This paper studies the effects of language proficiency and learning styles on the acquisition of conditions and violations of it-cleft constructions. Pakistani ESL learners encounter difficulties in constructing grammatically accurate conditions sentences and in avoiding violations of it-cleft constructions. Hence, the study examines the conditions and violations of it-cleft constructions in relation to L2 proficiency and learning styles. This study seeks to answer the main research question: “How well do Pakistani ESL learners with varying degrees of second language proficiency and learning styles accurately identify conditions and violations of it-cleft constructions?” The study utilized a quantitative approach. A sample of three hundred and ninety participants with varying degrees of L2 proficiency and learning styles was selected from certain universities in Lahore, Pakistan. The study applied a stratified random sampling technique to draw the required sample size. The participants were additionally categorized into elementary, intermediate, and advanced levels of L2 proficiency. Each L2 proficiency included 130 respondents. The Grammaticality Judgment Task (GJT) was administered to assess participants’ grammatical understanding of the conditions and violations of it-cleft constructions. A bivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to investigate a significant variation in the mean scores of the GJT across different levels of second language proficiency and learning styles. The results indicated a notable variation in average scores in GJT among different L2 proficiency groups and also between learners who are field-dependent and those who are field-independent. The findings also indicated a substantial main and interaction effect of language proficiency and learning styles on GJT. FI learners scored better than FD learners on conditions and violations of it-cleft constructs. The results reflect intriguing educational ramifications. ELT educators and curriculum developers would create instructional exercises focused on cleft constructions specifically tailored for learners with limited language proficiency.
References
[1]
Allen, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford University Press.
[2]
Aravind, A., Hackl, M., & Wexler, K. (2017). Syntactic and Pragmatic Factors in Children’s Comprehension of Cleft Constructions. Language Acquisition, 25, 284-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2017.1316725
[3]
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson.
[4]
Callies, M., & Keller, W. R. (2008). The Teaching and Acquisition of Focus Constructions: An Integrated Approach to Language Awareness across the Curriculum. Language Awareness, 17, 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146875
[5]
Chu, C. Y., Gabriele, A., & Minai, U. (2014). Acquisition of Quantifier Scope Interpretation by Chinese-Speaking Learners of English. In C. Y. Chu, C. E. Coughlin, B. Lopez Prego, U. Minai, & A. Tremblay (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Gen-erative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012) (pp. 157-168). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
[6]
Chung, E. S., & Shin, J. (2022). Native and Second Language Processing of Quantifier Scope Ambiguity. Second Language Research, 39, 785-810. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221079741
[7]
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.L. Erlbaum Associates.
[8]
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning,Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Pearson.
[9]
Donaldson, B. (2016). Aspects of Interrogative Use in Near-Native French: Form, Function, and Register. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6, 467-503. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.14024.don
[10]
Drummer, J., & Felser, C. (2023). Connectivity Effects in Pseudoclefts in L1 and L2 Speakers of German. Second Language Research, 40, 377-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221141314
[11]
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency Effects in Language Processing: A Review with Implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263102002024
[12]
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the Interface: Dynamic Interactions of Explicit and Implicit Language Knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X
[13]
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Cognitive Perspectives on SLA: The Associative-Cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19, 100-121. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.08ell
[14]
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a Second Language: Introduction to the Special Section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111-139. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.05ell
[15]
Ellis, R., & Roever, C. (2021). The Measurement of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge. The Language Learning Journal, 49, 160-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1504229
[16]
Faghiri, P., & Samvelian, P. (2021). A Corpus-Based Description of Cleft Constructions in Persian. Faits de Langues, 52, 183-206. https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-05201009
[17]
Farsi, M., Bagheri, M. S., Sharif, M., & Nematollahi, F. (2014). Relationship between Field Dependence/Independence and Language Proficiency of Female EFL Students. Interna-tional Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 6, 208-220.
[18]
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.
[19]
Griffiths, C. (2008). Lessons from Good Language Learners. Cambridge University Press.
[20]
İrgin, P. (2013). A Difficulty Analysis of Cleft Sentences. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 1, 70-80. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/10/43%5Cr
[21]
Karami, M. (2013). Acquisition of Cleft Structures in L1 and L2. Journal of Teaching English Language Studies, 1, 68-91.
[22]
Lobo, M., Santos, A. L., Soares-Jesel, C., & Vaz, S. (2019). Effects of Syntactic Structure on the Comprehension of Clefts. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4, Article 74. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.645
[23]
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (2nd ed.). Routledge.
[24]
Niroomand, S. M., & Rostampour, M. (2014). The Impact of Field Dependence/independence Cognitive Styles and Gender Differences on Lexical Knowledge: The Case of Iranian Academic EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4, 2173-2179. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.10.2173-2179
[25]
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 307-322. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587650
[26]
Park, J., & Sung, M. (2023). Expansion of Verb-Argument Construction Repertoires in L2 English Writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 62, 903-925. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0145
[27]
Rezaee, M., & Farahian, M. (2012). The Case Study of a Field-Independent English Language Learner. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 114-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.623
[28]
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and L2 Instruction-Issues for Research. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 499-556). Routledge.
[29]
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, Awareness, and Individual Differences in Language learn-Ing. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010 (pp. 721-737). National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
[30]
Shoebottom, P. (2007). The Good Language Learner. Frankfurt International School.
[31]
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the Concept of “Interface” in Bilingualism. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.1.1.01sor
[32]
Thornton, R., Kiguchi, H., & D’Onofrio, E. (2018). Cleft Sentences and Reconstruction in Child Language. Language, 94, 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0021
[33]
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input Processing in Adult Second Language Acquisition. In B. Van-Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (2nd ed., pp. 115-136). Routledge.
[34]
Wu, M. J., & Ionin, T. (2022). Does explicit Instruction Affect L2 Linguistic Competence? An Examination with L2 Acquisition of English Inverse Scope. Second Language Research, 38, 607-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321992830
[35]
Ylinärä, E., Carella, G., & Frascarelli, M. (2023). Confronting Focus Strategies in Finnish and in Italian: An Experimental Study on Object Focusing. Languages, 8, Article 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010032
[36]
Yousefi, M. (2011). Cognitive Style and EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension Ability. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 70-79. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v1i1.100
[37]
Zaidi, S., Yasmin, F., Nimehchisalem, V., Mohammad Kasim, Z., & Mohammad Ali, A. (2023). Grammatical Knowledge of English Cleft Constructions among Pakistani ESL Learners across L2 Proficiency Levels and Learning Styles. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 23, 76-97. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2023-2303-05
[38]
Zwanziger, E. (2008). Variability in L1 and L2 French Wh-Interrogatives: The Roles of Communicative Function, Wh-Word, and Metalinguistic Awareness. Master’s Thesis, Boston University.
