0 The development of lexical proficiency in L2 speaking and writing tasks by Dutch-speaking learners...
-
Upload
noah-ramos -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of 0 The development of lexical proficiency in L2 speaking and writing tasks by Dutch-speaking learners...
1
The development of lexical proficiency in L2 speaking and
writing tasks by Dutch-speaking learners of French in
Brussels
Bram Bulté & Alex Housen
ACQUILANG (Centre for Studies on Second Language Learning & Teaching)
TBLT 2009, Lancaster
.
• Research project on the development of L2
proficiency in French, English and Dutch in
different educational contexts.
• Theoretical, conceptual and methodological
issues and empirical research.
• Empirical research:• Longitudinal
• Learner background data
• Spoken and written L2 production data.
Research background
.
1. Comparison between the oral and written task
modality.
2. Framework for the analysis of lexical L2
development.
3. Empirical study of the lexical development of
Dutch-speaking learners of French.
Outline presentation
.
PART I: Comparison between the oral and
written task modality
Outline
.
Oral and written modes
Influence of mode on lexical performance
• Oral L2 production is considered to give evidence of the
learner’s implicit knowledge (Towell et al., 1996); written
production L2 allows for the use of explicit knowledge.
• Writing is 5 to 8 times slower than speaking in the same
individual (Fayol, 1997).
• Difficult to separate effect of (esp. online) planning from
effect of mode.
.
Oral and written modes
Lexical differences between speaking and writing:
• Disfluency markers: lubricators, interjections, fillers,
modifiers, …
• Repetition and paraphrase, false starts.
• Clause linking: small range of connectors.
• Words with vague semantics.
• Low lexical density.
.
PART II: Framework for the analysis of lexical
L2 development
Outline
.
Lexical L2 competence
• Word = ‘lexical entry’ (Jiang 2000).
• Knowing vs. using a word -> ability to use the relevant
lexical information in a wide range of contexts when the
need arises (McCarthy, 1990).
• Lexical competence = lexical knowledge and ability to
apply that knowledge (procedural).
• Lexical proficiency = the concrete manifestation of lexical
competence
.
Measuring lexical L2 competence• What do we want to measure? Extent of lexical competence.
• Lexical competence = lexical knowledge + procedural
knowledge
• Lexical knowledge can be characterized by its size, width
and depth.
• Size refers to the number of lexical entries in memory.
• Width and depth refer to the quality and degree of
elaboration of the knowledge of the lexical entries in
memory.
• Procedural knowledge is a matter of control / skill / ability.
.
Measuring lexical L2 competence
Different options:
• Purpose-built tests vs. ‘free’ language production.
• Subjective rating vs. ‘objective’ measures.
Methodological concerns:
• Which quantitative measures should be used to
assess lexical competence?
.
Measuring lexical L2 competenceProposed quantitative measures:
• Number of different (content) words or lemmas
=> Lexical productivity
• TTR and transformations (Guiraud, Uber, Herdan, D)
=> Lexical diversity
• Proportion of lexical / function words
=> Lexical density
• Frequency based measures (LFP, Advanced G)
=> Lexical sophistication
• Temporal measures (words / time unit)
=> Lexical fluency
• Error analysis
=> Lexical accuracy
.
Measuring lexical L2 competence• What do we want the measures to measure?
How do they relate to the theoretical view on lexical competence?
• 3 levels of analysis:• Theoretical level of cognitive constructs
• Observational level of behavioral constructs
• Operational level of statistical constructs
.
Measuring lexical L2 competenceRelations between different levels of analysis
THEORETICAL LEVELOF
COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTS:LEXICAL COMPETENCE
OBSERVATIONAL LEVELOF
BEHAVIOURAL CONSTRUCTS:
LEXICAL PROFICIENCY ASMANIFESTED IN L2 PROCESSING
(esp. PRODUCTION)
OPERATIONAL LEVELOF
STATISTICAL CONSTRUCTS:
SCORES, MEASURES &MEASUREMENTS
SIZEOF KNOWLEDGE
WIDTHOF KNOWLEDGE
DEPTHOF KNOWLEDGE
PROCEDURALKNOWLEDGE
LEXICALDIVERSITY
LEXICALSOPHISTICATION
LEXICALCOMPLEXITY
LEXICALPRODUCTIVITY
LEXICALFLUENCY
GENERALTTRÕs
(andtransformations)
FREQUENCY-BASED LEXICAL
MEASURES
(Advanced TTRÕs)
LEXICALCLOZE TEST
(or gap-fillingtest)
NUMBER OF(CONTENT)
WORD TYPES
(or lemmas)
TEMPORALMEASURES (e.g.
content words / time unit)& LEXICAL
DECISION TASKS
.
PART III: Empirical study of the lexical
development of Dutch-speaking
learners of French
Outline
.
1. How does the oral and written lexical performance in the FFL production of Dutch-speaking L2 learners develop over time?
2. Is there a difference in scores for written and spoken tasks? (group comparison)
3. Are learners’ lexical proficiency scores similar for written and oral tasks? (intra-individual comparison)
4. Is the lexical development of learners comparable for oral and written tasks? (inter-individual comparison)
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
.
“Lexical Diversity in Writing and Speaking Task Performances”
• “First study” comparing lexical diversity of spoken and written discourses produced by the same participants.
• Lexical diversity (D) of writing and speaking performances approximately at the same level.
• Lexical diversity (D) of compositions and interviews significantly correlated (r = 0.448).
YU (2009)
.
Subjects:
• 15 pupils, Dutch native speakers, 15-17y old, 3rd-5th grade, Dutch-speaking schools in Brussels.
Tasks:
• 1 oral task: retelling of a wordless picture story (frog story)
• 2 written tasks:
o Complaint letter
o Argument for or against a statement
Data collection:
• Longitudinal, 3 test times, 1y intervals – corpus-based.
RESEARCH DESIGN
.
Data processing:
• Recorded oral tasks and written tasks transcribed in CHAT-format.
• Spelling mistakes in written tasks corrected.
• Non-French words and interlanguage words tagged (@il).
• Hesitations, self-correction and repetitions coded in oral transcriptions.
• Excluded from analysis: interjections & recasts.
• ‘Chunks’ treated as one word (parce+que, à+côté).
• Words were lemmatized.
• Lexical words tagged (|lex).
PRODUCTIVE LANGUAGE CORPUS
.
Quantitative measures:
• Productivity: # tokens, # types, # lexical types.
• Diversity: D, G and U (all words), G and U (lexical words).
• Density: % of lexical words (lexical words / all words).
• Sophistication: # ‘advanced’ types, ‘advanced’ G and U (advanced types / V all tokens), % of advanced types (advanced types / all types).
• Combination: D, G Lex and G Advanced combined.
Statistical analyses:
• Correlations.
• Repeated measures ANOVA, with pair-wise comparisons.
DATA ANALYSIS
.
Combined measures: D, G Lex and G Adv.
Rescaling scores: Average score = 100
=> y1 = y * (100 / ȳ)
Formula: (D*(100/AvgD)+Glex*(100/AvgGlex)+Gadv*(100/AvgGadv))/3
DATA ANALYSIS
.
RESULTS
All types
{} 1 2 3
Written + + + +
Spoken + + / +
W vs. S /
W x S .43
% Lexical words
{} 1 2 3
Written / / / /
Spoken / / / /
W vs. S +
W x S /
.
RESULTS
D (all words)
{} 1 2 3
Written + / / +
Spoken + + / +
W vs. S +
W x S .45
G (lexical words)
{} 1 2 3
Written + + / +
Spoken + + / +
W vs. S +
W x S .52
.
RESULTS
Advanced types
{} 1 2 3
Written + + / +
Spoken + + / +
W vs. S /
W x S .32
% Advanced types
{} 1 2 3
Written + / / +
Spoken + / / +
W vs. S +
W x S /
.
RESULTS
Advanced G
{} 1 2 3
Written + + / +
Spoken + + / +
W vs. S +
W x S /
Combined
{} 1 2 3
Written + + / +
Spoken + + / +
W vs. S +
W x S .41
.
RESULTS
Similar individual development on written and spoken tasks?
• Gain scores for different measures and different modes.
• Not 1 significant correlation found between the gain scores of learners on the same measures for the 2 different modes.
=> Seems like progress on both modes is not related.
.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Development of lexical proficiency:
2. Written versus spoken tasks:
3. Intra-learner task correlation:
4. Similar development on ≠ tasks:
Summary
.
CLOSING REMARKS
1. Lexical proficiency in writing and speaking tasks.
• Increase, both on written and spoken.
• No parallel development on written and spoken tasks.
• Higher scores for writing tasks.
• Moderately high correlation between speaking and writing scores.
2. Limitations.
3. Directions for future research.