In this thesis, the accuracy of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is explored with the help of a study investigating the German L2 morphosyntactic competence of 15 English L1 speakers in two settings: a language assessment test setting as well as in online processing.
Within this thesis L2 morphosyntactic competence was limited to the two investigated areas of subject-verb-agreement (SVA) as well as the distinctive verb placement in German main and subordinate clauses. Previous research has identified these two linguistic areas as being especially prone to error in adult L2 acquisition of German. Since all test takers varied in their German language proficiency levels (encompassing a range from A2 to B2 according to the CEFR) it was hypothesised that L2 learners of a B2 language proficiency level generally outperform L2 learners of a lower language proficiency level (B1 and A2) in all investigated areas. However, this hypothesis could not be affirmed since the study did not find significant differences in the morphosyntactic competence of English German L2 learners between test takers of distinctive CEF language proficiency levels.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
2.2. Theories about the Origin of Cross-Linguistic Differences
2.2.1. The Generative Approach: Universal Grammar and the Principles-and-Parameters Theory
2.2.2. The Cognitive Approach: The Competition Model
2.3. Characteristics of Verb Placement and Subject-Verb-Agreement in German and English
2.3.1. Subject-Verb-Agreement in English and German
2.3.2. Verb Placement in English Main and Subordinate Clauses
2.3.3. Verb Placement in German Main and Subordinate Clauses
2.3.4. Underlying Syntactic Structures
3. Hypotheses and Variables
3.1. Variables
3.2. Hypotheses
3.2.1. In the Setting of the LiSe-DaZ test
3.2.2. In the Setting of Spontaneous Speech Production
4. Design of the Study
4.1. Participants
4.2. Materials and Methodology
4.3. Limitations
5. Results: Disclosing the L2 Competence by Analysing German and English Morphosyntactic Features
5.1. Realisation of Subject-Verb-Agreement
5.2. Realisation of Verb Placement in German Main and Subordinate Clauses
6. Application to Second Language Assessment Testing
7. Conclusion and Future Research
8. Bibliography
Research Objectives and Core Topics
This thesis examines the accuracy and reliability of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) by investigating the German L2 morphosyntactic competence of 15 English L1 speakers. The research focuses on whether proficiency levels defined by the CEFR accurately reflect a learner's actual syntactic competence in two specific areas: subject-verb agreement (SVA) and verb placement in German main and subordinate clauses, evaluated in both controlled test settings and spontaneous speech.
- The effectiveness of CEFR proficiency levels in predicting learner competence.
- Morphosyntactic challenges for adult English L1 speakers acquiring German.
- Comparison of L2 performance in formal assessment tests versus spontaneous communication.
- Theoretical perspectives on cross-linguistic differences (Generative Grammar vs. Competition Model).
- Empirical analysis of syntactic development stages and SVA error patterns.
Excerpt from the Book
2.3. Characteristics of Verb Placement and Subject-Verb-Agreement in German and English
Previous studies on adult L2 acquisition have hypothesised that some linguistic levels may converge easily to an ultimate targetlike representation while others may be more prone to difficulties and errors. Similar structures in the L1 as well as in the L2 which are alike in form, meaning and distribution are expected to be acquired first due to a positive transfer (Saville-Troike & Barto, 2017, p.35). Any other structure in the L2 which does not have an equivalent counterpart in L1 needs to be learned such as the gender system in German for English L1 speakers. Thereby, the greater the difference between the patterns of the two structures in terms of form, meaning and distribution, the greater is also the degree of perceived difficulty of acquisition which again eventually logically leads to a higher probability of errors (Ellis, 1994, p.308). However, it is to note that an area of difficulty cannot automatically be equalled to the occurrence of an error. Learners may perceive an area as extremely difficult but may still be able to produce the correct structure since they focus a lot of extra attention on this area. Structures perceived to be most difficult are those which partially overlap but differ in meaning, form and distribution (Saville-Troike & Barto, 2017, p.35) such as the two linguistic areas discussed in the thesis at hand.
This section provides the basis for the subsequent generation of hypotheses about linguistic areas being prone to difficulties for English German L2 learners by disclosing the underlying structural cross-linguistic differences of German and English syntax.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Presents the motivation for the study, highlighting the prevalence of multilingualism and the specific challenges adult English L1 speakers face when acquiring German morphosyntactic structures.
2. Theoretical Background: Outlines the CEFR framework and discusses two key linguistic theories, Universal Grammar and the Competition Model, to explain cross-linguistic differences in verb placement and subject-verb agreement.
3. Hypotheses and Variables: Defines the independent and dependent variables for the study and presents specific hypotheses regarding the correlation between CEFR levels and performance in LiSe-DaZ testing and spontaneous speech.
4. Design of the Study: Details the methodology, including participant demographics, the structure of the LiSe-DaZ test, and the procedures for analyzing spontaneous speech and syntactic developmental stages.
5. Results: Disclosing the L2 Competence by Analysing German and English Morphosyntactic Features: Provides an empirical analysis of the test results, focusing on subject-verb agreement and verb placement, and examines error patterns across different proficiency levels.
6. Application to Second Language Assessment Testing: Evaluates the implications of the study's findings on the validity of CEFR "can-do" statements and standard language assessment practices.
7. Conclusion and Future Research: Summarizes the findings, noting the lack of empirical support for significant performance differences between CEFR levels, and suggests directions for future research in second language acquisition.
8. Bibliography: Lists all academic sources used throughout the thesis.
Keywords
adult second language acquisition, syntax-morphology interface, verb placement, subject-verb-agreement, acquisition of German, areas of difficulty in German L2A, English L1 and German L2, language assessment testing, CEFR, LiSe-DaZ, syntactic developmental stage, cross-linguistic differences, morphosyntactic competence, cue validity, error analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The research investigates the German L2 morphosyntactic competence of English L1 speakers, specifically examining subject-verb agreement and verb placement to test the reliability of CEFR proficiency classifications.
What are the central thematic areas?
The central themes include the structural differences between German and English syntax, the validity of language assessment frameworks, and the identification of linguistic areas prone to error in adult L2 acquisition.
What is the main research question or goal?
The primary goal is to determine if learners classified at different CEFR language proficiency levels (A2, B1, B2) actually demonstrate significant, predictable differences in their morphosyntactic competence in German.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The study employs a cross-sectional, experimental design utilizing the LiSe-DaZ diagnostic tool to assess speech production in controlled settings, complemented by an analysis of unstructured spontaneous speech.
What content is covered in the main section?
The main section details the theoretical frameworks (Universal Grammar, Competition Model), the specific syntactic challenges of German for English speakers, the methodology of the study, and an empirical analysis of the participants' performance data.
How can the work be characterized by its keywords?
The work is characterized by its focus on the syntax-morphology interface, the critical analysis of language assessment standards, and the empirical study of adult L2 acquisition processes.
Why is the "can-do" statement approach of the CEFR criticized in the thesis?
The thesis argues that these statements are often based on vague definitions that lack scientific definiteness, failing to account for cultural variations in "routine tasks" and individual paths of language acquisition.
What did the empirical analysis reveal regarding CEFR proficiency levels?
The study found no significant differences in morphosyntactic competence between participants at different CEFR levels, suggesting that these proficiency labels are not accurate indicators of a learner's actual syntactic performance.
- Citar trabajo
- Jenny Streb (Autor), 2017, A Contrastive Analysis of German and English Morphosyntactic Features, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/432054
