Lexical development across second language proficiency levels

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings of the BAAL Annual Conference 2009 Newcastle University levels (L1-2). Off-list words showed a progression from proper nouns and words referring to everyday objects at the lower levels to words denoting more complex abstract notions and activities at the higher levels. At the level of multi-word sequences, we identified and analysed recurrent 4-word lexical bundles across levels, having calculated their normed frequency (using Biber & Barbieri 2007’s 40/million cut-off), and selected those produced by three or more writers. Lower proficiency learners (E1/2) used a limited set of bundles (6/27 types) mostly taken from the input. E3 learners mostly relied on their own resources (23 types), which resulted in fewer re-used bundles. Higher proficiency learners (L1/2) used even fewer bundles from the task prompts but more overall (66/91 types), suggesting greater creativity; task prompt re-use was 63-26% of lexical bundle types from lower to higher levels. Following Biber & Barbieri (2007), Cortes (2004) and Nekrasova (2009), we functionally classified bundles into: referential (identifying an object or attribute); discourse (indicating discourse structure); stance (conveying attitudes and epistemic evaluations) and special conversational (expressing politeness, inquiry and report). The most frequent bundles overall were referential, the number and variety of which increased from E1 to L2. Discourse bundles were rarely used at lower levels; only at L1/2 did learners use them much more often. Stance and special conversational bundles exhibited a gradual increase in number and variety with proficiency. The analysis of functions of lexical bundles in L2 output provides insights into the development of discourse organisation and reveals that communicative need may inform their use. Whilst referential bundles dominate at all levels, other functions are increasingly used at higher levels. Stance and special conversational bundles are used more often than discourse bundles by lower proficiency learners which may indicate that they are required earlier, possibly for establishing an immediate connection with interactants. Discourse structuring bundles are the second most frequent category for higher proficiency learners, which could be due to learners’ increased proficiency and the need to structure more complex messages. Key factors behind L2 acquisition of lexical bundles could be a low degree of perceptual salience, since many bundles are incomplete structural units; structural or semantic complexity; or their specific discourse functions. Input frequency may also be important; this is one avenue for further research. 144
Lexical development across second language proficiency levels: a corpus-informed study Ivana Vidakovic & Fiona Barker Overall, we suggest that lexis produced by learners clearly becomes more complex with every proficiency level. We found that enhanced frequency measures are informative in identifying vocabulary progression across proficiency levels. The average length of words and sentences, the number of word tokens and types as well as lexical diversity and sophistication differentiated between levels, increasing in number and proportion with proficiency. WordSmith Tools and Compleat Lexical Tutor, and to a limited extent, D_Tools, were found to be useful software for investigating lexical progression. The frequency and functions of lexical bundles are also useful differentiators between language proficiency levels. Learning conventionalised word strings starts emerging after the lowest proficiency level but becomes truly productive only at later stages of second language acquisition which correspond to SfL levels L1/2 (B2/C1 on the CEFR). Lexical bundles are rarely used by the lowest proficiency SfL learners, which suggests that they rely on learning individual words rather than conventionalised multi-word sequences. Use of conventionalised strings starts developing from E2 level, but they are used more productively only at higher proficiency levels. This study combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to lexical progression in L2 general purpose writing. It has implications for the field of L2 acquisition, for language testers who can follow this methodology to strengthen the validity argument for writing tests, and also for teachers who could use this study to raise awareness of lexical development, especially of lexical bundles, which may help to focus preparatory work for general purpose language qualifications and suggest ways of analysing their students’ work. References Douglas Biber & Federica Barbieri. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. In English for Specific Purposes vol 26 3, pp263-286. Tom Cobb. 2009. Compleat Lexical Tutor. Version 6.2. Accessed 04/11/09. http://www.lextutor.ca/ Viviana Cortes. 2004. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. In English for Specific Purposes vol 23 4, pp397-423. 145
Page 1: 33 Lexical development across secon

Lexical development across second language proficiency levels

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?