Grammaticality Judgment Task: Reliability and Scope
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Although extensively used, concerns have been expressed about the reliability and generalizability of grammaticality judgment tasks (GJTs; Alanazi, 2015). It has been argued that learners might guess grammaticality based on feel (Bialystock, 1979) and that the GJT-based results ignore grammatical complexity (Ellis, 1991). While several studies have attempted to validate the results of a GJT against other tasks, the tasks used in these studies required language production (e.g., Leow, 1996; Mandell, 1999), which is different from error identification and correction. The current study used an editing task (ET) to validate learners’ performance on a GJT. An editing task, like a GJT, requires identification of grammatical inaccuracies. Besides, it situates errors in a meaningful context and offers opportunities for multiple corrections of the same error. Overall, 311 participants took part in the study. A paired sample t-test showed a significant difference (¬t = 24.10, p = .00, d = 1.91) between the two tasks. Fifteen percent of the data (45 participants) was further inspected to have a better understanding of learners’ error correction-pattern on the editing task. The results revealed that about 20% of the errors identified were wrongly corrected, which exposes limitations of the GJTs that only require judging the well-formedness of a construction. Moreover, performance on the editing task revealed a greater level of diversity in learners’ responses. On average, eight of the total twelve grammatical features were corrected in 5.87 (SD = 2.47) different ways. The variety of responses on the ET reveals the dynamic nature of learners’ interlanguage that allows for multiple ways for correction. The ET, as compared to the GJT, provides an ecologically more valid way to assess L2 learners’ grammatical proficiency.
Abstract
Although extensively used, concerns have been expressed about the reliability and generalizability of grammaticality judgment tasks (GJTs; Alanazi, 2015). It has been argued that learners might guess grammaticality based on feel (Bialystock, 1979) and that the GJT-based results ignore grammatical complexity (Ellis, 1991). While several studies have attempted to validate the results of a GJT against other tasks, the tasks used in these studies required language production (e.g., Leow, 1996; Mandell, 1999), which is different from error identification and correction. The current study used an editing task (ET) to validate learners’ performance on a GJT. An editing task, like a GJT, requires identification of grammatical inaccuracies. Besides, it situates errors in a meaningful context and offers opportunities for multiple corrections of the same error. Overall, 311 participants took part in the study. A paired sample t-test showed a significant difference (¬t = 24.10, p = .00, d = 1.91) between the two tasks. Fifteen percent of the data (45 participants) was further inspected to have a better understanding of learners’ error correction-pattern on the editing task. The results revealed that about 20% of the errors identified were wrongly corrected, which exposes limitations of the GJTs that only require judging the well-formedness of a construction. Moreover, performance on the editing task revealed a greater level of diversity in learners’ responses. On average, eight of the total twelve grammatical features were corrected in 5.87 (SD = 2.47) different ways. The variety of responses on the ET reveals the dynamic nature of learners’ interlanguage that allows for multiple ways for correction. The ET, as compared to the GJT, provides an ecologically more valid way to assess L2 learners’ grammatical proficiency.
참고문헌 (27)
- Alanazi, S., "The validity of grammaticality judgment task on Saudi EFL learners", International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(6), pp.78~83 (2005)
- Bialystok, E., "Explicit and implicit judgments of L2 grammaticality", Language Learning, 29, pp.81~103 (1979)
- Birdsong, D., "Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence" (1989), Springer
- Robert W. Bley-Vroman, "The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning", Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht), 4(1), pp.1~32 (2016), SAGE Publications[DOI]
- Cameron, L., "Teaching language to young learners" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Chaudron, C., "Research on metalinguistic judgments: A review of theory, methods, and results", Language Learning, 33, pp.343~377 (1983)
- Christie, K., "The ontological status of learner grammaticality judgments in UG approaches to L2 acquisition", Paper presented at Second Language Research Forum (1991)
- Davies, W. D., "Native speaker vs. L2 learner grammaticality judgments", Applied Linguistics, 19(2), pp.183~203 (1998)
- DeKeyser, R., "The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, pp.499~533 (2000)
- DeKeyser, R., "Age effects in second language learning: Steppingstones toward better understanding", Language Learning, 63, pp.52~67 (2013)
- Ellis, R., "Grammaticality judgments and second language acquisition", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, pp.161~186 (1991)
- Ellis, R., "Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, pp.141~172 (2005)
- Gass, S., "Research methodology in second language acquisition", pp.303~322 (1994), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Hayes, B. P., "Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition", pp.88~120 (2000), Oxford University Press
- Larsen-Freeman, D., "Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition", pp.189~200 (2005), Multilingual Matters
- Leow, R. P., "Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics", pp.126~139 (1996)
- "The lexile framework for reading" (2020)[URL]
- Loewen. S., "Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching", pp.94~112 (2009), Multilingual Matters
- Mandell, p, B., "On the reliability of grammaticality judgement tests in second language acquisition research", Second Language Research, 15(1), pp.73~99 (1999)
- Luke Plonsky, "A methodological synthesis and meta-analysis of judgment tasks in second language research", Second Language Research, 36(4), pp.583~621 (2020), SAGE Publications[DOI]
- "Age and knowledge of morphosyntax in English as an additional Language: grammatical judgment and error correction" (2016)[URL]
- Muhammad Asif Qureshi, "Age and knowledge of morphosyntax in english as an additional language: grammatical judgment and error correction", International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 58(1), pp.29~50 (2020), Walter de Gruyter GmbH[DOI]
- Riemer, N., "Grammaticality as evidence and as prediction in a Galilean linguistics", Language Sciences, 31, pp.612~633 (2009)
- Schütze, C. T., "The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistics methodology" (1996), The University of Chicago
- Shanker, S., "The emergence of a new paradigm in ape language research", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(5), pp.605~656 (2002)
- Sorace, A., "Metalinguistic knowledge and language use in acquisition poor environments", Applied Linguistics, 6(3), pp.239~254 (1985)
- Tabatabaei, O., "Assessing the reliability of grammaticality judgment tests", Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, pp.173~182 (2011)