Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:01:11.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Exploring Literary Texts as a Tool for Developing L2 Oral Proficiency

from Part II - Literature and Speaking Skills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2019

By
Gary G. Fogal  and
Richard S. Pinner
Edited by
Christian Jones
Christian Jones
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access

Summary

Numerous publications have examined the impact that studying literature has had on second language (L2) development across modes, including its usefulness for advancing language awareness (Lin ), academic writing (Fogal ), reading comprehension (Paesani ) and general academic performance (Badran ). However, limited studies – and with varying results – have explored the utility of studying literary texts for enhancing L2 oral proficiency. Moreover, the sparse literature on this topic blurs an already narrow conception of how literary texts impact L2 oral proficiency and thus invites further research. To address this concern, the present classroom-based study examined changes in L2 learners’ lexical complexity (operationalised as lexical density, diversity and sophistication) after a semester of studying English literature within the context of a discussion and presentation course. Data were collected from a first-year class in an English literature department at a private university in Japan and comprised audio recordings of classroom interactions, classroom observations, post-semester interviews with learners and evidence-based reflections compiled by the course instructor. To examine changes in lexical complexity, a pre-test post-test research design was used, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed to compare changes in lexical complexity over time. Results showed that learners made no statistically significant gains in oral proficiency. This study discusses pedagogical concerns related with this outcome and offers suggestions for balancing classroom attention on literature, the learner and the language of the text. This work also contributes to advancing research methods related to investigating the efficacy of studying literary texts for developing L2 oral proficiency.

Keywords

lexical complexityoral proficiencydiscussionsclassroom research
Type
Chapter
Information
Literature, Spoken Language and Speaking Skills in Second Language Learning , pp. 202 - 228
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arias Rodríguez, G. L. 2017. ‘Students’ language skills development through short stories’, Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura 22(1): 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babaee, R. and Yahya, W. R. B. W. 2014. ‘Significance of literature in foreign language teaching’,International Education Studies 7(4): 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badran, D. 2012. ‘Metaphor as argument: A stylistic genre-based approach’, Language and Literature 21(2): 119–135.Google Scholar
Beglar, D., Hunt, A. and Kite, Y. 2012. ‘The effect of pleasure reading on Japanese university EFL learners’ reading rates’, Language Learning 62(3): 665–703.Google Scholar
Boyd, M. and Maloof, V. M. 2000. ‘How teachers can build on student-proposed intertextual links to facilitate student talk in the ESL classroom’, in Hall, J. K. and Verplaetse, L. S. (eds.), Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 163–182.Google Scholar
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.Google Scholar
Bredella, L. and Delanoy, W. 1996. Challenges of Literary Texts in the Foreign Language Classroom. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B. and Housen, A. 2012. ‘Defining and operationalising L2 complexity’, in Housen, A., Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulté, B., Housen, A., Pierrard, M. and Van Daele, S. 2008. ‘Investigating lexical proficiency development over time: The case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels’, Journal of French Language Studies 18(3): 277–298.Google Scholar
Carter, R. 2003. ‘Language awareness’,ELT Journal 57(1): 64–65.Google Scholar
Carter, R. 2007. ‘Foreword’, in Watson, G. and Zyngier, S. (eds.), Literature and Stylistics for Language Learners. London: Palgrave Macmillan, vii–xi.Google Scholar
CEFR. 2016. European Language Portfolio (ELP). Available at: www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio (Accessed 20 September 2017).Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. 2000. ‘A new academic word list’,TESOL Quarterly 34(2): 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daller, H., van Hout, R. and Treffers-Daller, J. 2003. ‘Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals’, Applied Linguistics 24: 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., Anikina, Y. and Westhoff, G. 2007. ‘An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10(5): 603–624.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. and Murphey, T. 2003. Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erkaya, O. R. 2005. ‘Benefits of using short stories in the EFL context’, Asian EFL Journal 8: 1–13.Google Scholar
Erkaya, O. R. 2011. ‘Advantages of using translated stories from students’ native language to teach EFL’,The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning 1(2): 57–66.Google Scholar
Farrell, T. S. C. 2008. ‘Critical incidents in ELT initial teacher training’, ELT Journal 62(1): 3–10.Google Scholar
Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd edn). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fogal, G. G. 2015. ‘Pedagogical stylistics in multiple foreign language and second language contexts: A synthesis of empirical research’,Language and Literature 24(1): 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogal, G. G.2019. ‘Tracking microgenetic changes in authorial voice development from a complexity theory perspective’, Applied Linguistics 40(3): 432–455.Google Scholar
Gao, X. 2007. ‘Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tseng et al. (2006)’, Applied Linguistics 28: 615–620.Google Scholar
Hadfield, J. 1992. Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, G. 2005. Literature in Language Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hall, G. 2007. ‘Stylistics in second language contexts: A critical perspective’, in Watson, G. and Zyngier, S. (eds.), Literature and Stylistics for Language Learners. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. 2015. ‘Recent developments in Uses of Literature in Language Teaching’, in Teranishi, M., Saito, Y. and Wales, K. (eds.), Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 13–25.Google Scholar
Hanauer, D. 1997. ‘Poetry reading in the second language classroom’, Language Awareness 6: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A. and Thorsen, C. 2018a. ‘Teacher–student relationships and L2 motivation’, The Modern Language Journal 102(1): 218–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A. and Thorsen, C. 2018b. ‘Teachers’ self-disclosures and influences on students’ motivation: A relational perspective’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–15.Google Scholar
Hişmanoğlu, M. 2005. ‘Teaching English through literature’, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 1(1): 53–66.Google Scholar
Horst, M. and Collins, L. 2006. ‘From faible to strong: How does their vocabulary grow?’, The Canadian Modern Language Review / La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 63(1:) 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. 2012. ‘Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research’, in Housen, A., Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, T. 2007. ‘The effect of manipulating task complexity along the [+ / – here-and-now] dimension on L2 written narrative discourse’, in Garcia Mayo, M. d. P. (ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 136–156.Google Scholar
Kim, M. 2004. ‘Literature discussions in adult L2 learning’,Language and Education 18(2): 145–166.Google Scholar
Koizumi, R. 2005. ‘Speaking performance measures of fluency, accuracy, syntactic complexity, and lexical complexity’, JABAET (Japan-Britain Association for English Teaching) Journal 9: 5–33.Google Scholar
Lachuk, A. J. and Koellner, K. 2015. ‘Performance-based assessment for certification: Insights from edTPA implementation’, Language Arts 93(2): 84–95.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2017. ‘Complexity theory: The lessons continue’, in Ortega, L. and Han, Z. (eds.), Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–50.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. 1994. ‘The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time?’, RELC Journal 25(2): 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B. 1998. ‘The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different?’, Applied Linguistics 19(2): 255–271.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. and Nation, P. 1995. ‘Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production’, Applied Linguistics 16(3): 307–322.Google Scholar
Lin, H. 2010. ‘The taming of the immeasurable: An empirical assessment of language awareness’, in Paran A. and Sercu L. (eds.), Testing the Untestable in Language Education. Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 91–216.Google Scholar
Little, D. 2007. ‘Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited’, International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1(1): 14–29.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. and Gass, S. M. 2015. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (2nd edn). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDevitt, B. 1997. ‘Learner autonomy and the need for learner training’, The Language Learning Journal 16(1): 34–39.Google Scholar
Mercer, S. 2015. ‘Social network analysis and complex dynamic systems’, in Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. and Henry, A. (eds.), Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 73–82.Google Scholar
Michel, M. C., Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. 2007. ‘The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2’, IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45(3): 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasu, M. 2015. ‘The role of literature in foreign language learning’, in Teranishi, M., Saito, Y. and Wales, K. (eds.), in Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 229–247.Google Scholar
Paesani, K. 2006. ‘“Exercices de style”: Developing multiple competencies through a writing portfolio’,Foreign Language Annals 39(4): 618–639.Google Scholar
Paran, A. 2008. ‘The role of literature in instructed foreign language learning and teaching: An evidence-based survey’,Language Teaching 41(4): 465–496.Google Scholar
Paran, A. 2017. ‘Interview with Amos Paran, Specialist in L2 reading and literature in language teaching’, Language Teacher 41: 16–19.Google Scholar
Pardede, P. 2011. Using short stories to teach language skills. Journal of English Teaching 1(1): 14–27.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. 2007. ‘Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics’, Applied Linguistics 28: 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinner, R. S. 2019. Social Authentication and Teacher–Student Motivational Synergy: A Narrative of Language Teaching. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, N. M. and Ryave, A. 2002. Systematic Self-observation: A Method for Researching the Hidden and Elusive Features of Everyday Social Life (Vol. 49). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. 1991. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research (2nd edn). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. 1994. ‘Parametric measures of effect size’, in Cooper H. and Hedges L. V. (eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Sage, 231–244.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. D. 2015. ‘Increasing Motivation and Building Bridges to Content with Graded Readers’, in Teranishi, M., Saito, Y. and Wales, K. (eds.), in Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 280–297.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 2010. ‘“Talking-it-through”: Languaging as a source of learning’, in Batstone, R. (ed.), Sociocognitive Perspectives on Second Language Learning and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 112–129.Google Scholar
Thériault, M. 2015. ‘The development of lexical complexity in sixth-grade intensive English students’, Master’s thesis, Université Laval, Québec.Google Scholar
Tono, Y. 2010. CEFR-J を活用するための ‘Can Do’ Descriptor リスト [CEFR-J oral proficiency ‘Can Do’ Descriptor List]. Tono Laboratory. Available at: www.cefr-j.org/ (Accessed 20 September 2017).Google Scholar
Tripp, D. 1993. Critical Incidents in Teaching: Developing Professional Judgement (Education Classic edn). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ushioda, E. 2011. ‘Why autonomy? Insights from motivation theory and research’, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 5(2): 221–232.Google Scholar
Ushioda, E. 2014. ‘Motivation, autonomy and metacognition: Exploring their interactions’, in Lasagabaster, D., Doiz, A. and Sierra, J. M. (eds.), Motivation and Foreign Language Learning: From Theory to Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 31–49.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. H. 2017. ‘Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 pedagogy’, in Ortega, L. and Han, Z. (eds.), Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 144–162.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. J. 2010. ‘A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading’, TESOL Quarterly 44(2): 320–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×