(Luận văn thạc sĩ) language of arguments used in the sample speaking performance of toeflibt

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING QUY NHON UNIVERSITY TẠ THỊ PHƯỞNG LANGUAGE OF ARGUMENTS USED IN THE SAMPLE SPEAKING PERFORMANCE h OF TOEFL IBT Field: English Linguistics Code: 8220201 Supervisor: NGŨ THIỆN HÙNG, Ph.D BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN TẠ THỊ PHƯỞNG NGÔN NGỮ TRANH LUẬN SỬ DỤNG TRONG CÁC BÀI NÓI MẪU CỦA TOEFL IBT h Chuyên ngành: Mã số: Ngôn ngữ Anh 8220201 Người hướng dẫn: TS NGŨ THIỆN HÙNG i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby certify my authorship that the Master thesis entitled “Language of arguments used in the sample speaking performance of TOEFL iBT” is entirely the result of my own research, except where otherwise referenced or acknowledged This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or diploma at any other institutions Binh Dinh, 2020 Tạ Thị Phưởng h ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Ngu Thien Hung for his patience, encouragement, valuable guidance and beneficial criticism throughout my research Without his great support, this thesis would not have been accomplished in time I am extremely grateful to all my lecturers who provided us with essential knowledge for this thesis Special thanks goes to my classmates who gave me their help during the time I conducted the study I would like to thank my school-board, my colleagues who spent their golden time encouraging me to this thesis Last but not least, I would like to express my special thanks to my h family, especially my parents and my husband who gave me unconditioned love and support, which is very significant for me to fulfill this work iii ABSTRACT This study aims to examine types and linguistic features of arguments in the speaking samples of TOEFL iBT test in order to help learners of TOEFL iBT have a better insight in studying this kind of language A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is applied to seek descriptive information of language of arguments Eighty speaking samples containing arguments collected aims at identifying arguments’ types and linguistic features of this kind of language The results reveals that both inductive and deductive arguments are employed in the TOEFL iBT speaking test In terms of semantic features, six process types are found in the arguments used by the test takers In terms of syntactic features, premises and conclusion of arguments are absolutely dominated by Declarative mood with the subject-finite position to indicate the role of the test takers and the h readers/listeners Regarding the use of clause types in terms of syntactic features, the findings show that different types of clauses are employed by the test takers with different rates It is hoped that the results of this study will provide useful knowledge of arguments in TOEFL iBT speaking and contribute to the teaching and learning of TOEFL iBT, especially for those who are interested in this kind of language iv TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 RATIONALE 1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES 1.2.1 Aim h 1.2.2 Objectives 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 ARGUMENT 2.1.1 Definition of argument 2.1.2 Classification of argument 2.2 TOEFL IBT TEST 2.3 SEMANTIC FEATURES OF LANGUAGE OF ARGUMENTS 2.3.1 Material process 10 2.3.2 Mental process 11 2.3.3 Relational process 12 v 2.3.4 Verbal process 13 2.3.5 Behavioural process 14 2.3.6 Existential process 14 2.3.7 Circumstances 15 2.4 SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF LANGUAGE OF ARGUMENTS 15 2.5 PREVIOUS STUDIES RELATED TO THE STUDY 19 2.6 SUMMARY 21 CHAPTER RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES 23 3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN 23 3.2 RESEARCH METHODS 23 3.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURES 24 3.4 DATA COLLECTION 24 3.4.1 Sampling 24 h 3.4.2 Method of sampling 25 3.4.3 Coding scheme 25 3.5 DATA ANALYSIS 25 3.6 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 26 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 27 4.1 TYPES OF ARGUMENTS 27 4.1.1 Deductive argument 28 4.1.2 Inductive argument 31 4.2 SEMANTIC FEATURES OF LANGUAGE OF ARGUMENTS 37 4.2.1 Semantic features of premises 37 4.2.2 Semantic features of conclusion 48 4.3 SYNTACTIC FEATURES OF LANGUAGE OF ARGUMENTS 52 4.3.1 Syntactic features of premises 54 4.3.2 Syntactic features of conclusion 68 vi CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 74 5.1 CONCLUSIONS 74 5.2 IMPLICATIONS 75 5.3 LIMITATIONS 76 5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 77 REFERENCES 78 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B h vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Adjunct Accom: Accompaniment AdjG: Adjective Group C: Compliment Cir: Circumstance Cloc: Locative Compliment Co: Object Compliment Cs: Subject Compliment F: Finite NG: Nominal Group O: Object Od: Direct Object Oi: Indirect Object Op: Prepositional Object P: Predicator Pro: Process S: Subject Sub: Subordinate clause h A: viii LIST OF TABLES Number Tables Page 2.1 Mood structure 18 4.1 Frequency of occurrence of type of arguments 27 4.2 Frequency of occurrence of process types of premises 38 4.3 Summary of processes found in premises 47 4.4 Frequency of occurrence of process types of conclusion 48 4.5 Summary of processes found in conclusion 52 4.6 The percentage of mood type in arguments 53 4.7 Summary of basic clause types and syntactic patterns of 67 the clause expressing premises h 4.8 Frequency of occurrence of clause types in conclusion 68 4.9 Summary of basic clause types and syntactic patterns of 72 the clause expressing conclusion