-
*The development of lexical proficiency in L2 speaking and
writing tasks by Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels Bram
Bult & 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
-
.
Comparison between the oral and written task modality.Framework
for the analysis of lexical L2 development.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 performanceOral L2 production is
considered to give evidence of the learners 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 knowledgeLexical
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
productivityTTR and transformations (Guiraud, Uber, Herdan, D)=>
Lexical diversityProportion of lexical / function words=>
Lexical densityFrequency based measures (LFP, Advanced G)=>
Lexical sophisticationTemporal measures (words / time unit)=>
Lexical fluencyError analysis => Lexical accuracy
-
.Measuring lexical L2 competenceWhat 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
constructsObservational level of behavioral constructsOperational
level of statistical constructs
-
.Measuring lexical L2 competenceRelations between different
levels of analysis
-
.
PART III: Empirical study of the lexical development of
Dutch-speaking learners of French
Outline
-
.
How does the oral and written lexical performance in the FFL
production of Dutch-speaking L2 learners develop over time?Is there
a difference in scores for written and spoken tasks? (group
comparison)Are learners lexical proficiency scores similar for
written and oral tasks? (intra-individual comparison)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:Complaint letterArgument for or against a statementData
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, +ct).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 / )
Formula:
(D*(100/AvgD)+Glex*(100/AvgGlex)+Gadv*(100/AvgGadv))/3
DATA ANALYSIS
-
.RESULTS
All types{}123Written+ +++Spoken++/+W vs. S/W x S.43
% Lexical words{}123Written////Spoken////W vs. S+W x S/
-
.RESULTS
D (all words){}123Written+//+Spoken++/+W vs. S+W x S.45
G (lexical words){}123Written++/+Spoken++/+W vs. S+W x S.52
-
.RESULTS
Advanced types{}123Written++/+Spoken++/+W vs. S/W x S.32
% Advanced types{}123Written+//+Spoken+//+W vs. S+W x S/
-
.RESULTS
Advanced G{}123Written++/+Spoken++/+W vs. S+W x S/
Combined{}123Written++/+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
Development of lexical proficiency:
Written versus spoken tasks:
Intra-learner task correlation:
Similar development on tasks:
Summary
-
.CLOSING REMARKS
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.
Limitations.
Directions for future research.
-
[email protected]@europarl.europa.euThank
you!
****************************
