L1 EFFECTS IN MORPHOLOGICAL, COMPLEXITY, ACCURACY, AND FLUENCY ...

186 Pages·2014·1.09 MB·English

GRAIN SIZE MATTERS: L1 EFFECTS IN MORPHOLOGICAL, COMPLEXITY,
ACCURACY, AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT

by
Hillary Schepps
B.A., Yale University, 2010

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
The Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts

University of Pittsburgh
2014
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

This thesis was presented

by

Hillary Schepps

It was defended on
March 5, 2014
and approved by
Dawn E. McCormick, Ph.D., Linguistics Department
Yasuhiro Shirai, Ph.D., Linguistics Department
Thesis Director: Alan Juffs, Ph.D., Linguistics Department

ii
Copyright © by Hillary Schepps
2014
iii
GRAIN SIZE MATTERS: L1 EFFECTS IN MORPHOLOGICAL, COMPLEXITY,
ACCURACY, AND FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT

Hillary Schepps, M.A.
University of Pittsburgh, 2014

In second language acquisition (SLA), three constructs of complexity, accuracy, and fluency
(CAF) have been isolated to evaluate learners’ language performance and development (Brumfit,
1984; R. Ellis, 2008; Skehan, 1989, 1998). However, the emergence and interaction of these
subsystems over time remain debated (Housen & Kuiken, 2009). This thesis examines whether
learners follow a shared developmental path in SLA (Vercellotti, 2012), whether each learner
follows her own unique, idiosyncratic path (Larsen-Freeman, 2006), as well as the role of a
learner’s first language (L1) in accounting for individual variation, especially in morphosyntactic
accuracy (N. Ellis, 2006; Luk & Shirai, 2009). To explore these questions, this research analyzes
the development of CAF in the semi-spontaneous spoken output of 30 learners of English (15
with L1 Chinese, 15 with L1 Arabic) over eight months as they progress from a low intermediate
to a high intermediate level of proficiency while enrolled in an intensive English. I also consider
their accuracy on six grammatical functors to examine L1 effects in morphological and syntactic
development.
This research does not find a significant L1 effect in CAF development between-groups,
but there is a reliable effect for the interaction between CAF and the L1, and overall, the Arabic
learners have higher fluency and accuracy. Moreover, there was a significant interaction between
time and gains in fluency, but only for the Chinese learners. In addition, there are clear L1 effects
in grammatical functor accuracy scores, with Arabic speakers significantly more accurate than
iv
the Chinese on plural –s at both levels and on third person singular present –s at the higher level.
These results suggest that the grain size of measurement matters, because between-group L1
effects are only significant on the specific accuracy measures. It follows that learners’ second
language development is best operationalized by looking at global as well as specific
measurements, as general measurements—too often employed in the literature—only tell a part
of the story. Furthermore, this research confirms the observation that group averages tend to
conceal significant individual variability (Skehan, 2009), and that L1 may not be the best
grouping factor when employing global measurements.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. XIV
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 2
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM .......................................................................... 2
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 3
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................. 5
1.5 THESIS OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 5
2.0 MEASURING THE COMPLEXITY, ACCURACY AND FLUENCY OF
INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCES ............................................................................................. 7
2.1 BASIC UNIT OF MEASUREMENT: AS-UNIT .............................................. 9
2.2 COMPLEXITY .................................................................................................. 15
2.2.1 Operationalizing syntactic complexity ...................................................... 16
2.2.2 Measuring syntactic complexity by subordination .................................. 18
2.3 GLOBAL ACCURACY .................................................................................... 19
2.3.1 Types of errors ............................................................................................ 20
2.3.2 Measuring accuracy in error-free clauses ................................................ 21
2.4 FLUENCY .......................................................................................................... 22
2.4.1 Types of fluency: Breakdown, speed, and repair ..................................... 23
vi
2.4.2 Measuring fluency in WPM ....................................................................... 23
2.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPLEXITY, ACCURACY AND
FLUENCY ........................................................................................................................... 24
2.5.1 Cross-sectional vs. longitudinal CAF studies ........................................... 26
2.5.2 Trade-off hypothesis ................................................................................... 26
2.5.3 Connected growers...................................................................................... 30
2.5.4 Dynamic systems theory ............................................................................. 32
2.5.5 Individual differences ................................................................................. 35
3.0 MORPHEME STUDIES ........................................................................................... 38
3.1 FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ............................................................. 38
3.2 CHILD SECOND LANGUAGE MORPHEME STUDIES ........................... 41
3.3 ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE MORPHEME STUDIES .......................... 44
3.4 THEORETICAL ISSUES WITH THE MORPHEME STUDIES ............... 45
3.5 THE SEARCH FOR AN EXPLANATION .................................................... 49
3.5.1 Functional categories .................................................................................. 50
3.5.2 Universals..................................................................................................... 52
3.5.3 The role of the first language ..................................................................... 55
4.0 THE STUDY ............................................................................................................... 59
4.1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 59
4.2 THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE INSTITUTE ................................................... 60
4.3 STUDENTS ........................................................................................................ 60
4.3.1 Initial proficiency ........................................................................................ 62
4.3.2 Comparing grammatical functors in Arabic and Chinese ...................... 64
vii
4.3.2.1 L1 Arabic ............................................................................................. 65
4.3.2.2 L1 Chinese ........................................................................................... 68
4.3.3 Comparing learning styles and cultural influence ................................... 71
4.3.3.1 Arabic cultural influence .................................................................... 71
4.3.3.2 Chinese cultural influence .................................................................. 72
4.4 DATA .................................................................................................................. 74
4.4.1 Data collection ............................................................................................. 74
4.4.1.1 RSA topics and prompts ..................................................................... 75
4.4.2 Transcription and coding ........................................................................... 77
4.4.2.1 CAF analysis ........................................................................................ 78
4.4.2.2 Grammatical functor analysis............................................................ 80
4.4.3 Independent variables ................................................................................ 82
4.4.4 Dependent variables.................................................................................... 83
4.5 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 84
4.5.1 Research questions and hypotheses ........................................................... 84
4.5.2 Statistical procedures.................................................................................. 85
5.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 86
5.1 CAF MEASURES OF GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 86
5.1.1 Complexity development ............................................................................ 86
5.1.2 Accuracy development................................................................................ 88
5.1.3 Fluency development .................................................................................. 89
5.1.4 Inferential statistics ..................................................................................... 93
5.1.4.1 Arabic learners’ CAF development................................................... 94
viii
5.1.4.2 Chinese learners’ CAF development ................................................. 95
5.1.5 Discussion of results .................................................................................... 96
5.2 GRAMMATICAL FUNCTOR ACCURACY ................................................ 97
5.2.1 Nominal functors’ specific accuracy scores .............................................. 98
5.2.2 Verbal functors’ specific accuracy scores ............................................... 102
5.2.3 Ranking of grammatical functors............................................................ 107
5.2.4 Implicational scales ................................................................................... 109
5.2.4.1 Level 3 implicational scale ................................................................ 110
5.2.4.2 Level 4 implicational scale ................................................................ 113
5.2.5 Inferential statistics ................................................................................... 116
5.2.6 Discussion of results .................................................................................. 117
5.2.6.1 Possessive ’s morpheme .................................................................... 120
5.2.6.2 Relative clauses .................................................................................. 121
6.0 SUMMARY AND GENERAL DISCUSSION ...................................................... 123
6.1 GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT IN CAF MEASURES .................................... 123
6.1.1 Development by L1 group ........................................................................ 124
6.1.2 A closer look at fluency............................................................................. 125
6.1.3 Interactions between CAF measures ....................................................... 127
6.1.3.1 Dynamic systems theory ................................................................... 129
6.2 MORPHEME ACCURACY ........................................................................... 130
6.2.1 Nominal functors discussion .................................................................... 131
6.2.2 Verbal functors discussion ....................................................................... 132
6.2.3 The reliability of the grammatical functor analysis............................... 135
ix
6.3 GENERAL DISCUSSION OF IMPLICATIONS ........................................ 136
6.3.1 Language background and cultural influence ....................................... 137
6.3.2 Other individual differences: Meaning vs. form orientations .............. 138
6.3.3 Pedagogical implications .......................................................................... 138
6.3.4 Implications for the measurements of CAF............................................ 140
7.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 144
7.1 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ................................................................... 144
7.2 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 146
7.3 FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................................... 147
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ 149
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................ 151
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................ 156
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................ 158
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 160
x