Advertisement

Examining the Characteristics of Tunisian Advanced EFL Learners’ Essays

  • Ibtissem Knouzi
Chapter
  • 740 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigated the linguistic and discourse characteristics of essays written in English by 45 advanced Tunisian EFL learners and the effects of the writing task (argumentative vs expository) on their essay features. The essays (N = 87) were analyzed in terms of fluency, grammatical and lexical accuracy, syntactic complexity, lexical richness, and use of metadiscourse markers. The results indicated that (a) the texts manifested global-level grammatical problems; (b) there were trade-offs between fluency, accuracy, and complexity; (c) the participants produced assertive, non-threatening texts; (d) the texts manifested features of the spoken register; and (e) the two tasks did not affect the textual features of the participants’ essays significantly. The chapter discusses the implications of the findings for teaching and researching EFL writing in the local context.

Keywords

Syntactic Complexity Accuracy Ratio Grammatical Error Discourse Marker Lexical Error 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bofman, T. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bialystok, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms. Applied Linguistics, 3, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chenoweth, N., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox, B. (1994). Writing. In S. Brindley (Ed.), Teaching English (pp. 168–178). New York, NY: Routledge & Open University.Google Scholar
  5. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 182–193.Google Scholar
  6. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Measuring L2 lexical proficiency using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59(2), 307–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cumming, A. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. In R. Manchon (Ed.), Writing in the L2 classroom: Issues in research and pedagogy. Special issue of International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23.Google Scholar
  9. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Powers, D., Santos, T., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 writing framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph Series N 18). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  10. Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies In Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. El-Seidi, M. (2000). Metadiscourse in English and Arabic argumentative writing: A cross-linguistic study of texts written by American and Egyptian university students. In Z. M. Ibrahim, S. T. Aydellot, & N. Kassabgy (Eds.), Diversity in language: Contrastive studies in Arabic and English theoretical and applied linguistics (pp. 111–126). Cairo, Egypt: The American University in Cairo Press.Google Scholar
  12. Engber, C. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ETS (2000). TOEFL test of written English guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  14. Ferris, D. (1993). The design of an automatic analysis program for L2 text research: Necessity and feasibility. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141–161). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghrib, A. (2001). Thinking and writing in EFL: Cutting the Medusa’s head. Review of Applied Linguistics, 243–269.Google Scholar
  18. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: Assessment issues. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 69–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring dynamics of second language writing (pp. 162–189). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haswell, R. H. (2000). Documenting improvement in college writing: A longitudinal approach. Written Communication, 17, 307–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawarence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawarence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Homburg, T. J. (1984). Holistic evaluation of ESL compositions: Can it be validated objectively? TESOL Quarterly, 18, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (NCTE Research Report No. 3). Champaign, IL: National council of teachers of English.Google Scholar
  28. Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  30. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 141–154). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
  35. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 in written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33–51.Google Scholar
  37. Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48, 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mahfoudhi, A. (1998). Writing processes of Tunisian EFL students in argumentative essays. Unpublished DEA dissertation. Faculté des lettres de la Manouba, University of Tunis.Google Scholar
  39. Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, J. R. (2002). Meaning beyond the clause: SFL perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meara, P., & Miralpeix, I. (2004). D-Tools. Swansea: Lognostics (Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Wales Swansea).Google Scholar
  42. Nation, P. (2002). RANGE and FREQUENCY: Programs for Windows based PCs. Retrieved from http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/staff/Paul_Nation
  43. Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text-based studies. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91–115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Sasaki, M. (2002). Building and empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing processes. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 49–80). Kluwer Acadmic Puclishers: Dordrecht, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(04), 357–385.Google Scholar
  47. Schleppelgrell, M. (1996). Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shaw, P., & Liu, E. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19, 225–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Towell, R., Hawkins, R., & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 17, 84–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ibtissem Knouzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations