Beyond the Present Indicative: Lexical Futures as Indicators of Development in L2 Spanish

Abstract

The present study investigates to what extent first‐language (L1) and second‐language (L2) speakers use lexical futures, whether such forms provide evidence of development, and whether these forms are constrained differently from the present indicative (PI) according to linguistic predictors. It uses a combined approach through its concept‐oriented consideration of an underreported form and analysis of the behavior of individual learners, along with applying variationist methods to determine whether independent linguistic predictors differentiate between lexical futures and a formally similar structure (i.e., the PI). The study includes 120 English‐speaking learners of Spanish from 5 course levels and 20 native speakers (NSs) of Spanish. Participants completed an oral production task, in which they responded to 8 personal prompts. Results indicate that NSs used lexical futures robustly and that part of the development associated with the acquisition of future‐time expression included increases in the overall rates of lexical future use and the inventory of lexical future periphrases. Mixed‐effects models revealed that from the earliest level lexical futures could be differentiated from the PI as predicted by independent variables, and that independent variables patterned in a more target‐like way as course level increased.

Sociolinguistic competence and varietal repertoires in a second language: A study on addressee‐dependent varietal behavior using virtual reality

“…Elsewhere (e.g., Geeslin et al, 2013;Kanwit, 2017Kanwit, , 2019Kanwit, , 2022Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008;Regan, 2013Regan, , 2022Wirtz & Pfenninger, 2023b), it has been argued that, in light of individual variability and the common understanding of sociolinguistic competence as an individually owned process (Ender, 2022;Howard, 2012;Kinginger, 2008;Regan, 2010;van Compernolle & Williams, 2012), analyses of singled-out learners should be provided in addition to group aggregates. While there was no interindividual trend of varietal convergence in our data, the group-level estimates were not necessarily indicative of all the individuals, in that a few select participants adjusted their frequency profiles of standard German, dialect, and mixture varieties, albeit some more addressee dependently than others.…”

“…Finally, this contribution makes important strides to bridge quantitative and qualitative analyses, adopting not only complex Bayesian multilevel analyses, but also holistic person‐centered approaches, the goal being to carefully provide “analyses of individual learners (…) in addition to group aggregates” (Kanwit, 2022, p. 39; see also, e.g., Larsen‐Freeman & Cameron, 2008). The driver behind meaningful triangulation of person and group is because, in the words of Regan (2013), “humans are complex and we cannot explain what they do by reference to broad social and linguistic generalisations” (p. 45); rather, we must allow for and encourage exploring the “individual variation explained by their individual stories” (p. 45; see also Ender et al., 2023; Kanwit, 2017, 2019; Wirtz & Pfenninger, 2023b). To this end, the present study is guided by the following exploratory research questions: …”

Variability and individual differences in L2 sociolinguistic evaluations: The GROUP, the INDIVIDUAL and the HOMOGENEOUS ENSEMBLE

“…Although quantitatively capturing systematic differences in particular factors and regressing language production/perception against these remains the prevailing approach for assessing the effects of individual differences, there exists a growing call to focus on the individual learner or smaller groups thereof-for example, in the spirit of qualitative, person-in-context, and/or individual-level analyses-in addition to providing group estimates (for recent discussions concerning the need to consider individual learner data and applications of this, see Kanwit, 2017Kanwit, , 2019. This is because person-centered analyses can provide complementary (and often more nuanced) insights into differences in developmental trajectories and/or motives for acquisition.…”