Being a competent writer is an important skill in academic education. However, second language (L2) writers often struggle to be linguistically and lexically competent. This project explored the most frequent linguistic writing errors made by 343 English as a second language (ESL) students when Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) was applied as an instructional methodology. These errors were also classified by language groups based on the students' first language (L1). These students were enrolled in an intensive English program at the English Language Center (ELC), Brigham Young University. The first languages of these students were Spanish, Korean, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, and Russian. The students' writing samples were collected to compile the most frequent linguistic error types. The results of this project show that the most frequent linguistic errors for ESL students are spelling, word choice, determiner, preposition, singular/plural, and word form. Among these errors, spelling and word choice were the most common errors for all ESL students no matter their L1. The principal aim of this project was to take the data collected in the error analysis and create a booklet to be used as a reference guide to frequent ESL linguistic writing errors. With this booklet, teachers should be more aware of frequent errors to better assist their students since this could help them anticipate some of the linguistic difficulties that L2 learners may encounter. This booklet could also help L2 learners attain writing linguistic competence.

Reading Chinese is one of the most challenging tasks for learners of Chinese as a foreign language (CFL learners). Studies showed that effective use of strategies (e.g. inferring meaning from context) helps to enhance reading comprehension. However, so far, most studies about reading Chinese as a foreign language have focused on lower-level processing (e.g. word learning strategies, the effects of orthography on word acquisition, etc.). Studies about reading process and strategies of adult CFL learners engaging in independent Chinese text reading are extremely limited, and few studies compare reading strategies and perceptions of successful and less successful CFL readers. This study filled these gaps by investigating adult CFL learners’ reading strategies and comparing strategy use and perceptions of successful CFL readers and less successful ones. Using the Compensatory Model of Second Language Reading (Bernhardt, 2005; 2011) as the theoretical framework, this study answered three research questions with sub questions: 1. What are the reading strategies used by adult CFL learners? (a) What are overall reading strategies used by adult CFL readers? (b) What are effective strategy combinations used by adult CFL readers? 2. How do successful adult CFL readers apply and perceive reading strategies when reading in Chinese? 3. How do less successful adult CFL readers apply and perceive reading strategies when reading in Chinese? Qualitative research methods were used to collect and analyze the data. Twelve college level third-year Chinese learners were asked to read a Chinese text, finish a think-aloud task (verbally express their thought process), recall the content of the text, answer several text-related questions, and engage in semi-structured interviews. This study identified 14 bottom-up strategies and 12 top-down strategies. The effective reading strategy combinations used by CFL readers included 1) inferring word meaning by accessing context cues, character meaning, and mental lexical networks; 2) monitoring comprehension by using context information, rereading, summarizing, noticing text structure, paraphrasing, or translating difficult parts; 3) segmenting Chinese words by checking the dictionary, conducting grammar analysis, and referring to mental lexicons. Through comparing the cases of successful and less successful CFL readers, this study revealed that successful readers were good at using context information, monitoring comprehension, and distinguishing important text segments from less important ones. They showed confidence in applying reading strategies and consciously acquired and practiced using strategies while reading. Less successful readers, on the other hand, had more difficulties in decoding characters and words as well as understanding complicated sentence structures. They did not trust their ability to infer about words and phrases, and relied more on the dictionary and translation. In addition, compared with less successful readers, successful readers used more top-down strategies, and they had better metacognitive competences in applying a wide range of strategies effectively. The findings of this study provide useful pedagogical implications to improve Chinese reading instruction and a better understanding about reading Chinese as well as L2 reading.

This study examines L2 learners’ difficulties in the acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive. In particular, it investigates the interpretations English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish assign to the subjunctive in temporal, concessive, and conditional clauses, where mood choice involves the interaction of morpho-syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic knowledge. In contrast to previous research that has given little attention to the difficulties L2 learners experience, this study hypothesizes they might be attributed to “input traps” resulting from L1 transfer of syntactic and semantic properties of the subjunctive adjuncts and misanalysis of the input due to the lack of integration of different types of information. This study tests this claim by comparing the grammars of English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish with those of native Spanish speakers. If L2 learners share similar patterns with L1 speakers in contexts where both languages behave similarly, and exhibit different patterns from L1 speakers in contexts where both languages behave differently, difficulties should be attributed to L1 influence on the L2. On the other hand, if L2 learners exhibit different patterns from L1 speakers in contexts where semantic or pragmatic features determine the use of the subjunctive, difficulties should be attributed to failures in form-meaning mappings. Data collection involved a Preference Task with three possible options: a sentence with the indicative, with the subjunctive, or no preference. Subjects were asked to select which of the three choices they preferred according to the context presented in the story. Twenty advanced English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish and twenty native speakers from different Spanish-speaking countries, who served as the control group, took part in this study. Results indicate that subjunctive adjuncts present difficulties in L2 acquisition even for advanced L2 learners. Although they exhibit sensitivity to certain subjunctive features and contextual meanings, data reveal that convergence and non-convergence were primarily determined by L1 influence on L2. Crucially, those features absent from the L1 give rise to greater efforts and difficulties in L2 form-meaning mappings of mood selection.

This study examines L2 learners’ difficulties in the acquisition of the Spanish subjunctive. In particular, it investigates the interpretations English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish assign to the subjunctive in temporal, concessive, and conditional clauses, where mood choice involves the interaction of morpho-syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic knowledge. In contrast to previous research that has given little attention to the difficulties L2 learners experience, this study hypothesizes they might be attributed to “input traps” resulting from L1 transfer of syntactic and semantic properties of the subjunctive adjuncts and misanalysis of the input due to the lack of integration of different types of information. This study tests this claim by comparing the grammars of English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish with those of native Spanish speakers. If L2 learners share similar patterns with L1 speakers in contexts where both languages behave similarly, and exhibit different patterns from L1 speakers in contexts where both languages behave differently, difficulties should be attributed to L1 influence on the L2. On the other hand, if L2 learners exhibit different patterns from L1 speakers in contexts where semantic or pragmatic features determine the use of the subjunctive, difficulties should be attributed to failures in form-meaning mappings. Data collection involved a Preference Task with three possible options: a sentence with the indicative, with the subjunctive, or no preference. Subjects were asked to select which of the three choices they preferred according to the context presented in the story. Twenty advanced English-speaking L2 learners of Spanish and twenty native speakers from different Spanish-speaking countries, who served as the control group, took part in this study. Results indicate that subjunctive adjuncts present difficulties in L2 acquisition even for advanced L2 learners. Although they exhibit sensitivity to certain subjunctive features and contextual meanings, data reveal that convergence and non-convergence were primarily determined by L1 influence on L2. Crucially, those features absent from the L1 give rise to greater efforts and difficulties in L2 form-meaning mappings of mood selection.

Written corrective feedback is extensively used in second language writing courses. Although some think it detrimental to student learning (i.e. Truscott, 1996), much research over the last decade has proven a place for written corrective feedback in the classroom. The present report seeks to review literature on such feedback. This includes research on more recent approaches such as dynamic written corrective feedback, computer-based feedback, concordance use as feedback, and peer feedback. The report discusses pedagogical implications and areas for future research. / text

Utilising integral parts of diverse socio-academic interaction finders establishing virtual online environment incorporating a collection of computer advances as interaction-support e-models was assumed most adequate in the Saudi context, where research confirmed poorer writing proficiency level than the desired standards of university students studying EFL as their major (Hujailan, 2004; Jahin, 2007; Gahin & Idrees, 2012; and Al Asmari, 2013). This environment facilitates interactional communications aiming at (basically) enhancing peer/expert revision and feedback provision processes needed for writing (or other language skills), and (generally) supporting knowledge construction. However, educationalists are not sure whether the purported benefits claimed by advocates of such interactional approach to the teaching of Writing (IATW) and associated means and techniques are true. Research also revealed negative attitudes of the Saudi college students towards learning a second language (ibid). The fact that demanded investigation on those issues inquiring whether an IATW programme – a package carefully designed as per the constructs of the approach referred to above – can be an effective tool to enhance Arab university EFL students' proficiency in English writing; and produce more positive attitudes towards learning English (writing in particular)? Following a mixed method (positivistic and interpretive-constructivist) research framework on the above-determined research question, this study was conducted. As a pre-test-post-test control group design of experimentation, data collection method used two instruments: a) pre- and post-writing proficiency tests (WPTs) to measure improvement of (27) experimental group students' writing ability, compared with that of the control group (28); and b) interviews to measure the impact of an IATW environment on a sub-set of (22) students' attitudes towards their interactional English writing approach experience. An action plan was followed to do relevant tests, two writing instruction methods, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data analysis of the WPTs revealed that the IATW made statistically significant difference in the experimental students’ overall Writing proficiency, compared with the control group scoring. The programme did not make statistically significant improvement in all Writing sub-skills than the control group. It improved the IATW students’ performance in the sub-skills: ‘Evidence & Reasoning’, ‘Organisation’, ‘Cohesion & Logical Consistency’, and ‘Mechanics’ in different degrees. However, the results revealed non-significant effect of the approach on the Writing sub-skills: ‘L2-related or L1-related Grammar’ error reduction. Conversely, the interactional mode did not function better than the traditional (non-interaction-based) approach in ‘Vocabulary’ or ‘Range of Ideas’: the traditional method showed more effectiveness. The experiment showed weak effect sizes in all cases. Qualitative analysis of the interviews revealed that the participants exposed to the interactional activities have developed positive attitudinal disposition: quite considerable ‘motivational intensity’, and increased ‘desire to learn’. Further discussions with the interviewees generated more evaluative thoughts (both favourable and unfavourable). They appreciated the IATW as easy-to-reach, relevant, purposeful writing activities; and communicative mode that played a role in elimination of passive experience of learning, and learner autonomy. However, they placed priority to other schooling goods than the approach adopted, and highlighted major constraints of utilising computer and iB applications for supporting interaction: lack of expertise, internet access, and time consuming. The insight gained from the findings posed a set of implications highlighted, and recommendations for further research study areas suggested.

The present study sets out to explore the impact Swedish upper secondary students' present learning environments have on their motivation to learn English as a second language. More specifically, we aim to investigate student opinions on how their learning situation and their teachers’ approach to leadership and pedagogy affects their motivation in L2 English. The study is performed with the third component of Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Motivation Self-System, the L2 Learning Experience, as a theoretical point of departure. The L2 Learning Experience emphasizes the motives connected to the immediate learning environment through course-specific, teacher-specific, and group-specific aspects. A quantitative study including four qualitative questions was carried out by a self-report questionnaire to four different Swedish upper secondary schools. The results showed that the students’ learning environment was positive for their motivation across all schools. Moreover, it was found that students seem to consider the teacher’s role to be an important factor in their motivation and learning in L2. A teacher’s mood, spontaneity, and flexibility all seem to be influential aspects of the students’ motivation. This demonstrates the importance of making room for creating meaningful teaching situations and relationships with the students. We conclude that if the motivation was emphasized explicitly in the Swedish curriculum, then teachers would perhaps receive the time and the tools to achieve Skolverket’s goal of stimulating a lifelong desire to learn.

No description available.

This research paper examines Swedish students’ attitudes and motivation towards English education in two upper secondary schools, using Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 motivational self system. Of interest is whether theoretical and vocational students have motivational differences when it comes to learning English as a second language. A quantitative questionnaire was compiled using the instrument variables from previous studies of L2 motivation, and question items, which were “re-theorized” for this particular study. 58 students participated, of which 30 were theoretical students and 28 vocational students. Results were then analyzed across three dimensions of L2 motivation: ideal L2 self, ought to L2 self, and L2 learning experience. Findings revealed that, on average, both groups were motivated to learn English as a second language, but that there is an apparent difference between theoretical and vocational students’ attitudes towards learning an L2: the theoretical students’ data showed that they have stronger influence than vocational students in the ideal l2 self, integrative/integrativeness, instrumentality-promotion, attitudes to l2 community, ought-to l2 self, instrumentality-prevention, family influence, attitudes to learning English, and criterion measures.

There are many factors which make speaking and understanding a second language (L2) a highly complex challenge. Skills and competencies in in both linguistic and metalinguistic areas emerge as parts of a multi-faceted, flexible concept underlying bilingual/multilingual communication. On the linguistic level, a combination of an extended knowledge of idiomatic expressions, a broad lexical familiarity, a large vocabulary size, and the ability to deal with phonetic distinctions and fine phonetic detail has been argued necessary for effective nonnative comprehension of spoken language. The scientific interest in these factors has also led to more interest in the L2’s information structure, the way in which information is organised and packaged into informational units, both within and between clauses. On a practical level, the information structure of a language can offer the means to assign focus to a certain element considered important. Speakers can draw from a rich pool of linguistic means to express this focus, and listeners can in turn interpret these to guide them to the highlighted information which in turn facilitates comprehension, resulting in an appropriate understanding of what has been said. If a speaker doesn’t follow the principles of information structure, and the main accent in a sentence is placed on an unimportant word, then there may be inappropriate information transfer within the discourse, and misunderstandings. The concept of focus as part of the information structure of a language, the linguistic means used to express it, and the differential use of focus in native and nonnative language processing are central to this dissertation. Languages exhibit a wide range of ways of directing focus, including by prosodic means, by syntactic constructions, and by lexical means. The general principles underlying information structure seem to contrast structurally across different languages, and they can also differ in the way they express focus. In the context of L2 acquisition, characteristics of the L1 linguistic system are argued to influence the acquisition of the L2. Similarly, the conceptual patterns of information structure of the L1 may influence the organization of information in the L2. However, strategies and patterns used to exploit information structure for succesful language comprehension in the native L1, may not apply at all, or work in different ways or todifferent degrees in the L2. This means that L2 learners ideally have to understand the way that information structure is expressed in the L2 to fully use the information structural benefit in the L2. The knowledge of information structural requirements in the L2 could also imply that the learner would have to make adjustments regarding the use of information structural devices in the L2. The general question is whether the various means to mark focus in the learners’ native language are also accessible in the nonnative language, and whether a L1-L2 transfer of their usage should be considered desirable. The current work explores how information structure helps the listener to discover and structure the forms and meanings of the L2. The central hypothesis is that the ability to access information structure has an impact on the level of the learners’ appropriateness and linguistic competence in the L2. Ultimately, the ability to make use of information structure in the L2 is believed to underpin the L2 learners’ ability to effectively communicate in the L2. The present study investigated how use of focus markers affects processing speed and word recall recall in a native-nonnative language comparison. The predominant research question was whether the type of focus marking leads to more efficient and accurate word processing in marked structures than in unmarked structures, and whether differences in processing patterns can be observed between the two language conditions. Three perception studies were conducted, each concentrating on one of the following linguistic parameters: 1. Prosodic prominence: Does prosodic focus conveyed by sentence accent and by word position facilitate word recognition? 2. Syntactical means: Do cleft constructions result in faster and more accurate word processing? 3. Lexical means: Does focus conveyed by the particles even/only (German: sogar/nur) facilitate word processing and word recall? Experiments 2 and 3 additionally investigated the contribution of context in the form of preceding questions. Furthermore, they considered accent and its facilitative effect on the processing of words which are in the scope of syntactic or lexical focus marking. All three experiments tested German learners of English in a native German language condition and in English as their L2. Native English speakers were included as a control for the English language condition. Test materials consisted of single sentences, all dealing with bird life. Experiment 1 tested word recognition in three focus conditions (broad focus, narrow focus on the target, and narrow focus on a constituent than the target) in one condition using natural unmanipulated sentences, and in the other two conditions using spliced sentences. Experiment 2 (effect of syntactic focus marking) and Experiment 3 (effect of lexical focus marking) used phoneme monitoring as a measure for the speed of word processing. Additionally, a word recall test (4AFC) was conducted to assess the effective entry of target-bearing words in the listeners’ memory. Experiment 1: Focus marking by prosodic means Prosodic focus marking by pitch accent was found to highlight important information (Bolinger, 1972), making the accented word perceptually more prominent (Klatt, 1976; van Santen & Olive, 1990; Eefting, 1991; Koopmans-van Beinum & van Bergem, 1989). However, accent structure seems to be processed faster in native than in nonnative listening (Akker& Cutler, 2003, Expt. 3). Therefore, it is expected that prosodically marked words are better recognised than unmarked words, and that listeners can exploit accent structure better for accurate word recognition in their L1 than they do in the L2 (L1 > L2). Altogether, a difference in word recognition performance in L1 listening is expected between different focus conditions (narrow focus > broad focus). Results of Experiments 1 show that words were better recognized in native listening than in nonnative listening. Focal accent, however, doesn’t seem to help the German subjects recognize accented words more accurately, in both the L1 and the L2. This could be due to the focus conditions not being acoustically distinctive enough. Results of experiments with spliced materials suggest that the surrounding prosodic sentence contour made listeners remember a target word and not the local, prosodic realization of the word. Prosody seems to indeed direct listeners’ attention to the focus of the sentence (see Cutler, 1976). Regarding the salience of word position, VanPatten (2002; 2004) postulated a sentence location principle for L2 processing, stating a ranking of initial > final > medial word position. Other evidence mentions a processing adantage of items occurring late in the sentence (Akker & Cutler, 2003), and Rast (2003) observed in an English L2 production study a trend of an advantage of items occurring at the outer ends of the sentence. The current Experiment 1 aimed to keep the length of the sentences to an acceptable length, mainly to keep the task in the nonnative lnaguage condition feasable. Word length showed an effect only in combination with word position (Rast, 2003; Rast & Dommergues, 2003). Therefore, word length was included in the current experiment as a secondary factor and without hypotheses. Results of Experiment 1 revealed that the length of a word doesn’t seem to be important for its accurate recognition. Word position, specifically the final position, clearly seems to facilitate accurate word recognition in German. A similar trend emerges in condition English L2, confirming Klein (1984) and Slobin (1985). Results don’t support the sentence location principle of VanPatten (2002; 2004). The salience of the final position is interpreted as recency effect (Murdock, 1962). In addition, the advantage of the final position may benefit from the discourse convention that relevant background information is referred to first, and then what is novel later (Haviland & Clark, 1974). This structure is assumed to cue the listener as to what the speaker considers to be important information, and listeners might have reacted according to this convention. Experiment 2: Focus marking by syntactic means Atypical syntactic structures often draw listeners’ attention to certain information in an utterance, and the cleft structure as a focus marking device appears to be a common surface feature in many languages (Lambrecht, 2001). Surface structure influences sentence processing (Foss & Lynch, 1969; Langford & Holmes, 1979), which leads to competing hypotheses in Experiment 2: on the one hand, the focusing effect of the cleft construction might reduce processing times. On the other, cleft constructions in German were found to be used less to mark fo than in English (Ahlemeyer & Kohlhof, 1999; Doherty, 1999; E. Klein, 1988). The complexity of the constructions, and the experience from the native language might work against an advantage of the focus effect in the L2. Results of Experiment 2 show that the cleft structure is an effective device to mark focus in German L1. The processing advantage is explained by the low degree of structural markedness of cleft structures: listeners use the focus function of sentence types headed by the dummy subject es (English: it) due to reliance on 'safe' subject-prominent SVO-structures. The benefit of cleft is enhanced when the sentences are presented with context, suggesting a substantial benefit when focus effects of syntactic surface structure and coherence relation between sentences are integrated. Clefts facilitate word processing for English native speakers. Contrary to German L1, the marked cleft construction doesn’t reduce processing times in English L2. The L1-L2 difference was interpreted as a learner problem of applying specific linguistic structures according to the principles of information structure in the target language. Focus marking by cleft did not help German learners in native or in nonnative word recall. This could be attributed to the phonological similarity of the multiple choice options (Conrad & Hull, 1964), and to a long time span between listening and recall (Birch & Garnsey, 1995; McKoon et al., 1993). Experiment 3: Focus marking by lexical means Focus particles are elements of structure that can indicate focus (König, 1991), and their function is to emphasize a certain part of the sentence (Paterson et al., 1999). I argue that the focus particles even/only (German: sogar/nur) evoke contrast sets of alternatives resp. complements to the element in focus (Ni et al., 1996), which causes interpretations of context. Therefore, lexical focus marking isn’t expected to lead to faster word processing. However, since different mechanisms of encoding seem to underlie word memory, a benefit of the focusing function of particles is expected to show in the recall task: due to focus particles being a preferred and well-used feature for native speakers of German, a transfer of this habitualness is expected, resulting in a better recall of focused words. Results indicated that focus particles seem to be the weakest option to mark focus: Focus marking by lexical particle don’t seem to reduce word processing times in either German L1, English L2, or in English L1. The presence of focus particles is likely to instantiate a complex discourse model which lets the listener await further modifying information (Liversedge et al., 2002). This semantic complexity might slow down processing. There are no indications that focus particles facilitate native language word recall in German L1 and English L1. This could be because focus particles open sets of conditions and contexts that enlarge the set of representations in listeners rather than narrowing it down to the element in the scope of the focus particle. In word recall, the facilitative effect of focus particles emerges only in the nonnative language condition. It is suggested that L2 learners, when faced with more demanding tasks in an L2, use a broad variety of means that identify focus for a better representation of novel words in the memory. In Experiments 2 and 3, evidence suggests that accent is an important factor for efficient word processing and accurate recall in German L1 and English L1, but less so in English L2. This underlines the function of accent as core speech parameter and consistent cue to the perception of prominence native language use (see Cutler & Fodor, 1979; Pitt & Samuel, 1990a; Eriksson et al., 2002; Akker & Cutler, 2003); the L1-L2 difference is attributed to patterns of expectation that are employed in the L1 but not (yet?) in the L2. There seems to exist a fine-tuned sensitivity to how accents are distributed in the native language, listeners expect an appropriate distribution and interpret it accordingly (Eefting, 1991). This pleads for accent placement as extremely important to L2 proficiency; the current results also suggest that accent and its relationship with other speech parameters has to be newly established in the L2 to fully reveal its benefits for efficient processing of speech. There is evidence that additional context facilitates processing of complex syntactic structures but that a surplus of information has no effect if the sentence construction is less challenging for the listener. The increased amount of information to be processed seems to impede better word recall, particularly in the L2. Altogether, it seems that focus marking devices and context can combine to form an advantageous alliance: a substantial benefit in processing efficiency is found when parameters of focus marking and sentence coherence are integrated. L2 research advocates the beneficial aspects of providing context for efficient L2 word learning (Lawson & Hogben, 1996). The current thesis promotes the view that a context which offers more semantic, prosodic, or lexical connections might compensate for the additional processing load that context constitutes for the listeners. A methodological consideration concerns the order in which language conditions are presented to listeners, i.e., L1-L2 or L2-L1. Findings suggest that presentation order could enforce a learning bias, with the performance in the second experiment being influenced by knowledge acquired in the first (see Akker & Cutler, 2003). To conclude this work: The results of the present study suggest that information structure is more accessible in the native language than it is in the nonnative language. There is, however, some evidence that L2 learners have an understanding of the significance of some information-structural parameters of focus marking. This has a beneficial effect on processing efficiency and recall accuracy; on the cognitive side it illustrates the benefits and also the need of a dynamic exchange of information-structural organization between L1 and L2. The findings of the current thesis encourage the view that an understanding of information structure can help the learner to discover and categorise forms and meanings of the L2. Information structure thus emerges as a valuable resource to advance proficiency in a second language. / Das Sprechen und Verstehen einer Fremdsprache (L2) stellt eine komplexe Leistung für einen Nicht-Muttersprachler dar. Kenntnisse und Fertigkeiten auf verschiedenen sprachlichen und außersprachlichen Ebenen wirken dabei zusammen, wie z.B. eine andere Grammatik, neue Lautbildungen in der Aussprache, der Aufbau von Wortschatz, und auch die Sensibilisierung für mögliche kulturell unterschiedliche Kommunikationsformen oder das Training kommunikativer Kompetenz. Eine wichtige Hilfe bei der muttersprachlichen wie der fremdsprachlichen Sprachverarbeitung bieten Mittel, mit denen sprachliche Information gegliedert wird, um sie verständlich zu machen. Die Informationsstruktur ermöglicht es, zum Beispiel den Fokus einer Äußerung zu markieren und damit Intentionen sprachlich zu vermitteln. In gesprochener Sprache sind es vor allem prosodische Mittel wie Satzakzent, die es dem Hörer ermöglichen, die wichtigen Informationen in der Äußerung herauszufinden. Aber auch durch die Verwendung unterschiedlicher grammatischer Strukturen oder durch besondere Wortwahl können Sprecher Satzteile markieren, die sie für besonders wichtig halten, und sie damit hervorheben. Wird die Informationsstruktur eines Satzes verletzt, indem zum Beispiel der Satzakzent auf ein eher unwichtiges Wort gelegt wird, kann der Gesprächspartner/die Gesprächspartnerin einen anderen Teil des Satzes als im Fokus stehend interpretieren als den vom Sprecher eigentlich intendierten Teil. Dies kann - in Kombination mit anderen Faktoren wie ungeschickter Wortwahl - zu Missverständnissen führen. Nun kann eine Sprache prosodische, syntaktische oder lexikalische Möglichkeiten der Markierung besitzen, die entweder in einer anderen Sprache nicht vorkommen, oder die andere Funktionen in Bezug auf die Interpretation von Äußerungen erfüllen, die in dieser Form in der jeweils anderen Sprache nicht existieren. Dies betrifft zum Beispiel Unterschiede zwischen Intonations- und Tonsprachen oder zwischen silbenzählenden und akzentzählenden Sprachen. Ruft der Fremdsprachenlerner die Strukturen sprachlicher Information in der Muttersprache (L1) ab und überträgt sie auf die Fremdsprache, kann dies bei gleicher informationsstruktureller Organisation der Sprache zu einer erfolgreichen Strategie des fremdsprachlichen Verstehens führen. Wird aber Informationsstruktur in der Fremdsprache mit anderen Mitteln als in der Muttersprache ausgedrückt, entsteht ein Spannungsfeld zwischen Verarbeitungsstrategien der Muttersprache und denen der Fremdsprache. Die vorliegende Arbeit befasst sich mit der Rolle informationsstruktureller Parameter in der muttersprachlichen und fremdsprachlichen Sprachverarbeitung. Es wird untersucht, wie Fremdsprachenlerner Fokusmarkierung in der Muttersprache (hier: Deutsch) und in der Fremdsprache (hier: Englisch) zu effizienter Sprachverarbeitung nutzen. Das Ziel ist eine tiefere Einsicht, wie sich Informationsstruktur in der Fremdsprache erschließt; die grundlegende Annahme ist dabei, dass ein Verständnis und eine Sensibilisierung für Informationsstruktur dem Fremdsprachenlerner hilft, Form und Bedeutung von Sprache zu erkennen. Eine solche Einsicht in Informationsstruktur unterstützt die Erweiterung und Festigung fremdsprachlicher Kompetenz. Die Frage nach dem Gebrauch von Informationsstruktur in einer Fremdsprache wird in drei experimentellen Studien untersucht, die sich auf jeweils eines der folgenden sprachlichen Mittel zur Fokusmarkierung konzentrieren: 1. Prosodische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung: Unterstützen Satzakzent und Wortposition im Satz eine bessere Worterkennung? 2. Syntaktische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung: Ermöglicht die Konstruktion eines Spaltsatzes (Englisch: cleft) eine schnellere Verarbeitung des fokussierten Elements im Satz als eine kanonische Wortstellung, und kann sich der Hörer auch zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt noch besser an ein syntaktisch markiertes als an ein unmarkiertes Element erinnern? 3. Lexikalische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung: Bewirken Fokuspartikel (hier: nur/sogar) eine schnellere Verarbeitung des fokussierten Elements, und kann sich der Hörer auch zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt noch besser an das fokussierte als an das nicht-fokussierte Element erinnern? Zusätzlich wird in Experiment 2 und in Experiment 3 untersucht, welchen Einfluss einleitende Fragen haben, die zur Fokusmarkierung eines Elements im Folgesatz dienen. Außerdem wird nachgegangen, welche Rolle es spielt, wenn ein syntaktisch oder lexikalisch fokussiertes Element einen Tonhöheakzent bekommt oder wenn dieser auf dem vorangegangenen Adjektiv realisiert wird. Die Probanden sind deutsche Muttersprachler, die Englisch als Fremdsprache gelernt haben. In den Experimenten werden den Testpersonen jeweils Sprachaufnahmen von deutschen Sätzen und Aufnahmen von parallel dazu konstruierten englischen Sätzen dargeboten. Als Kontrollgruppe für den englischen Teil der Experimente werden englische Muttersprachler getestet, um Referenzdaten für die Ergebnisse der Fremdsprachenlerner zu erhalten. Die Experimente sind als Perzeptionsexperimente konzipiert. Experiment 1 (prosodische Fokusmarkierung) untersucht Worterkennung in drei Bedingungen mitunterschiedlichem Fokus (weiter und enger Fokus, enger Fokus auf anderem Satzelement als dem Zielwort), und zwei Bedingungen mit künstlich durch splicing verändertem Sprachmaterial. In Experiment 2 (syntaktische Fokusmarkierung) und Experiment 3 (lexikalische Fokusmarkierung) wird im Hörexperiment als Methode phoneme monitoring angewandt, wobei die Reaktionszeiten zum Erkennen des fokussierten Worts (welches ein vorher spezifiziertes Phonem enthält) gemessen werden. Im Anschluss an den Hörteil wird in diesen zwei Experimenten außerdem ein Erinnerungstest durchgeführt, bei dem die fokussierten Elemente mit einem Multiple-Choice-Verfahren (4AFC) noch einmal abgefragt werden und die Anzahl der richtigen Antworten gewertet wird. Zu 1.: Prosodische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung Akzentuierung ist ein Mittel, um im Satz wichtige Information hervorzuheben (Bolinger, 1972), was zu einer besseren Wahrnehmung solch akzentuierter Information führt (siehe z.B. van Santen & Olive, 1990; Eefting, 1991). Akzentstruktur scheint jedoch schneller in der L1 als in der L2 verarbeitet zu werden (Akker & Cutler, 2003). Es wird daher angenommen, dass in der L1 eine Fokusmarkierung durch Tonhöheakzent zu besserer Worterkennung eines solchermaßen markierten Wortes führt. Akzentstruktur sollte sich auch in der L2 erschließen, wenn auch in geringerem Maß (L1 > L2). Insgesamt wird ein unterschiedlich starker Fokuseffekt je nach Fokusbedingung erwartet (enger Fokus > weiter Fokus). Die Ergebnisse von Experiment 1 bestätigen, dass Worte in der Muttersprache besser erkannt werden als in der Fremdsprache. Ein unterschiedlicher, als Satzakzent realisierter Fokus hilft allerdings den Probanden weder in der Muttersprache noch in der Fremdssprache, fokussierte Worte schneller zu erkennen. Dies könnte auf ungenügende akustische Unterschiede in der Realisierung der unterschiedlichen Fokuskonditionen in den Sprachaufnahmen zurückzuführen sein. Die Experimente mit synthetisch, durch splicing manipuliertem Sprachmaterial ergeben, dass die umgebende Satzprosodie eher zur Worterkennung beiträgt als die einzelne Akzentmarkierung des Wortes (Cutler, 1976). Für die Salienz der Wortposition im Satz postulierte VanPatten (2004) für fremdsprachliche Wahrnehmung die Reihenfolge von initialer > finaler > medialer Position. Akker und Cutler (2003) erwähnen für L1 und L2 einen Verarbeitungsvorteil von später im Satz auftretenden Worten gegenüber früher Auftretenden. Des weiteren fand Rast (2003) in einer L2-Produktionsstudie einen Vorteil der äußeren Satzpositionen gegenüber der medialen Position. Im vorliegenden Experiment werden die Sätze vor allem wegen der fremdsprachlichen Testbedingung in akzeptabler Länge gehalten, was Aussagen über die Position an den äußeren Satzenden ermöglicht, aber weniger deutliche Effekte für die medial Position erwarten lässt. Wortlänge wurde als Nebenfaktor mit in das Experiment aufgenommen ohne eigenständige Hypothesen dafür zu formulieren. In einer früheren L2 Studie zeigte Wortlänge nur in Abhängigkeit zur Position des Wortes im Satz einen Effekt (Rast, 2003; Rast & Dommergues, 2003). Die Ergebnisse von Experiment 1 zeigen, dass die Länge der Zielworte keine entscheidende Rolle für deren korrekte Erkennung spielt. Die Wortposition im Satz, und hier besonders die finale Position, trägt jedoch entscheidend zur korrekten Worterkennung im Deutschen bei. Ein ähnlicher Trend zeigt sich für die Worterkennung in der Fremdsprache Englisch (siehe Klein, 1984; Slobin, 1985). Das Lokalitätsprinzip von VanPatten (2004) mit dem Verarbeitungsvorteil von initial > final > medial kann nicht bestätigt werden, und die besondere Salienz der finalen Position wird mit Murdock (1962) als recency effect erklärt. Außerdem könnte die finale Position von der Konvention für die Integration neuer Information profitieren: bekannte Information wird vor neuer Information genannt (Haviland & Clark, 1974). Hörer handeln nach dieser üblichen Diskursstruktur und richten ihre Aufmerksamkeit auf Information, die in finaler Position genannt wird. Zu 2.: Syntaktische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung Die Abweichung von kanonischer Satzstruktur lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit auf bestimmte Elemente im Satz, und der Spaltsatz ist in vielen Sprachen eine bekannte Art der Fokussierung (Lambrecht, 2001). Die Oberflächenstruktur eines Satzes beeinflusst seine Verarbeitung (Foss & Lynch, 1969; Langford & Holmes, 1979) und in Experiment 2 stehen zwei Hypothesen gegenüber: Der fokussierende Effekt von Spaltsätzen könnte einen Verarbeitungsvorteil bewirken. Andererseits sind Spaltsätze im Deutschen seltener und weniger gebräuchlich als im Englischen (Ahlemeyer & Kohlhof, 1999; Doherty, 1999; E. Klein, 1988); die syntaktische Komplexität von Spaltsätzen und die Erfahrung der Muttersprache könnten einem Verarbeitungsvorteil in Deutsch L1 und Englisch L2 entgegenwirken. Die Ergebnisse von Experiment 2 zeigen, dass der Spaltsatz ein effektives Mittel der Fokusmarkierung im Deutschen ist. Dies wird auf die geringe strukturelle Markiertheit des Ersatz-Subjekts ‚es’ zurückgeführt, da es an kanonischer, initialer Stelle steht. Die Prominenz dieses Subjekts setzt das nachfolgende Subjekt-Element in Fokus und verleiht ihm Subjekt-Prominenz. Der verarbeitungsfördernde Effekt von Spaltsätzen wird noch erhöht, wenn Oberflächenstruktur (Spaltsatz) und Satzzusammenhang (Kontext) integriert werden. Der Spaltsatz wird jedoch nicht in der Fremdsprache als ein effektives Mittel der Fokusmarkierung genutzt. Englische Muttersprachler nutzen den Fokuseffekt des Spaltsatzes zur schnellen Worterkennung, aber dieses informationsstrukturelle Mittel der L2 wird nicht von Fremdsprachenlernern erkannt und verwertet. Dies wird als Lernerproblem interpretiert: linguistische Strukturen der Muttersprache werden nicht adäquat nach informationsstrukturellen Prinzipien in der Fremdsprache angewandt. Der Spaltsatz trägt weder im Deutschen noch im Englischen zu einer besseren Erinnerungsleistung bei. Das kann zum einen an der starken phonologischen Ähnlichkeit der im Test angebotenen Antwortoptionen liegen (Conrad & Hull, 1964); zum anderen kann es mit der Zeitspanne zusammenhängen, die zwischen Hörexperiment und Erinnerungstest liegen und die die Erinnerung an ein bestimmtes Wort zu sehr erschwert (Birch & Garnsey, 1995; McCoon et.al., 1993). Zu 3.: Lexikalische Mittel der Fokusmarkierung Fokuspartikel sind Exponenten von Fokusstruktur und sie markieren Satzelemente (König, 1991; Paterson et al., 1999). Die untersuchten Fokuspartikel evozieren Kontrast und Alternativmengen zu dem fokussierten Element, was Interpretationen von Kontext bewirkt (Ni et al., 1996; Liversedge et al., 2002). Von daher wird keine schnellere Verarbeitung von fokussierten Worten erwartet. Ihre förderliche Eigenschaft zeigt sich jedoch in der Erinnerungsleistung, da sich dieser Prozess auf andere Erschließungsmechanismen zu stützen scheint: es wird erwartet, dass der bevorzugte Gebrauch von lexikalischen Mitteln zur Fokusmarkierung im Deutschen (König, 1991; Ahlemeyer & Kohlhof, 1999) sich positiv auf die Erinnerung von fokussierten Worten auswirkt. Die Fokuspartikel nur und sogar in Experiment 3 erweisen sich in der Experimentreihe als schwächste Exponenten von Fokusmarkierung: Weder im Deutschen noch in Englischen als Fremdsprache noch in der englischen Kontrollgruppe bewirken diese Fokuspartikel eine schnellere Verarbeitung des fokussierten Elements. Dies erklärt sich durch die Eigenschaft von Fokuspartikeln, eine Menge an Alternativen zu evozieren und dadurch beim Hörer komplexe Diskursmodelle anzuregen, die sowohl das Element in Fokus als auch Alternativen dazu beinhalten (siehe Ni et al., 1996; Liversedge et al., 2002). Verarbeitung und Interpretation der Fokusstruktur benötigen dann einen erhöhten Zeitaufwand. Im Erinnerungstest kommt der Fokuseffekt nur in der fremdsprachlichen Testbedingung zum Tragen: Werden Lerner hinsichtlich mit hinsichtlich ihrer L2-Fertigkeit anspruchsvollen Situationen konfrontiert, wird Fokusstruktur zu einer besseren Repräsentation in der Erinnerung genutzt. Übergreifend zeigt sich aus Experiment 2 und Experiment 3, dass ein zusätzlicher Satzakzent in Sätzen mit syntaktischer oder lexikalischer Fokusmarkierung in muttersprachlichem Deutsch und Englisch genutzt wird, aber in der Fremdsprache nicht gleichermaßen effektiv verarbeitet wird. Ein bedeutender Parameter wie Tonhöheakzent wird in der Fremdsprache scheinbar weniger genutzt, wenn gleichzeitig andere Mittel der Markierung auftreten. Vor allem deutet dieser Effekt jedoch auf eine weitaus differenziertere Wahrnehmung und Interpretation von Tonhöheakzent in der Muttersprache hin. Des weiteren scheint die Reihenfolge, in der die Testsprachen den Probanden angeboten werden (L1-L2,oder L2-L1) von Bedeutung zu sein, da ein Lerneffekt aus der ersten Testsprache die Leistung in der zweiten Testsprache beeinflussen kann. Dies erschwert die Erhebung vergleichbarer Daten für zwei Sprachen von derselben Probandengruppe (siehe Akker & Cutler, 2003). Im Hinblick auf die Auswirkungen von Kontext auf die Wortverarbeitung weisen die Ergebnisse darauf hin, dass vorangestellte Fragen dem Fremdsprachenlerner nur bedingt Hilfe bei der zügigen Verarbeitung von z.B. schwierigeren Satzkonstruktionen bieten. Zusätzlicher Kontext scheint außerdem die Erinnerungsleistung zu erschweren, vor allem in der Fremdsprache. Sowohl in der Fremdsprachenforschung als auch in der Fremdsprachendidaktik hat die Einbettung in einen Kontext bei dem Erlernen von Worten eine große Bedeutung (Lawson & Hogben, 1996). Es wird dahingehend argumentiert, dass eine Form von Kontext, die mehr semantische, prosodische oder lexikalische Verbindungen schafft, den zusätzlichen Verarbeitungsaufwand kompensieren müsste. Die Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Arbeit weisen darauf hin, dass sich Informationsstruktur eher in der Muttersprache als in der Fremdsprache erschließt. Einzelne informationsstrukturelle Parameter werden jedoch sehr wohl von den Fremdsprachenlernern erfolgreich ausgewertet, was sich in einer schnelleren und nachhaltigeren sprachlichen Verarbeitung äußert. Auf der kognitiven Ebene zeigt die vorliegende Arbeit die vorteilhafte Wirkung auf, wenn Informationsstruktur von Mutter- und Fremdsprache in dynamischem Austausch stehen. Die Ergebnisse bestärken die Annahme, dass ein Verständnis von Informationsstruktur dem Fremdsprachenlerner helfen kann, Form und Bedeutung der Fremdsprache zu erkennen. Informationsstruktur erweist sich als potentiell wertvolle Ressource in der Entwicklung und Stärkung fremdsprachlicher Kompetenz.