Journal article reading

1. Journal article reading Student: Louis Instructor: Joni Chao

2. The Journal Article • Article title: Bricks or mortar: which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on? • Article source: TESOL Quarterly, vol.42(33), 411-432.. • Authors:John Field • APA reference: Field, J. (2008). Bricks or mortar: which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on? TESOL Quarterly, 42(33), 411-432.

3. Abstract • It is use for the instructor to know which parts of the signal they are likely to recognize, and which parts are likely to be lost to them. • Pemberton (2004) reported very little difference between recognition rate for function and content words (respectively, 74% and 79%). • In this study, through pausedtranscription method the researcher requires listeners to report back immediately after hearing the target sections of speech and without the possibility of rewinding.

4. Introduction • L2 listeners might rely heavily on function words because high frequency renders them familiar. • They might have difficulty identifying function words confidently within a piece of connected speech because functors in English are usually brief and of low perceptual prominence. • The recognition of functors fell significantly behind that of lexical words. It may in which L2 listeners choose to distribute their attention.

5. Research Questions (Intro) • Do function words or content words feature more reliably in the bottom-up data that becomes available to the listener? • Do listeners structure their interpretation of a partially understood piece of spoken input around familiar functors?

6. Literature (Theory Framework) • Event-related potentials measuring electrical activity in the brain suggest neurological differences in the way the two categories are processed (Kutas & Van Petten, 1994, pp. 125-127). • The example of suffering damage to Broca’s area: Their vocabulary store seemed to remain relatively intact, but access to grammar (including inflections and function words) was often impaired. • Assembling an utterance demands two distinct processes, with the speaker first construction a frame in which certain positions are reserved for the mortar of function words and then inserting meaning-bearing bricks in the form of nouns, verbs, and adjectives. (from the example of slips of tongue)

7. Methodology: Participants • N = 90, 46 nonnative listeners; 44 native listeners • NNLs were drawn from mixed-nationality classes. NLs were drawn from Year 10 in two state secondary schools. • Research design: • Experimental

8. Ex: Participants data • NNLs were in classes graded asintermediate. They included Spanish (n=12), German (8), Portuguese (5), Korean (4), Italian (4), Japanese (3) Arabic (2), Czech (2), and Mandarin Chinese (2). Group 1(23): scores ranging from 30-60 Group 2 (23): scores ranging from 61-80 • NLs also divided into two group. Group 1: a set of language learners graded as poorly performing (n=21) Group 2: a top set of successful language learners (n=23)

9. Methodology: Instruments/Tasks • Paused transcription method • Text (the recording): most or all of the words in it were judged to be within their vocabulary range • High quality audio equipment • Statistical analysis: • Measures • Variables

10. Methodology: Data collection • Handwriting answer sheets • Informal interview with the manager of a cinema (to see changes in the way cinema is perceived) • Statistical analysis: • Measures • Variables

11. Statistic Analysis • Hypothesis 1: (transfer from Research Question 1) • IV: different L1 (nominal), level of English (interval) • DV: the number of content-function words (ordinal) • SPSS: mean, independent sample t test, Pearson product-moment coefficient, factorial ANOVA

12. Example: • For research question 1 • T-test to measure the significance of the differences between function and content word recognition. • Pearson product-moment coefficient to suggest a statistically significant relationship between level and content-word recognition (r(44) = 0.64) and a weaker but significant relationship between level and functor recognition (r(44) = 0.58). • Factorial ANOVA calculated for each participant by word type (content vs. functor). Means were calculated for each of the four group.

13. Results & Discussion • TABLE 2 Significance of Differences in Content–Functor Recognition Group Statistic Significance Nonnative Listener Group 1 t(22) = 5.77 p < 0.001 Nonnative Listener Group 2 t(22) = 6.88 p < 0.001 Native Listener Group 1 t(17) = 2.05 p = 0.056 Native Listener Group 2 t(22) = 0.64 n.s.

14. Conclusion • Two main findings emerge. Firstly, despite the greater frequency of function words, their recognition rate is considerably lower than that for content words in three of the four groups. • Secondly, the disparity between the two types of word was relatively consistent across the two NNL groups (17.28 for NNL1, and 19.64 for NNL2). • English function words are identified significantly less accurately by L2 listeners than are content words. • In the early stages of listening development, learners should be asked to build a general and sometimes approximate meaning representation on the basis of the more prominent content words in the text. As listening competence improves, instructors might move on from meanings to forms.

15. Comments on the research • In the research design, although the researcher represents many details elaborately, he ignores to discuss what kind of statistic method that he used to present Figure 1. • In this study, there are multiple factors existing, so the researcher also need to conduct one-way anvoa or two-way anova, not just a series of t-tests. To do this, the researcher can avoid the inflation of Type I Error.