автореферат и диссертация по педагогике 13.00.02 для написания научной статьи или работы на тему: Совершенствование грамматического аспекта иноязычной устной речи корейских учащихся на основе развития автоматизма синтаксических структур

Текст диссертации автор научной работы: кандидата педагогических наук, Ли Йонг Хи, Санкт-Петербург

OZ - 13/-/od? -X

Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia

Not for general circulation

Lee Jong-Hee

Development of Speech Automatism of Korean Students Learning English as a Foreign (Second) Language

13.00.02 - Theory and Methods of Teaching and Education (Foreign Languages, Levels of General and Professional Education)

Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor (Candidate) of Pedagogy

Academic Adviser -Doctor of Pedagogy Professor N.V.Bagramova

St.Petersburg 2001

\

\

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1-1. The Novelty of Dissertation---------------------1

1-1-1. Research Purpose and Automaticity Literature------------------1

1-1-2. The Concept and Issues of Automaticity-----------------------2

1-1-3. The Criteria of Automaticity-------------------------4

^ 1-2. Approaches to the Development of a Pedagogic Paradigm-----5

1-2-1. An Outline of Theoretical and Pedagogical Problems-----------8

1-2-1-1. UG Principles and the Initial Brain State of Korean EFL Learners--9

1-2-1-2. Variability in Acquisition Process and Pedagogic Solutions----—12

1-3. The Basic Structure of the Dissertation------------------------------15

2. Theoretical Investigation---------16

2-1. Korean EFL Learners' Initial Brain State in English Syntax-------------16

2-1 -1. Objectives and Approaches-----------------------16

^ 2-1-2. An Overview of UG Theory-----------------------------19

2-1-3. Externalized and Internalized Approaches to Language---------23

2-1-4. The Autonomy/Modularity of Linguistic Knowledge----25

2-1-5. The Principles and Parameters Approach--------------------------28

2-1-6. The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition-------------------------29

2-1-7. The Language Faculty and Continuity/ Maturation Models--------30

2-1-7-1. The Language Faculty---------------------------------------31

^ 2-1-7-2. The Continuity and Maturation Hypotheses---------------------32

2-1-7-3. The Window of Opportunity Hypothesis-----------------------34

2-1-8. The Availability of UG to L2 Acquisition-------34

2-1-8-1. The Implications of Critical Period Hypothesis------------35

2-1-8-2. Four Alternatives in Access to UG------------37

2-1-9. The Appraisals of UG Theory-----------------40

2-1-9-1. The Useful Approach to Criticizing UG-inspired Tenets--------41

2-1-9-2. The Universality of Structure-Dependency Principle-------44

2-1-9-2-1. The Concept of Abstract Linguistic Property---------------44

2-1-9-2-2. The Comparative Analysis of Structure-Dependency Issue-----46

2-1-9-2-3. A Logical Fallacy in Justifying Structure-Dependency Principle —48

2-1-9-2-4. The Paradigm of Methodological Options-------------------51

2-1-9-2-5. A Rationale for Methodological Requirements---------------53

2-1-9-3. The Inadequacy of Input Data in LI Acquisition-56

2-1-9-3-1. Negative Evidence and Grammatical Knowledge-----------60

2-1-9-3-2. Positive Evidence and Grammatical Knowledge----------------61

2-1-9-4. The Setting of Head-Direction Parameters and Optional Values--64

2-1-9-4-1. The Concept of Phrase Structure Rules------------------65

2-1-9-4-2. The Notion of X-bar Theory-------------------67

2-1-9-4-3. The Predeterminacy of Head-Direction Alternatives-----69

2-1-9-5. The Creativity of Language and Linguistic Habit-Structure-------71

2-1-9-5-1. The Novelty of Utterances-----------------------------74

2-1-9-5-2. The Role of Linguistic Habit-Formation---------------------------79

2-1-9-5-3. The Reactivation of Innate Abstract Principles---------------84

2-1-9-5-3-1. Three Positions on the Issue of Reactivating UG Principles------85

2-1-9-5-3-2. The Notion of Subjacency Principle--87

2-1-9-5-3-3. The Implications of Empirical Test Results-------88

2-1-10. Conclusion------------------------------90

2-2. Children's Cognitive Approaches to LI Acquisition-----94

2-2-1. Introduction-------------------------------94

2-2-2. The Concept of Language Acquisition and Role of Syntax-----96

2-2-3. The Place of Syntax in Linguistic Competence Development-----98

2-2-4. The Systematic and Incremental Route of Syntactic Development-----99

2-2-5. Single-Word and Early Multiword Utterances------101

2-2-5-1. Extraction and Segmentation in Initial Utterances-------101

2-2-5-2. The Child's Early Approaches to Language Acquisition----------102

2-2-5-3. The General Syntactic Properties of Initial Utterances------------104

2-2-5-4. The Linguistic Analyses of Early Multiword Utterances---------108

2-2-5-4-1. The Analysis of Semantic Notions--------------------------110

2-2-5-4-2. The Analysis of Pivot Lexicons--------------------111

2-2-5-4-3. The Analysis of Limited Scope--------------112

2-2-5-4-4. The Analysis of Syntactic Notions----------------------113

2-2-5-5. The Rules of Word Order and Syntactic Implications--------116

2-3. Comparative Perspectives on English and Korean Syntactic Structures —

---------------------------------------------------------118

2-3-1. An Overview of English and Korean Syntactic Operations-------118

2-3-2. The Features of English Syntactic Operations-----------------------122

2-3-2-1. Yes/ No Questions----124

2-3-2-2. Question-Word Questions------------------------------------126

2-3-2-3. Indirect Object Movement--------------------------------128

2-3-2-4. Passive-------------------129

2-3-2-5. Extraposition---------------------------------131

2-3-3. The Features of Korean Syntactic Operations-------132

2-3-3-1. Question Formation-------------------------------134

2-3-3-2. Passive---------------------------135

2-3-3-3. Causation------------------------------137

2-3-4. The Implications of English-Korean Syntax Comparison--------138

3. Experimental Instantiation--------------------139

3-1. Introduction-----------------------------139

3-1-1. The Outlines of Three Prior Inquiries----------------139

3-1-2. Grammar-focused Language Pedagogy and Some Related Issues---140

3-2. The Design and Method of Experimental Study-----------------------143

3-2-1. An Overview of Subjects and Research Design---------------143

3-2-2. Detailed Methods and Practiced Cycles------------------------------143

3-3. The Formation and Testing of Hypotheses----------------------146

3-3-1. Hypotheses Formation: A Pedagogic Paradigm for Automaticity--146

3-3-2. Materials Development and Hypotheses Testing-----------148

3-3-2-1. The Development of Materials-------------------------148

3-3-2-2. The Testing of Hypotheses-------------------------------151

3-3-2-2-1. The First Hypothesis------------------------------------------151

3-3-2-2-2. The Second Hypothesis-------------------------------------153

3-4. The Results of Experimental Study----------------------------------157

3-4-1. Median Completion Time in Fixed-Mode Practice Tasks----------157

3-4-2. Median Syntactic Errors in Free-Mode Practice Tasks----------158

4. Conclusion------------------159

5. Bibliography----------------------------160

6. Supplements--------------168

6-1. Core Syntactic Forms and Rules - Syntactic Extraction Process---168

6-1-1. Experimental Research Materials-1---------------168

6-1-2. Experimental Research Materials-2-------------------171

6-2. Lexical Insertion Accessibility and Phrasal Addition Applicability -

Semantic Expansion Process--------------175

6-2-1. Experimental Research Materials-1-----------175

6-2-2. Experimental Research Materials-2---------------------187

6-3. A Questionnaire for the Standardized Survey----------------199

7. Explanatory Notes-----------------------------206

8. Raw Discourse Data for Experimental Research----------------208

1. Introduction

1-1. The Novelty of Dissertation

1-1-1. Research Purpose and Automaticity Literature

The primary purpose of this dissertation is to create a theoretically and empirically well-grounded pedagogic paradigm for developing the automatization of English syntactic configurations. From the perspectives of language pedagogy, this research, targeted to the intermediate grown-up Korean speakers learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL), places an emphasis on exploring the ways in which they can get familiarized with the SVO word-ordered and constituents inversion-oriented syntactic operations of English language. The SOV word-ordered and particles insertion-loaded structural mechanisms of Korean, the EFL learners' first language (LI), are presumed to cognitively impede their acquisition of such structural automaticity.

Automaticity in cognitive psychology has received substantial attention from many researchers, and the automatization of linguistic rules has been widely recognized as an important problem in applied linguistics, specifically in the domain of foreign/ second language learning. Over the years empirical findings have presented that explicit process is much superior to implicit process in such language acquisition (Alanen 1995; N. Ellis 1993; Master 1994; Robinson 1996). However, these studies fall short of corroborating the fact that the explicitly learned and rule-governed linguistic knowledge can be employed automatically from a cognitive point of view. Further, it is not easy to find out any cogent results of experimental studies on the automatization process of foreign/second

language rules.

Robinson and Ha (1993) once conducted empirical research on automaticity in grammaticality judgments for sentences making use of an artificial languages, but they did not have an interest in the developmental process of automaticity, and in particular in how to stimulate and develop the learners' automatic application of target language rules to their productive capacity. This dissertation has a main intention to fill such an apparent gap in experimental studies on automaticity in terms of speaking abilities for pragmatic language use. A central emphasis in this theoretical and empirical research has been placed on searching for an original pedagogical paradigm that makes a sustainable contribution to helping the Korean EFL learners surmount the contrastive syntactic differences between the two heterogeneous English and Korean languages. In these contexts, it may be objectively acknowledged that this dissertation deserves novelty in its unique approaches coupled with the strength of logical development and verification, which extends from a critical inquiry into the theory of Universal Grammar (UG) targeted for corroborating the Korean EFL learners' initial brain states in syntactic knowledge to drawing up a well-documented instructional methodology to increase their abilities for automaticity in English syntactic constructions.

1-1-2. The Concept and Issues of Automaticity

In the fields of applied linguistics, the concept of automaticity has been understood loosely by the advocates of audiolingualism (Rivers 1964) and cognitive code (Chastain 1971) and pedagogically specified by communicative language teaching methodologists (Paulston & Bruder 1976). These researchers have maintained that a reasonable degree of automaticity could be accomplished by constant

practices of stimulus-reaction chains (Rivers), grammar instruction and subsequent extensive pattern drills (Chastain), and the systematic ordering of habitual, meaningful and interpersonal practices (Paulston & Bruder). Then, most of their experimental research activities did not deal with the essential nature of automatization - the procedural capabilities that lead to automaticity.

Over the years, in a number of recent studies on automaticity, some theoreticians have supported the basic idea that instructed foreign/second language rules may be automatized by constant utterance practice (Gatbonton & Segalowitzl988; Johnson 1996; Schmidt 1992). Johnson (1996:137), specifically demonstrates the general requirements for automatization, defining automatized skills as 'the ability to get things right when no attention is available for getting them right'. He claims that well-developed tasks at the level of RA-1 (Required Attention Minus One) need to be administered to the learners, which means the equitable degree that the amount of attention paid to the explicit forms in question is a little bit less than the learner's psychologically comfortable standard at the respective phase. In this respect, Johnson further argues that time pressure and competing tasks as some feasible means of defocusing grammatical forms can be used for distraction techniques available to the learners in classroom contexts, showing a high possibility of application in the computer age (ibid: 176).

In reality there has been no reliable documentation with regard to the cognitive process of automatizing grammar rules through constant practice. So it is taken for granted that without precise empirical evidence the necessity of verbal production drills for achieving automaticity cannot be properly recognized. This indicates the current issue that the automatization process of foreign/second language rules through controlled and spontaneous production drills still remains,

on the whole, fallow because of reluctant and insufficient experimental activities arising from the doubts about the substantial effects of explicit learning and practicing formal grammar rules. Thus, this dissertation is, in a crude sense, a renewed attempt to shed light on the reliability of instructional strategies developed for improving the Korean EFL learners' automaticity in structural configurations.

1-1-3. The Criteria of Automaticity

For the past twenty years in the literature of cognitive psychology, there have been considerable disagreements regarding the essence of capacity limitations and the role of attention. And how automaticity is developed, including the relationship between automaticity and implicit knowledge system, has been controversial as well. It becomes, however, increasingly clear that a continuum of automaticity can be formulated from a scientific viewpoint, and so a traditional automatic-controlled dichotomy may disappear. Currently many researchers share the notion that tangible phenomena such as gradual reduction in reaction time and error rates, and attenuated interference from certain synchronic tasks are stable criteria of automaticity (e.g., Logan & Etherton 1994).

The problem of how automaticity is settled substantially in the man's brain is, in general, explicated by Anderson's ACT model of the human cognitive frameworks (Anderson 1987,1992,1993). This model states that human knowledge begins to grow as a type of explicit - declarative - information turned into specialized procedural rules, and another type of behavioral rule-formation. And then it is fine-tuned over time as a function of cost-effectiveness in mental resources. The outcome of such a final stage emerges as a progressive sloping-down in the

learner's cognitive reaction time and error frequency rates. Up to the present researchers have evaluated the tenets of ACT model extensively in other scientific disciplines. Anderson's (1983) application of ACT principles to first language acquisition, however, has been a bone of contention among theoreticians mainly due to its fundamental argumentation that all types of human knowledge starts out in a declarative form. Accordingly this dissertation puts additional emphasis on the novel clarification of controversial procedural features in automatizing syntactic schematization in foreign language learning.

1-2. Approaches to the Development of a Pedagogic Paradigm

It would be now useful to describe the basic structure of this theoretical and empirical research in order to elucidate its nuts and bolts that support the entire frameworks. The pedagogic paradigm set out at the very beginning advocates the rationale for gradually moving from sentence-based grammar up to the level of discourse, a pragmatic process of meaning negotiation in real-time communicative acts. It is generally recognized that grammatical properties should be instructed as the driving force of discourse, a language unit larger than the sentence, rather than as something that operates only within the boundaries of the clause or sentence. So the exploration of the streamlined EFL teaching methodologies intends to construct a paradigm of the probabilistic grammar instruction emerging from a discourse-based approach. This scientific quest is dependent heavily on the presupposition that formal grammar rules are conceived as a tangible framework for finding out a set of interpersonal negotiation patterns in concrete situations by analyzing the authentic language data that spoken discourse interlocutors normally use.

Hence, in a systematic endeavor to work out such a goal, there are, to a large extent, four successive questions which are required to address as follows:

(1) In what states are the native Korean EFL learners' brains in terms of English structural knowledge? - that is to say, it is a question of whether or not the hard-wired English syntactic structures are biologically predetermined in their brains in connection with the principles and parameters framework underpinned by a theory of Universal Grammar (UG);

(2) In what ways do children undertake the initial developmental process of their native language acquisition;

(3) To what degree do Korean and English languages differ from each other in the general rules of their respective syntactic constructions; and

(4) What pedagogical implications does an overall set of cogent answers to the three questions specified above provide for the EFL practitioners to enhance LI Korean adult speakers' automatization of English syntactic configurations?

Associated with the above-mentioned inquiries are four logically connected perspectives from which this dissertation should concentrate its attention on the fundamental and pedagogical issues in relation to LI Korean speakers' acquisition of English syntactic structures:

(1) From the perspective of the psycholinguist, who is, on the whole, interested in foreign/ second language acquisition as an example of the operation of

human cognitive mechanisms, this dissertation, by clarifying the grown-up Korean EFL learners' initial brain state, will draw up reliable answers to the first question above in order to establish an explanatory framework which may furnish a basis for the specification of the other questions given;

(2) From the perspective of the variationist linguist, who is mainly concerned with how a practical knowledge of cognitive acquisition mechanisms can illuminate the developmental issues of language system, this dissertation will analyze native English children's early utterance patterns on the basis of relevant empirical research findings for the investigation of the second question above;

(3) From the perspective of the comparative linguist, who devotes her/his efforts to the contrastive analyses of the two or more different languages in order to shed light on the relevant theoretical and pedagogical issues, this dissertation will take a close look at the structural similarities/differences of English and Korean languages to answer the third question above; and

(4) From the perspective of the language practitioner, who attempts to provide students with well-developed foreign/second language teaching programs, this dissertation is anticipated to resolve the last question - the ultimate objective of the research activities described above.

According to the aforementioned approaches, this dissertation will endeavor to explore the first question above from the normative standpoint as a result of analyzing and appraising the widely acknowledged theoretical frameworks in connection with the issues of the initial brain state. In other words, this research

will seek to employ the relative force and flaws of UG theory in validating the predetermined level of LI Korean adult speakers' English syntactic knowledge at their very beginning stage of language learning. It is closely related to the notion that an educational perspective is needed in order to examine and facilitate how theories of foreign/ second language acquisition can contribute to language pedagogy.

And, through the analytical survey of the relevant empirical literature, this

• dissertation will attempt to explicate the second question above by finding out a generalized approach as to how English syntactic forms are initially assimilated into the LI English children's language systems in their infancy. A question of what pedagogical insights such acquisition patterns may suggest will also be investigated in connection with illuminating the brain adaptabilities of the Korean EFL learners' cognitive frameworks stabilized in the process of LI acquisition to the new structural knowledge systems of the target language as a basis to support the manifestation of accurate and specific functions for socially appropriate communicative acts.

^ These analytic and experimental research activities aim to formulate a pedagogical

paradigm suitable to LI Korean speakers' effective automatization of English syntactic rules. So they will be mainly concerned with how language teachers can assist their students in attaining the preliminary skills for syntax-based semantic manifestation through the optimal syntax/semantics interface between the two heterogeneous languages.

1-2-1. An Outline of Theoretical and Pedagogical Problems

♦

♦

The following preliminary standpoints afford an overview of the significant underlying notions posed in some noteworthy issues related to the whole questions set out above.

1-2-1-1. UG Principles and the Initial Brain State of Korean EFL Learners

It is widely accepted that no theory of foreign/second language acquisition is complete without an adequate account of LI transfer effects. Although a clear-cut definition of transfer is by no means an easy task, the following offers a proper basis for the discussion related to the LI Korean EFL learners' automatization of English syntactic operations:

Transfer is the influence resulting from the similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired (Ellis 1994:301).

In this regard, the problem of language transfer needs to be examined by means of theoretical scrutiny with the meta-analysis of the existing hypotheses both beyond H and within the confines of particular linguistic theories. Roughly the Contrastive

Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) and the Creative Construction Hypothesis (CCH) fall beyond the framework of specific linguistic models, whereas the theory of UG and the Competition Model fall within such boundaries.

It is also extensively held that, even though behaviorist views of transfer are, to a large extent, defunct, the central notions that they gave rise to - difference and difficulty equation - are still very much alive. For this reason, it would be useful to reconsider the early formulations of the CAH, then proceeding to the examination

L

of the CCH, which claims that the guiding force in foreign/second language acquisition is universal innate principles and not the native language (NL). According to the CCH, it is the target language (TL) system and not the NL system that constrains the process of acquisition, suggesting that a similar acquisition order for speakers of different language backgrounds and a reduction in the importance of NL effect (Gass 1996).

In line with these outlines, it would be primarily necessary to look at the issues of language transfer within the confines of a hard-wired UG theory and the Competition Model(CM). From the early 1980s, many scholars have attempted to investigate UG as an explanatory foundation for foreign/ second language acquisition. When adult learners begin the study of a foreign/ second language, a question of theoretical significance is 'what their starting points or initial states are'; that is to say, the accessibility to, or availability of, UG on the part of the learners. Two main possibilities have been articulated in the relevant literature:

(a) Learners have access to UG either (i) fully, in the way that children do, or (ii) partially, in the sense that other factors (e.g., the NL) may interact with UG and prevent full access to UG; and

(b) Learners have no access to UG (ook 1996).

Considering each of these possibilities in turn, the first (UG access) suggests that UG is the starting point for the formation of foreign/second language grammars. In the strong version of UG access, UG constrains grammar construction through the entire process of acquisition; in the weak version, UG is the initial state, but the NL is an important part of the picture, effectively blocking full operation of UG. The second possibility suggests that the NL is the starting point and provides the

basis on which a foreign/second language develops.

Another framework within which transfer assumes a central role is the CM. The basis for this model stems from work by Bates and MacWhinney (1981 in Gass 1996). Their elaborated model was developed to account for the ways monolingual speakers interpret sentences. A fundamental difference between this model and the UG theory is that whereas the latter separates the form of language from its function, the CM is based on the assumption that form and function cannot be separated. A major concept inherent in such a performance model is that speakers must have a way of determining relationship among various cues, each of which contributes to a different resolution in sentence interpretation (Ellis 1993; Gass 1996).

In accordance with this model, although the range of cues is universal, there is language-specific instantiation of cues and language-specific strength assigned to cues. In sentence interpretation, the initial hypothesis is consistent with interpretation in the NL. However, there may be universal tendencies towards the heavy use of particular cues. One of the empirical research findings is that a meaning-based comprehension strategy takes precedence over a grammar-based one (Gass 1996).

To sum up, the CM suggests that learners are faced with conflicts between NL and TL cues and cue strengths. The resolution of these conflicts is such that learners first resort to their NL interpretation strategies and upon recognition of the incongruity between TL and NL systems, resort to a universal selection of meaning-based cues as opposed to syntax-based cues.

Hence, as indicated earlier, the critical and analytical examination of UG-based argumentation in relation to language transfer issues is expected to offer a useful stepping-stone for throwing light on the grown-up LI Korean EFL learners' initial brain state from the viewpoints of cognitive accessibility to, or availability of hardwired English syntactic principles.

1-2-1-2. Variability in Acquisition Process and Pedagogic Solutions

A variationist approach to the study of language acquisition is concerned with a question of how a practical knowledge of cognitive acquisition mechanisms can illuminate the developmental issues of language system. In accordance with the variationist viewpoint, basically the learner's linguistic knowledge is anomalous in the sense that he/she may not be sure whether form X or Y is required in a given linguistic context. The standard position in this respect is that the learner's competence is not only variable, but it is inevitably variable as well because acquisition involves change automatically, and such a change can only occur when new forms are added to the existing system. This results in a stage two or more forms are used for the same function; that is to say, the learner's competence is necessarily heterogeneous (Ellis 1990).

In the light of this process, the variationist points out the notion that at the most basic level new linguistic forms emerge spontaneously in all natural languages:

Natural language is unstable and so is subject to invasion by new forms. Interlanguage is a special type of natural language in that it is characterized by a very high level of instability. It is subject to constant bombardment by new linguistic forms, many of which are 'taken in', when to begin with they exist side

by side with existing forms (Ellis 1985 in Tarone 1990: 397).

And, this fundamental assumption is expanded to the concept that there are two types of variability - free variation and systematic variation - in the learner's acquisition of a target-language-based form through the constant interaction with her/ his native-language-based form:

Non-systematic variation occurs when new forms are assimilated but have not yet been integrated into the learner's form-function system. Systematic variation occurs when the new forms have been accommodated by a restructuring of the existing form-function system to give the new forms their own meanings (ibid.: 398).

This statement implies that interlanguage growth is characterized by both free and systematic variation, when a new form is used together with an old form to perform a single function, and systematic variation, when the new and old forms are assigned to different functions.

^ So, taking into account the interlanguage variations mentioned above, we can

think of the possibility that LI adult Korean speakers, if successful in automatizing English syntactic constructions, may demonstrate a gradual and steady, though perhaps occasionally discrete, shift from non-systematic variation to systematic variation in syntactic operational development as they increase their structural knowledge of English language.

It is, however, beyond the preliminary understanding prior to any reliable findings gained from theoretical and empirical studies that to what extent they may exhibit ^ the syntactic interfaceOnAL&between the two strikingly different languages, and in this

respect, to what degree they show any possible syntax/semantics interference and other syntax-oriented conflicts in