1.02k likes | 1.13k Views
Linguistic Changes in L2 Oral Performance by Chinese English Majors Across Four Years. WEN Qiufang National Research Center for Foreign Language Education, BFSU, China. Outline. Part One Introduction Part Two Linguistic changes in different modules and sub-modules Part Three
E N D
Linguistic Changes in L2 Oral Performance by Chinese English Majors Across Four Years WEN Qiufang National Research Center for Foreign Language Education, BFSU, China
Outline • Part One • Introduction • Part Two • Linguistic changes in different modules and sub-modules • Part Three • Linguistic changes in different dimensions • Part Four • Conclusion
Part One • A general description of the project • Purpose • Subject • Data collection • Data analysis
General Purpose Linguistic change Cognitive change • What changes have English majors produced in their oral English performance across four years’ undergraduate study? Change for the better Change for the worse
Specific purpose one • Clarify two theoretical issues • Does L2 develop linearly or nonlinearly? • Does L2 develop monolithically or non-monolithically?
Specific purpose two • Improve the effectiveness of the BA program in English in China • Bring the student’s potential into full play
A state-funded project • The project was accomplished by a team of more than 100 people. • The core members of the project are 10 PhD degree-holders or PhD students.
Linguistic changes • Phonological change by Chen in 2006 • Morphological change (agreement and past tense) by Li & Wen, Wang & Wen in 2007 • Syntactic change (VP, NP, T-unit) by Heng & Wen, Ma & Wen, Hu & Wen in 2006 • Lexical change (Vocabulary and FS) by Wen and by Qi in 2006 • Discoursal change (discourse markers) by Hu & Wen in 2007 • Register features change by Wen in 2008
Subjects • 72 English majors participated in this project when they were enrolled in a national key university in 2001 56 students left for the final data analysis since the others’ data sets were incomplete. • 11 male; 45 female • 15 American students from Davidson University in North Carolina who completed one task • 4 male; 11 female
Data collection Retelling An argumentative task Discussion Reading aloud A narrative task Role play
Data collection 1 2 3
Tasks involved in today’s presentation • A narrative task • An argumentative task • Three minutes’ preparation and three minutes’ talk
Data preparation • Transcribed 5,760 minutes’ oral performance with three times’ check • Data cleaning (Foster et al 2000) • false starts • repetitions • self-repairs
A Framework • What to analyze • How to analyze
Morphology-accuracy • Agreement-Accuracy • DN agreement-A • SV agreement-A • AP agreement-A How to analyze? Linear Non-linear Increase U shape Decrease Ω shape etc. N shape, etc. The difference between the starting point and the ending point The time for increase or decrease or cessation More target-like or less target-like
The framework for today’s presentation Morphological (Agreement & past tense) Syntactic (NP, VP) Lexical (FS, vocabulary) Accuracy Complexity Variation Agreement, past tense, NP, VP, FS Accuracy NP, VP, Vocabulary Complexity, variation, accuracy NP, VP, FS, Vocabulary Fluency, complexity, variation
Part Two • Morphological change • Syntactic change • Lexical change
Morphological Change • Grammatical agreement • Past tense
Research question What are the changes in agreement accuracy in the argumentative monologs by the 56 English majors across four years?
Agreement accuracy Y1 – Y2 = .001 Y3– Y4 = .051 Y2 – Y3 = .000
Morphological Change • Grammatical agreement • Past tense
Past tense accuracy Y3 -Y4=.061
Part Two • Morphological change • Syntactic change • Lexical change
Syntactic Change • VP
Research question How does VP complexity, VP variation and VP accuracy change in argumentative monologues by the English majors across four years?
Measurement • VP complexity (Flahive & Snow, 1980) • [(VP1s× 1)+(VP2s×2)+(VP3s×3)+ (VP4s×4)+ (VP5s×5] ÷ VPs • VP variation (Chaudron & Parker, 1990) • (VP types)2÷ VP tokens • VP accuracy • error-free VPs ÷VPs
Three dimensions of VP VP Complexity VP Variation VP Accuracy Y1-Y2 =.03 Y3-Y4=.00 Y2-Y3 =.03
Part Two • Morphological change • Syntactic change • Lexical change
Lexical change • Formulaic sequences • Vocabulary
Research questions • To what extent does English speaking vocabulary develop in terms of fluency, complexity and variation? • Does entry-level affect the changing patterns of fluency, complexity and variation of argumentative vocabulary?
Three dimensions • Fluency • Vocabulary size • Variation
Fluency • The number of words spoken or written in a given time (Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998)
Three dimensions • Fluency • Vocabulary size • Variation
Vocabulary size • Token • I bought a book and a pencil. (7) • Type • I, bought, a, book, and, pencil (6) • Family • Agree, agreeable, agreement • Level 1 vocabulary = Baseword list 1 • Level 2 vocabulary = Baseword List 2 • Level 3 vocabulary = Baseword List 3 and the words off the above three word lists • Words beyond Baseword Lists 1 and 2 better indicators of advanced learners (Laufer, 1995) Vocabulary breadth or complexity The measure of vocabulary size is different from Lexical frequency profile proposed by Laufer & Nation (1995)
Three dimensions • Fluency • Vocabulary size • Variation
Lexical variation • Type/Token ratio • Type xType/Token (Wolfe-Quitero et.al., 1998:107)
Data analysis • Patcound produced by Liang Maocheng and Xiong Wenxin • SPSS: Repeated measures to identify the patterns of change and find out whether the differences between two adjacent years are significant or not.
Research Question 1 • To what extent does English speaking vocabulary change in terms of fluency, vocabulary size and variation?
Three dimensions of vocabulary Fluency Vocabulary size Lexical Variation Y2-Y3 P=.002 Y1-Y2 P=.000 Y1-Y2 P=.000 Y1-Y2 P=.01