Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:45:02.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Building an Oral and Written Learner Corpus of a School Programme: Methodological Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

By
Philippa Bell ,
Laura Collins  and
Emma Marsden
Edited by
Bert Le Bruyn  and
Magali Paquot
Bert Le Bruyn
Affiliation:
UIL-OTS, Utrecht University
Magali Paquot
Affiliation:
FNRS – Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, UCLouvain
Get access

Summary

The importance of methodological transparency in Learner Corpus Research is paramount for correct understanding and interpretation of knowledge created using corpora. Increasing calls for open-access corpora amplify the need for transparency. This paper details a pilot study conducted to understand the importance of methodological decisions on the subsequent corpus by examining (a) the effects of language used to provide instructions on text length and L1 use and (b) the chosen elicitation tasks in terms of student interest and ability to differentiate proficiency across school grade levels. Furthermore, it details transcription and annotation challenges that had to be addressed. The aim of the chapter is to demonstrate the numerous decisions and their effects at all stages of corpus building, and the importance of working towards transparent reporting of methodologies and standardisation of transcription and annotation where possible.

Keywords

corpora methodological transparencyoral/written L2 corporaforeign language learningelicitation taskslearner language transcriptionadolescent language learnerscompulsory language educationopen-access corpora
Type
Chapter
Information
Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition , pp. 214 - 242
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ågren, M., Granfeldt, J., & Schlyter, S. (2012). The growth of complexity and accuracy in L2 French: Past observations and recent applications of developmental stages. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency Investigating Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA, 95–120. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ballier, N. & Martin, P. (2015). Speech annotation of learner corpora. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, 80–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal 55(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
Callies, M. (2015). Learner corpus methodology. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, 5–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2013). Third language acquisition. In Chapelle, C. A. (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, Université catholique de Louvain (2017a). Learner Corpora around the World, retrieved from https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ilc/cecl/learner-corpora-around-the-world.html (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, (2017b). Learner Corpus Bibliography, retrieved from https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ilc/cecl/learner-corpus-bibliography.html (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Collins, L., Halter, R. H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and the distribution of time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly 33(4), 655–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, L. & Muñoz, C. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal 100, 133–147.Google Scholar
Collins, L. & White, J. (2011). An intensive look at intensity and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 45(1), 106–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., & Granger, S. (1998). Computer-aided error analysis. System 26(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00001-3Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, Y. (eds.). (2010). Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, A. (2009). EARS: A User’s Manual. Munich: Lincom Academic Reference Books.Google Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, M. (2015). Dealing with errors in learner corpora to describe, teach and assess EFL writing: Focus on article use. In Castello, E., Ackerley, K., & Coccetta, F. (eds.), Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics: Research and Applications for Foreign Language Teaching and Assessment, 37–70. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 297–339.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
French, L. M. (2006). Phonological Working Memory and Second Language Acquisition: A Developmental Study of Francophone Children Learning English in Quebec. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gouvernement du Québec (2017). Loi sur l’instruction publique, retrieved from http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/I-13.3 (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Granger, S. (2002). A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching 6, 3–33.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (2003). Error-tagged learner corpora and CALL: A promising synergy. CALICO Journal 20(3), 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (eds.) (2009). International Corpus of Learner English, Version 2. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (2015). Introduction: Learner corpus research – past, present and future. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, 1–6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (ed.) (1990). The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Hilton, H. (2008). Corpus PAROLE. Parallèle oral en langue étrangère: architecture du corpus et conventions de transcription. Chambéry: Université de Savoie.Google Scholar
Hilton, H. (2009). Annotation and analyses of temporal aspects of spoken fluency. CALICO Journal 26(3), 644–661.Google Scholar
Hong, H. (2012). Compilation and exploration of ICCI corpus for learner language research. In Tono, Y., Kawaguchi, Y., & Minegishi, M. (eds.), Developmental and Crosslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpus Research, 47–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Janssens, S., & Pierrard, M. (2001). The development of auditory proficiency in French and English as foreign languages in secondary schools in Flanders. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 6, 46–58.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. New York, NY: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning 50(2), 245–309.Google Scholar
Jendryczka-Wierszycka, J. (2009). Collecting spoken learner data: Challenges and benefits. In Mahlberg, M., González-Díaz, V., & Smith, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference, University of Liverpool, 20–23 July 2009.Google Scholar
Kang, J. Y. (2004). Telling a coherent story in a foreign language: Analysis of Korean EFL learners’ referential strategies in oral narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 36(11), 1975–1990.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4), 579–589.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics 6(2), 173–189.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2008). Evolving perspectives on learning French as a second language through immersion. In Ayoun, D. (ed.), Studies in French Applied Linguistics, 3–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3rd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2017a). A shared platform for studying second language acquisition. Language Learning 67(S1), 254–275.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2017b). Tools for Analysing Talk Part 3: Morphosyntactic Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical Diversity and Language Development: Quantification and Assessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. & David, A. (2008). Vocabulary use during conversation: A cross-sectional study of development from year 9 to year 13 among learners of Spanish and French. Language Learning Journal 36, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Mackey, A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). The IRIS Repository: Advancing research practice and methodology. In Mackey, A. & Marsden, E. (eds.), Advancing Methodology and Practice: The IRIS Repository of Instruments for Research into Second Languages, 1–21. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S., & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews, and recommendations for the field. Language Learning 68(2), 321–391.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. J., Myles, F., & Mitchell, R. (2003). Using CHILDES tools for researching second language acquisition. In Sarangi, S. & van Leeuwen, T. (eds.), Applied Linguistics and Communities of Practice. British Studies in Applied Linguistics Vol. 18, 98–113. London: BAAL/Continuum.Google Scholar
Marsden, E., Thompson, S., & Plonsky, L. (2018). A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics 39(5), 861–904.Google Scholar
Meurers, D. (2015). Learner corpora and natural language processing. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, 537–566. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meurers, D. & Dickinson, M. (2017). Evidence and interpretation in language learning research: Opportunities for collaboration with computational linguistics. Language Learning 67(S1), 66–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M. (1969). Frog, Where Are You? A Boy, a Dog, and a Frog. New York, NY: Dial Press.Google Scholar
Michel, M., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). The influence of complexity in monologic versus dialogic tasks in Dutch L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 45(3), 241–259.Google Scholar
Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur. (2016). Statistiques de l’éducation. Éducation préscolaire, enseignement primaire et secondaire. Gouvernement du Québec.Google Scholar
Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseigenement supérieur. (2017). Programme de formation de l’école québécoise, retrieved from www.education.gouv.qc.ca/enseignants/pfeq/ (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Domínguez, L., Arche, M. J., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2008). SPLLOC: A new database for Spanish second language acquisition research. EuroSLA Yearbooks 8(1), 287–304.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2006). Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Myles, F. (2002). Linguistic Development in Classroom Learners of French: A Cross-Sectional Study. Full report of research activities and results, retrieved from www.regard.ac.uk/research_findings/R000223421/report.pdf. (accessed September 9, 2017).Google Scholar
Myles, F. (2005). Review article: Interlanguage corpora and second language acquisition research. Second Language Research 21(4), 373–391.Google Scholar
Myles, F. (2015). Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, 309–332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myles, F. & Mitchell, R. (n.d.). French Learner Language Oral Corpora (FLLOC). Retrieved from www.flloc.soton.ac/uk (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Nicholls, D. (2003). The Cambridge Learner Corpus: Error coding and analysis for lexicography and ELT. In Archer, D., Rayson, P., Wilson, A., & McEnery, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference, 572–581. Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language Technical Papers, Lancaster.Google Scholar
Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4), 555–578.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M., Murcia, S., & Garcia, R. (2010). Error analysis in the TREACLE project. Paper presented at the ICAME 2010 Conference. Giessen, 26–30 May 2010.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24(4), 492–518.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., Iwashita, N., Norris, J. M., & Rabie, S. (2002). An investigation of elicited imitation tasks in crosslinguistic SLA research. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum Toronto, October 3–6, 2002.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2015). Lexicography and phraseology. In Biber, D. & Reppen, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, 460–477. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. & Plonsky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 3(1), 61–94.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2007). An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics 28(3), 361–382.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2010). Doing interlanguage analysis in school contexts. In Bartning, I., Martin, M., & Vedder, I. (eds.), Communicative Development and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research, 159–190. EuroSLA.Google Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research 31(1), 117–134.Google Scholar
Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a second language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 36, 172–187.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64(4), 878–912.Google Scholar
Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of textbased studies. In Silva, T. & Matsuda, P. K. (eds.), On Second Language Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (eds.) (2008). A Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rule, S. & Marsden, E. (2006). The acquisition of functional categories in early French L2 grammars: The use of finite and non-finite verbs in negative contexts. Second Language Research 22(2), 188–218.Google Scholar
Schmid, M. & Hopp, H. (2014). Comparing foreign accent in L1 attrition and L2 acquisition: Range and rater effects. Language Testing 31(1), 367–388.Google Scholar
Somers, H. (2005). Learner corpora and handwriting. In Cook, V. & Bassetti, B. (eds.), Second Language Writing Systems, 147–163. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
SPLLOC. (n.d.) Spanish Learner Language Oral Corpora, retrieved from www.splloc.soton.ac.uk (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency In Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (eds.) Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, 279–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tono, Y. & Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (2014). Focus on learner writing at the beginning and intermediate stages: The ICCI corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(2), 163–177.Google Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N. & Myles, F. (2015). The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1), 58–95.Google Scholar
White, J. (1998). Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, 85–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, J., Muñoz, C., & Collins, L. (2007). The his/her challenge: Making progress in a ‘regular’ L2 programme. Language Awareness 16(4), 278–299.Google Scholar
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Myford, C. (2012). Raters’ L2 background as a potential source of bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing 30(2), 231–252.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×