This thesis investigates the relationship between vocabulary and grammar learning aptitude (measured by two LLAMA subtests) and accuracy constituents in adult L2 speakers’ oral and written...Show moreThis thesis investigates the relationship between vocabulary and grammar learning aptitude (measured by two LLAMA subtests) and accuracy constituents in adult L2 speakers’ oral and written discourse productions. It also examines the relationship between the speaking and writing attainment, and the extent to which the link between performance in aptitude and speaking differs from the one for writing. Oral and written picture narratives elicited from 30 ESL speakers were analyzed and coded in terms of lexical and morphosyntactic errors per 100 words. The results of the Spearman correlation analyses revealed that vocabulary learning aptitude is significantly associated with the command of lexis and morphosyntax in writing, explicit grammar learning aptitude shows no significant association with accuracy in both production modes, and time availability in writing has no influence on the interplay between explicit and implicit knowledge with regard to the access of lexical forms. No significant differences were found with respect to the strength of aptitude-speaking and aptitude-writing relations.Show less
Research master thesis | Linguistics (research) (MA)
open access
This thesis investigates implicit accuracy, which is considered the ability to use structures and rules that have become internalized and can thus be uttered easily, and explicit accuracy, defined...Show moreThis thesis investigates implicit accuracy, which is considered the ability to use structures and rules that have become internalized and can thus be uttered easily, and explicit accuracy, defined as the presence of linguistic items learnt by the L2 speaker that have not yet been transferred in implicit accuracy. To investigate in what respect L1, beginning L2 and advanced L2 speakers of Dutch differ in terms of implicit accuracy, spontaneous speech was elicited by two speech tasks. Speech performances were transcribed and coded for accuracy. Types of errors were marked and by use of five measures, implicit accuracy was investigated. Two MANOVAs were run to examine how L1 and L2 accuracy differs and how lower and higher proficient L2 accuracy differs. Significant differences with respect to error density and error type density were found. Correction of error was not found to differ significantly across groups of speakers. The qualitative analysis delved into explicit accuracy, which was examined by stimulated recall sessions: participants were asked to listen carefully to their own speech and to comment on errors, hesitations and the overall process of speaking. These comments were categorized by the researcher. Chi square analyses revealed that as proficiency increases, participants report less on lexical problems but more on affined aspects as task-related issues. L1 speakers specifically report mainly on issues of focus and temporal planning. This study confirms that both implicit and explicit accuracy differs across L1 and L2 speakers and across lower and higher proficient L2 speakers.Show less
