한국 대학생들의 논증적 에세이에 나타난 절과 구 복잡성의 발달

학위논문(석사) -- 서울대학교대학원 : 사범대학 외국어교육과(영어전공), 2023. 2. 오선영.영어 글쓰기 발달에 관한 연구들은 문법적 복잡성(grammatical complexity)을 학습자의 능숙도를 구별하는 중요한 지표로 인식하고 있다. 초기 연구들은 주로 절 복잡성(clausal complexity)에 기반해 문법적 복잡성을 측정하였지만, 최근 연구들은 구 복잡성(phrasal complexity)에 초점을 두고 있다. 이러한 변화는 절 복잡성이 일상 대화가 가진 특징으로 글쓰기의 초기 발달 단계를 나타내는 반면, 구 복잡성, 특히 명사구의 복잡성은 학문적 글(academic writing)이 가진 복잡성의 전형으로써 높은 수준의 발달 단계를 나타낸다는 인식에 기반하고 있다. 하지만 일부 연구들은 명사구의 복잡성이 글쓰기 능숙도와 큰 관련이 없다는 상반된 결과를 보이고 있는데, 이는 대부분의 연구들이 학습자 모국어가 문법적 복잡성에 미치는 영향을 고려하지 않고 다양한 모국어를 가진 학습자들에 의해 만들어진 코퍼스를 사용했기 때문일 수 있다. 이에 본 연구는 한국인 대학생들이 작성한 글을 분석하여 절과 구의 복잡성이 글쓰기 능숙도와 연관성이 있는지 살펴보고, 그러한 연관성에 크게 기여한 복잡성 특징들을 바탕으로 문법적 복잡성의 발달 패턴을 추정하고자 하였다. 또한 학생들의 글을 질적으로 분석하여, 특정 복잡성 특징을 구현할 때 자주 쓰이는 어휘와 오류 빈도 및 유형을 파악함으로써 능숙도 집단 간의 차이를 더 자세히 묘사하고자 하였다. 본 연구에 사용된 코퍼스는 연세 영어 학습자 코퍼스(Yonsei English Learner Corpus, YELC 2011)에서 추출한 234개의 논증적 에세이로 구성되어 있으며, 이는 CEFR에 기반하여 초급, 중급, 고급의 글쓰기 능숙도를 나타내는 세 개의 하위 코퍼스로 구분되었다. 품사 태깅된 코퍼스를 바탕으로 정규표현식(regular expressions)을 사용하여, Biber et al. (2011)이 제안한 발달단계에 있는 9개의 절 복잡성 특징과 8개의 구 복잡성 특징을 추출하여 각각의 빈도를 계산하였다. 피어슨 카이제곱검정(a Pearson Chi-square test) 결과, 글쓰기 능숙도가 절과 구의 복잡성과 유의한 연관성이 있다는 결론이 도출되었다. 사후검정으로 잔차 분석(a residual analysis)을 수행한 결과, 특히 5개 복잡성 특징이 이러한 연관성에 크게 기여했음이 밝혀졌다. 주목할 만한 발견은 각 능숙도 집단의 주요 복잡성 특징이 Biber et al. (2011)이 제안한 발달단계와 일치하며 따라서 한국인 대학생의 발달 패턴이 두 개의 매개변수, 즉 (1) 구조적 형태와 (2) 통사적 기능에 의해 설명될 수 있다는 점이다. 즉, 한국 대학생들의 문법적 복잡성은 (i) 절의 구성 성분으로 기능하는 정형 종속절(finite dependent clauses functioning as clause constituents)인 부사절의 빈번한 사용에서 (ii) 명사구의 구성 성분으로 기능하는 정형 종속절(finite clause types function as NP constituents)인 WH 관계절에 대한 의존을 거쳐 (iii) 명사구의 구성 성분으로 기능하는 종속구(dependent phrasal structures functioning as noun phrase constituents)인 of 전치사구에 대한 선호로 발달하는 것으로 나타났다. 예상과 달리, 명사의 선수식어(premodifier)로 사용되는 형용사 및 명사의 빈도는 글쓰기 능숙도와 큰 연관성이 없는 것으로 나타났다. 이에 관해 학생들의 글을 질적 분석한 결과, 첫째, 초급 수준의 글은 쓰기 지시문(writing prompts)에 제시된 형용사+명사 조합을 반복적으로 사용하는 경향을 보였다. 둘째, 명사+명사 구조와 관련한 오류가 능숙도가 높아질수록 현저히 낮아지는 경향을 보였다. 마지막으로, 보어절(complement clauses)과 관련해서는 모든 능숙도 수준의 학생들이 매우 한정적인 종류의 통제 명사(controlling nouns)를 사용했으며, 학문적인 글 보다는 일상 대화에서 쓰이는 통제 동사(controlling verbs)를 사용하였다. 이러한 연구 결과는 크게 세가지 교육적 함의를 시사한다. 첫째, 경험적으로 도출된 문법적 복잡성의 발달 단계를 상세한 평가 척도 설명자(rating scale descriptors) 개발과 보다 맞춤화 된 수업 설계를 위해 활용해야 한다. 둘째, 학문적인 글에서 보어절과 함께 자주 사용되는 통제 명사 및 동사에 대한 교실 수업을 통해, 학습자들이 문법적 구조를 학문적인 어휘로 실현할 수 있도록 해야 한다. 마지막으로, 특히 명사를 선수식하는 명사 및 관계대명사절의 사용에 있어 학습자의 글에서 자주 발견되는 오류를 시정함으로써, 문법 구조 사용에 대한 정확성을 향상시켜야 한다.Studies that explore L2 writing development identify grammatical complexity as a primary discriminator for different proficiency levels of L2 writers. In the 1990s, grammatical complexity in L2 writing was often measured by clausal complexity, but the kind of complexity that has recently received particular attention is phrasal complexity. Such a move follows the recognition that clausal complexity represents the complexity of conversation and beginning levels of writing development, whereas phrasal complexity, specifically noun phrase complexity, represents the complexity of academic writing and advanced developmental levels. Some L2 writing studies, however, have yielded conflicting results, showing that phrasal features as noun modifiers have little predictive power for writing quality. One possible reason underlying these inconsistent results might be that most studies in this area have used corpus data from learners of heterogenous L1 backgrounds with no consideration for the significant effect of L1 on the use of complexity features in L2 writing. Thus, this study analyzed essay samples produced only by L1 Korean writers to investigate whether clausal and phrasal complexity is associated with L2 writing proficiency and, if so, what developmental patterns can be observed based on complexity features that contribute substantially to the association. A qualitative analysis of student writing was followed up to provide a detailed description of proficiency-level differences, especially with respect to lexical realizations and error types associated with specific complexity features. The corpus used in the present study contained 234 argumentative essays written by first-year college students, including 78 low-rated essays (A1 and A1+ levels of the CEFR), 78 mid-rated essays (B1 and B1+ levels of the CEFR), and 78 high-rated essays (B2+, C1, and C2 levels of the CEFR). Drawing on Biber et al.s (2011) developmental index, the nine clausal and eight phrasal complexity features were extracted from the tagged corpus using regular expressions to measure the frequency of each feature. The result of a Pearson Chi-square test demonstrated a statistically significant association between the three proficiency levels and the use of clausal and phrasal complexity features. The post-hoc residual analysis revealed five complexity features with great contribution to the association: finite adverbial clause, noun complement clause, WH relative clause, prepositional phrase (of), and prepositional phrase (other). Especially noteworthy is the finding that the main source of complexity at each proficiency level agrees with its corresponding developmental stage reported by Biber et al. (2011), and thus, developmental patterns for Korean college students are successfully explained by two parameters: (1) structural form (finite dependent clauses vs. dependent phrases) and (2) syntactic function (clause constituents vs. noun phrase constituents). Specifically, the development proceeds from (i) clausal complexity mainly via finite adverbial clauses (i.e., finite dependent clauses functioning as clause constituents); through (ii) the intermediate stage of heavy reliance on WH relative clauses (i.e., finite clause types functioning as noun phrase constituents); to finally (iii) phrasal complexity primarily via prepositional phrases (of) (i.e., phrasal structures functioning as noun phrase constituents). Surprisingly, premodifying adjectives and nouns were found to have no significant association with L2 writing proficiency despite being noun-modifying phrasal features. The subsequent qualitative analysis of student writing, however, illustrated greater proficiency of the highly rated essays in using these features in two regards. First, the lower-rated essays drew much more heavily on adjective-noun sequences presented in writing prompts than the higher-rated essays. Second, the number of errors in the composition of noun-noun sequences noticeably decreased in the higher-rated essays. The qualitative observation concerning that-complement clauses, on the other hand, identified the reliance on a limited set of controlling nouns and conversational styles of controlling verbs in student writing across proficiency levels. Three main pedagogical implications are provided based on the findings: (i) the use of empirically derived developmental stages to create detailed rating scale descriptors and provide more customized writing courses on the use of complexity features; (ii) the need for classroom instruction on common academic controlling nouns and verbs used in that complement clauses given the importance of academically oriented lexical realizations of grammatical structures; and (iii) the need to address recurrent errors, particularly in terms of using premodifying nouns and relative clauses.CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background of the Study 1 1.2 Purpose of the Study 4 1.3 Research Questions 5 1.4 Organization of the Thesis 6 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 8 2.1 Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing 8 2.1.1 Definition of Grammatical Complexity 9 2.1.2 Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing Studies 13 2.2 Criticism of Traditional Measures of Grammatical Complexity 15 2.2.1 Reductiveness and Redundancy of Length- and Subordination-based Measures 16 2.2.2 Inappropriateness of the T-unit Approach to the Assessment of Writing Development 21 2.3 Measures of Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing 24 2.3.1 Clausal and Phrasal Complexity in Relation to L2 Writing Development 25 2.3.2 Studies on Clausal and Phrasal Complexity in L2 Writing 31 2.4 Variation in the Use of Grammatical Complexity Features 36 2.4.1 The Effect of L1 Background 37 2.4.2 The Effect of Genre 43 2.4.3 The Effect of Timing Condition 46 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 50 3.1 Learner Corpus 50 3.1.1 Description of YELC 2011 50 3.1.2 Description of a Subset of YELC 2011 used in the Study 53 3.2 Grammatical Complexity Measures 55 3.3 Corpus Tagging and Automatic Extraction 59 3.4 Data Analysis 65 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 70 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 70 4.2 The Association between L2 Writing Proficiency and Grammatical Complexity 76 4.3 The Developmental Patterns of Grammatical Complexity 77 4.4 The Grammatical Complexity Features with Great Contribution to the Association 84 4.4.1 Finite Adverbial Clauses 84 4.4.2 Prepositional Phrases as Nominal Postmodifiers 92 4.4.3 WH Relative Clauses 100 4.4.4 Finite Complement Clauses Controlled by Nouns 106 4.5 The Grammatical Complexity Features with Little Contribution to the Association 112 4.5.1 Premodifying Adjectives 113 4.5.2 Nouns as Nominal Premodifiers 120 4.5.3 Finite Complement Clauses Controlled by Verbs or Adjectives 125 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 136 5.1 Major Findings 136 5.2 Pedagogical Implications 139 5.3 Limitations and Prospect for Future Research 142 REFERENCES 145 APPENDICES 161 ABSTRACT IN KOREAN 165석

A history of emotive interjections in English: what, why and how

W pracy omówiono ewolucję form oraz funkcję wykrzyknień i wtrąceń what, why i how na podstawie korpusu tekstów powieści angielskich (XVII- XX wiek). Opierając się na dotychczasowych opracowaniach językoznawczych, podjęto próbę odpowiedzi na pytanie, czy można mówić o konwencjonalizacji treści wykrzyknień przy współistnieniu tradycyjnej funkcji pytającej i wtórnej funkcji eksklamatywnej tych zaimków . Jak wiadomo, każdy akt komunikacji związany jest z emocjonalnym zaangażowaniem rozmówców, co powoduje, że semantyka postaw uczuciowych i stosunków międzyludzkich wyraża się między innymi w różnych sposobach mówienia. Zasadne jest zatem omówienie wielorakich emocji, takich jak radość, zachwyt, rozczarowanie lub zdenerwowanie. Temat ten rozważany jest w rozdziale II. Ponadto zwrócono uwagę na złożoność problemu, która wyraża się także w różnicach definicyjnych pomiędzy pojęciem wykrzyknienia (exclamation) i pojęciem wykrzyknika (interjection), szczególnie gdy wykrzyknienie jest formą jednowyrazową typu What!, Why!, How!. Oba te terminy zostały jednoznacznie zdefiniowane. Rozdział trzeci omawia diachroniczny rozwój wykrzyknień. Zjawisko współistnienia dwóch różnych funkcji opisywanej klasy pojawia się już w okresie staroangielskim. Różnice w poszczególnych przykładach wskazują na wymienność badanych funkcji w różnym stopniu i z różną częstotliwością dla what, why i how. Można też zaobserwować syntaktyczną mobilność badanych zaimków, które pojawiają się nie tylko na początku zdania, ale mogą również zajmować dalszą pozycję charakterystyczną dla zdania podrzędnego. W rozdziale czwartym (poświęconym wykrzyknieniu what), piątym (opisującym leksem how), i szóstym (omawiającym why), przeprowadzono analizę zgromadzonego materiału badawczego - wybranych powieści angielskich opublikowanych pomiędzy 1621 a 1950 rokiem. Przeanalizowano modyfikację wyrażeń wykrzyknikowych z what, why i how występujących zarówno w zdaniach pojedynczych (exclamations), jak i pojawiających się jako jednowyrazowe formy (interjections). Zwrócono także uwagę na znaczącą różnorodność użycia znaków interpunkcyjnych (znak wykrzyknika, znak zapytania, kropka, itp.) stosowanych w języku pisanym w celu zasygnalizowania konturu intonacyjnoakcentacyjnego wypowiedzi. Rozdział siódmy stanowi podsumowanie badań opartych na materiale historycznym, wskazując że silny preskryptywizm w XVIII i XIX wieku, jak również proces gramatykalizacji mógł mieć znaczny wpływ na współistnienie funkcji pytającej oraz wykrzyknikowej. Badania dużych korpusów tekstów przy użyciu konkordacyjnych i wyszukujących programów komputerowych wykazały, że te konstrukcje zachowują moc illokucyjną, gdyż są często zaznaczone znakiem graficznym w formie wykrzyknienia, który podkreśla jeszcze bardziej ich funkcję emotywną. W tym samym materiale można zaobserwować asymetrię pomiędzy współfunkcjonalnością badanych zaimków. Podczas gdy why nadal jest używane jako wykrzyknik, what i how są coraz rzadziej spotykane w tej funkcji, zatem badanie wymyka się z ram sztywnej klasyfikacji

Pronominal subjects in the English of Arabic, Finnish and French speakers

Ph. D. ThesisPrevious studies designed to investigate whether null-subject parameter settings transfer in second-language acquisition (L2A/SLA) have produced inconclusive, differing, and even conflicting results. While some researchers claim that the first language (L1) value of the parameter does not transfer into L2A, others argue that it does; furthermore, they disagree about whether its L1 value could be reset to a value appropriate to the second language (L2) (i.e., White, 1985; Hilles, 1986; Phinney, 1987; Tsimpli and Roussou, 1991; Al-Kasey and Pérez-Leroux, 1998; Liceras and Díaz, 1999; LaFond, 2001; Sauter, 2002; Judy, 2011; Orfitelli and Grüter, 2013). The aim of this study is to address these issues in a more accurate way by paying attention to a number of factors both internal and external to learners that have been overlooked in previous studies, resulting in conflicting conclusions about null-subject transfer and parameter resetting in L2A. This study investigates the acquisition of the obligatory overt subject pronouns in English by three groups of learners whose L1s belongs to three distinct language types – namely, non-null subject languages (French), partial-null subject languages (Finnish), and consistent-null subject languages (Arabic). The participants in each group were divided into three subgroups – lower intermediate, upper-intermediate, and advanced – on the basis of their scores on the proficiency test in order to examine how the investigated L2 grammar changes at the different developmental stages in relation to the learners’ different native languages. The data were collected from 487 participants by means of a grammaticality judgement (GJ) task and a translation task. The findings from the GJ task show evidence that all learners, regardless of linguistic background, start off with pro-drop and then transfer their L1 parameter setting at the intermediate and late stages of L2A, whereas the findings from the translation task suggest that the L1 setting of the null subject parameter transfers in L2A. However, the results show that there are structural, developmental, and situational/contextual (realised as task-type) constraints on when, where, and to what extent pronominal subjects can be null. The results indicate that learners persistently accept referential embedded null subjects in the GJ task beyond the stage of L2 development when they have established the requirement for overt subjects in their production. Moreover, the results provide evidence that all participants, as proficiency subgroups, regardless of their L1 backgrounds, treated null subjects in the two types of experimental sentences differently; they accepted significantly fewer null subjects in complement clauses than in adverbial clauses. However, only the French participants converged on the target grammar in all respects; the Arabic and the Finnish participants continued to perform non-target-like like in their judgement of null subjects, if only in adverbial clauses. Group results indicating that L2 learners’ performance varies from task to task and from structure to structure suggest that null subject parameter settings cannot be reset in L2A. These findings, which show that there are structural and situational or contextual constraints on when and where pronominal subjects can be null, suggest that L2 learners rely on discourse licensing of null subjects. In other words, the results indicate that argument omission vs. overt expression in L2 depends on the referent’s discourse status, which can be defined in terms of a range of discourse and pragmatic notions. The results also raise and leave unanswered several questions that require further investigation.Taibah Universit

Validity argument for EPT written argumentative essays

Achieving sufficient proficiency in academic writing is critical in university level setting. It is not surprising hence, that the admission to English speaking universities is usually conditioned not only by a particular total score from Standardized tests of English proficiency ,e.g., TOEFL or IELTs but also a specific band score in writing. To further ensure students’ readiness for university level writing, many US universities use in-house developed assessments. The main goal of in -house placement tests is to identify students who may experience difficulty coping up with the demands of university level writing and hence, place them in ESL writing courses that are tailored to their linguistics needs. Unlike high -stakes tests such as standardized tests of writing in which the validity of score interpretations and use is extensively investigated, the validity of score interpretations or placement decisions of in-house placement tests of writing may not be sufficiently explored. Besides the potential lack of logistic resources, one potential reason for the lack of validity research is that unlike high stakes tests, in-house placement tests often lack a clear definition of the writing construct or the subconstructs being assessed. The extensive research that has been conducted on the construct or the multi-subconstructs of writing reflects not only its complexity but also the need for delineating the boundaries of the construct or the subconstructs being assessed. This becomes even more crucial with placement tests whose main goal is to make placement decisions based on test takers’ linguistic needs. A major subconstruct that has been used as an anchor in determining development in writing in both placement and standardized tests is linguistic complexity. Although there is no agreed upon definition on the subconstructs of linguistics complexity, there is a general agreement that it is reflected in three main levels: lexical, syntax and discourse. Despite being used widely in the rating rubrics of writing assessments particularly in placement tests, there is little research on how complexity features with its three major aspects can be used to explore the validity of score use and interpretations in placement tests of writing. The extent to which the variations in learners’ performance as reflected by placement decisions mirror differences in students’ ability of using complex language has not, to my knowledge, been explored with the EPT reading based writing test at Iowa State University. Also, expected to bring benefits to both teachers’ and learners, placement decisions need to be evaluated with regard to their impact on the focus of instructional practices and the development in learners’ written performance. Bearing these concerns in mind, the current study attempts to investigate the validity of score interpretations and the use of the English Placement test of writing (EPT) administered at ISU. To facilitate the process of investigating the assumptions underlying the score interpretations and the use and the type of evidence to be examined, an interpretative /use argument is used. Two main inferences are investigated: explanation and ramification. The first connects the performance as reflected by the EPT placement decision to the construct or the subconstruct being assessed. In other words, to what extent is the performance in the EPT writing supported -as expected by theory-by learners’ use of complex language. The second inference focuses on the impact of using the EPT test. In other words, to what extent do the stakeholders namely students and teachers benefit as a result of the placement decisions. To address these concerns, a four -part study is conducted using a mixed method approach in which quantitative results are triangulated by qualitative analysis. The examination of the explanation inference focused on a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of three main aspects of linguistic complexity: lexical, syntax and discourse which were investigated in three separate studies. A subsample corpus of 554 texts from the EPT written responses was used to analyze lexical and syntactic complexity features. Five indices reflecting three main aspects of lexical complexity were investigated : diversity, sophistication and cohesion. The Multivariate MANOVA shows a statistically significant main effect for lexical complexity on the placement levels. The pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences among the groups. The results also suggest an influence of the education level (graduate vs. undergraduate) on the complex vocabulary use. The findings revealed partial support for the explanation inference in the validity argument for the EPT writing section. The Pass graduates displayed statistically higher use of complex vocabulary in terms of diversity, sophistication and cohesion than level B students. In addition, the undergraduate Pass displayed statistically higher means of cohesive vocabulary and higher means of sophisticated vocabulary (measured by AWL, bigram range) than level C. However, the differences between undergraduate placement levels of C and B were not consistent specifically with using words from the academic word list or AWL (a measure of sophistication). In addition, no statistical differences were found between graduate students in Pass and D levels. The analysis of frequency use of 12 syntactic features posited by previous research to be characteristics of academic writing pointed to differences in syntactic complexity among the groups. The results of syntactic complexity indicated an effect for the education level (graduate vs. undergraduates ) on the frequency of use of syntactically complex structures. The syntactic analysis revealed support for the EPT validity argument. With the exception of nouns as prenominal modifiers, the graduate level students in Pass and D level showed higher frequency use of nominalization and prenominal modifiers i.e. adjectives and post nominal modifiers (prepositional phrases, non- finite relatives, that clause complements of nouns). Their writings also exhibited relatively less frequency of finite adverbials than their lower undergraduate levels. Using a subsample of the EPT corpus (92 texts), the examination of the third study or the third aspect of linguistics complexity i.e. discourse level complexity focused on two main dimensions: the differences in the use of topical developmental patterns and the frequency and discourse functions of the initial sentence elements or ISEs. MANOVA test was used to examine if there were statistically significant differences in the use of topical organizational patterns. The results showed that developmental patterns have a main effect with a relatively medium size effect. The between subjects test showed statistically significant differences in the use of sequential progression. The pair wise comparison using LSD post hoc test showed that the graduate Pass utilized statistically more sequential progression than Level B. In addition, the undergraduate Pass and graduate D levels used statistically higher sequential patterns than their lower undergraduate peers in C and B levels. The One- Way ANOVA test revealed statistically main effect for the frequency of ISES on the grouping variable. A Tukey HSD post hoc tests revealed that the use of ISEs by graduate level learners in Pass and D levels was statistically significantly higher than their undergraduate peers. Although the five placement levels displayed similar distribution of ISES forms namely with linking adverbials, prepositional phrases and adverbs, the Pass group-as was shown by the qualitative analysis- exhibited better awareness of the discourse functions of the ISES. The differences in both topical progression and ISEs came in support for the EPT validity argument. The investigation of the ramification inference in the fourth study utilized surveys and interviews with teachers and students to survey the overall satisfaction with the EPT writing decisions, course materials and to examine: 1) teachers’ beliefs about aspects of good academic writing, common problems in their ESL students’ writing and the focus of their ESL instruction, 2) ESL students’ self-rated development after ESL writing courses. Results from the survey and interviews pointed to a partial concurrence between what teachers believe to be important for quality writing and the linguistic aspects emphasized in ESL writing courses. The assessment of students’ self-assessed development after ESL writing courses, however, revealed general satisfaction and a statistically significant self -rated improvement in the overall writing ability and in their lexical, syntactic and discourse level writing ability. The findings from the four studies contributed to the validity argument of the EPT writing. Some findings came with partial support while others fully support the underlying assumptions of the explanation and ramification inferences. The findings of this dissertation are intended to direct attention to issues, I believe, worth considering and to avenues for further research in the EPT context and with placement tests of writing in general