A corpora-based study of the development of efl brazilian learners' interlanguage from simplification to complexification in the light of systemic-functional grammar

Texto

(1)UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA CATARINA PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM LETRAS/INGLÊS E LITERATURA CORRESPONDENTE. A CORPORA-BASED STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL BRAZILIAN LEARNERS’ INTERLANGUAGE FROM SIMPLIFICATION TO COMPLEXIFICATION IN THE LIGHT OF SYSTEMIC-FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR. PEDRO HENRIQUE LIMA PRAXEDES FILHO. Tese submetida à Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina em cumprimento parcial dos requisitos para obtenção do grau de. DOUTOR EM LETRAS. FLORIANÓPOLIS Outubro 2007.

(2)

(3) To JOÃO, my life-partner for the past 21 years, for his unconditional love, care, and companionship. To MIRIAN, my mother, for her love and the example of a heavenly-given capacity to endure suffering – IN MEMORIAM. To PEDRO, my father, for his love taken away from me at so early a time and the example of dedication to intellectual work – IN MEMORIAM. To THE LGBTT COMMUNITY AND ALL OTHER MINORITIES still discriminated against as a result of irrational intolerance in relation to human diversity as expressed in the Rainbow-Flag colors spread throughout this dissertation..

(4) iv. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS. To God, for having provided me with the gift of life as well as the strength, the willpower that enabled me to face the Ph.D. program and to finish it – especially the dissertation – despite the hardships along the way. To Rosa, for having been my professor and introduced me to Systemic-Functional Grammar (SFG) in the former UECE MA Program in English; for the inspiring and efficient supervision now and back at the MA program; and especially for the friendship. To CAPES, for having sponsored the piece of research here reported on with a PICDT grant through UECE. To my professors at the UFSC Ph.D. program – Drs. Lêda Tomitch, Mailce Fortkamp, Rosa Konder, and Viviane Heberle, for having so effectively contributed with my intellectual growth. To Drs. Lêda Tomitch, Maria Lúcia Vasconcellos, Mailce Fortkamp, and José Luiz Meurer, for having so efficiently coordinated PPGI/UFSC during the years I was one of its students, the latter being the current coordinator. To the members of the PPGI/UFSC deliberating board, for having so understandingly complied with my right for one defense-deadline extension and five sick leaves due to my vision problems; otherwise, the dissertation defense would never have happened. To the PPGI/UFSC secretary officials João Carlos, Luiz, and Rodrigo as well as the undergraduate students with working grants – Daniela, Priscilla, Sirley and the others whose names I cannot recall, for their unfailing readiness to help me with whatever demand I had in need of a solution. To UECE at all levels, for having approved my study leave and made the arrangements for me to have the PICDT CAPES grant. To my UECE colleagues and friends Cleudene, Dilamar, Hans, Iúta, Josi, Luciano, Paula, Stella, and Vera, for their constant psychological support. To the coordinators of the four English Language Centers (ELCs), for having allowed me to have free access to teachers and students; a double thank you goes to the Coordinators of ELC A, for my having doubly disturbed their professional routine at both the cross-sectional and longitudinal data collection moments. To the teachers of the four ELCs, for having willingly and kindly turned into actual partners in the data collection enterprises. To the students of the four ELCs, for having gladly and unreservedly accepted to participate in the data-collection tasks, without ever uttering a single complaint..

(5) v. To the Foreign-Affairs Coordinator of ELC E, for not having gone through any bureaucratic procedures in order to open my way to the University-of-Pittsburgh Coordinator. To the Coordinator of the University-of-Pittsburgh group of American undergraduate students, for having immediately sympathized with my need for native English data and introduced me to the group members. To the six University-of-Pittsburgh American students in Brazil, for having unhesitatingly volunteered themselves to do, so promptly, the two investigation tasks I presented them with. To the three Americans in the US, for having accepted to willingly participate in the research via e-mail and painstakingly completed the hard and boring task of rating 60 nonnative English written texts for three different aspects. To Dr. Enedina Bezerra from UNIFOR (University of Fortaleza), for having taken the effort to help me find two out of the three American raters. To Dr. Luiz Paulo da Moita Lopes of UFRJ, for having kept telling me, whenever the opportunity came up, to enter a Ph.D. program; for having read the first draft of my Ph.D. project proposal and, as a result, introduced me to the book Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research edited by James Lantolf and Gabriela Appel; and for having read the second draft of the proposal and warned me to the inaccuracy of what I was still back then considering a type of qualitative analysis. To Dr. Rob Batstone of The Institute of Education/University of London, for having also read the first draft of the project proposal and provided me with valuable insights with regard to Second Language Acquisition (SLA), which was done during my two week’s stay in London on a business trip to negotiate, on behalf of UECE, academic agreements with the IofE as well as other units within the UL and Middlesex University. To Dr. William Armour of University of New South Wales, for having – via e-mails – raised questions as with the relationship between the cognitive- and/or mentalist-based interlanguage theory and the social-based SFG; and for having introduced me to Michael Halliday’s only paper on L2 (Is Learning a Second Language Like Learning a First Language All Over Again?) – restricted to a theoretical discussion – and sent a copy of it to me via air mail. To Dr. Gillian Perrett of Universiti Brunei Darussalam, for having assured me, also via e-mail, that four years after the publication of her 2000 chapter – Researching Second and Foreign Language Development – research into L2 development from the perspective of SFG remained scarce. To Dr. Geoff Thompson of the University of Liverpool, for having, on two occasions through the sysfling mailing list, so brilliantly solved doubts of mine as to some transitivity categorizations..

(6) vi. To Dr. Diana Slade of University of Technology Sydney, for having filled me with insights during the mini course in the ABRALIN XVI Linguistics Institute held at UFRJ; and for having presented me with her book, coauthored by Suzanne Eggins, Analysing Casual Conversation. To Dr. José Luiz Meurer of UFSC, for having made possible, when he was on study leave for one of his postdoctorates at Macquarie University, the financial arrangements with Dr. Makoto Sasaki, also on study leave at the same university, for me to purchase Christian Matthiessen’s Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems, without which I would have never been able to construct the indispensable transitivity, mood, and theme system networks. To Dr. Makoto Sasaki of Aichi Gakuin University and General Secretary of The Japan Association of Systemic-Functional Linguistics (JASFL), for having promptly mailed out to me, immediately upon his arrival back in Tokyo, my copy of Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. To Hans, for having indicated dozens of relevant bibliographical references within the area of SLA; and for having permitted me to make photocopies of a huge number of journal articles also about SLA that he had collected throughout time. To Lourival and Daniel, for having, on several different occasions, sent me by air mail photocopies of articles on SFG from journals at the LAEL/PUC-SP and IEL/UNICAMP libraries, respectively. To Rachel, for having also sent me by air mail dozens of photocopies of articles from journals at the UFSC library; for having been my official representative at the PPGI/UFSC for the purpose of making my registration every semester after my return to Fortaleza; and for her faithful friendship and support. To MDs Abrahão Lucena and Abelardo Targino of the Centro Avançado de Retina e Catarata (Fortaleza, CE), for having taken care of my keratoconus corneas and the Lattice degenerations on my retinas, respectively, with such expertise that the cornea abnormality was cured and the retina degenerations were stabilized; without their expertise, I would have had no other choice except for having given up writing this dissertation. To Santa Catarina and her people, for having received me with such warm hospitality. To Erivelton, for having taught me how to tabulate the table of contents and the lists. To Célio and Cristiano, keyboarders at Fábrica de Serviços, for having spent long hours changing the Excel-made figures into Corel-Draw-made ones. To all other people who directly or indirectly had any sort of participation in the research or in the writing of the dissertation but have not been mentioned here due to memory failure on my part..

(7) vii. ABSTRACT A CORPORA-BASED STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFL BRAZILIAN LEARNERS’ INTERLANGUAGE FROM SIMPLIFICATION TO COMPLEXIFICATION IN THE LIGHT OF SYSTEMIC-FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR. PEDRO HENRIQUE LIMA PRAXEDES FILHO UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA CATARINA 2007 Supervising Professor: Dr. Rosa Weingold Konder. Interlanguage theory-ILT has been the most pervasive within the Applied-Linguistics subarea of Second Language Development-SLD. Drawing upon its cognitivist version as developed by Selinker (1972, 1992), Tarone (1979, 1982, 1983), and Ellis (1982a, 1982b, 1988, 1994), I focus on the concepts of interlanguage-IL stage, IL developmental continuum, the (non)discreteness of the stages, and fossilization. To avoid using a mentalist-biased theory like case grammar as Ellis (1982a, 1982b, 1988) did, I resort to a social-based theory – systemic-functional grammar-SFG as represented mainly by Halliday (1994a), Halliday and Matthiessen (2004), Matthiessen (1995), and Matthiessen and Halliday (1997). The study aims at describing the simplification-complexification continuum of a classroom Brazilian-Portuguese/English IL from the perspectives of SFG’s systemic and functional/configurational dimensions in relation to the lexicogrammatical transitivity, mood, and theme systems. The central relevance lies in the fact, among others, that studies on classroom SLD and SFG-based descriptions of SLD are scarce. Methodologically, the study is divided into a cross-sectional part and a longitudinal one. Cross-sectionally, only the configurational continuum is described as for the spoken and written IL registers – personal experience narratives-PE, picture-story narratives-PN, dialog-D, test-T, and group-G – rendered by subjects from the English Language Centers-ELCs A, B, C, and D. Longitudinally, the description encompasses both the configurational and the systemic continuum as with the written IL PE and PN registers produced by subjects from ELC A. The discussion of the results derived from the verification of the first three cross-sectional hypotheses led to the emergence of the following pattern: The registers whose topic is classroom-unrelated – PE and PN – present lower complexification levels; the registers whose topic is classroom-related – D, T, and G – score higher. The high refutation percentage originated from the verification of the last cross-sectional hypothesis indicates (a) that not only the topic but also interactionand medium-related aspects are responsible for configurational complexification; and (b) that the unexpected results might be caused by configurational fossilization and/or the nondiscreteness of the IL stages, and/or the inappropriateness of the a priori criteria for the complexification ranges, or they might be an artifact of the cross-sectional approach. The discussion of the results derived from the verification of the longitudinal hypotheses led to the following points: (a) The subjects go through seven and eight proficiency levels for the PE and PN registers; (b) the IL stages are nondiscrete; (c) IL1 skips the protolinguistic phases of L1 development; (d) while IL1 is characterized by the predominance of mood systems, IL2 onwards have more transitivity systems; (e).

(8) viii. hypotheses were raised whereby configurational fossilization exists irrespective of the learning conditions and systemic fossilization does not exist if the learning conditions are optimal; and (f) the subjects’ IL stopped complexifying configurationally at the moderate level, confirming the existence of configurational fossilization; the subjects’ configurational continuum is beginning<intermediate<advanced, discarding the inappropriateness of the criteria for the complexification ranges. The findings were systematized into a preliminary SFG-based description of induced SLD. The pedagogical implication regards the likely nonexistence of systemic fossilization. I further hypothesized that the optimal learning conditions for it not to exist have to do with instruction in the L2 by means of a communicative register-based syllabus and about the L2 by means of SFG. Further longitudinal research should be carried out aiming at: (a) the addition of the registers’ spoken medium; (b) the description of L1 transfer and overgeneralization; (c) the explanation of classroom SLD; (d) the replacement of ILT for sociocultural SLD; and (e) the verification of the pedagogical-implication hypothesis.. No de páginas: 406 No de palavras: 116.999.

(9) ix. RESUMO A teoria da interlíngua-TIL é a mais difundida na subárea ‘Desenvolvimento de Segunda Língua-DSL’ da Lingüística Aplicada. Adotando sua versão cognitivista desenvolvida por Selinker (1972, 1992), Tarone (1979, 1982, 1983) e Ellis (1982a, 1982b, 1988, 1994), focalizo os conceitos de estágio de interlíngua-IL, continuum de desenvolvimento de IL, interpenetração ou não dos estágios e fossilização. Para evitar o uso de uma teoria de orientação mentalista como a gramática de casos tal como feito por Ellis (1982a, 1982b, 1988), recorro a uma teoria de base social – a gramática sistêmico-funcional-GSF, representada principalmente por Halliday (1994a), Halliday e Matthiessen (2004), Matthiessen (1995) e Matthiessen e Halliday (1997). O estudo objetiva descrever o continuum simplificação-complexificação de uma IL português-brasileiro/inglês desenvolvida em sala de aula, dos pontos de vista das dimensões sistêmica e funcional/configuracional da GSF e em relação aos sistemas léxico-gramaticais de transitividade, modo e tema. A justificativa central recai sobre o fato, dentre outros, de que estudos sobre DSL em sala de aula e descrições de DSL baseadas na GSF são escassos. Metodologicamente, o estudo divide-se numa parte transversal e outra longitudinal. Transversalmente, somente o continuum configuracional é descrito quanto aos meios falado e escrito dos registros de IL – narrativas sobre experiência pessoal-EP, narrativas sobre uma estória em gravuras-NG, diálogo-D, teste-T e grupo-G – produzidos por sujeitos dos Cursos Livres de Inglês-CLIs A, B, C e D. Longitudinalmente, a descrição compreende tanto o continuum configuracional como o sistêmico quanto ao meio escrito dos registros EP e NG produzidos por sujeitos do CLI A. A discussão dos resultados da verificação das três primeiras hipóteses transversais levaram à emergência do seguinte padrão: Os registros cujo assunto não é relacionado à sala de aula – EP e NG – apresentam níveis mais baixos de complexificação; os registros cujo assunto é relacionado à sala de aula – D, T e G – pontuam mais alto. O percentual elevado de refutação originado da verificação da última hipótese transversal indica (a) que não apenas o assunto, mas aspectos a ver com a interação e o meio são também responsáveis pela complexificação configuracional e (b) que os resultados inesperados podem ser causados por fossilização configuracional e/ou interpenetração ou não dos estágios de IL e/ou inadequação dos critérios apriorísticos dos intervalos de complexificação ou eles podem ser um artefato da abordagem transversal. A discussão dos resultados da verificação das hipóteses longitudinais levou aos seguintes pontos: (a) Os sujeitos passam por sete e oito níveis de proficiência dependendo se o registro é EP ou NG; (b) os estágios de IL se interpenetram; (c) a IL1 não apresenta as fases protolingüísticas do desenvolvimento de L1; (d) enquanto a IL1 é caracterizada pela predominância dos sistemas de modo, as ILs 2 em diante apresentam mais sistemas de transitividade; (e) hipóteses foram levantadas segundo as quais a fossilização configuracional existe independentemente das condições de aprendizagem e a fossilização sistêmica não existe se as condições forem ótimas e (f) a IL dos sujeitos parou de complexificar-se configuracionalmente no nível moderado, confirmando a existência de fossilização configuracional; o continuum configuracional dos sujeitos é principiante<intermediário<avançado, descartando a inadequação dos critérios dos intervalos de complexificação. Os achados foram sistematizados numa descrição preliminar, com base na GSF, do DSL induzido. A implicação pedagógica refere-se à provável inexistência da fossilização sistêmica. Levantei ainda uma outra hipótese pela qual as condições ótimas de aprendizagem para que ela não exista têm a ver com uma instrução na L2 por meio de um conteúdo comunicativo baseado em registros e sobre a L2 por meio da GSF. Outras pesquisas longitudinais devem ser conduzidas objetivando: (a) incorporação do meio falado; (b) descrição de transferência da L1 e hipergeneralização; (c) explicação do DSL de sala de aula; (d) substituição da TIL pela teoria de DSL sociocultural; e (e) verificação da hipótese da implicação pedagógica..

(10) x. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... iv. Abstract ..................................................................................................................... vii. Resumo ...................................................................................................................... ix. Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... x. CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION: THE RESEARCH 1.1 Theoretical and empirical contextualization ....................................................... 1. 1.2 Theme and relevance ........................................................................................... 3. 1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 7. 1.3.1 General objectives .................................................................................. 7. 1.3.2 Specific objectives .................................................................................. 8. 1.3.2.1 Cross-sectional part of the study – 1 .......................................... 8. 1.3.2.2 Longitudinal part of the study – 1 .............................................. 8. 1.3.2.3 Cross-sectional part of the study – 2 .......................................... 8. 1.3.2.4 Longitudinal part of the study – 2 .............................................. 8. 1.4 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 9. 1.4.1 Cross-sectional part of the study ............................................................ 9. 1.4.1.1 Cross-sectional Hypothesis 1 ..................................................... 9. 1.4.1.2 Cross-sectional Hypothesis 2 ..................................................... 9. 1.4.1.3 Cross-sectional Hypothesis 3 ..................................................... 9. 1.4.1.4 Cross-sectional Hypothesis 4 ..................................................... 9. 1.4.2 Longitudinal part of the study ................................................................ 10. 1.4.2.1 Longitudinal Hypothesis 1 ......................................................... 10. 1.4.2.2 Longitudinal Hypothesis 2 ......................................................... 10. 1.4.2.3 Longitudinal Hypothesis 3 ......................................................... 10. 1.4.2.4 Longitudinal Hypothesis 4 ......................................................... 10. 1.4.2.5 Longitudinal Hypothesis 5 ......................................................... 11. 1.4.2.6 Longitudinal Hypothesis 6 ......................................................... 11. 1.5 Dissertation plan ................................................................................................. 11.

(11) xi. CHAPTER II – IL LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL SIMPLIFICATIONCOMPLEXIFICATION: AN SFG-BASED CONSTRUCT 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 13. 2.2 Systemic-Functional Grammar ........................................................................... 14. 2.2.1 Systemic and functional dimensions ...................................................... 28. 2.2.1.1 Transitivity structural layer ........................................................ 35. 2.2.1.2 Mood structural layer ................................................................. 44. 2.2.1.3 Theme structural layer ................................................................ 62. 2.2.2 Lexico-grammatical system networks .................................................... 69. 2.2.2.1 Transitivity system network and selection expressions ............. 80. 2.2.2.2 Mood system network and selection expressions ...................... 85. 2.2.2.3 Theme system network and selection expressions ..................... 90. 2.3 IL Lexico-grammatical simplification-complexification .................................... 94. 2.3.1 From the perspective of the systemic dimension .................................... 94. 2.3.2 From the perspective of the functional dimension ................................. 95. 2.3.2.1 Pilot Study 1 (PS1) ..................................................................... 97. 2.3.2.2 Pilot Study 2 (PS2)...................................................................... 98. 2.3.2.3 Pilot Study 3 (PS3)..................................................................... 101 2.3.2.4 Functional simplification and complexification categories ...... 102 2.4 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................... 104. CHAPTER III – SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORY 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 106 3.2 IL theory ............................................................................................................. 109 3.2.1 Genesis of the theory ............................................................................. 109 3.2.1.1 Selinker ..................................................................................... 115 3.2.1.2 Adjemian ................................................................................... 124 3.2.1.3 Tarone ....................................................................................... 129 3.2.1.4 Schumann .................................................................................. 135 3.2.1.5 Andersen ................................................................................... 137 3.2.2 Classroom-learned IL ............................................................................ 139 3.2.2.1 Felix ........................................................................................... 139 3.2.2.2 Lightbown ................................................................................ 142 3.2.2.3 Ellis ........................................................................................... 150.

(12) xii. 3.2.2.4 Myles ......................................................................................... 163 3.2.2.5 Perrett ........................................................................................ 165 3.2.3 Initial IL hypotheses .............................................................................. 170 3.2.3.1 Psycholinguistic vs. psycho-sociolinguistic hypotheses ........... 172 3.2.3.2 Recreation vs. restructuring hypotheses .................................... 178 3.2.4 Other relevant issues .............................................................................. 178 3.2.4.1 Simplification, complexification or both? ................................. 178 3.2.4.2 Semantic and/or grammatical simplification-complexification? 180 3.3 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................... 182. CHAPTER IV – METHODOLOGY 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 190 4.2 Cross-sectional part of the study ........................................................................ 191 4.2.1 Subjects .................................................................................................. 191 4.2.2 Corpus .................................................................................................... 197 4.2.3 Instruments ............................................................................................ 198 4.2.4 Data collection procedures .................................................................... 198 4.2.5 Data categorization procedures and analysis criteria ............................. 201 4.3 Longitudinal part of the study ............................................................................ 209 4.3.1 Subjects .................................................................................................. 210 4.3.1.1 Primary subjects ........................................................................ 210 4.3.1.2 Secondary subjects .................................................................... 215 4.3.1.3 Tertiary subjects ........................................................................ 217 4.3.2 Corpora .................................................................................................. 219 4.3.2.1 Primary corpus .......................................................................... 219 4.3.2.2 Secondary corpus ...................................................................... 221 4.3.2.3 Tertiary corpus .......................................................................... 221 4.3.3 Instruments ............................................................................................ 222 4.3.3.1 Primary instruments .................................................................. 222 4.3.3.2 Secondary instruments .............................................................. 222 4.3.3.3 Tertiary instruments .................................................................. 223 4.3.4 Data collection procedures .................................................................... 223 4.3.4.1 Primary data collection procedures ........................................... 223 4.3.4.2 Secondary data collection procedures ....................................... 227.

(13) xiii. 4.3.4.3 Tertiary data collection procedures ........................................... 228 4.3.5 Data categorization procedures and analysis criteria ............................. 230 4.3.5.1 Primary data categorization procedures and analysis criteria ... 230 4.3.5.2 Secondary data categorization procedures and analysis criteria. 235. 4.3.5.3 Tertiary data categorization procedures and analysis criteria ... 237 4.4 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................... 238. CHAPTER V – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 240 5.2 Cross-sectional part of the study ........................................................................ 240 5.2.1 Results ................................................................................................... 240 5.2.1.1 CSH1 ......................................................................................... 246 5.2.1.2 CSH2 ......................................................................................... 249 5.2.1.3 CSH3 ......................................................................................... 251 5.2.1.4 CSH4 ......................................................................................... 254 5.2.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. 256 5.2.2.1 Discussion of the CSH1 Results ............................................... 257 5.2.2.2 Discussion of the CSH2 Results ............................................... 272 5.2.2.3 Discussion of the CSH3 Results ............................................... 284 5.2.2.4 Discussion of the CSH4 Results ............................................... 294 5.3 Longitudinal part of the study ............................................................................ 303 5.3.1 Results ................................................................................................... 303 5.3.1.1 LH1 ........................................................................................... 313 5.3.1.2 LH2 ........................................................................................... 314 5.3.1.3 LH3 ........................................................................................... 315 5.3.1.4 LH4 ........................................................................................... 318 5.3.1.5 LH5 ........................................................................................... 321 5.3.1.6 LH6 ........................................................................................... 347 5.3.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. 350 5.3.2.1 Discussion of the LH1 results ................................................... 350 5.3.2.2 Discussion of the LH2 results ................................................... 355 5.3.2.3 Discussion of the LH3 results ................................................... 356 5.3.2.4 Discussion of the LH4 results ................................................... 359 5.3.2.5 Discussion of the LH5 results ................................................... 361.

(14) xiv. 5.3.2.6 Discussion of the LH6 results ................................................... 366 5.4 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................... 370. CHAPTER VI – CONCLUSION 6.1 Systematization of a preliminary SFG-based description of induced SLD ....... 373 6.2 Pedagogical implications ................................................................................... 378 6.3 Suggestions for future research .......................................................................... 384. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 388.

(15) xv. LIST OF APPENDIXES Appendix A: Profile questionnaires: Cross-sectional part of the study .................... 407 Appendix B: Figures with the subjects’ profiles: Cross-sectional part of the study. 427 Appendix C: Figures with the results of the profile questionnaires used in the selection of the subjects and classes per English Language Center and proficiency level: Cross sectional part of the study ..................................................................... 431 Appendix D: Picture story......................................................................................... 456 Appendix E: Functional categorization of A’s, B’s, C’s, and D’s data: Cross sectional part of the study ......................................................................................... 461 Appendix F: Profile questionnaires – primary subjects: Longitudinal part of the study .......................................................................................................................... 887 Appendix G: Figures with the primary subjects’ profiles: Longitudinal part of the study .......................................................................................................................... 900 Appendix H: Profile questionnaire – secondary subjects: Longitudinal part of the study .......................................................................................................................... 902 Appendix I: Figure with the remaining profile aspects of the secondary subjects: Longitudinal part of the study ................................................................................... 904 Appendix J: Profile questionnaire – tertiary subjects: Longitudinal part of the study .......................................................................................................................... 905 Appendix K: Systemic and functional categorization of the primary corpus: Longitudinal part of the study ................................................................................... 907 Appendix L: Systemic and functional categorization of the secondary corpus: Longitudinal part of the study ................................................................................... 992 Appendix M: Primary data collection instructions for the teachers: Longitudinal part of the study......................................................................................................... 1073 Appendix N: Potential primary subjects’ data-collection sheets: Longitudinal part of the study................................................................................................................ 1094 Appendix O: Secondary subjects’ data-collection sheets: Longitudinal part of the study .......................................................................................................................... 1106 Appendix P: Tertiary subjects’ data-collection instrument: Longitudinal part of the study .......................................................................................................................... 1108.

(16) xvi. Appendix Q: General systemic results derived from the primary corpus: Longitudinal part of the study ................................................................................... 1168 Appendix R: Systemic results derived from the primary corpus as to the new repertoire of terms and systems per data collection moment: Longitudinal part of the study .................................................................................................................... 1234 Appendix S: Systemic results derived from the secondary corpus: Longitudinal part of the study......................................................................................................... 1254 Appendix T: Net difference between the secondary subjects’ and the primary subjects’ systemic repertoires: Longitudinal part of the study.................................. 1266 Appendix U: Tabulation of the tertiary-corpus-related answers: Longitudinal part of the study................................................................................................................ 1270 Appendix V: Tables with the calculations of the tertiary-corpus-related average results: Longitudinal part of the study ...................................................................... 1274.

(17) xvii. LIST OF FIGURES Chapter II Figure 2.1.: Rank scale and constituency. ................................................................ 30. Figure 2.2.: The functional dimension as realization of the systemic dimension. .... 34. Figure 2.3.: Transitivity functions and their respective classes. ............................... 35. Figure 2.4.: Nuclear transitivity. ............................................................................... 36. Figure 2.5.: Circumstantial transitivity. .................................................................... 38. Figure 2.6.: Material clauses. .................................................................................... 38. Figure 2.7.: Mental clauses. ...................................................................................... 39. Figure 2.8.: Verbal clauses. ...................................................................................... 40. Figure 2.9.: Relational clauses. ................................................................................. 41. Figure 2.10.: Effective and middle clauses. .............................................................. 43. Figure 2.11.: Mood functions and their respective classes. ...................................... 44. Figure 2.12.: Mood types and respective configurational realizations. .................... 46. Figure 2.13.: Clauses of different mood types. ......................................................... 47. Figure 2.14.: The different functions of the Predicator. ........................................... 49. Figure 2.15.: Mood and comment Adjuncts and respective lexical realizations. ..... 51. Figure 2.16.: Clauses with modal Adjuncts. ............................................................. 52. Figure 2.17.: Configurational realizations of modality types. .................................. 54. Figure 2.18.: Modality aspects and subaspects: Definitions and lexical realizations. ............................................................................................................... 55. Figure 2.19.: Modalized and modulated clauses. ..................................................... 56. Figure 2.20.: Miscellany of clause types. ................................................................. 58. Figure 2.21.: Down-ranked clauses: Lexico-grammatical contexts. ........................ 60. Figure 2.22.: Clause complexes and down-ranked clauses. ..................................... 61. Figure 2.23.: Theme and information functions and their respective classes. .......... 63.

(18) xviii. Figure 2.24.: Simple and multiple Themes. .............................................................. 64. Figure 2.25.: Unmarked topical Theme per mood type. ........................................... 65. Figure 2.26.: Unmarked and marked topical Themes. .............................................. 66. Figure 2.27.: Realization and (un)markedness of equative Themes. ........................ 68. Figure 2.28.: Predicated and identifying topical Themes. ........................................ 68. Figure 2.29.: Simultaneity of the transitivity, mood, and theme structural layers. .. 69. Figure 2.30.: Aspects of entry conditions per lexico-grammatical system network. .................................................................................................................................... 71. Figure 2.31.: Topological layout of the lexico-grammatical networks. ................... 74. Figure 2.32.: Systemic graphic conventions. ............................................................ 76. Figure 2.33.: Theoretical concepts and illustrations of realization statements. ........ 79. Figure 2.34.: Transitivity system network. ............................................................... 84. Figure 2.35.: Mood system network. ........................................................................ 89. Figure 2.36.: Theme system network. ...................................................................... 93. Figure 2.37.: Review of the empirical rationale of Pilot Studies 1, 2, and 3. ........... 96. Figure 2.38.: Functional lexico-grammatical simplification and complexification categories. ................................................................................................................ 103. Chapter III Figure 3.1.: Ellis’s IL stage-1 semantically simplified + formulaic samples and respective categorizations. ....................................................................................... 153. Chapter IV Figure 4.1.: Proficiency level equivalence across ELCs. ........................................ 194 Figure 4.2.: Selected classes for group data collection per proficiency level and ELC. .......................................................................................................................... 196 Figure 4.3.: Complete ranking clause – CC (Clause 2-Subject 01 of A’s beginning spoken PN). ............................................................................................................... 205.

(19) xix. Figure 4.4.: LDP incomplete ranking clause – LDP (Clause 2-Subject 02 of B’s beginning written PE). .............................................................................................. 206 Figure 4.5.: Down-ranked-clause-related LDP incomplete ranking clause – DOWN-RANKED-CLAUSE-RELATED LDP (Clause 10-Informant 7 of A’s intermediate written G). ........................................................................................... 206 Figure 4.6.: LPP pseudoincomplete ranking clause – LPP (Clause 37-Subject 02 of B’s intermediate spoken D). ................................................................................. 206 Figure 4.7.: Down-ranked-clause-related LPP pseudoincomplete ranking clause – DOWN-RANKED-CLAUSE-RELATED LPP (Clause 93-Subject 01 of A’s advanced spoken T). ................................................................................................ 207 Figure 4.8.: Simplified deviant complete ranking clause – SDCC (Clause 17Subject 01 of B’s advanced written PN). .................................................................. 207 Figure 4.9.: Down-ranked-clause-related simplified deviant complete ranking clause – DOWN-RANKED-CLAUSE-RELATED SDCC (Clause 23-Subject 01 of A’s advanced spoken PN)..................................................................................... 208 Figure 4.10.: Definitive primary subjects for the longitudinal part of the study and respective identifications. ......................................................................................... 215 Figure 4.11.: Secondary subjects for the longitudinal part of the study with respective main profile aspects and identifications. ................................................. 217 Figure 4.12.: Tertiary subjects for the longitudinal part of the study with respective profile aspects and identifications. .......................................................... 218 Figure 4.13.: Timetable of the longitudinal collection and sizes of the primary corpora and subcorpora. ........................................................................................... 226 Figure 4.14.: Systemic categorization of the PE-register text produced at the first collection (Ct1) of the first stage (S1). ..................................................................... 231 Figure 4.15.: Systemic categorization of the PE-register text produced at the last collection (Ct6) of the last stage (S10). .................................................................... 232 Figure 4.16.: Systemic categorization of part of the PE-register text produced by SS5. .......................................................................................................................... 236 Figure 4.17.: Systemic categorization of part of the PN-register text produced by SS5. .......................................................................................................................... 237. Chapter V Figure 5.1.: Comparison between B’s beginning D and excerpts from the respective textbook. ................................................................................................. 260.

(20) xx. Figure 5.2.: C’s and D’s beginning D texts. ............................................................ 262 Figure 5.3.: B’s beginning spoken T. ...................................................................... 263 Figure 5.4.: Examples of simplifying and complexifying forces from D’s subjects’ spoken T. ................................................................................................... 265 Figure 5.5.: Samples from B’s beginning written G. ............................................... 267 Figure 5.6.: Samples from C’s and D’s written G. .................................................. 271 Figure 5.7.: A’s and B’s spoken D. ......................................................................... 278 Figure 5.8.: Examples of probable configurational fossilizations at the advanced proficiency level per ELC, medium, and register. ................................................... 292 Figure 5.9.: Comparison among the context-of-situation variables and their features across registers and media. ......................................................................... 298 Figure 5.10.: IL systemic developmental continuum for PE as to transitivity. ....... 304 Figure 5.11.: IL systemic developmental continuum for PN as to transitivity. ....... 305 Figure 5.12.: IL systemic developmental continuum for PE as to mood. ............... 306 Figure 5.13.: IL systemic developmental continuum for PN as to mood. ............... 307 Figure 5.14.: IL systemic developmental continuum for PE as to theme. ............... 308 Figure 5.15.: IL systemic developmental continuum for PN as to theme. .............. 309 Figure 5.16.: IL systemic developmental continuum for PE as to transitivity, mood, and theme simultaneously. ............................................................................ 310 Figure 5.17.: IL systemic developmental continuum for PN as to transitivity, mood, and theme simultaneously. ............................................................................ 311 Figure 5.18.: Number of transitivity delicacy scale levels present at the outset of IL1 per register. ........................................................................................................ 317 Figure 5.19.: Number of mood delicacy scale levels present at the outset of IL1 per register. ............................................................................................................... 317 Figure 5.20.: Number of theme delicacy scale levels present at the outset of IL1 per register. ............................................................................................................... 317 Figure 5.21.: Comparison between the numbers of effectively chosen transitivity systems and terms by the primary and secondary subjects and the totals of systems and terms within the transitivity system network as to PE. ..................................... 324.

(21) xxi. Figure 5.22.: Comparison between the numbers of effectively chosen mood systems and terms by the primary and secondary subjects and the totals of systems and terms within the mood system network as to PE. ............................................. 326 Figure 5.23.: Comparison between the numbers of effectively chosen theme systems and terms by the primary and secondary subjects and the totals of systems and terms within the theme system network as to PE. ............................................. 328 Figure 5.24.: Comparison between the numbers of effectively chosen transitivity systems and terms by the primary and secondary subjects and the totals of systems and terms within the transitivity system network as to PN. ..................................... 330 Figure 5.25.: Comparison between the numbers of effectively chosen mood systems and terms by the primary and secondary subjects and the totals of systems and terms within the mood system network as to PN. ............................................. 332 Figure 5.26.: Comparison between the numbers of effectively chosen theme systems and terms by the primary and secondary subjects and the totals of systems and terms within the theme system network as to PN. ............................................ 334 Figure 5.27.: Comparison between the numbers of effectively chosen simultaneous transitivity, mood, and theme systems and terms by the primary and secondary subjects and the simultaneous totals of systems and terms within the three system networks as to PE. ............................................................................... 336 Figure 5.28.: Comparison between the numbers of effectively chosen simultaneous transitivity, mood, and theme systems and terms by the primary and secondary subjects and the simultaneous totals of systems and terms within the three system networks as to PN. .............................................................................. 338 Figure 5.29.: Comparison among the ratings for comprehension, native-likeness, and grammatical accuracy by the tertiary subjects as to PE. ................................... 342 Figure 5.30.: Comparison among the ratings for comprehension, native-likeness, and grammatical accuracy by the tertiary subjects as to PN. ................................... 343 Figure 5.31.: Comparison among the average ratings for comprehension, nativelikeness, and grammatical accuracy by the tertiary subjects as to PE. .................... 345 Figure 5.32.: Comparison among the average ratings for comprehension, nativelikeness, and grammatical accuracy by the tertiary subjects as to PN. .................... 346 Figure 5.33.: Basis for the demarcation of the new PE proficiency levels. ............. 353 Figure 5.34.: Basis for the demarcation of the new PN proficiency levels. ............ 354 Figure 5.35.: Examples of configurational fossilizations at the advanced proficiency level per register and collection moment. ............................................. 368.

(22) xxii. LIST OF TABLES Chapter IV Table 4.1: C’s Proficiency Level Classification According to Accumulated ClassHours......................................................................................................................... 192 Table 4.2: A’s Proficiency Level Classification According to Accumulated ClassHours......................................................................................................................... 193 Table 4.3: B’s Proficiency Level Classification According to Accumulated ClassHours......................................................................................................................... 193 Table 4.4: D’s Proficiency Level Classification According to Accumulated ClassHours......................................................................................................................... 194 Table 4.5: A’s Academic Information ...................................................................... 211 Table 4.6: Individual and Collective Academic Achievement of All Participants in the Longitudinal Primary Data Collection ............................................................... 213 Table 4.7: A’s Proficiency Level Classification According to the Longitudinal Data Collections ...................................................................................................... 234. Chapter V Table 5.1: Total Numbers of Words in the Spoken and Written Texts per Proficiency Level, ELC, and Register ...................................................................... 241 Table 5.2: Simple Frequency Indices and Respective Percentages for Complete, Incomplete, Unanalyzable, and Net Total of Ranking Clauses per Medium, Proficiency Level, ELC, and Register ...................................................................... 244 Table 5.3: Results for the Beginning Proficiency Level per Register, Medium, and ELC .......................................................................................................................... 247 Table 5.4: Results for the Intermediate Proficiency Level per Register, Medium, and ELC ................................................................................................................... 249 Table 5.5: Results for the Advanced Proficiency Level per Register, Medium, and ELC .......................................................................................................................... 252 Table 5.6: Results for the Developmental Behavior of the Configurational Complexification Levels per Register, Medium, and ELC ....................................... 254 Table 5.7: Number of ILs per Register and System Network Separately and Simultaneously ......................................................................................................... 313 Table 5.8: Total Numbers of Words in the Primary-Corpus Texts per Register ...... 318.

(23) xxiii. Table 5.9: Absolute Numbers and Respective Simple Frequency Indices for the Relevant System Counts per Register, System Network, and Collection Moment ... 319 Table 5.10: Absolute Numbers and Respective Simple Frequency Indices for Other Relevant System Counts per Register and System Network ..................................... 320 Table 5.11: LH4-Related Results per System Network, Register, and Part of the Hypothesis ................................................................................................................ 321 Table 5.12: Quantities of Transitivity Systems and Terms (Non)Used by the Primary and Secondary Subjects as to PE in Relation to the Totals of Transitivity Systems and Terms ................................................................................................... 323 Table 5.13: Quantities of Mood Systems and Terms (Non)Used by the Primary and Secondary Subjects as to PE in Relation to the Totals of Mood Systems and Terms ........................................................................................................................ 325 Table 5.14: Quantities of Theme Systems and Terms (Non)Used by the Primary and Secondary Subjects as to PE in Relation to the Totals of Theme Systems and Terms ........................................................................................................................ 327 Table 5.15: Quantities of Transitivity Systems and Terms (Non)Used by the Primary and Secondary Subjects as to PN in Relation to the Totals of Transitivity Systems and Terms ................................................................................................... 329 Table 5.16: Quantities of Mood Systems and Terms (Non)Used by the Primary and Secondary Subjects as to the PN Register in Relation to the Totals of Mood Systems and Terms ................................................................................................... 331 Table 5.17: Quantities of Theme Systems and Terms (Non)Used by the Primary and Secondary Subjects as to PN in Relation to the Totals of Theme Systems and Terms ........................................................................................................................ 333 Table 5.18: Quantities of Transitivity, Mood, and Theme Systems and Terms (Non)Used by the Primary and Secondary Subjects as to PE in Relation to the Totals of Transitivity, Mood, and Theme Systems and Terms ................................. 335 Table 5.19: Quantities of Transitivity, Mood, and Theme Systems and Terms (Non)Used by the Primary and Secondary Subjects as to PN in Relation to the Totals of Transitivity, Mood, and Theme Systems and Terms ................................. 337 Table 5.20: Total Numbers of Words in the Primary-Corpus Texts per Proficiency Level and Register .................................................................................................... 347 Table 5.21: Simple Frequency Indices and Respective Percentages for Complete, Incomplete, and Total Ranking Clauses in the Primary-Corpus Texts per Proficiency Level and Register ................................................................................ 348 Table 5.22: Functional-Related Results Derived From the Primary Data as to the Configurational Complexification Levels per Proficiency Level and Register ....... 349.

(24) xxiv. Table 5.23: Functional-Related Results Derived From the Primary Data as to the Developmental Behavior of the Configurational Complexification Levels per Register .................................................................................................................... 350.

(25) xxv. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A .................................................................. English Language Center A A / adv .......................................................... advanced proficiency level AEC ............................................................. anaphorically elliptical clause B .................................................................. English Language Center B B / bign ........................................................ beginning proficiency level BS ................................................................ Bilingual Studies BSM ............................................................ Bilingual Syntax Measure C .................................................................. English Language Center C C(1,2,3,etc) .................................................. Clause 1, 2, 3, etc CBLL .......................................................... Content-based Language Learning CC ............................................................... complete clause CCA ............................................................ Classical Contrastive Analysis CDA ............................................................ Critical Discourse Analysis c-h ................................................................ class-hour(s) CSA1 (…) CSA6 ........................................ A’s Subject 1 (…) 6 (cross-sectional part of the study) CSB1 (…) CSB6 ......................................... B’s Subject 1 (…) 6 (cross-sectional part of the study) CSC1 (…) CSC6 ......................................... C’s Subject 1 (…) 6 (cross-sectional part of the study) CSD1 (…) CSD6 ........................................ D’s Subject 1 (…) 6 (cross-sectional part of the study) CSH(1,2,3,4) ............................................... Cross-Sectional Hypothesis 1, 2, 3, 4 Ct(1,2,3,4,5,6) ............................................. Collection Moment(1,2,3,4,5,6) D .................................................................. English Language Center D D .................................................................. Dialog register DCC ............................................................ deviant complete clause DM .............................................................. discourse marker DR ............................................................... Dialog report E .................................................................. English Language Center E E .................................................................. existential Process EA ............................................................... Error Analysis ECA ............................................................. Experimental Contrastive Analysis EEC ............................................................. exophorically elliptical clause EF ................................................................ Ensino Fundamental EFL .............................................................. English as a Foreign Language.

(26) xxvi. ELC ............................................................. English Language Center EM ............................................................... Ensino Médio ESL .............................................................. English as a Second Language F .................................................................. English Language Center F FCE ............................................................. Cambridge First Certificate Exam FL ................................................................ Foreign Language / L2 G .................................................................. Group register GD ............................................................... Group data IC ................................................................. incomplete clause IL ................................................................. interlanguage ILT .............................................................. interlanguage theory I / int ............................................................ intermediate proficiency level L1 ................................................................ mother tongue L2 ................................................................ second or foreign language LA1 ............................................................. A’s primary Subject 1 (longitudinal part of the study) LA2 ............................................................. A’s primary Subject 2 (longitudinal part of the study) LA3 ............................................................. A’s primary Subject 3 (longitudinal part of the study) LA4 ............................................................. A’s primary Subject 4 (longitudinal part of the study) LA5 ............................................................. A’s primary Subject 5 (longitudinal part of the study) LAD ............................................................ Language Acquisition Device LDP ............................................................. language development processes LPP .............................................................. language production processes LPS .............................................................. Latent Psychological Structure LSP .............................................................. Language for Specific Purposes M ................................................................. material Process MC .............................................................. minor clause Md ............................................................... mood system network ML ............................................................... mental Process NAD ............................................................ no available data NEAD .......................................................... not enough available data NFC ............................................................. nonfinite clause OT ............................................................... oral Test PE ................................................................ Personal-Experience register PLPE(1,2,3,4,5,6,7) ..................................... Proficiency Level(1,2,3,4,5,6,7) for the PE register.

(27) xxvii. PLPN(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) ................................. Proficiency Level(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) for the PN register PN ................................................................ Picture-Narrative register PS ................................................................ primary subjects PS1 .............................................................. Pilot Study 1 PS2 .............................................................. Pilot Study 2 PS3 .............................................................. Pilot Study 3 PS4 .............................................................. Pilot Study 4 R .................................................................. relational Process S .................................................................. spoken S(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) ................................. Stage(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) SDCC .......................................................... simplified deviant complete clause SFI(s) ........................................................... Simple Frequency Index (Indices) SFL .............................................................. Systemic-Functional Linguistics SFG ............................................................. Systemic-Functional Grammar SL ................................................................ Second Language / L2 SLA ............................................................. Second Language Acquisition SLD ............................................................. Second Language Development SS ................................................................ secondary subjects SS1 .............................................................. secondary Subject 1 (longitudinal part of the study) SS2 .............................................................. secondary Subject 2 (longitudinal part of the study) SS3 .............................................................. secondary Subject 3 (longitudinal part of the study) SS4 .............................................................. secondary Subject 4 (longitudinal part of the study) SS5 .............................................................. secondary Subject 5 (longitudinal part of the study) SS6 .............................................................. secondary Subject 6 (longitudinal part of the study) T .................................................................. Test register TC ................................................................ tertium comparationis Th ................................................................ theme system network TL ................................................................ Target Language / L2 Tr ................................................................. transitivity system network TS1 .............................................................. tertiary Subject 1 (longitudinal part of the study) TS2 .............................................................. tertiary Subject 2 (longitudinal part of the study) TS3 .............................................................. tertiary Subject 3 (longitudinal part of the study) UECE .......................................................... State University of Ceará UECE’s FLC ............................................... UECE’s Foreign Language Center.

(28) xxviii. UFC ............................................................. Federal University of Ceará V .................................................................. verbal Process VLC ............................................................. verbless clause W ................................................................. written WTC ............................................................ written Test composition ZPD ............................................................. Zone of Proximal Development.

(29) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION: THE RESEARCH. 1.1 Theoretical and empirical contextualization The theoretical contextualization behind the research reported on in this dissertation is twofold. It relies upon the areas of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. Insofar as Linguistics is concerned, the theoretical source is provided by both the systemic and the functional/configurational dimension that comprise the Hallidayan systemic-functional grammar-SFG. SFG, in turn, is represented – among many others – by mainly Halliday (1994a), Halliday and Matthiessen (2004), Matthiessen (1995), as well as Matthiessen and Halliday (1997). Inasmuch as Applied Linguistics is concerned, it is restricted to its subarea of Second Language Development-SLD. The subarea, in turn, remains within the limits of pure induced/classroom/instructed SLD 1 and its cognitivist interlanguage theory-ILT as proposed especially by Selinker (1972, 1992), Tarone (1979, 1982, 1983), and Ellis (1982a, 1982b, 1988, 1994a). On the one hand, SFG will serve the purposes of defining the interlanguage-IL lexico-grammatical simplification-complexification construct and of categorizing IL data. On the other hand, cognitivist ILT – through its central concepts of (non)discrete IL stages; IL developmental continuum along IL1, IL2, IL3, etc; fossilization; backsliding – will be the substrate upon which a preliminary SFG-based description of induced/classroom/instructed SLD will be propounded around the constructs of IL. 1. The terms ‘induced’, ‘classroom’, and ‘instructed’ are interchangeable. However, I will only adopt the first one in Subsection 5.3.1.4, where – in its Footnote 34 – the choice is justified. For the purerelated concept, see Section 3.1 and Subsection 3.2.2.1..

(30) 2. systemic and configurational/functional developmental continua under the perspective of lexico-grammatical simplification-complexification. Empirically speaking, what functioned as the research contextualization was four previously conducted cross-sectional pilot studies, namely PS1, PS2, PS3, and PS4 (see Figure 2.37 as well as Subsections 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.2, 2.3.2.3, & 2.3.2.4 for the reviews). The first three dealt with the configurational lexico-grammatical complexification level of the spoken and written IL produced, respectively, by advanced subjects from State University of Ceará-UECE and Federal University of Ceará-UFC, by intermediate subjects from English Language Center-ELC F, and by beginner subjects from ELC B. The data in all cases were composed of the register called personal-experience narratives-PE (see Chapter II for the definition of register). It was only in PS4 that the three proficiency levels were investigated simultaneously also as regards the configurational lexico-grammatical complexification levels of the spoken and written IL produced in a single ELC; two of them were included in the study: A and B. The data were made up not only by the PE register but also by four other registers called: (a) picture-story narratives-PN, (b) dialog-D, (c) testT, and (d) group-G. Concomitantly, the same type of data were collected at ELCs C and D as well. 2 The first four were furnished by subjects while the G register was provided by informants, an organizational difference that is duly clarified in Subsection 4.2.1. The four PSs had a common general objective, which was to preliminarily evaluate the suitability of SFG as an IL data categorization framework. PS4 – with the incorporation of ELCs C and D besides A and B – becomes the cross-sectional part of the current study. Since it leaves some relevant issues unresolved, I found it necessary. 2. For the description of the subjects and the ELCs, see Figure 2.37 in Subsection 2.3.2 and Subsection 4.2.1. As with the characterization of the registers, refer to Subsections 4.2.2 and 4.2.4..

(31) 3. to add a longitudinal part in which only written PE- and PN- register data were collected at ELC A.. 1.2 Theme and relevance Based on the theoretical and empirical contextualization of the research, its theme can be thus stated: a preliminary SFG-based description – from the viewpoint of the lexico-grammatical simplification-complexification construct – directed at the systemic and configurational developmental continua of a Portuguese/English IL rendered by pure classroom/instructed Brazilian EFL students. The description will attempt to cover issues like the discreteness of the IL stages and fossilization. The relevance to carry out such a piece of research is supported by the following arguments: 1. Relevant studies on classroom/instructed SLD are scarce. This scarcity can be attested in Ellis (1982a, 1982b, 1988, 1994a). 2. As regards longitudinal SLD studies, Doughty and Long (2003) assure that they are “. . . distressingly rare; the vast majority of SLA [Second Language Acquisition] studies are cross-sectional, with serious resulting limitations on the conclusions that can be drawn on some important issues” (p. 3). On the other hand, Lakshmanan and Selinker (2001) state that – in relation to the 1970s – there was a revival of the longitudinal type of SLD study in the 1990s. However, they find that the results of the neo-longitudinal studies may not be the most reliable because the data they used were those collected in the 1970s: One of the obvious disadvantages of using such data . . . is that in many instances only transcripts . . . are available. As such transcripts cannot be independently checked against the audio-recordings, and certainly interlanguage intentions are difficult to retrieve from such data, this could have led to an over-reliance on the interpretations provided by the original collectors of the data. (p. 394).

(32) 4. 3. Two longitudinal studies – within the classroom/instructed SLD subarea – related to the IL simplification-complexification continuum are: (a) Ellis (1982a, 1982b, 1988), which investigated only the semantic complexification of his subjects’ spoken English-based IL within the scope of only the beginning proficiency level in a secondlanguage setting as opposed to a foreign-language setting; and (b) Myles (2003), which investigated only the structural – lexis (range of lexical items, number of words and turns per data elicitation, number of words per turn) and grammar (range of verbs along with their argument structure) 3 – complexification of her subjects’ spoken French-based narrative IL also within the scope of only the beginning proficiency level in a foreignlanguage setting. Hence, there is a gap to be filled as regards a longitudinal study on the semantic. and. structural 4. (lexico-grammatical). continuum. of. English-based. classroom/instructed IL within the scope of the three proficiency levels – from beginning through advanced – in a foreign-language setting. 4. Ellis (1982a, 1982b, 1988) used as the theoretical criterion for data categorization, the adaptation of a model – case grammar – that is meant to account, according to his own interpretation in the 1982b paper, for the unordered elements of the semantic deep structure – “. . . the propositional structure of sentences” – in order to evidence the semantic functions of surface-structure utterances: The cases “. . . serve as coding categories for actual utterances and as such are listed in the same order that they occur in the different propositions they are used to describe” (p. 213) (see Subsection 3.2.2.3). I find it more appropriate to use a model that has been designed to account straightforwardly for surface-structure semantic and grammatical categories or roles (configurational functions), that is, Hallidayan SFG. Besides, Perrett (2000) makes the point that “[t]he theoretical framework of SFL [systemic-functional linguistics] and 3 4. The analytical categories in Myles (2003) comprise a partial view of structure. Under a holistic view of structure..