L'Adquisició del rus com a llengua estrangera en un context d'instrucció formal a l'aula: complexitat, correcció i fluïdesa i ús del cas en la producció escrita
Loading...
Document Type
Document Version
Author
Director
Pérez Vidal, Carmen
Evnitskaya, Natalia
Evnitskaya, Natalia
Tutor
Other authors
Publication Date
Pages
322 p.
Embargo date
Citation
Denissenko Denissenko, A. L'Adquisició del rus com a llengua estrangera en un context d'instrucció formal a l'aula: complexitat, correcció i fluïdesa i ús del cas en la producció escrita. Universitat Pompeu Fabra; 2016. handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10803/349216
This citation was generated automatically.
Citation
Doctoral program
Programa de doctorat en Traducció i Ciències del Llenguatge
Abstract
L’objectiu d’aquest estudi és descriure el desenvolupament de la competència lingüística escrita en rus com a llengua estrangera per part d’aprenents bilingües (català/castellà) d’edat adulta (n=83) en context d’instrucció formal (IF), en concret en una modalitat de cursos extensius. La mostra inclou quatre grups corresponents a nivells consecutius d’una escola oficial d’idiomes catalana (1-4). A tal fi es duu a terme un estudi longitudinal, amb un disseny pretest – posttest, amb dos temps de recollida de dades per a cada nivell, i alhora un disseny transversal per als quatre nivells. Les dades obtingudes es contrasten amb les de la producció escrita d’un grup de parlants de rus com a L1 (n=30), amb l’objectiu d’establir relació amb el seu nivell d’habilitat pel que fa a la producció escrita. L’estudi té dos objectius específics: a) avaluar el progrés assolit per part dels quatre grups de participants no nadius pel que fa a les àrees de complexitat, correcció i fluïdesa de l’escriptura, al llarg d’un any natural, mesurat en dos temps (febrer-febrer), i transversalment al llarg de 4 anys; b) mostrar el nivell de proficiència assolit pel que fa a l’ús del cas en rus longitudinalment. Les dades es van recollir a partir d’una tasca consistent en un relat que els participants havien d’escriure en un màxim de 40 minuts, a partir d’unes imatges. Posteriorment, els resultats s’han contrastat amb els del grup de participants nadius (n=30) que realitzen la mateixa tasca en un sol temps. Les anàlisis estadístiques han revelat que 150 h d’IF incideixen significativament en el G1, però no en el G2, el G3 o el G4. Més específicament, el G1 millora significativament en la complexitat sintàctica mesurada a través del total de clàusules per oració i el total de clàusules dependents per oració; en la complexitat lèxica mesurada a través de l’índex de Guiraud; i en la fluïdesa mesurada a través de la comptabilització del nombre de paraules per 40 minuts. El G1, el G2, el G3 i el G4 mostren mitjanes significativament més baixes que el grup nadiu en les mesures de complexitat lèxica, correcció i fluïdesa, però no en la complexitat sintàctica. Les anàlisis qualitatives han mostrat que al cap de 150 h d’IF el G1, el G2, el G3 i el G4 no milloren ni en la quantitat ni en la qualitat en el cas pel que fa al seu ús i correcció. En conclusió, sembla que aquest estancament pel que fa al progrés en les habilitats d’escriptura dels nivells 2, 3, i 4 es podria explicar x per la manca d’input i pràctica en la llengua meta, que es podria solucionar amb més feina individual fora de l’aula i estades a un país de parla russa.
The main purpose of the current study is to describe written language development in the case of a group of bilingual (Spanish/Catalan) adult learners (n=83) of Russian as a foreign language, who are learning in a formal instruction context, on extensive language courses. The sample includes four groups of participants that correspond to four consecutive levels of proficiency (1-4) in a Catalan official language school. Their production is compared with that of a baseline group of speakers of Russian as an L1 (n=30). With the above objective in mind we have conducted a longitudinal study with a pre-test/post-test design and two times of data collection for each level group. We have also applied a cross-sectional design to the data and considered development throughout the four levels of proficiency examined. The study has two main specific objectives: a) to assess the progress of the four groups of non-native participants regarding the domains of complexity, accuracy and fluency in writing, during a calendar year between two testing times (February – February), and crossectionally over 4 years; b) to show the level of proficiency achieved as far as the use of cases in Russian longitudinally. Data was obtained by means of a task in which participants were asked to write a story based on a set of images provided by the researcher. They were allowed 40 minutes to complete the task. Subsequently, the results were compared with those obtained by the baseline group of native participants who performed the task only once. Statistical analyses showed that 150 hours of formal instruction have a significant impact on G1, but not on G2, G3 or G4. Specifically, the G1 showed a significant improvement in syntactic complexity, measured by total number of independent clauses and total number of dependent clauses. Additionally we detected a significant improvement in lexical richness, measured by means of the Guiraud index. Significant improvement in fluency was also revealed, in terms of number of words per minute. G1, G2, G3 and G4 showed significantly lower means than the native group in measures such as lexical complexity, accuracy and fluency, but not in syntactic xi complexity. Qualitative analyses showed that after 150 hours of formal instruction none of the groups had improved interms of the amount and quality of errors produced when using case marking in Russian. We would like to conclude by suggesting that such stagnation throughout levels 2, 3 and 4 may bedue to insufficient amounts of hours of formal instruction, ultimately insufficient input, a situation which might be improved by increasing both individual out of class work and opportunities for the students to experience stay abroad periods in Russian speaking countries.
The main purpose of the current study is to describe written language development in the case of a group of bilingual (Spanish/Catalan) adult learners (n=83) of Russian as a foreign language, who are learning in a formal instruction context, on extensive language courses. The sample includes four groups of participants that correspond to four consecutive levels of proficiency (1-4) in a Catalan official language school. Their production is compared with that of a baseline group of speakers of Russian as an L1 (n=30). With the above objective in mind we have conducted a longitudinal study with a pre-test/post-test design and two times of data collection for each level group. We have also applied a cross-sectional design to the data and considered development throughout the four levels of proficiency examined. The study has two main specific objectives: a) to assess the progress of the four groups of non-native participants regarding the domains of complexity, accuracy and fluency in writing, during a calendar year between two testing times (February – February), and crossectionally over 4 years; b) to show the level of proficiency achieved as far as the use of cases in Russian longitudinally. Data was obtained by means of a task in which participants were asked to write a story based on a set of images provided by the researcher. They were allowed 40 minutes to complete the task. Subsequently, the results were compared with those obtained by the baseline group of native participants who performed the task only once. Statistical analyses showed that 150 hours of formal instruction have a significant impact on G1, but not on G2, G3 or G4. Specifically, the G1 showed a significant improvement in syntactic complexity, measured by total number of independent clauses and total number of dependent clauses. Additionally we detected a significant improvement in lexical richness, measured by means of the Guiraud index. Significant improvement in fluency was also revealed, in terms of number of words per minute. G1, G2, G3 and G4 showed significantly lower means than the native group in measures such as lexical complexity, accuracy and fluency, but not in syntactic xi complexity. Qualitative analyses showed that after 150 hours of formal instruction none of the groups had improved interms of the amount and quality of errors produced when using case marking in Russian. We would like to conclude by suggesting that such stagnation throughout levels 2, 3 and 4 may bedue to insufficient amounts of hours of formal instruction, ultimately insufficient input, a situation which might be improved by increasing both individual out of class work and opportunities for the students to experience stay abroad periods in Russian speaking countries.
Keywords
Rus, Competència lingüística escrita
Subjects
81
Publisher
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
