Ödev Koşullarının İkinci Dil Performansına Etkileri: Karmaşıklık Ölçütlerinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Sözdizimsel karmaşıklık, ödev özelliklerinin etkilerini incelemek üzere çeşitli çalışmalarda bağımlı değişken olarak kullanılmıştır. Önceki çalışmaların büyük bir çoğunluğunda genel karmaşıklık ve yan tümceleme karmaşıklığı incelenmiş olup, söz öbeği karmaşıklığı araştırılmamıştır (Bulté & Housen, 2012). Bu çalışma, sözdizimsel karmaşıklık ölçülerinin seçimi ve ödev tasarımının ikinci dil öğrenenlerin sözlü performanslarını nasıl etkilediğini incelemiştir. Çalışmada çevrimiçi planlama fırsatlarına göre iki gruba ayrılmış 64 üniversite öğrencisinin sözlü olarak anlattıkları sözel hikayelere bakılmıştır. Sözdizimsel karmaşıklık; tümce, yantümce ve söz öbeği karmaşıklıklarını gösteren dört farklı ölçüt ile incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda iki grup arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark gözlemlenmemiştir. Sonuçlar; kullanılan sözdizimsel karmaşıklık ölçüleri, çalışmada kullanılan ödevin özellikleri ve katılımcıların ikinci dildeki yeterlilikleri göz önünde bulundurularak tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Çevrimiçi planlama
• sözdizimsel karmaşıklık
• ikinci dilde sözlü performans

The Effects of Task Condition on L2 Oral Performance: Exploring Complexity Measures

Abstract

Syntactic complexity has been used as a dependent variable in studies investigating the effects of task features. Most studies measured only subordination and overall complexity and eschewed clausal and phrasal level complexity (Bulté & Housen, 2012). The present study investigated how the selection of syntactic complexity measures as well as specific task designs affect L2 oral performance. The study analyzed the oral narratives of 64 university-level participants in two groups which differed in terms of online planning opportunities in task demands. Syntactic complexity was assessed with four measures focusing on the supraclausal, clausal, and phrasal levels. The results did not show any statistically significant differences between the two groups. The findings were discussed in the light of the syntactic complexity measures, the nature of the task, and L2 proficiency.

Keywords

• Syntactic complexity
• online planning
• L2 oral performance

References

1. Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2010). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 35–59.
2. Ahmadian, M. J., Tavakoli, M., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2015). The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 speech. The Language Learning Journal, 43(1), 41-56.
3. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35.
4. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (eds.). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 21–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2018). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 147–164.
6. De Clercq, B., & Housen, A. (2017). A cross-linguistic perspective on syntactic complexity in L2 development: syntactic elaboration and diversity. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 315–334.
7. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics. Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and Meta-Analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
8. Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style in the use of past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 12-20.

9. Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3- 34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2005). The effects of careful within-task planning on oral and written task performance. In R. Ellis (ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 167–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-323.
12. Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 354-375.
13. Heaton, J. B. (1966). Composition through pictures. Essex: Longman.
14. Heaton, J. B. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman.
15. Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
16. Hulstijn, J.. & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.
17. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Kormos, J. (2011). Speech production and the cognition hypothesis. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 39-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19. Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 267–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
20. Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 1-34.
21. Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic performance in L2 writing and speaking: The effect of mode. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 91-104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
22. 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, 35, 606-614.
23. Larson-Hall, J., & Plonsky, L. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65(S1), 127-159.
24. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
25. Michel, M., Shi, D., & Li, Y. (2019). The effects of task demands on linguistic complexity and accuracy across task types and L1/L2 speakers. In Z. Wen & M. J. Ahmadian (eds.) Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan, (pp. 133-152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26. Miestamo, M. (2009). Implicational hierarchies and grammatical complexity. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (eds) Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 80–97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Measurement for understanding: An organic approach to investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.
28. Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590–601.
29. Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31, 117–134.
30. Révész, A., Sachs, R., & Mackey, A. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 203-235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
31. Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning: Effects on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193-213.
32. Sasayama, S. (2015). Validating the assumed relationship between task design, cognitive complexity, and second language task performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
33. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473.
34. Trebits, A. (2016). Sources of individual differences in L2 narrative production: The contribution of input, processing, and output anxiety. Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 155-174.
35. Tuzcu, A. (2018). Task type and online planning as mediating factors in the oral performance of L2 learners. Unpublished master’s thesis. Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
36. Tuzcu, A., & Yalçın, Ş. (2019). The combined effects of manipulating tasks in two dimensions on L2 speech performance. In H. Wilson et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2017 Second Language Research Forum, (pp. 175-184). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
37. Vercellotti, M. L. (2019). Finding variation: assessing the development of syntactic complexity in ESL Speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 233-247.
38. Wang, Z. (2014). On-line time pressure manipulations: L2 speaking performance under five types of planning and repetition conditions. In Peter Skehan (ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 27-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39. Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 85–106.
40. Yoon, H. J., & Polio, C. (2017). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 275-301.
41. Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.