Languages, Literatures, & Cultures Theses and Dissertations
Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/2785
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item Comparing Second Language Learners' Sensitivity to Arabic Derivational and Inflectional Morphology at the Lexical and Sentence Levels(2015) Freynik, Suzanne Marie; Gor, Kira; Second Language Acquisition and Application; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)While L2 learners are less sensitive than native speakers to morphological structure in general (Clahsen & Felser, 2006; Jiang, 2007; Neubauer & Clahsen, 2009), researchers disagree about the roles different features of morphological systems play in determining the timecourse and accuracy of their acquisition by L2 learners. Some studies suggest that L2 learners process derivational morphemes in a more native-like manner than inflectional ones (Silva & Clahsen, 2008; Kirkici & Clahsen, 2013). Other research demonstrates accurate acquisition of L2 inflectional morphology as well (Gor & Jackson, 2013; Hopp, 2003; Jackson, 2008; Sagarra & Herschensohn, 2010). To date, few studies have directly compared L2 acquisition of inflectional and derivational morphology (Silva & Clahsen, 2008; Kirkici & Clahsen, 2013). Arabic verbs exhibit a system of derivational morphology whose function in constraining event structures and theta roles allows for comparably direct comparison with inflectional morphemes at the sentence level. Forty-four L2 learners and thirty-three native speakers of Arabic participated in the current study, which used three behavioral tasks: a primed lexical decision task, an acceptability judgment task, and a self-paced reading task, to triangulate a picture of L1 and L2 Arabic learners' commands of derivational and inflectional morphology at the lexical and sentential levels. Results of the lexical decision and self-paced reading tasks indicated that both L2 learners and native speakers alike made use of Arabic derivational and inflectional morphological structure during lexical access and sentence processing. However, the acceptability judgment task found that L2 learners made far more accurate judgments about Arabic inflectional errors than about derivational errors. By contrast, native speakers made accurate judgments about both kinds of morphological errors. Thus, L2 learners' behavior regarding Arabic inflectional morphology was at least as native-like as their behavior regarding derivational morphology, if not more so, across tasks. This pattern of results accords with previous research that found accurate processing of inflectional morphology in proficient L2 learners. It also adds to a growing body of research suggesting that the distinction between derivational and inflectional morphology in Semitic languages may be more graded than it is in Indo-European languages (Boudelaa & Marslen-Wilson, 2000; Frost, Forster, Deutsch, 1997).Item Comparison of an Integrative Inductive Approach, Presentation-and-Practice Approach, and Two Hybrid Approaches to Instruction of English Prepositions(2012) Mueller, Charles Mark; DeKeyser, Robert M; Second Language Acquisition and Application; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Certain semantic categories, such as the polysemous senses of English prepositions, present specific problems for adult second language (L2) learners, whether they attempt to acquire these meanings through implicit learning mechanisms or through explicit mechanisms associated with incidental learning or instruction. This study examined research on categorization and practice, along with results of learner corpus analyses, to arrive at a characterization of the learning problem posed by English prepositions. An experiment then assessed the effectiveness of a novel pedagogical intervention called semantic highlighting (SH), which employed an inductive, integrative approach to the acquisition of procedural knowledge while accounting for some of the distinctive features of the learning problem posed by polysemy and semantic complexity. A between-subject comparison examined the performance of a control group and four treatment groups. One treatment group (D-P) received explicit explanations of the senses of various prepositions, followed by practice with immediate feedback. Another group (SH) received only a practice session in which cues, referred to here as "semantic highlighting" (SH), were used to draw participants' attention to concrete form-meaning mapping as it applied to the target sentences. The other two treatment groups received hybrid instruction with explicit explanations preceding SH practice (D-SH) or with SH practice preceding explicit explanations (SH-D). Acquisition was measured using a fill-in-the-blanks (FB) test and a written sentence-elicitation (SE) test that was scored using a target-language use analysis (Pica, 1984). Two ANCOVAs, using pretest scores as a covariate, showed significant differences between groups on the FB measure (p < .001) and SE measure (p < .001) at an alpha level of .025. On the FB test, results indicated an advantage for the SH (p < .001) group relative to the SH-D group. On the SE measure, the SH group outperformed the D-P (p = .010), SH-D (p = .013), and D-SH (p = .002) groups. The results suggested that the SH treatment, and possibly the D-SH treatment, as well, constitute viable alternatives to a conventional presentation-and-practice approach when teaching complex semantic targets. The results were further discussed in terms of implications for theoretical accounts of explicit instruction and categorization.Item ITEM-ANALYSIS METHODS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ILTA GUIDELINES FOR PRACTICE: A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF CLASSICAL TEST THEORY AND ITEM RESPONSE THEORY MODELS ON THE OUTCOME OF A HIGH-STAKES ENTRANCE EXAM(2011) Ellis, David P.; Ross, Steven J; Second Language Acquisition and Application; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)The current version of the International Language Testing Association (ILTA) Guidelines for Practice requires language testers to pretest items before including them on an exam, or when pretesting is not possible, to conduct post-hoc item analysis to ensure any malfunctioning items are excluded from scoring. However, the guidelines are devoid of guidance with respect to which item-analysis method is appropriate for any given examination. The purpose of this study is to determine what influence choice of item-analysis method has on the outcome of a high-stakes university entrance exam. Two types of classical-test-theory (CTT) item analysis and three item-response-theory (IRT) models were applied to responses generated from a single administration of a 70-item dichotomously scored multiple-choice test of English proficiency, administered to 2,320 examinees applying to a prestigious private university in western Japan. Results illustrate that choice of item-analysis method greatly influences the ordinal ranking of examinees. The implications of these findings are discussed and recommendations are made for revising the ILTA Guidelines for Practice to delineate more explicitly how language testers should apply item analysis in their testing practice.