ror.org/04xampv42
Abstracts
Abstract
Despite writing and speaking being related activities, their end-products are entirely different. However, previous studies have not shown consistency in terms of grammar use in these two modes. Accordingly, in the present study, I aim to define the syntactic characteristics in these two modes with large-scale data and organized research designs. This study examined 14 indices of syntactic complexity and specific grammar factors in 224 monologues and 139 writings of Korean EFL undergraduates. The results revealed that learners tended to use more finite complement clauses and relative clauses while writing but used because- fragments independently and ‘and’ sentence-initially more frequently while speaking. When compared with previous studies, the characteristics of syntactic complexity of Korean EFL learners, regardless of age, are defined by the use of coordination in speaking and the use of subordination in writing.
Keywords:
- syntactic complexity,
- spoken corpus,
- written corpus,
- English as a Second/Foreign Language,
- monologue
Résumé
L’écrit et l’oral sont des activités clairement liées, mais le résultat final est tout à fait différent.Toutefois, des études antérieures n'ont pas montrées de cohérence dans l'utilisation de la grammaire dans les deux modes. Par conséquent, dans la présente étude, le but est de définir les caractéristiques syntaxiques des deux modes avec des données à grande échelle et des plans de recherche organisés. Cette étude a examiné 14 indices de complexité syntaxique et des facteurs grammaticaux spécifiques dans 224 monologues et 139 écrits d'étudiants coréens de premier cycle EFL. Les résultats ont révélé que les apprenants ont tendance à utiliser des clauses complémentaires limitées et des clauses relatives lorsqu'ils écrivent, mais qu'ils utilisent les fragments ‘parce que’ de manière indépendante et les fragments ‘et’ en début de phrase plus fréquemment à l’oral. En comparaison des études précédentes, les caractéristiques de la complexité syntaxique des apprenants coréens de l'EFL, quel que soit leur âge, sont définies par l'utilisation de la conjonction de coordination dans la parole à l’oral et de la conjonction de subordination par à l’écrit.
Download the article in PDF to read it. Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Ai, H. & Lu, X. (2013). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing. Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data, 249-264.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Barker, F., Salamoura, A., & Saville, N. (2015). Learner corpora and language testing. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 511–533). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639-668.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bonin, P., Fayol, M., & Gombert, J. E. (1998). An experimental study of lexical access in the writing and naming of isolated words. International Journal of Psychology, 33, 269–286Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of second language writing, 26, 42-65.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Casal, J. E., & Lee, J. J. (2019). Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed first year L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 51-62.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Chen, M., & Zechner, K. (2011, June). Computing and evaluating syntactic complexity features for automated scoring of spontaneous non-native speech. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 722-731).Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Chun, J. H., & Hong, S. 2018. Pedagogical reflections on teaching because clauses in Korean EFL writing (to appear in). Modern Studies in English Language and Literature, 62(4), 235-257.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Do writing and speaking employ the same syntactic representations? Journal of Memory and Language, 54(2), 185-198.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Glover, P. (2011). Using CEFR level descriptors to raise university students’ awareness of their speaking skills. Language Awareness. Vol. 20(2), 121–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.555556Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hong, S. (2018). What Japanese and Korean EFL Learners Have in Common: the Acquisition of BECAUSE-Clauses. English Language and Literature, 23(4), 37-56.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hwang, H, Jung, H., & Kim, H. (2020). Effects of Written Versus Spoken Production Modalities on Syntactic Complexity Measures in Beginning‐Level Child EFL Learners. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 267-283.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal. Vol. 91(4), 663–667. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4626094Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Champaign, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Ito, F., & Misumi, H. (2016). The distinctive use of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions in Japanese EFL academic compositions. The Gunma-Kohsen Review, 35, 71-81.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Jiang, J., Bi, P., & Liu, H. (2019). Syntactic complexity development in the writings of EFL learners: Insights from a dependency syntactically-annotated corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100666.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Khushik, G. A., & Huhta, A. (2020). Investigating Syntactic Complexity in EFL Learners' Writing across Common European Framework of Reference Levels A1, A2, and B1. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 506-532.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Kormos, J., Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance. Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing, 193-216.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2017). Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing, 34(4), 513-535.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lan, G., & Sun, Y. (2019). A corpus-based investigation of noun phrase complexity in the L2 writings of a first-year composition course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 14-24.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lim, S. B. (2018). A study of grammatical errors in college students' English writings. The Journal of Modern British & American Language & Literature, 36(1), 301-328.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lintunen, P. & Mäkilä, M. (2014). Measuring syntactic complexity in spoken and written learner language: comparing the incomparable?. Research in Language, 12(4), 377-399.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 474–496.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36–62.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190-208.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Manning, C. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J. R., Bethard, S., & McClosky, D. (2014, June). The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In Proceedings of 52nd annual meeting of The association for computational linguistics: system demonstrations (pp. 55-60).Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Martínez, A. C. L. (2018). Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFL writers at different proficiency levels. Assessing Writing, 35, 1-11.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Myles, F. (2015). Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 309–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Nippold, M. A., Frantz-Kaspar, M. W., & Vigeland, L. M. (2017). Spoken language production in young adults: Examining syntactic complexity. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(5), 1339-1347.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492-518.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Park, S. (2020). A corpus study of modal verbs in Korean learners' speech. Journal of Linguistic Studies, 25(2), 121-137.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Park, S. & Yoon, S. (2021). Syntactic complexity of EFL learners’ casual conversation, monologue, and writing. The Journal of Studies in Language, 37(1), 75-89.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Pojanapunya, P. & Todd, R. (2018). Log-likelihood and odds ratio: Keyness statistics for different purposes of keyword analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic theory, 14(1), 133–167.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29, 419–448.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Rayson, P. & Garside, R. (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In Proceedings of The Workshop on Comparing Corpora (ACL 2000). Hong Kong: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Seidlhofer, B., Breiteneder, A., Klimpfinger, T., Majewski, S., Osimk-Teasdale, R., Pitzl, M. L., & Radeka, M. (2001). Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Tian, Y., & Lo, D. (2015, March). A comparative study on the effectiveness of part-of-speech tagging techniques on bug reports. In 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) (pp. 570-574). IEEE.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Seog, D. S. Y. (2018). A Corpus-based Study of the Use of English Articles by Korean EFL Learners. The Linguistic Association of Korean Journal, 26(1), 57-73.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Seog, D. S. Y., Choi, I. C., & Lee, Y. S. (2019). Modal Usage of Advanced Korean EFL Learners, Young Korean EFL Learners, and Native English Speakers: A Corpora Comparison Study, Language and Linguistics, 85, 23-54.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar