Written vs Spoken Narratives by Indonesian ESL Young Learners: A Case Study

Maria Fe Suganob Nicolau(1*), Katharina Endriati Sukamto(2),

(1) Binus School Simprug
(2) Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


This study explores how Indonesian ESL Grade 2 elementary students studying in an international school in Jakarta produce written and spoken narratives. The stimulus material used to obtain the data was a four-panel comic strip with no written text. The findings revealed that both productions follow the basic global structure such as story elements, linearity of the storyline, and coherence. However, the written narratives contextually demonstrated formality while the spoken narratives displayed higher frequencies in using structure of discourse (e.g. hedges, contraction, repair and repetitions) and sentence complexity in T-units. Hedges were used as delaying tactics to allow more time for language processing. The use of contractions was due to the rapid production of language that constraints the ability of the students to produce syntactic richness. Repairs illustrated specificity of the chosen words, while repetition stemmed from the linguistic device like onomatopoeia that demonstrated the creative sides of the students to amplify their thoughts. Apparently, sentence complexity using the T-units demonstrated that the spoken narratives outnumbered the written mode. Nevertheless, it was apparent that the 2 T-units or 3 T-units followed a pattern (e.g. independent clause to independent clause with extension) which was a product of the participants knowledge on spellings and construction of formal and complete sentences. These results may implicate that language educators need to heighten the learners awareness of the unique linguistic features of each mode, to provide a clear understanding on how these modes work best in English language, and to attempt in establishing a balance in structure discourse and sentence complexity in T-units.

Keywords: ESL young learners, written and spoken narratives, pattern of differences


Keywords


ESL young learners; written and spoken narratives; pattern of differences

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abchi, V. S., & De Mier, V. Syntactic complexity in narratives written by Spanish heritage speakers. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 2017: 125-148. doi:10.2307/34331.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. ACTFL Japanese proficiency guidelines. Foreign language annals. 1, 1988: 589603.

Biber, D. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1986.

Bublitz, W. Introduction: views of coherence. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, and E. Ventola (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: how to create it and how to describe it: selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 2427 April 1997. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.

Cao Thanh, N. The differences between spoken and written grammar in English, in comparison with Vietnamese. A tagmemic comparison of the structure of English and Vietnamese sentences, 11, 1971: 138-153. Retrieved from https://files.eric. ed.gov/ fulltext/ EJ1084418.pdf

Chafe, W. Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Chafe, W., & Danielwicz, J. Properties of spoken and written language (CSW-TR-5). Retrieved from Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC, 1987. website: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282230.pdf

Chafe, W., Nichols, J. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.

Crystal, D. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Gee, J.P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. 3rd Edition. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Greene, J.O. & Cappella, J.N. Cognition and talk: The relationship of semantic units to temporal patterns of fluency in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 29, 1986: 141-157.

Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Hofstetter, R. Syntactic complexity in Spanish narratives. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 37(3), 1994: 645-654. doi:10.1044/jshr.3703.645

Horowitz, M. W., & Newman, J. B. Spoken and written expression: An experimental analysis. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1964: 640-647.

Hunt, K. W. Recent measures in syntactic development. In C. J. Fillmore & D. T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 1970: 115-149. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kokemuller, N. (2017, November 21). The Most Common Conjunction | Synonym [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://classroom.synonym.com/common-conjunction-3317.html.

Kormos, J. Monitoring and Self-Repair in L2. Language Learning, 49(2), 1999: 303-342. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00090.

Kormos, J. The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(02), 2000: 145-167.doi:10.1017/s0272263100002011.

Krashen, S.D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982.

Leech, G. (1998). English grammar in conversation. Lancaster: Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language, 1998. Retrieved from: http://www. tuchemnitz. de/phil/ english/ chairs/ linguist/real/ independent/llc/Conference 1998/ Papers/ Leech/ Leech.htm.

Lintunen, P., & Mkil, M. Measuring syntactic complexity in spoken and written learner language: comparing the incomparable? Research in Language, 12(4), 2014: 377-395. doi:10.1515/rela-2015-0005.

Lu, Xiaofei. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 2010: 474-496.

Malvey, H. Persuasive language in high school students: differences in syntactic complexity in spoken and written language (Unpublished masters thesis). Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, 2017.

Menn, L., & Vilman, M. Features in child phonology: Inherent, emergent, or artefacts of analysis? In N. Clements & R. Ridouane (eds.), Where Do Phonological Features Come From? The nature and sources of phonological primitives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011.

Nicolau, M. S., & Sukamto, K. E. Gender differences in writing complex sentences: A case study of Indonesian EFL students. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11(1), 2016: 69-80.

Ohi, D. R. [comic strips], 2008. Retrieved from http://inkygirl.com/inkygirl-main/ tag/parents.

Pu, M. Spoken and written narratives: A comparative study. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing , 16(1), 2006: 37-61.

Schegloff, E. A. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Silva, M. L., Snchez Abchi, V., & Borzone, A. Subordinated clauses usage and assessment of syntactic maturity: A comparison of oral and written retellings in beginning writers. Journal of Writing Research, 2(1), 2010: 47-64. doi:10.17239/jowr-2010.02.01.2.

Sukamto, K. E., & Yanti. Self-repair in second language learner's speech. Paper presented at CONEST, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, 2013, October.

Sun, Y., & Yang, W. A Comparative analysis of discourse structures in EFL learners oral and written narratives. International Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 2011: 1-23. doi:10.5296/ijl.v3i1.917.

Tannen, D. (1993). Whats in a frame?: Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In D. Tannen (ed.), Framing in discourse: 14-56. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Tannen, D. Spoken and written narrative in English and Greek. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse, 1984: 2141. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Toolan, M. Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London: Routledge, 1988.

Yu, H. An exploratory study of narrative structures in Chinese tertiary EFL learners monologic production. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2005.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/joll.v18i2.1568

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Journal of Language and Literature (JOLL) is published by  Prodi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

JOLL is indexed in:

       


This journal is is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License 

View My Stats