Accuracy and complexity as connected growers in L2 English speech at secondary school – a case study of a good, average, and poor language learner

Main Article Content

Katarzyna Rokoszewska

Abstrakt

Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST), which originated in the natural sciences, has recently been applied to second language acquisition, underlining the interdisciplinary character of this humanistic discipline. According to this theory, language is a complex dynamic system consisting of subsystems which develop in a non-linear way, forming different kinds of supportive, competitive, or conditional relationships. What is more, these subsystems compete for the learner’s limited resources, which causes trade-offs within and between language subsystems, such as complexity, accuracy, and fluency, especially in speech. The present paper constitutes a part of a short series of articles which present different aspects of the same longitudinal case study on the development of L2 English speech at secondary school. The aim of this paper is to examine the relationships between language accuracy and a number of specific measures of syntactic complexity, i.e. general sentence complexity, subordination, coordination, and nominalisation; as well as lexical complexity, i.e. lexical density, sophistication, and variation, in the case of a good, average, and poor language learner at secondary school. In general, the results showed that the relationships between the selected variables fluctuated over time and often differed in the case of a good, average, and poor language learner.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
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. https://doi.org/10.14746/n.2021.56.1.6
Dział
Artykuły

Bibliografia

  1. Ai H., Lu X. (2010), A web-based system for automatic measurement of lexical complexity. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Symposium of the Com-puter-Assisted Language Consortium (CALICO-10). Amherst, MA. June 8-12.
  2. Bulte B., Hounsen A. (2012), Defining and operationalizing L2 complexity, (in:) Hounsen A., Kuiken F., Vedder I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 per-formance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 23-46.
  3. de Bot K. (2017), Complexity Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory: Same or different?, (in:)Ortega L., Han Z. (eds.), Complexity Theory and lan-guage development. In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 51-58.
  4. Ellis R., Barkhuizen G. (2005), Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Hounsen A., Kuiken F., Vedde, I. (2012), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  6. Hunt K. (1965), Grammatical structures written at three grade levels, (in:) NCTE Research Report 3. Champaign, IL: NCTE.
  7. James C. (1998), Errors in language learning and use: exploring error analy-sis. New York: Longman.
  8. Kuiken F., Vedder I. (2008), Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. “Journal of Second Language Writing”, No 17(1), pp. 48-60.
  9. Lambert C., Kormos J. (2014), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in task-based L2 research. Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. “Applied Linguistics”, No 35(5), pp. 607-614.
  10. Laufer B., Nation P. (1995), Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2 written production. “Applied Linguistics”, No 16, pp. 307-322.
  11. Larsen-Freeman D. (2006), The emergence of complexity, fluency and accu-racy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of Eng-lish. “Applied Linguistics”, No 27, pp. 590-616.
  12. Larsen-Freeman D., Cameron L. (2008), Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Lu X. (2010), Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. “International Journal of Corpus Linguistics”, No 15(4), pp. 474-496.
  14. Lu X. (2012), The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. “The Modern Language Journal”, No 96(2), pp. 190-208.
  15. Michel M. (2017), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 production, (in:) Loewen S., Sato M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. London/ New York: Routledge.
  16. Norris J.M., Ortega L. (2009), Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case of complexity. “Applied Linguistics”, No 30(4), pp. 555-578.
  17. Pallotti G. (2015), CAF: Defining, redefining and differentiating constructs. “Applied Linguistics”, No 30(4), pp. 590-601.
  18. Polio C. G. (1997), Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writ-ing research. “Language Learning”, No 47, pp. 101-143.
  19. Read J. (2000), Assessing vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  20. 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”, No LVII, pp. 181-204.
  21. 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. “Konińskie Studia Językowe”, No 7(4), pp. 445-473. In press.
  22. Rokoszewska K. (2020), 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”, No 6(1), pp. 107-142. In press.
  23. Schmid M., Verspoor M., MacWhinney B. (2011), Coding and extracting data, (in:) Verspoor M, de Bot K., Lowie W. (eds.), A Dynamic Ap-proach to Second Language Development. Amsterdam: John Benja-mins Publishing Company, pp. 39-54.
  24. van Dijk M., Verspoor M., Lowie W. (2011), Variability and DST, (in:) Verspoor M, de Bot K., Lowie W. (eds.), A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 55-84.
  25. van Geert P., van Dijk M. (2002), Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. “Infant Behaviour and Development”, No 25, pp. 340-375.
  26. Verspoor M., de Bot K., Lowie W. (2011), A dynamic approach to second language development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Com-pany.
  27. Verspoor M., Lowie W., van Geert P., van Dijk M., Schmid M. S. (2011), How to sections, (in:) Verspoor M., de Bot K., Lowie W. (eds), A dynamic approach to second language development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 129-199.
  28. 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.