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!