Content uploaded by John W. Schwieter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John W. Schwieter on Apr 06, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Morphosyntax
135
9
The Development of Second
Language Grammar in a
Study Abroad Context
Martin Howard and John W. Schwieter
Introduction
While study abroad research in recent years is witnessing burgeoning growth, sec-
ond language (L2) learners’ linguistic development during and as a result of a study
abroad experience has long been a focus of investigation. Since Carroll (1967), there
has been an extensive body of research that illuminates such linguistic development,
both longitudinally and in comparison with learners in other learning contexts, pri-
marily traditional classroom environments but also in other immersion contexts
(Collentine & Freed, 2004). This work allows extensive insight into different facets
of the learner’s L2 linguistic repertoire, such as the grammatical (Juan-Garau, 2014),
the lexical (Milton & Meara, 1995), the sociolinguistic (Howard, 2012a), and the pho-
nological (Mora, 2008) as well as various sociopragmatic (Barron, 2000) and inter-
actional (Taguchi, 2015) features, along with uency (Freed, Segalowitz, & Dewey,
2004) and communication strategies (Lafford, 1995).
In this chapter, we provide an overview of some of the main trends in L2 gram-
matical development in a study abroad context. Primarily focusing on French and
Spanish as the principle languages investigated in existing studies, we discuss L2
grammatical features that have typically been of interest and the methods and
analyses traditionally used to explore their development. We present an overview
of ndings on grammatical development from the existing body of research by
focusing on the relative benets of study abroad compared to classroom instruc-
tion at home as well as in relation to other areas of the learner’s linguistic reper-
toire. We reect on and offer explanations for previous results, suggesting limited
(or negative) development through a commentary on potential factors at play,
such as linguistic feature, prociency, length of sojourn abroad, social networks,
meta-awareness, and aptitude, among others. We conclude with some hypotheses
that could be fruitfully explored in future research using experimental approaches
that control for factors hypothesized to constrain grammatical development during
study abroad.
Martin Howard and John W. Schwieter
136
L2 Development during Study Abroad
Early studies investigating the relative benets of study abroad for L2 learning were
based on learner questionnaires, self-reports, and general language tests. This work
points to the overall nding that greater gains are made in speaking and listening
than in reading and writing (see, for example, Dyson, 1988; Meara, 1994; Watson,
Siska, & Wolfel, 2013). For instance, Dyson’s longitudinal study among British learn-
ers of French, German, and Spanish shows how the learners’ self-reports mirrored
their test results: Whereas their listening and speaking skills increased signicantly,
reading skills showed less progress, with relatively little growth evident in the case
of writing skills. Notwithstanding the insights that such studies provide, a certain
subjectivity characterizes the data on which they are based in terms of the learners’
self-assessments of the gains made. Moreover, by capturing development in terms of
a single test score, general language tests are subject to ceiling effects in the case of
more advanced learners, wherein there is limited scope to capture development at
advanced levels of prociency (for a discussion, see Freed, 1995a). A nal drawback
is the limitations of general language tests in illuminating the specicity of the learn-
er’s linguistic development in terms of the detail of the features that evidence devel-
opment as opposed to those that do not. In other words, development is conceived
as a uniform entity, whereas it remains unclear in such studies whether all features
demonstrate similar levels of linguistic gain.
Against this background, the publication of the collection of articles in Freed
(1995b) saw a change in focus by exploring specic components of the learner’s lin-
guistic repertoire. In this regard, ndings generally support the relative benets of
study abroad in a number of areas, namely lexical, sociolinguistic, and socioprag-
matic development as well as oral uency. In contrast, two components of the learn-
er’s linguistic repertoire show less optimistic benets: namely pronunciation and
grammar development.
L2 Grammatical Development during Study Abroad
With regard to grammatical development, the limited benets and, indeed, the more
benecial impact of classroom instruction are especially curious given the centrality
of L2 grammar in L2 learning and when compared to the potential benets forth-
coming in other areas, even after a short stay abroad. These limited benets pertain
to different morphosyntactic features that have been subject to investigation across
various L2s. Collentine (2004) offers an extensive investigation of different verbal,
adjectival, and nominal morphosyntactic features relating to the marking of tense,
aspect, agreement, and gender in L2 Spanish. The study is based on a comparison of
classroom learners and study abroad learners who spent a semester in Spain. Quan-
titative analyses of the learners’ Oral Prociency Interviews indicated a greater ad-
vantage for the classroom learners compared to their study abroad counterparts. The
sole difference was that the study abroad learners’ narrative abilities gave rise to a
greater quality of semantic density in their production.
Isabelli-García (2010) investigates gender agreement on adjectival marking in L2
Spanish among US learners who are spending four months abroad and classroom
learners back home. The results of a grammatical judgment test indicated no dif-
ferences between the learner groups. In the case of L2 French, Freed, Lazar, and So
137
Development of Second Language Grammar
(2003) explore native speaker evaluations of learners’ written production before and
after a semester abroad, nding no differences in writing complexity. The authors’
qualitative analysis of the learners’ use of syntactic subordinators similarly found no
differences. In a study of L2 German, Arnett (2013) looks at the use of accusative and
dative case prepositions and auxiliary verbs in a picture description task among US
learners before and after three months abroad and nds similar levels of development
compared to their classroom counterparts, although the study abroad learners did
produce more ditransitive clauses.
While such studies focus on grammatical development in terms of outcomes, a
limited number of studies have also explored processes of development regarding dif-
ferences and similarities between learning contexts in relation to underlying patterns
of acquisition. On this count, work by Guntermann (1995) and Ryan and Lafford
(1992) offers fruitful insights. Ryan and Lafford present a longitudinal investigation
of uses of the copulas ser and estar in Spanish among study abroad learners. They
compare these results with VanPatten’s (1987) ndings for classroom learners. The
comparisons point to similar, albeit not identical, acquisition patterns of use of the
different forms. Guntermann also focuses on such forms but complements them
with an analysis of the order of acquisition of the prepositions por and para among
American Peace Corps volunteers abroad. Again, the ndings were similar to those
evidenced in Guntermann’s (1992a, 1992b) earlier studies of classroom learners. An-
other study by Howard (2005a) complements such insights by focusing on underlying
patterns of use of the past tenses in French across different verb types. The study
draws on Vendler’s (1967) classication of verb predicates according to their inherent
lexical aspect. Four verb types were coded, namely stative, activity, accomplishment,
and achievement predicates, for which Andersen (1991) proposes in his Aspect Hy-
pothesis that use of the past tenses is not uniform across verb types, but rather a par-
ticular past time form emerges with one verb type before spreading gradually to the
other verb types. In a study of Irish advanced learners of French, Howard offers sup-
port for such a hypothesis insofar as the learners did not demonstrate equal use of the
past time forms across verb categories but rather demonstrated preferences for use
of the passé composé with dynamic verbs: namely achievement, accomplishment, and
activity predicates compared to stative verbs. The latter showed a strong preference
for use with the imparfait compared to the other verb types. Howard’s comparative
analyses of study abroad and classroom learners, however, point to similar patterns
of use of the past tenses across both learner groups such that study abroad did not
lead to any structural change in the underlying patterns of use.
Grammatical Development within the Framework of
Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency (CAF)
In contrast to focusing on specic morphosyntactic features, other studies of L2
grammatical development are situated within the more general framework of com-
plexity, accuracy, and uency (CAF). In this regard, ndings are more positive, point-
ing to a larger benecial effect for study abroad relative to classroom instruction. For
example, drawing on the Study Abroad and Language Acquisition (SALA) project’s
longitudinal investigation of the written productions of Spanish-Catalan bilingual
university learners of English, Pérez-Vidal and Juan-Garau (2011) and Pérez-Vidal
and Barquin (2014) note advantages for learners who participated in a study abroad
Martin Howard and John W. Schwieter
138
experience. In particular, the learners demonstrated steady gains in written com-
plexity and uency during their study abroad experience, which were not evident
in the classroom context. In contrast, however, gains in written accuracy were not
evident. In their oral production, the learners demonstrated increased gains com-
pared to the classroom context across the constructs of uency and accuracy while
showing a tendency toward greater gains in the case of complexity. Godfrey, Treacy,
and Tarone (2014) explore writing development in a study that includes a control
group of classroom learners. While the number of participants is small at just four
learners per group, the ndings highlight the complexity of development in writing
as a function of the domain of inquiry. Although the study abroad group evidenced
greater improvement in accuracy of gender marking, both groups demonstrated in-
creased uency. In contrast, however, the classroom learners demonstrated greater
improvement in syntactic complexity.
In a further study from the SALA project, Juan-Garau (2014) notes the gains in oral
accuracy made by the learners, especially compared to their previous development,
in which such improvement was less evident. Development was especially apparent in
the case of verb usage in which accuracy approached a native-speaking level. Admit-
tedly, such development was were not unilateral across all individuals, highlighting
the interlearner variation that characterizes many of the trends underlying linguistic
development during study abroad. It is further noteworthy that such development
in oral accuracy contrasts with ndings for the learners’ written accuracy in which
development was not evident (see Pérez-Vidal & Barquin, 2014, as discussed earlier).
A nal study by Juan-Garau, Slazar-Noguerra, and Prieto-Arranz (2014) focuses on
lexico-grammatical development by means of a cloze test and sentence-rephrasing
task. Here, the results again point to the benecial effect of study abroad in the case
of the cloze test, which is especially noteworthy compared to the nonsignicant gains
evidenced during the learners’ classroom instruction prior to study abroad. In con-
trast, no signicant gains were found in the case of the sentence-rephrasing task.
Llanes and Muñoz (2013) report a more positive effect of study abroad across the
CAF components in a comparative study of adults and children over the course of
a semester. Their results supported benets in both age groups but especially so in
the case of the child learners, although the instructed context was found to be more
advantageous for written complexity. Prior work by Llanes and Muñoz (2009) also
suggests that such benets can accrue relatively quickly, even in the case of short-
term study abroad of three to four weeks.
Insights on Grammatical Development during Study Abroad
The Role of Linguistic Feature, Learner Prociency, and Metalinguistic
Knowledge
Taken together, the differential ndings suggest the need for caution in drawing any
substantive conclusions on the relative benets of study abroad as opposed to class-
room instruction for L2 grammatical development. Given that studies of CAF point
to a signicant advantage of study abroad compared to classroom instruction, it may
be that development emerges at a general level, but some specic features are less
impacted than others. On this count, Coleman (1995) argues that “language pro-
ciency, after all, is not a single entity but a multidimensional construct, and progress
139
Development of Second Language Grammar
in the different aspects–vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and so on–may be ex-
pected to take place at different rates” (p. 22). Howard (2005a) similarly notes that
“development is not a uniform entity, but may differ across different components of
the learner’s grammatical repertoire” (p. 501). Likewise, development may be more
evident in the case of less marked features compared to more marked ones. There is
some evidence for this in Howard’s (2005a) work on verb morphology in L2 French,
in which he nds greater development among study abroad learners on their use of
past time forms, with lesser use of the present in past time contexts, giving rise to
greater use of the perfective marker of the passé composé and the imparfait (imper-
fective form) to mark its characterizing value. In contrast, the author notes that de-
velopment is less evident in other aspectual values of the imparfait for the marking of
habituality and progressivity. In the case of other markers of tense-aspect-modality,
greater development is also evident among the study abroad learners on the future
time forms of the periphrastic and inected future, as well as in the conditional,
compared to the classroom learners (see Howard, 2012b). Contrarily, greater dif-
culty is found in the case of other less frequent forms, such as the subjunctive and the
pluperfect for the expression of reverse-order as well as the future and conditional
anterior across all the learner participants (see Howard, 2005b, 2012b). Similarly,
tense-concordancing in conditional clauses expressing the hypothetical realization
of an event poses considerable difculty, both for the study abroad and classroom
learners. Howard (2006) also nds limited development in the case of the use of
third-person plural forms of present tense irregular verbs whose forms are phono-
logically distinct from singular forms (boit vs. boivent [drink]), unlike in the case of
regular verbs (donne vs. donnent [give]).
Grey, Cox, Serani, and Sanz (2015) also offer insights into how development may
not be a case of ‘all or nothing’ but rather may be more forthcoming on some com-
ponents of the learners’ grammatical repertoire than others. Their study is based on
a grammatical judgment test conducted among US learners of Spanish on a short
study abroad program of ve weeks. Their ndings indicate higher levels of accu-
racy on word order and number agreement, but not on gender agreement, during
that time period. The study also depicts other means of capturing development by
using a reaction time test that allows insight into the learners’ speed of processing
linguistic items. Findings from this analysis indicate decreasing reaction times over
the course of the study, thereby offering fruitful insight into the importance of other
means of capturing development in relation to processing, which may be less evident
in more traditional production tasks. LaBrozzi (2012) also investigates how study
abroad might impact processing patterns. His study is based on a comparison of
study abroad learners of Spanish and classroom learners who did not go abroad.
Drawing on an eye-tracking task, the study explores how the learners attend to mor-
phological cues as opposed to lexical cues in assigning temporal reference. Since the
learners’ rst language, English, is poor in verb morphology, the author hypothe-
sizes that Anglophone learners attend to lexical cues over morphological cues but
that study abroad may change such a pattern. The ndings based on an eye-tracking
task support the author’s hypothesis, whereby the study abroad learners demonstrate
a transitional phase where they rely on both cue types when processing in the L2,
unlike the L1-similar monolingual speaker patterns demonstrated by the classroom
learners. The ndings highlight the potential for input exposure in a study abroad
context to impact the learners’ processing strategies.
Martin Howard and John W. Schwieter
140
Other work explores how development may differ across morphosyntactic features
within the same learner cohort. Marqués-Pascual (2011) presents a study that does
not nd evidence of development on verb agreement among her study abroad learn-
ers compared to those in the foreign language classroom, although there was a more
benecial effect for other features, namely the omission of subject pronouns, and
subject-verb inversion in the case of the more advanced learners. In a crosslinguistic
study of French and German learners of their respective L2s, Möhle and Raupach
(1983) report considerable progress in the case of the French learners of German but
not in the case of the German learners of French. The authors interpret such differ-
ential ndings as reecting an effect for inectional morphology in German. As we
noted earlier, Juan-Garau (2014) also highlights verb morphology as the area where
her Spanish-Catalan bilingual learners of English made the most gains.
Such differences across morphosyntactic forms and the conceptual meanings
expressed by such forms suggest that grammatical development is far from being
uniform. Given that such studies point to a potential effect for the morphosyntac-
tic features themselves, a further factor at play may be the learner’s prociency
level. Indeed, Second Language Acquisition research clearly shows that there are
underlying stages of development whereby some morphological and morphosyn-
tactic forms are particularly late to emerge compared to others (e.g., Bartning &
Schlyter, 2004). In this regard, Lafford and Collentine (2009) propose the Thresh-
old Hypothesis, whereby learners may need to be developmentally ready to inte-
grate those forms in their language system. As such, it may be the case that in those
studies that focus on specic forms and nd limited development, their learner
participants were not advanced enough for development to occur. For example, in
the studies by Arnett (2013) and Collentine (2004), the learners had been learning
the L2 for only one to two years, calling into question just how advanced they were.
This contrasts with the learners in Howard’s (2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2012b) work who
were advanced learners, having learnt the L2 as specialist learners for 7–8 years,
during which time they were exposed to and benetted from extensive metalinguis-
tic instruction.
To this end, study abroad may have constituted an opportunity for L2 learners
to proceduralize their metalinguistic knowledge. Juan-Garau (2014) highlights this
factor as key to understanding the gains that her learners made during study abroad
compared to their more limited development in oral accuracy prior to their sojourn
abroad. In particular, she notes that the type of language activity that typically char-
acterizes the foreign language classroom may not be conducive to the automatization
of procedural knowledge in oral production in the same way as it may facilitate devel-
opment on metalinguistic tasks. DeKeyser (2010) similarly concludes that his North
American learners spending six weeks in a Spanish-speaking environment simply did
not have the required metalinguistic knowledge to benet from the input and interac-
tion opportunities available in the target language community. In contrast, however,
he does report a more positive effect for accuracy among his more advanced learners,
whereby it was initial prociency level and not aptitude that was found to play a role
in distinguishing the learners’ gains. Similarly, as noted earlier, Marqués-Pascual
(2011) nds that less advanced learners did not show development on subject-verb
inversions unlike their more advanced counterparts. However, for subject omission,
both intermediate and advanced learners showed development. Notwithstanding,
other studies note that less advanced learners evidence greater gains insofar as they
141
Development of Second Language Grammar
simply have more to gain (see Juan-Garau et al., 2014; Schwieter, 2013). Such a nding
may reect ceiling effects whereby the measures do not allow more advanced learners
to demonstrate their development.
Grammatical Development and Duration of Stay Abroad,
Communicative Adequacy, and Noticing
Apart from issues relating to prociency level and metalinguistic knowledge, a fur-
ther factor at play relates to the duration of stay abroad, whereby a minimal amount
of time may be necessary before grammatical gains are evident. Serrano, Tragant,
and Llanes (2012) conrm the importance of duration of stay abroad as a factor in
the emergence of linguistic gains. Their study is based on a longitudinal investiga-
tion of Spanish university learners attending a British university with three data
collection points over the course of an academic year. While gains were evident for
uency and lexical richness during the rst semester, accuracy in the learners’ oral
and written production was slower to emerge, only being evident during the sec-
ond semester of the stay abroad. The authors hypothesize that initial development
in some areas during study abroad, such as uency and lexical richness, may be
a prerequisite to subsequent development, such as in relation to accuracy. Jensen
and Howard (2014) also found that CAF gains were signicantly more evident in
the second semester of a stay abroad than in the rst in their comparative study of
Chinese and French advanced learners of English. Similarly, Isabelli and Nishida
(2005) reported signicant gains in use of the subjunctive in L2 Spanish for their
US learners spending nine months abroad, which is much longer than in the case
of other studies reporting no gains. It is also noteworthy that the learners in How-
ard’s (2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2012b) work had spent a full academic year in the target
language community, in contrast with other studies whose duration of stay abroad
has ranged from a couple of weeks to a semester (e.g., Collentine, 2004; DeKeyser,
2010; Godfrey et al., 2014). Other studies, however, provide counterevidence to the
hypothesis that a longer period of time may be required before grammatical gains
emerge. For example, as we noted earlier, Grey et al.’s (2015) study over ve weeks
reports higher accuracy on word order and number agreement, as well as decreased
reaction times. Lennon (1989) found that German L2 learners of English reported
increased attention to communicative meaning rather than to form over the course
of their six-month stay abroad. A similar explanation can be found in Schwieter
and Klassen’s (2016) study in which English-speaking Canadian students learning
Spanish for three weeks in Spain showed a decrease in production accuracy of mor-
phosyntactic agreement over the limited time spent abroad. The researchers explain
this counterintuitive observation as a shift in learning strategy from grammatical
accuracy to communicative ease.
Such a nding further raises the issue of whether learners reach a level of commu-
nicative adequacy whereby they are not pushed to further develop their use of mor-
phosyntactic forms during communicative interaction. This question is especially
important given the difculties that learners may have in ‘noticing’ forms and certain
types of feedback during communicative interaction in real time. This may support
Krashen and Seliger’s (1976) remark that classroom instruction is more benecial
“because it offers a structured environment for feedback” (p. 21). It is also notewor-
thy that explicit instructed training may render it difcult for classroom learners
Martin Howard and John W. Schwieter
142
to utilize the naturalistic input available in the target language community, for the
purpose of noticing. In other words, due to processing demands of understanding the
meaning conveyed as opposed to focusing on the linguistic forms used, the learner
may have difculty detecting feedback as well as noticing forms in real-time inter-
action that are not yet part of their L2 linguistic repertoire. Such a hypothesis may
explain the difculty that learners have in developing less frequent, albeit sometimes
more salient, forms in the input, such as those reported on by Howard (2005b, 2006,
2012b) in relation to use of the subjunctive, the pluperfect, and third-person irregular
plural forms of the present tense. Moreover, the failure to use such forms does not
necessarily negatively impact comprehension on the part of the learner’s interlocutor,
such that the learners may reach a level of communicative comprehensibility beyond
which extensive further development is limited.
Krashen and Seliger’s (1976) remark concerning the benecial role of classroom
instruction for feedback also has consequences for the role of proceduralization of
metalinguistic knowledge during communicative interaction in a study abroad con-
text. That is to say, the foreign language classroom may constitute a more ‘protec-
tive’ environment for practice in a way that the intensity of naturalistic exposure
may overwhelm the study abroad learner. Such a hypothesis may potentially explain
the nding that more intensive contact with native speakers, such as through more
extensive social networks, does not seem to play a role. For example, based on the
LangSnap project ndings of British university learners of Spanish and French,
Mitchell, McManus, and Tracy-Ventura (2015) suggest that the input and interaction
activities that they are ordinarily engaged in may be sufcient, with no added benet
found among learners who engage in more extensive contact with native speakers.
Serrano et al. (2012), referred to earlier, also fail to nd a relationship between accu-
racy and living arrangements, on the one hand, and language contact, on the other
hand. A similar conclusion can be drawn from Juan-Garau et al.’s (2014) study of
Catalan learners of English where a more positive effect was found for practice in
both the written and oral media but not for more extensive contacts with other speak-
ers. Notwithstanding, the authors note that all the learners reported regular partici-
pation in different types of oral activities, making it difcult to distinguish different
levels of participation that might discriminate between levels of development. More-
over, Juan-Garau (2014) nds that her learners who reported nding relationships
stressful demonstrated less successful performance, which the author interprets as
reecting an effect for anxiety on level of participation in sustained talk abroad.
Further support for such ndings can be seen in DeKeyser’s (2007) hypothesis
on the role of ‘practice’ as a dening characteristic of study abroad. In this regard,
study abroad may be particularly conducive for practice of certain skill types, such
as oral production as opposed to written production, reecting the general nding
that gains emerge earlier in the former case than in the latter (Serrano et al., 2012).
While it might be expected that study abroad should allow practice of oral gram-
mar abilities, as we mentioned earlier, a number of factors may constrain the poten-
tial for the development of abilities in spoken language, such as the communicative
adequacy of the learner’s spoken language production even when grammatical ac-
curacy is lacking, which renders his/her spoken production non-nativelike. On the
latter count, in some respects, such non-nativelikeness along with the communicative
limitations of an underdeveloped L2 grammar should constitute a driving factor to
become more nativelike at a grammatical level, as has been hypothesized by Klein
143
Development of Second Language Grammar
and Perdue (1997) in the case of the immigrant adult learners of different source and
target languages in the European Science Foundation (ESF) project. However, these
authors note that in spite of the non-nativelikeness but communicative adequacy of
their learners’ language system, not all such learners in the project developed a more
targetlike grammar. Indeed, as we have noted earlier, other factors apart from com-
municative adequacy may also play a role. Notably, the learner’s focus on the com-
municative meaning of his/her interlocutor’s input during communicative interaction
as opposed to grammatical form (Schwieter & Klassen, 2016), which may not be very
salient in real-time communicative interaction, as well as the learner’s underdevel-
oped metalinguistic knowledge, which would allow him/her to productively treat the
input available during study abroad at a grammatical level.
In contrast, the more benecial effect of grammar development in a classroom
context may reect the greater metalinguistic focus on form in that context through
the written language. For example, Juan-Garau (2014) notes that classroom instruc-
tion may be more conducive to practice in writing, whereas study abroad allows more
extensive opportunities for the automatization of the procedural knowledge underly-
ing oral production that learners develop during classroom instruction prior to study
abroad. Her work further highlights the correlation between practice in listening and
writing, and development on grammatical accuracy in a classroom context, whereby
she hypothesizes that the processing demands of such tasks during study abroad
require that the learner pay greater attention to the communicative meaning of the
language input as opposed to the grammatical form than in the case of classroom
instruction. A further conclusion to be taken from such studies relates to the role
of the task type that the learner is required to undertake within a research study.
For example, classroom learners may develop skills on certain task types that are
not available to study abroad learners, as evidenced in focused grammar elicitation
tasks, such as cloze tests and sentence-rephrasing tasks, thereby potentially provid-
ing an advantage to the classroom learner in a particular research study, irrespective
of linguistic ability.
Sociopsychological Factors and Grammatical Development during Study Abroad
A nal set of factors at play concerns motivation and attitudes, as well as cognitive
capacity and aptitude. In the former case, Serrano et al. (2012) explore the role of
positive attitudes toward the English language and English people based on key ste-
reotypical adjectives considered to dene the language and its speakers. Results from
their study of Spanish learners spending a year at a British university point to a posi-
tive correlation with accuracy development. In contrast, in another study of Spanish
learners, Juan-Garau et al. (2014) nd no correlation between learners’ motivation
and attitudes and their lexico-grammatical development in English over the course
of a semester in an English-speaking country. In relation to cognitive capacity, Grey
et al. (2015) nd no effect for such a factor on the grammatical gains reported in their
study of advanced US learners spending ve weeks in Spain where cognitive capac-
ity was measured through L1 working memory, L1 phonological working memory,
and L2 phonological working memory. Similarly, as we noted previously, DeKeyser
(2010) does not nd an effect for aptitude among his short-term study abroad
learners. Notwithstanding the insights that these studies offer, there is scope for
more wide- ranging studies exploring the relationship between individual factors and
Martin Howard and John W. Schwieter
144
grammatical development in a study abroad context, especially in the context of the
wider Second Language Acquisition literature, which highlights individual factors as
playing a key role in foreign language learning (see Dörnyei, 2005).
Conclusion
The extensive ndings we have reviewed on L2 grammatical development constitute
in some ways an embarrassment of riches. While they point to the wide range of nd-
ings available, differences across the studies in terms of focus of analysis, prociency
level, and length of stay abroad point to the need for more experimental research in
the future that controls for such factors in comparative studies before any denitive
conclusions can be drawn on the relation between study abroad and L2 grammatical
development. Furthermore, if study abroad is less conducive to grammatical develop-
ment, it remains to be seen whether other methodologies may lend themselves better
to capturing potential differences that may not be evident in the instruments of prior
work. In this regard, since the focus of inquiry has generally been conducted through
analyses of production data (oral and written, including language tests), there is a
need for studies of the learner’s grammatical representation that could be investi-
gated through more experimental methods such as reaction time and eye-tracking
studies (Grey et al., 2015, and LaBrozzi, 2012, are cases in point). Additionally, future
work should attempt to hone in on the specic characteristics of classroom-based
instruction that can be introduced into study abroad experiences. Given that some
studies have found that learners replicate classroom interaction during their study
abroad experiences (e.g., Wilkinson, 2002), pre-study abroad training relating to typ-
ical study abroad experiences may be especially fruitful in ensuring that the learner
can best benet from those interactional opportunities for his/her grammatical, and
indeed, wider linguistic development. Researchers also need to better understand
learners’ linguistic needs post-study abroad. Indeed, it may be the case that learners
are better equipped to benet from classroom instruction following study abroad,
such that the benets of study abroad for grammatical development may be more
indirect, only becoming apparent subsequent to their sojourn abroad.
While the general consensus is that study abroad benets areas such as uency
and lexical and sociolinguistic development, the question of why study abroad may
be more benecial in some areas of linguistic development than others still looms un-
answered. If learners can make such extensive gains in certain areas, why not also in
grammar? In this regard, we have offered a number of hypotheses that might explain
the limitations of study abroad for grammatical development. But given that this is
held as a context in which “learners can avail themselves of massive and varied expo-
sure to input, interaction and feedback in natural, authentic exchanges” (Pérez-Vidal &
Juan-Garau, 2011, p. 157), it calls for research into the learners’ grammatical com-
prehension during study abroad, and its link to grammatical development in their
production. That is to say, researchers must understand what it is that learners notice
in the input, grammar-wise, and subsequently track their development of enhanced
comprehension of those features. This would relate such comprehension to the po-
tential integration of those features in their linguistic repertoire and production. In
the case of other components of the learners’ linguistic repertoire, it would seem that
such a relation is occurring between noticing, understanding, and production. In
the case of L2 grammatical development, more ne-grained studies that track such
145
Development of Second Language Grammar
understanding are required. In particular, if development is limited at a grammatical
comprehension level, it may point to grammar as constituting a component that is
particularly resistant to development due to the mapping challenge underlying the
specicity of grammatical form-function relations in the L2 compared to the learn-
er’s L1. In contrast, such a remapping challenge may be much reduced in relation
to the lexicon, giving rise to greater gains at a lexical level than at a grammatical
level. In sum, several interesting questions remain to be explored before we can con-
clude that grammatical development is not susceptible to signicant development in
a study abroad context, as many of the existing studies would seem to suggest.
Key Ter ms
L2 grammar
Morphology
Morphosyntax
Grammatical development
Complexity
Accuracy
Metalinguistic knowledge
Duration of stay abroad
Prociency level
Threshold Hypothesis
Noticing
Practice
Sociopsychological factors
Further Reading
Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2017). Anglophone students abroad. Identity,
social relationships and language learning. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. (Presenting ex-
tensive ndings from the LANGSNAP Project [Languages and Social Networks Abroad],
this monograph explores the relation between second language linguistic development and
factors at play in the study abroad participants’ experiences abroad, such as social net-
works and integration, identity, and agency. The project includes British university learn-
ers of both second language French and Spanish in a longitudinal study that tracks their
development over a full year from prior to study abroad to following their sojourn abroad.
The scope of analysis extends to various facets of their linguistic development within a
CAF [complexity, accuracy, uency] framework, offering insights into their uency, accu-
racy, and syntactic and lexical complexity.)
Leonard, K. & Shea, C. (2017). L2 speaking development during study abroad: Fluency,
accuracy, complexity, and underlying cognitive factors. The Modern Language Journal,
101(1), 179–193. (Building on previous studies within a CAF [complexity, accuracy, uency]
framework, this article explores the relation between second language development in such
areas and the cognitive variables of linguistic knowledge and processing. The learners in
the study were Anglophone learners of Spanish whose development was tracked over the
course of three months. While development was not uniform across the components inves-
tigated, it was those learners who had higher levels of L2 linguistic knowledge and faster
processing speed prior to study abroad who evidenced greatest gains in accuracy and lex-
ical and syntactic complexity during their sojourn abroad.)
Llanes, À. & Muñoz, C. (2013). Age effects in a study abroad context: children and adults
studying abroad and at home. Language Learning 61(1), 63–90. (Based on an extensive
comparison study of both children and young adults in a study abroad context and an
instructed context ‘at home,’ this article presents quantitative ndings within a longitu-
dinal framework of the relative developmental gains in various measures of complexity,
accuracy, and uency. Focusing on the role of age and its impact on gains in each context,
the ndings indicate an advantage for the study abroad context, especially so in the case of
the child learners, which the authors interpret in terms of an effect for the scope of spoken
language practice among such participants.)
Martin Howard and John W. Schwieter
146
Pérez-Vidal, C. (Ed.). (2014). Language Acquisition in Study Abroad and Formal Instruction
Contexts (pp. 87–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. (This edited
volume stems from the SALA [Study Abroad and Language Acquisition] project on
Catalan/Spanish university second language learners of English in a longitudinal study
over two years that includes a semester abroad in an Anglophone university. The volume
offers wide-ranging insight into various aspects of the learners’ linguistic trajectory, with
some chapters, especially those by Maria Juan-Garau and colleagues specically focusing
on accuracy and morphosyntactic development through a longitudinal lens that captures
the scope of development from the learners’ initial university studies in English, through
the stay abroad, to their return to their home university.)
References
Andersen, R. (1991). Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect markers in second
language acquisition. In T. Huebner & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language
acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 305–324). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/ Philadelphia,
PA: Benjamins.
Arnett, C. (2013). Syntactic gains in short-term study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4),
705–712.
Barron, A. (2000). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning to do things with words.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Bartning, I., & Schlyter, S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en
français L2. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 281–299.
Carroll, J. (1967). Foreign language prociency levels attained by language majors near grad-
uation from college. Foreign Language Annals, 1, 131–151.
Coleman, J. (1995). The current state of knowledge concerning student residence abroad. In
G. Parker & A. Rouxeville (Eds.), The year abroad: Preparation, monitoring, evaluation
(pp.17– 42). London, England: AFLS/CILT.
Collentine, J. (2004). The effects of learning contexts on morphosyntactic and lexical develop-
ment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 227–248.
Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acqui-
sition: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153–171.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Study abroad as foreign language practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Prac-
tice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology
(pp.208–226). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study
abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 80–92.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dyson, P. (1988). The Year Abroad. Report for the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and
Exchanges. Oxford, England: Oxford University Language Centre.
Freed, B. (1995a). Language learning and study abroad. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language ac-
quisition in a study abroad context (pp. 3–32). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia,
PA: Benjamins.
Freed, B. (Ed.). (1995b). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Freed, B., Lazar, N., & So, S. (2003). Language learning abroad: How do gains -in written u-
ency compare with oral uency in French as a second language? ADFL Bulletin, 34, 34– 40.
Freed, B., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. (2004). Context of learning and second language u-
ency in French: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic im-
mersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 275–301.
Godfrey, L., Treacy, C., & Tarone, E. (2014). Change in French second language writing in
study abroad and domestic contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 48–78.
Grey, S., Cox, J., Serani, E., & Sanz, C. (2015). The role of individual differences in the study
abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language development during short-term intensive
language exposure. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 137–157.
147
Development of Second Language Grammar
Guntermann, G. (1992a). An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part I, por and
para. Hispania, 75(1), 177–187.
Guntermann, G. (1992b). An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part I, ser and
estar. Hispania, 75(1), 1294–1303.
Guntermann, G. (1995). The peace corps experience: Language learning in training and in the
eld. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context ( pp. 149 –169).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Howard, M. (2005a). Second language acquisition in a study abroad context: A comparative
investigation of the effects of study abroad and foreign language instruction on the L2
learner’s grammatical development. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in
instructed second language acquisition (pp. 495–530). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Howard, M. (2005b). The emergence and use of the ‘plus-que-parfait’ in advanced French
interlanguage. In J.-M. Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisci-
plinary perspectives (pp. 63–87). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Howard, M. (2006). The expression of number and person through verb morphology in French
interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 44(1), 1–22.
Howard, M. (2012a). The advanced language learner’s sociolinguistic prole: On issues of in-
dividual differences, L2 exposure conditions and type of sociolinguistic variable. Modern
Language Journal, 96(1), 20 –33.
Howard, M. (2012b). From tense and aspect towards moda lity—The acquisition of future, con-
ditional and subjunctive morphology in L2 French. A preliminary study. In E. Labeau &
I. Saddour (E ds.), Tense, aspect , and mood in rst and second la nguage acqu isition (p p.201–223).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands/New York, NY: Rodopi.
Isabelli, C., & Nishida, C. (2005). Development in Spanish subjunctive in a nine-month study-
abroad setting. In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 6th conference on the
acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as rst and second languages (pp. 78–91). Somerville,
MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Isabelli-García, C. (2010). Acquisition of Spanish gender agreement in two learning contexts:
Study abroad and at home. Foreign Language Annals, 43(2), 289–303.
Jensen, J., & Howard, M. (2014). The effects of time in the development of complexity and ac-
curacy during study abroad: A study of French and Chinese learners of English. EuroSLA
Yearbook, 14, 31– 64.
Juan-Garau, M. (2014). Oral accuracy growth after formal instruction and study abroad:
Onset level, contact factors and long-term effects. In C. Pérez-Vidal (Ed.), Language ac-
quisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts (pp. 87–109). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Juan-Garau, M., Slazar-Noguerra, J., & Prieto-Arranz, J. (2014). English L2 learners’ lexico-
grammatical and motivational development at home and abroad. In C. Pérez-Vidal
(E d.), Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts (pp. 235–258).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety. (Or couldn’t natural languages be much
simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347.
Krashen, S., & Seliger, H. (1976). The role of formal and informal environments in second
language acquisition: A pilot study. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 3, 15–20.
LaBrozzi, R. (2012). The role of study abroad and inhibitory control on processing redundant
cues. In K. Geeslin & M. Díaz-Campos (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 14th Hispanic
linguistic symposium (pp. 228–241). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Lafford, B. (1995). Getting into, through, and out of a situation: A comparison of commu-
nicative strategies used by students studying Spanish abroad and ‘at home.’ In B. Freed
(E d.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 97–121). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
Lafford, B., & Collentine, J. (2009). The effects of study abroad and classroom contexts on the
acquisition of Spanish as a second language: From research to application. In B. Lafford &
R. Salaberry (Eds.), Spanish second language acquisition: From research ndings to teaching
application (pp. 103–126). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lennon, P. (1989). Introspection and intentionality in advanced second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 39(3), 375–396.
Martin Howard and John W. Schwieter
148
Llanes, À., & Muñoz, C. (2009). A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System, 37,
353–365.
Llanes, À., & Muñoz, C. (2013). Age effects in a study abroad context: Children and adults
studying abroad and at home. Language Learning, 61(1), 63–90.
Marqués-Pascual, L. (2011). Study abroad, previous language experience, and Spanish L2
development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 565–582.
Meara, P. (1994). The year abroad and its effects. Language Learning, 10, 32–38.
Milton, J., & Meara, P. (1995). How periods abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign
language. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics, 107/8, 17–34.
Mitchell, R., McManus, K., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2015). Comparison of language develop-
ment during different residence abroad programmes. In R. Mitchell, N. Tracy-Ventura, &
K. McManus (Eds.), Social interaction, identity and language learning during residence
abroad (pp. 115–138). Reggio Emilia, Italy: EuroSLA Monographs Series 4.
Möhle, D., & Raupach, M. (1983). Planen in der Fremdsprache. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter
Lang.
Mora, J. (2008). Learning context effects on the acquisition of a second language phonology.
In C. Pérez-Vidal, M. Juan-Garau, & A. Bel (Eds.), A portrait of the young in the new multi-
lingual Spain (pp. 241–263). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Pérez-Vidal, C., & Barquin, E. (2014). Comparing progress in academic writing after formal
instruction and study abroad. In C. Pérez-Vidal (Ed.), Language acquisition in study abroad
and formal instruction contexts (pp. 217–234). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia,
PA: Benjamins.
Pérez-Vidal, C., & Juan-Garau, M. (2011). The effect of context and input conditions on oral
and written development. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 49, 175–185.
Ryan, J., & Lafford, B. (1992). Acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad environment:
Ser and estar and the Granada experience. Hispania, 75, 714–722.
Schwieter, J. W. (2013). Immersion learning: Implications for non-native lexical development.
In J. W. Schwieter (Ed.), Studies and global perspectives of second language teaching and
learning (pp. 165–185). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Schwieter, J. W., & Klassen, G. (2016). Linguistic advances and learning strategies in a short-
term study abroad experience. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and
International Education, 1(2), 217–247.
Serrano, R., Tragant, E., & Llanes, À. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of the effects of one year
abroad. Canadian Modern Language Review, 68(2), 138–163.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Developing interactional competence in a Japanese study abroad context.
Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
VanPatten, B. (1987). Classroom learners acquisition of ser and estar: Accounting for devel-
opmental patterns. In B. VanPatten, T. Dvorak, & J. Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning:
A research perspective (pp. 19–32). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics in philosophy (pp. 97–121).
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Watson, J., Siska, P., & Wolfel, R. (2013). Assessing gains in language prociency, cross-
cultural competence, and regional awareness during study abroad: A preliminary study.
Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 62 –79.
Wilk inson, S. (2002). The omnipresent classroom during summer study abroad: American stu-
dents in conversation with their French hosts. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 157–173.
