While a study by Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2005) was able to explain how factors such as phonological salience, frequency, morphological regularity, semantic complexity, and syntactic complexity influence acquisition order, the examination of six similar morphological features provided only a limited perspective. The purpose of this study was to see if causal variables, both individually and cumulatively, could be used to predict acquisition orders with more highly disparate morphological and syntactic features. Results of Spearman rank calculations revealed that the integration of causal factors yielded the highest correlation to both the Processability Theory (<i>r</i>_s = 0.821; <i>p</i> = 0.007) and Natural Order Hypothesis (<i>r</i>_s = 0.529; <i>p</i> = 0.143), suggesting that these factors have a synergistic influence on morphosyntactic development. Methods to predict the acquisition of both syntactic and morphological features are suggested, along with an empirically-based method to guide explicit grammar instruction

Both Native English-Speaking Teachers (NESTs) and Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers (NNESTs) may have advantages as writing instructors, yet little is known about how they actually influence writing in EFL contexts like South Korea. To address this issue, 76 high proficiency Korean EFL university students from the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE) were separated into a group that received extensive native English speaker instruction (n = 57) and a group that did not (n = 19) using a self-survey. Analysis of essay content revealed that words used by Korean EFL writers with more NEST instruction are similar in difficulty and variety to native English writers. Concerning style, Korean EFL learners with more NEST instruction used stances to evaluate, validate, and state personal opinions, while learners with less NEST instruction used speech formulas and more unbiased logical arguments. Regarding grammar, Korean EFL learners with extensive NEST instruction used more sophisticated vocabulary, word forms, and verb tenses to create a novel argument using personal experience, whereas Korean EFL learners with low NEST instruction tended to use formulaic and logical arguments with more accuracy. Overall, results suggest that NEST instruction in Korea promotes more creativity and sophistication in composition, while NNEST instruction encourages more accurate use of language. In accordance with the findings, curricula or teacher training may be developed to ensure that each type of instruction shares the strengths of its counterpart.

Grammar varies in semantic, morphosyntactic, and phonological complexity, which may influence what type of Corrective Feedback (CF) is effective. The present study was designed to investigate the best form of CF for each grammatical feature, in conjunction with associated variables such as learner proficiency level and L1 influence. Fifteen studies, all of which had English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners with a Korean L1 and productive measures of speech or writing, were selected for study. Results suggest that grammatical features which are very similar to the L1 may benefit more from implicit reformulations (recasts). Explicit CF (direct and metalinguistic feedback) appears more useful for semantically and syntactically complex features such as the English article and past hypothetical conditional. Finally, research of proficiency level suggests that timely emphasis of specific grammatical features is needed in order for CF to be effective.

No abstract

Within Asian EFL contexts such as South Korea, large class sizes, poor sources of input and an overreliance on the Grammar-Translation Method may negatively impact semantic and pragmatic development of writing content. Since formulaic language is imbued with syntactic, semantic and pragmatic linguistic features, it represents an ideal means to evaluate the influence of Asian EFL contexts on writing. Thus, formulaic language within academic texts from Korean university students was compared to that found in essays written by American university students. Results revealed that Korean EFL learners overused transitions to define the organization of academic texts at the expense of developing content. Moreover, they used repetition, general lists, and all-purpose formulaic language to "pad" content, neglecting to consider semantic or pragmatic purposes of the text. In contrast to their Korean EFL counterparts, American university students used formulaic language for a variety of pragmatic purposes such as involving the reader, putting examples into a larger perspective, adding connotation, and addressing the perspective of the reader. It appears that EFL contexts such as South Korea require pedagogical and curricular reforms which foster the development of writing composition for semantic and pragmatic purposes.