Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Research background
The reading-writing continuation task is one of the most frequent methods in learning by extension (Wang, 2016). In the case of the continuation task, learners are provided with a text that contains a story with its ending removed, then the learners are required to read the unfinished story and complete it through writing in the most coherent and logical way possible (Wang & Wang, 2015).
Ever since Wang’s (2011) initial introduction of the “X-Argument” into the field of second language acquisition, many scholars have proposed different research inspired by the continuation task. It was found that the relevant research mainly focuses on three aspects: the facilitative effects of the continuation task on second language acquisition, the factors affecting the effects of the continuation task and the application of the continuation task in foreign language teaching and testing (Zhang, 2018).
Firstly, in recent years, considerable research attention has been given to the effect of the continuation task on vocabulary, syntax, discourse, writing and critical thinking skills, respectively (Jiang & Tu, 2016; Jiang & Chen, 2015; Tu, 2016; Xin, 2017; Miao, 2017). Secondly, recent years have seen most interest amongst foreign language teaching researchers in the factors influencing the continuation tasks in foreign language learning (Jiang & Chen, 2015; Jiang & Tu, 2016; Tu, 2016; Miao, 2017; Xin, 2017). Lastly, in the field of second language teaching, many scholars have investigated the continuation task to verify its facilitating effects (Li, 2015; Luo, 2015). They found that the effect of the continuation task on non-English majors was reflected in the repeat use of the newly encountered linguistic components in the original text, which in return improved the learners’ English proficiency and writing motivation.
..............................
1.2 Purpose and significance
Theoretical conceptions and empirical evidence presented above are informative with regard to reading-writing continuation tasks. Overall, the previous studies have showed that alignment in the continuation task positively affects L2 learners’ language output and that various task-related factors may influence learners’ performance (Wang & Wang, 2015; Zhang, 2017).
Besides, in spite of the theoretical and practical importance of collocations in foreign language teaching and learning, learners in second language are frequently found to have difficulties in grasping collocations. More important, collocation errors account for a high proportion in the mistakes made by second language learners (Biskup, 1992; Farghal & Obirdat, 1995). Despite the problems for L2 learners in respect to L2 collocations and despite the potential effects of the continuation task on L2 writing and L2 lexical development, few studies have explored the potential effects of the continuation task on L2 “adj.+N” collocations learning. The likely practical benefit of the continuation task and the problematic state of L2 learners’ “adj.+N” collocations together warrant such a study. Specifically, the purpose of the present study is to explore the effects of context and L2 input on the “adj.+N” collocations used by Chinese EFL learners in watching-writing continuation task.
This study has both theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, it can present an overall picture of the effects of context and L2 input on the use of “adj.+N” collocations by the Chinese EFL learners in watching-writing continuation task. Practically, it can assist the teachers and the learners to strengthen the awareness of collocations learning. What’s more, some instructional implications are drawn, which can benefit L2 collocation teaching and learning.
..............................
Chapter Two Literature Review and Theoretical Basis
2.1 The continuation task
Over the past few years, the continuation task has aroused considerable interest in the field of L2 research (Wang & Wang, 2015; Xin, 2017; Zhang & Zhang, 2017; Zhang, 2017; Peng & Wang, 2018). In this part, the definition, theoretical background and the previous studies of the continuation task will be illustrated.
2.1.1 Definition of the continuation task
Different from other commonly used writing tasks in second language teaching, the continuation task provides a new way for language learning (Plakans & Gebril, 2013). In this writing task, language learners are required to read and continue an unfinished text. When completing the incomplete text, L2 learners tend to stimulate some of its language expressions (Wang & Wang, 2015).
The continuation task is a representation of “X-Argument” or CEC (complete, extension and creation). One of the functions of “X-Argument” is to improve the efficiency of second language teaching and learning. With an aim to make full use of the facilitating effects of “X-Argument”, the research designs concerning the continuation tasks are of great importance. Activities with regard to the continuation task should be conducted in terms of language comprehension and language production (Wang, 2016). Figure 1 presents the design of “learn-by-CEC” of Wang (2016).
In this figure, language comprehension and production can be combined by “X-Argument”. According to Wang (2016), main approaches for language comprehension are “listening” and “reading” while that for language production include “speaking”, “writing” and “translation”. In this way, the continuation tasks fall into three classifications according to the production method: continuation tasks with respect to “reading”, “writing” and “translation”, respectively.
...........................
2.2 Lexical collocations
As a complicated system, English collocations cannot be fully explored by a single study, and almost any content of linguistic research can be called “collocation” (Niu, 2011). As a result, it is necessary to pick up a particular type of collocation as the topic for the present study. Although the research focus of this study is “adj.+N” collocations, attention should be paid on the definitions of collocation firstly.
2.2.1 Definitions of collocations
Collocation plays an important role in SLA, since it has been a challenging issue not only for L2 learners but also for native language learners (Schmitt, 2010). Originated in the Latin verb “collocare”, “collocation” means to set in order or to arrange (Shehata, 2008). Known as “the father of collocations”, J. R. Firth (1957) put forward the concept of collocation for the first time, that is, collocation is a combination of words associated with each other. In line with this conceptualization, Firth (1988:36) added that “by grammatical collocation we mean any syntactic pattern which is assigned one or more conventional functions in a language, together with whatever is linguistically conventionalized with respect to its contribution to the meaning or the use of structures containing it”. Fillmore et al. (1988) even put that a lexical items is almost a collocation. From then on, collocation has become a research interest for many scholars both at home and aboard.
In general, two main trends can be found in the definition of collocation: phraseological-based approach (or significance oriented approach) and frequency-based approach (or statistically oriented approach) (Nesselhauf, 2005). As for the two trends of collocation, a quantity of researchers have demonstrated different concept from their own point of view. At this point, there is a need to clarify the distinction between the two trends.
...............................
Chapter Three Research Design .................................. 15
3.1 Research questions .......................... 15
3.2 Participants ............................... 15
3.3 Instruments and data collection ............................ 16
Chapter Four Results and Discussion ..................................... 23
4.1 Effects of context on the use of “adj.+N” collocations ...................................... 23
4.1.1 Frequency and distribution of “adj.+N” collocations in two different contexts ......... 23
4.1.2 Frequency and distribution of collocational errors in two different contexts ............. 26
Chapter Five Conclusion ............................... 56
5.1 Major findings ................................. 56
5.2 Pedagogical implications .................................... 57
5.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies ......................... 58
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
4.1 Effects of context on the use of “adj.+N” collocations
Regarding how context types influence the use of “adj.+N” collocations in this study, “adj.+N” collocations were firstly examined from two aspects in this part: (1) the overall situation of “adj.+N” collocations in two different contexts; (2) frequency and distribution of the collocational errors in different context types.
4.1.1 Frequency and distribution of “adj.+N” collocations in two different contexts
To begin with, the 4 corpora were divided into two categories firstly: (1) corpora concerning the tasks with L2 input (C1 and C3); (2) corpora in the tasks without L2 input (C2 and C4). Therefore, frequency and correctness of “adj.+N” collocations of the two different input types were demonstrated in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2, respectively.
.............................
Chapter Five Conclusion
5.1 Major findings
Corresponding to the three research questions, this present study has obtained the following findings in response to the three research questions:
(1) No matter what the input types were, more collocations (373> 236, 353> 230) and higher collocational error rate (12.1%> 10.6%, 8.5%> 6.5%) were found in L1-based context task. There is no significant difference on the correctness of the collocations. When L2 input was provided, inappropriate articles take up the highest proportion in the two contexts, and are distributed significant differently (LL= -0.085, P= 0.000< 0.05). In the task without L2 input, the most erroneous are inappropriate plurality. However, only inappropriate word order was found significantly different in two different contexts (LL= 4.054, P= 0.044< 0.05).
(2) Whatever the context types were, more collocations (373> 353, 236> 230) and collocational errors and higher collocational error rate (12.1%> 8.5%, 10.6%> 6.5%) were found in the task providing L2 input. There is no significant difference in the correctness of the “adj.+N” collocations. Specifically, in the task with regard to L1-based context, articles and plurality are more apt to be misused. But there are no significant differences in the distributions of the six error types. In the task concerning L2-based context, inappropriate articles and plurality show higher probability than other four error types. Similarly, no significant difference was found between the distributions of the six error types.
reeference(omitted)