1、Though a great number of studies have been carried out to investigate lexical richness or syntactic complexity separately at home and abroad （Hunt, 1970; Crowhurst, 1980,1983; Laufer, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1998; Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Vermeer, 2000; Wu Xudong & Chen Xiaoqing, 2000; Ortega, 2003; Liu Dong
2、hong, 2003; Yu Hua, 2004; Wen Qiufang, 2006a, b; Qin Xiaoqing, 2007）, studies on the developmental tendency of the lexical richness and syntactic complexity from a longitudinal perspective as well as the interaction between lexical richness and complexity （Morris & Crump, 1982） are scanty and far fr
3、om conclusive. Whats more, as Wen （2006a） claims, lexical characteristics and syntactic characteristics have been heavily explored in EFL writing （Engber, 1995; James, 2002; Laufer, 1991,1998; Shaw & Liu,1998; Li Jingquan & Cai Jingting, 2001; Ni Lan，2000; Wen Qiufang, etc., 2003, 2004 ） while simil
4、ar researches on the spoken data of EFL learners are much rarer （Vermeer, 2000; Wen Qiufang, 2006a, b ）. Accordingly, a longitudinal study on the changes in Chinese L2 learners vocabulary and syntax is necessary.This line of study should be undertaken in the Chinese context also because the corollar
5、y of it will have significant practical implications for L2 lexis and syntax instruction. It is known that Chinese L2 teachers lay more emphasis on grammatical accuracy than on complexity both in instructing and assessing writing, which leads to L2 learners more frequent use of simple vocabulary and
6、 syntactic structures, a detriment to their language development. At present, we still lack a clear picture of the developmental patterns of lexical richness and syntactic complexity for Chinese L2 learners, which will undoubtedly shed light on Chinese L2 teaching. 1.2 Research purposeThis study is
7、undertaken with the aim of exploring the developmental patterns of L2 learners lexical richness and syntactic complexity. Specifically, the purpose of the present study is three-fold: firstly, to reveal the developmental patterns of L2 learners lexical richness and syntactic complexity across three
8、years; secondly, to compare the growth rates of lexical richness and syntactic complexity in their oral output at the two intervals; thirdly, to examine the relationship between the L2 learners lexical richness and their syntactic complexity in three years respectively.2. Literature reviewIn the fie
9、ld of Second Language Acquisition （SLA） research, language competence can be studied from different aspects. As for productivity, language competence can move along two dimensions: lexical complexity （also called lexical richness） and syntactic complexity. Additionally, according to Wolfe-Quintero e
10、t al. （1998）, complexity means that a wide variety or a wide range of both basic and sophisticated structures and words are available and can be accessed quickly. In Wolfe-Quinteros definition, the first half refers to syntactic complexity while the latter refers to lexical richness. This chapter co
11、nsists of three parts. The first part focuses on lexical richness, the second part on syntactic complexity and the third part on problems in the previous studies.2.1 Lexical richnessMany scholars （Linnarud, 1986; Nihanani, 1981; Hyltenstam, 1988; Engber, 1995） have done some researches on lexical ri
12、chness. Laufer （1994） defined lexical richness as consisting of lexical variance, lexical density, lexical sophistication and lexical originality. Several types of ratio measures have been utilized in research on second language lexical development in writing. Lexical variance was measured by a type
13、/token ratio （Laufer, 1991）. Lexical density was calculated by dividing the number of types by the number of lexical tokens （Engber, 1995）. Lexical sophistication was measured by the ratio of the advanced lexemes to the total number of words, as done in Engber （1995）. Lexical originality was calcula
14、ted by dividing the number of tokens unique to a writer by the total number of tokens （Linnarud, 1986）.Among these measures, lexical variation measure and lexical sophistication measure are most frequently used. Wolfe-Quintero et al. （1998） noted that lexical complexity was manifest in writing prima
15、rily in terms of the range （lexical variation） and size （lexical sophistication） of a second language writers productive vocabulary. They concluded that measures of lexical variation and sophistication appeared to best relate to second language development. Although lexical variation and sophisticat
16、ion measures have not been systematically investigated in many studies or for many program levels, they did offer promise as indicators of language development. This thesis aims to review lexical variance and lexical sophistication as two indicators of lexical richness. 2.1.1 Lexical varianceIn Linn
17、aruds （1986） study, lexical variance was defined as the total number of different lexical items or word types divided by the total number of lexical words in a text. The subjects fell into two groups: the L2 learner group - 17-year-old Swedish learners （L2 high school juniors）, and the native speake
18、r group at the same school level. They were asked to write a picture description essay in 40 minutes. Linnarud （1986） compared the compositions in lexical variance between the two groups. She found a clear difference in lexical variance between the L2 learners and the native speakers: the L2 learner
19、s lacked lexical variation. She also had each composition holistically scored in order to examine whether there was a significant relationship between lexical variance and L2 writing quality. As a result, no relationship was found between the holistic scores and this measure for both the L2 learner
20、group and the native speaker group. In Nihananis （1981） study, lexical variance was defined as the total number of different lexical items divided by the total number of lexical words in a text. Nihanani （1981） collected the take-home essays written by L2 university students. She counted each lexica
21、l variance score based on the given definition and had each essay holistically scored. The same result as Linnaruds （1986） was found: there was no significant relationship between the holistic scores and lexical variance.In Hyltenstams （1988） study, the L2 learners were second year high school stude
22、nts. They were asked to write a summary and response to a 20-minute film without time limit. Unlike Nihanani （1981） and Linnarud （1986）, Hyltenstam （1988） controlled for the text length when calculating a lexical variance score. However, Hyltenstam （1988） found a similar result: there was no relatio
23、nship between lexical variance and L2 writing quality.In Engber （1995） and Linnarud （1986）, lexical variance was defined in the same way. However, Engber （1995） found a different result. In her study, the L2 learners were students at an intermediate to high-intermediate levels of language proficienc
24、y. They were required to write on the same topic within 35 minutes. The topic was chosen from a pool of topics that had been proven to be suitable for eliciting responses at different levels. She used a holistic scoring scheme to measure the quality of each composition. The quality scores were then
25、compared with the quantitative measures of lexical variance. Her calculation of a lexical variance score was unique: she divided every essay into 126-word segments, each segment was treated as a separate unit and an average lexical variance score for the essay was then calculated as the ratio of the
26、 sum of the different words per segment to the sum of the total number of lexical words per segment. She calculated the measure of lexical variance first with lexical errors included and then with errors eliminated, and found moderately high, statistically significant correlations between the writin
27、g quality and either of both measures. A comparison of the means for these two measures showed a higher correlation for lexical variation without error （r = 0.57） than for that with error （r = 0.45）. Wolfe-Quintero et al. （1998, p. 109） held that this measure captured the intuition that second langu
28、age writers at a higher proficiency level will command a larger vocabulary size and will be able to use significantly more lexical word types than writers at a lower proficiency level.2.1.2 Lexical sophisticationA number of researchers （Laufer, 1991; Linnarud, 1986; Liu Donghong, 2003） used lexical
29、sophistication to measure how many low frequency or advanced words were used in a text.Linnarud （1986） defined lexical sophistication as the number of sophisticated lexical words divided by the total number of lexical words in a text and sophisticated lexical words as those English words that were g
30、enerally introduced at grade 9 and above in the Swedish educational system. He found that native language writers used significantly more sophisticated words than second language writers （0.25 versus 0.21）, but found a low correlation between the ratio of sophisticated words and the holistic ratings of the compositions. The low correlation may be understandable, since the students were at a lower language proficiency level and had no command of a large active vocabulary. Laufer （1994） defined lexical sophistication as the ratio of the total number of sophisticated word types divided by the
copyright@ 2008-2022 冰豆网网站版权所有
经营许可证编号:鄂ICP备2022015515号-1
升级会员 