Lexico-Grammatical Complexity in EAP Student Writing: a Learner Corpus Analysis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2018 Lexico-grammatical Complexity in EAP Student Writing: A Learner Corpus Analysis Ekaterina Goussakova University of Central Florida Part of the Language and Literacy Education Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Goussakova, Ekaterina, "Lexico-grammatical Complexity in EAP Student Writing: A Learner Corpus Analysis" (2018). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 5883. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5883 LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL COMPLEXITY IN EAP STUDENT WRITING: A LEARNER CORPUS ANALYSIS by EKATERINA V. GOUSSAKOVA B.A. & M.A. Moscow Pedagogical University, 1998 M.A. University of Central Florida, 2000 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Education and Human Performance at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Spring Term 2018 Major Professor: Keith Folse © 2018 Ekaterina V. Goussakova ii ABSTRACT In this descriptive linguistic study, the lexico-grammatical complexity of placement and exit English for Academic Purposes (EAP) student writing samples was analyzed using corpus linguistic methods to explore language development as a result of student enrollment in the EAP program. Writing samples were typed, matched, and tagged. A concordance software was used to produce lexical realizations of grammatical features. A comparison was made of normed frequency counts for nine phrasal and clausal features as well as raw frequencies for type to token ratio (TTR), average word length, and word count. In addition, the contribution of variables such as advanced grammar and writing course grades, LOEP scores, and the number of semesters in the EAP program to the English Learner’s (EL) lexico-grammatical complexity found in exit essays was also examined. Twelve paired parametric and non-parametric analyses of lexico-grammatical variables were performed. Dependent t test results showed that normed frequency counts for such features as pre-modifying nouns, attributive adjectives, adverbial conjunctions, coordinating conjunctions, TTR, average word length, and word count changed significantly, and students produced more of those features in their exit writing than in their placement essay. Non- parametric Wilcoxon test indicated that such a change was also observable with noun + that clauses. The frequencies of verb + that clauses and subordinating conjunction because, though non-significant, actually decreased. A split plot ANOVA allowed to see whether a change in above mentioned statistically significant lexico-grammatical features could be attributed to grammar instruction in EAP 1560. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between those who took iii EAP 1560 class and those who did not on pre-modifying nouns, coordinating conjunctions, TTR, average word length, and word count. On the other hand, those students who did not take EAP 1560 class had higher counts of attributive adjectives but lower of adverbial conjunctions, both statistically significant results, than those students who took the class. Lastly, five multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to predict frequencies of exit pre-modifying nouns, attributive adjectives, noun + that clauses, adverbial conjunctions, and TTR from EAP 1560 and EAP 1640 grades, LOEP scores, and the number of semesters students spent in the EAP program at SSC. The only significant regression analysis was with TTR, and 28% of its variance could be explained by the independent variables. LOEP Language Usage score was the only significant individual contributor to the model. Even though exit adverbial conjunctions were not predictable from the chosen IVs, LOEP Sentence Meaning score proved the only significant contributor to that model. The results indicate that compressed phrasal features are indicative of higher complexity and EL proficiency, while clausal features are acquired earlier and signal elaboration, as previously described in the literature. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to my parents for making me a life-long learner. Thank you, my Love, for allowing me to focus on my studies while you were taking care of our kids. My little ones were the perfect motivation to complete my studies as soon as possible. I embarked on this journey when they were 4 and 1.5 years old, so I am looking forward to MUCH MORE family time now. I could not have traveled this doctoral path without my cohort. Niki and Alex, you are my academic BFFs for life. I am also very fortunate to have great friends, colleagues, and my professional “moms,” Cyndi and Pam, who never doubted for a second that I had it in me to get this Ph.D. Last, but not least, I thank my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Folse, and committee members: Dr. Reppen, Dr. Boote, and Dr. Witta. You were a dream team, and I learned so much from you. I feel blessed and fortunate to have so many people in my life that love, guide, and care. THANK YOU! v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 4 Rationale for the Study ................................................................................................................ 7 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 10 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................ 10 Hypothesis for Research Question One ................................................................................. 10 Hypothesis for Research Question Two ................................................................................ 11 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 12 Potential Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................. 13 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................... 17 Relevant Second Language Acquisition Theories and Major Concepts ................................... 17 Academic English (AE) ............................................................................................................ 23 College Writing Tasks and EL Experiences with Them ....................................................... 25 L2 Academic Writing ............................................................................................................ 30 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing ....................................................................................... 33 Linguistic Accuracy and Error Analysis in L2 Writing ........................................................ 36 Corpus Linguistics..................................................................................................................... 39 Brief History of Corpus Linguistics ...................................................................................... 39 Learner Corpora ..................................................................................................................... 44 Types of Corpus Research ..................................................................................................... 45 Putting Corpora Together ...................................................................................................... 47 Linguistic Complexity in Corpus-based L2 Writing Research ................................................. 49 Lexico-Grammatical Complexity Analyses .............................................................................. 53 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 59 Orientation to Research Design................................................................................................. 59 vi EAP in Florida State Colleges ................................................................................................... 59 Placement into EAP ............................................................................................................... 61 Research Setting and Population ............................................................................................... 62 English Learners at Seminole State College of Florida ........................................................