Bram Bulté & Alex Housen TBLT 2009, Lancaster The development of lexical proficiency in L2 speaking and writing tasks by Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels Bram Bulté & Alex Housen ACQUILANG (Centre for Studies on Second Language Learning & Teaching)

Research background Research project on the development of L2 proficiency in French, English and Dutch in different educational contexts. Theoretical, conceptual and methodological issues and empirical research. Empirical research: Longitudinal Learner background data Spoken and written L2 production data.

Outline presentation Comparison between the oral and written task modality. Framework for the analysis of lexical L2 development. Empirical study of the lexical development of Dutch-speaking learners of French.

PART I: Comparison between the oral and written task modality Outline PART I: Comparison between the oral and written task modality

Oral and written modes Influence of mode on lexical performance Oral L2 production is considered to give evidence of the learner’s implicit knowledge (Towell et al., 1996); written production L2 allows for the use of explicit knowledge. Writing is 5 to 8 times slower than speaking in the same individual (Fayol, 1997). Difficult to separate effect of (esp. online) planning from effect of mode.

Oral and written modes Lexical differences between speaking and writing: Disfluency markers: lubricators, interjections, fillers, modifiers, … Repetition and paraphrase, false starts. Clause linking: small range of connectors. Words with vague semantics. Low lexical density.

PART II: Framework for the analysis of lexical L2 development Outline PART II: Framework for the analysis of lexical L2 development

Lexical L2 competence Word = ‘lexical entry’ (Jiang 2000). Knowing vs. using a word -> ability to use the relevant lexical information in a wide range of contexts when the need arises (McCarthy, 1990). Lexical competence = lexical knowledge and ability to apply that knowledge (procedural). Lexical proficiency = the concrete manifestation of lexical competence

Measuring lexical L2 competence What do we want to measure? Extent of lexical competence. Lexical competence = lexical knowledge + procedural knowledge Lexical knowledge can be characterized by its size, width and depth. Size refers to the number of lexical entries in memory. Width and depth refer to the quality and degree of elaboration of the knowledge of the lexical entries in memory. Procedural knowledge is a matter of control / skill / ability.

Measuring lexical L2 competence Different options: Purpose-built tests vs. ‘free’ language production. Subjective rating vs. ‘objective’ measures. Methodological concerns: Which quantitative measures should be used to assess lexical competence?

Measuring lexical L2 competence Proposed quantitative measures: Number of different (content) words or lemmas => Lexical productivity TTR and transformations (Guiraud, Uber, Herdan, D) => Lexical diversity Proportion of lexical / function words => Lexical density Frequency based measures (LFP, Advanced G) => Lexical sophistication Temporal measures (words / time unit) => Lexical fluency Error analysis => Lexical accuracy

Measuring lexical L2 competence What do we want the measures to measure? How do they relate to the theoretical view on lexical competence? 3 levels of analysis: Theoretical level of cognitive constructs Observational level of behavioral constructs Operational level of statistical constructs

Measuring lexical L2 competence Relations between different levels of analysis

Outline PART III: Empirical study of the lexical development of Dutch-speaking learners of French

RESEARCH QUESTIONS How does the oral and written lexical performance in the FFL production of Dutch-speaking L2 learners develop over time? Is there a difference in scores for written and spoken tasks? (group comparison) Are learners’ lexical proficiency scores similar for written and oral tasks? (intra-individual comparison) Is the lexical development of learners comparable for oral and written tasks? (inter-individual comparison)

YU (2009) “Lexical Diversity in Writing and Speaking Task Performances” “First study” comparing lexical diversity of spoken and written discourses produced by the same participants. Lexical diversity (D) of writing and speaking performances approximately at the same level. Lexical diversity (D) of compositions and interviews significantly correlated (r = 0.448).

RESEARCH DESIGN Subjects: 15 pupils, Dutch native speakers, 15-17y old, 3rd-5th grade, Dutch-speaking schools in Brussels. Tasks: 1 oral task: retelling of a wordless picture story (frog story) 2 written tasks: Complaint letter Argument for or against a statement Data collection: Longitudinal, 3 test times, 1y intervals – corpus-based.

PRODUCTIVE LANGUAGE CORPUS Data processing: Recorded oral tasks and written tasks transcribed in CHAT-format. Spelling mistakes in written tasks corrected. Non-French words and interlanguage words tagged (@il). Hesitations, self-correction and repetitions coded in oral transcriptions. Excluded from analysis: interjections & recasts. ‘Chunks’ treated as one word (parce+que, à+côté). Words were lemmatized. Lexical words tagged (|lex).

DATA ANALYSIS Quantitative measures: Productivity: # tokens, # types, # lexical types. Diversity: D, G and U (all words), G and U (lexical words). Density: % of lexical words (lexical words / all words). Sophistication: # ‘advanced’ types, ‘advanced’ G and U (advanced types / V all tokens), % of advanced types (advanced types / all types). Combination: D, G Lex and G Advanced combined. Statistical analyses: Correlations. Repeated measures ANOVA, with pair-wise comparisons.

DATA ANALYSIS Combined measures: D, G Lex and G Adv. Rescaling scores: Average score = 100 => y1 = y * (100 / ȳ) Formula: (D*(100/AvgD)+Glex*(100/AvgGlex)+Gadv*(100/AvgGadv))/3

RESULTS All types {} 1 2 3 Written + Spoken / W vs. S W x S .43 % Lexical words {} 1 2 3 Written / Spoken W vs. S + W x S

RESULTS D (all words) {} 1 2 3 Written + / Spoken W vs. S W x S .45 G (lexical words) {} 1 2 3 Written + / Spoken W vs. S W x S .52

RESULTS Advanced types {} 1 2 3 Written + / Spoken W vs. S W x S .32

RESULTS Advanced G {} 1 2 3 Written + / Spoken W vs. S W x S Combined .41

RESULTS Similar individual development on written and spoken tasks? Gain scores for different measures and different modes. Not 1 significant correlation found between the gain scores of learners on the same measures for the 2 different modes. => Seems like progress on both modes is not related.

CONCLUSIONS Summary Development of lexical proficiency: Written Spoken Typ All + % Lex / D All G Lex Typ Adv % Adv Typ G Adv Combined W vs. S / + W x S .43 / .45 .52 .32 .41 Development of lexical proficiency: Written versus spoken tasks: Intra-learner task correlation: Similar development on ≠ tasks:

CLOSING REMARKS Lexical proficiency in writing and speaking tasks. Increase, both on written and spoken. No parallel development on written and spoken tasks. Higher scores for writing tasks. Moderately high correlation between speaking and writing scores. Limitations. Directions for future research.

Thank you! bram.bulte@europarl.europa.eu Alex.Housen@vub.ac.be