelearning. (See, for example, Chapter 10.) It does not aim to provide advice toteachers about how they should teach. Obviously, though, an understanding

2 Analysing learner language


of how learners learn an L2 should inform how teachers teach and somechapters include tasks involving data taken from instructional contexts.Also, the book does not examine curricula for teaching an L2.

In this chapter, we briefly explain what we mean by ‘ sla’ , which we willinterpret very broadly. We will also consider what is meant by ‘learnerlanguage’, identifying two distinct senses of this term. Finally, we willattempt to demarcate the particular aspect of sla research methodologywe are concerned with (i.e. data analysis) by placing it within a broaderframework of the nature of research and the different research paradigmsthat have been employed in sla .

SLA

Two different senses of sla need to be distinguished. The term is frequentlyused to refer to the learning of another language (second, third, foreign)after acquisition of one’s mother tongue is complete. That is, it labels theobject of enquiry. The term is also used to refer to the study of how peoplelearn a second language; that is, it labels the field of enquiry itself. This dualuse of the term is unfortunate as it can create confusion. In this book we willuse ‘L2 acquisition’ as the label for the object of enquiry and ‘ sla’ as thelabel for the field of study.

sla is multi-disciplinary. That is, it draws on insights and methods ofresearch from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, sociology,sociolinguistics, psychology, psycholinguistics and education. This multi-disiplinary aspect of sla is widely accepted and is reflected in all the pub-lished surveys of the field referred to above. It has advantages anddisadvantages. It affords a rich account of what is a highly complex phe-nomenon. But, as Gass and Selinker (1994) point out it sometimes results ina failure of communication by scholars committed to different approaches.sla is characterized by a host of controversies (see Block 2003 for athoughtful analysis of some of the main ones), many of which are notresolvable as they derive from incommensurable theoretical positions. Inthis book we will seek an inter-disciplinary perspective. Indeed, such anapproach is inevitable, given our intention to present a range of differentapproaches for analysing learner language, as the different approachesderive from different disciplines and different theoretical orientations. Wewill acknowledge controversies where they exist, but we will not attempt toresolve them. Nor will we stake out our own ‘preferred’ position, although,of course, we cannot promise to guard entirely against our own biases.

The study of how people learn a second language involves both anexamination of those aspects of learning that are common to all learners—the universals of L2 acquisition—and of those contextual and personalfactors that explain the enormous variation in speed and ultimate levelof attainment of different L2 learners—the individual differences in L2

Introduction 3


learning. Again, the published surveys of sla acknowledge both aspects. Itis probably true to say, however, that they have devoted more attention tothe universals of L2 acquisition than to social and individual differences,the latter aspect being generally consigned to one or two chapters after theformer has been exhaustively treated. Ideally, these two aspects need to beintegrated into a single theory of L2 acquisition. However, we are a longway from achieving this, although a number of recent publications onindividual differences (for example, Onwuegbuzie, Bailey, and Daley 2000;Skehan 1998a; Robinson 2002) have attempted to discuss specific variablesresponsible for variation among learners in terms of a general model of L2acquisition. In Analysing Learner Language we will not attempt an inte-grated theory but instead present methods of analysis that relate to both theestablishment of the universal properties of L2 acquisition and to individualdifferences in L2 learning. All of these methods are capable of addressingboth the universal and differential aspects of L2 acquisition. For example,the analysis of learner language in terms of fluency, complexity and ac-curacy (see Chapter 7) provides a means of identifying how external factorsthat shape the learning environment affect the language that learners pro-duce and also a means of researching how individual learners’ communi-cative styles differ. Nevertheless, it is the case that particular methodsof analysis have been closely associated with either a nomothetic and uni-versalist orientation or an idiographic and hermeneutic view of L2 learning.Thus, for example, obligatory occasion analysis (Chapter 4) and frequencyanalysis (Chapter 5) have served to provide evidence of a universal route ofacquisition, while critical approaches (Chapter 12) and metaphor analysis(Chapter 13) have led to insights about the different approaches to L2learning manifested by individual learners.

In this book, then we acknowledge the multidimensionality of sla , asreflected in the variety of approaches to analysing learner language. Werecognize, too, that sla must include both an examination of the universalproperties of L2 acquisition and an account of the social and personalfactors responsible for individual differences among learners.

Learner language

Learner language is the oral or written language produced by learners.It serves as the primary data for the study of L2 acquisition, although, as wewill see in Chapter 2, it is not the only type of data available to sla

researchers. We will also see that learner language is not a monolithicphenomenon but rather highly variable, raising important issues to do withwhat kind (or kinds) of learner language constitute the most valid data for



the study of how learners learn. These issues are of such theoreticalimportance, however, that we will briefly examine them here.

For many sla researchers the goal of sla is the description andexplanation of L2 learners’ competence and how this develops over time.Definitions of competence vary1 but all see it as involving underlyingsystems of linguistic knowledge (Canale and Swain 1980; Taylor 1988).We can ask, then, how the study of learner language can provide informa-tion about learners’ underlying linguistic knowledge. To addressthis question we need to consider exactly what we mean by ‘linguisticknowledge’ and then to examine the relationship between competence andperformance.

Linguistic knowledge is constituted as shown in Table 1.1. The centraldistinction is between implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Implicitknowledge is the kind of knowledge we possess of our mother tongue.That is, it is unconscious and is proceduralized so that it is available forautomatic use in spontaneous production. Implicit knowledge consists offormulaic chunks (for example, ‘I don’t know’ and ‘How do you do?’) andalso unconscious knowledge of abstract patterns or rules relating to both

Type of knowledge Sub-types Definitions

Implicit (procedural) 1 formulaic Sequences ofelements that arestored and accessedas ready-madechunks.

2 rule-based Unconsciousknowledge of majorand minor schemasconsisting of abstractlinguistic categoriesrealizable lexically inan indefinite numberof sentences/utterances.

Explicit (declarative) 1 analysed Conscious awarenessof minor and majorschemas.

2 metalingual Lexical knowledgeof technical andnon-technicallinguistic terminology.

Table 1.1 Types of linguistic knowledge

Introduction 5


minor schemas as in simple collocations (for example, Vþ verb comple-ment, as in ‘suggestþVing’ and ‘demandþVinfin’) and to major schemas(for example, the construction of relative clauses). Explicit knowledge isconscious and declarative (i.e. it takes the form of encyclopaedic facts abouta language). It consists of both conscious awareness of the same minor andmajor schemas that figure in implicit knowledge (but represented in anentirely different mental form) and of the metalanguage that can assist inverbalizing this analysed knowledge. (See Ellis 2004.) As we will see,learner language is capable of providing information about both types ofknowledge but it is often difficult to decide which type of knowledge isreflected in learner production. While sla researchers argue about the rolethat explicit knowledge plays in both acquisition and language use—compare,for example, Krashen (1994) and N. Ellis (2002)—they broadly agree thatthe linguistic knowledge comprising competence is essentially of theimplicit kind and that the main goal of sla is to account for learners’implicit knowledge.

A learner’s implicit knowledge (competence) is not open to directinspection. We cannot easily look into someone’s mind to see how know-ledge of language is represented or what kind of knowledge is being utilized inthe performance of a language task. To some extent this is possible throughmagnetic resonance imaging. (See, for example, Chee, Tan, and Thiel 1999.)This technology enables us to identify those parts of the brain that areactivated in performing a language task and, in the long run, may enableus to determine the parts of the brain responsible for different kinds oflinguistic processing. However, we are a long way from being able to plotcortical organization with reference to language use in this way. Thus,by and large, researchers are forced to infer competence from some kind ofperformance. How learners perform some kind of language task servesas the principal source of information about what they know about thelanguage.

This raises the general question about what kind of performance providesthe most reliable and valid source of information. Here we find major dif-ferences in opinion. On the one hand some sla researchers choose to relyon learner intuitions (in the form of judgements about the grammaticality ofsentences presented to them) to discover what they know. Other research-ers, especially those of a more functional orientation, prefer to collectsamples of learner language. Not surprisingly analyses based on grammat-icality judgements and on learner language frequently produce differentresults. A learner may succeed in judging a sentence correctly as grammat-ical and yet be unable to produce the structure exemplified in the sentence infree production. Furthermore, learner language is itself not homogenousbut rather highly variable, depending on both social factors (for example,whom a learner is addressing) and psycholinguistic factors (for example, thedegree of attention that a learner is paying to correctness of form) and the



inter-relationship of the two. Linguistic performance, then, is inherentlyheterogeneous.

What solutions are there to this problem of variability? There areseveral:

1 Redefine competence as itself variable. (See, for example, Tarone1983 and Ellis 1985b.) That is, variability in performance is seen asreflecting a variable competence.

2 Identify one type of performance as the preferred source of informationabout competence.

3 Recognize the need for multiple sources of performance data and lookfor points of confluence as evidence of what a learner knows.

It is not our purpose in this book to enter the thorny debates that surroundwhich of these three solutions to choose. The fact that we have elected toaddress how to analyse learner language (rather than data derived fromsome kind of test), however, reflects our belief about the centrality of thiskind of data. In Chapter 2, we examine the different methods for collectingsamples of learner language, pointing to what is now widely acknowledgedin sla , namely the need for data that reflects as closely as possible ‘natural’language use (i.e. language that is situationally and interactionally authen-tic) while recognizing that the limitations facing the collection of such dataoften obligate researchers to resort to clinically elicited data (for example,by using pedagogic tasks). Here, though, we want to emphasize that there isno easy solution to the data problem and that the main requirements thatshould be placed on researchers are to specify explicitly what kind(s) of datahave been collected and to justify the validity of these data in terms of aclearly stated theoretical position regarding the relationship between per-formance and competence (i.e. to address the validity of the data).

In the foregoing discussion we have implicitly treated learner language asexpression but it can also be viewed as content. That is, we can view learnerlanguage in two entirely distinct ways. We can see it as providing evidenceof what learners know about an L2 by examining the linguistic forms theyproduce. We can also view it as a set of propositions relating to whatevertopics are being communicated about. These topics can include thoserelating to the second language itself—that is, learners can inform us abouttheir beliefs and attitudes to the target language and to the target languagecommunity and about the behaviours they engage in when learning thelanguage. This distinction between learner language as expression and ascontent is central to this book. In part, it relates to a distinction we havealready mentioned—that between the branches of sla that have focused onthe universal properties of L2 acquisition (the psycholinguistic orientation)and those other branches that have addressed the factors responsible forindividual differences in learning (the social or psychological orientation).By and large, learner language treated as expression has served as data for

Introduction 7


investigating the universal properties of acquisition while learner languageviewed as content has provided information about how learners differ intheir attitudes and approaches to learning. Of course, as we have alreadypointed out, it would be possible to examine individual factors in terms ofdifferences in the formal properties of the language produced by differentlearners and, similarly, it would be possible to build a picture of the universalaspects of L2 learning from learners’ reports about learning. In general,though, this has not happened. Learner productions viewed as expressiontell us what learners do with the language and thus do not readily shed directlight on such factors as social identity, learning styles, motivation, languageaptitude or learning strategies. To investigate these, we need learners toself-report. Conversely, learners are unlikely to be able to tell us in whatorder/sequence they acquired grammatical structures (for example, whetherthey acquired unmarked/protypical forms before marked/prototypicalones). Nor will they have much idea why they acquire forms in the order/sequence they do.

There is, therefore, a strong rational basis for distinguishing learnerlanguage as expression and as content. There are also empirical grounds.The methods of analysing learner language we will discuss in the followingchapters divide quite clearly into those associated with expression andcontent. Thus, methods such as error analysis (Chapter 3) and interactionalanalysis (Chapter 8), borrowed from linguistics, view learner language asexpression while other methods, taken from the social sciences, such ascritical analytical approaches (Chapter 12) and metaphor analysis (Chapter13), treat learner language primarily as content. Our claim is that we needto orientate to learner language in both ways to obtain a full account ofL2 acquisition.

Research paradigms

The focus of this book is on ‘data analysis’. We recognize, however, thatdata analysis does not occur in a vacuum but is an integral part of theresearch process. It is shaped by the purpose of the research and the theor-etical principles that govern the chosen method of enquiry. In this section,we consider how the analysis of learner language fits into the broaderresearch picture.

Table 1.2 outlines the key differences in the two research paradigmswidely recognized in discussions of research methodology in the socialsciences. These two paradigms have been variously labelled (for ex-ample, quantitative/qualitative; confirmatory/interpretative; positivist/non-positivist; nomothetic/idiographic; analytical-nomological/hermeneutic).The labels we have chosen are those of Cohen and Manion (1994)—-normative/interpretative. However, following Neuman (1994), Table 1.2also includes a third paradigm, critical research, which differs from the



other two in a number of key respects, although it is clearly closer to theinterpretative than the normative paradigm.

In Chapters 3 through 13 a number of examples of sla studies areprovided. These are selected to exemplify the various methods of data col-lection we will consider. They also serve to illustrate the three researchparadigms shown in Table 1.2. For example, Chapter 7 provides asummary of Crookes’ (1989) study of the effects of planning on learners’performance of communicative tasks. This study was undertaken in thenormative paradigm, although, as we will see, it does not conform entirelyto the account of this paradigm in Table 1.2. Chapter 13 provides a sum-mary of Rod Ellis’s (2002) metaphor analysis of L2 learners’ diaries. It isrepresentative of the interpretative paradigm. Chapter 12 considers McKayand Wong’s (1996) study of junior high school ESL learners in the UnitedStates and is illustrative of the critical paradigm. Readers might like to lookat the summaries of these articles as they afford concrete instantiations of thethree research paradigms.

It is, however, not always so easy to determine which research paradigm aparticular study belongs to. This is because mixed forms of research arepossible. Grotjahn (1987), in a thorough presentation of these mixed forms,suggests that they arise because researchers combine type of design, methodsof data collection and methods of data analysis by drawing on more thanone paradigm. For example, a researcher might adopt a normative designbut employ a qualitative method of data collection, and make use ofquantitative methods of data analysis. Pica’s (1983) study (summarized inTable 4.6) is a good example of this. In terms of theoretical orientation,research purpose, and design, her study belongs to the normative paradigmas she is concerned with discovering the ‘ultimate truth’ of whether alllearners, irrespective of their learning context, manifest a universal order ofacquisition and she sets out to investigate this by comparing three groups oflearners who vary in terms of a pre-defined variable (type of exposure to theL2). However, the data she collected were qualitative (hour-long con-versations where the learners talked about personal topics). The data weresubjected to obligatory occasion analysis, which is clearly quantitative innature, and subsequently analysed statistically. Crookes’ (1989) study,referred to above, is similar in that it also utilized a normative design butmade use of qualitative methods of data collection.

In fact, much of the research undertaken in sla is of the mixed kind. Thisis partly because many sla researchers (such as ourselves) are not com-mitted to a single theoretical orientation. It also reflects a belief in thevalidity of learner language as the primary source of evidence for L2acquisition. As we have already noted, how learners use the L2 in naturallyoccurring contexts is viewed as affording the best data for examining theirunderlying knowledge systems (competence). It follows, therefore, thatresearchers need to obtain samples of such L2 use and this is likely to involve

Introduction 9


Dim

en

sio

nN

orm

ati

ve

Inte

rpre

tati

ve

Cri

tical

Theore

ticalorienta

tion

L2

acquis

itio

nis

seen

as

essentially

rule

-govern

ed

and

thus

investigata

ble

by

the

sam

em

eth

ods

as

those

used

innatu

ralscie

nce

toid

entify

cause

and

eff

ect.

Researc

hers

inth

ispara

dig

msee

realit

yin

term

sof

‘ultim

ate

truth

’,w

hic

hcan

be

dete

rmin

ed

obje

ctively

.

L2

acquis

itio

nis

seen

as

hig

hly

indiv

idualiz

ed

as

are

sult

of

the

com

ple

xin

terp

lay

of

psycholo

gic

al

and

socia

lfa

cto

rs.

Itcan

only

be

unders

tood

by

exam

inin

gauth

entic

learn

ing

conte

xts

and

how

learn

ers

respond

toth

ese.

Researc

hers

inth

ispara

dig

msee

realit

yas

subje

ctive

and

rela

tive.

L2

acquis

itio

nis

seen

as

roote

din

the

tensio

ns

and

his

torically

dete

rmin

ed

socia

lstr

uctu

res

that

influence

behavio

ur.

But

this

para

dig

mvie

ws

learn

ers

as

endow

ed

with

agency

and

there

fore

able

toact

on

as

well

as

be

acte

don

by

socia

lconte

xt.

Researc

hers

inth

ispara

dig

madopt

acle

ar

valu

epositio

n.

Researc

hpurp

ose

To

test

ahypoth

esis

dra

wn

from

an

explic

itth

eory

of

L2

acquis

itio

nobje

ctively

.T

he

researc

hte

sts

wheth

er

there

isa

rela

tionship

betw

een

an

independent

and

dependent

variable

.

To

describe

and

unders

tand

som

easpect

of

L2

acquis

itio

nsubje

ctively

.T

he

researc

haim

sto

uncover

key

variable

sand

their

inte

r-re

lationship

s.

To

identify

and

transfo

rmth

esocio

-polit

icalconditio

ns

that

unfa

irly

mitig

ate

again

st

learn

ers

gain

ing

access

toth

eL2.

Unfa

irness

isdete

rmin

ed

inre

lation

toth

ere

searc

her’s

ideolo

gic

alsta

nce.

Desig

nand

scope

Typic

ally

,an

experim

ent

involv

ing

a)

random

lyconstitu

ted

gro

ups

of

L2

learn

ers

,b)

atr

eatm

ent

care

fully

contr

ived

tocontr

olfo

rextr

aneous

variable

s,

constitu

ting

the

independent

variable

and

Typic

ally

,a

case

stu

dy

of

one

or

more

L2

learn

ers

inan

auth

entic

conte

xt.

The

case

stu

dy

can

be

cro

ss-s

ectionalbut

isoft

en

longitudin

al.

The

scope

of

the

researc

his

thus

sm

all-

scale

.

Typic

ally

,a

case

stu

dy

of

learn

ers

learn

ing

an

L2

inan

auth

entic

conte

xt

where

they

inte

ract

with

native

speakers

.T

he

researc

his

typic

ally

cro

ss-s

ectionaland

sm

all-

scale

.



c)

measure

sof

learn

ing

outc

om

es,

constitu

ting

the

dependent

variable

.A

nexperim

ent

can

involv

ea

rela

tively

brief

or

more

exte

nded

treatm

ent.

The

scope

of

the

researc

his

thus

mediu

mto

larg

escale

.

Part

icip

ants

Larg

egro

ups

of

L2

learn

ers

.In

div

idualL2

learn

ers

.In

div

idualL2

learn

ers

inin

equitable

pow

er

rela

tions

with

oth

er

users

of

the

L2.

Data

colle

ction

Typic

ally

,quantita

tive

meth

ods

(e.g

.te

sts

,questionnaires).

Typic

ally

,qualit

ative

meth

ods

involv

ing

a)

record

ings

of

natu

rally

occurr

ing

uses

of

the

L2,

b)

observ

ations

of

L2

learn

ers

and

c)

self-r

eport

data

from

L2

learn

ers

.F

requently,

more

than

one

meth

od

of

colle

cting

data

isem

plo

yed.

Typic

ally

,qualit

ative

meth

ods

involv

ing

observ

ation,

docum

enta

ryevid

ence

and

self-r

eport

data

from

L2

learn

ers

.

Data

analy

sis

Quantita

tive

meth

ods

support

ed

by

infe

rential

sta

tistics

tote

st

the

str

ength

of

rela

tionship

sbetw

een

variable

sand

diffe

rences

betw

een

gro

up

score

s.

Qualit

ative

meth

ods

involv

ing

‘thic

kdescription’of

the

aspect

of

L2

learn

ing

under

investigation

from

multip

lepers

pectives

(triangula

tion).

Qualit

ative

meth

ods

identify

ing

the

‘dis

cours

es’

learn

ers

part

icip

ate

inand

how

these

positio

nth

em

socia

lly.

Tab

le1.2

Thre

ere

sear

chpar

adig

ms

insl

a

Introduction 11


qualitative methods of data collection (for example, recording conversa-tions). However, in studies where researchers are testing hypotheses (as inCrookes’ and Pica’s studies), there is often a need to reduce the qualitativedata to some form of numerical measure to allow for statistical analysis. Ineffect, this is what most of the data analysis methods of the book do(Chapter 9 on conversation analysis and Chapter 10 on socioculturalmethods of analysis being exceptions). The methods outlined in Chapters 3to 8 typically figure in research that can be characterized as normative-qualitative-quantitative. In contrast, the data analysis methods discussed inChapters 11, 12, and 13 are all qualitative in nature. That is, they are directedat identifying ‘themes’ in learner language treated as content. However, itshould be noted that these methods do not preclude quantification as it isalways possible to count the frequency of the themes that have been identi-fied. Indeed, Rod Ellis’s (2002) metaphor analysis attempted just this.

What this suggests, then, is that in sla the ties between research designon the one hand and data collection methods and methods of analysis on theother are relatively loose. Qualitative methods of data collection and of dataanalysis can accompany a normative research design while, conversely,quantitative methods of data analysis can be found in interpretive designsand (potentially, although we know of no examples) in critical research too.Thus, although, data analysis is clearly to be seen as a step in the researchprocess, it is partially independent of the research design that shapes a study.In the chapters that follow we will see that particular methods of dataanalysis are linked to particular research questions and thus to particularbodies of findings about sla but these links are often driven less by theresearchers’ commitment to a particular research design than by the need tocollect and analyse data in ways relevant to their over theoretical orientationand research purpose. One of the main aims of this book is to explorethese links.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have endeavoured to explain why we have chosen to focuson methods for analysing learner language and how we have approachedour presentation of the different methods. We see the study of learner lan-guage and of its methods of analysis as an ideal way to gain an under-standing of what the sla field has discovered about L2 acquisition. We aimto introduce readers to an account of how sla is done and to provideopportunities for actually doing sla through data analysis tasks. Also, byexamining the historical and theoretical background of research that hasemployed the different methods we present an overview of sla itself. Themethods divide quite clearly into those that treat learner language asexpression (linguistic form) and those that view it as content affordinginformation about learners’ attitudes and learning behaviours. The former set



has been primarily directed at the universal aspects of L2 acquisition, focusingin particular at identifying the nature of learners’ implicit knowledge of theL2 and the processes responsible for its development, while the latter set hasbeen primarily concerned with the social and psychological factors thataccount for individual differences in rate of learning and ultimate achieve-ment. sla , as a field, is concerned with both.

This is not a book about research methodology in sla . (For such a book,see Brown and Rodgers 2002.) However, the analysis of learner languageneeds to be understood in relation to the theoretical orientations andresearch purposes that guide how data are analysed. We seek to achieve thisby providing a historical and theoretical background to the research that hasutilized the different methods.

In the next chapter, we describe the various options available to the sla

researcher for collecting data, especially data consisting of learner language,as a necessary preliminary to investigating how learner language can beanalysed.

Notes

1 The main areas of disagreement regarding the definition of competenceconcern (1) whether the construct should include ability to use one’slinguistic knowledge as well as the linguistic knowledge itself and (2)whether it should be broadly defined to include sociolinguistic, discourseand strategic knowledge, or be restricted narrowly to linguistic know-ledge (i.e. knowledge of phonological, lexical and grammatical systems).

Introduction 13


Documents

Ellis Analysing Learner Language Intro