Słowa kluczowe
lexical sophistication
the average semester growth rate (ASGR)
L2 English writing, learner corpus
Jak cytować
Abstrakt
In line with Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST), the aim of the paper is to examine dynamics and causality among the growth rates of lexical sophistication in L2 writing development. The study was based on The Written English Developmental Corpus of Polish Learners (WEDCPL) which consists of over 1,900 essays composed during 21 repeated measurements by 100 learners over three years (2014–2017) at secondary school. Lexical sophistication, operationalised as different frequency levels, was analysed with the Lextutor software (Cobb 2014). The results indicated that the learners relied on the first frequency level. The monthly growth rates (MGRs) of the frequency levels were variable but no significant peaks were registered. The relationships between the average semester growth rates (ASGRs) revealed competition between the first and higher frequency levels, and some support between the higher levels. Thus, developing learners’ lexis beyond the first level counteracts the production of lexically unsophisticated texts and supports the use of more advanced words.
Bibliografia
Ai, H. / Lu, X. (2010). A web-based system for automatic measurement of lexical complexity. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Symposium of the Computer-Assisted Language Consortium (CALICO-10). Amherst, MA. June 8–12.
Anthony, L. (2014). AntWordProfiler (Version 1.4.1) [computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software [access: 20.10.2020].
Baba, K. (2020). Exploring dynamic developmental trajectories of writing fluency: Who benefited from the writing task? In: G. Fogal / M. Verspoor (eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.01bab [access: 20.10.2020].
Baba, K. / Nita, R. (2014). Phase transitions in the development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64 (1), 1–35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259553956 [access: 20.10.2020].
de Bot, K. (2017). Complexity theory and Dynamic systems theory: Same or different? In: L. Ortega / Z. Han (eds.), Complexity theory and language development. In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 51–58). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
de Bot, K. / Lowie, W. / Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (1), 7–21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231787985 [access: 20.10.2020].
Browne, Ch. / Culligan, B. (2016). The TOEIC service list (TSL) and Business service lists (BSL). http://www.newgeneralservicelist.org [access: 20.10.2020].
Browne, Ch. / Culligan, B. / Phillips, J. (2013). The new general service list (NGSL) – The most important words for second language learners. http://www.newgeneralservicelist.org/ [access: 20.10.2020].
Bulté, B. / Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity. In: A. Hounsen / F. Kuiken / I. Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 23–46). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://www.academia.edu/27458664/ [access: 20.10.2020].
Bulté, B. / Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26 (4), 42–65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280256988 [access: 20.10.2020].
Caspi, T. (2010). “A dynamic perspective on second language development”. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of Groningen, the Netherlands.
Cobb, T. (2012). The Compleat lexical tutor for data-driven learning on the Web (v.6.2). Montreal University of Quebec [computer software]. https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/ [access: 20.10.2020].
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–38. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/1626131/Coxhead-2000.pdf [access: 20.10.2020].
Davis, M. (2012). Corpus of contemporary American English (1990–2012). http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ [access: 20.10.2020].
van Dijk, M. / Verspoor, M. / Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In: M. Verspoor / K. de Bot / W. Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Durán, P. / Malvern, D. / Richards, B. / Chipere, N. (2004). Developmental trends in lexical diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.220 [access: 20.10.2020].
van Ek, J. / Trim, J. (1998a). Threshold 1990. Council of Europe. Cambridge: CUP. https://www.ealta.eu.org/documents/resources/Threshold-Level_CUP.pdf [access: 20.10.2020].
van Ek, J. / Trim, J. (1998b). Waystage 1990. Cambridge: CUP. https://www.ealta.eu.org/documents/resources/Waystage_CUP.pdf [access: 20.10.2020].
Eldridge, J. (2008). No, there isn’t an ‘academic vocabulary’, but… A reader responds to K. Hyland and P. Tse’s “Is there an ‘academic vocabulary’”?, TESOL Quarterly, 42 (1), 109–113. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com. doi/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00210.x. [access: 20.10.2020].
Ellis, R. (2007). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardner, D. (2013). Exploring vocabulary. Language in action. New York: Routledge http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415585453/ [access: 20.10.2020].
van Geert, P. / Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behaviour and Development, 25, 340–375. https://www.paulvangeert.nl/publications_files/vangeert_variability.pdf [access: 20.10.2020].
van Geert, P. / Verspoor, M. (2015). Dynamic systems and language development. In: B. MacWhinney / W. O’Grady (eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 537–556). New York: Wiley and Sons. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314003688 [access: 20.10.2020].
Hiver, P. / Al-Hoorie, A. (2020). Research methods for Complexity theory in applied linguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hou, J. / Loerts, H. / Verspoor, M. (2020). Coordination of linguistic subsystems as a sign of automatization? In: G. Fogal / M. Verspoor (eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.02hou. [access: 20.10.2020].
Housen, A. / Kuiken, F. / Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency. Definitions, measurement and research. In: A. Hounsen / F. Kuiken / I. Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hyltenstam, K. (1988). Lexical characteristics of near-native second-language learners of Swedish. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9 (1/2), 67–84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01434632.1988.9994320 [access: 20.10.2020].
Knoch, U. / Rouhshad, A. / Storch, N. (2014). Does the writing of undergraduate ESL studentsdevelop after one year of study in an English-medium university? Assessing Writing, 21 (1), 1–17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1075293514000026 [access:20.10.2020].
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–616. https://www.academia.edu/38727423/ [access: 20.10.2020].
Larsen-Freeman, D. / Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laufer, B. / Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307 [access: 20.10.2020].
Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition. A performance analysis of Swedish learners’ written English. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://dighumlab.org/clan/ [access: 20.10.2020].
Meara, P. / Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristic of short L2 text. Prospect. A Journal of Australian TESOL, 16 (3), 5–19. http://www.lognostics.co.uk/vlibrary/meara&bell2001.pdf [access: 20.10.2020].
Meara, P. / Miralpeix, I. (2016). Tools for researching vocabulary. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nation, P. (2004). A study of the most frequent word families in the British National Corpus. In: P. Bogaards / B. Laufer (eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 3–13). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nation, P. (2012). The BNC / COCA word family lists. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation [access: 20.10.2020].
Nation, P. / Heatley, A. (2002). Range: A program for the analysis of vocabulary in texts [computer software]. http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/nation.aspx [access: 20.10.2020].
Norris, J. / Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 555–578. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249237888 [access: 20.10.2020].
Nuance® (2014). Dragon Naturally Speaking Premium. Speech recognition software. https://www.nuance.com/dragon/support/dragon-naturallyspeaking.html [access: 20.10.2020].
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rokoszewska, K. (2019a). Intra-individual variability in the emergence of complexity, accuracy and fluency in speaking English at secondary school – A case study of a good, average and poor language learner. Anglica Wratislaviensia, LVII, 181–204. https://wuwr.pl/awr/article/view/269 [access: 20.10.2020].
Rokoszewska, K. (2019b). Intra-individual variability in the emergence of syntactic complexity in English L2 speech at secondary school – A case study of a good, average and poor language learner. Konin Language Studies, 7 (4), 445–473. http://www.ksj.pwsz.konin.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/KSJ-74-445-473-Rokoszewska.pdf [access: 20.10.2020].
Rokoszewska, K. (2020a). Fluency and complexity as coupled growers in speaking English at secondary school – a case study of a good, average, and poor language learner. Linguistics Beyond and Within, 6, 160–174. https://czasopisma.kul.pl/LingBaW/article/view/11838 [access: 20.10.2020].
Rokoszewska, K. (2020b). Intra-individual variability in the emergence of lexical complexity in speaking English at secondary school – A case study of a good, average and poor language learner. Theory and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, 6 (1), 107–142. https://www.journals.us.edu.pl/index.php/TAPSLA/article/view/7929 [access: 20.10.2020].
Rokoszewska, K. (2021). Accuracy and complexity as connected growers in L2 English speech at secondary school – a case study of a good, average and poor language learner. Neofilolog, 56 (1), 71–90.
Spoelman, M. / Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in the development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study on the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31 (4), 532–553. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241686051 [access: 20.10.2020].
Storch, N. / Tapper, J. (2009). The impact of an EAP course on postgraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 (3), 207–223. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475158509000277 [access: 20.10.2020].
Text Inspector. (2018). Online lexis analysis tool. textinspector.com [access: 20.10.2020].
Verspoor, M. / de Bot, K. / Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Verspoor, M. / Lowie, W. / van Geert, P. / van Dijk, M. / Schmid, M.S. (2011). How to sections. In: M. Verspoor / K. de Bot / W. Lowie. (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development (pp. 129–199). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. Green: Longman.
Wolfe-Quintero, K. / Ingaki, S. / Kim, H.Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Report No. 17). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Curriculum Centre.
Xue, G. / Nation, P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication, 3 (2), 215–29.
Zheng, Y. (2016). The complex, dynamic development of L2 lexical use: A longitudinal study on Chinese learners of English. System, 56, 40–53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0346251X15001852 [access: 20.10.2020].
Licencja
Autorzy
Autorzy tekstów przyjętych do publikacji w czasopiśmie Glottodidactica są zobowiązani do wypełnienia, podpisania i odesłania na adres redakcji umowy o udzielenie nieodpłatnej licencji do utworów, z zobowiązaniem do udzielania sublicencji CC.
Zgodnie z umową, autorzy tekstów opublikowanych w czasopiśmie Glottodidactica udzielają Uniwersytetowi im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu niewyłącznej i nieodpłatnej licencji oraz zezwalą na użycie sublicencji Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0).
Autorzy zachowują prawa do dalszego, swobodnego rozporządzania utworem.
Użytkownicy
Zainteresowani użytkownicy internetu uprawnieni są do korzystania z utworów opublikowanych od 2015 roku w Glottodidactica pod następującymi warunkami:
- uznanie autorstwa - obowiązek podania wraz z rozpowszechnionym utworem, informacji, o autorstwie, tytule, źródle (odnośniki do oryginalnego utworu, DOI) oraz samej licencji;
- bez tworzenia utworów zależnych - utwór musi być zachowany w oryginalnej postaci, nie można bez zgody twórcy rozpowszechniać np. tłumaczeń, opracowań.
Do wszystkich tekstów opublikowanych przed 2015 r. prawa autorskie są zastrzeżone.
Inne
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu zachowuje prawo do czasopisma jako całości (układ, forma graficzna, tytuł, projekt okładki, logo itp.).