Syntactic analysis between spoken and written language: A case study on a senior high student’s lexical density
Joneth D. Vibar
DELA PAZ NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Department of Education
Corresponding Author:
Joneth D. Vibar, DELA PAZ NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL Ninoy Aquino Avenue, Antipolo City, 1870
Email: jonethvibar@gmail.com
Recommended Citation:
Vibar, J., (2022). SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS BETWEEN SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LANGUAGE: A CASE STUDY ON A SENIOR HIGH STUDENT’S LEXICAL DENSITY. Asian Journal on Perspectives in Education, 3(1), 86-106.
Abstract
Exploring the syntactic features of spoken and written language helps determine the composition of words and phrases to create meaningful and well-constructed sentences for language discourse. This study analyzes and compares the spoken and written reflections of the participant to understand her language density which can describe the relationship between linguistic elements that occurred within the sentences. It is revealed that spoken and written language have lesser density because of the excessive repetition of functional words during the participant’s language use. In addition, the dynamic use of language during the spoken activity contributed to the formation of wordiness and overuse of lesser lexical items within sentences. With writing, the learner often tries to use complete sentences when developing written narratives; however, run-on sentences or fragments are also evident. Understanding the differences between spoken and language discourse through the lexical aspect of speech allows educators to decide on appropriate language approaches that learners encounter with difficulties. The study further suggested a similar study to understand more the complexity of language systems used in both discourses to support the findings in this study.
Keywords
Lexical Density, Spoken, and Written Language, Syntactic Structure
Background of the study
Language, as a fundamental aspect of improving the human experience, is better manifested when used in spoken or written discourse. Moreover, most of the acquired knowledge in the world is learned using language. Hence, language has become a medium for human interaction within a society, also called a “literate society,” where people can utilize it in different forms of communication. In this opportunity, man must construct well-organized utterances to communicate meaningful interactions with people (Halliday, 1989). Since the current society requires a set of competencies that include proficiency with the use of language, it is imperative to expose learners to various learning avenues to strengthen understanding and acquire necessary skills in second language use.
Halliday (1978) describes the systemic functional approach in language as a system of choices a person makes to construct meaningful utterances within a social environment. There are four principles; language can be used for a particular purpose; its special purpose is to convey meaning; social factors and cultural orientations of people affect the formation of the language’s meaning; and finally, it is the person’s choice to apply a semiotic operation by combining set of symbols and signs in language production (Nordquist, 2019).
Specific perspectives pointed out the identicality between spoken and written expression – that writing is another form to convert information from human expression into speech (Halliday, 1989). In this assumption, many have said that there are plenty of identified differences between spoken and written language (Halliday, 1989; Rachel, 2009; and Thanh, 2015). Differentiating the spoken and written language gives clear directions toward effective language acquisition and adaption of approaches in teaching. Several studies on how a second language can be acquired moved its direction towards analyzing learners’ language use since they provided insights for the educators’ educational planning as a product of learners’ language struggles (Khansir, 2012).
With proper knowledge of the proper use of spoken and written language in communication, learners adapt appropriate language skills for better transfer of meaning. Oral language is typically grounded in interpersonal relationships that happen during a real-life encounter with people, which is adaptive to a particular audience within an identified linguistic environment. At the same time, written language is more observed as formal, academic, and planning associated with a specific narrative purpose. Sentence structures in spoken language usually display incomplete sentence structure as it differs from written with complete forms of meaningful sentences. (Horowitz and Samuels, 1987 as cited by Thanh, 2015).
It is generally less formal and direct to the point for spoken language than a written format with better articulation and sophistication of language use (Rachel, 2009). Spoken is more communicative with the presence of extra language cues and level of articulation to further clarify thoughts that written language does not possess. Thanh (2015) emphasizes that despite the similarities between spoken and written discourse, students show differences in grammar use. He argued that learners receive instructions on using grammar mostly in written works than in spoken activities. As a result, little recognition of vocabulary happens during speaking engagement, similar to word orders, structures, and proper use of conjunctions. Thus, there is leniency in grammar during spoken activity as it is grounded in pliability in language use.
Because the construction of spoken language is spontanously, Burns (2016) recognizes that it has different patterns of language that are uncommon to written forms. There is a need to emphasize that the differentiations between spoken and written utterances are relative to the speakers’ community, subject or topic of discussion, the vital role of the speaker and audience, and the environment where meaningful interactions occur between them, agents.
In addition, Lee (2019) explains that students’ language learning process includes the production of grammar lapses evident in their spoken and written outputs. Students’ language ability is often situated with the constant and fossilized errors they commit; thus, describing this phenomenon in language production understates the learners’ language development level.
Error analysis helps compare and analyze spoken and written language errors. It investigates the possible lapses in word, phrasal, clausal, and sentence levels. According to Khansir (2012), understanding language lapses is a process of exploring the errors that learners commit while using the language. Richards (1971), as cited by Khansir (2012), states that errors can be associated with the learners’ overgeneralization of grammar rules; a deviant structure to use another language structure, and ignorance of the rule, which results from underdeveloped language skills about rules and restrictions, and failure to develop the required structure for forming correct sentences. Moreover, Dulay et al. (1982) describe errors as deflections from the identified norms observed in language. These perspectives help understand the learners’ difficulties in using the language in both discourses.
In the study of Lewis et al. (2012), the researchers have seen the significant contribution of expanding vocabulary knowledge and spoken fluency through written prompts. A similar study by Tyler (1994) and Lewis et al. (2012) aims to determine the contrast and commonalities of their respondents’ spoken productions. The study investigated word choices, patterns of language, and grammatical skills when applied in discourse. The consciousness of such language differences and similarities guided the researcher to focus on language study towards developing international teaching assistance (ITA). Tyler (1994) found some unusual discourse markers because of their usage, like the first one, and then, and after that, thus, presenting unclear synonyms between the use of pronouns in place of noun phrases. In addition, the excessive use of coordinating clauses and limited support of subordinating clauses in sentences contribute to the vague connections between various information and purposes of sentences, disrupting discourse competence as it affects the creation of meaning within sentences.
The study by Levis et al. (2012) finds out that the lexico-grammatical resources of the respondent differ from different groups of students. They realized that vocabulary in written text seemed different from spoken text using prompts. Although words are rich in number, they appear to show standard familiarity in meaning, vagueness, and grammatical difficulty.
In this light, Halliday (1996) argues that written language has a higher density in words or is more lexically dense than spoken language, which has a lower density. The idea of density shows the presence of content words in the English language’s clauses, phrases, and sentences during the discourse. The study of Stegen (2007) also confirms the claim of Halliday regarding the higher lexical density in written against oral language; however, it failed to determine the distinction between lexical density in texts and clauses. He suggests that future researchers focus on counting morphemes rather than other lexical items, and different frequencies should have different values. On the contrary, the study by Syarif (2018) and Syarif and Putri (2018) measures high grammatical intricacy in graduate students’ academic writing but low lexical density. The latter implies that their students have limited capability of applying language skills in writing, resulting in unsatisfactory lexical density that is not different from speaking. In addition, the Lexical Gap Hypothesis based on Paradis et al. (2012) studies believe that people combine their knowledge of the first language with the target language whenever they fail to immediately determine the next appropriate word to use in a conversation. With these research gaps and limited findings, the studies sought further explorations of the said language issues. Thus, the current study will try to compare and determine the reasons for low lexical density in students’ language. Since the stated studies focus on low lexical density in spoken and written texts, this study would like to assume that low lexical density in writing is no different from speaking due to the language difficulties displayed by the chosen participant.
One way to measure lexical density is to draw out the distinguishing proportion between lexical and grammatical items in the text. Counting the number of lexical items against the grammatical words can determine the total running words and ratio of utterances. Lexical items are content words within the sentence that carries much of the meaning; grammatical words are close-class words due to their low lexical meaning that contain ambiguity in a person’s expression (Halliday, 1989). It is a method to gauge the occurrence of content words used against the meaningful vocabulary produced in language production. Thus, lexical density determines the learner’s ability to impart meaningful ideas. The more content a spoken or written language contains, the richer the vocabulary is compared with a composition with more functional words with grammatical roles (Lee, 2019).
In the study by Johansson (2008), he describes that lexical density in research usually describes the content of words such as adverbs, adjectives, verbs, and nouns in sentences. He utilized the Spencer Project to investigate two genres: the narrative’s and expository’s lexical variation and the quality of the respondents’ works. Analyzing a composition with a high proportion of content words would mean more information than a composition with a more significant frequency of function words like determiners or articles, connectors, pronouns, and prepositions. The traditional way to measure whether a spoken or written text is by determining the contents of lexical dense relative to the number of words produced in the composition. He further argues that writers repeatedly use less dense words in expressing ideas.
In terms of writing skills, a good writer opts to avoid too many words in his works, instead including only the most exact word possible to make writing more meaningful. Learners need to express direct points to make the work more effective. The finding tells that sharpening one’s written work involves selecting precise words instead of too many functional or profound vocabulary to make the narrative more complex (Syarif, 2018). The students’ lexical progress is evident in their writing compositions, where linguistic competence can be measured. Such information is reliable for educators to decide on their teaching approaches and the suitability of learning materials that would fit the language needs of the learners (Gregori-Signesa and Clavel-Arroitiab, 2015).
Ramadhan (2017) also claims that the low lexical density content of the composition makes it easy to read due to its few informational natures, while the high lexical density text would be more challenging to comprehend but richer in information. The lexical items or content words are essential in conveying information in both spoken and written language.
Teaching language as a medium for effective communication has been a long devotion for educators; thus, understanding how language is used and formed is integral for such educational pedagogy. In this light, there are three objectives of the study: to compare the syntactic features of students’ reflective statements, to compare the syntactic features between spoken and written reflections and essays, and to determine the lexical density of the student during language use.
The study positions its goals to answer the given inquiries: How do syntactic features differ when used in discourse? How do spoken and written language differ in terms of word, phrasal, clausal, and sentence levels? Moreover, is there any difference between the lexical density of the spoken and written language of the participant?
Theoretical Framework of the study
The research anchors on Michael Halliday’s concepts about language. He describes spoken language as “grammatical intricate,” while written language is characterized by “lexical density.” He emphasizes using and understanding lexical and grammatical words during language use. He also claims that written academic works generally have a higher ratio of lexical items or content words than spoken works, typically bombarded with functional words (Halliday (1985:61).
As he describes the difference between both languages, spoken language is developed face-to-face and involves collaboration with others, also called interlocutors, who participate in a dialogue or conversation. A series of conjunctions link the sequence of sentences, and the existence of subordination shows the unification of explicit events. On the contrary, written language displays the removal of elements seen during dialogue. Ideas are expressed in different ways, making them formal and precise in terms of sentence structure which is evident through the removal of explicit interconnectedness between events. The study analyzes the syntactic structure between spoken and written to see how lexical density differs from the other. Since both discourses have a separate set of purposes, the study would also try to understand the vital facets of language when utilized in spoken and written opportunities. Halliday’s theory guides the study in understanding the density of words reflected in the participant’s varied discourses to produce meaningful expressions at the syntactic level. Its limitations: however, may not cover the contextual interpretation of the speaker’s propositions and pragmalinguistic meaning when utterances are made during the observed discourses.
Conceptual Framework
The frame of reference used in the study shows the Systemic Functional Approach to language by Michael Halliday (1978) as it explains the relationship between language and its vital function in social settings. The three essential strata or levels of the language are named: semantic (meaning), syntax (lexico-grammatical features—vocabulary, grammar, and morphology), and phonological (sounds and symbols that convey language) (Halliday, 1978; Burns, 2016 Nordquist, 2019). This approach emphasizes that language is a system of choices rather than a set of structures. A speaker or writer’s choices can change the strata or levels of the language (Burns, 2016). The functional approach is perceived to have long stretches of language so that speakers can convey meaning in any discourse instead of looking at simple utterances. To make the functional approach more systematic, both teacher and learner may investigate the syntactic structures, organization of ideas, and development of the ideas within the language as used in meaningful communication.
Based on Halliday and Mathiessen’s (2004) ideas, as cited by Ramadhan (2017), the ideas start with phonology and phonetics, where a man learns how to perceive and produce sounds. Then, as humans manage to organize these sounds towards a more appropriate structure, it can show the development of a content system. Finally, this content can be studied through lexicogrammar and semantics, enabling the user to develop meaning while expressing ideas, describing how language becomes a necessity for improving the lives of man.
The study tackles the syntactic structure of students’ language application between spoken and written. Since exposure to L2 is only through school activities, identified differences and lexical limitations are observable in the participant’s way of expressing meaningful information through L2. A comparison of language application in different communicative platforms of both spoken and written may be sought in future research to describe both systems of language used fully.
Methodology
The study used a qualitative method following a single-case study. Different researchers investigated this design’s distinguishing factors, including the inductive approach to exploring human experiences towards a particular phenomenon to understand and interpret the influences of such events on their development (Salvador, 2016; Creswell, 2013). Based on the ontological orientation of constructivism, qualitative research is better understood through the analysis of human experiences and the manner they create a system of their understanding within the environment where they belong (Bryman, 2012; Creswell, 2013; Polit and Beck, 2011).
The paper sought to understand and analyze the difference between the syntactic structure of students’ language in spoken and written works. This methodology establishes an understanding of the student’s attempts to use the English language in both discourses. The study decided to utilize one case only to rigorously explore the language productions of the participant given the short period of observing the spoken performances and written outputs submitted in one semester. The study also would compare language performance manifested in sentences so that strengths and weaknesses can be identified when language is performed in classroom learning engagements.
Research Design
The study systematically follows this research design to investigate students’ spoken and written syntactic structure to understand the lexical density in both discourses.
Participant
The study occurred in a public school in one of the Senior High Schools in the Division of Antipolo. A Senior High School student was selected to participate in the study. She is taking General Academic Strand (GAS) and acquired the highest academic achievement in the batch during the first semester of 2020-2021. She has acquired average English language skills, making her way to express thoughts and insights during discussions and written performances fairly. Moreover, she has more functional words with lesser lexical meaning, contributing to the statements’ ambiguity. For the academic integrity, protection, and security of the participant, her name was codded as Student 001, making her a relevant subject to participate in this paper.
Population and sampling
The study used nonrandom or purposive/judgmental sampling, a more acceptable qualitative research procedure. This sampling method is useful for collecting specific cases, events, or actions to shed insights or gather a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study instead of arriving at a general conclusion (Bakar and Ishak, 2013; Neuman, 2009). The participant in the study was chosen based on her General Weighted Average (GWA) or overall scholastic standing during the first semester of 2020-2021. Student 001 had reached the total average of 93%, having With Honors as her distinction. Out of 250 enrolled students in Grade 11, she ranked the highest in terms of semester average. She received special recognitions and certificates as evidence of good academic standing; however, she displayed language difficulties in lexical density in spoken discourse.
Data gathering procedure
Data gathering for this case study follows different techniques: academic performance ratings, spoken records, written paragraphs, transcriptions, and interviews.
- Academic Records – This study used the students’ academic records to identify potential participants in the case study. The participants were chosen based on their first semester’s general weighted average. During the case study, academic feedback and overall evaluation of the students were sought from the subject teachers to determine students’ academic performance and possible related behaviors.
- Recorded Answers – These responses came from the thematic questions given after instruction. Students record their answers using the recorder icon seen in Messenger. After receiving it, the teacher transcribed its content verbatim for analysis.
- Written Paragraphs – These are the paragraphs written by the participants as their responses to the thematic questions after instruction which are sent on mobile phones via Messenger, Electronic Mail, Screenshots, or Note Pad Applications. In addition, the teacher analyzed and compared errors in sentence structures against the transcribed spoken record.
- Interviews – The participants were requested to engage during an informal interview scheduled by the researcher. A semi-structured set of questions helped understand insight from students’ awareness, recognition, and personal feedback about their errors in sentence structures between spoken and written language.
Data Analysis
This paper used the following processes in analyzing and comparing the gathered data in the study.
- Transcriptions – This is a systematic likeness of spoken language transformed into written form. It came from the utterances of the participants extracted from their spoken records. Transcription is a way for a person’s spoken activity to be transferred into print. Some research, such as qualitative, is usually done through sharing of insights, random interviews, and group meetings.
- Comparative Analysis – The researcher uses this to explain a single case on differences and similarities between objects of analysis. This process is the most basic comparison level, requiring a description of variations and commonalities observed during the study (Esser and Vliegenthart, 2017).
- Coding Analysis – This is a process of labeling and organizing the gathered qualitative data from the non-structured interviews conducted in the study. The process identifies different possible themes from the responses of the participant and their relationships with each other (Medelyan, 2019). The study utilizes the Values Coding of Saldana (2021) to describe the participant’s point of view about her values, attitude, and belief.
- Instrumentation – The study used the Measuring Lexical Density used by Ure, 1971 and Halliday 1985.
Results of the study
This portion shows the results and interpretation of gathered information from the subject under study. After the five-week data gathering through shared reflections, the participants’ responses were analyzed and compared based on the syntactic structure of the word, phrase, clausal, and sentence levels of spoken and written language.
A. Word Level
The participant produced more words during the spoken reflections rather than written ones. The result showed almost the same lexical density level, implying that the participant’s spoken and written language contains more functional or low meaningful words in the reflections. The participant explained that she was aware of using more words in spoken to explain her thoughts freely as opposed to written reflections. This result corroborated the findings and observations of Tyler (1994) and Lewis et al. (2012) as they tried to figure out the commonalities and dissimilarities in how spoken use of language through the word and grammar choices that learners provide to manage effective communication. Similarly, the study by Thanh (2015) found that spoken language has more words or grammatical words than lexical words compared to writing.
To further discuss the lexical density between written and spoken language, the following tables describe the disparity between the content words and function words produced by the participant. The importance of content words carries much meaning in the sentence. There are also called grammatical words that are considered structural. On the other hand, the function words bring little lexical meaning that results in ambiguity in ideas; thus, they are used only to show relationships between words.
Table 2 reflects the sample response of the participant and the comparison between the content words and functional words present in her discourse. 61% of functional words are given during spoken reflection, contributing to the reflection’s lesser lexical density. While the written reflection is composed of at least 50% content words, providing meaningful ideas in the reflection.’
The table shows that the participant has written language, which has a 17% difference in function words, specifically using prepositions, pronouns, and conjunctions to link ideas within expressions. Most of the prepositions used were in, too, of, and for. There was an overused pronoun ‘I’ within the narratives, which was sometimes replaced with ‘my’ and other demonstrative pronouns: this, that, and these. The use of and to connect ideas was also noted; however, it was sometimes used at the beginning of the sentence. Despite the number of function words, the content words were also recognized using appropriate nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives to express ideas clearly and meaningfully.
(e.g., I consider my skills and capabilities in planning for my career because first, I need to know if I am very suitable for the profession I chose and my capabilities in advance for my career. And my family, I consider them because I want to know their opinion about the career or profession I want to enter.)
More functional words, such as the example above, formed more lexical items in the written statements.
The table shows the participant’s spoken language, which has a 35% difference in function and content words. The result implies that more functional words are produced during the participant’s spoken reflections associated with the repetition of prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions, and determiners. The frequency of conjunctions contributes to the fragmented quality of speech. There was also the occurrence of code-switching (e.g., mahirap, yung). For example, the Tagalog word ‘po’ was repeated many times during spoken reflections. Leech gave a similar observation (1998) when he described that most spoken language often expresses a personal level of politeness and a positive attitude toward the listener; thus, the participant injected this word to show respect.
(e.g., Lastly, (uhm…) is a promising future for me, my family, and my future families. I want to know if my chosen career or profession was good enough to sustain everything we needed soon. Those are the things I considered in planning for my career. Thanks, “po” ma’am.)
The expletives (e.g., there and ma’am) and speech fillers (e.g., uh and uhm) also add to the unnecessary utterances resulting in ambiguous meanings in ideas. Almeida (2017) observed similar results in using gap fillers as an opportunity to think of the following ideas. On the other hand, code-switching uses the words in the sentence from the participant’s L1 (Paradis, 2012). Therefore, fewer content words were seen during the transcriptions and analysis, leading to less dense or lesser vocabulary lexically. Such observation explains the less precision but more flexibility in words the participant displayed in her spoken reflections (Rachel, 2009, Horowitz and Samuel, 1987), allowing her to provide more information when explaining ideas; therefore, the use of expletives, fillers, and occasional code switches happened. Further, the participant realized that her spoken language was more conversational compared with other speakers; however, she took full consciousness of her lapses in grammar and subject-verb agreement.
B. Phase Level
The following tables show the comparison between the written and spoken phrases of the participant. The use of phrases as the unit of words to express a concept has a significant help in forming the syntax in the sentence. Several phrases are utilized by the participant, as seen in the tables.
The participant’s written language is composed of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and prepositional phrases, being the mainly used
(e.g., from my parents, in emotional legacy).
Few infinitive, appositive, and participial phrases were evident in the reflections. Despite the number of phrases, there were inconsistencies involving the use of phrases within the sentence where parallelism was not observed.
(e.g., in the near future or five years to seven years from now).
It was also evident that very few adjective phrases were used to modify the noun or subject of the sentence to develop noun phrases.
(e.g., My parents told us…, My family gives…, The factors affect)
It appears that the participant had difficulty producing adjective phrases and adverbial phrases as modifiers to have long stretches in her sentences, thus, resulting in vague statements.
The participant’s spoken language contained prepositional phrases as the most utilized group of words in the sentence and verb phrases.
(e.g., in the near future, for me as a teenager, in career decision-making)
(e.g., affects my whole future, starts with my decision, gives my thumbs up).
The number of prepositional and verb phrases resulted in fragmented sentences or incomplete statements. The participant admitted that she had more difficulty in spoken reflections because of her wordiness in expressing her insights.
C. Clausal Level
The table compares the identified clauses in both written and spoken reflections. The results showed more written language production than spoken for independent clauses. The number of dependent clauses produced in spoken language created vague statements in the participant’s ideas. Both reflections conveyed multiple run-on sentences when two clauses were fused without connecting devices such as conjunctions or proper punctuations such as periods or semicolons. The participant only used conjunctions to compound the elements within the sentence, which did not link one sentence to the other to show a clear connection.
Furthermore, the presence of many subordination or dependent clauses is not equal. Adjectival and adverbial clauses were seen in spoken rather than written (Thanh, 2015). The following are examples of clauses seen in the spoken and written reflections of the participant.
(e.g., There are many advantages of having an extended family; the first one is we are helping start in the small up to immense problems, whether financial or personal.)
Only 14 or 43% of content words were seen within the clause compared to 18 or 57% of functional words, which explains why there is less density in spoken clauses.
(The advantage of having an extended family… we are helping in a small up to the vast things and helping each other even with our finances.)
Similarly, the above statement also revealed that only 10 or 38% of content words were seen within the clause compared to 16 or 62% of functional words, which explains why there is also lessened density in written clauses.
The above table shows the sample clauses used in describing content words in the sentence; however, their occurrence in the narrative failed to serve its purpose of modifying nouns to develop further information within utterances. Instead, these clauses are prevalent in the sentences as vague elements only to express the next idea of the participant, which contributed to the decreased spoken and written language of the participant.
D. Sentence Level
The table shows the different sentence structures utilized by the participant during her spoken and written reflections. It was found that complex sentences had been used to express ideas in both discourses, which justified the improper use of adjectival and adverbial clauses in the narratives. In addition, more run-on sentences were created during the spoken language compared to writing. As described by Kagan (1980), run-on sentences tell that young writers create incomplete sentence structure as a sign of abstracted incorrect rules resulting in fragmented sentences. It combines two or more independent clauses that can stand on their own; however, they are not appropriately joined by either conjunction or punctuation marks. When these devices do not link the statements, it will result in vagueness or incomplete information.
(e.g., In spiritual legacy, my parents told my siblings and me about the real God who is Yahweh, the life story of Jesus Christ, how he passed away and it happened long ago, and they told my siblings and me too to believe in prayers and work to it.)
In terms of grammar rules, sentences contain errors in subject-verb agreement, parallelism, and pronoun-antecedent relationships.
Wrong Verb Use
(e.g., My family always told me that if I become a teacher someday, there are many benefits.) S-V Agreement
(e.g., also, for giving my hundred percent trust, sometimes I have trust issues.) S-V Agreement
Discussion of results
This portion discusses and compares the summary of the lexical density of the spoken and written language of the participant.
written language. Due to the wordiness and dynamic use of language during the spoken reflection, the stated factors contributed to why spoken activities likely contain lesser density than written language. Based on the findings, Thanh (2015) states that learners are instructed to use grammar mostly in written works than spoken activities. As a result, little recognition of vocabulary happens during speaking engagement, similar to word orders, structures, and proper use of conjunctions. Thus, there is leniency in grammar during spoken activity as it is grounded in pliability in language use. In addition, spoken activities are associated with natural or unselfconscious speech, where speakers tend not to bother correcting themselves (Graddol and Boyd-Barret, 1994).
Moreover, spoken and written opportunities are vital for language use; therefore, students are expected to learn them differently; however, these differences depend upon the learner’s capacity to distinguish the systems employed in both utterances.
Spoken language seems to have almost the same level of low density as written (Syarif, 2018). During the conversation, ideas flow, change, and move during the utterance, which makes the narrative in and out of focus due to the continuous flow of the speaker’s thoughts. The ideas spoke language often produces lack fluidity in grammatical rules and structure because of its spontaneity and conversational nature; thus, it induces speech fillers, code-switching or words, and excessive repetition of functional words during a conversation. The participant intends to deliver the ideas but not to correct word orders and relationships within the sentences, unlike writing that has the opportunity for revisions and proofreading statements. The presence of more functional words (e.g., in, to, of, and for – for prepositions; overuse of pronoun I and my; and demonstrative pronouns like this, that, and these) contributes to the lesser density, which is often noticed in the spoken language of learners who are not yet proficient with second language skills. In addition, fragmented sentences and vague statements result from the non-usage of the right words, incomplete sentence structures, and limited use of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions to show the relationships within sentence elements.
On the other hand, written language preserves its quality because of its carefully designed sentence structures and word choices to produce a meaningful and compelling narrative. More content words (e.g., nouns and verbs) were used than functional words, contributing to the meaning of ideas within the sentence. Despite the presence of the participant’s grammatical lapses (e.g., subject and verb agreement, run-on sentences, lack of punctuation marks, overuse of prepositions, parallelism, and non-mastery of other grammar rules), there is a chance to reconstruct sentence structures through a personal assessment of one’s work before to the submission of works. These factors contributed to the low level of lexical density in writing, which the participant displayed as a language difficulty.
Moreover, Horowitz and Samuels (1987) argue that writers often try to use complete sentences when developing written narratives, but in speaking, they usually use incomplete sentences, resulting in lesser density and incomprehensible ideas.
The table above shows the feedback of the participant as she participated in the conduct of this study. There seemed to be a high affective filter whenever she engaged with spoken activities in the classroom, which added to the wordiness, repetition, and wrong word choice. She admitted to having language anxiety not because of her mistakes but due to her classmates’ feedback towards it. She confirmed having more confidence and a relaxing attitude towards writing activities because of the time given for her reflections and essays; however, there were also word and grammar lapses, which she consciously acknowledged. This study made her realize her strengths and weaknesses in the language through her self-reflections and shared personal assessments during the interview. Most importantly, she recognized the importance of language in her education as a tool as she decided to embark on a teaching profession after high school. These insights explain why low lexical density happens in both the participant’s spoken and written works.
Additionally, the findings revealed the grammatical inconsistencies of the participant during her language productions which may be addressed during language instructions. The functional words, characterized to have low density, implied the participant’s linguistic choices and limited strategies in expressing ideas. These observations triggered personal motivation to continuously expose oneself to enhancing language proficiency. The participant’s feedback identified some of the factors that affected the observable language discourses. Such observations, however, may further be examined by referring to the L1 and L2 language acquisition theories to support further and understand the participant’s language production.
The results of this study were relevant to the field of second language learning and instruction. Learners may learn how they produce language in written and spoken discourses. In comparison, educators could base their language instruction on varied empirical data from various kinds of research relevant to the current trends in second language instruction so that difficulties displayed by the learners can be appropriately addressed with suitable interventions and enhancement activities. Future studies in this field can guide other researchers and educators to understand the learners’ language production. Since competency in a language requires producing meaningful and grammatically correct sentences, learners may be aware of how to develop lexically dense utterances. Additionally, the results of this study may serve as an additional contribution to understanding the complexity and dynamics of language systems when utilized in spoken and written discourses.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Lexical density is a syntactic characteristic of both spoken and written language that measures how informative the two discourses can be presented. The study’s results and findings help students improve their language use in both discourses. It can also help students improve the lexical contents of their written and spoken conversations to communicate more meaningful ideas to other people. It also has a way to improve the learner’s under-developed vocabulary to help them enrich their word banks. The educators can also decide on the proper teaching strategies and methods to address the learners’ language difficulties in an L2 environment. Despite the different approaches to apply in spoken and written, it is imperative to assist students with different kinds of knowledge about language application. It is suggested, however, to explore additional cases so that a substantial description of the phenomenon can support the initial findings of this study. Since a single case failed to fully provide a thorough understanding of the lexical density of one person’s language performance, it is significant to conduct comparisons of other similar or different cases to describe the dynamics of language when produced in a communicative exchange of ideas. Through this paper, language programs implemented in L2 instructions can search for ways and means to understand the nature of students’ language difficulties and initiate solutions to address identical observations and language concerns. Educational goals for second language instruction may include teacher training, designing supplemental learning materials, and students’ exposure to authentic language practices because these are essential components in acquiring language skills.
Language direction, in this light, is guided towards a more suitable language approach to be used in the school curriculum. The study suggests further investigation of the different language systems employed and how each system can be described in both spoken and written language further to support the understanding and findings in this paper.
References
Bakar, Y.A. and Ishak, N.M. (2013). Developing Sampling Frame for Case Study: Challenges and Conditions. World Journal of Education. 4(3). https://www.sciedu.ca/wje. https://doi:10.5430/wje.v4n3p29.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.) New York: Oxford University Press
Burns, A. (2016). Functional Approaches to Teaching English Grammar to Speakers of other languages. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 303939477
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: SAGE.
Dulay, H.C. Burt, M.K. and Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Esser, F. and Vliegenthart, R. (2017). Comparative Research Methods. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Method (General Edition). John Wiley and Sons, Inc. https://DOI:10.1002/9781118901731.
Graddol D. and Boyd-Barret, O. (1994). Media Text: Authors and Readers. Multi-Media Matter. Open University.
Gregori-Signesa, C. and Clavel-Arroitiab, B. (2015). Analyzing lexical density and lexical diversity in university students’ written discourse. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences (198) 546 – 556. https://www.sciencedirect.com
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University
Press.
Halliday, Michael A.K. (1985) Spoken and Written Language. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1996). Literacy and linguistics: A functional perspective. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 339-376). London: Longman.
Horowitz, R & Samuels, S. (1987). Comprehending oral and written language. Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
Johansson, V. (2008), Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: a developmental perspective. Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics and Phonetics Working Papers 53 (2008), 61
Kagan, D. M. (1980). Run-on and Fragment Sentences: An Error Analysis. Research in the Teaching of English. Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 127-138. National Council of Teachers of English. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40170846
Khansir, A. A. (2012). Error Analysis and Second Language Acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(5) pp. 1027-1032, ISSN 1799-2591. Academy Publisher Manufactured in Finland. https://doi:10.4304/tpls.2.5.1027-1032
Levis, J., Jewis, G.M. and Slater, T. (2012). Written English into spoken: A functional discourse analysis of American, Indian, and Chinese TA presentations. Working Theories for Teaching Assistant Development
Lee, B. (2019). An Analysis on Lexical Density and Sophistication in Korean Learners’ Spoken Language. Volume 5 Issue 3, pp. 120-132 PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences. ISSN 2454-5899. https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2019.53.120132
Medelyan, A. (2019). Coding Qualitative Data: How to Coded Qualitative Research. https://www.getthematic.com.
Neuman, W.L. (2009). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Norquist, R. (2019). Overview of Systemic Functional Linguistics. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-functional-linguistics-1692022
Paradis, J. (2012). Cross-linguistic influence and code-switching. In B. A. E. Goldstein (Ed), Bilingual Language Development and Disorders in Spanish-English Speakers. Second Edition (pp.73-91). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company.
Polit, D. F., & Beck. C. T. (2012). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice (9th Edition). China: Wolters Kluwer Health, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-1-60547-708-4.
Qualitative Data Transcription and Translation. IRC Research Toolkit. International Rescue Committee. https://www.alnap.org.
Rachel, (2009). Difference Between Written and Spoken language. DifferenceBetween.net.http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-written-and-spoken-language
Ramadhan, M.R. (2017). Lexical Density and Grammatical Intricacy in Written and Spoken Text. Unpublished Material. University of Sumatera Utara, Medan.
Richards, J.C. (1971). A Non- Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. Journal of ELT. 25, 204-219
Salvador, J.R. (2016). Exploring Quantitative and Qualitative Methodologies: A guide to Novice Nursing Researchers. European Scientific Journal. 12(18) ISSN: 1857-7881. https://Doi:10.19044/esk.2016.v12nn18p107.
Syarif, H. (2018). Lexical Density vs Grammatical Intricacy: How are they related? Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Volume 276. Atlantic Press, Indonesia.
Thanh, N. C. (2015). The Differences between Spoken and Written Grammar in English, in Comparison with Vietnamese. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal. ISSN 1692-5777. 1,138-153
Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. Applications of linguistics,
443-452.
Author’s Bionote
Joneth D. Vibar is currently a Senior High School Teacher who handles language and literature subjects in Academic Track for both GAS and ABM Strands. She holds a Master Teacher II position in DepEd whose responsibility includes assisting the school in instructional monitoring and providing technical assistance to colleagues. She takes part in project development and programs of the schools to continuously improve the curriculum and its delivery. She is currently one of the lead researchers in her institution specializing in language studies and action researches through qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
To further keep abreast with the current trends in education, she is presently taking Doctor of Education major in Literature and Language Education at Far Easter University – Manila Campus. This is aligned with her Master of Arts in Teaching Degree major in English Language Arts which she took in Philippine Normal University in 2009.
ASIAN JOURNAL ON PERSPECTIVES IN EDUCATION
Far Eastern University
Institute of Education
FEU Campus, Nicanor Reyes Street, Sampaloc
Manila, Philippines, 1015
Email: ajpe@feu.edu.ph