Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:32:44.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using key part-of-speech analysis to examine spoken discourse by Taiwanese EFL learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2014

Yen-Liang Lin
Yen-Liang Lin*
Affiliation:
Department of English, National Taipei University of Technology 1, Sec. 3, Zhongxiao E. Rd., Taipei 10608 Taiwan (R.O.C) (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study reports on a corpus analysis of samples of spoken discourse between a group of British and Taiwanese adolescents, with the aim of exploring the statistically significant differences in the use of grammatical categories between the two groups of participants. The key word method extended to a part-of-speech level using the web-based corpus analytical tool, Wmatrix, highlights those linguistic domains which deserve particular attention. Specifically, it reveals the lexical and grammatical categories that occur unusually frequently or unusually infrequently in the English learners’ discourse when compared with the language used by the native speakers of English in the sample. The research findings delineate the pedagogical merit of key domain analysis and thus help to inform English as a foreign language teachers and materials developers in the design of courses emphasising spoken interaction.

Keywords

key part-of-speech domainspoken discourseEFL learnersWmatrix
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 304 - 320
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2014 

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

Adolphs, S. (2006) Introducing electronic text analysis: A practical guide for language and literary studies. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2011) “Well I’m not sure I think…” The use of “well” by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2): 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. (2004) Querying key words: Questions of difference, frequency and sense in key words analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 32(4): 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. (2006) Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T. (1999) Using key words in text analysis: Practical aspects. DIRECT Working Papers, 42: n.p. http://www2.lael.pucsp.br/direct/DirectPapers42.pdf Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1995) Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D. (2007) Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.), White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006) Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, X. (2010) Discourse-grammatical features in L2 speech: A corpus-based contrastive study of Chinese advanced learners and native speakers of English. City University of Hong Kong, unpublished PhD.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009) Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1): 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, M. (2005) Error detection and correction in annotated corpora. http://jones.ling.indiana.edu/~mdickinson/papers/diss/dickinson05-alt.pdf.gz Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunning, T. (1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistic, 19(1): 61–74.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. and Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 27(4): 558–589.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evison, J. (2008) Turn-openers in academic talk: An exploration of discourse responsibility. University of Nottingham, unpublished PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Fung, L. and Carter, R. (2007) Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics, 28(3): 410–439.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. (2004) A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4): 363–374.Google Scholar
Harvey, K. (2012) Disclosures of depression: Using corpus linguistics methods to interrogate young people’s online health concerns. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3): 349–379.Google Scholar
Hellermann, J. and Vergun, A. (2007) Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39: 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Smith, S. W. (1998) “And people just you know like wow”: Discourse markers as negotiating strategies. In: Jucker, A. H. and Ziv, Y. (eds.), Discourse markers. Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007) World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koester, A. (2010) Building small specialised corpora. In: McCarthy, M. and O’Keeffe, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. London: Routledge, 66–79.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1981) The “fundamental pedagogical principle” in second language teaching. Studia Linguistica, 35(1): 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamo.Google Scholar
Lee, D. Y. W. (2001) Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3): 37–72. http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/pdf/lee.pdf Google Scholar
Liaw, M. L. and Master, S. B. (2010) Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1): 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Y. L. (2013) Discourse functions of recurrent multi-word sequences in online and face-to-face intercultural communication. In: Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics. London: Springer, 105–129.Google Scholar
Lin, Y. L. (2014) Exploring recurrent multi-word sequences in EFL textbook dialogues and authentic discourse. English Teaching & Learning, 38(2): 133–158.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. and Handford, M. (2004) “Invisible to us”: A preliminary corpus-based study of spoken business English. In: Connor, U. and Upton, T. A. (eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 167–201.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Xiao, R. and Tono, Y. (2006) Corpus-based language studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miskovic-Lukovic, M. (2009) Is there a chance that I might kinda sort of take you out to dinner? The role of the pragmatic particles kind of and sort of in utterance interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41: 602–625.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2009) Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41: 66–891.Google Scholar
Oakes, M. (1998) Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
O’Dowd, R. (2007) Evaluating the outcomes of online intercultural exchange. ELT Journal, 61(4): 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. and Adolphs, S. (2008) Using a corpus to look at variational pragmatics: Response tokens in British and Irish discourse. In: Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.), Variational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69–98.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. (2007) From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ooi, V., Tan, P. and Chiang, A. (2007) Analyzing personal weblogs in Singapore English: The Wmatrix approach Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 2: n.p. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/02/ooi_et_al Google Scholar
Rayson, P. (2008) From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4): 519–549.Google Scholar
Reber, E. (2010) Interjections in the EFL classroom: Teaching sounds and sequences. ELT Journal, 65(4): 365–375.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. (2010) Using corpora in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2010) Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary manual. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Scott, M. R. (2010) WordSmith Tools help manual (Version 5.0). Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Scott, M. R. and Tribble, C. (2006) Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tribble, C. (2000) Genres, key words, teaching: Towards a pedagogic account of the language of project proposals. In: Burnard, L. and McEnery, T. (eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 75–90.Google Scholar
Willis, D. (1990) The lexical syllabus. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2000) Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4): 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, Z. and McEnery, T. (2005) Two approaches to genre analysis: Three genres in modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 33(1): 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, Z. (2010) Chinese English: Features and implications. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar