The Relationships between Second Language Speakers’ Oral


Download The Relationships between Second Language Speakers’ Oral


Preview text

Georgia State University
ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University

Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language Dissertations

Department of Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language

5-4-2021
The Relationships between Second Language Speakers’ Oral Productions, Oral Proficiency, and their Individual Differences: A Longitudinal Study
Tamanna Mostafa Georgia State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss
Recommended Citation Mostafa, Tamanna, "The Relationships between Second Language Speakers’ Oral Productions, Oral Proficiency, and their Individual Differences: A Longitudinal Study." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.57709/22259031
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SECOND LANGUAGE SPEAKERS’ ORAL PRODUCTIONS, ORAL PROFICIENCY, AND THEIR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: A
LONGITUDINAL STUDY
by
TAMANNA MOSTAFA
Under the Direction of YouJin Kim, PhD
ABSTRACT Despite the importance of English speaking skills in higher education contexts (Andrade 2009), there has been a lack of investigations into longitudinal development in English as second language (ESL) speakers’ oral proficiency in relation to their oral production features (complexity, accuracy, fluency: CAF) and individual differences in working memory (WM) and aptitude. Existing research examining the relationships between CAF measures and L2 oral proficiency mostly focused on monologic tasks although CAF measures might significantly vary between monologic and dialogic task types (Michel et al., 2012). The purpose of this dissertation

is threefold. First, the study investigates whether CAF measures of ESL speakers’ monologic and dialogic oral performances predict development in their oral proficiency over time. Second, the dissertation examines whether ESL speakers’ WM and aptitude are predictive of their oral proficiency development. Third, the dissertation also examines whether the relationships between CAF measures and oral proficiency are mediated by the speakers’ WM and aptitude. In total, 60 ESL participants (matriculated and non-matriculated) performed both monologic and dialogic oral tasks at three different times over eight months. The participants’ oral proficiency was measured by TOEFL iBT speaking tests and communicative adequacy ratings of their monologic and dialogic speech. The results show that in monologic speech, high proficient ESL speakers produced more syntactically and lexically complex language, whereas in dialogic speech, they produced faster speech. The findings also indicate that although in both monologic and dialogic speech, the participants with lower phonation (compared to pauses) significantly developed their oral proficiency over time, in dialogic speech, the participants with longer turns (in-between pauses) had longitudinal development in oral proficiency. The dissertation also found that high proficient ESL speakers with higher aptitude used more familiar vocabulary in their monologic speech but shorter fluent runs and shorter clauses in dialogic speech. Overall, the study argues that high proficient speech in monologic versus dialogic modes have different linguistic benchmarks. The findings also offer insights into the processes of high proficient L2 speech production in monologic and dialogic tasks by suggesting the combined effects of ESL speakers’ aptitude and CAF features on their oral proficiency scores.
INDEX WORDS: Longitudinal development in oral proficiency, Complexity, Fluency, Aptitude, English as second language

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SECOND LANGUAGE SPEAKERS’ ORAL PRODUCTIONS, ORAL PROFICIENCY, AND THEIR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: A
LONGITUDINAL STUDY
by
TAMANNA MOSTAFA
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2021

Copyright by Tamanna Mostafa
2021

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SECOND LANGUAGE SPEAKERS’ ORAL PRODUCTIONS, ORAL PROFICIENCY, AND THEIR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: A
LONGITUDINAL STUDY

by

TAMANNA MOSTAFA

Electronic Version Approved:
Office of Graduate Services College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University May 2021

Committee Chair: YouJin Kim
Committee: Scott Crossley Eric Friginal
Andrea Révész

iv
DEDICATION To my little baby girl, Unaysa Hyder, my patient companion in my PhD journey. Hope you’ll feel proud of your mama one day

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I want to acknowledge the funding sources that helped me conduct the dissertation project: Language Learning Dissertation Grant, ETS Small Grants, and Provost dissertation Fellowship. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who helped me reach the end of my PhD journey. I want to thank my advisor Dr. YouJin Kim for her guidance throughout the process. If I compare my present self with the one who started the PhD program in Fall 2016, I see two totally different persons: my present self is way stronger in terms of intellectual maturity and the ability to combat obstacles and problems. Dr. Kim was one of those people who helped me achieve this transformation and establish myself as a researcher in the field. I acknowledge all the support I received from Dr. Kim not only in the process of publishing multiple papers in peer-reviewed journals but also in the process of conducting my dissertation project. Thank you, Dr. Kim for all your guidance and support, for understanding me, and for understanding my struggles. Next, I want to thank Dr. Scott Crossley for all the support I received from him in reaching my current position. I worked with Scott in several projects, and each of those was a huge learning experience for me. It was in Scott’s quantitative research methods class that I found my knack for quantitative analysis, and that self-discovery (better late than never) helped me make significant career choices. I want to thank Dr. Eric Friginal for always being so encouraging and positive. I will remember Eric as one of the most supportive and encouraging professors I have been in touch with. I also want to thank Dr. Andrea Révész for graciously agreeing to be in my dissertation committee and extending her helping hand to me whenever I needed her support. In addition to my committee members, I want to thank all the faculty members in the Applied linguistics and ESL department at Georgia State University for helping

vi
me grow as a scholar. I thank Dr. Diane Belcher for introducing me to the world of qualitative research, Dr. Ute Roemer for teaching me various techniques of corpus linguistics, Dr. Stephanie Lindemann for helping me be skilled in linguistic analysis, and Dr. Sara Cushing for teaching me advanced concepts in assessment. I also thank Dr. Viviana Cortes for kindly participating in preparing the Spanish version of a test for my dissertation study. In addition, I acknowledge the assistance and support I received from all my friends in the department throughout my PhD journey.
Last but not the least, I am grateful to my parents for instilling in me the drive to always do better. I also want to acknowledge the support I received from my dear siblings, friends, and cousins in Bangladesh who always believed in me. Finally, I would not have been able to finish the dissertation project without the mental support I received from my husband, Sayeed, and my daughter, Unaysa. Thanks, Sayeed for always being there for me. Thanks, my baby Unaysa for enduring everything I put you through. My achievement is yours.

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... XIII LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. XVI 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5 2.1 L2 Oral proficiency ...................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Operationalizations of L2 oral proficiency in SLA research ................................... 6 2.2.1 The ACTFL OPI....................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 TOEFL iBT speaking test ........................................................................................ 7 2.2.3 Elicited imitation test (EIT) ..................................................................................... 8 2.2.4 Communicative adequacy ........................................................................................ 9 2.3 Monologic and dialogic oral tasks ............................................................................ 12 2.4 CAF Features of oral production ............................................................................. 13 2.4.1 Syntactic complexity ............................................................................................... 14 2.4.2 Empirical studies on syntactic complexity in L2 oral production ........................ 16 2.4.3 Lexical sophistication............................................................................................. 18 2.4.4 Empirical studies on lexical complexity and sophistication in L2 oral production ................................................................................................................................. 19 2.4.5 Accuracy ................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.6 Empirical studies on accuracy in L2 oral production........................................... 22

Preparing to load PDF file. please wait...

0 of 0
100%
The Relationships between Second Language Speakers’ Oral