2 tóm tắt luận án ta

24 THE UNIVERSITY OF DA NANG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF ONLINE ENGLISH WRITINGS IN VIETNAMESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT PHẠM THỊ THU HUONG Major ENGLISH LINGUISTICS C[.]

UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES

LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF ONLINE ENGLISH WRITINGS IN VIETNAMESE HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

The University of Da Nang

Supervisor: Asso Prof Dr Nguyễn Văn Long Examiner 1:

The thesis was orally defended at the Examining Committee

Major: English Linguistics

Time:

Venue: University of Foreign Language Studies - The University of Da Nang

This thesis is available for the purpose of reference at:

- Center for Information Technology and Learning Resources, University of Foreign Language Studies - The University of Da Nang

- The University of Da Nang – The Center for Learning Information Resources and Communication

- National Library of Viet Nam

The rapid development of high technology and the Internet has contributed to English language education for the past few decades Technology provides learners unprecedented opportunities to practice English and involve themselves in authentic language use environments Since the 1980s, many communication and linguistic scholars have done relatively interesting research on computer-mediated communication, which often concerned four aspects: linguistic perspectives, social and ethical perspectives, cross-cultural perspectives, and CMC and group interaction In Vietnam, before the year 2020, conducting blended-learning English courses on online English teaching platforms or software was optional and not as common in colleges or universities in Vietnam as it is today Hence, there has been a limited amount of research on linguistic features or the relationship between linguistic items and computer-mediated discourse/ online English written texts made

by EFL students in Viet Nam and abroad The study aims to investigate the linguistic features remarkable in online English writings made by EFL students at some universities in Viet Nam in the last five years Besides, it tempts to determine the relationship between these linguistic features' use and the students' English online writing quality Thereby, it can provide English writing instructors with suggestions for teaching and assessing Vietnamese EFL students' online English writings To conduct the study, the researcher applied descriptive and comparative methods and some instrument tools like the software Antconc, the software Virtual Writing Tutor, and a questionnaire Firstly, it found that these linguistic features were frequently used in the EFL students' online English writings Generally, they appeared more frequently in the final writing version than in the drafts Secondly, most were exploited with correct functions and no grammatical errors, except for the modal verb

of ability/possibility and adverbial conjunctions referring to 'concession' Thirdly, in comparing three groups of writings at different English levels, the research revealed a considerable difference in using the linguistic feature regarding their quantity and frequency, which was caused by the different writing genres, the writing topics, and the authors' English levels Finally, the research findings showed that lexical diversity, number of academic words, language accuracy, number of complex sentences, and some cohesive devices (like subordinating and adverbial conjunctions) had considerable and positive influences on the quality of students' online English writings.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research background

The rapid development of high technology and the Internet has contributed toEnglish language education for the past few decades Technology provides learnersunprecedented opportunities to practice English and involve themselves in authenticlanguage use environments Since the 1980s, many communication and linguisticscholars have done relatively interesting research on computer-mediatedcommunication, which often concerned four aspects: linguistic perspectives, socialand ethical perspectives, cross-cultural perspectives, and CMC and group interaction

In Viet Nam, before the year 2020, conducting blended-learning English courses

on online English teaching platforms or software was optional and not as common incolleges or universities in Viet Nam as it is today Hence, there has been a limitedamount of research on linguistic features or the relationship between linguistic itemsand computer-mediated discourse/ online English written texts made by EFL students

in Viet Nam and abroad

All the abovementioned facts have encouraged the researcher to conduct the

current study 'Linguistics Features of Online English Writings in Vietnamese

Higher Education Context’.

1.2 Aims

The study aims to investigate the linguistic features remarkable in online Englishwritings made by EFL students at some universities in Viet Nam in the last five years.Besides, it tempts to determine the relationship between these linguistic features' useand the students' English online writing quality

1.3 Objectives

The study includes the three following objectives:

1 Investigating lexical features used by Vietnamese EFL students in theironline English writings

2 Investigating grammatical features used by Vietnamese EFL students intheir online English writings

3 Studying the relationship between the use of lexical and grammaticalfeatures and the students' online English writing quality

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical background

2.1.1 Computer-mediated communication and computer-mediated discourse analysis

+ Computer-mediated communication (CMC)

According to Herring (1996), CMC is communication taking place between humanbeings via computers In text-based CMC, participants interact by means of thewritten word, e.g., by typing a message on one computer’s keyboard which is read byothers on their computer screens, either immediately (synchronous CMC) or at a latertime period (asynchronous CMC)

Lauren (2016) defines computer-mediated communication as a broad term thatencompasses a variety of semiotic/linguistic modalities, as well as technologyinterfaces and platforms (computer, mobile phones, tablets, social media, immersiveonline games, virtual workplace environments, and more) The term refers tocommunication that takes place through a mediating interface, and these interfacescreate levels of structure that require linguistic and social negotiation Wherever there

is human interaction, whether it is face-to-face, on a computer in a chat room, orthrough text messaging on a phone, there is language

There are three characteristics in CMC research Firstly, the language of CMC istyped, and hence like writing, but exchanges are often rapid and informal, and hencemore like spoken conversation Secondly, because of the fact that participants interactwithout the benefit of extra-linguistic cues as to the gender, identity, personality, ormood of their interlocutors in CMC, the language of CMC is hypothesized to beimpersonal or distancing The last characteristic of CMC relates to the phenomenon

of community formation in cyberspace, which generates norms of interaction andconflict resolution procedures in text that can be saved and mined later for insightsinto the genesis of human social organization (Herring,1996)

+ Computer-mediated discourse

Computer-mediated discourse (CMD) encompasses all kinds of interpersonalcommunication carried out on the Internet, e.g., by email, instant messaging, webdiscussion boards, and chat channels (Herring, 2001)

In terms of methodology, language-focused CMD research has drawn on methodsand key concepts from a variety of linguistic research traditions (including pragmatics,conversation analysis, sociolinguistics, genre analysis, and the ethnography ofcommunication), which have been successfully applied to study how people uselinguistic resources to establish contacts, manage interactions, and construct identitieswithin computer networks

+ Computer-mediated discourse analysis

CMDA analyzes computer-mediated communicating products using methodsadapted from language-based disciplines such as linguistics, communication, andrhetoric (Herring, 2001) It may be complemented by surveys, interviews,

ethnographic observation, or other methods involving qualitative or quantitativeanalysis However, basically, CMDA is the examination of verbal interaction logs,including characters, words, utterances, messages, exchanges, threads, archives, and

so on) In its broadest sense, computer-mediated discourse analysis refers to any study

of online behavior based on factual, textual observations (Herring, 1996)

CMDA is best considered an approach rather than a "theory" or a single "method."The CMDA method, on the other hand, enables the exploration and testing ofalternative theories about discourse and computer-mediated communication

According to Herring (2004), there are four domains or levels of language, ranging

prototypically from smallest to largest linguistic unit of analysis (such as structure,

meaning, interaction, and social behavior) and five discourse analysis paradigms

(including text analysis, conversation analysis, pragmatics, interactional

sociolinguistics, and critical discourse analysis) commonly invoked in CMDA

research

Based on the characteristics of online EFL writing instruction context inuniversities in Vietnam, the subjects, the participants, and the scope of this study, theresearcher chooses paradigm 'text analysis' of CMDA to analyze texture or linguisticfeatures employed in the students' online English writing samples when taking variousonline or blended-learning English courses at the University of Da Nang, Viet Nam

2.1.2 Online English writing

The networked computer-mediated writing learning brings learners an onlinewriting environment where students appear to value peer support while composingrather than simply receiving comments on written products (Hyland, 2000) Onlinewriting comprises synchronous and asynchronous writing

+ Synchronous writing

Synchronous writing is written communication in real time via discussion software

on LAN or Internet chat sites with all participants at their computers at the same time.(Richard, 2003)

2.1.3 Linguistic features in English second language writings

In Hinkel’s (2002) study, all textual features the university-level L1&L2 texts forthe analysis basing on four criteria: a) Their textual functions, meanings, and theimplications of their uses in text; b) The prominence of their uses, meanings, and

functions established in corpus analyses of published academic genre in English; c)The prominence of particular linguistic and rhetorical characteristics found incomposition instruction and assessment, and d) Whenever possible, consideration ofthe uses of proximate syntactic, lexical, and rhetorical features in NNSs’ L1s Theresearcher classified the textual features into two major categories: linguistic featuresand rhetorical features.

Generally, identifying the most common features in NS and NNS texts establishespriorities of syntactic, lexical, and rhetorical features in writings made by speakers ofdifferent languages Furthermore, determining order ranks of features’ median rates inNNS texts relative to those of NSs can provide valuable insights into L1 and L2 usewith practical applications of the analysis applied in curriculum design and L2teaching (Hinkel, 2002)

2.1.4.The relationship between linguistic features and English writing quality

In general, the linguistic features examined by writing researchers fall into threelarge constructs: lexical, syntactic, and cohesion These features are importantelements of discourse structures and have close links to the quality and development

of English Second Language (ESL) writings (McNamara et al., 2010)

+ Lexical features and the English writing quality and development

According to Crossley (2020), lexical items are considered the most commonlyused linguistic feature to analyze the quality of texts The quality of lexical items can

be classified into three categories: lexical diversity, lexical density, and lexicalsophistication The first category refers to the number of unique words in a text Thesecond one means the number of contents to function words; and the rest includeswords that are more likely found in academic texts or words that are less concrete,imaginable, and familiar, or more specific words, or words that are less diverse based

on context

+ Syntactic complexity and English writing quality and development

Lu (2011) defines syntactic complexity as the sophistication of syntactic formscreated and the variety of syntactic forms produced The underlying notion is thatmore complicated syntactic structures signify more advanced writing abilities(Crossley, 2020) Traditionally, standard ways to evaluate syntactic complexityinclude calculating sentence length with the assumption that longer sentences are morecomplicated and T-unit counts, where a T-unit is a dominant clause plus allsubordinate clauses However, T-units features are problematic because they oftenreport conflicting results across studies and can be challenging to interpret (Norris &Ortega, 2009)

+ Text cohesion and English writing quality and development

Text cohesion is related to the inter-connectivity of text segments of text based ontextual features and is an important element of writing because it can indicate lexical,semantic, and argumentative dependencies within a text (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).Text cohesion can occur at the sentence level or across larger segment gaps such asparagraph, chapters, or even texts

The most common approach to identifying cohesion within texts is to examineovert connections between text segments including referencing previous elements,repeating lexical items, substituting lexical items and the use of conjunctions toconnect ideas If cohesion in a text is not maintained, it may be difficult for readers toevaluate the systematic relationship between shared lexical items, at which point areader's mental representation of the text may break, affecting comprehension.(Crossley, 2020).

2.2 Previous related studies

2.2.1 Previous studies of linguistic features in English writings

The reseacher examined some previous studies of linguistic features in Englishwritings such as Biber’s study (1988), Hinlel’s study (2002), and Zein, Sinar, andNurlela’s study (2017) All these studies focused on examining and comparing thefrequency of lexical, grammatical, syntactic, or rhetorical features used in NNSstudents' texts with NS students' ones Based on the textual functional theory oflanguage features as well as their usage habits in L1 and L2, some studies likeHinkel's analyzed textual contexts and explained the reasons for using each linguisticfeature in the essays of different groups of L1 learners Although these studiesexamine the linguistic features of paper-and-pen English writings, some of theirfindings (e.g., prominent linguistic features in ESL writing samples with the frequencyequal to or even higher than those in NS's ones) will be used as one of the bases forthe current research to study linguistic features in online writings of EFL students inthe higher Vietnamese education context

2.2.2 Previous studies of CMC and CMDA abroad and in Vietnam

The researcher reviewed many previous studies of CMC and CMDA abroad such

as Collot and Belmore's (1994) study named "Electronic Language", Yates’ (1996)study titled ‘Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing,’ Werry’s(1996), Herring’s (1999), Alkhataba's (2018), Thomas Cho's (2010), Fiona andFrancesca's study (2013), and Robbert (2008) In addition, some previous studies ofCMC and CMDA in Vietnam (such as Nguyen’s (2008, 2011); Pham et al (2014);and Pham’s (2020) were also investigated

Generally, previous studies relating to CMC, CMDA, and online English writingsfocus on the following issues: i) Social, psychological, and pedagogical characteristics

of virtual or online environments in English language learning and teaching; ii)Influences of virtual or online English learning environments to learners’ Englishlearning, especially in communicative skill; iii) Students and teachers’ perceptionsand acceptance of applying technology or social media in learning English; iv)Students and teachers’ perceptions and reflections on online collaborative writing inESL classrooms; v) Linguistic features of emails or CM messages in chat groupsmade by computer users at workplaces Especially, so far, there has been no research

on analyzing linguistic features in CMD or online writings made by EFL students inViet Nam and abroad Therefore, it is highly reasonable and possible to conduct this

study in order to bring new contributions to the field of linguistics in CMDA or onlineEnglish writing learning and teaching in Vietnamese higher education context Furthermore, the researcher studied some previous studies of linguistic features andEnglish writing quality In short, it can consist that there are clear and consistentassociations between linguistic features and L2 writing quality and development.Many previous studies reported that higher-rated essays include more sophisticatedlexical items, complex syntactic features, and cohesiveness Developing writers alsomove toward more sophisticated words and complicated syntactic structures(Crossley, 2020) These findings will be a reliable reference resource for the currentstudy’s researcher to conduct a similar analysis in chapter 6, finding the answer to thisstudy's third research question.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research context

3.1.1 Teaching and learning English writing skills in the University of Da Nang

The section is a brief description of the English writing curriculum with two main types of English programs: General English and English for specific purposes at several colleges and universities at the University of Da Nang, Viet Nam In terms of writing, there is some description of the purposes and requirements of teaching and learning writing English in each program

3.1.2 Research design

The study employed both descriptive and comparative research methods going withquantitative and qualitative approaches to examine linguistic features significantlyused by the UDN students in their online English writings The descriptive methodwas conducted to describe the characteristics of the study subjects, collect quantifiableinformation or quantitative data for statistical analysis, and hence withdraw theremarkable grammatical, and lexical features with their frequencies in the studysamples The result was the answer to the two first research questions Thecomparative method was used to statistically calculate and compare the frequency ofthe remarkable grammatical and lexical features in the students' two online Englishwriting versions The findings enabled the researcher to estimate how much thefrequency difference of these features was between both corpora

The research also uses the qualitative approach in both descriptive and comparativemethods to explain the frequency differences in using these linguistic features in thestudents' online English writings and the impacts of the linguistic features on thequality of the writings.

3.1.3 Subject of the Study

The subject of this study composes of 135 online writings made by English-majorstudents and Non-English-major students who have taken different English courses at

Da Nang University of Technology and Science, Da Nang University of Economics,University of Education, and University of Foreign Language Studies) belonging tothe University of Da Nang since the academic year 2017-2018 These writings arepapers made in middle-term or ongoing English writing tests, and each one has twoversions: Version one (V1) is the students' initial online English writing drafts onsome platforms (i.e., Moodle, Google Class) at synchronous online English writinglearning sessions without using any online writing aids; Version two (V2) is thoseedited at asynchronous English writing sessions with computer writing facilities orsome online English writing aids

3.2 Data Collection and Analysis

3.2.1 Sample collection

All writing samples for this study were written by students from the membercolleges/universities of the UDN when taking a progress test or assignment of ablended learning or online GE/ESP course The students were required to completetheir work by following a five-step writing process The following Table describes thepopulation and samples of this study

Table 3.1 The population and samples

A1-A2A2-B1B1-B2

As mentioned above, the research has 135 online English writing samples with twoversions The first and the second versions of these writings were put into two corpora(Corpus 1 and Corpus 2); the total number and the mean number of words arepresented in table 3.2 as follows

Table 3.2 Total Words and Mean Number of Words per Sample

in Corpus 1 and Corpus 2Number of

samples Word types (word tokens)Total words words per sampleMean number ofCorpus 1 135 3145 24806 184

Corpus 2 135 3443 28088 208

Guided by Herring’s (2004) analysis of strengths and weaknesses of data samplingtechniques, the researcher chose techniques ‘by group’ and ‘by time’, and classifiedthese samples into three sub-corpora pairs labeled as sub-Corpora 1.1 and 2.1, sub-Corpora 1.2 and 2.2, and sub-Corpora 1.3 and 2.3 Tables 3.3 and 3.4 below presentthe total number of words in each sub-corpus and each sample’s average length

Table 3.3 Total Words and Mean Number of Words per Sample

in the Sub-corpora of Corpus 1Sub-

corpora samples# of Genres ofwritings participantsGroups of

& English level

Wordtypes tokensWord Mean # ofwords per

sampleSub-

Corpus

1.1

36 Argument

& sion essay

Discus-Group 1B2-C1 1758 10393 288Sub-

Corpus

1.2 51

Argument

& sion essay

Discus-Group 2B1-B2 1379 7420 146Sub-

Corpus

1.3

48 Descriptive

writings,Letters/

Emails

Group 3A2-B1A1-A2

1326 7125 148

Table 3.4 Total Words and Mean Number of Words per Sample

in the Sub-corpora of Corpus 2Sub-

corpora samples# of Genres ofwritings participants &Groups of

English levels

# ofwordtypes

# ofwordtokens

Mean # ofwords persampleSub-

Corpus

2.1

36 Argument

essay Group 1B2-C1 1797 10276 285

Sub-Corpus

2.2 51

Argumentessay Group 2B1-B2 1607 9533 187Sub-

Corpus

2.3

48 Letters Group 3

A1-A2 1571 8279 173

3.3 Selecting linguistic features for analysis

Based on Hinkle's (2002) study's results on linguistic features which foundsignificantly higher median frequency rates in both Non-Native Speakers (NNS) andNative Speakers' (NS) texts as described in chapter 2, the researcher decided to choosefifteen linguistic features (including seven lexical features and eight grammaticalfeatures) employed in the one hundred and thirty-five writing samples for analysis asfollows

Table 3 Linguistic features to be analyzedLexical features

8 Modal verbs of ability and possibility

9 Modal verbs of obligation and necessity

10 Adverb clause of cause

15 Adverbial conjunctions

3.4 Data analytical framework

The EFL student participants' English writing samples in this study wereasynchronous online texts so that they would be analyzed abiding by Herring's CMDAfirst paradigm: ‘text analysis’ This method could help the researcher to analyze the'texture' of the texts, including lexical and grammatical features in the students'English online writings (both versions) Therefore, the study could find out or identifythe regularities of using these linguistic features within the English online writings ofthe EFL students at the University of Da Nang, Viet Nam Figure 3.1 below shows theframework for analyzing fifteen linguistic features in the EFL student participants'English writings according to Herring's theory of CMDA

Figure 3.1 Analytic Framework

CHAPTER FOUR: RERULTS AND DISCUSSION OF LEXICAL FEATURES 4.1 Interpretive nouns

The study found nineteen interpretive nouns including attitude, belief, cause,

concept, doubt, detail, idea, influence, knowledge, principle, quality, sense, source, success, term, theory, thought, trend, and view in both versions of the students' online

English writings Of them, knowledge and quality were used the most in the corpora, with the highest frequency Seven interpretive nouns (such as cause, idea, fluence,

sense, term, trend, and view) were secondly most used in the writings In contrast, five

words attitude, belief, detail, principle, and theory were the interpretive nouns with

the lowest frequency because each appeared only once to five times in the wholecorpora

In general, the students tended to employ slightly more interpretive nouns in thefinal writing version compared to the initial one There were two reasons for thisresult: Firstly, the genres of all the writings mostly were argumentative essaysrequiring a lot of interpretive nouns and verbs to meet the lexical sophistication of

standard academic writings Secondly, the total number of words in corpus 2 wasmuch more than in corpus 1.

As examining the usage of interpretive nouns in the writings by three studentgroups with different English levels, the study revealed that the first sub-corpora 1.1

&2.1 used the biggest number of interpretive nouns with the highest frequency amongthree pairs of sub-corpora The second sub-corpora 1.2 &2.2 stood at the second rank,and the rest sub-corpora had the lowest frequency

The above statistical results reveal that the higher the English level of the studentswas, the more interpretive nouns were used in their English writings Besides, theEnglish – major students often used this kind of lexical feature more flexibly andharmoniously than the two other groups of students

4.2 Vague nouns

The study found thirteen vague nouns such as boy(s), girl(s), guy, human(s),

individual(s), kid(s), man, people/person, society, thing(s), way(s), whatever, and woman in the students' online English writings.

Regarding frequency, four vague nouns: people, thing, way, and society appeared the most frequently in both corpora Word way and thing stood at the second and the third rank whereas, four nouns boy, guy, man, and woman reached the lowest rank among

fourteen vague nouns Moreover, they did not present in the first writing version andappeared only once in the entire corpora

In comparing the two writing versions, it found that the writers tended to employvague nouns increasingly in the later version There were two reasons for this result:Firstly, the mean number of words in each written sample of corpus 2 wasconsiderably more than that of corpus 1; Secondly, the topics of all the writingsmostly were about common social issues which usually relate to all kinds of people,general objects or things, and the entire society

As examining the usage of vague nous in the writings made by three groups with different English levels, the study revealed that the second sub-corpora1.2 &2.2 used the biggest number of vague nouns with the highest frequency amongthree pairs of sub-corpora The first sub-corpora 1.1 &2.1 stood at the second biggestnumber position, and the rest sub-corpora contained seven vague nouns with thelowest frequency

Furthermore, the study revealed that students with English levels B2-C1 did nottend to use many vague nouns in their online English writings The bias in employing

the three most vague nouns people, society, and way could be because the topic of

two-thirds essays was 'business and corporate social responsibility’ On the otherhand, students with English levels A2-B1 and A1-A2 were favour in using

people/person, thing, and way because most of the writing topics were about common

social issues such as school, studying, or students' life; moreover, their English levelswere not high, so their writings often included such basic vague nouns

4.3 Be as main Verb