Investigating the Declarative-Procedural Gap for the Indirect Speech Construction in L2 Learners
- 48 Downloads
It is common to have good declarative but poor procedural knowledge of a foreign language, especially for classroom learners. To study this gap in a constrained manner, we asked Chinese learners of English to repeat, correct and produce indirect speech. The indirect speech construction was selected in the present study because it is known to be a particularly complex construction. Chinese university students who all had good declarative knowledge of the rules governing indirect speech were selected to have overall low or high oral proficiency when assessed in a free speech situation. High proficiency participants pursued strategies that increased their speech rate while reducing errors. They used more idiomatic English, more chunked expressions, and showed less negative transfer from Mandarin, compared to low proficiency participants. Indeed use of chunks was the primary means by which both groups of participants were able to increase their accuracy, complexity, and speaking rate. Low proficiency but not high participants showed evidence of a speed-accuracy trade-off. They either kept errors low at the cost of high pausing, or produced many errors with the benefit of rapid speech. Identifying preferences for speed versus accuracy could facilitate methods for encouraging learners to move out of their comfort zones.
KeywordsThe declarative-procedural gap The indirect speech construction Oral proficiency L2 learners
This study was supported by Jiangsu Province Social Science Research Foundation (Grant No. 18YYB008) and Educational Science Foundation during the 13th Five-Year Plan Period in Jiangsu Province (Grant No. B-b/2018/01/45). Additionally, we would like to thank all the participants involved in the study. Finally, our special thanks would be given to the reviewers for their constructive feedback on our previous manuscript and to the editors for their efforts and professional suggestions.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
The authors declare that all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Bernard, H. R. (1996). Qualitative data, quantitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology methods Journal, 8(1), 9–11.Google Scholar
- Chen, K. S. (2009). Multiple memory system and foreign language learning. Foreign Languages Research, 2, 63–66.Google Scholar
- Eichenbaum, H., & Cohen, N. J. (2001). From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
- Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Kuiper, K. (1996). Smooth talkers: The linguistic performance of auctioneers and sportscasters. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory to practice. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
- Li, S. J. (2008). Teaching practice of direct speech and indirect speech. Testing (Edition of Teaching Research), 11, 66–67.Google Scholar
- Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native like selection and native like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
- Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 769–802). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
- Schacter, D. L., & Tulving, E. (Eds.). (1994). Memory systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Squire, L. R., & Knowlton, B. J. (2000). The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Swan, M. (2006). Chunks in the classroom: Let’s not go overboard. Teacher Trainer, 20, 5–6.Google Scholar
- Wei, N. X. (2007). Phraseological characteristics of Chinese learners spoken English: Evidence of lexical chunks from COLSEC. Modern Foreign Languages, 8, 280–291.Google Scholar
- Wood, D. (2009). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 39–57.Google Scholar
- Yang, H. Z. (1999). Principles of designing College English Speaking Tests. Foreign Language World, 3, 48–57.Google Scholar
- Yuan, P., & Guo, F. R. (2010). Formulaic language and L2 oral fluency. Foreign Language World, 1, 54–62.Google Scholar
- Zhang, W. Z., & Wu, X. D. (2001). Development of L2 oral fluency: A quantitative analysis. Modern Foreign Languages, 24(4), 341–351.Google Scholar
- Zhen, F. C. (2009). Correlation between chunks, fluency, accuracy and appropriateness of oral English: An empirical study based on COLSEC corpus. Foreign Language Education in China, 11, 14–24.Google Scholar
- Zhou, A. J. (2002). Fluency and accuracy improvement in oral English. Foreign Language Education, 5, 72–83.Google Scholar