Grammatical Knowledge of English Cleft Constructions among Pakistani ESL Learners across L2 Proficiency Levels and Learning Styles

Shafqat Zaidi, Fariha Yasmin, Vahid Nimehchisalem, Zalina Mohammad Kasim, Afida Mohammad Ali

Abstract


The study examines the grammatical knowledge of English cleft constructions among Pakistani ESL learners across L2 proficiency levels and learning styles (field-dependent/independent). Cleft constructions have been found to be problematic and difficult to master for Pakistani ESL learners, across proficiency levels and learning styles. Second language learners may encounter greater difficulty in forming cleft constructions (Chu et al., 2014; Chung & Shin, 2022; Wu & Ionin, 2022). Therefore, the study investigates the contribution of these students’ L2 proficiency and learning styles on their accurate judgement of cleft constructions. The study addresses the main research question: “To what extent are Pakistani ESL learners with different L2 proficiency levels and learning styles able to correctly judge English cleft constructions in the grammaticality judgment task?” The research employed the cross-sectional study design.  A total sample of 390 respondents with different L2 proficiency levels and learning styles was recruited from the selected institutions of higher learning in Lahore, Pakistan, using stratified random sampling technique. The respondents were further classified in elementary, intermediate, and advanced L2 proficiency levels. There were 130 respondents including 65 field dependent, and 65 field independent in each L2 proficiency (Elementary, Intermediate, Advanced) level. Oxford Placement Test (OPT) and Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT) were administrated among the respondents. Oxford Placement Test (OPT) was employed to determine the language proficiency levels of the respondents and Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT) distinguished field-dependent and field-independent learning styles of the respondents. Target data were collected using Grammaticality Judgment Task (GJT) to measure respondents’ grammatical knowledge of cleft constructions. A two-way MANOVA was employed to examine a significant mean score difference of GJT across L2 proficiency levels and learning styles. The findings revealed a significant GJT mean score difference among L2 proficiency groups and between field-dependent/independent learners.  The results also showed a significant main and interaction effect of Language proficiency and learning styles on GJT. Field-independent outperformed field-dependent learners on GJT total score, GJT grammatical, and GJT ungrammatical cleft constructions. The findings have interesting pedagogical implications. English language teachers and syllabus designers should design activities on cleft constructions used in the felicitous and infelicitous context for low proficiency learners.

 


Keywords


grammatical knowledge; cleft construction; ESL learners; field-dependent/field-independent learning styles; L2 proficiency

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abedi, H., Jahromi, S. A. F., & Sarab, M. R. A. (2020). Exploring the effect of matching cognitive learning style with focused written corrective feedback on English definite/indefinite article system learning. Foreign Language Research, 10(3), 602–617. https://doi.org/10.22059/jflr.2020.310001.753

Allen, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford University Press.

Agustin, A. C., Laksmi, E. D., & Suharyadi, S. (2021). Speaking performance and grammatical competence across cognitive learning styles and strategy inventory for language learning. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori …, (2003), 692–702. Retrieved from http://journal.um.ac.id/index.php/jptpp/article/view/14758

Aravind, A., Hackl, M., & Wexler, K. (2017). Syntactic and pragmatic factors in children’s comprehension of cleft constructions. Language Acquisition, 25(3), 284–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2017.1316725

Ballou, J., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods (Vol 2). Sage.

Bartlett, J., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Determing appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–50. Retrieved from https://www.opalco.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Reading-Sample-Size1.pdf

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson.

Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanič, R., Masuhara, H., & Tomlinson, B. (2003). Ten questions about language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.251

Callies, M., & Keller, W. R. (2008). The teaching and acquisition of focus constructions: An integrated approach to language awareness across the curriculum. Language Awareness, 17(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146875

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005612

Chu, C. Y., Gabriele, A., & Minai, U (2014). Acquisition of quantifier scope interpretation by Chinese-speaking learners of English. In C.Y. Chu, C. E. Coughlin, B. Lopez Prego, U. Minai, & A. Tremblay (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 157–68.

Chung, E. S., & Shin, J. A. (2022). Native and second language processing of quantifier scope ambiguity. Second Language Research, 02676583221079741. DOI: 10.1177/02676583221079741

Clark, A., Giorgolo, G., & Lappin, S. (2013). Towards a Statistical Model of Grammaticality. Towards a statistical model of grammaticality. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2064– 2069.

Costa, A. (2001). Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning,conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.

Donaldson, B. (2016). Aspects of interrogative use in near-native French: Form, function, and register. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6, 467–503.

Drummer, J. D., & Felser, C. (2023). Connectivity effects in pseudoclefts in L1 and L2 speakers of German. Second Language Research, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221141314

Effendi, L. S., & Bandar, I. B. I. D. (2019). Improving students ’ ability in English based on learning style of private higher education institutions, 24(2), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2402013340

Eilam, B., & Aharon, I. (2003). Students’ planning in the process of self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 304–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00042-5

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.

Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in second language acquisition, 27(2), 305-352.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The Associative-Cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19(1), 100–121. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.08ell

Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a secondl Language: introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive LinguisticsAnnual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.05ell

Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.my/books?id=g_aaPwAACAAJ

Ellis, R., & Roever, C. (2021). The measurement of implicit and explicit knowledge. Language Learning Journal, 49(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1504229

Espírito Santo, A., Alexandre, N., & Perpiñán, S. (2023). The role of resumption in the acquisition of European Portuguese prepositional relative clauses by Chinese learners. Second Language Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221137715

Farsi, M., Bagheri, M. S., Sharif, M., & Nematollahi, F. (2014). Relationship between field dependence / independence and language proficiency of female EFL students. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 6(3), 208–220.

Faghiri, P., & Samvelian, P. (2021). A corpus-based description of cleft constructions in Persian. Faits de Langues, 52(1), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-05201009

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.

Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J. H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(2), 269–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000850

Griffiths, C. (2003). Language learning strategy use and proficiency: The relationship between patterns of reported language learning strategy (LLS) use by speakers of other languages (SOL) and proficiency with implications for the teaching/learning situation. The University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Griffiths, C. (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge University Press.

Guo, X., & Yang, Y. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47(4), 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9566-7

Hamzah, M. S. G., & Abdullah, S. K. (2009). Analysis on metacognitive strategies in reading and writing among Malaysian ESL learners in four education institutions. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(4), 676–683.

Hashemian, M., Jafarpour, A., & Adibpour, M. (2015). Exploring relationships between field (in) dependence, multiple intelligences, and L2 reading performance among Iranian L2 learners. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 40–63. Retrieved from https://rals.scu.ac.ir/article_11259_327ddac9bf944b293043f3fefb08f683.pdf

Havik, E., Roberts, L., Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing subject-object ambiguities in the L2: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59(1), 73–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00501.x

Hedberg, N. (2013). Multiple focus and cleft sentences. In K. Hartmann & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Cleft structures (pp. 227–250). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.08hed

Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (1st ed., pp. 30–46). Blackwell.

İrgin, P. (2013). A difficulty analysis of cleft sentences. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 1(1), 70–80. Retrieved from http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/10/43%5Cr

Jebur, A. B., & Ali, H. A. (2016). Investing Iraqi EFL learners’ use of cleft sentences. Arts Journal, 116, 27–44.

Jegerski, J., & VanPatten, B. (2014). Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. Routledge.

Jourdain, M. (2022). The emergence of Information Structure in child speech: The acquisition of c’est-clefts in French. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(1), 121–154. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0022

Karami, M. (2013). Acquisition of cleft structures in L1 and L2. Journal of Teaching English Language Studies, 1(4), 68–91.

Lahousse, K., & Borremans, M. (2014). The distribution of functional-pragmatic types of clefts in adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 52(3), 793–836. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2014-0009

Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 39(3), 463–516. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.021

Liyanage, I., Bartlett, B., Birch, G., & Tao, T. (2012). “To be or not to be” metacognitive: Learning EFL strategically. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 5–25.

Lobo, M., Santos, A. L., Soares-Jesel, C., & Vaz, S. (2019). Effects of syntactic structure on the comprehension of clefts. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.645

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Mirault, J., Snell, J., & Grainger, J. (2018). You that read wrong again! A transposed-word effect in grammaticality judgments. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1922-1929.

Mohamed, A. R., Chew, J., & Kabilan, M. K. (2006). Metacognitive Reading Strategies Of Good Malaysian Chinese Learners. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 2(March), 21–41.

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249

Montrul, S., Dias, R., & Santos, H. (2011). Clitics and object expression in the L3 acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese: Structural similarity matters for transfer. Second Language Research, 27(1), 21–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310386649

Nimehchisalem, V. (2010). Developing an analytic scale for evaluationg argumentative writing of students in a Malaysian public university [Doctoral thesis]. Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.

Niroomand, S. M., & Rostampour, M. (2014). The impact of field dependence/independence cognitive styles and gender differences on lexical knowledge: The case of Iranian academic EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(10), 2173–2179. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.10.2173-2179

Nisbet, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 100–107.

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 307–322.

Park, J. H., & Sung, M. C. (2023). Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0145

Plonsky, L., Marsden, E., Crowther, D., Gass, S. M., & Spinner, P. (2020). A methodological synthesis and meta-analysis of judgment tasks in second language research. Second Language Research, 36(4), 583-621.

Rassaei, E. (2015). Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 499-518.

Rezaee, M., & Farahian, M. (2012). The case study of a field-independent English language learner. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 114-19.

Rimmer, W. (2006). Grammaticality judgment tests: trial by error. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 246–261. Retrieved from http://www.jllonline.co.uk/journal/5_2/LING 6.pdf

Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction—Issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 499–556). Routledge.

Rogers, J., Révész, A., & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Implicit and explicit knowledge of inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(4), 781–812. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000247

Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual Differences in language learning. Proceedings of Clasic 2010, 4, 721–737.

Shoebottom, P. (2007). The good language learner. Frankfurt International School.

Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.

Thornton, R., Kiguchi, H., & D’Onofrio, E. (2018). Cleft sentences and reconstruction in child language. Language, 94(2), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0021

Tremblay, A. (2005). Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the use of judgment tasks in Linguistic theory. Second Language Studies, 24(1), 129–167.

Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 59-95.

VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 115–136). https://doi.org/10.2167/le128.0

Wong, B., & Chan, S. (2005). English relative clause: what Malay learners know and use.. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 13(1), 107–115.

Wu, M. J., & Ionin, T. (2022). Does explicit instruction affect L2 linguistic competence? An examination with L2 acquisition of English inverse scope. Second Language Research, 38(3), 607-637.

Yin, E. K. L., Nimehchisalem, V., & Moskovsky, C. (2022). The Use of English Present Perfect by Malaysian Chinese ESL Learners. Journal of Asia TEFL, 19(1), 282.

Ylinärä, E., Carella, G., & Frascarelli, M. (2023). Confronting Focus Strategies in Finnish and in Italian: An Experimental Study on Object Focusing. Languages, 8(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010032

Yousefi, M. (2011). Cognitive style and Efl learners ’ listening comprehension. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 73–83.

Yufrizal, H., Sulastri, S., & Sukirlan, M. (2017). Language learning styles and their consecutive speaking tasks of Indonesian EFL learners. Asian Academic Research Journal of Social Science & Humanities, 4(8), 84–103.

Zimmermann, M., & Onea, E. (2011). Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua, 121(11), 1651–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002

Zwanziger, E. (2008). Variability in L1 and L2 French Wh-Interrogatives: The Roles of Communicative Function, wh-Word, and Metalinguistic Awareness [Doctoral thesis]. Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2023-2303-05

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021