What Develops in L2 Writing? An Analysis through Genre-Based Tasks
description
Transcript of What Develops in L2 Writing? An Analysis through Genre-Based Tasks
What Develops in L2 Writing? An Analysis through Genre-Based
Tasks
Heidi Byrnes, Georgetown University3rd TBLT Lancaster University
September 14, [email protected]
SLA Research into ‘Task’ focused on… • answers to highly theoretical questions regarding immediate processes• immediate processes rather than long-range developmental issues• formal properties of output , less the ability to actually use language • oral interaction, less reading or writing tasks
Less interested in exploring how literary-cultural content and language learning can be simultaneously facilitated
Reconsidering ‘Task’ along a Developmental Axis Focused on ‘Texts’• expanding ‘task’ toward advanced
multiple literacies• imagining ‘task’ as registerially and generically diverse oral and written texts• embedding ‘task’ in principled, extended curricular progressions• relating ‘task’ to textual meaning-making
Interpreting ‘texts’ as instances of the language system
Genre-based Writing Tasks In Educational Settings …
• How might writing tasks support language development within a curricular context?• How can writing tasks and, through them, writing development foster overall language development?• What fine-grained analyses might capture the dual dynamic of the ‘need to mean more’ and the‘ability to mean more’ within genre-oriented writing? • How can findings inform curriculum and pedagogy in a learner-oriented way?
• How can writing tasks contribute to language learning and cultural content learning?
SOME CHALLENGES
CENTRAL CONCERN
How can a learner move from engagement with a particular text
(oral or written, in production or in interpretation)
as an instance of meaning-making,
to acquiring the overall
meaning potential of the language system
she/he is learning?
Toward a Framework for Staging Language Development through Genre-based Writing
Tasks •The oral - written continuum
•The continuum from primary to secondary discourses
•The continuum of dialogicality
•The semiotic continuum
Extensive research within SFL in L1 and, increasingly, L2 education is beginning to capture aspects of a developmental continuum. (See tabulation for GM that includes Process+ Range constructions and Fixed Phrases = ‘dead metaphors’ )
Grammatical Metaphor
If we act effectively, this most truly confirms that we know things accurately
The truest confirmation of the accuracy of our knowledge is the effectiveness of our actions
ACTIONS QUALITIES
Linguistic resource for condensing and restructuring information through grammatically noncongruent language
If we act effectively, this most truly confirms that we know things accurately
The truest confirmation of the accuracy of our knowledge is the effectiveness of our actions
The truest confirmation of the accuracy of our knowledge is the effectiveness of our actions
Systemic Functional Linguistics
1 2 3
If we act effectively, this most truly confirms that we know things accurately
1
Congruent Language Noncongruent Language
processesverbs
develop
nouns development
qualitiesadjectives stable
adjectives
developing
nouns stability
GM as a Marker of Advancedness
Distinctive marker of academic discourseResults in language valued by academic and technical communities
Transition from oral, “informal” language to written, “formal” language
Three continua for exploring GM:
Oral Written
Semiosis
Development
Objectification allows for quantifying, qualifying, and manipulating info
Mimics L1 cognitive/linguistic development in L2
Mode
Congruent Noncongruent
Emergent Fully Developed
Condense clauses into phrasesEnable reasoning within clausesAllow greater degree of elaboration (noun modification)Enable taxonomies of categories, generalizations that lead to reasoning/explanationRealize cohesion and coherence
Impact on writing:
Research Focus
Research Question #1: What functional capacities do 14 longitudinal learners of German across three curricular levels acquire through GM?
analysis of syntactic patterns in relation to experiential GM use in longitudinal cohort
Research Question #2: What functional capacities become available as GM as a resource is developed?
analysis of textual GM use in case study
Changes in textual meaning-making capacities of L2 German learners as they perform curriculum-based writing tasks intended to move them
from intermediate to advanced levels of ability
Nominalization as key feature of movement from oral to written languagequalities & processes entities
Data
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Curricular Level
MLT
U
Upper CI 10.36 13.39 15.39
Mean 9.33 12.56 14.30
Lower CI 8.30 11.73 13.21
Level II (n=14) Level III (n=14) Level IV (n=14)1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
Curricular Level
C/T
U
Upper CI 1.78 1.80 1.68
Mean 1.65 1.69 1.60
Lower CI 1.53 1.57 1.52
Level II (n=14) Level III (n=14) Level IV (n=14)
Genre-based writing tasks, completed at end of each level First drafts, written at home within a weekFocus on Levels 2-4 (N = 14, k = 42) Level 2: ~650
words/learner Level 3: ~750 words/learner Level 4: ~1250 words/learnerPreviously tagged for 3 syntactic complexity measures (MLTU, MLC,
C/TU)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Curricular Level
MLC
Upper CI 6.16 7.83 9.60
Mean 5.71 7.47 8.97
Lower CI 5.26 7.11 8.34
Level II (n=14) Level III (n=14) Level IV (n=14)
Use standard measures to place data within research literature
Corpus size: ca. 37,000 words
Overview of GM Frequency by Type and Level
Overall growth in grammatical metaphor use throughout the curriculum
Greatest increase in both types between Levels 3 and 4, changing qualities and processes into conceptual /virtual
entities
Overview of GM by Ratios
Confirms dramatic GM growth across curricular levels
Texts double in length AND average GM use grows 4xNoun use (including GM) increases AND GM/NN increasesClause length increases by 1.5 AND GM/clause grows 3.5x
Case Study: LisaAnalyze functional features of GM, particularly in the textual environmentRationale for Lisa
• Syntactic development generally follows longitudinal cohort
• Average GM performance at Level 2, followed by noteworthy growth
• Data exemplify diverse functions of grammatical metaphor
Formal FeaturesGreatest growth/development from Levels 3 to 4
Bundling of grammatical metaphor (see handout)Formal and conceptual pressure of other nouns (see handout)
Verbal StructuresHow GM is situated in the text in terms of verbal structuresLevel 2: Putting things into space (haben, sein, geben)
Initial use: emotions, personal experiences:Gefühl haben, Enthüllung haben, Verbindung machen
Level 3: From placeholder verbs to prepositional phrases & fixed phrases
nach offiziellen Druck, zu Beginn, einer Abschiebung zuvorkommen
Level 4: Continued high use of sein, haben, & geben
Es gibt einige Bereiche der lehrreichen Vergleichbarkeit
Development: expressive verbs & further expansion of fixed phrasesMeinung haben Meinung teilen
Angst haben Angst verdeutlichen
Gefühle haben Gefühle wecken
ModificationIncreased use of nominalization allows for pre- and post-modificationsFunctional aspect: increased information density at clause levelLevel 2: Some premodification with adjectives
ein seltsames Gefühl , ein ächzendes Stöhnen, gute Verbindung
Level 3: Similar premodification with adjectives
Level 4: Adjectives, prepositional phrases, relative clauses, genitivesConsiderable increase in breadth and variety of modificationNominalizations allow extension of meaning-making
resources that verbal system does not have
erste Kontakt, äußerlicher Druck, offizielle Angaben
Aus diesem Grund und durch die verfassungsmässigen Wahlen des Staates, die im Verlauf der Zeit demokratischer wurden, …
Information StructuringGM as a retrospective and prospective text structuring resourceLevel 2: Incipient summative GM use to conclude text (see handout)
Level 3: Retrospective use at the end of passages (see handout)Simple processes translated into nominalizations
Level 4: Prospective use: outline areas of talk with GM (see handout)
Development toward strategic use of GM to structure information
Frieden – Tod – Spaziergänge – Leben
zum Unterricht gehen, studieren, Praktikum machen Bildung & Ausbildung
Herausforderungen – Schwierigkeiten – Vergleichbarkeit etc
Retrospective use: reiterate & conclude passages with GMHoffnung – Schwierigkeiten – Herausforderungen – Erfolg
Coherence and CohesionIncludes theme-rheme, demonstratives, topicalization, semantic fields Level 2: No use of GM to create coherence/cohesion
Level 3: Limited use of GM in theme-rheme (see handout)
Level 4: Increased use of GM in theme-rheme (see handout)
… diskriminiert worden.“ Diskriminierung und Rassismus …
Beginning presence of topicalized prepositional phrasesnach dem Verständnis Hanois, nach officiziellen Angaben
Reference with demonstratives… zu schnell bezweifeln. Erinnern Sie sich bitte an den grossen Zweifel …
Die Mehrheit der Ungarn fühlen sich… Mit diesen Gefühle…
Use of GM to create semantic fields (see handout)
Topicalizing and fronting of different entities (see handout)
Concluding Considerations1. For writing tasks to be a suitable environment for
tracing language development they must be embedded in a principled curricular sequence
3. SFL provides conceptual and analytical tools for fine-grained analyses of development. One example is the construct of grammatical metaphor. 4. GM as an environment within composing tasks for tracing the
‘hand-off’ between the opportunity to mean and the capacity for meaning-making
5. Writing tasks as instantiating valued educational goals in many educational contexts
2. Learning to write and writing to learn: Writing tasks conceptualized as linking languaging and knowing
THANK YOU!