Referent Similarity and L2 Production

  • Craig Lambert


This chapter defines ten dependent measures argued to be associated with referent similarity based on developmental L1 research. These include a multi-faceted model of noun phrase complexity, explicit comparative structures, and later-emerging relative clause forms. These variables have been shown to relate to language use by speakers at different developmental levels and reflect the types of language variation expected in different conditions of referent similarity based on the theoretical and empirical research outlined in Chaps.  3,  4 and  5.


  1. Berman, R., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy, 5, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Camaioni, L., & Ercolani, A. (1988). The role of comparison activity in the development of referential communication. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 11, 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistics database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language, 81, 882–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilhooly, K., & Logie, R. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Givon, T. (1985). Function, structure and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 2: Theoretical issues (pp. 1005–1027). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Hupet, M., Seron, X., & Chantraine, Y. (1991). The effects of the codability and discriminability of the referents on the collaborative referring procedure. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kennedy, C. (2005). Semantics of comparatives. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 690–694). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Kennedy, C. (2006). Modes of comparison. Proceeding of CLS, 43.Google Scholar
  11. Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in task-based research: Toward more developmentally-based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35, 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  13. McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. (2005). Coh-Metrix version 2.0 indices. Retrieved December, 2011, from
  14. Nippold, M., Hegel, S., Sohlberg, M., & Schwarz, I. (1999). Defining abstract entities: Development in pre-adolescents, and young adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nippold, M., Hesketh, L., Duthie, J., & Mansfield, T. (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1048–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nippold, M., Ward-Lonergan, J., & Fanning, J. (2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic development. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paivio, A., Yuille, J., & Madigan, S. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 945 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ravid, D., & Berman, R. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosenberg, S., & Cohen, B. (1964). Speakers’ and listeners’ processes in a word-communication task. Science, 145, 1201–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rubin, D. (1982). Adapting syntax in writing to varying audiences as a function of age and social cognitive ability. Journal of Child Language, 9, 497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubin, D., & Piche, G. (1979). Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 293–316.Google Scholar
  22. Sapir, E. (1944). Grading, a study in semantics. Philosophy of Science, 11, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott, C., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spreen, O., & Schultz, R. (1966). Parameters of abstraction, meaningfulness, and pronouncability for 329 nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 459–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stassen, L. (1984). The comparative compared. Journal of Semantics, 3, 143–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stassen, L. (2006). Comparative constructions. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 686–690). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Toglia, M., & Battig, W. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig Lambert
    • 1
  1. 1.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations