문화기술의 융합 (The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology)

  • 제9권5호
  • /
  • Pages.229-235
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2384-0358(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-0366(eISSN)
국제문화기술진흥원 (The International Promotion Agency of Culture Technology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

통사적 복잡성과 분석적 척도의 언어 사용 점수간의 관계 탐색

The Relationship between Syntactic Complexity Indices and Scores on Language Use in the Analytic Rating Scale

  • 이영주 (한밭대학교 영어영문학과)
  • Young-Ju Lee (Dept. of English Language and Literature, Hanbat National University)
  • 투고 : 2023.07.30
  • 심사 : 2023.09.05
  • 발행 : 2023.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 자동화된 통사 구문 분석 프로그램인 TAASSC를 활용하여 통사적 복잡성 지표와 분석적 척도의 언어 사용 점수 간의 관계를 살펴본다. 본 연구에서는 ICNALE 코퍼스에서 영어를 외국어로 학습하는 EFL 학생이 작성한 에세이 440개를 분석하였고, 언어 사용 점수와 Lu의 전통적인 통사적 복잡성 지표, 구 복잡성 지표, 절 복잡성지표 간의 관계를 탐색하였다. 단계적 회귀분석 결과, 구 복잡성 지표가 분석적 척도의 언어 사용 점수를 가장 잘 예측하는 것으로 나타났으나 선행연구와는 달리 언어 사용 점수를 차지하는 변량은 낮았다. 본 연구결과를 토대로 구수준에서의 통사구문에 대한 지도와 연습이 필요하다는 쓰기 교육의 시사점을 제시한다.

This study investigates the relationship between syntactic complexity indices and scores on language use in Jacobs et al.(1981)' analytic rating scale. Syntactic complexity indices obtained from TAASSC program and 440 essays written by EFL students from the ICNALE corpus were analyzed. Specifically, this study explores the relationship between scores on language use and Lu(2011)'s traditional syntactic complexity indices, phrasal complexity indices, and clausal complexity indices, respectively. Results of the stepwise regression analysis showed that phrasal complexity indices turned out to be the best predictor of scores on language use, although the variance in scores on language use was relatively small, compared with the previous study. Implications of the findings of the current study for writing instruction (i.e., syntactic structures at the phrase level) were also discussed.

키워드

과제정보

이 논문은 2022학년도 한밭대학교 대학회계 연구비를 지원받아 작성되었음.

참고문헌

  1. Weigle, S. Assessing Writing. Cambridge University Press. 2006.
  2. Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hearfiel, V., & Hughey, J. Testing ESL Composition: A Practical Approach. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. 1981.
  3. Kyle, K. Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication. Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. 2016.
  4. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 333-349. 2018. doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468
  5. Lu, X. A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36-62. 2011. doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
  6. Ishikawa, S. The ICNALE edited essays: A dataset for analysis of L2 English learner essays based on a new integrative viewpoint. English Corpus Studies, 25, 116-130. 2018. doi.org/10.4324/978100325252 doi.org/10.4324/9781003252528-3
  7. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5-35. 2011. doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
  8. Ortega, L. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492-518. 2003. doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
  9. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, I. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555-578. 2009. doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
  10. Bulte, B., & Housen, A. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA, 32, 21. 2012. doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
  11. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S.. Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37, 639-668. 2014. doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059