When Words Don’t Come Easy: An Investigation Of Factors Involved In The Acquisition Of English As A Third Language In Denmark And Greenland

When Words Don’t Come Easy – an investigation of factors involved in the acquisition of English as a third language in ...

Author: Camilla McCuiston & Stine Spellerberg

36 downloads 576 Views 6MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

When Words Don’t Come Easy

– an investigation of factors involved in the acquisition of English as a third language in Denmark and Greenland

MA thesis by Camilla McCuiston and Stine Spellerberg Supervisors: Bent Preisler, the English Degree Programme, Department of Culture and Identity Arne Poulsen, the Psychology Degree Programme, Department of Psychology and Educational Studies Roskilde University, October 2006 The main body of the thesis comprises 296,479 characters corresponding to 123.5 standard pages.

When WordsDon’t Come Easy

Regarding responsibility: As required, we will state who is primarily responsible for the individual parts of the report (not including introduction and conclusion). We would, however, like to stress that we consider this thesis report the product of a truly joint effort. Camilla McCuiston:

2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 3.1.1 (contents and limitations of the English test), 3.1.2, 3.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.5, 3.5.7, 3.5.9, 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5.

Stine Spellerberg:

2.2, 2.4, 3.1.1 (contents and limitations of the pupil questionnaire), 3.1.3, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.6, 3.5.8, 3.5.10, 4.2, 4.4 and 4.6.

Regarding number of characters and standard pages: According to the rules for thesis reports, as specified by Psychology at Roskilde University, tables and figures count for the number of characters that could have appeared within the space taken up by the tables and figures. Space used for tables and figures has therefore been measured and converted to an approximate number of characters. The maximum number of standard pages allowed for this report is 125. Front page design by Cecilie von Haffner, vonnov grafisk design (www.vonnov.dk)

i


Acknowledgements While giving a presentation on the English proficiency of bilingual pupils Professor Anne Holmen, Danish University of Education, unknowingly inspired us to write this thesis. We are most grateful for this inspiration and also wish to thank Professor Holmen for kindly providing us with the article version of her presentation prior to publication. Due to the empirical nature of our thesis, a great many people have one way or another been involved in the making of this thesis, for which we are very grateful. First of all, we wish to extend our warmest thanks to all pupils, teachers and schools who participated in our investigation. Without the time and effort provided by these individuals and institutions this thesis would not have been possible. Second, we wish to thank the donors who made it economically possible for us to conduct our investigation in Nuuk, Greenland. Without this support, we would most certainly not have been able to include Greenlandic respondents in our investigation. The donors in question are: the foundation Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond, the trust fund Garvermester C.W. Gerickes Legat and the Boards of Studies for Foreign Languages and for Psychology respectively. We furthermore wish to thank the Board of Studies for Foreign Languages for granting us five hours for statistical supervision by Gorm Hetmar, external lecturer, Psychology, Roskilde University. There are a number of people who have helped us with practical aspects of our thesis. Regarding the instruments of our investigation, we wish to thank Therese Hauge, Teaching Associate Professor, Roskilde University, for her invaluable advice in putting together an English test for our purpose. In relation to the test and the questionnaire, we wish to thank Eleonora Ketora Kristiane Jakobsen and Anne Katrine Brunk, Eskimology and Arctic Studies, University of Copenhagen, for kindly assisting us in translating glossaries of grammar terms and some other expressions into Greenlandic. With regard to assigning language scores, we wish to thank Professor Michael Fortescue, Department of General and Applied Linguistics, University of Copenhagen for his advice on the typology of Greenlandic; Thomas Olander, Ph.D., Department of East European Studies, University of Copenhagen, for his advice on Albanian typology and Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi, Ph.D. in linguistics from the Université de Montréal, for his expert advice on Somali typology. Finally, we wish to thank Hartmut Haberland, Associate Professor of German, Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University for his advice on the typology of Greenlandic, Albanian and Somali as well as his comments on and critique of the applied language distance measure.

Camilla McCuiston & Stine Spellerberg

Copenhagen, October 2006

ii


List of Tables Table 1:

Overview of English education in Denmark and Greenland………………………….

8

Table 2:

Language groups based on British Foreign Service allowances………………………

21

Table 3:

Language groups based on duration of intensive language courses…………………..

21

Table 4:

Number of L2 and L3 respondents in Copenhagen and Nuuk………………………...

51

List of Figures Schematic representation of the concept of motivation as it relates to learning English as an additional language………...……………………………………………………...

31

Figure 2:

Pie chart of country of birth for Copenhagen L3 learners………………………………

52

Figure 3:

Pie chart of citizenship for Copenhagen L3 learners…….……………………………...

53

Figure 4:

Pie chart of sense of nationality for Copenhagen L3 learners……………………..........

54

Figure 5:

Pie chart of sense of nationality for Nuuk L3 learners...………………………………..

55

Figure 6:

Pie chart of the L1s of Copenhagen L3 learners…………….…………………………..

56

Figure 7:

Overall test results for Copenhagen respondents……………..…………………………

57

Figure 8:

Test assessment for Copenhagen respondents…………………..………………………

58

Figure 9:

Average results for each English test task, Copenhagen………………………………..

59

Figure 10: Overall test results for Nuuk respondents…………………………………………….....

60

Figure 11: Test assessment for Nuuk respondents……………………………………………….....

60

Figure 12: Average results for each English test task, Nuuk…………………………………….....

61

Figure 13: Self-reported English writing skills……………………………………………………..

62

Figure 14: Self-reported English reading skills……………………………………………………..

62

Figure 15: Test score means of groups based on self-reported English writing skills………...........

63

Figure 16: Test score means of groups based on self-reported English reading skills……………..

63

Figure 17: Mother’s highest level of education………………………………………………….....

64

Figure 1:

iii


Figure 18: Father’s highest level of education………………………………………………...........

64

Figure 19: Whether or not respondents receive the help they want or need with homework……………….................................................................................................

65

Figure 20: Number of years of received L1 education for Copenhagen L3 learners……………….

68

Figure 21: L3 respondents’ active use of L1 (L1 spoken)………………………………………….

69

Figure 22: L3 respondents’ active use of L1 (L1 thought in)……………………………………....

69

Figure 23: Self-reported L1 writing skills…………………………………………………….........

70

Figure 24: Self-reported L1 reading skills………………………………………………………….

70

Figure 25: Self-reported L2 writing skills……………………………………………………..........

71

Figure 26: Self-reported L2 reading skills………………………………………………………….

71

Figure 27: The various situations in which respondents code-switch……………………………....

72

Figure 28: The various persons with whom respondents code-switch……………………………...

73

Figure 29: Language distance between English and the respondents’ L1s………………………....

75

Figure 30: The percentage of respondents for each language distance………………………..........

76

Figure 31: The psychotypology of L3 respondents………………………………………………....

77

Figure 32: Study habits……………………………………………………………………………..

81

Figure 33: Test score means for groups based on study habits………………………………..........

82

Figure 34: How important respondents believe their parents find it that they learn English……….

83

Figure 35: Test score means for respondent attitudes towards the English language………..…......

85

Figure 36: Respondent attitudes towards English as school subject…………………………..........

87

Figure 37: Test score means for groups based on the degree to which respondents find English easy or difficult………………………………………………………………………….

88

Figure 38: Test score means for groups based on the degree to which L3 learners find English rough or smooth…………………………………………………………………………

89

Figure 39: Respondent attitudes towards the English classroom situation…………………………

92

Figure 40: Like learning new languages……………………………………………………………

94

Figure 41: Visiting another country………………………………………………………………...

94

iv


Figure 42: Important to know other languages………………………………………………..........

94

Figure 43: Plan to stay in another country………………………………………………………….

94

Figure 44: Reasons why respondents think that learning English can be important to them………

96

Figure 45: Motivational orientation………………………………………………………………...

97

Figure 46: Persons with whom English is regularly spoken…………………………………..........

99

Figure 47: Situations in which English is regularly thought in……………………………….......... 100 Figure 48: How often films watched are in English………………………………………………... 101 Figure 49: Time spent watching films……………………………………........................................ 101 Figure 50: How often TV programmes are watched in English……………………………………

102

Figure 51: Time spent watching TV programmes…………………………………………….........

102

Figure 52: How often music in English is listened to………………………………………………

103

Figure 53: Time spent listening to music……………………………………………………...........

103

Figure 54: How often the internet is used in English……………………………………………….

104

Figure 55: Time spent on the internet………………………………………………………………

104

Figure 56: How often respondents read in English…………………………………………………

105

Figure 57: Time spent reading……………………………………………………………………...

105

Figure 58: Overall test score means by gender………………………………………………..........

107

Figure 59: I like English as school subject by gender: Copenhagen L2 learners…………………... 108 Figure 60: I like English as school subject by gender: Copenhagen L3 learners…………………... 108 Figure 61: I like English as school subject by gender: Nuuk L3 learners…………………….......... 109 Figure 62: English classroom anxiety by gender: Copenhagen L2 learners…………………..........

110

Figure 63: English classroom anxiety by gender: Copenhagen L3 learners…………………..........

110

Figure 64: English classroom anxiety by gender: Nuuk L3 learners……………………………….

110

v


Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Problem Definition.....................................................................................................................2 1.2 Motivation and field of interest..................................................................................................3 1.2.1 English in Denmark ............................................................................................................4 1.2.2 English in Greenland...........................................................................................................5 1.2.3 Denmark compared to Greenland .......................................................................................6 1.2.4 Target groups of the investigation ......................................................................................7 1.3 Definitions and delimitations .....................................................................................................8 1.4 Structure of the report ..............................................................................................................11

2. Theoretical Background .......................................................................................... 14 2.1 Second language acquisition versus third language acquisition ..............................................14 2.1.1 Linguistic interdependence ...............................................................................................16 2.1.2 Cross-linguistic influence .................................................................................................18 2.2 Typology and psychotypology.................................................................................................20 2.2.1 Typology ...........................................................................................................................21 2.2.2 Psychotypology.................................................................................................................24 2.3 Metalinguistic Awareness ........................................................................................................25 2.3.1 Metalinguistic knowledge .................................................................................................26 2.3.2 Metalinguistic abilities......................................................................................................26 2.3.3 Metalinguistic awareness ..................................................................................................26 2.4 Motivation................................................................................................................................30 2.4.1 Attitudes ............................................................................................................................31 2.4.2 Orientation ........................................................................................................................32 2.4.3 Anxiety..............................................................................................................................34 2.5 Usage and exposure .................................................................................................................35

3. The Empirical Investigation .................................................................................... 38 3.1 Methodological approach.........................................................................................................38 3.1.1 Instruments: Pupil questionnaire and English test ............................................................38 3.1.2 Instructions........................................................................................................................45 3.1.3 Interviews..........................................................................................................................45 3.2 Statistical method.....................................................................................................................46 3.3 Reliability and validity.............................................................................................................49 3.4 The respondents .......................................................................................................................50 3.4.1 Background variables........................................................................................................51

vi


3.5 Results......................................................................................................................................56 3.5.1 Copenhagen test results.....................................................................................................57 3.5.2 Nuuk test results................................................................................................................59 3.5.3 English literacy skills in relation to English test score .....................................................61 3.5.4 Socio-economic background.............................................................................................63 3.5.5 Analyses in relation to hypothesis A ................................................................................66 3.5.6 Analyses in relation to hypothesis B.................................................................................74 3.5.7 Analyses in relation to hypothesis C.................................................................................78 3.5.8 Analyses in relation to hypothesis D ................................................................................79 3.5.9 Analyses in relation to hypothesis E .................................................................................98 3.5.10 Additional findings .......................................................................................................107

4. Discussion.............................................................................................................. 112 4.1 Linguistic interdependence ....................................................................................................112 4.2 Typology and psychotypology...............................................................................................116 4.3 Metalinguistic knowledge ......................................................................................................118 4.4 Motivation..............................................................................................................................120 4.5 Usage of and exposure to English..........................................................................................122 4.6 Gender-based differences.......................................................................................................123 4.7 The importance of ensuring good English skills....................................................................124 4.8 Ensuring appropriate English skills for L3 learners in Denmark and Greenland ..................125

5. Conclusion............................................................................................................. 127 6. Resumé (Summary in Danish) .............................................................................. 131 7. Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 133 8. Appendices ............................................................................................................ 140 Appendix A: Questionnaire (DK version) Appendix B: Questionnaire (GL version) Appendix C: English test (including sources and correct answers) Appendix D: English test (DK version) Appendix E: English test (GL version) Appendix F: Interview I (in Danish) Appendix G: Interview II (in Danish) Appendix H: Statistical output

vii


________________________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction ________________________________________________________________________________ Although multilingualism is the reality of everyday life for the majority of people in the world, it is often believed that monolinguals outnumber multilinguals. Most countries in the world are in fact multilingual in the sense that more than one language is spoken natively within their borders. There are less than 200 independent countries in the world (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988), but the number of known living languages is close to 7,000 (Gordon, 2005). Some factors behind the growth of multilingualism are for instance migration, the presence of former colonial powers and the role of English as the world’s lingua franca (Jessner, 2006). English is the most widely used language in the world today. Although it is difficult to assess the exact number of English users, it is estimated that 370 million people are native speakers of English. Approximately the same number of people speak English as their second language or employ English as lingua franca for various purposes. Approximately 700 million people speak English as a foreign language (Brick-Hansen, 2002). English is increasingly used as the means of wider communication. It is the increasing power of the United States in particular that explains why English continues to be the most spoken language on a global scale. In the European context, English is becoming the European Union’s second language (Cenoz & Jessner, 2000). In comparison with other European countries, the English language has gained a particularly high status in the Netherlands, Belgium and Scandinavia. The high status of English can be explained by several factors including the small size of these countries, the dependence on international trade and the influence from British and American music, films and TV-programmes (which are not dubbed, but subtitled). Due to the increased spread and use of the English language, proficiency in English brings the promise of material gain, higher status and further prospects of mobility (Hofmann, 2000). Concurrently with the development of English as the lingua franca of today’s globalised world, it becomes important to examine the acquisition processes of English as it is highly likely that these matters will become increasingly pertinent in the future. As monolinguals cannot be considered the

1


norm in an increasingly multilingual world, it is relevant to investigate possible differences between monolingual and bilingual groups’ experiences of learning English. As stated by Bialystok, there are differences between language learning for mono- and bilinguals, as “[m]onolingual and bilingual children move in different cognitive worlds, experience different linguistic environments, and are challenged to communicate using different resources, remaining sensitive to different abstract dimensions” (Bilaystok, 2001: 88). A comparison of the experiences of monolinguals and bilinguals acquiring English will shed light on factors that may hinder or further the acquisition of a new language. This thesis will concern an empirical investigation of possible factors involved in the acquisition of English for pupils in Copenhagen, Denmark and Nuuk, Greenland. The focus will be on the acquisition of English as a third language in the two cities, but a monolingual group in Copenhagen will serve as a control group. By comparing monolingual pupils in Copenhagen with bilingual pupils in Copenhagen and Nuuk, it becomes possible to investigate how learning English as a third language differs from learning English as a second language. By comparing pupils across the two countries, it is possible to discuss how learning English in a monolingual versus a bilingual context may influence the acquisition process.

1.1 Problem Definition Through their experiences of learning more than one language, bilinguals supposedly acquire more language learning strategies than monolinguals. In theory, these strategies make bilinguals better language learners than monolinguals. Moreover, in comparison to monolinguals, bilingual learners’ metalinguistic awareness ought to be enhanced, facilitating the acquisition of additional languages. Bilingual groups of pupils in Denmark who are immigrants or descendents thereof seem to be an example of these theoretical claims not always holding true. In this thesis, we wish to examine whether bilingual pupils learning English as a third language in Copenhagen and Nuuk are advantaged compared to monolinguals learning English as a second language. This will be done by examining how monolinguals and bilinguals differ in their acquisition of English. By comparing monolingual and bilingual groups’ linguistic backgrounds, experiences, motivation and proficiency in English, we hope to uncover possible explanations for the successful or unsuccessful acquisition of English as a third language. The main question of our thesis is as follows: •

What factors are pertinent to the successful acquisition of English as a third language?

2


In order to answer our main question, we will examine some of the factors that are considered important in third language acquisition guided by the following questions: a)

What role does linguistic interdependence play in the acquisition of English as a third language?

b)

How does typological distance between the first language and English affect the acquisition of English as a third language?

c)

How does metalinguistic knowledge affect the level of English proficiency?

d)

How is motivation for learning English related to level of English proficiency?

e)

Is usage of and exposure to English outside the formal language learning context related to the respondents’ level of English proficiency?

1.2 Motivation and field of interest Research suggests that bilinguals are advantaged in learning additional languages in comparison to their monolingual counterparts (e.g. Peal & Lambert, 1962; Thomas, 1988). In Denmark, however, it appears that bilingual minority pupils have difficulties learning English. A recent investigation by Denmark’s Evaluation Institute (EVA, 2003) shows that an easily discernible group of pupils who lag behind in their English skills are minority pupils who come from homes in which other languages than Danish or English is spoken. The investigation concludes that there is a considerable variation in the minority pupils’ English proficiency: “A disproportionately large group performs considerably below average whereas a smaller group is at the upper third or fourth. Thus there are trends towards an educational A and B team for this “foreign language” group” (Alabau et al., 2002: 114). While bilingualism is generally considered to be an advantage when learning additional languages, this does not seem to hold true for linguistic minority pupils in Denmark. One explanation that has been offered as to why bilingual pupils may experience difficulties in learning English is that the

3


pupils lack cognitive capacity. As English is their third language, the acquisition of English demands brain capacity that is already ‘in demand’ by the first two languages. However, as Holmen suggests, this explanation does not correspond with knowledge on third language acquisition: Tanken om, at elevers problemer med at lære et nyt sprog skyldes kapacitetsproblemer i hjernen, kan forekomme umiddelbart logisk for den person, der er vokset op med ét sprog, og som selv har oplevet det hårde arbejde forbundet med at udvikle en sikker beherskelse af et fremmedsprog. Tanken stemmer imidlertid meget dårligt med vores viden om, hvordan sprogtilegnelse finder sted. Ifølge denne burde det være en fordel at være tosproget ved mødet med skolens første fremmedsprog, fordi man qua sin tosprogethed har flere erfaringer med sprog og sprogtilegnelse. (Holmen, 2006: 35)

Thus, other factors than cognitive issues must lie at the root of the minority groups’ poor performance in English. As outlined above, there is a contradiction between theory, namely that bilinguals should be advantaged in learning additional languages compared to monolinguals, and reality, that bilingual pupils in Denmark are less successful in their acquisition of English than their monolingual peers. It is this contradiction between theory and reality that has motivated us to write this thesis.

1.2.1 English in Denmark In a small country such as Denmark, the national language, Danish, is more or less only employed within the country’s national borders. In order to communicate with the outside world, other languages have to come into play. Languages such as German or French, for instance, could fulfil this communication purpose, but more recently ‘other languages’ is more or less equal to the English language as English has become the lingua franca of international communication. In 1937, English and German were introduced as school subjects in the Danish Folkeskole 1 for pupils in the cities. Pupils in rural areas were not offered the same opportunity for learning foreign languages until 1958. During the same year, English became compulsory from year six. In 1988, it was proposed that Danish pupils should start learning English in year four. The proposal was adopted in 1994, and English became compulsory from year four (Skovgaard-Petersen, 2002). Although the teaching of English was given higher priority in the shape of teaching hours over the

1

Municipal primary and lower-secondary school.

4


years, Denmark still did not prioritise English as much as the other Nordic countries, or the rest of Europe for that matter. In most of these countries, pupils began learning English at an earlier age, often at the age of eight or nine (Brick-Hansen, 2002). In Denmark, this did not happen until 2004 when pupils began receiving English education from year three (Danish Ministry of Education, 2000). Although there are spheres of Danish society where English is neither used nor valued, this is the language which – besides Danish – appears to be generally valued in Denmark. This can be seen through the increasing influence from English in Danish and the increasing use of English in particular domains, for instance in higher education and business (Preisler, 2003). It is a general assumption or claim in Danish society that Danes’ level of English is very high. While this is the case for some Danes, it is a fact that many Danes only have basic skills in English, and others are not able to communicate in English. The assumption that all Danes speak English, combined with the fact that many do, leads to the expectation that pupils already have basic skills in English before they begin their formal English education in year four (Holmen, 2006; Preisler, 1999). This is a problem for those pupils who do not have prior knowledge of English as they are behind from the very first lesson. While there will be a small number of pupils who are not motivated or able to learn English, there are others who are able but simply never receive the help necessary to catch up. The gap between those who have and those who do not have prior knowledge of English is considerable and it seems that teachers are not able to accommodate these various levels of English skills in their teaching.

1.2.2 English in Greenland In Greenland, learning Danish has for many years perhaps overshadowed the importance of learning English as a result of the Danish colonisation of Greenland (from 1721-1979) (Bro, 1993). If Greenlanders wished to educate themselves beyond the nine compulsory years in the Greenlandic Folkeskole, they often had to go to Denmark in order to do so, which is partly still the case today. In 1976, the National Congress of Greenland discussed whether or not English should be part of the Folkeskole curriculum (Jensen, 1977). It was decided that English should be offered, and since 1980 English could be offered from year seven till nine, whilst it must be offered in year ten and eleven (Greenland Home Rule, 1979). English became compulsory from year seven till nine in 1988

5


(Greenland Home Rule, 1988). Today, year ten pupils in the Greenlandic Fokeskole have received English education from year seven, while the amount of English education has been extended for the younger generations. In Greenland, English is recognised as being an important means of communication with the world outside of Greenland and Denmark. Greenlanders realise that if they wish to be independent of Denmark, their former colonial power, they need to direct their attention towards the international community, and this requires a certain level of English skills. Language policy and independency of Denmark are very sensitive subjects in Greenland. An argument in favour of English taking the place of Danish, which is taught as the first foreign language in the Greenlandic Folkeskole today, is that English can lead to independency of Denmark and strengthen internationalisation, including business developments (Gad, 2004).

1.2.3 Denmark compared to Greenland Denmark and Greenland are part of the same kingdom, which entails a number of similar conditions. For our purpose, these similarities concern the school system, the use of Danish in many contexts (including school) and the importance placed on English as foreign language. Although English is defined as a foreign language with no official status in both Denmark and Greenland, the importance of learning English is recognised in both countries. As Preisler explains with regards to Denmark: As a school subject, English is highly prestigious as a key to participation in the internationalization process. The importance of learning English is recognized even by those whose knowledge of English is limited or nonexistent (the English-have-nots), though the latter are made to experience some of the problems of the functionally illiterate by the increasing use of English words and passages in Danish texts (Preisler, 2003: 109).

Apart from the mentioned similarities, there are also linguistic differences between Denmark and Greenland. Greenland, and Nuuk in particular, is to a large degree a bilingual society. Pupils either learn Danish or Greenlandic as their first language, they sometimes learn Danish or Greenlandic as their second language (some do not) and English as their second or third language. Thus, the Greenlandic learner of English as a third language lives in a bilingual community where Greenlandic and Danish is spoken by most. In comparison, Denmark is mainly a monolingual

6


society, although English is gradually changing status from a foreign to a second language – at least for the majority of the younger generation of ethnic Danes. In Denmark, there is an immigrant population representing a broad range of minority languages such as Turkish, Arabic and Albanian. Immigrant pupils often learn Danish as their second language (some regard Danish as their first) and English as their third language. For the immigrant pupils, English remains a foreign rather than a second language, as they are less exposed to English prior to commencement of formal English instruction (Holmen, 2006). Thus, the learner of English as a third language in Denmark lives in a country where the majority is monolingual, and where bi- or multilinguals have a wide range of different mother tongues. In summation, pupils learning English as a third language in Nuuk and Copenhagen have the following in common: they have Danish as their first or second language and are in the process of learning English as a foreign language in a similar school context.

1.2.4 Target groups of the investigation Our chosen target group is pupils in their last year of compulsory schooling. In Denmark, these pupils are year nine pupils. As Danish year nine pupils correspond to year ten pupils in Greenland, regarding age and number of years of education, our target group in Nuuk is year ten pupils. Danish year nine and Greenlandic year ten pupils are in their final years of the common educational system, the Folkeskole. Therefore, the English education our target groups have received is what the general populations in Denmark and Greenland receive as a minimum. We have chosen to carry out our investigation in the capitals of Denmark and Greenland. Copenhagen has the largest concentration of bilingual Folkeskole pupils in Denmark and Nuuk is simply the only city in Greenland with a sufficient population size for our purpose. Education is compulsory for nine years in both Denmark and Greenland, starting from the year the child turns six in Greenland and the year the child turns seven in Denmark. The majority of children attend Folkeskole, public school. The Danish Folkeskole comprises an optional pre-school year, nine compulsory years and an optional tenth year. Although optional, 98% of all children attend the pre-school year (Danish Ministry of Education, 2002). As illustrated in Table 1, the Copenhagen pupils have received English lessons from year four onwards and have three English lessons per week in year nine. The Nuuk pupils receive education according to the so-called ‘old regulations’, namely the home rule parliament’s regulations concerning the Folkeskole from 1997 (Greenland Home Rule, 1997).

7


Age

Denmark Greenland English English Year Lessons/week Year lessons/week

Pre-school class

2 3 3 3 3 3

6 0 1 7 2 8 3 9 Primary 4 10 and lower 5 11 secondary 6 12 education 7 13 8 14 9 Target group 15 One school lesson = 45 minutes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 8 3 9 3 10 3/4* * Ordinary/extended

Table 1: Overview of English education in Denmark and Greenland

In appliance with the ‘old regulations’, the Nuuk pupils are in their fourth year of English education. From year seven till nine all pupils have three English lessons per week. Following the old regulations, pupils choose between two curriculum tracks in year ten and eleven: ordinary and extended. Although the school does give recommendations as to which track the individual pupil is best suited for, it is ultimately the parents’ decision. The chosen track affects the amount of English teaching as year ten classes following the ordinary track have three English lessons per week, whereas year ten extended classes have four English lessons per week. Furthermore, for year ten pupils following the ordinary track English is not a compulsory school subject. In practice, however, most year ten pupils following the ordinary track (in Nuuk at least) have English.

1.3 Definitions and delimitations Second and third language acquisition are often complex matters to investigate as many scholars use similar terms for different phenomena or different terms for the same phenomena. Scholars often refer to bilinguals as individuals who are proficient in at least two languages, but they disagree on when bilinguals can in fact be considered bilingual. Some claim that in order to be considered bilingual one needs to be equally proficient, or at least close to, in both of one’s languages, whereas others believe that knowing a few utterances in the second language is sufficient. These differing positions have brought about a number of attempts to propose accurate definitions of bilinguals such as coordinate bilinguals, compound bilinguals, ambilinguals, semilinguals, or even double semilinguals. In spite of all these attempts there is no widely accepted

8


definition of the concept of bilingualism. Perhaps Bialystok describes the problems of defining bilingualism best: … bilingualism is not a categorical variable. Any assignment of children to a group labeled either bilingual or monolingual is an obfuscation of the complexity of the concept of bilingualism and a diminishment of the intricacy of children’s language skills. Bilingualism is not like age, or gender, or grade, or any of the usual variables we use to classify children in developmental research. At best, bilingualism is a scale, moving from virtually no awareness that other languages exist to complete fluency in two languages. At what point on this scale do we declare children to be bilingual? How do we conduct research on the impact of a variable that we struggle to define? (Bialystok, 2001: 8)

We will not enter into the debate on how various terms should be defined or redefined as we recognise that it is difficult if not impossible to appropriately define bilingualism and thus bilinguals. At the same time, it seems questionable to employ the term ‘bilingualism’ without defining its meaning. As we are unable to judge to what extent our respondents can be considered bilingual, we will leave it to the pupils in our investigation to group themselves. If the pupils state English as their third language, we will consider them bilingual as they have already acquired two languages and are in the process of learning English as their third. If the pupils state English as their second language, we consider them monolingual as these pupils have acquired one language and are in the process of learning their second. Thus, ‘bilingual’ in this thesis refers to an individual who believes that he or she knows two languages (besides English) irrespective of the individual’s proficiency level in these two languages. ‘Monolingual’, on the other hand, refers to someone who feels that he or she knows one language (besides English). The common denominator for monolingual and bilingual individuals is that each of them have a mother tongue. Defining a mother tongue, however, may be complicated. According to SkutnabbKangas (1988), a mother tongue can be defined in various ways. A mother tongue can be defined according to ‘origin’, ‘competence’, ‘function’ and ‘identification’. Origin refers to the language or languages one acquired first. Competence refers to the language or languages one knows best and function refers to the language or languages one uses most. Identification can be internal, meaning the language or languages one identifies with, or external, meaning the language or languages one is identified as a native speaker of by others. When our respondents state their mother tongue, they may have either of these definitions in mind or perhaps a combination of two or more of them. For

9


instance, a Copenhagen respondent may feel that Danish is the language he or she knows best, but still decide to state Turkish as his or her mother tongue as this is the language that he or she acquired first and identifies with internally and/or externally. By the same token, a respondent in Nuuk may have learnt Greenlandic first, but state Danish as his or her mother tongue as this is the language he or she uses most. In relation to her definitions of mother tongue, Skutnabb-Kangas suggests that a person can have more than one mother tongue depending on how it is defined and that a person’s mother tongue can change several times during his or her lifetime. It is plausible that some of our respondents in Nuuk, for instance, have both Greenlandic and Danish as their mother tongue or have changed mother tongues in order to accommodate educational and social needs (having Danish teachers and classmates, for instance). As one’s mother tongue is a personal matter, we have asked the respondents in our investigation to state the language they consider their mother tongue as to make sure that it is their perceptions that are reflected in their answers. The drawback of this approach is of course that we cannot be sure which of the definitions the respondents have in mind when stating their mother tongue. According to Seeberg (1995), for instance, many minority pupils in Denmark who have a different mother tongue than Danish often consider this language their first language even if they are better at their second language, Danish. In accordance with current terminology, we will henceforth refer to the participants’ various languages as L1 (first language/mother tongue), L2 (second language) and L3 (third language). For the most part, we will refer to our respondents as L2 learners and L3 learners. L2 learners denote respondents who have Danish as their L1 and are in the process of learning English as their L2, while L3 learners denote respondents with various L1s and L2s who are in the process of learning English as their L3. Our reason for referring to our respondents as learners is to emphasise that they are in the process of learning English. We will occasionally also use the terms ‘monolingual’ and ‘bilingual’, for instance when making general statements concerning the differences between having one or two languages when learning an additional language. While we refer to the respondents as learners, we will use the terms learning and acquisition interchangeably, although some scholars differentiate between the two. Krashen (1981), for instance, defines learning as involving a conscious awareness of language rules, while acquisition takes place as a result of participating in authentic communication. We recognise that there is a

10


difference between Krashen’s definitions, but we do not necessarily agree with his strict use of the terms. In summary, the following terms will be used throughout the report: L1:

first language (mother tongue)

L2:

second language

L3:

third language

L2 learner:

learner in the process of learning English as L2

L3 learner:

learner in the process of learning English as L3

A thesis with the presented field of interest could take many directions. One could focus on pedagogical issues, social conditions, issues of intelligence and aptitude or the relationship between language and identity. While realising that these issues are important and relevant matters, we will refrain from treating them in the present thesis. Although these issues will not form a great part of this report, they may be touched upon if this proves relevant. Our focus is on English as a third language and our respondents’ acquisition of and attitudes towards learning English, which we will examine through an empirical investigation.

1.4 Structure of the report The report is overall structured according to questions a to e in our problem definition. Guided by these questions, theoretical aspects and previous research are presented, resulting in hypotheses A to E. The hypotheses, in turn, guide the analyses as well as the discussion of the results of our investigation. Each hypothesis will be confirmed or rejected through statistical analyses. By tying in the questions in the introduction with the hypotheses in the theoretical framework and the analyses of the results, we seek to create coherence throughout the report. In chapter 2, we will discuss essential theories and previous research relevant to our investigation. The purpose of the chapter is to create a theoretical framework within which to discuss our findings. First, some vital differences between second and third language acquisition will be outlined in order to demonstrate the complexity involved in third language acquisition. Second, we will present theories concerning linguistic interdependence, metalinguistic awareness, cross-linguistic influence,

11


typology, psychotypology and motivation as all these factors are said to influence the acquisition of a third language. In presenting linguistic interdependence, we will focus on how a language learner’s various languages may affect the acquisition of an additional language as suggested by Cummins in his ‘developmental interdependence’ hypothesis. Subsequently, the concept of crosslinguistic influence will be introduced. We have not examined this matter thoroughly in our investigation and thus will only give a brief presentation of the concept. The theoretical claims put forward concerning linguistic interdependence and cross-linguistic influence will be clarified by providing examples of previous research that show how languages may interact and influence one another. In presenting language typology, we will mainly employ Chiswick & Millers’ linguistic distance measure as a way of measuring how typological differences between a language learner’s L1 and English may affect the acquisition of English. Concerning psychotypology, we will use Kellerman who was the first to differentiate between ‘actual’ and perceived typological distance. The theories concerning typology and psychotypology will be supported by research examples. Subsequently to presenting linguistic and typological matters, we will attend to metalinguistic issues by employing Bialystok’s theory of metalinguistic awareness and the operational aspects involved. We will distinguish between metalinguistic knowledge, metalinguistic abilities and metalinguistic awareness. Motivational factors will be attended to next, primarily as defined by Gardner and Lambert. We will present various aspects of motivation such as attitudes towards learning, the desire to learn and the motivational orientation of learning. We will also include anxiety in the classroom situation as anxiety is seen as interrelated with motivational factors. Finally, we will deal with usage of and exposure to a target language. Although we find it evident that these two factors may affect target language achievement, and perhaps for this very reason, we have not come across L3 acquisition theory which goes into details about the role played by usage and exposure. Nonetheless, we will include usage and exposure as we expect that these factors influence the acquisition of a target language.

12


In chapter 3, we will present the methodological approach to our empirical investigation as well as the instruments used (questionnaire and English test) and the instructions given to the respondents. We will also present the statistical method that will be employed in the analysis of our results and discuss the reliability and validity of the present investigation. Subsequently, the respondents in the investigation will be introduced by delineating relevant background variables. The results of our investigation will then be presented. As one may come across findings one did not expect, we will include additional findings that are relevant to the investigation although not borne out of our hypotheses. In chapter 4, we will discuss the results of the investigation in relation to our theoretical framework. Each hypothesis and problematic issues concerning our method will be discussed and we will consider how one could have yielded different results in an investigation of this kind. In chapter 5, our final conclusion will be presented. The questions posed in our problem definition will be answered based on our theoretical framework and the results of our investigation. Finally, we will answer our main question concerning factors pertinent to the successful acquisition of English as a third language.

13


________________________________________________________________________________

2. Theoretical Background ________________________________________________________________________________ In this section, we will outline some of the significant factors in acquiring a new language, paying special attention to the factors involved in third language acquisition.

2.1 Second language acquisition versus third language acquisition Language learning is generally a complex matter due to numerous factors involved that may either hinder or further the acquisition process depending on prevailing circumstances. As three languages are involved in third language acquisition, more factors come into play in this process than in first or second language learning. The more languages involved, the more complex the subject matter. Although second language acquisition is fairly well-explored in linguistics, third language acquisition is of rather new research interest, suggesting that further investigation is needed to identify the specific characteristics of processing several languages. Scholars generally agree that certain similarities between second and third language acquisition exist, but it is often emphasised that the two acquisition processes differ in complexity: One of the main (and obvious) characteristics of TLA [third language acquisition] in contrast to SLA [second language acquisition] which has been pointed out in studies concentrating on the differences between SLA and TLA is the greater complexity of TLA. Because of the enormous number of factors involved in SLA it is regarded as a complex process per se […] and can be approached from psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and educational perspectives (Jessner, 2006: 16).

A third language evidently adds to the complexity of language acquisition as the individual factors involved in the acquisition process are manifold. In second language acquisition, the L2 can be acquired after the L1, L1 → L2, or simultaneously, L1 + L2. However, in third language acquisition, at least four acquisition orders are possible as identified by Cenoz (2000): 1. The learner acquires all three languages consecutively, L1 → L2 → L3 2. The learner acquires all three languages simultaneously, L1 + L2 + L3 3. The learner acquires two languages simultaneously after the acquisition of the L1, L1 → L2 + L3 4. The learner acquires L1 and L2 simultaneously before learning the L3, L1 + L2 → L3

14


The acquisition process may not necessarily be continuous as it is possible that the process can be interrupted, for instance by the acquisition of another language, and later resumed (for instance L1 → L2 → L3 → L2). This possible interruption and resuming can occur with all three languages involved. When including the contexts in which language learning can take place, the complexity increases even further. The contexts in which language acquisition takes place are either naturalistic or formal, or a combination of both (Jessner, 2006). If we apply the possible acquisition orders and the possible contexts of acquisition to our respondents, it becomes evident that the conditions for language learning differ for L2 learners and L3 learners. The L2 learners in our investigation have acquired their two languages consecutively. They have started by learning Danish at home, a naturalistic context, and later at school, a formal context. At the time of our investigation, they are in the process of learning English formally at school. The L3 learners in our investigation have either acquired all of their three languages consecutively (L1 → L2 → L3), or they have acquired their L1 and L2 simultaneously before learning their L3 (L1 + L2 → L3). In Copenhagen, the L3 learners have all learnt Danish both in a formal and in a naturalistic context. Whether or not they have acquired their other language in a formal as well as a naturalistic context differs as not all respondents have received mother tongue education (supplement tuition in the foreign language pupil’s mother tongue). In Nuuk, all respondents have received L1 and L2 education at school (Danish and Greenlandic) if they have attended school in Nuuk. Some of the Nuuk respondents may come from small settlements where they perhaps have only had limited formal instruction in Danish and not used the language in a naturalistic context. Common to all our respondents, however, is that they are receiving formal instruction in English, at school, and that they have not acquired this language in a naturalistic context. In second language acquisition research it is often assumed that the bilingual language learner’s L1 is the dominant language and the L2 is the weaker language. This is not always true for multilinguals and may not apply to our respondents. The chronological order of the languages one acquires does not necessarily correspond to the dominance of these languages. In other words, the language one learns first is not necessarily the language one considers one’s L1 (Jessner, 2006; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988).

15


2.1.1 Linguistic interdependence There appears to be a consensus among scholars that the language learner’s various languages are interdependent and may influence one another (e.g. Ringbom, 1987; Cenoz, 2003; Herdina & Jessner, 2002). The acquisition of additional languages results in a qualitative change for the language learner due to the fact that “as the whole psycholinguistic system adapts to meet new psychological and social requirements, it also changes its nature” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002: 92). These qualitative changes are more pronounced in L3 learners than L2 learners as they have an additional language influencing their linguistic system. In third language acquisition one needs to consider the relationship between L1 and L2, as in second language acquisition, and furthermore that between L1 and L3 and that between L2 and L3. When the language learner acquires a new language, he or she develops new skills that become part of his or her linguistic repertoire and affect the overall linguistic system by creating new links and relationships. The linguistic system becomes restructured which results in the development of additional skills and learning techniques deriving from the language learner’s previous language-learning experience (Herdina & Jessner, 2002). This assumption has been developed by Cummins (1979) in his ‘developmental interdependence’ hypothesis. Cummins states that a learner’s competence or proficiency in his or her L2 is partly dependent on the level of proficiency already achieved in the L1. As learners are able to transfer skills from their L1 to their L2 there is an important relationship between the L1 and the L2. If the learner’s L1 proficiency is highly developed, this will positively affect the acquisition of the L2, whereas if the L1 proficiency is poorly developed this will influence the acquisition of the L2 negatively. Although Cummins focuses on the relationship between the L1 and the L2, we believe that his hypothesis can be extended to also include L3. As a language learner’s various languages supposedly interact and influence one another, we suggest that L1 and/or L2 proficiency may also affect L3 proficiency. Some studies have detected a relationship between L3 learners’ languages, although focusing on differing aspects. One study that investigates the possible interaction between a language learner’s languages was conducted by Thomas (1988). Thomas reported that formal education in L1 and L2 may prove important in relation to L3 proficiency. In her study, college students bilingual in English and Spanish outperformed monolingual English students when learning French in a formal context. Her results indicate that students with prior knowledge of Spanish performed significantly better than their monolingual counterparts on vocabulary (recognition of cognates) and grammar

16


tests (selecting a grammatically appropriate closure for a sentence stem). Moreover, the data show that the ten English-Spanish bilingual students who reported that they had received at least two years of formal instruction in Spanish (biliterate bilinguals) performed significantly better on the grammar test than did the six English-Spanish bilingual students who reported that they came from a Spanish-speaking or a bilingual home, but had never received formal instruction in Spanish (monoliterate bilinguals). Thomas’s results not only support the notion that bilinguals have a facility for learning an additional language, they also indicate that formal instruction in the language learners’ related languages may enhance metalinguistic awareness and eventually overall language proficiency. However, one should keep in mind that Thomas’s conclusions are based on only 16 bilingual and ten monolingual college students. If Thomas’s findings apply to the target groups of our investigation, the respondents who have received extensive formal instruction in their L1 and/or L2 will have a higher level of English proficiency than respondents who have received little formal instruction in their L1 and/or L2. A study that examines an aspect of the relationship between L1 proficiency and L3 proficiency was conducted by Swain et al. (1990). In this study, Swain et al. investigate the role that heritage language literacy plays in relation to L3 acquisition and proficiency. 16 MSSB 2 grade 8 classes were included in the study and 319 pupils participated in all. Results reveal that literacy in the L1 (heritage language) has a strong positive impact on learning French as an L3 in a bilingual school programme, whereas L1 use without literacy has little effect. Therefore, being literate in one’s L1 is supposed to have a positive effect on L3 acquisition. Another aspect of the influence of the L1 on L3 proficiency was reported in a Swedish investigation from 1982 conducted by Balke-Aurell & Lindblad (cited in Mägiste, 1984). This nation-wide investigation compares year eight immigrant pupils (N=2,736) with Swedish monolingual pupils (N=67,162) in relation to English proficiency. Results indicate that immigrant pupils who always use Swedish at home but have a passive knowledge of their L1 performed better in English than Swedish monolingual pupils. Those immigrant pupils who use their L1 actively on a daily basis performed slightly poorer in English than Swedish monolingual pupils. Thus, passive bilingualism (passive use of the L1) appears to facilitate the acquisition of an L3, while active bilingualism 2

MSSB (Metropolitan Separate School Board) is a bilingual programme in Toronto. The MSSB initially instruct the pupils through English, but from grade 5 the pupils are given instruction in English half of the school day, while instruction is given in French for the other half of the school day.

17


(active daily use of the L1) may delay the acquisition of a third language. Mägiste explains the findings as being a consequence of interference (the concept of interference will be elaborated in 2.1.2): It appears that a potential for interference increases with the number of languages a student knows. A language that is known only passively does not give rise to interference in the same sense. On the contrary, passive command of a language means that the student has acquired the technique of learning another language, which obviously improves the learning of additional languages. (Mägiste, 1984: 420)

By focusing primarily on one language while knowing the other language latently, pupils achieve positive transfer effects. The investigation is not only interesting because it shows that active or passive L1 use may affect L3 proficiency; it is also relevant to the present thesis as results derive from a large-scale investigation carried out among pupils of a similar age group to the respondents in our investigation. As suggested by the results from the three investigations above, the languages already acquired by a language learner may influence the acquisition of a third language. The mechanisms that are at play when languages interact and influence one another are overall referred to as cross-linguistic influence.

2.1.2 Cross-linguistic influence Cross-linguistic influence occurs during both second and third language acquisition. Scholars disagree about the features involved in cross-linguistic influence and how to define them. Crosslinguistic influence includes features or phenomena such as transfer, interference and codeswitching. Transfer involves incorporating elements from one language to another. In case of similarities between language structures, transfer is assumed to have a positive influence on language acquisition. While transfer is seen as having a positive influence on the acquisition process, interference is often characterised as its negative counterpart. Interference can be defined as the involuntary influence of one language on the other (Grosjean, 1982: 299). As opposed to transfer and interference, borrowing and code-switching are generally considered conscious learning strategies. Borrowing can be described as a learning strategy used by language learners as for instance borrowing content words from another language in order to bridge a lexical gap. Code-

18


switching can be defined as the alternate use of two or more languages in the same utterance or conversation and may involve a word, a phrase or a whole sentence. Code-switching may also occur between language styles or dialects, but for our purpose, it is code-switching between languages that is of relevance. Code-switching differs from borrowing as the switched element is not integrated phonologically and morphologically. Code-switching is a common characteristic of bilingual speech and is often used as a verbal communicative strategy to convey linguistic and social information and ultimately as a marker of group membership. The social situation and the speaker’s own purposes are therefore determining factors in code-switching (Trudgill, 1974). In a study by Normann Jørgensen (2002), results show that bilingual pupils who are considered best at Danish (as evaluated by adult native Danes) are those pupils who code-switch most. It should be noted that although the results are only based on ten pupils, more than 100 adults evaluated the spoken Danish of these ten pupils. If code-switching can be considered relevant in relation to L2 proficiency (as in Normann Jørgensen’s study), we believe that code-switching may also prove relevant in relation to L3 proficiency. In our investigation, we will therefore seek to determine whether there is a positive relationship between the extent of code-switching and the level of English proficiency. Several factors may predict and influence cross-linguistic influence one of which is proficiency level. There appears to be a consensus among researchers that transfer is more likely to occur at lower levels of proficiency. One possible explanation for this is that language learners often draw on their L1 when lacking the linguistic means to express themselves in their L2 or L3. The more proficient the language learner is in his or her L2 or L3, the less he or she perhaps needs to draw on the L1. Studies have also reported that older language learners may transfer more elements from their other languages to their L3 than younger language learners. Cenoz (2001) conducted a study including 90 school children (year two, six and nine) of different L1 backgrounds (Basque or Spanish) who had had four years of L3 English instruction. Results indicate that older children are more likely to transfer elements from their L1 and L2 to their L3, despite the fact that they are more proficient in English than the younger children. Cenoz explains the differences between the older and younger children’s performance as a result of a higher metalinguistic awareness (metalinguistic awareness will be elaborated in 2.3) among the older children, which makes transfer possible. Thus, in the case of third language acquisition, proficiency level in all of the language learner’s languages may prove relevant in relation to cross-linguistic influence.

19


We have illustrated how a language learner’s languages may interact and influence one another and how cross-linguistic influence may affect the acquisition process. On the basis of these various factors it becomes relevant to investigate aspects of our respondents’ already acquired languages in relation to their acquisition of English. We will seek to determine whether their level of English proficiency may be related to the languages they already know and therefore propose the following hypothesis, corresponding to question a in our problem definition: Hypothesis A: Linguistic interdependence Linguistic interdependence of the respondents’ languages will influence the respondents’ level of proficiency in English. Level of English proficiency

Linguistic interdependence

2.2 Typology and psychotypology Linguistic interdependence and cross-linguistic influence are important factors in the acquisition of additional languages and are highly dependent on typological and psychotypological matters. While language typology refers to the classification of languages based on grammatical structure, linguistic lineage etc., psychotypology refers to the individual language learner’s perception of linguistic distance between his or her languages. The latter term originates from Kellerman, who states that psychotypology can act as a constrainer or trigger of transfer (Kellerman, 1983). He later argues for using the term cross-linguistic influence, an overall term for interaction between the multilingual’s languages, rather than transfer, as terms such as transfer, interference and facilitation have negative or positive connotations, which imply unnecessary value judgments regarding psycholinguistic processes (Kellerman, 1987). Typology and psychotypology are considered influential factors in the choice of source language concerning cross-linguistic influence (for instance whether a language learner draws on the L1 or L2 in the production of L3). Language learners tend to borrow more terms from the language that is typologically closer to the target language or the language that is perceived as typologically closer to the target language.

20


2.2.1 Typology Language typology is a complex matter as there are so many elements involved in language taxonomy, e.g. lexicon, phonology, morphology, word order, alphabet, written versus spoken forms, linguistic lineage etc. Perhaps it is for this reason that language typology is most often described in terms of linguistic lineage, as in the extensive encyclopaedia Ethnologue: Languages of the World (Gordon, 2005). While Ethnologue provides impressive amounts of information on each of the World’s 6,912 known living languages, i.e. number of speakers, location, literacy rates, use in schools, religion, dialect names, to mention a few, the only linguistic typological information provided is the linguistic lineage and, only for some languages, word order and perhaps syllable patterns. However, linguistic lineage, i.e. family trees, does not necessarily say much about the differences and similarities between various languages. And the alternative in relation to describing differences and similarities between languages is a complicated and laborious task, namely comparing languages according to the many different elements of language. Consequently, it is no wonder that “[a]lthough linguists are familiar with the concept of the distance among the myriad characteristics of languages, the prevailing view is that it cannot be measured or quantified” (Chiswick & Miller, 2005: 8). Nevertheless, some quantifications of language distance can be found. As reported by Corder (1982), British Foreign Service agents have been paid language learning allowances for set periods of time based on a scale of ‘supposed or actually experienced difficulty in learning different groups of languages’. Similarly, intensive language courses offered by the U.S. Foreign Service Institute, through which personnel should attain high levels of proficiency, have differing durations, indicating a measure of difficulty in learning certain languages (Odlin, 1989 in Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994). US Foreign Service Institute

British Foreign Service Allowance

Languages

Lower

Danish, German and Spanish

Intermediate

Polish, Russian, Persian, Turkish

Higher

Japanese, Burmese, Chinese, Korean

Weeks 20

Italian, German, Spanish, French

24

Dutch, Afrikaans, Swedish, Danish, Rumanian, Norwegian, Portuguese Malay, Indonesian

32 44

Table 2: Language groups based on British Foreign Service allowances (Corder, 1982: 95).

Languages

Serbo-Croatian, Russian, Bulgarian, Burmese, Bengali, Arabic, Urdu Turkish, Thai, Amharic, Polish, Filipino, Finnish, Hungarian, Hindi, Hebrew, Dari, Japanese, Chinese, Czech, Lao, Korean, Greek

Table 3: Language groups based on duration of intensive language courses (Odlin, 1989 in Bialystok & Hakuta, 1994: 34).

21


These ‘measures’ or indications of the difficulties for English-speaking people in learning can be seen in Table 2 and Table 3. Languages that appear in both tables have been marked in bold. In fact, there seems to be agreement between the two ‘measures’ if one considers the ‘lower allowance’ languages to correspond to the languages set to take 20 and 24 weeks to learn and if one considers the ‘intermediate’ and ‘higher allowance’ languages to correspond to the languages set to take 44 weeks to learn. While the reported language groupings based on the time it takes native English speakers to learn them are interesting, they are difficult to utilise. However, we have come across a measure of linguistic distance proposed by Chiswick & Miller (2005). As language typology is an important factor in the acquisition of additional languages, including English as a third language, it is inspiring to have found a measure of linguistic distance between English and a range of other languages. The linguistic distance measure put forward by Chiswick & Miller (2005) is based on the difficulty Americans have learning particular languages. In practice, the average abilities of Americans learning 43 different languages after 16 and 24 weeks of foreign language training have been measured through a standardised proficiency test. Based on the various target language groups’ test results, each language has been assigned a language score (LS) indicating how difficult it is for Americans to learn that particular language. The language scores range from ‘1’, difficult to learn, to ‘3’, easy to learn, with .25 intervals. For example, Japanese has a score of 1 and Afrikaans a score of 3, indicating that for an American, learning Afrikaans is very easy whereas learning Japanese is very difficult. The difficulty of learning the foreign language, measured as LS, is thought to indicate linguistic distance (LD). The linguistic distance measure used by Chiswick & Miller is the inverse of the linguistic score, meaning that LD=1/LS. Thus, the higher the LD, the more difficult it is to learn the target language. For instance, the LD between English and Afrikaans is 0.33 while it is 1.0 between English and Japanese. The validity of the linguistic distance measure has been tested by Chiswick & Miller in relation to the English proficiency of immigrants in America and Canada. Results show that the measure is statistically significant when other relevant variables are the same, i.e. years of schooling, age, time spent in the target language country etc. Their results indicate that the higher the LD between an immigrant’s L1 and English, the more difficult it is and the longer it takes for the immigrant to learn English. Apart from the 43 languages originally on the language score list, more languages have

22


been assigned language scores and added to the list based on their closeness to languages already on the list. We find the presented quantitative measure of linguistic distance most relevant in relation to our investigation, as typological differences may well explain varying levels of English proficiency amongst our respondents. It should be noted, however, that we find some aspects of the language distance measure problematic. First of all, the data on which the measure is based is to be found in an unpublished article by Hart-Gonzalez & Lindemann, making it impossible to know the number of participants and exactly how language scores have been assigned. Secondly, many other languages have been added to the list based on the judgment of a single linguist, rather than being based on data similar to the data used for the original language distance measure. This latter point seems to contradict the whole purpose of creating language distance measures based on actual data as opposed to being based on e.g. linguistic lineage. A final note of caution applies not to the distance measure itself, but to the transferability of it to our chosen contexts, Copenhagen and Nuuk. The language distance measure is based on data from a very different context, namely Americans learning a range of different languages, meaning that it may not be directly transferable to the context of our investigation. Despite the mentioned matters of critique and caution, we will apply the linguistic distance measure in our analyses. In a study by Ringbom (1987), the acquisition of English for Swedish and Finnish speaking Finns is compared. Regarding the acquisition of English for learners with typologically related as opposed to typologically unrelated L1s, Finland is an interesting setting due to the homogeneity of speakers in terms of educational and cultural factors. At the same time there are great typological differences between the L1s, Finnish and Swedish, which are the two main language groups. Finnish is structurally very different from English (and Swedish), whereas Swedish is structurally similar to English. For these reasons, a project concerning the learning of English for Finnish- and Swedishspeaking Finns, English being their common L3, was launched by the Department of English, Åbo Academy, in the 1970s. The findings of the project were reported by Ringbom (1987). What makes Ringbom’s study relevant to the present thesis is the focus on the acquisition of English as an L3 for learners of typologically unrelated L1s. Ringbom’s study is particularly relevant in relation to the Nuuk context, which can be said to be very similar to that of Finland in terms of the typological differences of the involved languages, whereas the Copenhagen context is somewhat different, due

23


to the expected larger variety of L1s. Ringbom reports that the typological distance plays a great role in the acquisition of English as a third language as cross-linguistic influence proves “overwhelmingly facilitative” for the Swedish-speaking Finns. However, he also notes that the L1 exerts a stronger influence on the acquisition of English in the early stages of learning than in the later stages. In fact, it appears that while the L1 has great influence in the early stages, no differences in English proficiency are found amongst university students on account of their L1, although this observation is based on reports by university staff rather than an actual investigation. Concerning the differences for the two language learner groups, Ringbom concludes that: The difference between learning a related and an unrelated language is primarily a difference between much overt cross-linguistic influence based on perceived similarities vs. little or no overt cross-linguistic influence: a question of “transfer” vs. lack of transfer. Cross-linguistic influence based on perceived similarities is overwhelmingly “positive transfer”, not “negative transfer” (Ringbom, 1987: 109).

Based on Ringbom’s findings, we can expect to find differences in the acquisition of English in our investigation. Not only is the ‘actual’ typological distance between English and the L3 learner’s L1 a major factor in the acquisition process, the distance as perceived by the L3 learner is also of importance.

2.2.2 Psychotypology Regarding psychotypology, Kellerman (1983) argues that in cases of typological closeness between the language learner’s L1 and L2, cross-linguistic influence can be expected due to cognate forms and structures between the two languages. In contrast, typological distance between L1 and L2 can act as a bar to cross-linguistic influence through lack of similar forms and structures. Moreover, where there is a discrepancy between the typological distance and the psychotypological distance between a language learner’s languages, the learner may make erroneous transfer between his or her languages. Correspondence between typological and psychotypological distance, on the other hand, will result in positive transfer. This corresponds with the view of other scholars, who consider psychotypology to be a determining factor in cross-linguistic influence (e.g. Bouvy, 2000; Cenoz & Jessner, 2000; Cenoz, 2001; Ringbom, 2001).

24


According to Cenoz (2001), older children advance more quickly than younger children in the first stages of L2 acquisition based on psychotypological reasons as they have a more accurate perception of linguistic distance. As psychotypology may affect the L3 learner’s successful acquisition of a third language, we wish to include this in our investigation. A discrepancy between the language learner’s psychotypology and the typological distance between his or her languages may imply that the learner does not have a high level of metalinguistic awareness as this would enable him or her to judge the typological distance between his or her languages appropriately. The fact that language learners tend to borrow more terms from the language that is typologically closer or is perceived to be closer to the target language will not be investigated. Rather, we will examine whether typology in terms of language distance between L1 and English and psychotypology are related to English proficiency. Based on the supposed significance of typology and psychotypology in language learning we propose the following hypothesis, corresponding to question b in our problem definition: Hypothesis B: Typology The typological distance between the respondents’ L1 and English will influence the respondents’ level of proficiency in English. Typological distance between L1 and English

Level of English proficiency

Although typological distance between languages and psychotypology may play a vital role in third language acquisition, other factors may have an impact on the language learner’s acquisition process as well. One of those factors is metalinguistic awareness which scholars believe is enhanced in L3 learners due to their previous language learning experience.

2.3 Metalinguistic Awareness It is commonly assumed that metalinguistic awareness is a special type of language performance that is cognitively demanding. Although scholars often attribute metalinguistic awareness

25


importance in the discussion of research results, few attempt to specify what metalinguistic awareness entails, its function and its development. The term ‘metalinguistic’ is used as a qualifier for at least three different entities: knowledge, ability and awareness (Bialystok, 2001).

2.3.1 Metalinguistic knowledge Metalinguistic knowledge is related to linguistic knowledge. The difference between the two is the level of generality at which rules are presented. If these rules, for instance, involve a structure of a particular language (such as word order in Danish or past tense in English), they are related to linguistic knowledge. Metalinguistic knowledge, on the other hand, refers to knowledge of abstract principles of language that are distinct from knowledge of a particular language: “Hence, metalinguistic knowledge minimally needs to include the abstract structure of language that organizes sets of linguistic rules without being directly instantiated in any of them. This would include insights such as canonical word order and productive morphological patterns” (Bialystok, 2001: 123-124). Thus, when one possesses metalinguistic knowledge, one has a general knowledge of language irrespective of specific linguistic structures.

2.3.2 Metalinguistic abilities Metalinguistic ability can be described as the capacity to use knowledge about language as opposed to the ability to use language. Metalinguistic abilities can be observed in children as young as two years of age when they are capable of self-correction of word form, word order and pronunciation, show concern about the proper word choice, pronunciation and style, and comment on other’s use of language (Jessner, 2006).

2.3.3 Metalinguistic awareness Metalinguistic awareness is language use involving its own properties and structure. “Metalinguistic awareness may be defined as an individual’s ability to focus attention on language as an object in and of itself, to reflect upon language, and to evaluate it” (Thomas, 1992: 531). Metalinguistic awareness is a trait of both monolingual and bilingual linguistic behaviours, and is thus not restricted to bilinguals, although it has been identified as one of the domains in which bilinguals distinguish themselves from their monolingual peers.

26


According to Bialystok, metalinguistic awareness is related to language processing. Language processing depends on two processing components, which she refers to as ‘analysis of linguistic knowledge’ and ‘control of linguistic processing’ (Bialystok, 1991: 116). These components can be considered the metalinguistic dimensions of language processing. The two components are each responsible for one aspect of language and its development. The analysis component is in charge of the changes occurring in the language learner’s mental representation of language. These mental representations develop into more structured, more explicit and more interconnected representations as the language learner becomes more experienced. Representation refers to both knowledge and the structure of knowledge as well as to the relation between a symbol and its referent. Representations referring to knowledge and its structure are organised around meanings and uses and help language learners organise their knowledge of the world (Bialystok, 1991). Bialystok’s second processing component, the control component, is responsible for selecting information from a representation and directing attention to that information in real time. This component is claimed to be central to language proficiency. “Processing is always selective, and control of linguistic processing is the process of selecting, with or without awareness, the information that will be attended to in the solution to a problem” (Bialystok, 1991: 119). As the language learner’s proficiency increases, his or her selective attention improves. The more complex language uses are, the more demanding strategies for controlling is needed by the language learner. The language learner’s advances in language proficiency are contingent upon the two processing components. Whether or not language learners complete tasks successfully is influenced by their ability to analyse linguistic representations and to control the processing. Language learners will advance through language uses as their mastery of the two processing components improve. “The two processing components are considered to be the mechanisms by which language proficiency improves through age, experience, and instruction. They are also the mechanisms that are responsible for a language learner’s ability to carry out various language functions” (Bialystok, 1991: 116). More language learning experience thus results in enhanced language proficiency, and higher levels of analysis and control make learners capable of solving more complicated problems, including metalinguistic problems.

27


According to Bialystok (2001), ‘metalinguistic’ refers to a group of tasks or language uses characterised by requiring a relatively high demand for analysis of linguistic knowledge and/or a relatively high demand for control of linguistic processing. When language learners demonstrate an ability to focus on language forms, they are regarded as possessing metalinguistic awareness. When language learners are performing a task classified as metalinguistic, they are demonstrating metalinguistic ability. Metalinguistic tasks differ from each other in the extent to which each of the two processing components is involved in the solution to the task. Some metalinguistic tasks require a high demand of analysis, some a high demand of control and some a high demand of both. Because of the potential contingency between analysis and control, the context resting primarily on analysis must be considered earlier in the progression than those resting more strongly on control. Hence, the development would be from metalinguistic knowledge to metalinguistic ability, culminating finally in metalinguistic awareness. (Bialystok, 2001: 133)

In other words, language use begins to involve more metalinguistic knowledge as the demands for analysis increase and language use begins to involve more metalinguistic ability and metalinguistic awareness as the demands for control increase. According to Bialystok (1991), proficiency in two languages results in increasing levels of analysis and control such that solving increasingly demanding problems becomes possible: The very experience of learning to read in a second language, to switch languages when addressing different speakers, to have completely different systems for expressing such notions as past tense, bestow upon the bilingual child the opportunity to make rapid advances in their mastery of the two processing components that underlie all language use across the domains. (Bialystok, 1991: 134-135)

Although bilingual children solve metalinguistic problems in a similar manner to monolingual children, they may be advantaged in these types of tasks as they often possess advanced levels of control due to prior language learning experience. However, this does not hold true for all bilingual children, but their linguistic systems do differ from the linguistic systems of their monolingual counterparts:

28


There are no universal advantages, nor are there universal liabilities in being bilingual. But processing systems developed to serve two linguistic systems are necessarily different from the same processing systems that operate in the service of only one. Bilingual children, then, ultimately and inevitably process language differently from monolingual children. (Bialystok, 1991: 138-139)

We have included Bialystok here as she is the only scholar we have come across who describes the operational processes involved in metalinguistic awareness. In order to investigate the possible enhanced metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals when learning an L3, theoretical frameworks need to be expanded to also include metalinguistic awareness for L3 learners and for various age groups. Research on metalinguistic awareness in L3 learners is often based on young children or adults (for instance, the examples provided by Bialystok more or less all include children under or around the age of six). We have not been able to obtain studies investigating older children’s or adolescents’ metalinguistic awareness in relation to L3 proficiency. Such studies would certainly have been useful and might have made it possible to investigate metalinguistic knowledge in a more thorough manner, as well as perhaps making it possible to investigate the construct of metalinguistic awareness. Metalinguistic awareness, which is often reported as enhanced in multilinguals, may play a significant and facilitating role in the acquisition of additional languages. Developing pupils’ metalinguistic awareness may increase the potential advantage of knowing two languages when acquiring a third. The respondents’ metalinguistic knowledge will be examined in our investigation through questions concerning general linguistic principles. The L3 learners in our investigation ought to possess a higher level of metalinguistic knowledge than the L2 learners due to their prior language learning experience. We believe that there may be a relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and target language proficiency. It seems reasonable to suggest that the more knowledge one has about general linguistic principles, the better one would be able to apply these principles in the acquisition of an additional language. One could also argue that a high level of proficiency in a target language may enhance a language learner’s ability to theorise about his or her languages. Nevertheless, we expect that the respondents’ level of metalinguistic knowledge influences their level of English proficiency as presented in the hypothesis below, corresponding to question c in our problem definition:

29


Hypothesis C: Metalinguistic knowledge There is a relationship between the respondents’ level of metalinguistic knowledge and the respondents’ level of proficiency in English. Level of metalinguistic knowledge


While interdependence, typology and metalinguistic knowledge are factors that are highly language-based, other factors relevant to language acquisition are mainly learner-based. One such learner-based factor is motivation.

2.4 Motivation Based on language learning studies carried out over a twelve year period, Gardner & Lambert (1972) propose a sociopsychological theory of second and foreign language learning based on the notion that “the successful learner of a second language must be psychologically prepared to adopt various aspects of behaviour which characterize members of another linguistic-cultural group” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972: 3). In other words, the acquisition of an additional language is seen as more than simply the acquisition of a set of new verbal habits. Gardner (1985) elaborates this view by stating that the learning of additional languages differs from the learning of other subjects, as the language learning task not only requires learning aspects of another language but also requires incorporating elements from another culture. “[S]tudents are not asked simply to learn about the language; they are required to learn the language, to take it in, as it were, and make it part of their behavioural repertoire” (Gardner, 1985: 6). Therefore, it is argued, the learner’s motivation for learning the target language is dependent upon attitudes towards the other linguistic group as well as on the kind of goal the learner has for learning the other language. Regarding motivation, Gardner & Lambert (1972) distinguish between motivational intensity, the effort exerted to learn the language, and motivational orientation, the goal of learning the language. Besides a goal and effortful behaviour, Gardner (1985) adds a desire to attain the goal and favourable attitudes towards the activity as further aspects of motivation (Gardner, 1985: 50). None of these four aspects reflect motivation in and of themselves, rather, motivation is defined 1) as

30


including three components: want, effort and affect and 2) as being goal-directed (Gardner, 1985: 10-11). This is illustrated in the schematic representation in Figure 1 of motivation in relation to learning English as an additional language:

Attitudes towards learning English (affect) Goal Desire (want)

Motivational intensity (effort)

To learn

Learning English is important to me because …

Figure 1: Schematic representation of the concept of motivation as it relates to learning English as an additional language (adapted and modified from Gardner, 1985)

This definition of motivation (want, effort and affect) makes it possible to distinguish between motivation and orientation, the goal of the language learning process. In relation to our investigation, we will not measure the degree of the respondents’ desire (want) to learn English, but we will ask the respondents whether or not they have a desire to learn English. Furthermore, we will ask them how they consider English in relation to other school subjects. If they prefer English over other subjects, this will be taken to reflect a desire for and positive attitude towards learning English. Regarding homework, a seemingly obvious way of measuring effort, it has been shown in the Danish context that year nine pupils’ amount of time spent on homework had a negative relationship to their achievement in English (Alabau et al., 2002; EVA, 2003). We will ask the respondents in our investigation whether they feel that they study more, the same or less than their classmates and see how this relates to their achievement.

2.4.1 Attitudes From an operational point of view, Gardner defines an individual’s attitude as: “an evaluative reaction to some referent or attitude object, inferred on the basis of the individual’s beliefs or

31


opinions about the referent” [italics in original] (Gardner, 1985: 9). In relation to the acquisition of additional languages, the referent or attitude object is defined as 1) learning the language and 2) the other-language community. Furthermore, attitudes differ in specificity and generality depending on the concreteness or abstractness of the referent. Thus, learning English is a relatively specific referent, whereas learning languages as such is considerably more general. While attitudes towards learning the target language have consistently been related to achievement, attitudes towards the other-language community have shown a more variable set of relationships (Gardner, 1985). Regarding children learning additional languages at school, Gardner & Lambert (1972) proved a strong relationship between parents’ and children’s attitudes. This, they claim, suggests that attitudes are developed in the home; perhaps even before language training starts. In one of the twelve studies Gardner & Lambert (1972) base their theory on, the Philippine Study, English is the target language. In this study, participants are asked about their attitudes towards Americans in order to elicit their attitudes towards the other linguistic-cultural group. However, we feel that asking respondents in our investigation about attitudes towards Americans would not suffice in eliciting their attitudes towards native L1 speakers of English. With the status of English as the main lingua franca and with the wide range of native Englishes spoken it is difficult, if not impossible, to define the other linguistic-cultural group, as this is in fact numerous linguisticcultural groups. Rather than asking the respondents in our investigation about their attitudes towards English-speaking people, we will ask them about their attitudes towards the English language, making the referent or attitude object in our investigation the English language itself. As a second referent, we will ask about language learning in general.

2.4.2 Orientation The language learner’s orientation towards learning the target language is defined as integrative or instrumental. The integrative orientation reflects a desire to learn about the other cultural group through knowing their language and emphasises a desire for integration, a willingness to become a member of another ethnolinguistic group. The instrumental orientation, on the other hand, indicates utilitarian reasons for learning the language and is characterised by a desire to achieve social and/or economic advantages through knowledge of the target language.

32


The contrast we have drawn, then, has at one extreme an integratively oriented learner who in considering the learning task is oriented principally towards representatives of a novel and interesting ethnolinguistic community, people with whom he would like to develop personal ties. At the other extreme the instrumentally oriented language learner is interested mainly in using the cultural group and their language as an instrument of personal satisfaction, with few signs of an interest in the other people per se. (Gardner & Lambert, 1972: 14-15)

Krashen (1981) adds that the integratively oriented learner wishes to meet social needs through acquisition of the target language, whereas the instrumentally oriented learner wishes to meet communicative needs. Furthermore, he claims that the learner ‘fossilises’, stops acquiring the language, when his or her needs are met. While the integrative orientation is generally related to target language achievement, the instrumental orientation may also be a predictor of achievement, particularly where there is a vital need to master the target language. In fact the instrumental orientation may be a stronger predictor of target language achievement if the target language is needed in order to e.g. undertake further studies, enhance job opportunities etc. (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Krashen (1981) argues that when the practical value of the target language is high and frequent use is necessary, then instrumental orientation may be a powerful predictor of target language acquisition. He furthermore states that the positive effect of integrative orientation appears to be weaker in situations where opportunities to get intake outside the classroom are rare. Thus, one cannot expect to find a relationship between motivational intensity and motivational orientation as integratively and instrumentally oriented language learners may be equally intense in their language learning efforts, depending on the setting and what the individual can gain through knowledge of the target language. Nevertheless, Gardner & Lambert claim that an integratively oriented learner may be better motivated as this orientation is more likely to maintain the long-term effort necessary to master an additional language: … motivations such as need for achievement or a fear of failure seem appropriate for shortterm goals such as passing a language course, but seem insufficient to account for the persistence needed in the laborious and time-consuming task of developing real competence in a new language. (Gardner & Lambert, 1972: 12)

The usefulness of the integrative/instrumental distinction has been disputed. For instance, Baker (1992) states that the two types of orientation can exist in the same individual at the same time as

33


they are not necessarily opposites. However, he further notes that the relationship between the integrative orientation and target language achievement has been established, although the degree of the relationship is relatively small. Baker concludes that “[t]he integrative attitude is one ingredient amongst many in the recipe for second language success” (Baker, 1992: 35). As for the effect of the language learner’s motivation for learning the language including attitudes towards the language on his or her level of proficiency, Bialystok & Hakuta (1994) conclude that this factor has a modest but persistent effect. With the special status of English in Europe, in between a foreign and a second language, we are curious to see how the concepts of integrative and instrumental orientation apply to the Copenhagen and Nuuk contexts and will therefore include a measure of this in our investigation. As for parental influence on the motivation for learning another language, any kind of encouragement from home is thought to have a positive effect. There are, however, differences in the degree and effect of encouragement provided by parents depending on whether they consider the instrumental or the integrative value of their child’s language learning most important. While parents who consider the instrumental value most important tend to provide the most encouragement, passive encouragement (positive attitudes towards the other cultural group and language) has a greater impact on the child’s motivation to learn another language (Gardner, 1985). As there supposedly is a positive effect of parental encouragement regardless of the kind of value they place on learning the target language, we will focus on whether or not the respondents in our empirical investigation feel that their parents find it important to learn English.

2.4.3 Anxiety According to Krashen (1981), personality factors are interrelated with motivational factors. He hypothesises that the self-confident and secure individual will be more open towards intake and that traits relating to self-confidence therefore may be related to target language achievement. The concept of anxiety is given particular emphasis as Krashen claims that there is a consistent relationship between various forms of anxiety and language proficiency in both formal and informal contexts. Gardner (1985) later concludes that it is precisely the context that is relevant to the construct of anxiety. Thus, it is anxiety in the language learning context that is related to target language achievement:

34


There does not appear to be much justification to conclude that in general anxious individuals are less successful than non-anxious ones in acquiring a second language, but rather that individuals who become anxious in the second language learning context will be less successful than those who do not. (Gardner, 1985: 34)

As presented above, motivation is a complex construct involving several components that influence language learning and thus level of target language proficiency. However, one could also argue that one’s proficiency level may have an impact on one’s motivation for learning the target language. For instance, a pupil who is good at English may find it more fun to learn English and thus be more motivated. Nevertheless, we expect that for the respondents in our investigation motivation will affect proficiency in English as expressed in the following hypothesis, corresponding to question d in our problem definition: Hypothesis D: Motivation Motivation for learning English will affect the respondents’ level of English proficiency. Motivation for learning English


As stated, the construct of motivation is learner-based as opposed to language-based and also dependent upon individual as well as contextual factors. This is also true for usage of and exposure to English.

2.5 Usage and exposure It is uncontroversial to suggest that usage of and exposure to a target language naturally enhances proficiency in that language. The degree of usage and exposure is dependent on the ‘availability’ of and access to the target language in formal as well as naturalistic settings. For many language learners acquiring a foreign language, usage and exposure may only be possible through formal instruction:

35


In a foreign language learning situation […] the language is not spoken in the immediate environment of the learner, although mass media provide opportunities for practising the receptive skills. There is little or no opportunity for the learner to use the language in natural communication situations. (Ringbom, 1987: 27)

Thus, the foreign language learner’s exposure to the target language is often limited to the classroom situation, and the learner is seldom exposed to a rich and varied target language input. Ringbom further states that target language exposure is important when learning a second language. Although Ringbom focuses on L2 acquisition in relation to the importance of target language exposure, we believe that his notion can be extended to L3 acquisition. This is indeed confirmed by Dewaele (2001) who states that the role of linguistic exposure functions similarly in L2 and L3 acquisition. Due to the special status of the English language, we expect that the respondents in our investigation are often exposed to English through various spare time activities and that they occasionally use English outside the formal language learning context. In an investigation by Preisler (2003) concerning the adult Danish population’s exposure to English, it is confirmed that exposure to English often occurs through various media. According to Preisler, over 70 per cent of the adults listen to music with English lyrics at least once a day. 75 per cent watch films or TV programmes in English without subtitles several times a week, and over 33 per cent watch programmes in English without subtitles on satellite or cable TV. 45 per cent are exposed to English through computer games at least once a week, and 25 per cent every day. Moreover, 32 per cent of Danish employees encounter English daily at their place of work, for instance through instruction manuals. As Preisler shows, the adult Danish population is often exposed to English through various channels. We expect that our respondents are exposed to English to an even larger degree as English plays a great part in youth culture as a marker of identity, for instance through codeswitching. To what extent usage of and exposure to English influence the respondents’ proficiency level in English will be examined in this thesis. One could argue that proficiency may also have an impact on usage and exposure. For instance, a language learner with good English skills may be more inclined to seek opportunities to use and come into contact with the English language. Nonetheless,

36


we expect that usage and exposure affect proficiency as conveyed in the hypothesis below, which corresponds to question e in our problem definition: Hypothesis E: Usage and exposure The amount of usage of and exposure to English will affect the respondents’ level of English proficiency. Usage of and exposure to English


In summary, our theoretical framework suggests that a number of factors may be influential in the acquisition of English as a third language. These factors include linguistic interdependence, typology and psychotypology, metalinguistic knowledge, motivation and usage and exposure. Through our empirical investigation we will examine whether these factors prove to be influential for our respondent groups’ acquisition of English.

37


________________________________________________________________________________

3. The Empirical Investigation ________________________________________________________________________________ We will begin this chapter by presenting the methodological approach to our investigation which was conducted in February and March 2006 in Copenhagen and Nuuk. First, the purpose, content and limitations of the questionnaire and English test used in the investigation will be outlined followed by an account of the instructions given to the respondents. Second, the statistical method employed in treating the results of the investigation will be introduced and the reliability and validity of our instruments will be discussed. Subsequently, the respondents will be introduced through presenting background variables such as age and gender distribution, country of birth and language combinations etc. before presenting and analysing our results.

3.1 Methodological approach The purpose of our investigation is to examine respondents’ experiences of learning English as their L3 and their proficiency level of English. In Copenhagen, our investigation will include L2 and L3 learners as this allows us to establish differences between learning English as L2 and L3. In other words, we will compare the linguistic minority pupils, L3 learners, in relation to their local peers, the monolingual Danish majority, L2 learners. In Nuuk, all respondents are L3 learners. The Copenhagen respondents have received two more years of English education than their Nuuk peers, for which reason Copenhagen respondents are likely to be more proficient in English and thus likely to perform better in the English test. Due to the Copenhagen and Nuuk respondents’ different quantity of received English education we cannot compare these groups’ level of English proficiency as their preconditions for learning English differ. Although the groups cannot be compared as regards their test results, we will compare their questionnaire replies.

3.1.1 Instruments: Pupil questionnaire and English test In order to investigate the respondents’ experiences with learning English and their level of English proficiency, we have constructed a questionnaire and an English test. The purpose of the questionnaire is to elicit information about the respondents’ language background and factors which may influence the acquisition of English, including usage of and exposure to English,

38


psychotypology, language preferences and motivation towards language learning in general and the acquisition of English in particular. The purpose of the English test is to determine the respondents’ proficiency level in English. The test examines the respondents’ receptive skills and aims at assessing their knowledge of the lexicon, grammar and semantics of the English language. Our first intention was to obtain a standardised test in order to ensure that the test was of good quality and fulfilled its purpose. However, standardised tests are both expensive and often inaccessible. Consequently, we explored the online website Skillswise, a BBC site which provides a wide variety of quizzes and worksheets within various skill-sets such as reading and writing. We composed the test of some of the tasks posted on Skillswise and from Teaching English (coproduced by BBC and the British Council), another website providing a number of tasks within various skill-sets. In the final version of the test, we have combined tasks from these two websites and this combination has resulted in a test that will give us an indication of the proficiency level of the respondents’ receptive skills in English. Prior to the actual investigation, pilot studies were conducted in Copenhagen. First, a pilot study was carried out in one class after which minor adjustments to the questionnaire and test were made. Subsequently, pilot studies including the new adjustments were carried out in two more classes at a different school, resulting in a few more adjustments to the questions in both questionnaire and test. The adjustments included, among other things, the exclusion of a question concerning which languages the respondents mainly employ when dreaming. As most respondents in the pilot studies either could not answer the question or found it silly, the question was consequently excluded. Finally, more options to the measure of attitudes towards English were added. Initially, four opposing word pairs (easy-difficult; cold-intimate; useless-useful and educated-uneducated) appeared in the questionnaire. Six more word pairs were added as the four original pairs did not seem sufficient to determine the respondents’ attitudes. One task was excluded from the English test as the task was too time-consuming. In order to make the test more manageable for the respondents, the number of questions was reduced from 87 to 60. The time limits in the scanning and skimming tasks were adjusted to two minutes for each task. The time limits were set such that not all respondents would be able to complete the tasks within the time limits.

39


In the pilot studies, the respondents completed the test first followed by the questionnaire. The order was changed in the actual investigation so as to ensure that respondents do not base their answers in the questionnaire on how easy or difficult they found the test. Both the questionnaire and the test are in English. A Greenlandic and a Danish version of each have been prepared. Some expressions are accompanied by translations in the questionnaire and glossaries of grammatical terms appear in the test (in Danish in the Danish version and in both Danish and Greenlandic in the Greenlandic version). Both versions of the questionnaire appear in appendices A and B while the two versions of the test appear in appendices D and E. In appendix C we have indicated the replies that are scored as correct in the test as well as the sources of the test items.

Contents of the pupil questionnaire The questionnaire consists of ten sections, the first being ‘Background information’. Here, the respondent’s age, gender, place of birth, citizenship and sense of nationality is established. We have included questions with regard to possible exclusion, namely the respondent’s number of years of residence in the country in question (Denmark or Greenland) and possible years of schooling in another country. If a pupil has received a markedly different schooling than that provided through the Danish and Greenlandic school system, he or she will be excluded from the investigation. Finally, the parents’ highest levels of education are established as a measure of socio-economic background. This factor proved relevant in the study carried out by Denmark’s Evaluation Institute amongst year nine pupils in Denmark, in which the father’s level of education was related to level of English proficiency (EVA, 2003). In ‘Language information’ the pupils’ L1, L2 and possible L3 is established as well as the languages spoken by their parents. We have asked how many years of education the respondent has received in his or her L1. The question has been included to establish whether or not those with an L1 different from Danish or Greenlandic have received mother tongue education as this may prove relevant in relation to linguistic interdependence. Furthermore, this section includes questions regarding what languages the respondent uses with various people and in various situations in order to establish the functions of the respondent’s various languages and the usage of English in particular.

40


The respondents are asked to rate their own language skills for each of their languages in speaking, writing, reading and understanding in ‘Your language skills’. We are interested in the respondents’ L1 and L2 literacy skills in relation to L1 and/or L2 influence on the acquisition of English. As for the self-ratings of English skills, we are interested in seeing how well these correspond to their English test score as a test of the reliability of replies and of the test. L3 learners are also asked how similar they find their languages in order to determine their psychotypology. In ‘Your language preferences’ the respondents are asked to note their languages in order of preference for each of the four basic language skills, speaking, writing, reading and listening. We were inspired to include preferences from a questionnaire by Schönpflug, presented in an appendix to his article (2000). Schönpflug does not go further into reasons for including preferences in this article, but we included them as we expect that preferences may be related to level of proficiency as well as language attitudes. We have asked the respondents about their code-switching habits in ‘Switching between languages’ in order to determine not only the extent to which they code-switch, but also whether the extent of code-switching is related to their English proficiency. As shown by Normann Jørgensen (2002), code-switching may be positively related to L2 proficiency (see 2.1.2). We are curious as to whether code-switching is positively related to L3 proficiency for our respondents. In ‘Language in your spare time’ we seek to establish the languages the respondents use and are exposed to outside school. Many children and young people learn at least some of their English informally through TV, films, internet, music etc. Therefore, information about English usage and exposure outside the formal language learning context may explain the attained level of proficiency. Inspired by Gardner (1985), we have included the section ‘About learning languages’ in order to determine the respondents’ attitudes towards language learning in general. In ‘About learning English’ we have included questions concerning motivation. More specifically, the questions seek to establish the respondents’ motivational orientation, desire to learn English, motivational intensity and level of English classroom anxiety. The wordings of these questions are inspired by Gardner & Lambert (1972) and Gardner (1985).

41


In order to elicit the respondents’ attitudes towards the English language, we have in ‘About the English language’ employed the Semantic Differential Technique (Baker, 1992), asking respondents to indicate their attitudes concerning bi-polar sets of adjectives on a five-point scale. We have included ten such bi-polar word-pairs, nine of which are inspired by Lee (2004) and the tenth, ‘Unpopular-Popular’, being our own addition. As the parents’ highest level of education may not always reflect the support provided from home, we have included questions regarding this in the ‘At home’ section. We have asked two questions regarding general support, namely whether the respondents get help with their homework at home and whether they want or need help with their homework. The purpose of these two questions is to elicit whether there is a discrepancy between the respondents’ need for help with homework and the help provided from home. We have also included a question concerning parental encouragement of the respondents’ English studies. When asking questions concerning conditions at home one of course must consider ethical aspects of one’s questions. As we do not ask in-depth about the home conditions we feel that the questions are acceptable from an ethical point of view. Finally, we have included space for giving comments.

Limitations of the questionnaire Although the questionnaire could have been even more thorough, it is in fact quite demanding and time-consuming for the respondents who also have to complete the English test designed for this investigation. Furthermore, the many questions, which are included as we wish to cover as many relevant factors as possible, may result in an overload of data for the present purpose. Another limitation of the questionnaire is that it is in English. We are aware of the seeming inconsistency in having respondents some of whom we expect may have difficulties in English answer a questionnaire in English. However, we see this as our best option due to the number of different language constellations of our respondents. If the questionnaire were in Danish, this would be the L1 for some respondents while being the L2 for others. We have also considered having a Danish and a Greenlandic version. A Greenlandic version could have been made with the assistance of translators; yet the coding and interpretation of replies given in Greenlandic would have been too demanding in terms of time and resources. Even with a Danish and a Greenlandic version, the questionnaire would still be in the L1 for some respondents while being in the L2 for others. We

42


wish to give the respondents as similar conditions for answering the questions as possible and have therefore chosen to have the questionnaire in English; a language that all respondents are in the process of learning. We have tried to keep the language of the questionnaire as simple as possible and have stressed in our instructions that the respondents were allowed all the help they needed to fill in the questionnaire.

Contents of the English test The English test is a multiple choice test consisting of eleven sections. Section one through ten consist of the actual tasks whereas the respondents are asked to evaluate the test’s degree of difficulty in section eleven. The ten tasks comprise 60 test items. Respondents are given one point for each correct response and null for no responses and incorrect replies, thus making it possible to achieve a maximum score of 60. It was imperative that the respondents found the test manageable such that they would be willing to complete it and that it was neither too easy nor too difficult. In ‘Scanning’, the respondents are asked to scan a text and answer five questions concerning the content of the text. Scanning is a fast reading technique and a way of looking for specific information in a text. In ‘Skimming’, the respondents are asked to skim a text and answer five questions concerning the content of the text. Skimming is a reading technique that helps the reader form a quick overview of a text. The scanning and skimming tasks assess the respondents’ reading skills in English. In principle, anyone should be able to answer a scanning or skimming assignment correctly if they are given all the time they wish, as all answers can be found in the provided text. Therefore, these assignments are given time limits, in order to test whether respondents are able to find the correct answers within a given time frame. As mentioned, the time limits are set at two minutes for each of these two tasks. ‘Grammar: Making sentences’, ‘Grammar: Verbs and subjects’ and ‘Grammar: The right tense’, contain questions of a metalinguistic nature. By asking the respondents to complete these tasks, we hope to get an indication of the respondents’ metalinguistic knowledge. We realise that these 14 questions do not fully assess the respondents’ metalinguistic knowledge, but the respondents’ answers will demonstrate whether or not they have a basic knowledge of the construction of a language and its grammatical components.

43


The task ‘Understanding words’ seeks to determine the respondents’ vocabulary. The purpose of this task is to assess the respondents’ word awareness and knowledge of the English lexicon. ‘Grammar exercise: Find the right verb’, ‘Grammar exercise: Personal pronouns’ and Grammar exercise: Find the right tense’ are included in order to depict the respondents’ knowledge of English grammar. In all three tasks, the respondents are asked to demonstrate their ability to make judgments about the structure of the English language. The task ‘Find the right word’ concerns adjectives and seeks to assess the respondents’ awareness of English adjectives. Finally, the respondents are asked to indicate the difficulty of the test. In order to be included in the investigation, the respondents need to complete at least 50 per cent of the English test (but not necessarily have 50 per cent correct answers). If they fail to do so, we consider this an expression of either a lack of effort or lack of knowledge. As we cannot determine whether or not the respondents do not want to or simply cannot complete the test, they will ultimately be excluded.

Limitations of the English test The main purpose of the English test is to assess the respondents’ level of English proficiency, but we realise that our test has certain limitations. The most obvious limitation of the test is that it cannot establish the respondents’ overall English proficiency. Only the respondents’ receptive skills are examined, leaving out a vital part of the respondents’ English skills, i.e. their productive skills. Moreover, the test estimates the respondents’ grammar skills, reading ability and knowledge of vocabulary, but only certain aspects of these three domains. Undoubtedly, the test could have been more extensive, including more test items estimating other language features such as spelling or punctuation. We have, however, included test items which we believe will indicate the respondents’ level of English proficiency to the extent possible in an investigation of this size. Another limitation is that certain test items could potentially have more than one correct response. For instance, one could argue that a sentence does not necessarily need to contain a verb and a

44


subject. Also, the sentence Her new husband is very… (question 4, ‘Find the right word’) could in principal be completed by answering both ‘high’ (as in being intoxicated) and ‘smart’ (correct answer). This incongruity only applies to few test items, but the respondents could become confused as they knew each test item only begged one correct reply. Despite this fact, we have only given the respondents points for answers that are correct according to Skillswise and Teaching English (these are indicated in appendix C) in order to avoid various interpretations and analyses of answers.

3.1.2 Instructions The respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire first. It was emphasised that they were not to begin the test until asked to do so. The respondents were informed that we expected them to note English as one of their languages so as to make sure that they did not, for instance, only note their L1. The respondents were encouraged to ask for help to fill in the questionnaire if needed. After completing the questionnaire, instructions concerning the test were given. The respondents were informed that they were to complete a scanning and a skimming task, each within two minutes, after which they were to answer the rest of the test at their own pace.

3.1.3 Interviews As we are less familiar with the Greenlandic than the Danish context, we took the opportunity to carry out two focus group interviews while in Nuuk. The interviews are a way of ensuring that we do not miss important factors in the acquisition of English for Nuuk respondents. The interviews were carried out in Danish, as the pupils are better at Danish than English (and as we do not know Greenlandic). Four year ten pupils participated in each interview. The pupils participating in the individual interviews are from the same class and thus know each other well. For the first interview, the participating pupils were chosen by their teacher. These pupils mainly receive instruction in Danish. For the second interview, the participating pupils volunteered. These pupils mainly receive instruction in Greenlandic. It should be mentioned that for the first interview, the rest of the class were allowed to leave school for the day, for which reason the participating pupils were eager to finish up and go home. Regarding the second interview, the participating pupils were allowed to leave a lesson that they did not enjoy thus making them eager to continue the interview so that they did not have to return to class. The different incentives for participating have influenced the length

45


of the replies and interviews; the first interview being considerably shorter (app. 11 minutes) than the second (app. 32 minutes). The interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed after our return to Denmark. The transcriptions appear in appendices F and G. It should be noted that the transcriptions are in Danish.

3.2 Statistical method We will use the programme SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for our statistical analyses. Our analyses will follow the five hypotheses put forward in chapter 2. Four of the hypotheses will include various sub-hypotheses. The type of variables involved in each hypothesis will determine the bivariate tests we will apply. As our data consists of nominal, ordinal and interval/ratio variables, we will make use of χ2 (chi-square), gamma (γ), independent t, ANOVA (analysis of variance) and Pearson tests. While the relationship between the involved variables is tested in χ2 and Pearson tests, the independent t-test and the ANOVA test the differences between variables. Whereas χ2, independent t, ANOVA and Pearson tests either the relationship or differences between variables, gamma tests both relationship and differences (Howell, 1999). For analyses involving nominal variables, we will apply the χ2 test, while the gamma test will be used for ordinal variables. As opposed to the χ2 test, the gamma test value can be further interpreted, telling us about the strength of the relationship between the variables; whether a correlation is strong, moderate or weak. In analyses where the dependent variable is an interval/ratio scale and the independent variable is nominal or ordinal we will apply the independent t-test or the ANOVA. Both of these tests compare the means between groups. The independent t-test compares the means of two groups (binary variable), while the ANOVA tests the variance in means of three or more groups. More specifically, the ANOVA tests whether differences are greater between groups than within groups. If differences are greater between groups than within groups, the result may be significant. If so, we will carry out post hoc tests, Bonferroni and LSD, in order to determine between which groups there are significant differences. We will only report post hoc tests when both the Bonferroni and LSD show significant differences between the same groups. In relation to significant ANOVA results, we will carry out descriptive analyses in order to interpret the findings (referred to as descriptives in

46


accordance with SPSS output tables). As we will not carry out multivariate analyses (analyses involving more than two variables), we will only apply the one-way ANOVA. Finally, if an analysis involves two interval/ratio variables, a Pearson correlation will be employed. As the name implies, the Pearson correlation tests the correlation between two variables. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the degree of the relationship between the two variables from which we can establish whether the correlation is strong, moderate or weak (Howell, 1999). We will operate with an alpha-level of .05, meaning that we only accept a probability of less than five per cent that a result occurred by chance as statistically significant. Only test values for significant results (p≤.05) will be presented.

Discrete missing values If respondents have refrained from answering a question, this has been coded as a ‘missing’ value. For most questions, respondents were only meant to choose one option. In these cases, if more than one option has been chosen, the answer has been coded as ‘invalid’. Also, some replies have been coded as ‘irrelevant’, e.g. if L2 learners have given answers to questions that only concern L3 learners, such as which of their languages they find more similar. Finally, in order to keep some variables ordinal, replies such as ‘I don’t know’ have been coded as a discrete missing value. Discrete missing values will generally only be reported if the number is substantial and will not be included in all figures. Therefore, percentages will not always add up to 100.

Presentation In relation to the bivariate analyses, a univariate analysis of each involved variable will be presented. Each variable will only be described in a univariate manner once to avoid repetitions, even if the variable recurs in a subsequent analysis. Furthermore, it will be indicated whether hypotheses are directional or nondirectional as this determines whether the tests are one-tailed (directional hypothesis) or two-tailed (nondirectional hypothesis). This will be shown as follows: Directional hypothesis (one-tailed) (variable A affects variable B)

Variable B

Variable A 47


Nondirectional hypothesis (two-tailed) (variable A and variable B affect each other) Variable A

Variable B

In some nondirectional hypotheses, we expect variable A to affect variable B, although we recognise that variable B may also affect variable A. This will be illustrated by a full arrow in the expected direction and a dotted arrow in the direction that we accept as probable.

Variable A

Variable B

Regardless of our expectations, we will carry out two-tailed tests for nondirectional hypotheses. We will not state whether tests are one- or two-tailed for every reported result as this should be clear from the schematic representation of the individual hypotheses. Data will mostly be presented in percentages (with one decimal), but the reader should keep in mind that the individual groups (L2 learners, L3 learners in Copenhagen and L3 learners in Nuuk) differ in size. Test values will be given with two decimals and the probability, p, will be given as .05 (showing low significance), .01 or .001 (both showing high significance). In reporting results, the following notations will be employed: χ2

chi-square

γ

gamma value

t

t statistic (independent t-test)

F

F statistic (ANOVA)

r

Pearson’s correlation coefficient

p

probability value

N

number of respondents

x

mean

SD

standard deviation

48


Finally, SPSS output tables of included results appear in appendix H.

3.3 Reliability and validity Throughout the preparation and execution of the present investigation we have strived to ensure that the employed instruments will yield reliable and valid data. For this purpose, we have carried out pilot studies as a quality control of the questionnaire and test.

Reliability First of all, we believe that our data is reliable as respondents have answered the questionnaire in a consistent manner. Concerning the conditions, these have been similar for all respondents. Data has been gathered in the classroom setting within school hours. Secondly, we have conducted the investigation ourselves and have thus been able to ensure that instructions, amount of help provided etc. has been similar for all respondents. The one conditional factor that changed from class to class was the present teacher and his or her conduct in terms of assistance in answering respondents’ questions. For most classes, their English teacher was present, while for one class a substitute teacher was present and for two classes no teacher or a substitute teacher was present. While the absence of the regular English teacher might have influenced respondents’ level of motivation regarding participation, the classes in question completed the questionnaire and test in as conscientious a manner as did the other participating classes. In the questionnaire, we have included several measures concerning particular constructs, i.e. socioeconomic background and attitudes (affect). If the various measures of the same construct yield consistent results, this is an indication of reliability. As will emerge in the analyses, these measures do indeed yield consistent results, indicating that data is reliable. Concerning the English test, a specific analysis that we take to reflect both reliability and validity is the relationship between respondents’ self-reported English literacy skills and their achievement in the English test score. As will be shown in 3.5.3, this relationship proves significant for all respondent groups.

49


Validity Internal validity depends on 1) the correspondence between employed constructs and the measures of these constructs and 2) the degree to which it is in fact the independent variables rather than other factors that affect dependent variables (Neuman, 2003). While internal validity cannot be guaranteed, we have aimed to achieve this through 1) being able to clarify the meaning of questions and terms if respondents were in doubt and through 2) ensuring similar conditions for all respondent groups. As regards external validity of the investigation, or the generalisability of our results to other L2 or L3 learners of English, this validity is low. As there are so many factors involved in the acquisition of English as L2 or L3, this is heavily dependent upon the specific context. For this reason, the results can only be generalised to some extent to the Copenhagen and Nuuk contexts respectively. Even this is problematic as learning conditions have already changed for both contexts as coming Folkeskole generations receive English lessons one or three years more for Copenhagen and Nuuk respectively. In other words, the results of the present investigation may be generalised to some extent to the specific target populations, year nine pupils in Copenhagen and year ten pupils in Nuuk, although not for the coming year groups who receive more English teaching. However, the increased quantity of English education may simply result in higher levels of English proficiency, while the relationship between proficiency and the theoretical factors included in this empirical investigation may still be similar. Although there are problems in generalising the results of this investigation, we feel that the results may have relevance for other L3 learning groups, particularly for L3 learners of English. Due to the special status of English as international lingua franca, it is likely that there are similarities across various groups of L3 learners of English, including exposure to and motivation for learning English.

3.4 The respondents In Copenhagen, seven classes from three different schools participated. The schools were selected on the basis of the percentage of linguistic minority pupils attending the institutions, in order to make the sample as representative as possible. The first school has approximately 10 per cent linguistic minority pupils, the second school approximately 50 per cent and the third school over 90 per cent. The participants in Copenhagen were 108 year nine pupils. Based on their questionnaire replies, the respondents have been divided into an L2 and an L3 learner group according to their

50


number of languages. The L3 learners had to meet the following criteria in order to be included in the investigation: a) English is their L3, b) they have no additional languages besides German and/or French which they are taught in school, c) they have not received education outside Denmark for more than a few months, d) they have completed the questionnaire (in a consistent manner) and e) they have completed at least 50 per cent of the English test. The criteria for the L2 learners were similar to the L3 learners except their L1 had to be Danish and their L2 English. On the basis of these criteria 17 respondents were excluded, most of them because they had more than three languages, English often being their L4, or because they did not consider English one of their languages. 91 respondents in Copenhagen met all criteria out of which 32 are L3 learners and 59 L2 learners. Nuuk has five municipal primary and lower secondary schools (folkeskoler) and all five schools were contacted. One school did not have year ten classes and one school never responded. All year ten classes in the three remaining schools participated. The respondents had to meet the following criteria in order to be included in the investigation: a) English is their L3, b) they have no additional languages besides German and/or French which they are taught in school, c) they have not received education outside Greenland for more than a few months, d) they have completed the questionnaire (in a consistent manner) and e) they have completed at least 50 per cent of the English test. 29 respondents did not meet all criteria and were consequently excluded, leaving us with 96 respondents from Nuuk. All Nuuk respondents are L3 learners, 11 of them have Danish as their L1 and 85 have Greenlandic as their L1. The numbers of included respondents are summarised in Table 4. Respondents In Copenhagen In Nuuk In all

L2 learners 59 59

L3 learners 32 96 128

Total 91 96 187

Table 4: Number of L2 and L3 learners in Copenhagen and Nuuk.

3.4.1 Background variables Age and gender distribution The 91 Copenhagen respondents’ ages range from 14-16 years, their mean age being 15.21. Boys make up 58.2% of the respondents and girls make up 41.8%. This distribution is somewhat uneven

51


as there are slightly more boys than girls compared to the overall distribution for 15-year olds in Copenhagen (51% male, 49% female) (January 2006, Statistics Denmark). The 96 Nuuk respondents’ ages range from 15-16 years, their mean age being 15.33. In Nuuk, the gender distribution is 53.1% boys and 46.9% girls which is close to the overall distribution for 15-year olds in Greenland (51% male, 49% female) (January 2006, Statistics Greenland).

Country of birth In Copenhagen, 21 (65.6%) of the L3 learners are born in Denmark whereas the remaining 11 (34.4%) are born outside of Denmark (see Figure 2). 58 (98.3%) of the L2 learners are born in Denmark and 1 (1.7%) is born in Macedonia.

Figure 2: Pie chart of country of birth for Copenhagen L3 learners

In Nuuk, 3 respondents (3.1%) are born in Denmark while 93 (96.9%) are born in Greenland.

Citizenship Although the majority of the Copenhagen respondents are born in Denmark, not all of them are Danish citizens. As Figure 3 illustrates, 16 of the 21 L3 learners who are born in Denmark are also Danish citizens which is half of the respondents of the L3 group as a whole. 14 respondents (43.7%) state other citizenships than Danish. All Copenhagen L2 learners are Danish citizens.

52


Figure 3: Pie chart of citizenship for Copenhagen L3 learners

In Nuuk, 95 respondents (99%) have Danish citizenship. The Greenlandic translation of citizenship, which we had inserted in brackets in the questionnaire, also carries the meaning of belonging to a place. This may explain why some respondents have in fact replied the names of different Greenlandic towns or settlements. However, as Greenlandic citizens have Danish citizenship, we have registered these replies as such.

Sense of nationality The respondents were also asked to note their sense of nationality by answering the question ‘How do you feel’. As Figure 4 illustrates, only one L3 learner (3.1%) in Copenhagen feels exclusively Danish. Although only one respondent feels Danish, 11 (34.4%) L3 learners feel Danish combined with some other nationality.

53


Figure 4: Pie chart of sense of nationality for Copenhagen L3 learners

The L3 learners’ responses suggest that their sense of nationality is not necessarily in correspondence with their country of birth and/or citizenship. Instead, the vast majority of the L3 learners appear to express affiliation with their ethnic background. Of the 59 L2 learners in Copenhagen the majority feel exclusively Danish. 49 respondents (83.1%) feel Danish, one (1.7%) feels Swedish and two (3.4%) feel European. A few feel Danish combined with some other nationality. Three (5.1%) feel Danish and European, one (1.7%) feels Danish and African and three feel an affiliation with Anglophone countries; one (1.7%) feels Danish and American and two (3.4%) feel Danish, English and American. None of the L3 learners in Copenhagen show a similar affiliation with Anglophone national identities. While the Nuuk respondents all have Danish citizenship, their replies to the question of nationality is slightly more varied as illustrated in Figure 5. Only two respondents (2.1%) have not included Danish and/or Greenlandic in their reply to this question (these two replies being ‘Myself’ and ‘African’). 51 (53.7%) feel Greenlandic only, four (4.2%) feel Danish and 31 (32.6%) feel Danish and Greenlandic. This means that 86 respondents (92.5%) have a sense of belonging to a country, which corresponds to their citizenship. Of these 86 respondents, seven have chosen an additional nationality to Danish and/or Greenlandic; namely English, American, Thai and European.

54


Figure 5: Pie chart of sense of nationality for Nuuk L3 learners

L1, L2 and L3 All L3 learners have three languages, English being their third, but their L1 and L2 vary. As Figure 6 illustrates, the 32 L3 learners in Copenhagen have stated 11 different L1s out of which only five (15.6%) have stated Danish. A fourth (25%) of the L3 learners in Copenhagen have Albanian as their L1, thus constituting the largest language group. All L2 learners consider Danish their L1. 27 L3 learners in Copenhagen (84.4%) regard Danish as their L2. Of the five L3 learners who have Danish as L1, two (6.3%) consider Arabic their L2, one (3.1%) considers French his or her L2, one (3.1%) Spanish and one (3.1%) Moroccan. The choice of languages seems to reflect the group’s sense of nationality. The language most often employed as an L1 is Albanian which corresponds to the fact that the affiliation most frequently expressed in the question concerning how the Copenhagen L3 learners feel is the combination of Albanian and Danish. All L2 learners in Copenhagen consider English their L2 and all L3 learners regard English as their L3.

55


Figure 6: Pie chart of the L1s of Copenhagen L3 learners

All Nuuk respondents have three languages, English being their L3. 11 respondents (11.5%) consider Danish their L1 and Greenlandic their L2, while 85 respondents (88.5%) regard Greenlandic as their L1 and Danish as their L2.

3.5 Results In the following, the results of our investigation will be presented and discussed in relation to the hypotheses posed in the previous chapter. As the respondents’ proficiency level, measured through our English test, is a variable that recurs in all hypotheses, we will begin this chapter by outlining the respondents’ test results. We will then examine the test results in relation to the respondents’ self-reported English literacy skills in order to determine the degree of correspondence between these variables. Next, socio-economic variables will be presented and analysed in relation to test score in order to establish whether socio-economic background plays a role in relation to English proficiency for our respondents. Subsequent to the presentation and analyses of the abovementioned variables, each hypothesis will be treated separately by use of univariate and bivariate analyses in order to confirm or reject the hypothesis stated. As Copenhagen and Nuuk respondents cannot be compared in relation to test results, we will first report test results for Copenhagen respondents and then for Nuuk respondents.

56


3.5.1 Copenhagen test results Overall test score In Copenhagen, the overall test score differs between the L2 learners and L3 learners, the L2 learners outperforming the L3 learners (see Figure 7). The mean score for the L2 learners is 41.14, with scores ranging from 15 to 54. The mean score is 38.94 for the L3 learners, with scores ranging from 19 to 52. The difference between the mean scores of the two groups is 2.2.

Overall test score: Copenhagen 10

Number of respondents

9 8 7 6

L2 (N=59) L3 (N=32)

5 4 3 2 1 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Number of correct responses

Figure 7: Overall test results for Copenhagen respondents

Almost half the L3 learners, 15 pupils (46.9%), scored in the upper third (41-60 correct responses) and 16 (50%) scored in the middle (21-40 correct responses). Only one L3 learner (3.1%) scored in the bottom third (0-20 correct responses) having 19 correct responses. As in the L3 group, only one L2 learner (1.7%) performed in the bottom third, 18 (30.5%) performed in the middle third and 40 pupils (67.8%) performed in the upper third.

Test assessment As for the respondents’ test assessments, L3 learners generally find the test somewhat easier than L2 learners, a larger percentage answering ‘very easy’ or ‘easy’ as illustrated in Figure 8. For both groups, the most common answer is ‘neither easy nor difficult’, but a larger percentage of L2

57


learners find the test ‘difficult’ compared to L3 learners. Only one respondent, an L2 learner (1.7%), finds the test ‘very difficult’.

L2 (N=59)

very easy 10,2

23,7

47,5

11,9 1,7

easy neither easy nor difficult difficult

L3 (N=32)

12,5

31,3

46,9

6,3

very difficult

Percentage of respondents

Figure 8: Test assessment for Copenhagen respondents

Tasks Figure 9 illustrates each group’s percentage of correct answers within each task. As can be seen, L2 learners generally perform better than L3 learners. In fact, L2 learners perform better than L3 learners in seven out of ten tasks. The three tasks in which the L3 learners perform best are ‘Grammar: Making sentences’; Grammar: The right tense’ and ‘Grammar exercise: Find the right verb’. The task in which the L3 learners perform best is ‘Grammar: the right tense’. Although the L2 learners also perform well in this task, the task in which they perform best is ‘Find the right word’. The most difficult task for both groups was ‘Understanding words’ which is not surprising. For many foreign language learners some of the most demanding aspects of language learning include developing one’s vocabulary and becoming acquainted with idiomatic expressions of the target language. These are aspects that take time to learn. ‘Understanding words’ contains words and phrases that may be foreign to the respondents as they are non-native speakers of English who have only had English lessons for a limited number of years. The two tasks in which there is the largest discrepancy between the L2 learners and L3 learners’ mean scores (besides the scanning assignment) are ‘Understanding words’ and ‘Find the right word’. This discrepancy suggests that the biggest problem for the L3 learners is the English vocabulary.

58


79

Scanning

68,8

Skimming

70,6 66,8

Grammar: Making sentences

70,3 72

Grammar: Verbs and subjects

71,6 69,4 85,4 85,6

Grammar: The right tense

L2 (N=59) L3 (N=32)

49 43,4

Understanding words

50 50,6

Grammar exercise: Find the right verb

76,5 72,3

Grammar exercise: Personal pronouns

80,6 74,4

Grammar exercise: Find the right tense Find the right word

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

89,4

90

100

Percentage per task

Figure 9: Average results for each English test task, Copenhagen

Metalinguistic knowledge The purpose of the three tasks ‘Grammar: Making sentences’; ‘Grammar: Verbs and subjects’ and ‘Grammar: The right tense’ is to assess the respondents’ metalinguistic knowledge. When comparing the respondents’ scores in the three tasks, L2 and L3 learners perform equally well (L2 learners: x =10.66; L3 learners: x =10.63).

3.5.2 Nuuk test results Overall test score In Nuuk, the respondents’ mean score is 27.99, with scores ranging from 6 to 50 (see Figure 10). If we divide the respondents into groups based on their L1, the mean for the group who have Danish as L1 (N=11) is 35.36 and the mean for the group who have Greenlandic as L1 (N=85) is 27.04. Amongst Nuuk respondents, 29 (30.2%) scored in the bottom third, whereas 49 (51.1%) scored in the middle and 18 (18.7%) scored in the upper third.

59


Overall test score: Nuuk 10

Number of respondents

9 8 7 6 L1=DK (N=11) L1=GL (N=85)

5 4 3 2 1 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Number of correct responses

Figure 10: Overall test results for Nuuk respondents

Test assessment In Nuuk, the L1=DK group generally find the test easier than the L1=GL group, as illustrated in Figure 11. As in Copenhagen, the most common response for the Nuuk respondents as a whole is ‘neither easy nor difficult’. However, there is a slight tendency towards finding the test difficult as more respondents have answered ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ than those who have answered ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’.

L1=DK (N=11)

18,2

L1=GL (N=85) 3,5 11,8

54,5

18,2

37,6

25,9

9,1

14,1

very easy easy neither easy nor difficult difficult very difficult

Percentage of respondents

Figure 11: Test assessment for Nuuk respondents

Tasks As illustrated in Figure 12, the L1=DK group perform better than the L1=GL group in all tasks except ‘Grammar: Making sentences’ in which the L1=GL group perform best. For both groups, ‘Find the right word’ is the task in which they perform best and ‘Understanding words’ is the task

60


in which they perform poorest. The largest discrepancies between the L1=GL group and the L1=DK group are in ‘Grammar: The right tense’ and ‘Grammar exercise: Find the right tense’.

Scanning

60

42,6

Skimming

47,2 44,8

Grammar: Making sentences

47,8 49

Grammar: Verbs and subjects

63,6

48

Grammar: The right tense

83,6

56

Understanding words

L1=DK (N=11) L1=GL (N=85)

39,1

28,1

50 44,6

Grammar exercise: Find the right verb Grammar exercise: Personal pronouns

60,7

49,2

Grammar exercise: Find the right tense

74,6

44,2

Find the right word

89

64,2 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage per task

Figure 12: Average results for each English test task, Nuuk

Metalinguistic knowledge When comparing the respondents’ scores in the tasks designed to measure their level of metalinguistic knowledge, the L1=DK group perform far better than the L1=GL group in two out of three tasks. The one task in which the L1=GL outperform the L1=DK group is ‘Grammar: Making sentences’, a metalinguistic task.

3.5.3 English literacy skills in relation to English test score As a measure of the reliability of the respondents’ replies and our test, we have examined how well the respondents’ self-reported English literacy skills correspond to their overall test score results.

61


Univariate analyses show that the three respondent groups rate their English literacy skills in a fairly similar manner (see Figure 13 and Figure 14).

Self-reported English writing skills

Excellent 2,1

Self-reported English reading skills

11,9 15,6

4,2

Good 16,7

32,2 31,3

Good

40,7 40,6 47,9

Okay 10,2 6,3

Bad 0

20

20,3 25

Excellent

Okay

15,6

24 60

80

100

27,1 49

3,4 6,3 11,5

Bad

40

47,5 46,9

28,1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Percent

Figure 13: Self-reported English writing skills

Figure 14: Self-reported English reading skills

While respondents are not too confident about their English writing skills, with approximately 50% answering ‘bad’ and ‘okay’, they appear to be fairly confident about their English reading skills, as a larger percentage answer ‘good’ and ‘excellent’ concerning this skill. As for the bivariate analyses, ANOVA tests show significant results for all groups in relation to English writing skills (Copenhagen L3: F(3)=18.05, p

0

!

!

>

6

6 59

'

? 1 9

.

:


,

/

!

-

! !

(

/

!

! A-

!

@

&

!

!

!

#!

>

6 /

!

! /

!

>

6

>

6

.


!

$

"

"

-

%

#

"

#

$

#

%

"

B

6

#

!

; '

,

!

#

#

!9 #

(

!

#

"

C

# "

@

!

1

!

#" !

#

" 9

< 4

. .:


$ %

$ &

5

"

E DDDDD

$

#

=

DDDDD

" 6

DDDDD

/

!

%

=

!

DDDDD !

-

=

'

DDDDD!

=

.

DDDDD !


! / F F F F

"

! 4

!

/ ! ! ! !

$

/ 2 2 2 2

%

-

! ! ! !

! !

/ ! ! !

!

!

'

/ ! ! !

.:


! #

?

"

!

6

?

!

$

%

!

#

!

?

?

'

! !

?


! /

#!

G

A



! "

#!

$

% &&' $'&&' "$" && %(&&' $

) !

%

#!

*

&% &' &, &( '

#! " $ %

*

+

$'


-

"

.

/

0 -

$

-

!

!

! !

1 2 %

0

/ 3

4 '

/

0 2 5 4 5

0


5

! ) 6

!

6

!

" )

$

5

7

!

8

) 6 %

!

5

9

3

) 6

!

4 . 1 1 ; . 1 ) 3 . < . 1 4 9 . 1

4 .: ; . ) 3 . < . 4 9 .

1

1


A sentence must have a subject and a verb. ) 6 2.

!

4 . 1 4 9 . 1 < . 1 4 . = .1

A singular subject is just one thing or one person. ) 6

3.

!

A plural subject must have a plural verb form. ) 6

4.

!

What is the verb in this sentence? 'He drives slowly towards the entrance of the building.' drives 6

5.

4 .: 4 9 . < . 4 . = .

!

What is the subject in this sentence? 'The bouquet of flowers was delivered to you yesterday.' bouquet of flowers you 6 !

1


0#

!

0

) 6

!

" 0

0 ) 6

!

$ 0

0 ) 6

!

% 0#

0

4 = = )

. 1

6 /

A-

&

#!

!

! /

!

>

6

1

>

6

.


!

$

"

"

-

%

#

"

#

$

#

%

"

B

6

#

!

; '

,

!

#

#

!9 #

(

!

#

"

C

# "

@

!

1

!

#" !

#

" 9

< 4

< 4

.

. 1 . 1

.:

1


$ %

$ &

5

"

E DDDDD

$

#

=

" 6

DDDDD

/

!

%

-

'

=

DDDDD

=

!

DDDDD !

=

DDDDD !

DDDDD!

.

=

.


! / F F F F

"

!

4

!

/

4

! ! ! !

$

/ 2 2 2 2

%

-

! ! ! !

! !

/ ! ! !

!

!

'

.:

/ ! ! !

. 1

1


! #

?

"

!

6

?

!

$

%

!

#

!

?

?

'

! !

?


! /

#!

G

A


________________________________________________________________________________

Interview I ________________________________________________________________________________ []

til overlap i tale

()

til uforståelig tale

_______

til når taler selv understreger noget

NEJ

til høje udbrud

[latter]

til øvrige mundtlige udtryk

….

Til kortere pauser

[pause]

til længere pauser

A: B: C: D: I: Interviewer(e) For at sikre informanternes anonymitet er deres navne ikke angivet. Desuden er navne, der nævnes af informanterne, blevet ændret.

I: Den her undersøgelse vi er i gang med handler som sagt om engelsk som tredje sprog, og vi er i gang med også at lave den i København hvor vi blandt andet tager ud på skoler med tosprogede børn for at finde ud af hvordan de har det med at have engelsk som tredje sprog, og det kan I også se ud fra spørgeskemaet. Så det vi gerne vil vide er i virkeligheden lidt om jeres oplevelser af at have tre sprog og især om hvorvidt det at have to sprog gør det lettere at lære engelsk som tredje sprog eller om I synes det er sværere eller er der nogen fordele, nogen ulemper, eller hvordan og hvorledes. I kan starte med at fortælle hvilke sprog I har, hvad jeres første, andet og tredje sprog er. A: Mit det er grønlandsk, så er det dansk, og så det engelsk. B: Jeg har det samme.

1


C: Jeg har dansk, grønlandsk og engelsk. D: Jeg har dansk, grønlandsk og engelsk. I: Tror I det ville være nemmere eller sværere at lære engelsk, hvis I kun havde ét sprog? C: Det tror jeg ikke – altså de to sprog vi har, altså grønlandsk og dansk, det tror jeg ikke gør engelsk nemmere alligevel [I: Okay] Så det kan være det samme om vi har ét eller to. I: Så det kommer an på hvilken et sprog det er? C: Det tror jeg. B: Det ville være sværere hvis vi kun havde grønlandsk og ikke noget dansk, på grund af det er de danske bøger der forbinder os med det engelske. Der er jo ikke nogen grønlandske engelske illustrerede, nogle engelske illustrerede bøger til grønlandsk. D: Det ville da være værre, hvis det var (…) I: Så det handler om bøger også, altså materialer? B: Materialer, ja. De er mest dansk, når det kommer til engelsk. D: Men det er også meget film og musik og sådan noget, stort set alt det vi ser og hører det er på engelsk, så. Måske havde det nok ikke været så svært alligevel. B: Det er også det. I: Men for jer der har grønlandsk som modersmål, tror I det ville være nemmere hvis I lærte engelsk igennem grønlandsk? Altså nu lærer I jo engelsk gennem dansk, ikke? A: Ja.

2


I: Så I lærer faktisk engelsk gennem jeres andet sprog og ikke jeres første sprog. A: For mig ville det måske være lidt sværere fordi, det som jeg har lært øhm, engelsk på, det har været sådan mere igennem fjernsynet og så også med mine søskende. Mine søskende de snakker kun dansk, de kan ikke grønlandsk. Det er kun mig og min lillesøster der snakker grønlandsk sådan rigtigt af os søskende, så… Det har mere været sådan, mine søskende der snakker dansk, der har fortalt mig hvad det er det betyder, når de siger det og sådan noget der. Så det har været sådan lidt fjernsyn og søskende. I: Men det man tit siger, i København i hvert fald, det er at de undervisningsmaterialer der er til de tosprogede børn, at det netop foregår på dansk, og derfor kan det være meget svært for dem at forholde sig til engelsk, fordi at man altid oversætter igennem dansk. Hvis jeg nu for eksempel havde tyrkisk som modersmål og mit andet sprog var dansk, og jeg måske ikke var så god til dansk, og så skulle lære mit tredje sprog igennem det sprog jeg faktisk ikke er særlig god til, det kan være et problem for rigtig mange. Og det var bare derfor jeg spurgte om det måske ville have været lettere, tror I, hvis I havde lært engelsk gennem grønlandsk, hvis det er jeres modersmål. A: Jo, det… Ja. Jo for mig ville det måske være ret nemt. B: Det er også fordi her for nogle år siden så gik jeg i en grønlandsksproget klasse [I: Okay] men jeg var nødt til at rykke op til en dansk på grund af at det gik ikke med grønlandsk, altså vores skole den var næsten konkurs, så jeg kom over til en dansksproget klasse. Jeg havde lidt svært ved at følge med i starten, da jeg kom herhen på grund af… jeg lagde mærke til, at de danske klasser, de kører i meget højere niveau end de grønlandske gør. I: Gør de det? B: Det har jeg lagt mærke til. I: I alle fag, eller specielt i engelsk?

3


B: I alle fag, næsten. Undtagen til grønlandsk. I: Hvorfor tror du det er? B: Det ved jeg ikke. Jeg undrer mig sådan lidt over det. Det er fordi da jeg kom fra den grønlandske, så var jeg en af dem der var bedst til alt muligt, og så da jeg kom ind i klassen, så var jeg den der sad netop på middel. I: Kan det have noget med lærerne at gøre, måske, at der er mange danske lærere heroppe? A: På den skole som han gik på, den gik jeg nemlig også på, på den skole så ja. Fordi lærerne de var ikke sådan, så gode til det. Til at undervise igen. De var i hvert fald ikke lige så gode som de er på den her skole. I: Okay. B: Det afhænger jo af lærerne, hvordan det sådan kører. Det er lige så meget lærernes, hvad hedder det, arbejdskraft det kommer an på. I: Jeg tænker også bare, at hvis man er i en dansksproget klasse med en dansksproget lærer, så kan det også hurtigt gå hurtigere, fordi der ikke er så mange pauser med at man skal stå og forklare ting igen og igen, fordi der måske sidder nogle, der ikke kan dansk, frem for hvis du har en grønlandsk klasse med en dansk lærer, som måske er en ligeså dygtig klasse i virkeligheden, men der er bare nogle sproglige ting der gør at de måske misforstår hinanden mere end man gør når man taler samme sprog flydende. [pause] Så er der det med engelsk. Vi vil jo meget gerne vide hvad I synes. Er der noget i vores spørgeskema som I undrede jer over, eller som I synes vi skulle have spurgt om og som vi ikke spurgte om? I: Er der nogle spørgsmål I ikke kunne forstå hvorfor vi spurgte om, der var mærkelige? C: Der var et par stykker, jeg kan bare ikke huske dem.

4


D: Jeg har meget svært ved at stave, jeg synes egentlig aldrig jeg har lært sådan noget sådan med udsagnsord, navneord og sådan noget på engelsk. Det synes jeg var meget svært, men ellers … Jeres spørgsmål og sådan noget var egentlig nemme nok, det var bare… Jeg kunne bare ikke rigtig finde ud af det, sådan at svare rigtigt på det. I: Okay. B: De er forståelige nok. I: I var også meget hurtige, må man nok sige. I: Ja. I er klart den hurtigste klasse vi har været ude ved. [pause] Hvad synes I der er det sværeste, eller det sjoveste eller det letteste ved at lære engelsk? Hvis I kan svare på det overhovedet. C: Det letteste det er at snakke det, synes jeg, og forstå det. D: Jeg synes det kan være svært at udtale nogen gange. C: Det har jeg ikke sådan problemer med, det er mest det mundtlige. Det skriftlige det kan jeg ikke i nogen sprog. D: Det er også fordi, jeg gider ikke lyde rigtig dansk, når jeg snakker engelsk, jeg vil gerne prøve at lyde som en amerikaner eller englænder eller et eller andet. I: Det kan være rigtig svært når man ikke er det… Hvad med grammatik, er det svært, er det noget I lærer. Hvad med ordforråd, er det svært at forstå nogle ord, eller? B: Engelsk har faktisk ret mange regler inde i grammatikken end de fleste andre sprog. I: Ja, der er mange ting at holde styr på. B: Det som jeg sådan kan komme ind og få lidt fejl på, det får jeg næsten hele tiden.

5


I: Og du synes så ikke, at du kan bruge dine andre sprog til at hjælpe dig med engelsk, jeg ved godt det ikke er det samme, men man siger tit det der med at nu har man lært at lære et sprog, altså I har lært at lære et sprog ved at I har lært grønlandsk og I har lært dansk, og derfor burde det være nemmere for jer at lære engelsk end det er for os, for eksempel. Fordi vi kun har dansk. Men det synes I ikke, at I sådan har? C: Jeg kan ikke særlig meget grønlandsk, faktisk. I: Okay, så er det også lidt problematisk, så hjælper det ikke så meget. D: Jeg tror ikke der er nogen stor forskel, sådan rigtig. I: Så det er ikke en fordel, nødvendigvis? Okay. [udeladt: forsøg på at få eleverne til selv at bringe emner på banen] I: Nu nævnte du det her med at der er stor forskel på de dansksprogede klasser og de grønlandsksprogede klasser, og tempo og sådan noget, så hvad tror I så med en grønlandsksproget klasse, med deres engelske, og hvordan det så fungerer? Hvad tænker I omkring forskellene der? Går det så også langsommere, eller er det sværere for dem? C: Jeg tror at de grønlandske klasser de har lidt mere problemer med at lære engelsk. [I: Ja] Men det er også mest fordi når det er man går rundt inde i byen og hører nogen der ikke kan dansk og når de så prøver at sige engelsk, så går det ikke særlig godt for dem en gang imellem. A: Det kommer så også mere an på om deres lærer er grønlandsk, sådan så at selve læreren også kan forklare hvad det ord på engelsk det betyder, fordi hvis det er en dansk lærer, så begynder han eller hun jo at forklare det på dansk, de grønlandske elever de kan jo ikke forstå det så godt på dansk måske eller sådan noget. Så det hele det kommer også an på læreren og sådan noget der.

6


C: Jeg har så også hørt at de fleste engelsklærere her i byen de er dansksprogede, og kan ikke grønlandsk og sådan noget, så det er vel også et problem. I: Jeg tror også der er stor mangel, så vidt vi kan forstå, på lærere, så tager man jo også hvad man kan få. Det ville selvfølgelig være bedst, hvis de var grønlandsksprogede, men hvis ikke der er nogen, så er det svært. [pause] I: I skal have tusind tak. Det var rigtig sødt af jer, det sætter vi stor pris på. Tak for hjælpen.

7


________________________________________________________________________________

Interview II ________________________________________________________________________________ []

til overlap i tale

()

til uforståelig tale

_______

til når taler selv understreger noget

NEJ

til høje udbrud

[latter]

til øvrige mundtlige udtryk

….

til kortere pauser

[pause]

til længere pauser

E: F: G: H: I: Interviewer(e)

For at sikre informanternes anonymitet er deres navne ikke angivet. Desuden er navne, der nævnes af informanterne, blevet ændret.

I: Vores undersøgelse går ud på at finde ud af hvordan tosprogede har det med at lære engelsk som tredje sprog. I København har vi været ude på skoler hvor der både har været etnisk danske børn og tosprogede børn, for at se om der en forskel på den oplevelse man har af at lære engelsk og også om man måske bliver bedre til det når man har flere sprog at trække på, og flere erfaringer med at lære sprog. Så det vi gerne vil vide, og gerne vil have jer til at fortælle lidt om, det er jeres oplevelse af at lære engelsk som et tredje sprog. Men hvis I nu starter med at fortælle hvad jeres første sprog og andet sprog er, så vi ligesom ved om det er dansk eller grønlandsk i fortrinsvist taler.

1


E: Mit første sprog er dansk og andet sprog er grønlandsk. F: Mit første sprog er grønlandsk og det andet er dansk. G: Jeg blander dem ret meget sammen, så… [I: Så du er sådan lidt] Ja. Det startede [F: Jeg snakker (…) med mine forældre], det startede først med grønlandsk, og så er jeg begyndt at blande grønlandsk og dansk sammen. I: Man kan sagtens skifte modersmål i løbet af sit liv. I: Så det kan godt være, at du synes dansk er dit modersmål nu, selvom det har været grønlandsk. G: Ja, det synes jeg. F: Det synes jeg også. H: Mit første sprog det er nok dansk og så andet sprog det er grønlandsk, tror jeg nok. I: I er ikke helt sikre? H: Nej, men vi snakker jo begge dele, så… E: Ja. Blander det ret meget. I: Man kan jo også have to. Der er jo nogle, der vokser op og taler to lige meget fra starten. [pause] Men hvad tænker I i forhold til at lære engelsk? Tror I det er nemmere, fordi I har to sprog eller tror I det er sværere, og hvorfor tror I det? F: Det kommer som det kommer, eller… Hvis man kan sige det på den måde altså. Fordi jeg lærte, jeg er sådan lidt engelsk der fordi jeg rejste meget da jeg var mindre sammen med mine forældre og sådan noget, fordi min onkel bor i Spanien. Så han boede sammen med en-eller-anden som hed

2


Juan, ikk’, og ham prøvede jeg så at kommunikere med da jeg var lille på sådan en meget sjov engelsk accent som jeg havde, det var sådan, jeg prøvede at kommunikere med ham på engelsk og så, efterhånden så, lidt efter lidt så lærte jeg lidt engelsk og sådan noget, og så fra TV og sådan noget fordi jeg så meget fjernsyn, og det gør jeg stadig, så… I: Tror du så det er nemmere, fordi du kan nogle flere sprog, eller sværere, eller ville det være det samme? F: Jeg synes bare det er sådan, det er faktisk sådan lidt nemmere alligevel tror jeg, fordi man har det med at udvikle de der forskellige, hvad hedder sådan nogen… E: Man har noget at sammenligne det med, agtig. G: Jeg synes grønlandske, dem der kun kan snakke grønlandsk, de har sværere ved at lære engelsk. E & F: Ja. I: Hvorfor det? E: De har svært ved at udtale ordene. I: Så det har noget at gøre med hvor langt sprogene ligger fra hinanden? E: Ja. Fordi der er jo også mange danskere, de kan slet ikke udtale de grønlandske ord. [Latter] I: Der må vi vist melde os under fanerne, for eksempel bare skolens navn… I: Så I tror at fordi man har flere erfaringer med at lære sprog, altså det at man har lært at lære et sprog, at det gør det også nemmere når man så skal lære sit tredje sprog?

3


E: Ja, på en eller anden måde. I: Men hvis man nu kun har dansk som sit sprog, og så skal lære engelsk? E: Jamen så får man jo engelsk noget tidligere end man får, end vi gør. F: Vi fik det i hvad for en klasse? Syvende… A & G: Syvende klasse. F: Vi har haft engelsk i tre år. E: Ja, så de får det jo noget tidligere, og så har de jo så længere til at sådan lære det agtig… Og så er der så mange af de danske ord der ligner de danske, engelske, på en eller anden måde. F: Så man kan sammenligne [E: Ja]. I: Hvad tror I så der vil ske nu hvor I så skal til at lære engelsk fra tredje klasse heroppe? F: Det er fedt. I: Det skal børnene jo nu. F: Ja. Det synes jeg er rigtig [G: Det synes jeg også] [E: Det synes jeg også er godt]. I: Tror I så de vil have nemmere ved det end I måske havde, fordi de lærer det tidligere? H: Ja. G: Ja

4


E: Ja, det tror jeg. [H: Det tror jeg] De har… De har fået mange flere sprog som valgfag end i, i det der nye (Itorsifiaq??). G: Vi har for eksempel ikke haft spansk og tysk, ligesom de andre. F: Jo vi har tysk. E: Vi har ikke haft tysk. G: Vi har ikke haft tysk. E: Tre uger… G: Tre gange. [Latter] H: Og så gik han ud for batterier, så… I: Men hvad så med lærerne heroppe? Der er jo nogle af lærerne, der kun kan dansk, for eksempel… F: Jeg synes det er godt nok altså …[E: Ja, det synes jeg også] fordi, der er bedre at høre på dansk synes jeg fordi det er så meget nemmere end grønlandsk, fordi… E: Ja, det er meget mere enkelt på en eller anden måde, fordi grønlandsk det er så langt… G: Det er lange ord de bruger. E: Ja, meget lange ord. F: Så når man skriver, så er det bare otteogtyve bogstaver og sådan noget.

5


E: Ja, og der er atten i alt, sådan forskellige… Så det sådan lidt… Det er noget nemmere med dansk. I: Men hvis man nu har svært ved dansk, hvis man nu kan grønlandsk og kan lidt dansk, og så skal lære engelsk af en lærer, der kun kan dansk, tror I så… F: Det er så lidt svært for dem, tror jeg… E: Ja, det tror jeg også. F: Svært for de fleste i hvert fald. E: Når de i forvejen ikke kan dansk, så har de, altså de har svært ved at udtale dansk og engelsk for den sags skyld. F: Specielt (..) og y [E: Ja] og g, altså k [E: Ja] og p [F: k og p] (….) [Latter] I: Men der er jo også… Altså i København for eksempel, der er det sådan at tosprogede børn, at de har mange forskellige modersmål for det første og så lærer de så dansk som deres andet sprog og det er ikke altid at det går lige godt, det er ikke altid de bliver så gode til det… og så skal de så også lære engelsk igennem dansk, altså deres andetsprog, som de jo ikke er så gode til. Nu er I jo ret gode til dansk, fordi mange er jer siger I har dansk som modersmål… Så jeg tænker bare sådan lidt, når man nu sidder i det her klasselokale og kun kan grønlandsk, fordi vi har været ude i nogle klasser, hvor vi mødte nogle elever som faktisk næsten kun kunne grønlandsk, meget meget lidt dansk [I: Mmm], og der så står denne her lærer der kun kan dansk og skal lære én et helt nyt sprog man slet ikke kender, og som man måske heller ikke hører så meget i fritiden, hvis man kommer ude fra bygderne, det ved jeg ikke.

6


E: Det tror jeg det er meget svært for dem, fordi at hvis de i forvejen ikke forstår hvad det er læreren siger, og så skal prøve at forstå et nyt sprog som det er bare det rene volapyk for dem ikk’ også, så må det være meget svært. [I: Ja, mmm] Tror jeg. I: Tror I at det så måske er lidt nemmere for nogle af dem i og med at de så har samme modersmål i hvert fald, i forhold til de tosprogede børn i Danmark, der måske ikke altid kan hjælpe hinanden, for eksempel? … Jeg tænker på at hvis nu der sidder et tyrkisk barn og et arabisk barn, og lidt forskelligt, altså der kan de i hvert fald ikke hjælpe hinanden, hvis der er nogle ting de ikke forstår [E: Jo, så tror jeg det er meget] hvor det kan de da i hvert fald heroppe. E: Ja, der tror, så tror jeg det er meget nemmere fordi så kan de sidde og forklare hinanden, hvis de forstår lidt mere eller sådan, så kan de spørge hinanden [F: Så kan de (…) sådan (…)]. F: Det er derfor vi blev sat til at sidde ved siden af nogle der ikke kunne så meget det der, en gang, der, … dem der kunne, det der halløj, skulle sidde ved siden af de der, kan I ikke huske det? E: Næ, det kan jeg ikke huske, jeg ved ikke hvad du snakker om. [pause] G: Vi skulle sidde ved siden af dem der ikke kunne snakke ordentlig dansk, eller engelsk. E: De der borde hun prøvede at lave, på et tidspunkt. I: Men det holdt ikke, eller hvad? Det lød som om det var noget I prøvede kort, og så blev det ikke [E: Nej, men det] ved med [E: så blev det] G: Nej, hun prøvede det hele tiden [F: Nej, men det fordi, det] E: Men så blev der for meget snak i det, fordi så sidder man sådan en stor gruppe

7


F: Eller så var det noget fast, det var dem der lavede mest, og ikke rigtig kunne samarbejde [E: Ja] så I: Okay. Så det var ikke så meget sprog, det var mere om man var flittig, eller ej, eller E: Ja, sådan agtig. I: Okay. F: Så man gerne skulle… have sådan en positiv bevirkning på den anden, eller sådan… [latter] [pause] I: Nå, men en anden ting vi også gerne vil vide, det er hvad synes I er det sværeste ved at lære engelsk, hvad er det sjoveste, hvad er det letteste, hvad er det… mest spændende? F: Jeg kan ikke huske hvad det er det sværeste ved det er. G: Jeg synes det sværeste det er måske grammatikken. E: Ja, det synes jeg også, de der, de der… [G: nutid, datid, og] de der was og had [G: where] de der [G: were] irriterende nogle [G: were, med eller uden, altså] Ja. De er nemme at bytte rundt på. E: Jeg synes det letteste det er sådan bare at snakke, sådan… G: Ja. Det er meget nemmere at snakke. H: Det kan jeg ikke engang. [latter] Jeg hader, jeg kan ikke engang udtale engelsk. F: (…) en af de tre uger [E: Ja], så tænker man engelsk op til ti agtig [E: Ja] I: Okay.

8


I: Sådan, så det skriftlige er svært? E: Ja. G: Ja det skriftlige er lidt sværere end det mundtlige. E: Ja. Det synes jeg også. I: Men har I let ved at forstå det? [E, F, G: Ja] I: Du siger du ikke er så god til at tale det, men du kan godt forstå det eller hvad? H: Jeg kan godt forstå det, men altså… E: Du kan også godt engelsk hvis du skal. H: Ja. Ja, hvis jeg er i England så kan jeg godt snakke engelsk og sådan, men jeg snakker ikke engelsk når jeg er her. I: Okay. Altså fordi du synes det er svært, eller fordi du er bange for at det lyder dumt, for sådan kan man jo godt have det, [H: Ja] man synes det… H: Ja. Det lyder sikkert virkelig dumt når jeg snakker det, og … jeg siger, jeg siger bare… [griner] Jeg kan ikke… I: Men man bliver jo bedre ved at øve sig. H: Ja… F: Jo, det gør man da.

9


H: Og når jeg læser en bog på engelsk, så fatter jeg ikke en skid [griner]. I: Det er også noget andet at læse det end bare at høre når andre folk taler det. F: Jeg synes faktisk, det faktisk er, det faktisk ligeså nemt at læse det som at høre det, synes jeg. H: I kan jo også flydende engelsk, jer tre, kan I ikke? G: Jo… E: Stort set. H: Det kan jeg så ikke. I: Hvad synes du så om spørgeskemaet dér, for eksempel, hvis du kan huske det nu, det I lavede den anden dag… Var det svært? H: Ja. [griner] Det var meget nemt, nogle af dem, men… men altså, hvis det var jeg ikke forstod så [latter] så (..) lavede det bare for sjov. I: Var der nogle af spørgsmålene som I undrede jer over, i spørgeskemaet? Nu ved jeg ikke om (…) G: Der, der var et par ord jeg ikke kunne forstå som … hvad var det nu… altså nogle mærkelige ord i den… på engelsk. I: Indicate, måske? Det tror jeg der var nogen der spurgte om. G: Ja, måske… Sikkert. I: Jeg tænkte ikke så meget ord, men om der var nogle af spørgsmålene, hvor I tænkte, at det var da noget mærkeligt noget at spørge om… måske ikke kunne forstå hvorfor vi skulle spørge om det?

10


E: Det kan jeg faktisk ikke huske… I: Nej… E: Nå ja, vores forældres uddannelse. I: Ja. … Nå men det er fordi det er meget almindeligt at spørge om sådan nogle slags undersøgelser, om… det man kalder folks socioøkonomiske baggrund, det vil sige om de kommer fra en familie der kan give dem god støtte, og det er tit noget, der hænger sammen med økonomi. Det viser sig i alle mulige former for undersøgelser. Så det var lidt det, det handlede om. [E: Okay] Men det prøvede vi så også at spørge om på en anden måde, om I fik noget hjælp til lektier derhjemme, for eksempel, om der var lidt støtte hjemmefra på den måde. Det er meget forskelligt, det kan have en påvirkning på hvordan man klarer sig. Det var derfor. … Hvad var der mere.. som vi forklarede da vi var ude, der? Det var… den der med om ens sprog ligner hinanden [E: Åh]. F: Jeg synes faktisk de tre forskellige sprog de er sådan, de er sådan hver for sig. E: Ja. Dansk og engelsk kan godt ligne hinanden en lille smule… på nogle områder, men… men grønlandsk og engelsk det hænger slet ikke sammen [latter]. I: Nej… De er meget forskellige. E: Ja. [pause] I: Har I nogen… ting I vil byde ind med? [hvisken og latter] E: Øh, næ [pause] [I: Nej] Ikke rigtig.

11


F: Bare spørg om noget andet… vi er lige klar til at svare på alle spørgsmål der kommer. G: (så vi kan klare flere?) spørgsmål. [latter] I: Jeg kan godt finde på et, tror jeg. Hvad tror I er det aller vigtigste, når man skal lære et sprog. Altså er det motivation, er det støtte hjemmefra, er det gode lærere, er det en god [F: Gode lærere for det meste] skole. E: Motivation er også, altså hvis du ikke har motivation, så kan du ikke rigtig… så hænger det ikke sammen agtig, fordi… altså du skal jo også yde en indsats, det er ikke kun læreren der skal… [I: Mmm] …så. F: Det kommer så også an på hvilken en lærer det er og sådan [E: Ja, det er rigtigt]. [pause] E: Det er nok, det er nok en blanding af det hele [I: Ja] … vil jeg tro. I: Okay, men hvis I skulle sige det aller vigtigste, hvad ville det så være? E: Motivation. I: Du ville sige motivation, og hvad ville du sige? F: Ja, det [griner] … Det svinger lidt… I: Okay… G: Jeg vil hellere have en god lærer.

12


H: Det vil jeg også. I: En god lærer? [G: Ja] Okay. H: Vi har en god lærer nu, men det havde vi ikke før. [F: Hvem, Alice?] Ja. F: (…) for nemt alligevel. E: Mmm, det var for nemt. I: Hvad er så en god lærer, når det handler om engelsk, er det en der er god til at tale det? H: En der er lidt streng, tror jeg. G: Også en der begynder let. [H: Ja] Det skal være en der begynder let, ikke ligesom vi fortalte om dengang vi skulle til at have tysk, så kom han bare med en masse tyske bøger, som vi så bare skulle læse op [F: Nå ja, og som vi bare ikke forstod en skid af]. E: Vi stod bare sådan, hørh, og vi anede ikke bogstaverne, hvordan de skal udtales og sådan noget, ajh. Så må I bare lære det, sådan er det. Og så stod vi bare der, øhh. I: Det er en svær start. E: Ja, også sådan en lidt træls start. Men så … (..) så rendte han ud for batterier, så. F: Jeg prøvede at blive sendt ud og printe papir, det var nok det sjoveste jeg… [latter] E: Næ, ikke printe, fotokopiere. F: Richtig [H: Richtig] Wichtig [H: At I gør det wichtig]

13


E: Nej omvendt [griner]. D & F: Det er wichtig at I gør det richtig [latter]. H: Achtig [E: Ja] [latter] I: Der var en anden ting jeg tænkte på. Nu bor I i et tosproget samfund. Synes I det har nogen betydning i jeres hverdag, at… at I lever sådan med to sprog og der er nogen der kun kan det ene og nogen kun kan det andet, og man helst skal kunne begge to? F: De hører også med i sådan nogle forskellige grupper, faktisk. E: Ja. Altså man bliver sådan… man går sådan agtig i grupper efter hvilke sprog man har, eller hvilke sprog man kan agtig på en eller anden måde. Fordi, at dem der kun kan grønlandsk de går mest sammen med dem der snakker meget grønlandsk og dem der kun kan dansk de går mest, sådan, med dem der kun snakker dansk, og dem der så kan begge, de går så med hinanden, agtig. I: Så det deler sig hurtig ind [F: Mmm; E: Ja] efter hvad man kan af sprog. [E: Ja] Okay. E: Sådan, ellers sådan, også… [F: ligesom sprogrejser] Nu kan vi jo så alle, altså, eller begge, ikke også, og så går vi sådan og blander meget og alligevel så forstår vi godt hvad det er vi mener, sådan, selvom det måske er nye ord, agtig… man opfinder, agtig. I: Okay. Så det sprog man kan, det har meget at gøre med hvordan man socialt [E: Ja], altså hvilke grupper man socialt kommer i? F: Det er også meget sådan, dem der ikke kan engelsk og dansk og sådan, de, de er også meget mere sky agtige, hvis man kan sige det på den måde [E: agtig]. De har svært, de er sådan lidt mere asociale end de fleste tror jeg. Men sociale med hinanden hvor de kan snakke det samme sprog og sådan noget.

14


E: Nå men altså jeg tror også det er svært, sådan… for eksempel hvis der er én der kun snakker grønlandsk og så én der måske kan begge, men blander sine sprog rigtig meget, så er det svært for den der kan begge sprog at udtrykke sig kun på grønlandsk… Fordi at man er så vant til at blande sprogene. I: Okay. [pause] H: Det er også når man er i Danmark, så lægger man mærke til når man kun er sammen med danske…, ikke, så kommer man til at sige gaa eller sådan… E: Ja, eller sådan… Eller at man kan ikke lige finde det rigtige ord for et eller andet grønlandsk man plejer at sige, eller sådan… G: Sæ, sæi [E: Ja] [latter] Sæi, det er ligesom når man lyver [de andre gentager ordet]. Det er sådan, der er faktisk flere forskellige sprog i de forskellige byer her i Grønland, så i… I Sisimiut, så siger, i stedet for at sige sæ, så siger de nehu [I: Okay] Og i (…), så siger de ibor [latter] E: Det er sådan lidt forskelligt hvordan, altså… aap og [F/G: napa] Altså aap, det er ja, ikk’, det siger man her, i Sisimiut der siger man su og i Østgrønland der siger man ii. I: Nå, der er stor forskel så. F: Ja. Det er ligesom når man skriver (……………, ………….), (………, ..…..). Det sådan… G: Altså (………), (……….) [latter]

15


H: Hvad betyder gaa så? E: Hold da op. [G: Gaa] H: Hold da op… Man ved godt hvad det betyder på grønlandsk, men ikke på dansk. F: Man kan sagtens forstå det, det er bare anderledes den måde de siger det på, og sådan noget altså [E: Mmm] Man kan sagtens forstå det, det er bare… lidt anderledes rundt omkring… fra by til by. I: Ja. Men er det ligesom dialekter i Danmark, eller [E: Ja, sådan agtig] eller som norsk, svensk og… E: Nej det er sådan mere ligesom nordjysk og sønderjysk. G: Det her sprog vi snakker på Grønland her og så med dem fra Østgrønland, det er ligesom fra København og dem fra Bornholm, eller hvad. I: Okay. I: Der er jo også alligevel en forskel… men man også forstår hinanden. E: Men i Østgrønland, der snakker de sådan noget der slet ikke lyder grønlandsk agtig. Det lyder som et helt andet sprog og de snakker rigtig hurtigt, og det er rigtig mærkeligt. Halvdelen af min familie er derovre fra, og det er rigtig svært at snakke med dem. I: Så det er sådan lidt sønderjysk agtigt? E: Ja, agtigt. H: Det kan jeg ikke, det kan jeg ikke forstå. E: Det er sådan den grønlandske udgave af sønderjysk.

16


I: Men lige for at vende tilbage til de der opdelinger i grupper, med sprog og sådan, altså, er der så nogen grupper, som bliver set bedre på end andre grupper, eller… F: Det er faktisk… E: De dobbeltsprogede vil jeg tro. G: Ja, de dobbeltsprogede… de bliver set mest, fordi de kan også godt blande sig med de andre grupper [E: Ja] F: End at bare være med i en gruppe hele tiden. G: Ja. E: Ja. Og der er også mange job og sådan noget hvor du skal være dobbeltsproget… sådan, helst. I: Hvad så med de grupper der primært taler grønlandsk, eller primært taler dansk, er der nogen, bliver de set på forskellige måder? F: Nej, men det er bare, fordi jeg plejer mest at være sammen med de, den danske klasse her. De har sådan nogle meget forskellige synspunkter på hinanden… fordi, ja… det er faktisk meget forskelligt hvordan de ser hinanden som, agtig. I: Hvordan, kan du forklare, eller kan I forklare hvad forskellen er? F: Det er sådan lidt, hvor de ser lidt mere primitivt på det, agtig sådan… [E: Mmm] I: Altså synes du de grønlandske grupper er primitive, eller? F: Nej, nej. Eller jo…

17


E: Jo, på en eller anden måde. Sådan lidt mere, sådan lidt mere… [G: Dumme] Ja [Griner] eller antimoderne agtige [F: Godt kan være rigtig…] Ja, gammeldags. På en måde. I: Og hvordan tror I så de grønlandsksprogede de opfatter dem der næsten kun taler dansk? G: De er nogle idioter. [latter] E: Ja, de er nogle idioter. H: Ja, fuck dem. E: Der er mange der sådan ikke kan li at der er så mange danskere i Grønland… Men det er jo noget fis, for altså, grønlændere kan ikke klare sig uden danskere, sådan. Men der er mange der synes at det er noget… at det ikke er godt at der er så mange danskere i Grønland. I: Hvad så med de grønlandskudseende børn, som så vælger måske at tale dansk, eller kun har lært dansk, er der forskel på det, fra dem der også ser danske ud, for eksempel? F: Ja, der er sådan, rimelig meget forskel [E: Ja] … Jeg kender også en der, en grønlænder, der ligner en grønlænder, men kun snakker dansk, ikke grønlandsk [G: Det er Frederik] [H: Bo] Nej, Bo. I: Men bliver de så set på en anden måde end, end andre? F: Jeg ved det ikke, fordi de tror de er grønlandske og sådan noget, så… så det er sådan lidt sjovt at de ikke forstår grønlandsk eller snakker grønlandsk [G: Sikkert kun et par ord] Ja. E: Ja… Min, min far han er også, han er født og opvokset her i Grønland, og han er meget meget lys og har blå øjne, og ligner seriøst en dansker, men han kan ikke grønlandsk, han kan kun forstå

18


grønlandsk, sådan … ikke, og der er også mange der tror han er dansker, dum dansker, og kalder ham sådan noget… F: Det er specielt de der ældre drankere… E: Ja. Sådan noget [F: Drankere] Ja… Dem der står nede foran Brugsen [griner] F: Dine bedste venner [E: Ja [griner]] I: Ja, i Brøndby hedder det dem der står bag Netto. [latter] F: Vi kalder det så foran Brugsen. [latter] E: Dem foran Brugsen. F: De ser meget grønlandske ud. G: Der er også lavet en sang om dem. [sang på grønlandsk] F: Det betyder så, sidder ude for Brugsen, dejligt vejr… E: Ja, og vi er ude. H: Sidder og drikker en øl. I: Nå, men jeg tror ikke jeg har flere spørgsmål.

19


I: Nej, jeg tror heller ikke… F: Jo, kom nu. [latter] I: Jamen så må I selv finde på noget at fortælle os, hvis det er… F: Dig. E: Hvorfor mig? F: Hvorfor ikke? I: Det skal være relevant. H: Hvordan lærte du at snakke engelsk, hva’? E: Hvad? G: Hvor har du lært engelsk fra? F: Hvor har du lært engelsk? E: Hvor jeg har lært engelsk? [F: Ja, hvor] Jeg har lært engelsk derhjemme, og hjemme ved Lisa og i England. G: Øhm, hjemme ved Lisa, eller, og hjemme…? E: Nå, men altså vi fik undervisning af Lisas mor på et tidspunkt, og så…

20


F: Da I var hvor gamle? E: Aner det ikke! Det ved jeg ikke, ni eller sådan noget. I: Hvornår har du været i England? E: I sommers, på sprogrejse, i England. G: Der var vi også i studierejse. E: Nå ja, vi var også i London på studierejse. I: Var det godt? E: Ja, det var skægt. G: Ja, det var rigtig sjovt. H: Det kan vi godt prøve igen. G: Bare gå rundt alene om aftenen. F: Det var fedt, det var sådan, helt vild bonus agtig, sådan. [udeladt: røverhistorier om tidligere klassekammerat] I: Hvordan var det så da I var i London, hvordan var det så at bruge engelsk? Var det anderledes end… E: Det var rigtig fedt. H: Jeg kunne godt bruge det.

21


I: Du kunne godt bruge det? [G: Det var bare svært at lade være med at sige fuck] I: Var det så fordi at du lige pludselig skulle bruge det? [I: Uh, det skal man ikke bruge så meget i England.] H: Det er fordi jeg skal bruge det. G: Nej vel. De bliver skidegale når de hører det. [F: Det er dobbeltmoralsk, er det ikke] E: Vi snakker alle sammen på én gang. I: Det er bare noget med, at når danskere bruger engelske ord som fuck og den slags ord, så bruger man det bare lidt i flæng, men når du så rent faktisk taler med folk der taler engelsk, så har det en meget stærkere betydning, så det skal man lige passe på med. G: En af mine venner, da vi var i London, så første dag om aftenen, der tog vi hen til et sted der hed Angels og så skulle vi derover på en stor shoppingcenter eller sådan noget der, så købte vi noget sodavand og noget slik, så havde han glemt sin pung, og han stod der ved kassen foran kassedamen… så prøver han at lede efter sin pung, og så siger han, fuck, så går han, og så kommer vagten efter ham [H: Hvem?] Peter [H: [griner] Hvad sagde han så?] vagten kommer efter ham, så siger han did you say fuck to me? [latter] [udeladt: mere snak om engelske bandeord – og lidt fransk…] I: Jeg tænkte på en sidste ting [F: Sidste ting?]. Du snakkede om, at når du er i Danmark for eksempel, så står du nogle gange og mangler nogle ord, som du ville sige på grønlandsk, hvis der var nogen der forstod det. [H: Mmm] Så tænker jeg, i den situation, tænker du så indtil du finder noget på dansk, eller bruger du måske nogen gange noget fra engelsk, så, fordi du ved de også kan noget engelsk?

22


H: Nej. [I: Nej] Så bruger jeg kun dansk. I: Okay. H: Fordi min familie i Danmark, de… I: De er måske ikke så gode til engelsk, eller hvad? H: Nej. I: Nej, okay. Så dur det jo heller ikke. F: Nogle gange, ligesom, ligesom hvis man glemmer ord på dansk, og ligesom, så kan man godt finde på at bruge sådan engelske ord i stedet, når man glemmer nogle forskellige ord. E: Det er bare sådan, man tager bare det første ord, der popper op i hovedet på én [I: Ja] agtig [I: Uanset hvad sprog det er] Ja. I: Men hvad er I så mest til, er I mest til amerikansk engelsk eller er I mest til britisk engelsk? H: Ah, hun er, hun er… hun snakker total engelsk [G: engelsk, engelsk] accent. E: Ja, jeg snakker snobbet engelsk, men det er så fordi at, at der da vi var de der tre uger i England, så… alle vores lærere og den familie vi boede hos og deres børn og børnebørn, alle sammen de snakker bare sådan noget snobbet engelsk og så bliver man påvirket af det og så [I: Britisk engelsk?] Ja. I: Ikke nødvendigvis snobbet engelsk. E: Jamen det er jo fordi det kalder vores lærer det. [latter]

23


I: Nå, ej men jeg ville kalde det britisk engelsk. E: Nå, men så britisk engelsk. G: Hun er også engelsk. I: Nå, så differentierer hun måske nok lidt mere… I: Ja, men det synes jeg nu stadigvæk… G: Det lyder rigtig irriterende når hun snakker engelsk. I: Gør det det? E: Det synes de. De synes det, jeg kan ikke.. G: Prøv at læse noget op på engelsk E: Læse noget op på engelsk, hvad skulle jeg læse af? H: Så snak dog, sig dit navn og… alt mulig lort. F: Sig dit navn. I: Det er svært på kommando E: Ja. Jeg kan ikke amerikansk engelsk I: Okay. I: Det kan du lære [I: Hvad med jer andre?]

24


G: Ja. Det er det jeg helst vil snakke. I: Du vil helst snakke amerikansk engelsk? [G: Ja] E: Men jeg kan ikke li’ amerikansk engelsk I: Det kunne jeg heller ikke, men så… I: Så giftede du dig med en amerikaner. I: Så giftede jeg mig med en amerikaner, så nu hænger jeg på den [E: Ja, okay] Nu er der ikke noget at gøre, nu blander jeg det hele, amerikansk, britisk, dansk. E: Wow, så mangler du bare grønlandsk [I: Ja] [latter] I: Ej, jeg tvivler… det tager nok lige et par år, så skal jeg nok have lidt længere tid end to uger, tænker jeg… E: Ja, måske. Min stedfar er dansker, han har været her i femten år og han kan ikke et eneste ord på grønlandsk. I: Nå, det vil jeg så tro… det vil jeg da håbe, at jeg kunne. [Udeladt: elever til interviewere, Hvad synes I om Grønland…] I: Nå, vi må hellere til at runde af. Men vi kunne jo lige tage, hvad er du mest til, amerikansk eller britisk engelsk? F: Jamen, efter jeg har været i England, så er det nok mest britisk engelsk, men jeg prøver at lade være med at snakke det, fordi det…

25


E: Fordi resten af klassen hader det. F: Ja. [latter] I: Okay. Gruppepres… F: Ja… Det er sådan mere amerikansk engelsk, tror jeg. H: Jeg snakker dum engelsk. [latter] I: Dansk engelsk måske? H: Mmm. Grønlænder engelsk [A griner]. I: Nå, har I noget der hedder Grenglish, så? [latter] Har I det? [E: Nej] Nå, men ligesom i Danmark der, hvis man ikke er særlig god til engelsk, for eksempel, eller man bruger meget dansk accent [I: Hvis man bare har en stærk dansk accent] I: Jæs ju nou, if ju speek laik dis. [latter] [I: Så er det Danglish] I: Så er det Danglish, og så tænkte jeg nu, hvis I gør det her i Grønland, så er det Grenglish, eller [latter]

26


I: Hvordan lyder det? Er der en der kan give en prøve på det? F: you kno’ E: Ju nå [latter] F: Det lyder lidt japansk agtig [I: Okay] som en japaner der snakker engelsk. E: Agtig, det lyder, det lyder ikke så kønt. F: Ikke særlig, sådan, begavet. I: Det kan være vi skal lade som om vi kun kan engelsk nogle dage, så vi kan få… [latter] det afprøvet rundt omkring. I: Det der Grenglish, som ikke eksisterer. I: Nå, okay. Men I skal have tusind tak for hjælpen. [Udeladt: protester om at blive længere]

27


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Statistical Output _____________________________________________________________________________________

Background variables............................................................................... 1

Age and gender distribution.......................................................................................................................1 Country of birth .........................................................................................................................................2 Citizenship .................................................................................................................................................3 Sense of nationality....................................................................................................................................4 L1, L2 & L3...............................................................................................................................................5 Copenhagen test results .............................................................................................................................7 Overall test score...................................................................................................................................7 Test assessment......................................................................................................................................9 Tasks ....................................................................................................................................................10 Metalinguistic tasks .............................................................................................................................15 Nuuk test results ......................................................................................................................................16 Overall test score.................................................................................................................................16 Test assessment....................................................................................................................................17 Tasks ....................................................................................................................................................17 Metalinguistic tasks .............................................................................................................................23 English literacy skills in relation to overall test score .............................................................................24 Socio-economic background ...................................................................................................................39

Hypothesis A: Interdependence............................................................. 48

Sub-hypothesis A.1: L1 education...........................................................................................................48 Sub-hypothesis A.2: Active versus passive use of L1.............................................................................50 Sub-hypothesis A.3: Literacy skills.........................................................................................................55 A.3.1: L1 literacy skills level of English proficiency ......................................................................55 A.3.2: L2 literacy skills level of English proficiency ......................................................................62 Sub-hypothesis A.4: Code-switching ......................................................................................................66

Hypothesis B: Typology.......................................................................... 68

Sub-hypothesis B.1: Typological distance ..............................................................................................68 Sub-hypothesis B.2: Psychotypology ......................................................................................................70

Hypothesis C: Metalinguistic knowledge.............................................. 73 Hypothesis D: Motivation....................................................................... 74

Sub-hypothesis D.1: Effort ......................................................................................................................74 Sub-hypothesis D.2: Affect .....................................................................................................................80 D.2.1: Parental attitudes in relation to respondent attitudes ..............................................................80 D.2.2: Respondent attitudes in relation to level of English proficiency ............................................126 Sub-hypothesis D.3: Orientation ...........................................................................................................180

Hypothesis E: Usage and exposure...................................................... 185

Sub-hypothesis E.1: Usage of English...................................................................................................185 Sub-hypothesis E.2: Exposure to English..............................................................................................187

Additional findings ............................................................................... 201


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Background variables _____________________________________________________________________________________

Age and gender distribution Copenhagen: Statistics N

Valid Missing

Mean

Age 91 0 15,21

Gender 91 0

Age

Valid

14 15 16 Total

Frequency 1 70 20 91

Percent 1,1 76,9 22,0 100,0

Cumulative Percent 1,1 78,0 100,0

Valid Percent 1,1 76,9 22,0 100,0

Gender

Valid

Boy Girl Total

Frequency 53 38 91

Percent 58,2 41,8 100,0

Cumulative Percent 58,2 100,0

Valid Percent 58,2 41,8 100,0

Nuuk: Statistics N Mean

Valid Missing

Age 96 0 15,33

Gender 96 0

1


Age

Valid

15 16 Total

Frequency 64 32 96

Percent 66,7 33,3 100,0



Gender

Valid

Boy Girl Total

Frequency 51 45 96

Percent 53,1 46,9 100,0



Country of birth Copenhagen:

Country of birth L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

Denmark Vietnam Macedonia El Salvador Somalia Germany Kosovo Bosnia Afghanistan Iraq Total Denmark Macedonia Total

Frequency 21 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 32 58 1 59

Percent 65,6 3,1 3,1 3,1 9,4 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 100,0 98,3 1,7 100,0

2

Valid Percent 65,6 3,1 3,1 3,1 9,4 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 100,0 98,3 1,7 100,0

Cumulative Percent 65,6 68,8 71,9 75,0 84,4 87,5 90,6 93,8 96,9 100,0 98,3 100,0


Nuuk:

Country of birth

Valid

Denmark Greenland Total

Frequency 3 93 96

Percent 3,1 96,9 100,0



Citizenship Copenhagen: Citizenship L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Danish Macedonian Somali Pakistani Alien citizenship Albanian Moroccan Turkish Persian Danish and Lebanese Danish and Moroccan Total No response Danish

Frequency 16 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 30 2 32 59

Percent 50,0 9,4 3,1 3,1 3,1 6,3 3,1 6,3 3,1 3,1 3,1 93,8 6,3 100,0 100,0

Nuuk: Citizenship

Valid Missing Total

Danish No response

Frequency 95 1 96

Percent 99,0 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 100,0

3

Cumulative Percent 100,0

Valid Percent 53,3 10,0 3,3 3,3 3,3 6,7 3,3 6,7 3,3 3,3 3,3 100,0

100,0

Cumulative Percent 53,3 63,3 66,7 70,0 73,3 80,0 83,3 90,0 93,3 96,7 100,0

100,0


Sense of nationality Copenhagen: Sense of nationality L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Danish Vietnamese Somali Pakistani Danish and French Danish and Spanish Albanian Moroccan Bosnian Turkish Kurdish African Danish and Albanian Danish and Arabic Danish and Moroccan Danish and European Somali and African Total No response Danish Swedish European Danish and American Danish and European Danish and African Danish, English and American Total

Cumulative Percent 3,7 11,1 14,8 18,5 22,2 25,9 29,6 33,3 37,0 44,4 51,9 63,0 85,2 88,9 92,6 96,3 100,0

Frequency 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 6 1 1 1 1 27 5 32 49 1 2 1 3 1

Percent 3,1 6,3 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 6,3 6,3 9,4 18,8 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 84,4 15,6 100,0 83,1 1,7 3,4 1,7 5,1 1,7

Valid Percent 3,7 7,4 3,7 3,7 3,7 3,7 3,7 3,7 3,7 7,4 7,4 11,1 22,2 3,7 3,7 3,7 3,7 100,0

83,1 1,7 3,4 1,7 5,1 1,7

83,1 84,7 88,1 89,8 94,9 96,6

2

3,4

3,4

100,0

59

100,0

100,0

4


Nuuk: Sense of nationality

Valid

Missing Total

Danish Greenlandic Myself Danish and Greenlandic Danish and English African Danish, Greenlandic and English Danish, Greenlandic and American Danish, Greenlandic and Thai Danish, Greenlandic and European Total No response

Frequency 4 51 1 31 1 1

Percent 4,2 53,1 1,0 32,3 1,0 1,0

Valid Percent 4,2 53,7 1,1 32,6 1,1 1,1

Cumulative Percent 4,2 57,9 58,9 91,6 92,6 93,7

1

1,0

1,1

94,7

3

3,1

3,2

97,9

1

1,0

1,1

98,9

1

1,0

1,1

100,0

95 1 96

99,0 1,0 100,0

100,0

L1, L2 & L3 Copenhagen: First language L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

Danish Vietnamese Somali Urdu Albanian Arabic Moroccan Bosnian Turkish Kurdish Persian (Farsi) Total Danish

Frequency 5 2 4 1 8 2 4 1 1 3 1 32 59

Percent 15,6 6,3 12,5 3,1 25,0 6,3 12,5 3,1 3,1 9,4 3,1 100,0 100,0

5

Valid Percent 15,6 6,3 12,5 3,1 25,0 6,3 12,5 3,1 3,1 9,4 3,1 100,0 100,0

Cumulative Percent 15,6 21,9 34,4 37,5 62,5 68,8 81,3 84,4 87,5 96,9 100,0 100,0


Second language L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

Danish French Spanish Arabic Moroccan Total English

Frequency 27 1 1 2 1 32 59

Percent 84,4 3,1 3,1 6,3 3,1 100,0 100,0

Valid Percent 84,4 3,1 3,1 6,3 3,1 100,0 100,0


Third language L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

Valid Valid

English 88

Frequency 32 59

Percent 100,0 100,0

Valid Percent 100,0 100,0

Nuuk: First language

Valid

Danish Greenlandic Total

Frequency 11 85 96

Percent 11,5 88,5 100,0



Second language

Valid

Danish Greenlandic Total

Frequency 85 11 96

Percent 88,5 11,5 100,0



Third language

Valid

English

Frequency 96

Percent 100,0

Valid Percent 100,0

6




Copenhagen test results

Overall test score Statistics Overall score L3 learners

N

L2 learners

Mean N

Valid Missing Valid Missing

Mean

32 0 38,94 59 0 41,14

Overall score: L3 learners

Valid

19 25 26 29 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 50 51 52 Total

Frequency 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 32

Percent 3,1 3,1 3,1 6,3 3,1 6,3 3,1 3,1 15,6 3,1 3,1 6,3 6,3 6,3 3,1 12,5 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 100,0

Cumulative Percent 3,1 6,3 9,4 15,6 18,8 25,0 28,1 31,3 46,9 50,0 53,1 59,4 65,6 71,9 75,0 87,5 90,6 93,8 96,9 100,0

Valid Percent 3,1 3,1 3,1 6,3 3,1 6,3 3,1 3,1 15,6 3,1 3,1 6,3 6,3 6,3 3,1 12,5 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 100,0

7


Overall score: L2 learners

Valid

15 21 22 23 26 28 29 31 33 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Total

Frequency 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 7 7 4 2 4 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 59

Percent 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 3,4 1,7 3,4 1,7 1,7 3,4 5,1 5,1 11,9 11,9 6,8 3,4 6,8 3,4 1,7 5,1 3,4 5,1 1,7 1,7 100,0

Cumulative Percent 1,7 3,4 5,1 6,8 8,5 10,2 11,9 15,3 16,9 20,3 22,0 23,7 27,1 32,2 37,3 49,2 61,0 67,8 71,2 78,0 81,4 83,1 88,1 91,5 96,6 98,3 100,0

Valid Percent 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 3,4 1,7 3,4 1,7 1,7 3,4 5,1 5,1 11,9 11,9 6,8 3,4 6,8 3,4 1,7 5,1 3,4 5,1 1,7 1,7 100,0

8


Test assessment Test assessment L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing

Total

Very easy Easy Neither easy nor difficult Difficult Total Invalid Very easy Easy Neither easy nor difficult Difficult Very difficult Total Invalid No response Total

Frequency 4 10 15 2 31 1 32 6 14 28 7 1 56 2 1 3 59

Percent 12,5 31,3 46,9 6,3 96,9 3,1 100,0 10,2 23,7 47,5 11,9 1,7 94,9 3,4 1,7 5,1 100,0

Valid Percent 12,9 32,3 48,4 6,5 100,0

10,7 25,0 50,0 12,5 1,8 100,0

9

Cumulative Percent 12,9 45,2 93,5 100,0

10,7 35,7 85,7 98,2 100,0


Tasks Statistics

N

Valid Missing

Mean

Scanning total 91 0 3,77

Skimming total 91 0 3,46

Grammar: making sentences total 91 0 2,84

Grammar: verbs and subjects total 91 0 3,54

Grammar: the right tense total 91 0 4,27

Scanning total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 1 1 5 6 14 5 32 2 7 9 15 26 59

Percent 3,1 3,1 15,6 18,8 43,8 15,6 100,0 3,4 11,9 15,3 25,4 44,1 100,0

Valid Percent 3,1 3,1 15,6 18,8 43,8 15,6 100,0 3,4 11,9 15,3 25,4 44,1 100,0


10

Understandin g words total 91 0 4,70

Grammar exercise: find the right verb10 81 10 1,62

Grammar exercise: personal pronouns total 91 0 4,51

Grammar exercise: find the right tense total 91 0 3,92

Find the right word total 91 0 4,31


Skimming total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 2 3 4 5 Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 1 6 9 12 4 32 2 7 18 22 10 59

Percent 3,1 18,8 28,1 37,5 12,5 100,0 3,4 11,9 30,5 37,3 16,9 100,0

Valid Percent 3,1 18,8 28,1 37,5 12,5 100,0 3,4 11,9 30,5 37,3 16,9 100,0

Cumulative Percent 3,1 21,9 50,0 87,5 100,0 3,4 15,3 45,8 83,1 100,0

Grammar: making sentences total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 Total 0 1 2 3 4 Total

Frequency 1 3 7 9 12 32 1 8 13 16 21 59

Percent 3,1 9,4 21,9 28,1 37,5 100,0 1,7 13,6 22,0 27,1 35,6 100,0

Valid Percent 3,1 9,4 21,9 28,1 37,5 100,0 1,7 13,6 22,0 27,1 35,6 100,0


Grammar: verbs and subjects total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

2 3 4 5 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 6 12 7 7 32 2 1 2 19 26 9 59

Percent 18,8 37,5 21,9 21,9 100,0 3,4 1,7 3,4 32,2 44,1 15,3 100,0

11

Valid Percent 18,8 37,5 21,9 21,9 100,0 3,4 1,7 3,4 32,2 44,1 15,3 100,0



Grammar: the right tense total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

1 2 3 4 5 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 1 1 5 6 19 32 1 1 4 5 12 36 59

Percent 3,1 3,1 15,6 18,8 59,4 100,0 1,7 1,7 6,8 8,5 20,3 61,0 100,0

Valid Percent 3,1 3,1 15,6 18,8 59,4 100,0 1,7 1,7 6,8 8,5 20,3 61,0 100,0


Understanding words total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

Frequency 1 3 5 10 6 2 5 32 7 2 5 9 10 11 9 6 59

Percent 3,1 9,4 15,6 31,3 18,8 6,3 15,6 100,0 11,9 3,4 8,5 15,3 16,9 18,6 15,3 10,2 100,0

12

Valid Percent 3,1 9,4 15,6 31,3 18,8 6,3 15,6 100,0 11,9 3,4 8,5 15,3 16,9 18,6 15,3 10,2 100,0

Cumulative Percent 3,1 12,5 28,1 59,4 78,1 84,4 100,0 11,9 15,3 23,7 39,0 55,9 74,6 89,8 100,0


Grammar exercise: find the right verb total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total

Frequency 4 3 6 4 2 8 4 1 32 6 1 4 10 12 11 8 4 3 59

Percent 12,5 9,4 18,8 12,5 6,3 25,0 12,5 3,1 100,0 10,2 1,7 6,8 16,9 20,3 18,6 13,6 6,8 5,1 100,0

Valid Percent 12,5 9,4 18,8 12,5 6,3 25,0 12,5 3,1 100,0 10,2 1,7 6,8 16,9 20,3 18,6 13,6 6,8 5,1 100,0

Cumulative Percent 12,5 21,9 40,6 53,1 59,4 84,4 96,9 100,0 10,2 11,9 18,6 35,6 55,9 74,6 88,1 94,9 100,0

Grammar exercise: personal pronouns total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Frequency 1 2 3 3 2 12 9 32 1 1 6 2 9 24 16 59

Percent 3,1 6,3 9,4 9,4 6,3 37,5 28,1 100,0 1,7 1,7 10,2 3,4 15,3 40,7 27,1 100,0

13

Valid Percent 3,1 6,3 9,4 9,4 6,3 37,5 28,1 100,0 1,7 1,7 10,2 3,4 15,3 40,7 27,1 100,0

Cumulative Percent 3,1 9,4 18,8 28,1 34,4 71,9 100,0 1,7 3,4 13,6 16,9 32,2 72,9 100,0


Grammar exercise: find the right tense total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 2 1 3 5 8 13 32 2 4 6 25 22 59

Percent 6,3 3,1 9,4 15,6 25,0 40,6 100,0 3,4 6,8 10,2 42,4 37,3 100,0

Valid Percent 6,3 3,1 9,4 15,6 25,0 40,6 100,0 3,4 6,8 10,2 42,4 37,3 100,0


Find the right word total L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 2 3 4 5 Total 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 1 3 3 12 13 32 1 1 5 14 38 59

Percent 3,1 9,4 9,4 37,5 40,6 100,0 1,7 1,7 8,5 23,7 64,4 100,0

14

Valid Percent 3,1 9,4 9,4 37,5 40,6 100,0 1,7 1,7 8,5 23,7 64,4 100,0



Metalinguistic tasks Statistics Metalinguistic score L3 learners N

L2 learners

Mean N


Mean

32 0 10,63 59 0 10,66

Metalinguistic score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total

Frequency 2 1 7 5 5 4 6 2 32 1 1 2 1 4 5 8 15 9 9 4 59

Percent 6,3 3,1 21,9 15,6 15,6 12,5 18,8 6,3 100,0 1,7 1,7 3,4 1,7 6,8 8,5 13,6 25,4 15,3 15,3 6,8 100,0

15

Valid Percent 6,3 3,1 21,9 15,6 15,6 12,5 18,8 6,3 100,0 1,7 1,7 3,4 1,7 6,8 8,5 13,6 25,4 15,3 15,3 6,8 100,0

Cumulative Percent 6,3 9,4 31,3 46,9 62,5 75,0 93,8 100,0 1,7 3,4 6,8 8,5 15,3 23,7 37,3 62,7 78,0 93,2 100,0


Nuuk test results Overall test score Statistics Overall score N Valid Missing Mean

96 0 27,99

Overall score

Valid

6 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 Total

Frequency 1 1 2 5 2 2 3 6 1 1 1 4 3 4 2 3 4 4 6 2 6 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 96

Percent 1,0 1,0 2,1 5,2 2,1 2,1 3,1 6,3 1,0 1,0 1,0 4,2 3,1 4,2 2,1 3,1 4,2 4,2 6,3 2,1 6,3 2,1 1,0 2,1 2,1 3,1 3,1 2,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 1,0 1,0 1,0 2,1 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 1,0 1,0 2,1 5,2 2,1 2,1 3,1 6,3 1,0 1,0 1,0 4,2 3,1 4,2 2,1 3,1 4,2 4,2 6,3 2,1 6,3 2,1 1,0 2,1 2,1 3,1 3,1 2,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 3,1 1,0 1,0 1,0 2,1 1,0 100,0

16

Cumulative Percent 1,0 2,1 4,2 9,4 11,5 13,5 16,7 22,9 24,0 25,0 26,0 30,2 33,3 37,5 39,6 42,7 46,9 51,0 57,3 59,4 65,6 67,7 68,8 70,8 72,9 76,0 79,2 81,3 84,4 87,5 90,6 93,8 94,8 95,8 96,9 99,0 100,0


Test assessment Test assessment

Valid

Missing Total

Very easy Easy Neither easy nor difficult Difficult Very difficult Total No response

Frequency 3 12 38 24 13 90 6 96

Percent 3,1 12,5 39,6 25,0 13,5 93,8 6,3 100,0

Valid Percent 3,3 13,3 42,2 26,7 14,4 100,0

Cumulative Percent 3,3 16,7 58,9 85,6 100,0

Tasks Statistics

N Mean

Valid Missing

Scanning total 96 0 2,23

Skimming total 96 0 2,25

Grammar: making sentences total 96 0 1,96

Grammar: verbs and subjects total 96 0 2,49

Grammar: the right tense total 96 0 2,96

17

Understandin g words total 96 0 2,94

Grammar exercise: find the right verb total 96 0 4,52

Grammar exercise: personal pronouns total 96 0 3,03

Grammar exercise: find the right tense total 96 0 2,39

Find the right word total 96 0 3,35

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Scanning total

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 12 23 22 16 16 7 96

Percent 12,5 24,0 22,9 16,7 16,7 7,3 100,0

Valid Percent 12,5 24,0 22,9 16,7 16,7 7,3 100,0


Skimming total

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 13 18 20 25 17 3 96

Percent 13,5 18,8 20,8 26,0 17,7 3,1 100,0

Valid Percent 13,5 18,8 20,8 26,0 17,7 3,1 100,0


Grammar: making sentences total

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 Total

Frequency 15 21 24 25 11 96

Percent 15,6 21,9 25,0 26,0 11,5 100,0

Valid Percent 15,6 21,9 25,0 26,0 11,5 100,0


18

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Grammar: verbs and subjects total

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 11 14 23 20 21 7 96

Percent 11,5 14,6 24,0 20,8 21,9 7,3 100,0

Valid Percent 11,5 14,6 24,0 20,8 21,9 7,3 100,0


Grammar: the right tense total

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 11 15 12 18 9 31 96

Percent 11,5 15,6 12,5 18,8 9,4 32,3 100,0

Valid Percent 11,5 15,6 12,5 18,8 9,4 32,3 100,0


19

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Understanding words total

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Total

Frequency 9 14 18 19 19 9 4 3 1 96

Percent 9,4 14,6 18,8 19,8 19,8 9,4 4,2 3,1 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 9,4 14,6 18,8 19,8 19,8 9,4 4,2 3,1 1,0 100,0

Cumulative Percent 9,4 24,0 42,7 62,5 82,3 91,7 95,8 99,0 100,0

Grammar exercise: find the right verb total

Valid

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total

Frequency 17 1 9 14 14 18 15 6 2 96

Percent 17,7 1,0 9,4 14,6 14,6 18,8 15,6 6,3 2,1 100,0

Valid Percent 17,7 1,0 9,4 14,6 14,6 18,8 15,6 6,3 2,1 100,0


20

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Grammar exercise: personal pronouns total

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Frequency 12 13 14 13 20 13 11 96

Percent 12,5 13,5 14,6 13,5 20,8 13,5 11,5 100,0

Valid Percent 12,5 13,5 14,6 13,5 20,8 13,5 11,5 100,0

Cumulative Percent 12,5 26,0 40,6 54,2 75,0 88,5 100,0

Grammar exercise: find the right tense total

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 10 18 23 22 16 7 96

Percent 10,4 18,8 24,0 22,9 16,7 7,3 100,0

Valid Percent 10,4 18,8 24,0 22,9 16,7 7,3 100,0


Find the right word total

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 2 11 16 17 22 28 96

Percent 2,1 11,5 16,7 17,7 22,9 29,2 100,0

Valid Percent 2,1 11,5 16,7 17,7 22,9 29,2 100,0


21


22


Metalinguistic tasks Statistics Metalinguistic score N Valid Missing Mean

96 0 7,41

Metalinguistic score

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total

Frequency 2 4 3 7 7 8 10 8 5 13 8 5 6 8 2 96

Percent 2,1 4,2 3,1 7,3 7,3 8,3 10,4 8,3 5,2 13,5 8,3 5,2 6,3 8,3 2,1 100,0

Valid Percent 2,1 4,2 3,1 7,3 7,3 8,3 10,4 8,3 5,2 13,5 8,3 5,2 6,3 8,3 2,1 100,0

Cumulative Percent 2,1 6,3 9,4 16,7 24,0 32,3 42,7 51,0 56,3 69,8 78,1 83,3 89,6 97,9 100,0

23


English literacy skills in relation to overall test score Univariate Copenhagen: English writing skills L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing

Total

Excellent Good Okay Bad Total Invalid Excellent Good Okay Bad Total Invalid I don't know Total

Frequency 5 10 13 2 30 2 32 7 19 24 6 56 2 1 3 59

Percent 15,6 31,3 40,6 6,3 93,8 6,3 100,0 11,9 32,2 40,7 10,2 94,9 3,4 1,7 5,1 100,0

Valid Percent 16,7 33,3 43,3 6,7 100,0

12,5 33,9 42,9 10,7 100,0

24


12,5 46,4 89,3 100,0

When WordsDon’t Come Easy English reading skills L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Excellent Good Okay Bad Total Invalid Excellent Good Okay Bad Total I don't know

Frequency 8 15 5 2 30 2 32 12 28 16 2 58 1 59

Percent 25,0 46,9 15,6 6,3 93,8 6,3 100,0 20,3 47,5 27,1 3,4 98,3 1,7 100,0

Valid Percent 26,7 50,0 16,7 6,7 100,0

20,7 48,3 27,6 3,4 100,0

25


20,7 69,0 96,6 100,0


Nuuk: English writing skills

Valid

Missing

Excellent Good Okay Bad Total I don't know Invalid Total

Total

Frequency 2 16 46 23 87 7 2 9 96

Percent 2,1 16,7 47,9 24,0 90,6 7,3 2,1 9,4 100,0

Valid Percent 2,3 18,4 52,9 26,4 100,0


English reading skills

Valid

Missing

Total


Frequency 4 27 47 11 89 4 3 7 96

Percent 4,2 28,1 49,0 11,5 92,7 4,2 3,1 7,3 100,0

Valid Percent 4,5 30,3 52,8 12,4 100,0


26


Bivariate Copenhagen: Writing skills

overall test score Descriptives

Overall test score

L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Excellent Good Okay Bad Total Excellent Good Okay Bad Total

N 5 10 13 2 30 7 19 24 6 56

Mean 42,00 45,20 36,00 22,00 39,13 45,00 44,68 41,29 28,17 41,50

Std. Deviation 5,612 3,706 4,761 4,243 7,574 3,742 5,260 8,137 9,908 8,466

Std. Error 2,510 1,172 1,320 3,000 1,383 1,414 1,207 1,661 4,045 1,131

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall test score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

Levene Statistic ,572 1,208

df1

df2 3 3

26 52

Sig. ,639 ,316

27

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 35,03 48,97 42,55 47,85 33,12 38,88 -16,12 60,12 36,31 41,96 41,54 48,46 42,15 47,22 37,86 44,73 17,77 38,56 39,23 43,77

Minimum 36 41 26 19 19 39 35 21 15 15

Maximum 50 52 44 25 52 50 52 54 44 54

When WordsDon’t Come Easy ANOVA Overall test score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

Sum of Squares 1123,867 539,600 1663,467 1346,103 2595,897 3942,000

df 3 26 29 3 52 55

Mean Square 374,622 20,754

F 18,051

Sig. ,000

448,701 49,921

8,988

,000

28

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Overall test score LSD


(I) English writing skills Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad

L2 learners

Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad

(J) English writing skills Good Okay Bad Excellent Okay Bad Excellent Good Bad Excellent Good Okay Good Okay Bad Excellent Okay Bad Excellent Good Bad Excellent Good Okay

Mean Difference (I-J) -3,200 6,000* 20,000* 3,200 9,200* 23,200* -6,000* -9,200* 14,000* -20,000* -23,200* -14,000* ,316 3,708 16,833* -,316 3,393 16,518* -3,708 -3,393 13,125* -16,833* -16,518* -13,125*

*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

29

Std. Error 2,495 2,397 3,812 2,495 1,916 3,529 2,397 1,916 3,460 3,812 3,529 3,460 3,124 3,035 3,931 3,124 2,170 3,309 3,035 2,170 3,225 3,931 3,309 3,225

Sig. ,211 ,019 ,000 ,211 ,000 ,000 ,019 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,920 ,227 ,000 ,920 ,124 ,000 ,227 ,124 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -8,33 1,93 1,07 10,93 12,17 27,83 -1,93 8,33 5,26 13,14 15,95 30,45 -10,93 -1,07 -13,14 -5,26 6,89 21,11 -27,83 -12,17 -30,45 -15,95 -21,11 -6,89 -5,95 6,58 -2,38 9,80 8,95 24,72 -6,58 5,95 -,96 7,75 9,88 23,16 -9,80 2,38 -7,75 ,96 6,65 19,60 -24,72 -8,95 -23,16 -9,88 -19,60 -6,65

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Overall test score Bonferroni



Good

Okay

Bad

L2 learners

Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad


Mean Difference (I-J) -3,200 6,000 20,000* 3,200 9,200* 23,200* -6,000 -9,200* 14,000* -20,000* -23,200* -14,000* ,316 3,708 16,833* -,316 3,393 16,518* -3,708 -3,393 13,125* -16,833* -16,518* -13,125*


30

Std. Error 2,495 2,397 3,812 2,495 1,916 3,529 2,397 1,916 3,460 3,812 3,529 3,460 3,124 3,035 3,931 3,124 2,170 3,309 3,035 2,170 3,225 3,931 3,309 3,225

Sig. 1,000 ,114 ,000 1,000 ,000 ,000 ,114 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,002 1,000 1,000 ,000 1,000 ,744 ,000 1,000 ,744 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,001

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -10,33 3,93 -,85 12,85 9,12 30,88 -3,93 10,33 3,73 14,67 13,12 33,28 -12,85 ,85 -14,67 -3,73 4,12 23,88 -30,88 -9,12 -33,28 -13,12 -23,88 -4,12 -8,25 8,88 -4,62 12,03 6,05 27,62 -8,88 8,25 -2,56 9,34 7,44 25,59 -12,03 4,62 -9,34 2,56 4,28 21,97 -27,62 -6,05 -25,59 -7,44 -21,97 -4,28


Reading skills


Overall test score


L2 learners


N 8 15 5 2 30 12 28 16 2 58

Mean 42,25 41,00 35,40 22,00 39,13 45,75 43,25 37,44 18,50 41,31

Std. Deviation 4,559 7,020 2,408 4,243 7,574 4,712 7,085 7,668 4,950 8,510

Std. Error 1,612 1,813 1,077 3,000 1,383 1,360 1,339 1,917 3,500 1,117


Levene Statistic 1,137 ,633

df1

df2 3 3

26 54

Sig. ,353 ,597

31

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 38,44 46,06 37,11 44,89 32,41 38,39 -16,12 60,12 36,31 41,96 42,76 48,74 40,50 46,00 33,35 41,52 -25,97 62,97 39,07 43,55

Minimum 36 26 33 19 19 36 21 23 15 15

Maximum 50 52 38 25 52 51 54 51 22 54

When WordsDon’t Come Easy ANOVA Overall test score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners


Sum of Squares 786,767 876,700 1663,467 1622,476 2505,938 4128,414

df 3 26 29 3 54 57

Mean Square 262,256 33,719

F 7,778

Sig. ,001

540,825 46,406

11,654

,000

32

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Overall test score LSD


(I) English reading skills Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad

L2 learners

Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad

(J) English reading skills Good Okay Bad Excellent Okay Bad Excellent Good Bad Excellent Good Okay Good Okay Bad Excellent Okay Bad Excellent Good Bad Excellent Good Okay

Mean Difference (I-J) 1,250 6,850* 20,250* -1,250 5,600 19,000* -6,850* -5,600 13,400* -20,250* -19,000* -13,400* 2,500 8,313* 27,250* -2,500 5,813* 24,750* -8,313* -5,813* 18,938* -27,250* -24,750* -18,938*


33

Std. Error 2,542 3,310 4,591 2,542 2,999 4,371 3,310 2,999 4,858 4,591 4,371 4,858 2,350 2,601 5,203 2,350 2,135 4,986 2,601 2,135 5,109 5,203 4,986 5,109

Sig. ,627 ,049 ,000 ,627 ,073 ,000 ,049 ,073 ,010 ,000 ,000 ,010 ,292 ,002 ,000 ,292 ,009 ,000 ,002 ,009 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -3,98 6,48 ,05 13,65 10,81 29,69 -6,48 3,98 -,56 11,76 10,01 27,99 -13,65 -,05 -11,76 ,56 3,41 23,39 -29,69 -10,81 -27,99 -10,01 -23,39 -3,41 -2,21 7,21 3,10 13,53 16,82 37,68 -7,21 2,21 1,53 10,09 14,75 34,75 -13,53 -3,10 -10,09 -1,53 8,69 29,18 -37,68 -16,82 -34,75 -14,75 -29,18 -8,69

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Overall test score Bonferroni



Good

Okay

Bad

L2 learners

Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad


Mean Difference (I-J) 1,250 6,850 20,250* -1,250 5,600 19,000* -6,850 -5,600 13,400 -20,250* -19,000* -13,400 2,500 8,313* 27,250* -2,500 5,813 24,750* -8,313* -5,813 18,938* -27,250* -24,750* -18,938*


34

Std. Error 2,542 3,310 4,591 2,542 2,999 4,371 3,310 2,999 4,858 4,591 4,371 4,858 2,350 2,601 5,203 2,350 2,135 4,986 2,601 2,135 5,109 5,203 4,986 5,109

Sig. 1,000 ,292 ,001 1,000 ,439 ,001 ,292 ,439 ,063 ,001 ,001 ,063 1,000 ,014 ,000 1,000 ,052 ,000 ,014 ,052 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,003

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -6,01 8,51 -2,60 16,30 7,14 33,36 -8,51 6,01 -2,96 14,16 6,52 31,48 -16,30 2,60 -14,16 2,96 -,47 27,27 -33,36 -7,14 -31,48 -6,52 -27,27 ,47 -3,94 8,94 1,19 15,44 13,00 41,50 -8,94 3,94 -,03 11,66 11,09 38,41 -15,44 -1,19 -11,66 ,03 4,94 32,93 -41,50 -13,00 -38,41 -11,09 -32,93 -4,94


Nuuk: Writing skills

overall test score

Descriptives Overall test score

Excellent Good Okay Bad Total

N 2 16 46 23 87

Mean 36,00 33,63 28,33 24,00 28,33

Std. Deviation 15,556 11,494 10,997 10,140 11,271

Std. Error 11,000 2,874 1,621 2,114 1,208

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound -103,77 175,77 27,50 39,75 25,06 31,59 19,62 28,38 25,93 30,74

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall test score Levene Statistic ,276

df1

df2 3

Sig. ,843

83

ANOVA Overall test score

Between Groups Within Groups Total

Sum of Squares 997,475 9927,859 10925,333

df 3 83 86

Mean Square 332,492 119,613

35

F 2,780

Sig. ,046

Minimum 25 10 10 9 9

Maximum 47 48 50 46 50


Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Overall test score

LSD


Good

Okay

Bad

Bonferroni

Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad


Mean Difference (I-J) 2,375 7,674 12,000 -2,375 5,299 9,625* -7,674 -5,299 4,326 -12,000 -9,625* -4,326 2,375 7,674 12,000 -2,375 5,299 9,625* -7,674 -5,299 4,326 -12,000 -9,625* -4,326

Std. Error 8,203 7,900 8,063 8,203 3,174 3,560 7,900 3,174 2,793 8,063 3,560 2,793 8,203 7,900 8,063 8,203 3,174 3,560 7,900 3,174 2,793 8,063 3,560 2,793


36

Sig. ,773 ,334 ,140 ,773 ,099 ,008 ,334 ,099 ,125 ,140 ,008 ,125 1,000 1,000 ,843 1,000 ,593 ,050 1,000 ,593 ,751 ,843 ,050 ,751

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -13,94 18,69 -8,04 23,39 -4,04 28,04 -18,69 13,94 -1,01 11,61 2,54 16,71 -23,39 8,04 -11,61 1,01 -1,23 9,88 -28,04 4,04 -16,71 -2,54 -9,88 1,23 -19,80 24,55 -13,68 29,03 -9,79 33,79 -24,55 19,80 -3,28 13,88 ,00 19,25 -29,03 13,68 -13,88 3,28 -3,22 11,88 -33,79 9,79 -19,25 ,00 -11,88 3,22


Reading skills


Overall test score


N 4 27 47 11 89

Mean 36,50 34,63 26,49 19,27 28,52

Std. Deviation 8,226 10,860 10,498 7,643 11,342

Std. Error 4,113 2,090 1,531 2,305 1,202

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 23,41 49,59 30,33 38,93 23,41 29,57 14,14 24,41 26,13 30,91


df1

df2 3

Sig. ,406

85



Sum of Squares 2397,002 8923,223 11320,225

df 3 85 88

Mean Square 799,001 104,979

37

F 7,611

Sig. ,000

Minimum 29 10 9 6 6

Maximum 47 50 48 31 50



LSD


Good

Okay

Bad

Bonferroni

Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad


Mean Difference (I-J) 1,870 10,011 17,227* -1,870 8,140* 15,357* -10,011 -8,140* 7,217* -17,227* -15,357* -7,217* 1,870 10,011 17,227* -1,870 8,140* 15,357* -10,011 -8,140* 7,217 -17,227* -15,357* -7,217

Std. Error 5,489 5,337 5,982 5,489 2,474 3,665 5,337 2,474 3,432 5,982 3,665 3,432 5,489 5,337 5,982 5,489 2,474 3,665 5,337 2,474 3,432 5,982 3,665 3,432


38

Sig. ,734 ,064 ,005 ,734 ,001 ,000 ,064 ,001 ,038 ,005 ,000 ,038 1,000 ,385 ,030 1,000 ,009 ,000 ,385 ,009 ,231 ,030 ,000 ,231

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -9,04 12,78 -,60 20,62 5,33 29,12 -12,78 9,04 3,22 13,06 8,07 22,64 -20,62 ,60 -13,06 -3,22 ,39 14,04 -29,12 -5,33 -22,64 -8,07 -14,04 -,39 -12,96 16,70 -4,41 24,43 1,07 33,39 -16,70 12,96 1,46 14,82 5,46 25,26 -24,43 4,41 -14,82 -1,46 -2,05 16,49 -33,39 -1,07 -25,26 -5,46 -16,49 2,05


Socio-economic background Mother’s level of education overall score Univariate Copenhagen: Statistics Mother's level of education L3 learners N Valid Missing Mean L2 learners N Valid Missing Mean

27 5 1,89 55 4 3,00 Mother's level of education


Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Basic education High school/college Higher vocational training University Total No response Basic education High school/college Vocational training Higher vocational training University Total No response

Nuuk: Statistics Mother's level of education N Valid 74 Missing 22 Mean 2,64

39

Frequency 16 5 5 1 27 5 32 16 8 2 18 11 55 4 59

Percent 50,0 15,6 15,6 3,1 84,4 15,6 100,0 27,1 13,6 3,4 30,5 18,6 93,2 6,8 100,0

Valid Percent 59,3 18,5 18,5 3,7 100,0

29,1 14,5 3,6 32,7 20,0 100,0


29,1 43,6 47,3 80,0 100,0

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Mother's level of education

Valid

Missing Total

Basic education High school/college Vocational training Higher vocational training University Total No response

Frequency 18 17 14 24 1 74 22 96

Percent 18,8 17,7 14,6 25,0 1,0 77,1 22,9 100,0

Valid Percent 24,3 23,0 18,9 32,4 1,4 100,0


Bivariate Copenhagen: Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

Levene Statistic 1,654 1,971

df1

df2 2 4

Sig. ,213 ,113

23 50 ANOVA

Overall score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners


Sum of Squares 310,635 1246,550 1557,185 334,760 3294,040 3628,800

df 3 23 26 4 50 54

Nuuk: Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic ,075

df1

df2 3

69

Sig. ,973

40

Mean Square 103,545 54,198

F 1,911

Sig. ,156

83,690 65,881

1,270

,294

When WordsDon’t Come Easy ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 955,620 8028,285 8983,905

Father’s level of education Univariate

df 4 69 73

Mean Square 238,905 116,352

F 2,053

Sig. ,096

overall score

Copenhagen: Statistics Father's level of education L3 learners N

L2 learners

Mean N Mean


26 6 2,42 54 5 2,81

Father's level of education L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Basic education High school/college Vocational training Higher vocational training University Total No response Basic education High school/college Vocational training Higher vocational training University Total No response

41

Frequency 12 4 3 1 6 26 6 32 15 9 10 11 9 54 5 59

Percent 37,5 12,5 9,4 3,1 18,8 81,3 18,8 100,0 25,4 15,3 16,9 18,6 15,3 91,5 8,5 100,0

Valid Percent 46,2 15,4 11,5 3,8 23,1 100,0

27,8 16,7 18,5 20,4 16,7 100,0


27,8 44,4 63,0 83,3 100,0


Nuuk: Statistics Father's level of education N Valid 68 Missing 28 Mean 2,81

Father's level of education

Valid

Missing Total

Basic education High school/college Vocational training Higher vocational training University Total No response

Frequency 14 7 30 12 5 68 28 96

Percent 14,6 7,3 31,3 12,5 5,2 70,8 29,2 100,0

42

Valid Percent 20,6 10,3 44,1 17,6 7,4 100,0



Bivariate Copenhagen: Descriptives Overall score


L2 learners

N

Basic education High school/college Vocational training Higher vocational training University Total Basic education High school/college Vocational training Higher vocational training University Total

12 4 3 1 6 26 15 9 10 11 9 54

Mean 34,58 42,00 44,33 25,00 41,17 38,00 35,53 42,56 43,50 46,18 45,56 42,02

Std. Deviation 7,775 4,243 5,774 . 5,845 7,772 9,665 5,341 6,570 7,222 3,644 8,139

Warnings Post hoc tests are not performed for Overall score in split file L3 or L2 learners = L3 learners because at least one group has fewer than two cases. Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners


df1

df2 3 4

21 49

Sig. ,524 ,036

43

Std. Error 2,244 2,121 3,333 . 2,386 1,524 2,495 1,780 2,078 2,178 1,215 1,108

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 29,64 39,52 35,25 48,75 29,99 58,68 . . 35,03 47,30 34,86 41,14 30,18 40,89 38,45 46,66 38,80 48,20 41,33 51,03 42,75 48,36 39,80 44,24

Minimum 19 36 41 25 33 19 15 31 35 29 41 15

Maximum 46 45 51 25 50 51 45 49 52 54 50 54


ANOVA Overall score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Sum of Squares 553,583 956,417 1510,000 958,667 2552,314 3510,981


L2 learners

df 4 21 25 4 49 53

Mean Square 138,396 45,544

F 3,039

Sig. ,040

239,667 52,088

4,601

,003


df1

df2 4

Sig. ,687

63

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 459,210 7665,790 8125,000

df 4 63 67

Get help in relation to want/need help

Mean Square 114,802 121,679

F ,943

Sig. ,445

overall test score

Univariate Copenhagen: Get help in relation to want/need help with homework L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

-1 0 1 2 Total -2 -1 0 1 Total

Frequency 3 21 6 2 32 1 10 41 7 59

Percent 9,4 65,6 18,8 6,3 100,0 1,7 16,9 69,5 11,9 100,0

44

Valid Percent 9,4 65,6 18,8 6,3 100,0 1,7 16,9 69,5 11,9 100,0

Cumulative Percent 9,4 75,0 93,8 100,0 1,7 18,6 88,1 100,0


Get help in relation to want/need help with homework L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Valid

Valid

Get less help than wanted/needed Get help wanted/needed Total Get less help than wanted/needed Get help wanted/needed Total

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

3

9,4

9,4

9,4

29 32

90,6 100,0

90,6 100,0

100,0

11

18,6

18,6

18,6

48 59

81,4 100,0

81,4 100,0

100,0

Nuuk: Get help in relation to want/need help with homework

Valid

Missing Total

-2 -1 0 1 Total irrelevant

Frequency 1 15 61 18 95 1 96

Percent 1,0 15,6 63,5 18,8 99,0 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 1,1 15,8 64,2 18,9 100,0


Get help in relation to want/need help with homework

Valid

Missing Total

Get less help than wanted/needed Get help wanted/needed Total irrelevant

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

16

16,7

16,8

16,8

79 95 1 96

82,3 99,0 1,0 100,0

83,2 100,0

100,0

45

Cumulative Percent


Bivariate Copenhagen: Group Statistics L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

Overall score Overall score

Get help in relation to want/need help with 1 homework

N 3 29 11 48

2 1 2

Mean 42,33 38,59 42,73 40,77

Std. Error Mean 1,333 1,460 1,982 1,292

Std. Deviation 2,309 7,863 6,574 8,952

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances


L2 learners

Overall score

Overall score

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

F 2,083

1,810

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig.

t

,159

,184

46

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper

,811

30

,424

3,747

4,621

-5,690

13,185

1,895

8,772

,091

3,747

1,977

-,744

8,238

,682

57

,498

1,956

2,869

-3,789

7,701

,827

19,553

,418

1,956

2,366

-2,986

6,899


Nuuk: Group Statistics

Overall score

Get help in relation to want/need help with 1 homework

N 16 79

2

Mean 26,94 28,41

Std. Error Mean 2,588 1,287

Std. Deviation 10,350 11,443


Overall score

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

F ,276

Sig. ,600


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



-,475

93

,636

-1,468

3,091

-7,605

4,670

-,508

23,073

,616

-1,468

2,890

-7,445

4,510

47


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Hypothesis A: Interdependence _____________________________________________________________________________________ Sub-hypothesis A.1: L1 education univariate Copenhagen: Statistics Years of education in L1 N Valid 19 Missing 13 Mean 5,237 Years of education in L1

Valid

Missing

1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 6,0 9,0 10,0 Total Irrelevant No response Total

Total

Frequency 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 2 19 8 5 13 32

Percent 3,1 3,1 3,1 12,5 3,1 12,5 3,1 12,5 6,3 59,4 25,0 15,6 40,6 100,0

Valid Percent 5,3 5,3 5,3 21,1 5,3 21,1 5,3 21,1 10,5 100,0

Nuuk: Statistics Years of education in L1 N Valid 85 Missing 11 Mean 9,547

48



Years of education in L1

Valid

Missing

2,0 3,0 5,0 7,0 8,0 8,5 9,0 10,0 Total Invalid No response Total

Total

Frequency 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 73 85 1 10 11 96

Percent 1,0 2,1 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 5,2 76,0 88,5 1,0 10,4 11,5 100,0

Valid Percent 1,2 2,4 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 5,9 85,9 100,0


bivariate Copenhagen:

Correlations


Years of education in L1

Overall score

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

49

Years of education in L1 1 19 ,010 ,968 19

Overall score ,010 ,968 19 1 32


Sub-hypothesis A.2: Active versus passive use of L1 Univariate Copenhagen (L3 learners only): Speak L1 with mother

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 29 3 32

Percent 90,6 9,4 100,0



Speak L1 with father

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 28 4 32

Percent 87,5 12,5 100,0



Speak L1 with siblings

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 17 15 32

Percent 53,1 46,9 100,0



Speak L1 with friends

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 11 21 32

Percent 34,4 65,6 100,0



Think in L1 at home

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 21 11 32

Percent 65,6 34,4 100,0



Think in L1 when with friends

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 10 22 32

Percent 31,3 68,8 100,0


50



Think in L1 at school

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 8 24 32

Percent 25,0 75,0 100,0



Think in L1 outside home and school

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 6 26 32

Percent 18,8 81,3 100,0



Think in L1 when counting/doing maths

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 6 26 32

Percent 18,8 81,3 100,0



Speak L1 score

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 Total

Frequency 1 1 12 12 6 32

Percent 3,1 3,1 37,5 37,5 18,8 100,0

Valid Percent 3,1 3,1 37,5 37,5 18,8 100,0


Think L1 score

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 10 11 3 2 2 4 32

Percent 31,3 34,4 9,4 6,3 6,3 12,5 100,0

Valid Percent 31,3 34,4 9,4 6,3 6,3 12,5 100,0

51



Nuuk: Speak L1 with mother

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 92 4 96

Percent 95,8 4,2 100,0



Speak L1 with father

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 76 20 96

Percent 79,2 20,8 100,0



Speak L1 with siblings

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 86 10 96

Percent 89,6 10,4 100,0



Speak L1 with friends

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 92 4 96

Percent 95,8 4,2 100,0



Think in L1 at home

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 85 11 96

Percent 88,5 11,5 100,0



Think in L1 when with friends

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 84 12 96

Percent 87,5 12,5 100,0


52



Think in L1 at school

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 89 7 96

Percent 92,7 7,3 100,0



Think in L1 outside home and school

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 87 9 96

Percent 90,6 9,4 100,0



Think in L1 when counting/doing maths

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 60 36 96

Percent 62,5 37,5 100,0



Speak L1 score

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 Total

Frequency 1 2 4 20 69 96

Percent 1,0 2,1 4,2 20,8 71,9 100,0

Valid Percent 1,0 2,1 4,2 20,8 71,9 100,0


Think L1 score

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 3 3 2 6 30 52 96

Percent 3,1 3,1 2,1 6,3 31,3 54,2 100,0

Valid Percent 3,1 3,1 2,1 6,3 31,3 54,2 100,0

53



bivariate Copenhagen (L3 learners only): Correlations

Speak L1 score

Think L1 score

Overall test score

Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (1-tailed) N

Speak L1 score 1 32 ,391* ,013 32 -,089 ,313 32

Think L1 score ,391* ,013 32 1 32 -,076 ,339 32

Overall test score -,089 ,313 32 -,076 ,339 32 1 32

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

Nuuk: Correlations

Speak L1 score

Think L1 score

Overall test score

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

Speak L1 score 1

Think L1 Overall score test score ,512** ,014 ,000 ,891 96 96 96 ,512** 1 -,147 ,000 ,153 96 96 96 ,014 -,147 1 ,891 ,153 96 96 96

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

54


Sub-hypothesis A.3: Literacy skills A.3.1: L1 literacy skills

level of English proficiency

Univariate Copenhagen: L1 writing skills L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Excellent Good Okay Bad Total I don't know Excellent Good Okay Bad Total

Frequency 3 9 14 4 30 2 32 27 23 8 1 59

Percent 9,4 28,1 43,8 12,5 93,8 6,3 100,0 45,8 39,0 13,6 1,7 100,0

Valid Percent 10,0 30,0 46,7 13,3 100,0

45,8 39,0 13,6 1,7 100,0


45,8 84,7 98,3 100,0

L1 reading skills L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid


Frequency 9 10 10 3 32 37 19 2 1 59

Percent 28,1 31,3 31,3 9,4 100,0 62,7 32,2 3,4 1,7 100,0

55

Valid Percent 28,1 31,3 31,3 9,4 100,0 62,7 32,2 3,4 1,7 100,0



Nuuk: L1 writing skills

Valid

Missing


Total

Frequency 22 37 29 2 90 4 2 6 96

Percent 22,9 38,5 30,2 2,1 93,8 4,2 2,1 6,3 100,0

Valid Percent 24,4 41,1 32,2 2,2 100,0


L1 reading skills

Valid

Missing

Total

Excellent Good Okay Bad Total I don't know Invalid No response Total

Frequency 17 39 31 4 91 2 2 1 5 96

Percent 17,7 40,6 32,3 4,2 94,8 2,1 2,1 1,0 5,2 100,0

Valid Percent 18,7 42,9 34,1 4,4 100,0

56



bivariate Copenhagen: L1 writing skills


Overall score


L2 learners


N 3 9 14 4 30 27 23 8 1 59

Mean 45,67 37,00 37,21 43,50 38,83 43,85 40,43 37,25 15,00 41,14

Std. Deviation 4,509 8,944 7,224 6,028 7,795 6,775 8,322 8,464 . 8,543

Std. Error 2,603 2,981 1,931 3,014 1,423 1,304 1,735 2,993 . 1,112

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 34,47 56,87 30,12 43,88 33,04 41,39 33,91 53,09 35,92 41,74 41,17 46,53 36,84 44,03 30,17 44,33 . . 38,91 43,36

Warnings Post hoc tests are not performed for Overall score in split file L3 or L2 learners = L2 learners because at least one group has fewer than two cases.

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

Levene Statistic ,941 ,748

df1

df2 3 2

26 55

Sig. ,435 ,478

57

Minimum 41 19 25 38 19 26 21 22 15 15

Maximum 50 45 51 52 52 54 51 47 15 54



L2 learners

L1 reading skills


Sum of Squares 294,143 1468,024 1762,167 1014,356 3218,560 4232,915

df 3 26 29 3 55 58

Mean Square 98,048 56,462

F 1,737

Sig. ,184

338,119 58,519

5,778

,002


Overall score


L2 learners


N 9 10 10 3 32 37 19 2 1 59

Mean 43,44 36,10 36,10 44,33 38,94 43,92 38,63 26,50 15,00 41,14

Std. Deviation 3,877 7,852 7,978 7,095 7,577 6,534 7,953 6,364 . 8,543

Std. Error 1,292 2,483 2,523 4,096 1,339 1,074 1,824 4,500 . 1,112

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 40,46 46,42 30,48 41,72 30,39 41,81 26,71 61,96 36,21 41,67 41,74 46,10 34,80 42,46 -30,68 83,68 . . 38,91 43,36

58

Minimum 36 19 25 38 19 26 21 22 15 15

Maximum 50 45 51 52 52 54 51 31 15 54


Warnings Post hoc tests are not performed for Overall score in split file L3 or L2 learners = L2 learners because at least one group has fewer than two cases.



df1

df2 3 2

Sig. ,332 ,523

28 55


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 431,186 1348,689 1779,875 1517,237 2715,678 4232,915

df 3 28 31 3 55 58

59

Mean Square 143,729 48,167

F 2,984

Sig. ,048

505,746 49,376

10,243

,000


Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Overall score


LSD

(I) L1 reading skills Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad

Bonferroni

Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad

(J) L1 reading skills Good Okay Bad Excellent Okay Bad Excellent Good Bad Excellent Good Okay Good Okay Bad Excellent Okay Bad Excellent Good Bad Excellent Good Okay

Mean Difference (I-J) 7,344* 7,344* -,889 -7,344* ,000 -8,233 -7,344* ,000 -8,233 ,889 8,233 8,233 7,344 7,344 -,889 -7,344 ,000 -8,233 -7,344 ,000 -8,233 ,889 8,233 8,233


60

Std. Error 3,189 3,189 4,627 3,189 3,104 4,569 3,189 3,104 4,569 4,627 4,569 4,569 3,189 3,189 4,627 3,189 3,104 4,569 3,189 3,104 4,569 4,627 4,569 4,569

Sig. ,029 ,029 ,849 ,029 1,000 ,082 ,029 1,000 ,082 ,849 ,082 ,082 ,173 ,173 1,000 ,173 1,000 ,494 ,173 1,000 ,494 1,000 ,494 ,494

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound ,81 13,88 ,81 13,88 -10,37 8,59 -13,88 -,81 -6,36 6,36 -17,59 1,13 -13,88 -,81 -6,36 6,36 -17,59 1,13 -8,59 10,37 -1,13 17,59 -1,13 17,59 -1,71 16,40 -1,71 16,40 -14,02 12,25 -16,40 1,71 -8,81 8,81 -21,20 4,74 -16,40 1,71 -8,81 8,81 -21,20 4,74 -12,25 14,02 -4,74 21,20 -4,74 21,20



overall test score

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic 1,546

df1

df2 3

Sig. ,208

86

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 419,345 10410,310 10829,656

L1 reading skills

df 3 86 89

Mean Square 139,782 121,050

F 1,155

Sig. ,332

F ,939

Sig. ,426

overall test score


df1

df2 3

Sig. ,263

87

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 356,826 11022,712 11379,538

df 3 87 90

Mean Square 118,942 126,698

61


A.3.2: L2 literacy skills level of English proficiency Univariate Copenhagen (L3 learners only): L2 writing skills

Valid


Frequency 10 17 2 3 32

Percent 31,3 53,1 6,3 9,4 100,0

Valid Percent 31,3 53,1 6,3 9,4 100,0


L2 reading skills

Valid

Missing Total

Excellent Good Bad Total I don't know

Frequency 14 15 2 31 1 32

Percent 43,8 46,9 6,3 96,9 3,1 100,0

Valid Percent 45,2 48,4 6,5 100,0



Valid

Missing


Total

Frequency 5 33 43 9 90 5 1 6 96

Percent 5,2 34,4 44,8 9,4 93,8 5,2 1,0 6,3 100,0

Valid Percent 5,6 36,7 47,8 10,0 100,0


L2 reading skills

Valid

Missing

Total


Frequency 19 34 33 3 89 6 1 7 96

Percent 19,8 35,4 34,4 3,1 92,7 6,3 1,0 7,3 100,0

Valid Percent 21,3 38,2 37,1 3,4 100,0

62



Bivariate Copenhagen (L3 learners only): Writing skills overall test score Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall test score Levene Statistic 2,745

df1

df2 3

Sig. ,062

28

ANOVA Overall test score Sum of Squares 93,004 1686,871 1779,875


Reading skills

df 3 28 31


F ,515

Sig. ,676

F 1,885

Sig. ,171

overall test score

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall test score Levene Statistic 9,897

df1

df2 2

Sig. ,001

28



Sum of Squares 210,079 1560,114 1770,194

df 2 28 30

Mean Square 105,040 55,718

63


Nuuk: Writing skills

overall test score


df1

df2 3

Sig. ,087

86



Reading skills

Sum of Squares 409,340 10579,060 10988,400

df 3 86 89

Mean Square 136,447 123,012

F 1,109

Sig. ,350


Overall test score


N

Mean 35,00 26,29 26,39 25,00 28,15

19 34 33 3 89

Std. Deviation 8,340 10,630 11,557 17,692 11,191

Std. Error 1,913 1,823 2,012 10,214 1,186

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 30,98 39,02 22,59 30,00 22,30 30,49 -18,95 68,95 25,79 30,50


df1

df2 3

Sig. ,215

85



Sum of Squares 1140,164 9880,938 11021,101

df 3 85 88

Mean Square 380,055 116,246

64

F 3,269

Sig. ,025

Minimum 18 9 10 6 6

Maximum 48 48 50 41 50



LSD

(I) L2 reading skills Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad

Bonferroni

Excellent

Good

Okay

Bad

(J) L2 reading skills Good Okay Bad Excellent Okay Bad Excellent Good Bad Excellent Good Okay Good Okay Bad Excellent Okay Bad Excellent Good Bad Excellent Good Okay

Mean Difference (I-J) 8,706* 8,606* 10,000 -8,706* -,100 1,294 -8,606* ,100 1,394 -10,000 -1,294 -1,394 8,706* 8,606* 10,000 -8,706* -,100 1,294 -8,606* ,100 1,394 -10,000 -1,294 -1,394

Std. Error 3,088 3,105 6,698 3,088 2,635 6,494 3,105 2,635 6,502 6,698 6,494 6,502 3,088 3,105 6,698 3,088 2,635 6,494 3,105 2,635 6,502 6,698 6,494 6,502


65

Sig. ,006 ,007 ,139 ,006 ,970 ,843 ,007 ,970 ,831 ,139 ,843 ,831 ,036 ,041 ,835 ,036 1,000 1,000 ,041 1,000 1,000 ,835 1,000 1,000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 2,57 14,85 2,43 14,78 -3,32 23,32 -14,85 -2,57 -5,34 5,14 -11,62 14,21 -14,78 -2,43 -5,14 5,34 -11,53 14,32 -23,32 3,32 -14,21 11,62 -14,32 11,53 ,36 17,05 ,22 16,99 -8,09 28,09 -17,05 -,36 -7,22 7,02 -16,25 18,84 -16,99 -,22 -7,02 7,22 -16,17 18,96 -28,09 8,09 -18,84 16,25 -18,96 16,17


Sub-hypothesis A.4: Code-switching Code-switching overall score Univariate Copenhagen: Statistics Code-switching score L3 learners N

L2 learners

Valid Missing

Mean N

Valid Missing

Mean

32 0 3,75 59 0 2,51

Code-switching score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 Total

Frequency 2 4 8 8 6 2 2 32 17 3 14 5 10 6 1 2 1 59

Percent 6,3 12,5 25,0 25,0 18,8 6,3 6,3 100,0 28,8 5,1 23,7 8,5 16,9 10,2 1,7 3,4 1,7 100,0

Nuuk: Statistics Code-switching score N Valid Missing Mean

96 0 4,85

66

Valid Percent 6,3 12,5 25,0 25,0 18,8 6,3 6,3 100,0 28,8 5,1 23,7 8,5 16,9 10,2 1,7 3,4 1,7 100,0

Cumulative Percent 6,3 18,8 43,8 68,8 87,5 93,8 100,0 28,8 33,9 57,6 66,1 83,1 93,2 94,9 98,3 100,0


Code-switching score

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Frequency 5 1 16 7 14 11 16 10 10 5 1 96

Percent 5,2 1,0 16,7 7,3 14,6 11,5 16,7 10,4 10,4 5,2 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 5,2 1,0 16,7 7,3 14,6 11,5 16,7 10,4 10,4 5,2 1,0 100,0


Bivariate Copenhagen: Correlations L3 or L2 learners L3 learners


Overall test score

L2 learners


Overall test score

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

Code-switc hing score 1

Nuuk: Correlations


Overall test score


Code-switc hing score 1

Overall test score ,331** ,001 96 96 ,331** 1 ,001 96 96


67

32 -,065 ,723 32 1 59 ,226 ,085 59

Overall test score -,065 ,723 32 1 32 ,226 ,085 59 1 59


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Hypothesis B: Typology _____________________________________________________________________________________ Sub-hypothesis B.1: Typological distance Univariate Copenhagen: Language distance (LD) L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

,44 ,50 ,57 ,67 Total ,44

Frequency 5 14 1 12 32 59

Percent 15,6 43,8 3,1 37,5 100,0 100,0

Valid Percent 15,6 43,8 3,1 37,5 100,0 100,0

Nuuk: Language distance (LD)

Valid

,44 ,80 Total

Frequency 11 85 96

Percent 11,5 88,5 100,0



Bivariate Copenhagen: Correlations

Language distance (LD)

Overall test score


Language distance (LD) 1 91 ,007 ,474 91

68

Overall test score ,007 ,474 91 1 91



Nuuk: Correlations

Language distance (LD)

Overall test score


Language distance (LD) 1 96 -,236* ,010 96

Overall test score -,236* ,010 96 1 96


Group Statistics

Overall test score

Language distance (LD) ,44 ,80

N

Mean 35,36 27,04

11 85




Overall test score


F ,030

Sig. ,862


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



2,357

94

,021

8,328

3,534

1,312

15,344

2,333

12,657

,037

8,328

3,569

,596

16,061

69


Sub-hypothesis B.2: Psychotypology Univariate Copenhagen: Psychotypology L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

Missing

L2 learners

Total Missing

Correspondence Non-correspondence Total My languages are not similar I don't know Total

Frequency 7 12 19

Percent 21,9 37,5 59,4

6

18,8

7 13 32

21,9 40,6 100,0

59

100,0

Invalid, missing or irelevant responses


Nuuk: Psychotypology

Valid

Missing

Total

Correspondence Non-correspondence Total My languages are not similar I don't know Invalid, missing or irelevant responses Total

Frequency 18 33 51

Percent 18,8 34,4 53,1

13

13,5

25

26,0

7

7,3

45 96

46,9 100,0

70





bivariate Copenhagen: Group Statistics

Overall test score

Psychotypology Correspondence Non-correspondence

N 7 12

Mean 42,71 37,17




Overall test score


F 4,351

Sig. ,052


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



1,930

17

,070

5,548

2,875

-,517

11,613

2,230

17,000

,040

5,548

2,488

,299

10,797

71



Overall test score

Psychotypology Correspondence Non-correspondence

N 18 33

Mean 35,72 27,21




Overall test score


F ,486

Sig. ,489


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



2,868

49

,006

8,510

2,967

2,547

14,473

2,719

30,113

,011

8,510

3,130

2,120

14,901

72


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Hypothesis C: Metalinguistic knowledge _____________________________________________________________________________________ bivariate Copenhagen: Correlations L3 or L2 learners L3 learners


Non-metalinguistic score

L2 learners




Metalinguistic score 1

Non-metalin guistic score ,463** ,008 32 32 ,463** 1 ,008 32 32 1 ,666** ,000 59 59 ,666** 1 ,000 59 59


Nuuk: Correlations




Metalinguistic score 1


73

Non-metalin guistic score ,664** ,000 96 96 ,664** 1 ,000 96 96


_____________________________________________________________________________________

Hypothesis D: Motivation _____________________________________________________________________________________ Sub-hypothesis D.1: Effort Univariate Copenhagen: Compared to the others, I study L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

Missing Total

Study more Study as much Study less Total Study more Study as much Study less Total Invalid

Frequency 9 17 6 32 11 33 12 56 3 59

Percent 28,1 53,1 18,8 100,0 18,6 55,9 20,3 94,9 5,1 100,0

Valid Percent 28,1 53,1 18,8 100,0 19,6 58,9 21,4 100,0

Nuuk: Compared to the others, I study

Valid

Missing Total

Study more Study as much Study less Total Invalid

Frequency 16 59 19 94 2 96

Percent 16,7 61,5 19,8 97,9 2,1 100,0

Valid Percent 17,0 62,8 20,2 100,0

74




Bivariate Copenhagen: Descriptives Overall score


L2 learners

Study more Study as much Study less Total Study more Study as much Study less Total

N 9 17 6 32 11 33 12 56

Mean 40,56 40,71 31,50 38,94 46,09 40,52 36,83 40,82

Std. Deviation 7,518 5,371 9,566 7,577 9,332 6,129 11,808 8,641

Std. Error 2,506 1,303 3,905 1,339 2,814 1,067 3,409 1,155

75

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 34,78 46,33 37,94 43,47 21,46 41,54 36,21 41,67 39,82 52,36 38,34 42,69 29,33 44,34 38,51 43,14

Minimum 29 33 19 19 21 23 15 15

Maximum 51 52 44 52 54 52 52 54




df1

df2 2 2

Sig. ,085 ,011

29 53


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 408,623 1371,252 1779,875 499,396 3606,818 4106,214

df 2 29 31 2 53 55

76

Mean Square 204,312 47,285

F 4,321

Sig. ,023

249,698 68,053

3,669

,032




LSD

(I) Compared to the others, I study Study more Study as much Study less

Bonferroni

Study more Study as much Study less

L2 learners

LSD


Bonferroni


(J) Compared to the others, I study Study as much Study less Study more Study less Study more Study as much Study as much Study less Study more Study less Study more Study as much Study as much Study less Study more Study less Study more Study as much Study as much Study less Study more Study less Study more Study as much

Mean Difference (I-J) -,150 9,056* ,150 9,206* -9,056* -9,206* -,150 9,056 ,150 9,206* -9,056 -9,206* 5,576 9,258* -5,576 3,682 -9,258* -3,682 5,576 9,258* -5,576 3,682 -9,258* -3,682


77

Std. Error 2,835 3,624 2,835 3,265 3,624 3,265 2,835 3,624 2,835 3,265 3,624 3,265 2,872 3,444 2,872 2,781 3,444 2,781 2,872 3,444 2,872 2,781 3,444 2,781

Sig. ,958 ,018 ,958 ,009 ,018 ,009 1,000 ,055 1,000 ,026 ,055 ,026 ,058 ,010 ,058 ,191 ,010 ,191 ,173 ,029 ,173 ,574 ,029 ,574

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -5,95 5,65 1,64 16,47 -5,65 5,95 2,53 15,88 -16,47 -1,64 -15,88 -2,53 -7,35 7,05 -,15 18,26 -7,05 7,35 ,91 17,50 -18,26 ,15 -17,50 -,91 -,18 11,34 2,35 16,16 -11,34 ,18 -1,90 9,26 -16,16 -2,35 -9,26 1,90 -1,53 12,68 ,74 17,77 -12,68 1,53 -3,19 10,56 -17,77 -,74 -10,56 3,19


Nuuk: Descriptives Overall score

N

Study more Study as much Study less Total

Mean 37,13 28,22 20,11 28,10

16 59 19 94

Std. Deviation 9,251 10,457 10,170 11,362

Std. Error 2,313 1,361 2,333 1,172

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 32,20 42,05 25,50 30,95 15,20 25,01 25,77 30,42

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic ,203

df1

df2 2

Sig. ,817

91

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 2518,463 9487,675 12006,138

df 2 91 93

Mean Square 1259,232 104,260

F 12,078

Sig. ,000

78

Minimum 21 10 6 6

Maximum 50 48 44 50



LSD

(I) Compared to the others, I study Study more Study as much Study less

Bonferroni


(J) Compared to the others, I study Study as much Study less Study more Study less Study more Study as much Study as much Study less Study more Study less Study more Study as much

Mean Difference (I-J) 8,905* 17,020* -8,905* 8,115* -17,020* -8,115* 8,905* 17,020* -8,905* 8,115* -17,020* -8,115*

Std. Error 2,878 3,465 2,878 2,693 3,465 2,693 2,878 3,465 2,878 2,693 3,465 2,693

Sig. ,003 ,000 ,003 ,003 ,000 ,003 ,008 ,000 ,008 ,010 ,000 ,010


79

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 3,19 14,62 10,14 23,90 -14,62 -3,19 2,76 13,47 -23,90 -10,14 -13,47 -2,76 1,88 15,92 8,57 25,47 -15,92 -1,88 1,55 14,68 -25,47 -8,57 -14,68 -1,55


Sub-hypothesis D.2: Affect D.2.1: Parental attitudes in relation to respondent attitudes Univariate Copenhagen: How important do your parents find it that you learn English? L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Valid

Missing Total Valid

Missing

Very important As important as other subjects Total I don't know

Frequency 18

Percent 56,3

Valid Percent 60,0


12

37,5

40,0

100,0

30 2 32 22

93,8 6,3 100,0 37,3

100,0

40,7

40,7

30

50,8

55,6

96,3

2 54 2 3 5 59

3,4 91,5 3,4 5,1 8,5 100,0

3,7 100,0

100,0

Very important As important as other subjects Not important Total I don't know Invalid Total

Total

Nuuk: How important do your parents find it that you learn English?

Valid

Missing

Total

Very important As important as other subjects Not important Total I don't know Invalid Total

Frequency 33

Percent 34,4

Valid Percent 42,9


43

44,8

55,8

98,7

1 77 18 1 19 96

1,0 80,2 18,8 1,0 19,8 100,0

1,3 100,0

100,0

80


D.2.1.a: Parental attitudes in relation to respondents’ preference for English Univariate Copenhagen: Preference for English score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

,00 ,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 Total ,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 Total

Frequency 5 3 9 6 2 2 3 2 32 35 11 9 2 2 59

Percent 15,6 9,4 28,1 18,8 6,3 6,3 9,4 6,3 100,0 59,3 18,6 15,3 3,4 3,4 100,0

Valid Percent 15,6 9,4 28,1 18,8 6,3 6,3 9,4 6,3 100,0 59,3 18,6 15,3 3,4 3,4 100,0

Nuuk: Preference for English score

Valid

,00 ,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 4,00 Total

Frequency 49 13 16 7 6 2 2 1 96

Percent 51,0 13,5 16,7 7,3 6,3 2,1 2,1 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 51,0 13,5 16,7 7,3 6,3 2,1 2,1 1,0 100,0

81


Cumulative Percent 15,6 25,0 53,1 71,9 78,1 84,4 93,8 100,0 59,3 78,0 93,2 96,6 100,0


Bivariate Copenhagen:

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Preference for English score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners


df1

df2 1 2

Sig. ,434 ,653

28 51

ANOVA Preference for English score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners


Sum of Squares ,235 31,132 31,367 ,848 57,985 58,833

df 1 28 29 2 51 53

82

Mean Square ,235 1,112

F ,211

Sig. ,649

,424 1,137

,373

,690


Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Preference for English score


LSD

(I) How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Very important

As important as other subjects Not important

Bonferroni

Very important

As important as other subjects Not important

(J) How important do your parents find it that you learn English? As important as other subjects Not important Very important Not important

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound

-,24242

,29930

,422

-,8433

,3584

,09091 ,24242

,78750 ,29930

,909 ,422

-1,4901 -,3584

1,6719 ,8433

,33333

,77870

,670

-1,2300

1,8966

Very important As important as other subjects As important as other subjects Not important Very important Not important

-,09091

,78750

,909

-1,6719

1,4901

-,33333

,77870

,670

-1,8966

1,2300

-,24242

,29930

1,000

-,9833

,4985

,09091 ,24242

,78750 ,29930

1,000 1,000

-1,8586 -,4985

2,0404 ,9833

,33333

,77870

1,000

-1,5944

2,2610

Very important As important as other subjects

-,09091

,78750

1,000

-2,0404

1,8586

-,33333

,77870

1,000

-2,2610

1,5944

83


Group Statistics L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Preference for English score Preference for English score

How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Very important As important as other subjects Very important As important as other subjects

18

Mean 1,3611

Std. Deviation 1,14796

Std. Error Mean ,27058

12

1,5417

,89082

,25716

22

,5909

1,05375

,22466

30

,8333

1,08543

,19817

N



L2 learners

Preference for English score

Preference for English score


F ,630

,225

Sig. ,434

,637


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



-,459

28

,649

-,18056

,39297

-,98552

,62440

-,484

27,237

,632

-,18056

,37329

-,94616

,58505

-,805

50

,424

-,24242

,30097

-,84694

,36209

-,809

46,158

,423

-,24242

,29957

-,84538

,36053

84


Nuuk: Test of Homogeneity of Variances Preference for English score Levene Statistic ,052

df1

df2 1

Sig. ,820

74

ANOVA Preference for English score


Sum of Squares 3,676 58,902 62,578

df 2 74 76

Mean Square 1,838 ,796

F 2,309

Sig. ,106

D.2.1.b: Parental attitudes in relation to respondent attitudes towards the English language Univariate Copenhagen: English is... easy-difficult L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

Missing

Very easy Rather easy Neither easy nor difficult Rather difficult Very difficult Total Very easy Rather easy Neither easy nor difficult Rather difficult Very difficult Total Invalid No response Total

Total

85

Frequency 14 5 9 2 2 32 20 15 11 7 2 55 1 3 4 59

Percent 43,8 15,6 28,1 6,3 6,3 100,0 33,9 25,4 18,6 11,9 3,4 93,2 1,7 5,1 6,8 100,0

Valid Percent 43,8 15,6 28,1 6,3 6,3 100,0 36,4 27,3 20,0 12,7 3,6 100,0


When WordsDon’t Come Easy English is... rough-smooth L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing

Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Total No response Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Total No response Invalid Total

Total

Frequency 7 11 6 5 29 3 32 5 18 23 5 51 7 1 8 59

Percent 21,9 34,4 18,8 15,6 90,6 9,4 100,0 8,5 30,5 39,0 8,5 86,4 11,9 1,7 13,6 100,0

Valid Percent 24,1 37,9 20,7 17,2 100,0

Percent 9,4 37,5 31,3 9,4 3,1 90,6 9,4 100,0 13,6 25,4 30,5 10,2 6,8 86,4 11,9 1,7 13,6 100,0

Valid Percent 10,3 41,4 34,5 10,3 3,4 100,0

9,8 35,3 45,1 9,8 100,0


9,8 45,1 90,2 100,0

English is... precise-loose L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing

Very precise Rather precise Neither precise nor loose Rather loose Very loose Total No response Very precise Rather precise Neither precise nor loose Rather loose Very loose Total No response Invalid Total

Total

86

Frequency 3 12 10 3 1 29 3 32 8 15 18 6 4 51 7 1 8 59

15,7 29,4 35,3 11,8 7,8 100,0


15,7 45,1 80,4 92,2 100,0

When WordsDon’t Come Easy English is... clumsy-elegant L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Valid

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Very clumsy Rather clumsy Neither clumsy nor elegant Rather elegant Very elegant Total No response

Frequency 2 1

Percent 6,3 3,1



8

25,0

26,7

36,7

9 10 30 2 32 1

28,1 31,3 93,8 6,3 100,0 1,7

30,0 33,3 100,0

66,7 100,0

2,0

2,0

23

39,0

45,1

47,1

17 10 51 8 59

28,8 16,9 86,4 13,6 100,0

33,3 19,6 100,0

80,4 100,0

Rather clumsy Neither clumsy nor elegant Rather elegant Very elegant Total No response

English is... fast-slow L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Very fast Rather fast Neither fast nor slow Rather slow Very slow Total No response Very fast Rather fast Neither fast nor slow Rather slow Very slow Total No response

Frequency 4 8 13 3 1 29 3 32 2 16 29 5 1 53 6 59

87

Percent 12,5 25,0 40,6 9,4 3,1 90,6 9,4 100,0 3,4 27,1 49,2 8,5 1,7 89,8 10,2 100,0

Valid Percent 13,8 27,6 44,8 10,3 3,4 100,0

3,8 30,2 54,7 9,4 1,9 100,0


3,8 34,0 88,7 98,1 100,0

When WordsDon’t Come Easy English is... cold-intimate L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Very cold Rather cold Neither cold nor intimate Rather intimate Very intimate Total No response Rather cold Neither cold nor intimate Rather intimate Very intimate Total No response

Frequency 2 3 13 8 3 29 3 32 6 26 18 2 52 7 59

Percent 6,3 9,4 40,6 25,0 9,4 90,6 9,4 100,0 10,2 44,1 30,5 3,4 88,1 11,9 100,0

Valid Percent 6,9 10,3 44,8 27,6 10,3 100,0

Percent 15,6 28,1 34,4 9,4 6,3 93,8 6,3 100,0 8,5 32,2 33,9 11,9 3,4 89,8 10,2 100,0

Valid Percent 16,7 30,0 36,7 10,0 6,7 100,0

11,5 50,0 34,6 3,8 100,0


11,5 61,5 96,2 100,0

English is... gentle-harsh L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Very gentle Rather gentle Neither gentle nor harsh Rather harsh Very harsh Total No response Very gentle Rather gentle Neither gentle nor harsh Rather harsh Very harsh Total No response

88

Frequency 5 9 11 3 2 30 2 32 5 19 20 7 2 53 6 59

9,4 35,8 37,7 13,2 3,8 100,0


9,4 45,3 83,0 96,2 100,0

When WordsDon’t Come Easy English is... useless-useful L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Valid

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Neither useless nor useful Rather useful Very useful Total No response

Frequency

Neither useless nor useful Rather useful Very useful Total No response

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

4

12,5

12,9

12,9

3 24 31 1 32

9,4 75,0 96,9 3,1 100,0

9,7 77,4 100,0

22,6 100,0

1

1,7

1,8

1,8

5 49 55 4 59

8,5 83,1 93,2 6,8 100,0

9,1 89,1 100,0

10,9 100,0

English is... educated-uneducated L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Valid

Missing Total Valid

Missing

Very educated Rather educated Neither educated nor uneducated Rather uneducated Total No response

Frequency 18 7

Percent 56,3 21,9



4

12,5

13,3

96,7

1 30 2 32 16 15

3,1 93,8 6,3 100,0 27,1 25,4

3,3 100,0

100,0

31,4 29,4

31,4 60,8

13

22,0

25,5

86,3

6 1 51 7 1 8 59

10,2 1,7 86,4 11,9 1,7 13,6 100,0

11,8 2,0 100,0

98,0 100,0

Very educated Rather educated Neither educated nor uneducated Rather uneducated Very uneducated Total No response Invalid Total

Total

89

When WordsDon’t Come Easy English is... unpopular-popular L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Valid

Valid

Missing

Neither unpopular nor popular Rather popular Very popular Total Neither unpopular nor popular Rather popular Very popular Total Invalid No response Total

Frequency

Total

Percent

Valid Percent

2

6,3

6,3

6,3

3 27 32

9,4 84,4 100,0

9,4 84,4 100,0

15,6 100,0

6

10,2

10,9

10,9

6 43 55 1 3 4 59

10,2 72,9 93,2 1,7 5,1 6,8 100,0

10,9 78,2 100,0

21,8 100,0

Nuuk: English is... easy-difficult

Valid

Missing Total

Very easy Rather easy Neither easy nor difficult Rather difficult Very difficult Total No response

Frequency 9 31 22 28 3 93 3 96

Percent 9,4 32,3 22,9 29,2 3,1 96,9 3,1 100,0

Valid Percent 9,7 33,3 23,7 30,1 3,2 100,0


English is... rough-smooth

Valid

Missing Total

Very rough Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Total No response

Frequency 2 17 48 18 3 88 8 96

Percent 2,1 17,7 50,0 18,8 3,1 91,7 8,3 100,0

90

Cumulative Percent

Valid Percent 2,3 19,3 54,5 20,5 3,4 100,0


When WordsDon’t Come Easy English is... precise-loose

Valid

Missing Total

Very precise Rather precise Neither precise nor loose Rather loose Very loose Total No response

Frequency 5 18 46 17 2 88 8 96

Percent 5,2 18,8 47,9 17,7 2,1 91,7 8,3 100,0

Valid Percent 5,7 20,5 52,3 19,3 2,3 100,0


English is... clumsy-elegant

Valid

Missing Total

Very clumsy Rather clumsy Neither clumsy nor elegant Rather elegant Very elegant Total No response

Frequency 4 11

Percent 4,2 11,5



41

42,7

45,6

62,2

26 8 90 6 96

27,1 8,3 93,8 6,3 100,0

28,9 8,9 100,0

91,1 100,0

English is... fast-slow

Valid

Missing Total

Very fast Rather fast Neither fast nor slow Rather slow Very slow Total No response

Frequency 10 27 40 14 1 92 4 96

Percent 10,4 28,1 41,7 14,6 1,0 95,8 4,2 100,0

Valid Percent 10,9 29,3 43,5 15,2 1,1 100,0


English is... cold-intimate

Valid

Missing Total

Very cold Rather cold Neither cold nor intimate Rather intimate Very intimate Total No response

Frequency 2 10 55 19 2 88 8 96

Percent 2,1 10,4 57,3 19,8 2,1 91,7 8,3 100,0

91

Valid Percent 2,3 11,4 62,5 21,6 2,3 100,0


When WordsDon’t Come Easy English is... gentle-harsh

Valid

Missing Total

Very gentle Rather gentle Neither gentle nor harsh Rather harsh Very harsh Total No response

Frequency 5 18 52 9 4 88 8 96

Percent 5,2 18,8 54,2 9,4 4,2 91,7 8,3 100,0

Valid Percent 5,7 20,5 59,1 10,2 4,5 100,0


English is... useless-useful

Valid

Missing Total

Very useless Rather useless Neither useless nor useful Rather useful Very useful Total No response

Frequency 4 4

Percent 4,2 4,2



22

22,9

24,7

33,7

17 42 89 7 96

17,7 43,8 92,7 7,3 100,0

19,1 47,2 100,0

52,8 100,0

English is... educated-uneducated

Valid

Missing Total

Very educated Rather educated Neither educated nor uneducated Rather uneducated Very uneducated Total No response

Frequency 13 32

Percent 13,5 33,3



34

35,4

39,1

90,8

7 1 87 9 96

7,3 1,0 90,6 9,4 100,0

8,0 1,1 100,0

98,9 100,0

English is... unpopular-popular

Valid

Missing Total

Very unpopular Rather unpopular Neither unpopular nor popular Rather popular Very popular Total No response

Frequency 3 2

Percent 3,1 2,1



27

28,1

30,7

36,4

21 35 88 8 96

21,9 36,5 91,7 8,3 100,0

23,9 39,8 100,0

60,2 100,0

92


Bivariate Copenhagen: Crosstab


How important do your parents find it that you learn English?

Very important

As important as other subjects

Total

L2 learners


Very important


Total

Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English?

93

Very easy 8

English is... easy-difficult Neither easy nor difficult Rather easy Rather difficult 3 3 2

Very difficult 2

Total 18

44,4%

16,7%

16,7%

11,1%

11,1%

100,0%

5

2

5

0

0

12

41,7%

16,7%

41,7%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

13

5

8

2

2

30

43,3%

16,7%

26,7%

6,7%

6,7%

100,0%

10

6

2

3

0

21

47,6%

28,6%

9,5%

14,3%

,0%

100,0%

9

9

6

3

2

29

31,0%

31,0%

20,7%

10,3%

6,9%

100,0%

19

15

8

6

2

50

38,0%

30,0%

16,0%

12,0%

4,0%

100,0%


Symmetric Measures L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases

Gamma Gamma

Value -,084 30 ,270 50

Asymp. a Std. Error ,277

Approx. T -,303

b

Approx. Sig. ,762

,209

1,276

,202

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

94


Crosstab



Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Total


95

Rather rough 3

English is... rough-smooth Neither rough Rather nor smooth smooth 6 2

Very smooth 4

Total 15

20,0%

40,0%

13,3%

26,7%

100,0%

4

4

3

1

12

33,3%

33,3%

25,0%

8,3%

100,0%

7

10

5

5

27

25,9%

37,0%

18,5%

18,5%

100,0%

2

7

7

3

19

10,5%

36,8%

36,8%

15,8%

100,0%

3

8

14

2

27

11,1%

29,6%

51,9%

7,4%

100,0%

5

15

21

5

46

10,9%

32,6%

45,7%

10,9%

100,0%




Gamma Gamma

Value -,254 27 ,003 46


Approx. T -,905

b

Approx. Sig. ,365

,244

,012

,991


96


Crosstab



Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Total


97

Very precise 2

English is... precise-loose Neither Rather precise Rather loose precise nor loose 5 6 1

Very loose 1

Total 15

13,3%

33,3%

40,0%

6,7%

6,7%

100,0%

1

7

3

1

0

12

8,3%

58,3%

25,0%

8,3%

,0%

100,0%

3

12

9

2

1

27

11,1%

44,4%

33,3%

7,4%

3,7%

100,0%

3

7

5

3

1

19

15,8%

36,8%

26,3%

15,8%

5,3%

100,0%

5

5

11

3

3

27

18,5%

18,5%

40,7%

11,1%

11,1%

100,0%

8

12

16

6

4

46

17,4%

26,1%

34,8%

13,0%

8,7%

100,0%




Gamma Gamma

Value -,226 27 ,131 46


Approx. T -,757

b

Approx. Sig. ,449

,215

,610

,542


98


Crosstab



Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Not important

Total

Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English?

Very clumsy 2

99

English is... clumsy-elegant Neither Rather Rather clumsy nor clumsy elegant elegant 1 4 1

Very elegant 8

Total 16

12,5%

6,3%

25,0%

6,3%

50,0%

100,0%

0

0

3

7

2

12

,0%

,0%

25,0%

58,3%

16,7%

100,0%

2

1

7

8

10

28

7,1%

3,6%

25,0%

28,6%

35,7%

100,0%

1

5

7

5

18

5,6%

27,8%

38,9%

27,8%

100,0%

0

13

10

4

27

,0%

48,1%

37,0%

14,8%

100,0%

0

1

0

0

1

,0%

100,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

1

19

17

9

46

2,2%

41,3%

37,0%

19,6%

100,0%




Gamma Gamma

Value -,057 28 -,296 46


Approx. T -,213

b

Approx. Sig. ,831

,228

-1,254

,210


100


Crosstab



Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Not important

Total


Very fast 4

101

English is... fast-slow Neither fast nor slow Rather fast Rather slow 4 4 2

Very slow 1

Total 15

26,7%

26,7%

26,7%

13,3%

6,7%

100,0%

0

4

7

1

0

12

,0%

33,3%

58,3%

8,3%

,0%

100,0%

4

8

11

3

1

27

14,8%

29,6%

40,7%

11,1%

3,7%

100,0%

0

9

9

2

0

20

,0%

45,0%

45,0%

10,0%

,0%

100,0%

2

6

16

2

1

27

7,4%

22,2%

59,3%

7,4%

3,7%

100,0%

0

0

1

0

0

1

,0%

,0%

100,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

2

15

26

4

1

48

4,2%

31,3%

54,2%

8,3%

2,1%

100,0%




Gamma Gamma

Value ,254 27 ,206 48


Approx. T ,904

b

Approx. Sig. ,366

,229

,883

,377


102


Crosstab



Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Not important

Total


Very cold 2

103

English is... cold-intimate Neither cold Rather nor intimate intimate Rather cold 0 4 6

Very intimate 3

Total 15

13,3%

,0%

26,7%

40,0%

20,0%

100,0%

0

2

8

2

0

12

,0%

16,7%

66,7%

16,7%

,0%

100,0%

2

2

12

8

3

27

7,4%

7,4%

44,4%

29,6%

11,1%

100,0%

4

9

6

0

19

21,1%

47,4%

31,6%

,0%

100,0%

2

14

9

2

27

7,4%

51,9%

33,3%

7,4%

100,0%

0

0

1

0

1

,0%

,0%

100,0%

,0%

100,0%

6

23

16

2

47

12,8%

48,9%

34,0%

4,3%

100,0%




Gamma Gamma

Value -,529 27 ,348 47


Approx. T -2,075

b

Approx. Sig. ,038

,219

1,506

,132


104


Crosstab



Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Not important

Total


Very gentle 4

105

English is... gentle-harsh Neither gentle Rather gentle Rather harsh nor harsh 5 4 1

Very harsh 2

Total 16

25,0%

31,3%

25,0%

6,3%

12,5%

100,0%

1

4

6

1

0

12

8,3%

33,3%

50,0%

8,3%

,0%

100,0%

5

9

10

2

2

28

17,9%

32,1%

35,7%

7,1%

7,1%

100,0%

1

10

6

2

1

20

5,0%

50,0%

30,0%

10,0%

5,0%

100,0%

4

8

10

4

1

27

14,8%

29,6%

37,0%

14,8%

3,7%

100,0%

0

0

1

0

0

1

,0%

,0%

100,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

5

18

17

6

2

48

10,4%

37,5%

35,4%

12,5%

4,2%

100,0%




Gamma Gamma

Value ,161 28 ,091 48


Approx. T ,579

b

Approx. Sig. ,563

,209

,434

,664


106


Crosstab



Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Not important

Total


English is... useless-useful Neither useless nor useful Rather useful Very useful 2 0 15

107

Total 17

11,8%

,0%

88,2%

100,0%

2

1

9

12

16,7%

8,3%

75,0%

100,0%

4

1

24

29

13,8%

3,4%

82,8%

100,0%

0

1

19

20

,0%

5,0%

95,0%

100,0%

1

4

24

29

3,4%

13,8%

82,8%

100,0%

0

0

1

1

,0%

,0%

100,0%

100,0%

1

5

44

50

2,0%

10,0%

88,0%

100,0%




Gamma Gamma

Value -,385 29 -,524 50


Approx. T -,832

b

Approx. Sig. ,406

,351

-1,342

,180


108


Crosstab



Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Total


109

Very educated 14

English is... educated-uneducated Neither Rather Rather educated nor educated uneducated uneducated 1 1 0

Very uneducated

Total 16

87,5%

6,3%

6,3%

,0%

100,0%

4

4

3

1

12

33,3%

33,3%

25,0%

8,3%

100,0%

18

5

4

1

28

64,3%

17,9%

14,3%

3,6%

100,0%

7

5

5

2

0

19

36,8%

26,3%

26,3%

10,5%

,0%

100,0%

8

9

7

2

1

27

29,6%

33,3%

25,9%

7,4%

3,7%

100,0%

15

14

12

4

1

46

32,6%

30,4%

26,1%

8,7%

2,2%

100,0%




Gamma Gamma

Value ,814 28 ,072 46


Approx. T 3,332

b

Approx. Sig. ,001

,229

,316

,752


110


Crosstab



Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Not important

Total


English is... unpopular-popular Neither Rather unpopular popular nor popular Very popular 1 0 17

111

Total 18

5,6%

,0%

94,4%

100,0%

1

2

9

12

8,3%

16,7%

75,0%

100,0%

2

2

26

30

6,7%

6,7%

86,7%

100,0%

2

0

18

20

10,0%

,0%

90,0%

100,0%

4

5

20

29

13,8%

17,2%

69,0%

100,0%

0

0

1

1

,0%

,0%

100,0%

100,0%

6

5

39

50

12,0%

10,0%

78,0%

100,0%




Gamma Gamma

Value -,645 30 -,453 50


Approx. T -1,356

b

Approx. Sig. ,175

,289

-1,510

,131


112


Nuuk: Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total

Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English? Count % within How important do your parents find it that you learn English?

Very easy 1

English is... easy-difficult Neither easy Rather easy Rather difficult nor difficult 12 5 11

Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases

Gamma


Total 32

3,1%

37,5%

15,6%

34,4%

9,4%

100,0%

6

15

12

10

0

43

14,0%

34,9%

27,9%

23,3%

,0%

100,0%

1

0

0

0

0

1

100,0%

,0%

,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

8

27

17

21

3

76

10,5%

35,5%

22,4%

27,6%

3,9%

100,0%

b

Approx. Sig. ,034

Symmetric Measures Value -,355 76

Very difficult 3

Approx. T -2,116


113


Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total


Very rough 2

English is... rough-smooth Neither rough Rather Rather rough nor smooth smooth 7 17 3


Gamma


Total 29

6,9%

24,1%

58,6%

10,3%

,0%

100,0%

0

7

18

13

3

41

,0%

17,1%

43,9%

31,7%

7,3%

100,0%

0

0

0

1

0

1

,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

,0%

100,0%

2

14

35

17

3

71

2,8%

19,7%

49,3%

23,9%

4,2%

100,0%

Symmetric Measures Value ,536 71

Very smooth 0

b

Approx. T 3,222

Approx. Sig. ,001


114


Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total


Very precise 3

English is... precise-loose Neither precise Rather nor loose Rather loose precise 7 13 5


Gamma


Total 29

10,3%

24,1%

44,8%

17,2%

3,4%

100,0%

2

10

19

9

1

41

4,9%

24,4%

46,3%

22,0%

2,4%

100,0%

0

0

0

1

0

1

,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

,0%

100,0%

5

17

32

15

2

71

7,0%

23,9%

45,1%

21,1%

2,8%

100,0%


Very loose 1

b

Approx. T ,862

Approx. Sig. ,388


115


Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total


Very clumsy 2

English is... clumsy-elegant Neither Rather Rather clumsy nor clumsy elegant elegant 2 12 11


Gamma


Total 29

6,9%

6,9%

41,4%

37,9%

6,9%

100,0%

1

8

20

8

6

43

2,3%

18,6%

46,5%

18,6%

14,0%

100,0%

0

0

0

1

0

1

,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

,0%

100,0%

3

10

32

20

8

73

4,1%

13,7%

43,8%

27,4%

11,0%

100,0%


Very elegant 2

b

Approx. T -,481

Approx. Sig. ,630


116


Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total


Very fast 7

English is... fast-slow Neither fast Rather fast nor slow 9 15


Gamma


Total 32

21,9%

28,1%

46,9%

3,1%

100,0%

3

14

16

9

42

7,1%

33,3%

38,1%

21,4%

100,0%

0

0

0

1

1

,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

100,0%

10

23

31

11

75

13,3%

30,7%

41,3%

14,7%

100,0%


Rather slow 1

b

Approx. T 2,225

Approx. Sig. ,026


117


Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total


Very cold 1

English is... cold-intimate Neither cold Rather Rather cold nor intimate intimate 2 20 4


Gamma


Total 28

3,6%

7,1%

71,4%

14,3%

3,6%

100,0%

0

6

22

13

1

42

,0%

14,3%

52,4%

31,0%

2,4%

100,0%

0

0

1

0

0

1

,0%

,0%

100,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

1

8

43

17

2

71

1,4%

11,3%

60,6%

23,9%

2,8%

100,0%

b

Approx. Sig. ,414


Very intimate 1

Approx. T ,817


118


Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total


Very gentle 2

English is... gentle-harsh Neither gentle Rather gentle Rather harsh nor harsh 2 17 4


Gamma


Total 28

7,1%

7,1%

60,7%

14,3%

10,7%

100,0%

3

12

23

4

0

42

7,1%

28,6%

54,8%

9,5%

,0%

100,0%

0

1

0

0

0

1

,0%

100,0%

,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

5

15

40

8

3

71

7,0%

21,1%

56,3%

11,3%

4,2%

100,0%


Very harsh 3

b

Approx. T -2,632

Approx. Sig. ,008


119


Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total


Very useless 2

English is... useless-useful Neither Rather useless useless nor useful Rather useful 1 5 6


Gamma


Total 30

6,7%

3,3%

16,7%

20,0%

53,3%

100,0%

1

2

11

9

18

41

2,4%

4,9%

26,8%

22,0%

43,9%

100,0%

0

0

0

0

1

1

,0%

,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

100,0%

3

3

16

15

35

72

4,2%

4,2%

22,2%

20,8%

48,6%

100,0%


Very useful 16

b

Approx. T -,426

Approx. Sig. ,670


120


Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total


English is... educated-uneducated Neither Rather Rather educated nor educated uneducated Very educated uneducated 3 12 10 3


Gamma


28

10,7%

42,9%

35,7%

10,7%

100,0%

7

15

17

2

41

17,1%

36,6%

41,5%

4,9%

100,0%

0

1

0

0

1

,0%

100,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

10

28

27

5

70

14,3%

40,0%

38,6%

7,1%

100,0%


Total

b

Approx. T -,609

Approx. Sig. ,543


121


Crosstab


Very important


Not important

Total


Very unpopular 2

English is... unpopular-popular Neither Rather Rather unpopular unpopular popular nor popular 1 5 7


Gamma


Total 28

7,1%

3,6%

17,9%

25,0%

46,4%

100,0%

0

1

17

10

14

42

,0%

2,4%

40,5%

23,8%

33,3%

100,0%

0

0

0

1

0

1

,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

,0%

100,0%

2

2

22

18

27

71

2,8%

2,8%

31,0%

25,4%

38,0%

100,0%


Very popular 13

b

Approx. T -,951

Approx. Sig. ,342


122


D.2.1.c: Parental attitudes in relation to respondent attitudes towards English as school subject Univariate Copenhagen: I like English as school subject L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

The most The same Less Total Invalid The most The same Less Total Invalid

Frequency 7 23 1 31 1 32 22 29 5 56 3 59

Percent 21,9 71,9 3,1 96,9 3,1 100,0 37,3 49,2 8,5 94,9 5,1 100,0

Valid Percent 22,6 74,2 3,2 100,0

39,3 51,8 8,9 100,0

Nuuk: I like English as school subject

Valid

Missing Total

The most The same Less Total Invalid

Frequency 22 57 16 95 1 96

Percent 22,9 59,4 16,7 99,0 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 23,2 60,0 16,8 100,0

123



39,3 91,1 100,0


Bivariate Copenhagen: How important do your parents find it that you learn English? * I like English as school subject Crosstabulation L3 or L2 learners L3 learners


Very important


Total

L2 learners


Very important


Not important

Total


I like English as school subject The most The same Less 2 15 1

124

Total 18

11,1%

83,3%

5,6%

100,0%

5

6

0

11

45,5%

54,5%

,0%

100,0%

7

21

1

29

24,1%

72,4%

3,4%

100,0%

10

11

1

22

45,5%

50,0%

4,5%

100,0%

9

17

3

29

31,0%

58,6%

10,3%

100,0%

1

0

1

2

50,0%

,0%

50,0%

100,0%

20

28

5

53

37,7%

52,8%

9,4%

100,0%




Value -,755 29 ,281 53

Gamma Gamma


Approx. T -2,233

b

Approx. Sig. ,026

,233

1,157

,247


Nuuk: How important do your parents find it that you learn English? * I like English as school subject Crosstabulation


Very important


Not important

Total


I like English as school subject The most The same Less 6 25 2


Gamma


75,8%

6,1%

100,0%

11

22

9

42

26,2%

52,4%

21,4%

100,0%

1

0

0

1

100,0%

,0%

,0%

100,0%

18

47

11

76

23,7%

61,8%

14,5%

100,0%

b

Approx. T ,072


125

33

18,2%


Total

Approx. Sig. ,943


D.2.2: Respondent attitudes in relation to level of English proficiency D.2.2.a: Preference for English in relation to English proficiency Bivariate Copenhagen: Correlations L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Preference for English score Overall test score

L2 learners



Preference for English score 1


Nuuk: Correlations



Preference for English score 1

Overall test score ,373** ,000 96 96 ,373** 1 ,000 96 96


126

Overall test score ,561** ,001 32 32 ,561** 1 ,001 32 32 1 ,025 ,851 59 59 ,025 1 ,851 59 59


D.2.2.b: Attitudes towards the English language in relation to English proficiency Bivariate Copenhagen: English is... easy-difficult Descriptives Overall score


L2 learners

Very easy Rather easy Neither easy nor difficult Rather difficult Very difficult Total Very easy Rather easy Neither easy nor difficult Rather difficult Very difficult Total

N 14 5 9 2 2 32 20 15 11 7 2 55

Mean 42,14 43,20 36,89 28,50 25,50 38,94 42,20 45,40 40,64 39,57 29,50 41,96

Std. Deviation 6,395 4,438 4,137 13,435 ,707 7,577 7,223 4,748 5,887 10,031 10,607 7,351

Std. Error 1,709 1,985 1,379 9,500 ,500 1,339 1,615 1,226 1,775 3,791 7,500 ,991

127

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 38,45 45,84 37,69 48,71 33,71 40,07 -92,21 149,21 19,15 31,85 36,21 41,67 38,82 45,58 42,77 48,03 36,68 44,59 30,29 48,85 -65,80 124,80 39,98 43,95

Minimum 29 39 29 19 25 19 21 38 31 26 22 21

Maximum 52 50 43 38 26 52 51 54 50 53 37 54




df1

df2 4 4

Sig. ,064 ,252

27 50


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 851,472 928,403 1779,875 548,368 2369,560 2917,927

df 4 27 31 4 50 54

Mean Square 212,868 34,385

F 6,191

Sig. ,001

137,092 47,391

2,893

,031

128


Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Overall score LSD


(I) English is... easy-difficult Very easy

Rather easy

Neither easy nor difficult

Rather difficult

Very difficult

(J) English is... easy-difficult Rather easy Neither easy nor difficult Rather difficult Very difficult Very easy Neither easy nor difficult Rather difficult Very difficult Very easy Rather easy Rather difficult Very difficult Very easy Rather easy Neither easy nor difficult Very difficult Very easy Rather easy Neither easy nor difficult Rather difficult

Mean Difference (I-J) -1,057 5,254* 13,643* 16,643* 1,057 6,311 14,700* 17,700* -5,254* -6,311 8,389 11,389* -13,643* -14,700* -8,389 3,000 -16,643* -17,700* -11,389* -3,000

Std. Error 3,055 2,505 4,433 4,433 3,055 3,271 4,906 4,906 2,505 3,271 4,584 4,584 4,433 4,906 4,584 5,864 4,433 4,906 4,584 5,864


129

Sig. ,732 ,045 ,005 ,001 ,732 ,064 ,006 ,001 ,045 ,064 ,078 ,019 ,005 ,006 ,078 ,613 ,001 ,001 ,019 ,613

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -7,33 5,21 ,11 10,39 4,55 22,74 7,55 25,74 -5,21 7,33 -,40 13,02 4,63 24,77 7,63 27,77 -10,39 -,11 -13,02 ,40 -1,02 17,79 1,98 20,79 -22,74 -4,55 -24,77 -4,63 -17,79 1,02 -9,03 15,03 -25,74 -7,55 -27,77 -7,63 -20,79 -1,98 -15,03 9,03


Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Overall score Bonferroni



Rather easy


Rather difficult

Very difficult


Mean Difference (I-J) -1,057 5,254 13,643* 16,643* 1,057 6,311 14,700 17,700* -5,254 -6,311 8,389 11,389 -13,643* -14,700 -8,389 3,000 -16,643* -17,700* -11,389 -3,000

Std. Error 3,055 2,505 4,433 4,433 3,055 3,271 4,906 4,906 2,505 3,271 4,584 4,584 4,433 4,906 4,584 5,864 4,433 4,906 4,584 5,864


130

Sig. 1,000 ,455 ,047 ,008 1,000 ,642 ,058 ,012 ,455 ,642 ,783 ,195 ,047 ,058 ,783 1,000 ,008 ,012 ,195 1,000

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -10,39 8,28 -2,40 12,91 ,09 27,19 3,09 30,19 -8,28 10,39 -3,69 16,31 -,30 29,70 2,70 32,70 -12,91 2,40 -16,31 3,69 -5,62 22,40 -2,62 25,40 -27,19 -,09 -29,70 ,30 -22,40 5,62 -14,92 20,92 -30,19 -3,09 -32,70 -2,70 -25,40 2,62 -20,92 14,92





Rather easy


Rather difficult

Very difficult


Mean Difference (I-J) -3,200 1,564 2,629 12,700* 3,200 4,764 5,829 15,900* -1,564 -4,764 1,065 11,136* -2,629 -5,829 -1,065 10,071 -12,700* -15,900* -11,136* -10,071

Std. Error 2,351 2,584 3,023 5,105 2,351 2,733 3,151 5,182 2,584 2,733 3,328 5,292 3,023 3,151 3,328 5,520 5,105 5,182 5,292 5,520


131

Sig. ,180 ,548 ,389 ,016 ,180 ,087 ,070 ,003 ,548 ,087 ,750 ,040 ,389 ,070 ,750 ,074 ,016 ,003 ,040 ,074

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -7,92 1,52 -3,63 6,75 -3,44 8,70 2,45 22,95 -1,52 7,92 -,73 10,25 -,50 12,16 5,49 26,31 -6,75 3,63 -10,25 ,73 -5,62 7,75 ,51 21,77 -8,70 3,44 -12,16 ,50 -7,75 5,62 -1,01 21,16 -22,95 -2,45 -26,31 -5,49 -21,77 -,51 -21,16 1,01





Rather easy


Rather difficult

Very difficult


Mean Difference (I-J) -3,200 1,564 2,629 12,700 3,200 4,764 5,829 15,900* -1,564 -4,764 1,065 11,136 -2,629 -5,829 -1,065 10,071 -12,700 -15,900* -11,136 -10,071

Std. Error 2,351 2,584 3,023 5,105 2,351 2,733 3,151 5,182 2,584 2,733 3,328 5,292 3,023 3,151 3,328 5,520 5,105 5,182 5,292 5,520


132

Sig. 1,000 1,000 1,000 ,162 1,000 ,874 ,703 ,035 1,000 ,874 1,000 ,404 1,000 ,703 1,000 ,740 ,162 ,035 ,404 ,740

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -10,11 3,71 -6,03 9,15 -6,25 11,51 -2,29 27,69 -3,71 10,11 -3,26 12,79 -3,43 15,08 ,68 31,12 -9,15 6,03 -12,79 3,26 -8,71 10,84 -4,41 26,68 -11,51 6,25 -15,08 3,43 -10,84 8,71 -6,14 26,28 -27,69 2,29 -31,12 -,68 -26,68 4,41 -26,28 6,14


English is... rough-smooth Descriptives Overall score


L2 learners

N

Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Total Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Total

7 11 6 5 29 5 18 23 5 51

Mean 42,29 35,09 45,17 37,80 39,38 36,20 42,83 43,39 43,00 42,45

Std. Deviation 3,402 5,431 5,154 11,862 7,404 11,032 5,361 7,408 3,082 6,987



df1

df2 3 3

25 47

Sig. ,120 ,008

133

Std. Error 1,286 1,637 2,104 5,305 1,375 4,934 1,263 1,545 1,378 ,978

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 39,14 45,43 31,44 38,74 39,76 50,58 23,07 52,53 36,56 42,20 22,50 49,90 40,17 45,50 40,19 46,59 39,17 46,83 40,49 44,42

Minimum 37 25 38 19 19 22 26 31 39 22

Maximum 46 42 52 51 52 49 51 54 47 54



L2 learners


Sum of Squares 474,857 1059,971 1534,828 219,849 2220,778 2440,627

df 3 25 28 3 47 50

Mean Square 158,286 42,399

F 3,733

Sig. ,024

73,283 47,251

1,551

,214



(I) English is... rough-smooth Rather rough

Neither rough nor smooth

Rather smooth

Very smooth

(J) English is... rough-smooth Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Rather rough Rather smooth Very smooth Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Very smooth Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth

Mean Difference (I-J) 7,195* -2,881 4,486 -7,195* -10,076* -2,709 2,881 10,076* 7,367 -4,486 2,709 -7,367


134

Std. Error 3,148 3,623 3,813 3,148 3,305 3,512 3,623 3,305 3,943 3,813 3,512 3,943

Sig. ,031 ,434 ,250 ,031 ,005 ,448 ,434 ,005 ,073 ,250 ,448 ,073

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound ,71 13,68 -10,34 4,58 -3,37 12,34 -13,68 -,71 -16,88 -3,27 -9,94 4,52 -4,58 10,34 3,27 16,88 -,75 15,49 -12,34 3,37 -4,52 9,94 -15,49 ,75




(I) English is... rough-smooth Rather rough


Rather smooth

Very smooth

(J) English is... rough-smooth Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Rather rough Rather smooth Very smooth Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Very smooth Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth

Mean Difference (I-J) 7,195 -2,881 4,486 -7,195 -10,076* -2,709 2,881 10,076* 7,367 -4,486 2,709 -7,367


English is... precise-loose



df1

df2 3 4

24 46

Sig. ,374 ,250

135

Std. Error 3,148 3,623 3,813 3,148 3,305 3,512 3,623 3,305 3,943 3,813 3,512 3,943

Sig. ,186 1,000 1,000 ,186 ,032 1,000 1,000 ,032 ,441 1,000 1,000 ,441

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -1,82 16,21 -13,26 7,50 -6,44 15,41 -16,21 1,82 -19,54 -,61 -12,77 7,35 -7,50 13,26 ,61 19,54 -3,93 18,66 -15,41 6,44 -7,35 12,77 -18,66 3,93



L2 learners


Sum of Squares 485,960 1077,833 1563,793 224,541 2216,086 2440,627

df 4 24 28 4 46 50

Mean Square 121,490 44,910

F 2,705

Sig. ,054

56,135 48,176

1,165

,339

English is... clumsy-elegant Descriptives Overall score


L2 learners

Very clumsy Rather clumsy Neither clumsy nor elegant Rather elegant Very elegant Total Rather clumsy Neither clumsy nor elegant Rather elegant Very elegant Total

N

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 9,73 73,27 . .

2 1

Mean 41,50 25,00

Std. Deviation 3,536 .

Std. Error 2,500 .

Minimum 39 25

Maximum 44 25

8

37,50

9,783

3,459

29,32

45,68

19

52

9 10 30 1

39,44 41,40 39,23 49,00

4,693 8,099 7,731 .

1,564 2,561 1,412 .

35,84 35,61 36,35 .

43,05 47,19 42,12 .

34 26 19 49

46 51 52 49

23

45,26

6,405

1,335

42,49

48,03

28

53

17 10 51

39,18 41,90 42,65

5,833 8,660 7,113

1,415 2,738 ,996

36,18 35,71 40,65

42,18 48,09 44,65

26 22 22

48 54 54

136


Warnings Post hoc tests are not performed for Overall score in split file L3 or L2 learners = L3 learners because at least one group has fewer than two cases. Post hoc tests are not performed for Overall score in split file L3 or L2 learners = L2 learners because at least one group has fewer than two cases.



df1

df2 3 2

Sig. ,540 ,921

25 47


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 284,244 1449,122 1733,367 407,842 2121,805 2529,647

df 4 25 29 3 47 50

137


F 1,226

Sig. ,325

135,947 45,145

3,011

,039


English is... fast-slow Descriptives Overall score


L2 learners

Very fast Rather fast Neither fast nor slow Rather slow Very slow Total Very fast Rather fast Neither fast nor slow Rather slow Very slow Total

N 4 8 13 3 1 29 2 16 29 5 1 53

Mean 33,25 39,88 40,08 39,33 41,00 39,03 25,00 44,56 42,55 44,00 43,00 42,64

Std. Deviation 12,764 7,357 7,376 3,215 . 7,790 4,243 5,366 6,822 4,637 . 6,975

Std. Error 6,382 2,601 2,046 1,856 . 1,446 3,000 1,342 1,267 2,074 . ,958


138

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 12,94 53,56 33,72 46,03 35,62 44,53 31,35 47,32 . . 36,07 42,00 -13,12 63,12 41,70 47,42 39,96 45,15 38,24 49,76 . . 40,72 44,56

Minimum 19 25 29 37 41 19 22 35 26 38 43 22

Maximum 45 50 52 43 41 52 28 54 53 49 43 54




df1

df2 3 3

Sig. ,077 ,680

24 48


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 157,751 1541,215 1698,966 691,079 1839,110 2530,189

df 4 24 28 4 48 52


F ,614

Sig. ,657

172,770 38,315

4,509

,004


F ,437

Sig. ,781

111,439 45,745

2,436

,076

English is... cold-intimate



df1

df2 4 3

Sig. ,553 ,294

24 48


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 105,348 1446,859 1552,207 334,318 2195,739 2530,058

df 4 24 28 3 48 51

139


English is... gentle-harsh Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners


df1

df2 4 4

Sig. ,238 ,611

25 48


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 468,264 1239,603 1707,867 138,303 2391,885 2530,189

df 4 25 29 4 48 52

Mean Square 117,066 49,584

F 2,361

Sig. ,081

34,576 49,831

,694

,600


F ,606

Sig. ,552

90,822 45,770

1,984

,148

English is... useless-useful Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners


df1

df2 2 1

Sig. ,543 ,530

28 52


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 66,722 1540,375 1607,097 181,644 2380,065 2561,709

df 2 28 30 2 52 54

140


English is... educated-uneducated Descriptives Overall score


L2 learners

Very educated Rather educated Neither educated nor uneducated Rather uneducated Total Very educated Rather educated Neither educated nor uneducated Rather uneducated Very uneducated Total

N

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 35,11 43,00 35,12 48,60

18 7

Mean 39,06 41,86


Std. Error 1,871 2,755

Minimum 19 34

Maximum 50 52

4

37,75

6,946

3,473

26,70

48,80

29

46

1 30 16 15

37,00 39,47 45,19 43,27

. 7,417 5,332 6,053

. 1,354 1,333 1,563

. 36,70 42,35 39,91

. 42,24 48,03 46,62

37 19 35 28

37 52 54 52

13

39,77

7,683

2,131

35,13

44,41

26

50

6 1 51

42,33 22,00 42,45

5,502 . 6,987

2,246 . ,978

36,56 . 40,49

48,11 . 44,42

35 22 22

51 22 54

141





df1

df2 2 3

Sig. ,844 ,311

26 46


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 60,915 1534,552 1595,467 641,616 1799,012 2440,627

df 3 26 29 4 46 50

142


F ,344

Sig. ,794

160,404 39,109

4,101

,006


English is... unpopular-popular Descriptives Overall score


L2 learners

N

Neither unpopular nor popular Rather popular Very popular Total Neither unpopular nor popular Rather popular Very popular Total

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

df1

6,364

4,500

-23,68

90,68

29

38

3 27 32

36,33 39,63 38,94

2,082 7,938 7,577

1,202 1,528 1,339

31,16 36,49 36,21

41,50 42,77 41,67

34 19 19

38 52 52

6

38,50

5,282

2,156

32,96

44,04

31

43

6 43 55

37,17 43,84 42,53

7,360 6,561 6,888

3,005 1,001 ,929

29,44 41,82 40,67

44,89 45,86 44,39

28 22 22

47 54 54

df2 2 2

Maximum

33,50

Overall score Levene Statistic 1,197 ,217

Minimum

2

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound

29 52

Sig. ,317 ,806

143



L2 learners


Sum of Squares 92,412 1687,463 1779,875 343,515 2218,194 2561,709

df 2 29 31 2 52 54


F ,794

Sig. ,462

171,758 42,658

4,026

,024



(I) English is... unpopular-popular Neither unpopular nor popular Rather popular

Very popular

(J) English is... unpopular-popular Rather popular Very popular Neither unpopular nor popular Very popular Neither unpopular nor popular Rather popular

Mean Difference (I-J) 1,333 -5,337

Std. Error 3,771 2,846

Sig. ,725 ,066

-1,333

3,771

,725

-8,90

6,23

-6,671*

2,846

,023

-12,38

-,96

5,337

2,846

,066

-,37

11,05

6,671*

2,846

,023

,96

12,38


144

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -6,23 8,90 -11,05 ,37




(I) English is... unpopular-popular Neither unpopular nor popular Rather popular

Very popular

(J) English is... unpopular-popular Rather popular Very popular Neither unpopular nor popular Very popular Neither unpopular nor popular Rather popular

Mean Difference (I-J) 1,333 -5,337

Std. Error 3,771 2,846

Sig. 1,000 ,199

-1,333

3,771

1,000

-10,66

8,00

-6,671

2,846

,069

-13,71

,37

5,337

2,846

,199

-1,70

12,38

6,671

2,846

,069

-,37

13,71

145

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -8,00 10,66 -12,38 1,70


Nuuk: English is... easy-difficult Descriptives Overall score

N

Very easy Rather easy Neither easy nor difficult Rather difficult Very difficult Total

Mean 34,89 32,81 26,32 21,82 27,33 27,99

9 31 22 28 3 93

Std. Deviation 13,642 10,320 10,540 9,202 11,846 11,354

Std. Error 4,547 1,853 2,247 1,739 6,839 1,177

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 24,40 45,38 29,02 36,59 21,65 30,99 18,25 25,39 -2,09 56,76 25,65 30,33

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic ,991

df1

df2 4

Sig. ,417

88

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 2275,715 9583,274 11858,989

df 4 88 92

Mean Square 568,929 108,901

F 5,224

Sig. ,001

146

Minimum 15 14 10 6 20 6

Maximum 50 48 46 39 41 50




Rather easy


Rather difficult

Very difficult


Mean Difference (I-J) 2,082 8,571* 13,067* 7,556 -2,082 6,488* 10,985* 5,473 -8,571* -6,488* 4,497 -1,015 -13,067* -10,985* -4,497 -5,512 -7,556 -5,473 1,015 5,512

Std. Error 3,951 4,129 3,999 6,957 3,951 2,909 2,721 6,310 4,129 2,909 2,973 6,423 3,999 2,721 2,973 6,340 6,957 6,310 6,423 6,340

Sig. ,600 ,041 ,002 ,280 ,600 ,028 ,000 ,388 ,041 ,028 ,134 ,875 ,002 ,000 ,134 ,387 ,280 ,388 ,875 ,387


147

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -5,77 9,93 ,36 16,78 5,12 21,01 -6,27 21,38 -9,93 5,77 ,71 12,27 5,58 16,39 -7,07 18,01 -16,78 -,36 -12,27 -,71 -1,41 10,41 -13,78 11,75 -21,01 -5,12 -16,39 -5,58 -10,41 1,41 -18,11 7,09 -21,38 6,27 -18,01 7,07 -11,75 13,78 -7,09 18,11




Rather easy


Rather difficult

Very difficult


Mean Difference (I-J) 2,082 8,571 13,067* 7,556 -2,082 6,488 10,985* 5,473 -8,571 -6,488 4,497 -1,015 -13,067* -10,985* -4,497 -5,512 -7,556 -5,473 1,015 5,512

Std. Error 3,951 4,129 3,999 6,957 3,951 2,909 2,721 6,310 4,129 2,909 2,973 6,423 3,999 2,721 2,973 6,340 6,957 6,310 6,423 6,340

Sig. 1,000 ,408 ,015 1,000 1,000 ,283 ,001 1,000 ,408 ,283 1,000 1,000 ,015 ,001 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000


148

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -9,30 13,46 -3,32 20,46 1,55 24,58 -12,48 27,59 -13,46 9,30 -1,89 14,87 3,15 18,82 -12,70 23,64 -20,46 3,32 -14,87 1,89 -4,06 13,06 -19,51 17,48 -24,58 -1,55 -18,82 -3,15 -13,06 4,06 -23,77 12,74 -27,59 12,48 -23,64 12,70 -17,48 19,51 -12,74 23,77


English is... rough-smooth Descriptives Overall score

N

Very rough Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Total

Mean 23,00 21,00 29,08 31,39 41,67 28,28

2 17 48 18 3 88

Std. Deviation 2,828 9,104 11,255 11,423 5,686 11,382

Std. Error 2,000 2,208 1,625 2,692 3,283 1,213

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound -2,41 48,41 16,32 25,68 25,82 32,35 25,71 37,07 27,54 55,79 25,87 30,70


df1

df2 4

Sig. ,176

83

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 1699,287 9570,611 11269,898

df 4 83 87

Mean Square 424,822 115,309

F 3,684

Sig. ,008

149

Minimum 21 9 6 14 37 6

Maximum 25 33 48 50 48 50



(I) English is... rough-smooth Very rough

Rather rough


Rather smooth

Very smooth

(J) English is... rough-smooth Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Very rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Very rough Rather rough Rather smooth Very smooth Very rough Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Very smooth Very rough Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth

Mean Difference (I-J) 2,000 -6,083 -8,389 -18,667 -2,000 -8,083* -10,389* -20,667* 6,083 8,083* -2,306 -12,583 8,389 10,389* 2,306 -10,278 18,667 20,667* 12,583 10,278

Std. Error 8,027 7,750 8,004 9,803 8,027 3,031 3,632 6,725 7,750 3,031 2,968 6,390 8,004 3,632 2,968 6,696 9,803 6,725 6,390 6,696

Sig. ,804 ,435 ,298 ,060 ,804 ,009 ,005 ,003 ,435 ,009 ,439 ,052 ,298 ,005 ,439 ,129 ,060 ,003 ,052 ,129


150

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -13,97 17,97 -21,50 9,33 -24,31 7,53 -38,16 ,83 -17,97 13,97 -14,11 -2,06 -17,61 -3,17 -34,04 -7,29 -9,33 21,50 2,06 14,11 -8,21 3,60 -25,29 ,13 -7,53 24,31 3,17 17,61 -3,60 8,21 -23,60 3,04 -,83 38,16 7,29 34,04 -,13 25,29 -3,04 23,60



(I) English is... rough-smooth Very rough

Rather rough


Rather smooth

Very smooth

(J) English is... rough-smooth Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Very rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth Very smooth Very rough Rather rough Rather smooth Very smooth Very rough Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Very smooth Very rough Rather rough Neither rough nor smooth Rather smooth

Mean Difference (I-J) 2,000 -6,083 -8,389 -18,667 -2,000 -8,083 -10,389 -20,667* 6,083 8,083 -2,306 -12,583 8,389 10,389 2,306 -10,278 18,667 20,667* 12,583 10,278

Std. Error 8,027 7,750 8,004 9,803 8,027 3,031 3,632 6,725 7,750 3,031 2,968 6,390 8,004 3,632 2,968 6,696 9,803 6,725 6,390 6,696

Sig. 1,000 1,000 1,000 ,603 1,000 ,092 ,053 ,029 1,000 ,092 1,000 ,523 1,000 ,053 1,000 1,000 ,603 ,029 ,523 1,000


151

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -21,15 25,15 -28,43 16,27 -31,47 14,69 -46,94 9,60 -25,15 21,15 -16,82 ,66 -20,86 ,08 -40,06 -1,27 -16,27 28,43 -,66 16,82 -10,86 6,25 -31,01 5,85 -14,69 31,47 -,08 20,86 -6,25 10,86 -29,59 9,03 -9,60 46,94 1,27 40,06 -5,85 31,01 -9,03 29,59


English is... precise-loose Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic ,406

df1

df2 4

Sig. ,804

83

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 543,138 10726,760 11269,898

df 4 83 87

Mean Square 135,784 129,238

F 1,051

Sig. ,386

F 1,989

Sig. ,103

F 4,490

Sig. ,002

English is... clumsy-elegant Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic ,813

df1

df2 4

Sig. ,521

85

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 982,873 10498,727 11481,600

df 4 85 89

Mean Square 245,718 123,514

English is... fast-slow Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic 2,848

df1

df2 3

Sig. ,042

87

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 2000,194 9688,241 11688,435

df 4 87 91

Mean Square 500,048 111,359

152


English is... cold-intimate Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic 1,145

df1

df2 4

Sig. ,341

83

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 659,289 10597,030 11256,318

df 4 83 87

Mean Square 164,822 127,675

F 1,291

Sig. ,280

F 1,744

Sig. ,148

English is... gentle-harsh Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic 1,585

df1

df2 4

Sig. ,186

83

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 872,913 10383,405 11256,318

df 4 83 87

Mean Square 218,228 125,101

153


English is... useless-useful Descriptives Overall score

N

Very useless Rather useless Neither useless nor useful Rather useful Very useful Total

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 4,09 37,41 15,27 37,23

4 4

Mean 20,75 26,25


Std. Error 5,234 3,449

22

21,41

9,480

2,021

17,21

17 42 89

27,47 33,05 28,25

12,679 10,119 11,370

3,075 1,561 1,205

20,95 29,89 25,85

Mean Square 561,901 108,678

F 5,170


df1

df2 4

Sig. ,248

84

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 2247,604 9128,958 11376,562

df 4 84 88

Sig. ,001

154

Minimum 9 16

Maximum 33 31

25,61

10

43

33,99 36,20 30,64

6 13 6

45 50 50



(I) English is... useless-useful Very useless

Rather useless

Neither useless nor useful

Rather useful

Very useful

(J) English is... useless-useful Rather useless Neither useless nor useful Rather useful Very useful Very useless Neither useless nor useful Rather useful Very useful Very useless Rather useless Rather useful Very useful Very useless Rather useless Neither useless nor useful Very useful Very useless Rather useless Neither useless nor useful Rather useful

Mean Difference (I-J) -5,500

Std. Error 7,372

Sig. ,458

-,659

5,667

,908

-11,93

10,61

-6,721 -12,298* 5,500

5,793 5,455 7,372

,249 ,027 ,458

-18,24 -23,15 -9,16

4,80 -1,45 20,16

4,841

5,667

,395

-6,43

16,11

-1,221 -6,798 ,659 -4,841 -6,061 -11,639* 6,721 1,221

5,793 5,455 5,667 5,667 3,366 2,744 5,793 5,793

,834 ,216 ,908 ,395 ,075 ,000 ,249 ,834

-12,74 -17,65 -10,61 -16,11 -12,76 -17,09 -4,80 -10,30

10,30 4,05 11,93 6,43 ,63 -6,18 18,24 12,74

6,061

3,366

,075

-,63

12,76

-5,577 12,298* 6,798

2,997 5,455 5,455

,066 ,027 ,216

-11,54 1,45 -4,05

,38 23,15 17,65

11,639*

2,744

,000

6,18

17,09

5,577

2,997

,066

-,38

11,54

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -20,16 9,16


155



(I) English is... useless-useful Very useless

Rather useless

Neither useless nor useful

Rather useful

Very useful

(J) English is... useless-useful Rather useless Neither useless nor useful Rather useful Very useful Very useless Neither useless nor useful Rather useful Very useful Very useless Rather useless Rather useful Very useful Very useless Rather useless Neither useless nor useful Very useful Very useless Rather useless Neither useless nor useful Rather useful

Mean Difference (I-J) -5,500

Std. Error 7,372

Sig. 1,000

-,659

5,667

1,000

-17,00

15,68

-6,721 -12,298 5,500

5,793 5,455 7,372

1,000 ,268 1,000

-23,42 -28,02 -15,75

9,98 3,43 26,75

4,841

5,667

1,000

-11,50

21,18

-1,221 -6,798 ,659 -4,841 -6,061 -11,639* 6,721 1,221

5,793 5,455 5,667 5,667 3,366 2,744 5,793 5,793

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 ,754 ,001 1,000 1,000

-17,92 -22,52 -15,68 -21,18 -15,77 -19,55 -9,98 -15,48

15,48 8,93 17,00 11,50 3,64 -3,73 23,42 17,92

6,061

3,366

,754

-3,64

15,77

-5,577 12,298 6,798

2,997 5,455 5,455

,662 ,268 1,000

-14,22 -3,43 -8,93

3,06 28,02 22,52

11,639*

2,744

,001

3,73

19,55

5,577

2,997

,662

-3,06

14,22

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -26,75 15,75


156


English is... educated-uneducated Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic 1,392

df1

df2 3

Sig. ,251

82

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 1007,084 10209,146 11216,230

df 4 82 86

Mean Square 251,771 124,502

F 2,022

Sig. ,099

F 1,430

Sig. ,231

English is... unpopular-popular Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic 3,084

df1

df2 4

Sig. ,020

83

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 725,509 10530,809 11256,318

df 4 83 87

Mean Square 181,377 126,877

157


D.2.2.c: Attitudes towards English as school subject in relation to English proficiency Bivariate Copenhagen: Descriptives Overall score


L2 learners

The most The same Less Total The most The same Less Total

N 7 23 1 31 22 29 5 56

Mean 44,29 38,30 26,00 39,26 42,45 41,52 32,60 41,09

Std. Deviation 4,751 7,289 . 7,479 7,854 8,501 10,968 8,745

Std. Error 1,796 1,520 . 1,343 1,675 1,579 4,905 1,169

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 39,89 48,68 35,15 41,46 . . 36,51 42,00 38,97 45,94 38,28 44,75 18,98 46,22 38,75 43,43

158

Minimum 38 19 26 19 21 22 15 15

Maximum 51 52 26 52 52 54 42 54

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Warnings Post hoc tests are not performed for Overall score in split file L3 or L2 learners = L3 learners because at least one group has fewer than two cases.

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall score Levene Statistic ,613 ,635

L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

df1

df2 1 2

Sig. ,440 ,534

28 53


Sum of Squares 373,637 1304,298 1677,935 406,658 3799,896 4206,554


L2 learners

df 2 28 30 2 53 55

Mean Square 186,819 46,582

F 4,011

Sig. ,029

203,329 71,696

2,836

,068


df1

df2 2

Sig. ,811

92

ANOVA Overall score


Sum of Squares 297,621 11664,105 11961,726

df 2 92 94

Mean Square 148,811 126,784

159

F 1,174

Sig. ,314


D.2.2.d Attitudes towards the English classroom situation in relation to English proficiency Univariate Copenhagen: I like speaking and answering questions in our English class L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

Yes No Total Yes No Total

Frequency 22 10 32 35 24 59

Percent 68,8 31,3 100,0 59,3 40,7 100,0

Valid Percent 68,8 31,3 100,0 59,3 40,7 100,0


I don't mind speaking and answering questions in our English class L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid


Frequency 11 21 32 22 37 59

Percent 34,4 65,6 100,0 37,3 62,7 100,0

Valid Percent 34,4 65,6 100,0 37,3 62,7 100,0


I get nervous and confused when I speak in our English class L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid


Frequency 7 25 32 20 39 59

Percent 21,9 78,1 100,0 33,9 66,1 100,0

Valid Percent 21,9 78,1 100,0 33,9 66,1 100,0


I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when I speak English L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

Valid Valid

No Yes No Total


Percent 100,0 22,0 78,0 100,0

160

Valid Percent 100,0 22,0 78,0 100,0


When WordsDon’t Come Easy I always feel that the other pupils speak better English than I do L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid


Frequency 5 27 32 17 42 59

Percent 15,6 84,4 100,0 28,8 71,2 100,0

Valid Percent 15,6 84,4 100,0 28,8 71,2 100,0


Level of anxiety L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 1 2 Total 0 1 2 3 Total

Frequency 24 4 4 32 30 15 7 7 59

Percent 75,0 12,5 12,5 100,0 50,8 25,4 11,9 11,9 100,0

161

Valid Percent 75,0 12,5 12,5 100,0 50,8 25,4 11,9 11,9 100,0

Cumulative Percent 75,0 87,5 100,0 50,8 76,3 88,1 100,0


Nuuk: I like speaking and answering questions in our English class

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 40 56 96

Percent 41,7 58,3 100,0



I don't mind speaking and answering questions in our English class

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 35 61 96

Percent 36,5 63,5 100,0



I get nervous and confused when I speak in our English class

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 35 61 96

Percent 36,5 63,5 100,0



I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when I speak English

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 9 87 96

Percent 9,4 90,6 100,0



I always feel that the other pupils speak better English than I do

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 20 76 96

Percent 20,8 79,2 100,0



Level of anxiety

Valid

0 1 2 3 Total


Percent 44,8 44,8 9,4 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 44,8 44,8 9,4 1,0 100,0

162



Bivariate Copenhagen: Group Statistics L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

I like speaking and answering questions in our English class Yes No Yes No

N 22 10 35 24

Mean 40,09 36,40 42,97 38,46

Std. Deviation 5,706 10,554 6,750 10,202

Std. Error Mean 1,217 3,337 1,141 2,083



L2 learners

Overall score

Overall score


F 5,205

6,454

Sig. ,030

,014


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



1,291

30

,207

3,691

2,859

-2,149

9,530

1,039

11,464

,320

3,691

3,552

-4,089

11,471

2,047

57

,045

4,513

2,204

,099

8,927

1,901

36,645

,065

4,513

2,375

-,300

9,326

163



Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

I don't mind speaking and answering questions in our YesEnglish class No Yes No

N

Mean 42,45 37,10 44,41 39,19

11 21 22 37

Std. Deviation 7,230 7,245 6,815 8,947

Std. Error Mean 2,180 1,581 1,453 1,471



L2 learners

Overall score

Overall score


F

Sig.

,000

t

1,000

1,281


,262

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference


1,989

30

,056

5,359

2,695

-,144

10,863

1,990

20,457

,060

5,359

2,693

-,250

10,969

2,357

57

,022

5,220

2,215

,785

9,655

2,525

53,389

,015

5,220

2,067

1,074

9,366


Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

I get nervous and confused when I speak in our English class Yes No Yes No

N 7 25 20 39

Mean 34,86 40,08 38,85 42,31


Std. Deviation 9,974 6,563 8,536 8,414

164

Std. Error Mean 3,770 1,313 1,909 1,347




L2 learners

Overall score

Overall score


F


Sig.

1,309

t

,262

,204

,654

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference


-1,657

30

,108

-5,223

3,153

-11,662

1,216

-1,308

7,516

,229

-5,223

3,992

-14,532

4,086

-1,487

57

,143

-3,458

2,325

-8,114

1,199

-1,480

37,940

,147

-3,458

2,336

-8,188

1,272

Warnings No statistics are computed for a split file in the Independent Samples table. The split file is: L3 or L2 learners=L3 learners.


Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when Yes I speak English No Yes No

N

0a 32 13 46

Mean . 38,94 38,38 41,91


Std. Deviation . 7,577 8,078 8,594

a. t cannot be computed because at least one of the groups is empty.

165

Std. Error Mean . 1,339 2,240 1,267


Independent Samples Testa Levene's Test for Equality of Variances


Overall score

F



Sig.

,130

t

,720

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



-1,323

57

,191

-3,528

2,666

-8,867

1,810

-1,371

20,349

,185

-3,528

2,574

-8,892

1,835

a. No statistics are computed for one or more split files Group Statistics

Overall score

I always feel that the other pupils speak better Yes English than I do

N

Mean 37,59 42,57

17 42

No




Overall score


F ,026

Sig. ,872


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



-2,087

57

,041

-4,983

2,388

-9,764

-,202

-2,144

31,445

,040

-4,983

2,325

-9,722

-,245

166


Correlations L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Overall test score

Level of anxiety

L2 learners

Overall test score

Level of anxiety


Overall test score 1 32 -,411* ,019 32 1

Level of anxiety -,411* ,019 32 1

59 -,273* ,036 59

32 -,273* ,036 59 1 59



Overall score

I like speaking and answering questions in our English class Yes No

N 40 56

Mean 31,35 25,59



167



Overall score


F

Sig.

,017

,895


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



2,534

94

,013

5,761

2,273

1,247

10,274

2,538

84,648

,013

5,761

2,269

1,248

10,273

Group Statistics

Overall score

I don't mind speaking and answering questions in our YesEnglish class No

N 35 61

Mean 30,80 26,38




Overall score


F ,442

Sig. ,508


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



1,872

94

,064

4,423

2,363

-,269

9,115

1,838

67,124

,070

4,423

2,406

-,380

9,226

168


Group Statistics

Overall score

I get nervous and confused when I speak in our English class Yes No

N

Mean 25,49 29,43

35 61




Overall score


F

Sig.

,404


t

,527

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference


-1,661

94

,100

-3,941

2,372

-8,650

,769

-1,709

77,184

,091

-3,941

2,306

-8,531

,650

Group Statistics

Overall score

I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when Yes I speak English No

N 9 87

Mean 24,78 28,32




169



Overall score

F



Sig.

,098

t

,754

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



-,896

94

,373

-3,544

3,957

-11,401

4,313

-,911

9,808

,384

-3,544

3,890

-12,235

5,147

Group Statistics

Overall score

I always feel that the other pupils speak better Yes English than I do

N

Mean 23,85 29,08

20 76

No




Overall score


F 1,538

Sig. ,218


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



-1,867

94

,065

-5,229

2,801

-10,790

,332

-2,024

33,423

,051

-5,229

2,584

-10,484

,026

170

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Correlations

Overall test score

Level of anxiety


Overall test score 1 96 -,252* ,013 96

Level of anxiety -,252* ,013 96 1 96


D.2.2.e: Attitudes towards language learning in general in relation to English proficiency Univariate Copenhagen: Like learning new languages L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing

Yes No Total I don't know Yes No Total I don't know No response Total

Total

Frequency 27 1 28 4 32 40 6 46 12 1 13 59

Percent 84,4 3,1 87,5 12,5 100,0 67,8 10,2 78,0 20,3 1,7 22,0 100,0


87,0 13,0 100,0


87,0 100,0

Important to know other languages L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Yes No Total I don't know Yes No Total I don't know

Frequency 30 1 31 1 32 50 4 54 5 59

171

Percent 93,8 3,1 96,9 3,1 100,0 84,7 6,8 91,5 8,5 100,0


92,6 7,4 100,0


92,6 100,0

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Visit another country L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Yes No Total I don't know Yes No Total I don't know

Frequency 25 4 29 3 32 48 1 49 10 59

Percent 78,1 12,5 90,6 9,4 100,0 81,4 1,7 83,1 16,9 100,0


98,0 2,0 100,0


98,0 100,0

Plan to stay in another country L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Valid Missing Total Valid

Missing Total

Yes I don't know Yes No Total I don't know

Frequency 31 1 32 54 2 56 3 59

172

Percent 96,9 3,1 100,0 91,5 3,4 94,9 5,1 100,0

Valid Percent 100,0

96,4 3,6 100,0


96,4 100,0


Nuuk: Like learning new languages

Valid

Missing Total

Yes No Total I don't know


Percent 87,5 4,2 91,7 8,3 100,0



Important to know other languages

Valid

Missing Total


Frequency 78 4 82 14 96

Percent 81,3 4,2 85,4 14,6 100,0



Visit another country

Valid

Missing

Yes No Total I don't know No response Total

Total

Frequency 68 5 73 22 1 23 96

Percent 70,8 5,2 76,0 22,9 1,0 24,0 100,0



Plan to stay in another country

Valid

Missing Total


Frequency 84 1 85 11 96

Percent 87,5 1,0 88,5 11,5 100,0


173




Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

Like learning new languages Yes No Yes No

N

Mean 38,78 52,00 41,85 34,17

27 1 40 6

Std. Deviation 7,792 . 7,326 13,273

Std. Error Mean 1,500 . 1,158 5,419



L2 learners

Overall score

Overall score


F


Sig. .

7,181

t .

,010

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



-1,666

26

,108

-13,222

7,935

-29,533

3,089

.

.

.

-13,222

.

.

.

2,135

44

,038

7,683

3,599

,430

14,937

1,387

5,466

,219

7,683

5,541

-6,203

21,569

174



Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

Important to know other languages Yes No Yes No

N 30 1 50 4

Mean 38,53 52,00 41,88 38,75

Std. Error Mean 1,358 . 1,080 8,045

Std. Deviation 7,436 . 7,634 16,091



L2 learners

Overall score

Overall score


F


Sig. .

t .

5,015

,029

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference


-1,782

29

,085

-13,467

7,559

-28,926

1,993

.

.

.

-13,467

.

.

.

,721

52

,474

3,130

4,343

-5,584

11,844

,386

3,109

,725

3,130

8,118

-22,199

28,459


Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

Visit another country Yes No Yes No

N 25 4 48 1

Mean 37,88 43,25 41,71 42,00


Std. Deviation 7,634 6,397 8,870 .

175

Std. Error Mean 1,527 3,198 1,280 .




L2 learners

Overall score

Overall score


F


Sig.

,188

t

,668

.

.

df

,195

-5,370

4,042

-13,664

2,924

-1,515

4,494

,197

-5,370

3,544

-14,798

4,058

-,033

47

,974

-,292

8,962

-18,321

17,738

.

.

.

-,292

.

.

.

Group Statistics

Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

N 31 0a 54 2

Mean 39,26 . 42,35 29,50


27

No statistics are computed for a split file in the Independent Samples table. The split file is: L3 or L2 learners=L3 learners.

Plan to stay in another country Yes No Yes No

Mean Difference

-1,328

Warnings


Sig. (2-tailed)


Std. Deviation 7,479 . 7,277 20,506

a. t cannot be computed because at least one of the groups is empty.

176

Std. Error Mean 1,343 . ,990 14,500


Independent Samples Testa Levene's Test for Equality of Variances


Overall score

F



Sig.

6,819

t

,012

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



2,309

54

,025

12,852

5,566

1,692

24,012

,884

1,009

,538

12,852

14,534

-167,824

193,528

a. No statistics are computed for one or more split files


Overall score

Like learning new languages Yes No

N 84 4

Mean 28,33 25,00




Overall score


F ,001

Sig. ,980


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



,576

86

,566

3,333

5,788

-8,173

14,840

,493

3,207

,654

3,333

6,758

-17,408

24,074

177


Group Statistics

Overall score

Important to know other languages Yes No

N 78 4

Mean 28,79 25,75




Overall score


F

Sig.

,130

,719


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference


,533

80

,595

3,045

5,707

-8,313

14,403

,477

3,245

,664

3,045

6,388

-16,442

22,531

Group Statistics

Overall score

Visit another country Yes No

N 68 5

Mean 27,99 24,80




178



Overall score


F


Sig.

,013

t

,909

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



,616

71

,540

3,185

5,171

-7,126

13,497

,621

4,621

,564

3,185

5,126

-10,323

16,693

Group Statistics

Overall score

Plan to stay in another country Yes No

N

Mean 28,67 16,00

84 1

Std. Deviation 11,219 .

Std. Error Mean 1,224 .


Overall score


F


Sig. .

t .

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



1,122

83

,265

12,667

11,285

-9,780

35,113

.

.

.

12,667

.

.

.

179


Sub-hypothesis D.3: Orientation Univariate Copenhagen: I think that learning English can be important to me... L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Valid

Missing Total Valid

Missing

because it will allow me to meet and communicate with lots of interesting people because it will improve my education because I think it will someday be useful in getting a good job because it will enable me to better understand English-speaking people and cultures Total Invalid because it will allow me to meet and communicate with lots of interesting people because it will improve my education because I think it will someday be useful in getting a good job because it will enable me to better understand English-speaking people and cultures I don't think it is important to learn English Total Invalid No response Total

Total

180

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

14

43,8

48,3

48,3

8

25,0

27,6

75,9

4

12,5

13,8

89,7

3

9,4

10,3

100,0

29 3 32

90,6 9,4 100,0

100,0

16

27,1

39,0

39,0

5

8,5

12,2

51,2

9

15,3

22,0

73,2

10

16,9

24,4

97,6

1

1,7

2,4

100,0

41 16 2 18 59

69,5 27,1 3,4 30,5 100,0

100,0

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Integrative or instrumental orientation L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Missing

Integrative orientation Instrumental orientation Total Invalid Integrative orientation Instrumental orientation Total Invalid Learning English is not important No response Total

Frequency 17 12 29 3 32 26 14 40 16

Percent 53,1 37,5 90,6 9,4 100,0 44,1 23,7 67,8 27,1

1

1,7

2 19 59

3,4 32,2 100,0

Total


65,0 35,0 100,0

Nuuk: I think that learning English can be important to me...

Valid

Missing Total

because it will allow me to meet and communicate with lots of interesting people because it will improve my education because I think it will someday be useful in getting a good job because it will enable me to better understand English-speaking people and cultures I don't think it is important to learn English Total Invalid

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

22

22,9

26,5

26,5

11

11,5

13,3

39,8

28

29,2

33,7

73,5

19

19,8

22,9

96,4

3

3,1

3,6

100,0

83 13 96

86,5 13,5 100,0

100,0

181


65,0 100,0

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Integrative or instrumental orientation

Valid

Missing

Total

Integrative orientation Instrumental orientation Total Learning English is not important Invalid Total

Frequency 41 39 80

Percent 42,7 40,6 83,3

3

3,1

13 16 96

13,5 16,7 100,0

182





Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

Integrative or instrumental orientation Integrative orientation Instrumental orientation Integrative orientation Instrumental orientation

N

Mean 39,82 36,75 44,27 40,86

17 12 26 14

Std. Deviation 6,454 8,635 5,127 10,129

Std. Error Mean 1,565 2,493 1,005 2,707



L2 learners

Overall score

Overall score


F 1,533

9,816

Sig. ,226

,003


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



1,099

27

,282

3,074

2,798

-2,667

8,814

1,044

19,320

,309

3,074

2,944

-3,080

9,227

1,422

38

,163

3,412

2,399

-1,445

8,269

1,182

16,669

,254

3,412

2,888

-2,690

9,514

183



Overall score

Integrative or instrumental orientation Integrative orientation Instrumental orientation

N

Mean 27,85 27,38

41 39




Overall score


F ,538

Sig. ,465


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



,185

78

,854

,469

2,536

-4,579

5,517

,185

77,854

,853

,469

2,530

-4,567

5,505

184


________________________________________________________________________________

Hypothesis E: Usage and exposure ________________________________________________________________________________ Sub-hypothesis E.1: Usage of English Univariate Copenhagen: Number of persons English is regularly spoken with L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 1 Total 0 1 2 Total

Frequency 29 3 32 52 6 1 59

Percent 90,6 9,4 100,0 88,1 10,2 1,7 100,0

Valid Percent 90,6 9,4 100,0 88,1 10,2 1,7 100,0


Number of situations in which English is thought in L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

0 1 2 3 5 Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Frequency 23 5 2 1 1 32 46 8 2 1 1 1 59

Percent 71,9 15,6 6,3 3,1 3,1 100,0 78,0 13,6 3,4 1,7 1,7 1,7 100,0

Valid Percent 71,9 15,6 6,3 3,1 3,1 100,0 78,0 13,6 3,4 1,7 1,7 1,7 100,0

Nuuk: Number of persons English is regularly spoken with

Valid

0 1 2 3 Total


Percent 84,4 10,4 3,1 2,1 100,0

Valid Percent 84,4 10,4 3,1 2,1 100,0

185




Number of situations in which English is thought in

Valid

0 1 2 3 4 Total

Frequency 57 27 7 1 4 96

Percent 59,4 28,1 7,3 1,0 4,2 100,0

Valid Percent 59,4 28,1 7,3 1,0 4,2 100,0


Bivariate Copenhagen: Correlations


Number of persons English is regularly spoken with Number of situations in which English is thought in Overall test score

L2 learners


Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N


186

Number of persons English is regularly spoken with 1 32 ,434*

Number of situations in which English is thought in ,434* ,013 32 1

,013

Overall test score ,161 ,379 32 ,343 ,055

32

32

32

,161 ,379 32 1

,343 ,055 32 ,123 ,355 59 1

1

59 ,123 ,355

32 ,036 ,789 59 ,149 ,260

59

59

59

,036 ,789 59

,149 ,260 59

1 59


Nuuk: Correlations


Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

Number of persons English is regularly spoken with 1 96 ,200

Number of situations in which English is thought in ,200 ,051 96 1

Overall test score ,106 ,302 96 ,123

,051

N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

,233

96

96

96

,106 ,302 96

,123 ,233 96

1 96

Sub-hypothesis E.2: Exposure to English Univariate Copenhagen: Films in English L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

Often Sometimes Never Total Often Sometimes Total

Frequency 25 5 2 32 55 4 59

Percent 78,1 15,6 6,3 100,0 93,2 6,8 100,0

Valid Percent 78,1 15,6 6,3 100,0 93,2 6,8 100,0


TV programmes in English L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid


Frequency 24 5 3 32 47 12 59

187

Percent 75,0 15,6 9,4 100,0 79,7 20,3 100,0

Valid Percent 75,0 15,6 9,4 100,0 79,7 20,3 100,0


When WordsDon’t Come Easy Music in English L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

Frequency 28 3 1 32 58 1 59


Percent 87,5 9,4 3,1 100,0 98,3 1,7 100,0

Valid Percent 87,5 9,4 3,1 100,0 98,3 1,7 100,0


Internet in English L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Valid

Frequency 16 12 4 32 36 22 1 59

Often Sometimes Never Total Often Sometimes Never Total

Percent 50,0 37,5 12,5 100,0 61,0 37,3 1,7 100,0

Valid Percent 50,0 37,5 12,5 100,0 61,0 37,3 1,7 100,0


Read in English L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Valid

L2 learners

Missing Total Valid

Often Sometimes Never Total No response Often Sometimes Never Total

Frequency 4 24 3 31 1 32 8 39 12 59

Percent 12,5 75,0 9,4 96,9 3,1 100,0 13,6 66,1 20,3 100,0

Valid Percent 12,9 77,4 9,7 100,0

13,6 66,1 20,3 100,0

Nuuk: Films in English

Valid

Missing Total

Often Sometimes Never Total Invalid

Frequency 76 17 2 95 1 96

Percent 79,2 17,7 2,1 99,0 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 80,0 17,9 2,1 100,0

188



13,6 79,7 100,0

When WordsDon’t Come Easy TV programmes in English

Valid

Missing Total

Often Sometimes Never Total No response

Frequency 54 33 7 94 2 96

Percent 56,3 34,4 7,3 97,9 2,1 100,0

Valid Percent 57,4 35,1 7,4 100,0


Music in English

Valid

Missing Total

Often Sometimes Total Invalid

Frequency 82 13 95 1 96

Percent 85,4 13,5 99,0 1,0 100,0



Internet in English

Valid

Missing Total

Often Sometimes Never Total Invalid

Frequency 33 55 7 95 1 96

Percent 34,4 57,3 7,3 99,0 1,0 100,0

Valid Percent 34,7 57,9 7,4 100,0


Read in English

Valid

Missing

Total

Often Sometimes Never Total Invalid No response Total

Frequency 8 59 27 94 1 1 2 96

Percent 8,3 61,5 28,1 97,9 1,0 1,0 2,1 100,0

Valid Percent 8,5 62,8 28,7 100,0

189



Bivariate Copenhagen: Films in English



df1

df2 2 1

Sig. ,611 ,436

29 57

ANOVA Overall test score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners


Sum of Squares 310,835 1469,040 1779,875 73,388 4159,527 4232,915

df 2 29 31 1 57 58

Mean Square 155,418 50,657

F 3,068

Sig. ,062

73,388 72,974

1,006

,320

Mean Square 175,025 49,304

F 3,550

Sig. ,042

,722 74,249

,010

,922

TV programmes in English Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall test score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners


df1

df2 2 1

Sig. ,005 ,238

29 57 ANOVA

Overall test score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners


Sum of Squares 350,050 1429,825 1779,875 ,722 4232,193 4232,915

df 2 29 31 1 57 58

190


Music in English Descriptives Overall test score


L2 learners


N 28 3 1 32 58 1 59

Mean 39,07 44,33 19,00 38,94 40,98 50,00 41,14

Std. Deviation 6,727 6,028 . 7,577 8,536 . 8,543

Std. Error 1,271 3,480 . 1,339 1,121 . 1,112

Warnings Post hoc tests are not performed for Overall test score in split file L3 or L2 learners = L3 learners because at least one group has fewer than two cases. Post hoc tests are not performed for Overall test score in split file L3 or L2 learners = L2 learners because there are fewer than three groups.

Test of Homogeneity of Variancesa Overall test score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Levene Statistic ,161

df1

df2 1

29

Sig. ,691

a. Test of homogeneity of variances cannot be performed for Overall test score in split file L3 or L2 learners = L2 learners because only one group has a computed variance.

191

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 36,46 41,68 29,36 59,31 . . 36,21 41,67 38,74 43,23 . . 38,91 43,36

Minimum 25 38 19 19 15 50 15

Maximum 52 50 19 52 54 50 54



L2 learners


Sum of Squares 485,351 1294,524 1779,875 79,932 4152,983 4232,915

df 2 29 31 1 57 58

Mean Square 242,676 44,639

F 5,436

Sig. ,010

79,932 72,859

1,097

,299

Internet in English Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall test score L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners


df1

df2 2 1

29 56

Sig. ,073 ,450

192



L2 learners


Sum of Squares 245,208 1534,667 1779,875 258,847 3974,068 4232,915

df 2 29 31 2 56 58

Mean Square 122,604 52,920

F 2,317

Sig. ,117

129,424 70,966

1,824

,171

Read in English Descriptives Overall test score


L2 learners

Often Sometimes Never Total Often Sometimes Never Total

N 4 24 3 31 8 39 12 59

Mean 42,75 37,71 39,33 38,52 45,38 41,90 35,83 41,14

Std. Deviation 1,708 7,474 10,504 7,312 4,307 7,976 10,365 8,543

Std. Error ,854 1,526 6,064 1,313 1,523 1,277 2,992 1,112

193

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 40,03 45,47 34,55 40,86 13,24 65,43 35,83 41,20 41,77 48,98 39,31 44,48 29,25 42,42 38,91 43,36

Minimum 41 19 29 19 41 21 15 15

Maximum 45 51 50 51 51 54 47 54




df1

df2 2 2

Sig. ,200 ,080

28 56


L2 learners


Sum of Squares 89,367 1514,375 1603,742 503,784 3729,131 4232,915

df 2 28 30 2 56 58


F ,826

Sig. ,448

251,892 66,592

3,783

,029

194




LSD

(I) Read in English Often Sometimes Never

Bonferroni

Often Sometimes Never

L2 learners

LSD


Bonferroni


(J) Read in English Sometimes Never Often Never Often Sometimes Sometimes Never Often Never Often Sometimes Sometimes Never Often Never Often Sometimes Sometimes Never Often Never Often Sometimes

Mean Difference (I-J) 5,042 3,417 -5,042 -1,625 -3,417 1,625 5,042 3,417 -5,042 -1,625 -3,417 1,625 3,478 9,542* -3,478 6,064* -9,542* -6,064* 3,478 9,542* -3,478 6,064 -9,542* -6,064


195

Std. Error 3,972 5,617 3,972 4,504 5,617 4,504 3,972 5,617 3,972 4,504 5,617 4,504 3,167 3,725 3,167 2,694 3,725 2,694 3,167 3,725 3,167 2,694 3,725 2,694

Sig. ,215 ,548 ,215 ,721 ,548 ,721 ,644 1,000 ,644 1,000 1,000 1,000 ,277 ,013 ,277 ,028 ,013 ,028 ,831 ,039 ,831 ,085 ,039 ,085

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -3,09 13,18 -8,09 14,92 -13,18 3,09 -10,85 7,60 -14,92 8,09 -7,60 10,85 -5,07 15,16 -10,89 17,72 -15,16 5,07 -13,09 9,84 -17,72 10,89 -9,84 13,09 -2,87 9,82 2,08 17,00 -9,82 2,87 ,67 11,46 -17,00 -2,08 -11,46 -,67 -4,34 11,29 ,35 18,73 -11,29 4,34 -,58 12,71 -18,73 -,35 -12,71 ,58


Nuuk: Films in English Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall test score Levene Statistic 6,042

df1

df2 2

Sig. ,003

92



Sum of Squares 1048,806 10887,678 11936,484

df 2 92 94

Mean Square 524,403 118,344

F 4,431

Sig. ,015

TV programmes in English Descriptives Overall test score

Often Sometimes Never Total

N 54 33 7 94

Mean 32,19 22,64 24,57 28,27

Std. Deviation 11,006 9,185 10,179 11,222

Std. Error 1,498 1,599 3,847 1,157


196

Minimum 6 9 13 6

Maximum 50 41 43 50



df1

df2 2

Sig. ,472

91



Sum of Squares 1970,852 9741,499 11712,351

df 2 91 93

Mean Square 985,426 107,049

F 9,205

Sig. ,000


LSD

(I) TV programmes in English Often Sometimes Never

Bonferroni


(J) TV programmes in English Sometimes Never Often Never Often Sometimes Sometimes Never Often Never Often Sometimes

Mean Difference (I-J) 9,549* 7,614 -9,549* -1,935 -7,614 1,935 9,549* 7,614 -9,549* -1,935 -7,614 1,935

Std. Error 2,286 4,156 2,286 4,305 4,156 4,305 2,286 4,156 2,286 4,305 4,156 4,305

Sig. ,000 ,070 ,000 ,654 ,070 ,654 ,000 ,211 ,000 1,000 ,211 1,000


197

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 5,01 14,09 -,64 15,87 -14,09 -5,01 -10,49 6,62 -15,87 ,64 -6,62 10,49 3,97 15,12 -2,52 17,75 -15,12 -3,97 -12,44 8,57 -17,75 2,52 -8,57 12,44


Music in English Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall test score Levene Statistic 3,555

df1

df2 1

Sig. ,062

93



Sum of Squares 119,654 11816,830 11936,484

df 1 93 94

Mean Square 119,654 127,063

F ,942

Sig. ,334

Internet in English Descriptives Overall test score

Often Sometimes Never Total

N 33 55 7 95

Mean 32,94 26,24 20,29 28,13

Std. Deviation 11,484 10,426 8,712 11,269

Std. Error 1,999 1,406 3,293 1,156


198

Minimum 10 6 9 6

Maximum 50 47 31 50




df1

df2 2


Sig. ,644

92

Sum of Squares 1391,250 10545,235 11936,484

df 2 92 94

Mean Square 695,625 114,622


LSD

(I) Internet in English Often Sometimes Never

Bonferroni


(J) Internet in English Sometimes Never Often Never Often Sometimes Sometimes Never Often Never Often Sometimes

Mean Difference (I-J) 6,703* 12,654* -6,703* 5,951 -12,654* -5,951 6,703* 12,654* -6,703* 5,951 -12,654* -5,951

Std. Error 2,357 4,455 2,357 4,296 4,455 4,296 2,357 4,455 2,357 4,296 4,455 4,296


199

Sig. ,005 ,006 ,005 ,169 ,006 ,169 ,016 ,017 ,016 ,508 ,017 ,508

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 2,02 11,39 3,81 21,50 -11,39 -2,02 -2,58 14,48 -21,50 -3,81 -14,48 2,58 ,95 12,45 1,79 23,52 -12,45 -,95 -4,53 16,43 -23,52 -1,79 -16,43 4,53

F 6,069

Sig. ,003


Read in English Test of Homogeneity of Variances Overall test score Levene Statistic 1,216

df1

df2 2

Sig. ,301

91



Sum of Squares 326,118 11453,808 11779,926

df 2 91 93

Mean Square 163,059 125,866

200

F 1,295

Sig. ,279


________________________________________________________________________________

Additional findings ________________________________________________________________________________ Gender overall test score Univariate Copenhagen: Statistics: L3 learners Overall score Boy N

Girl

Valid Missing

Mean N

Valid Missing

Mean

20 0 36,65 12 0 42,75

Statistics: L2 learners Overall score Boy N

Girl

Valid Missing

Mean N

Valid Missing

Mean

33 0 42,61 26 0 39,27

Nuuk: Statistics Overall score Boy N

Girl

Mean N Mean


51 0 28,67 45 0 27,22

201



Overall score

L2 learners

Overall score

Gender Boy Girl Boy Girl

N

Mean 36,65 42,75 42,61 39,27

20 12 33 26

Std. Deviation 7,322 6,621 7,433 9,598

Std. Error Mean 1,637 1,911 1,294 1,882



L2 learners

Overall score

Overall score


F ,014

2,571

Sig. ,908

,114


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



-2,362

30

,025

-6,100

2,583

-11,375

-,825

-2,424

25,207

,023

-6,100

2,517

-11,281

-,919

1,506

57

,138

3,337

2,216

-1,101

7,775

1,461

46,155

,151

3,337

2,284

-1,261

7,934

202



Overall score

Gender Boy Girl

N

Mean 28,67 27,22

51 45




Overall score


F ,000

Sig. ,996


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



,624

94

,534

1,444

2,316

-3,155

6,044

,622

91,272

,536

1,444

2,323

-3,170

6,059

203


Gender like English as school subject Univariate Copenhagen: I like English as school subject: L3 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Missing Total Valid

The most The same Less Total Invalid The most The same Total

Frequency 4 14 1 19 1 20 3 9 12

Percent 20,0 70,0 5,0 95,0 5,0 100,0 25,0 75,0 100,0

Valid Percent 21,1 73,7 5,3 100,0

25,0 75,0 100,0


25,0 100,0

I like English as school subject: L2 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid

Missing Total

The most The same Total The most The same Less Total Invalid

Frequency 16 17 33 6 12 5 23 3 26

Percent 48,5 51,5 100,0 23,1 46,2 19,2 88,5 11,5 100,0

Valid Percent 48,5 51,5 100,0 26,1 52,2 21,7 100,0


Nuuk: I like English as school subject Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Missing Total Valid

The most The same Less Total Invalid The most The same Less Total

Frequency 13 32 5 50 1 51 9 25 11 45

Percent 25,5 62,7 9,8 98,0 2,0 100,0 20,0 55,6 24,4 100,0

204

Valid Percent 26,0 64,0 10,0 100,0

20,0 55,6 24,4 100,0


20,0 75,6 100,0


Bivariate Copenhagen: Gender * I like English as school subject Crosstabulation L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

Gender

Boy Girl

Total L2 learners

Gender

Boy Girl

Total

Count % within Gender Count % within Gender Count % within Gender Count % within Gender Count % within Gender Count % within Gender

I like English as school subject The most The same Less 4 14 1 21,1% 73,7% 5,3% 3 9 0 25,0% 75,0% ,0% 7 23 1 22,6% 74,2% 3,2% 16 17 0 48,5% 51,5% ,0% 6 12 5 26,1% 52,2% 21,7% 22 29 5 39,3% 51,8% 8,9%

Total 19 100,0% 12 100,0% 31 100,0% 33 100,0% 23 100,0% 56 100,0%



Value -,200 31 ,556 56

Gamma Gamma


Approx. T -,498

b

Approx. Sig. ,619

,191

2,519

,012


Nuuk: Gender * I like English as school subject Crosstabulation

Gender

Boy Girl

Total

Count % within Gender Count % within Gender Count % within Gender

I like English as school subject The most The same Less 13 32 5 26,0% 64,0% 10,0% 9 25 11 20,0% 55,6% 24,4% 22 57 16 23,2% 60,0% 16,8%

Total 50 100,0% 45 100,0% 95 100,0%

Symmetric Measures


Gamma

Value ,283 95



205

b

Approx. T 1,566

Approx. Sig. ,117


Gender anxiety Univariate Copenhagen: L3 learners I like speaking and answering questions in our English class: L3 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 15 5 20 7 5 12

Percent 75,0 25,0 100,0 58,3 41,7 100,0

Valid Percent 75,0 25,0 100,0 58,3 41,7 100,0


I don't mind speaking and answering questions in our English class: L3 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 4 16 20 7 5 12

Percent 20,0 80,0 100,0 58,3 41,7 100,0

Valid Percent 20,0 80,0 100,0 58,3 41,7 100,0


I get nervous and confused when I speak in our English class: L3 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 4 16 20 3 9 12

Percent 20,0 80,0 100,0 25,0 75,0 100,0

Valid Percent 20,0 80,0 100,0 25,0 75,0 100,0


I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when I speak English: L3 learners Gender Boy Girl

Valid Valid

No No

Frequency 20 12

Percent 100,0 100,0


206


When WordsDon’t Come Easy I always feel that the other pupils speak better English than I do: L3 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 3 17 20 2 10 12

Percent 15,0 85,0 100,0 16,7 83,3 100,0

Valid Percent 15,0 85,0 100,0 16,7 83,3 100,0


L2 learners I like speaking and answering questions in our English class: L2 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 24 9 33 11 15 26

Percent 72,7 27,3 100,0 42,3 57,7 100,0

Valid Percent 72,7 27,3 100,0 42,3 57,7 100,0


I don't mind speaking and answering questions in our English class: L2 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 10 23 33 12 14 26

Percent 30,3 69,7 100,0 46,2 53,8 100,0

Valid Percent 30,3 69,7 100,0 46,2 53,8 100,0


I get nervous and confused when I speak in our English class: L2 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 6 27 33 14 12 26

Percent 18,2 81,8 100,0 53,8 46,2 100,0

Valid Percent 18,2 81,8 100,0 53,8 46,2 100,0

207


When WordsDon’t Come Easy I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when I speak English: L2 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 3 30 33 10 16 26

Percent 9,1 90,9 100,0 38,5 61,5 100,0

Valid Percent 9,1 90,9 100,0 38,5 61,5 100,0


I always feel that the other pupils speak better English than I do: L2 learners Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 4 29 33 13 13 26

Percent 12,1 87,9 100,0 50,0 50,0 100,0

Valid Percent 12,1 87,9 100,0 50,0 50,0 100,0


Nuuk: I like speaking and answering questions in our English class Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 26 25 51 14 31 45

Percent 51,0 49,0 100,0 31,1 68,9 100,0

Valid Percent 51,0 49,0 100,0 31,1 68,9 100,0


I don't mind speaking and answering questions in our English class Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 19 32 51 16 29 45

Percent 37,3 62,7 100,0 35,6 64,4 100,0

Valid Percent 37,3 62,7 100,0 35,6 64,4 100,0

208


When WordsDon’t Come Easy I get nervous and confused when I speak in our English class Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 16 35 51 19 26 45

Percent 31,4 68,6 100,0 42,2 57,8 100,0

Valid Percent 31,4 68,6 100,0 42,2 57,8 100,0


I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when I speak English Gender Boy Girl

Valid Valid

No Yes No Total


Percent 100,0 20,0 80,0 100,0

Valid Percent 100,0 20,0 80,0 100,0


I always feel that the other pupils speak better English than I do Gender Boy

Valid

Girl

Valid


Frequency 7 44 51 13 32 45

Percent 13,7 86,3 100,0 28,9 71,1 100,0

Valid Percent 13,7 86,3 100,0 28,9 71,1 100,0


Bivariate Copenhagen: Crosstab


Gender

Boy Girl

Total L2 learners

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


209

I like speaking and answering questions in our English class Yes No 15 5 75,0% 25,0% 7 5 58,3% 41,7% 22 10 68,8% 31,3% 24 9 72,7% 27,3% 11 15 42,3% 57,7% 35 24 59,3% 40,7%

Total 20 100,0% 12 100,0% 32 100,0% 33 100,0% 26 100,0% 59 100,0%

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Chi-Square Tests L3 or L2 learners L3 learners

L2 learners

Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correctiona Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correctiona Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value ,970b ,349 ,955

df 1 1 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) ,325 ,555 ,328

,939

1

,332

32 5,577c 4,387 5,630

1 1 1

,018 ,036 ,018

5,482

1

Exact Sig. (2-sided)


,438

,275

,032

,018

,019

59

a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3,75. c. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10,58.

Crosstab


Gender

Boy Girl

Total L2 learners

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


210

I don't mind speaking and answering questions in our English class Yes No 4 16 20,0% 80,0% 7 5 58,3% 41,7% 11 21 34,4% 65,6% 10 23 30,3% 69,7% 12 14 46,2% 53,8% 22 37 37,3% 62,7%

Total 20 100,0% 12 100,0% 32 100,0% 33 100,0% 26 100,0% 59 100,0%


L2 learners


Value 4,885b 3,334 4,867

df 1 1 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) ,027 ,068 ,027

4,733

1

,030

32 1,562c ,958 1,561

1 1 1

,211 ,328 ,212

1,536

1



,053

,034

,280

,164

,215

59


Crosstab


Gender

Boy Girl

Total L2 learners

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


211

I get nervous and confused when I speak in our English class Yes No 4 16 20,0% 80,0% 3 9 25,0% 75,0% 7 25 21,9% 78,1% 6 27 18,2% 81,8% 14 12 53,8% 46,2% 20 39 33,9% 66,1%

Total 20 100,0% 12 100,0% 32 100,0% 33 100,0% 26 100,0% 59 100,0%


L2 learners


Value ,110b ,000 ,108

df 1 1 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) ,740 1,000 ,742

,106

1

,744

32 8,255c 6,740 8,379

1 1 1

,004 ,009 ,004

8,115

1



1,000

,535

,006

,005

,004

59


Crosstab


Gender

Boy Girl

Total L2 learners

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


212

I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when I speak English Yes No 20 100,0% 12 100,0% 32 100,0% 3 30 9,1% 90,9% 10 16 38,5% 61,5% 13 46 22,0% 78,0%

Total 20 100,0% 12 100,0% 32 100,0% 33 100,0% 26 100,0% 59 100,0%

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Chi-Square Tests L3 or L2 learners L3 learners L2 learners

Pearson Chi-Square N of Valid Cases Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correctiona Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value

.b 32 7,302c 5,693 7,473 7,179

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

df

1 1 1 1



,011

,008

,007 ,017 ,006 ,007

59

a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. No statistics are computed because I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when I speak English is a constant. c. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5,73.

Crosstab


Gender

Boy Girl

Total L2 learners

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


213

I always feel that the other pupils speak better English than I do Yes No 3 17 15,0% 85,0% 2 10 16,7% 83,3% 5 27 15,6% 84,4% 4 29 12,1% 87,9% 13 13 50,0% 50,0% 17 42 28,8% 71,2%

Total 20 100,0% 12 100,0% 32 100,0% 33 100,0% 26 100,0% 59 100,0%


L2 learners


Value ,016b ,000 ,016

df 1 1 1

,015 32 10,173c 8,410 10,436 10,000

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) ,900 1,000 ,900

1

,902

1 1 1

,001 ,004 ,001

1



1,000

,634

,003

,002

,002

59


Nuuk: Crosstab

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


I like speaking and answering questions in our English class Yes No 26 25 51,0% 49,0% 14 31 31,1% 68,9% 40 56 41,7% 58,3%

Total 51 100,0% 45 100,0% 96 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correctiona Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

Value 3,883b 3,109 3,925 3,843

df 1 1 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) ,049 ,078 ,048

1



,063

,039

,050

96

a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18,75.

214

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Crosstab

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


I don't mind speaking and answering questions in our English class Yes No 19 32 37,3% 62,7% 16 29 35,6% 64,4% 35 61 36,5% 63,5%

Total 51 100,0% 45 100,0% 96 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests


Value ,030b ,000 ,030

df 1 1 1

,029

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) ,863 1,000 ,863

1



1,000

,516

,864

96

a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16,41. Crosstab

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


I get nervous and confused when I speak in our English class Yes No 16 35 31,4% 68,6% 19 26 42,2% 57,8% 35 61 36,5% 63,5%

Total 51 100,0% 45 100,0% 96 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests


Value 1,215b ,792 1,215 1,202

df 1 1 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) ,270 ,374 ,270

1



,295

,187

,273

96


215

When WordsDon’t Come Easy Crosstab

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


I am afraid that other pupils will laugh at me when I speak English Yes No 0 51 ,0% 100,0% 9 36 20,0% 80,0% 9 87 9,4% 90,6%

Total 51 100,0% 45 100,0% 96 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests


Value 11,255b 9,024 14,701

df 1 1 1

11,138

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) ,001 ,003 ,000

1



,001

,001

,001

96

a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 2 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4,22.

Crosstab

Gender

Boy Girl

Total


I always feel that the other pupils speak better English than I do Yes No 7 44 13,7% 86,3% 13 32 28,9% 71,1% 20 76 20,8% 79,2%

Total 51 100,0% 45 100,0% 96 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests


Value 3,333b 2,477 3,355 3,298

df 1 1 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) ,068 ,116 ,067

1



,082

,058

,069

96


216

When Words Don’t Come Easy: An Investigation Of Factors Involved In The Acquisition Of English As A Third Language In Denmark And Greenland

English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language

Age and the Acquisition of English As a Foreign Language (Second Language Acquisition, 4)

Denmark-Greenland in the twentieth Century

Morphological Complexity in English Prefixed Words: An Experimental Investigation

Acquisition of Word Order in Chinese as a Foreign Language (Studies on Language Acquisition)

Third Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar (Second Language Acquisition)

The Story of English in 100 Words

The Story of English in 100 Words

The Story of English in 100 Words

English as a Global Language

Including and Supporting Learners of English as an Additional Language

English As a Second Language

Language of Medicine in English

Come easy, go easy

Third or Additional Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition Research)

Varieties of English (Studies in English Language)

An Outline of Second Language Acquisition Theories

Telicity in the Second Language (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

Language Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-based, Morphology (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders)

The Acquisition of Swedish Grammar (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders)

The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts: Focus on Functional Categories (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

Three Factors in Language Design

The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

The Acquisition of Gender: A Study of English and German

Investigations In Instructed Second Language Acquisition (Studies on Language Acquisition)

In other words: the science and psychology of second-language acquisition

Age in second language acquisition

Development of Nominal Inflection in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Studies on Language Acquisition)

When Words Don’t Come Easy: An Investigation Of Factors Involved In The Acquisition Of English As A Third Language In Denmark And Greenland

English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language

Age and the Acquisition of English As a Foreign Language (Second Language Acquisition, 4)

Denmark-Greenland in the twentieth Century

Morphological Complexity in English Prefixed Words: An Experimental Investigation

Acquisition of Word Order in Chinese as a Foreign Language (Studies on Language Acquisition)

Third Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar (Second Language Acquisition)

The Story of English in 100 Words

The Story of English in 100 Words

The Story of English in 100 Words

English as a Global Language

Including and Supporting Learners of English as an Additional Language

English As a Second Language

Language of Medicine in English

Come easy, go easy

Third or Additional Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition)

The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition (Second Language Acquisition Research)

Varieties of English (Studies in English Language)

An Outline of Second Language Acquisition Theories

Telicity in the Second Language (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

Language Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-based, Morphology (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders)

The Acquisition of Swedish Grammar (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders)

The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts: Focus on Functional Categories (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

Three Factors in Language Design

The Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

The Acquisition of Gender: A Study of English and German

Investigations In Instructed Second Language Acquisition (Studies on Language Acquisition)

In other words: the science and psychology of second-language acquisition

Age in second language acquisition

Development of Nominal Inflection in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Studies on Language Acquisition)

Recommend Documents