Recurrent strings in corpus-based pedagogical research: A reappraisal of the field
Journal cover Glottodidactica, volume 45, no. 2, year 2018
PDF

Keywords

formulaicity
recurrent strings
corpus linguistics
frequency
distribution

How to Cite

Gozdawa-Gołębiowski, R., & Opacki, M. (2018). Recurrent strings in corpus-based pedagogical research: A reappraisal of the field. Glottodidactica, 45(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2018.45.2.07

Abstract

Formulaic competence is a hotly debated issue in teaching circles, not only because of its role in L2 communication but also due to the inherent complexity of the identification criteria for formulaic strings. While the mixed approach, combining meaning-based and corpus- based identification measures, remains a natural solution, the subjective character of the criteria, together with the required involvement of native experts, diminishes its attractiveness for every-day pedagogical purposes. We would like to explore the potential of “corpus-only” identification tools. Specifically, our objective is to show that meaningless n-grams (of the, in a, etc.) generated by frequency searches contain useful pedagogical data, and that, coupled with MI scores frequency-based measures accurately characterize learners’ formulaic competence. Because of the relative simplicity of the identification procedure and free availability of corpus tools, frequency-based and distribution-based measures may become an important new pedagogical tool at the disposal of language teachers.

https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2018.45.2.07
PDF

References

Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (Version 3.2.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp.

Bretaña, J.-M. P. / Bertrán, A. P. (2008). Combined statistical and grammatical criteria for the retrieval of phraseological units in an electronic corpus. In: S. Granger / F. Meunier (eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 391–406). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.31bre

De Cock, S. (1998). A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 3, 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.3.1.04dec. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.3.1.04dec

Durrant, P. / Mathews-Aydınlı, J. (2011). A function-first approach to identifying formulaic language in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 30 (1), 58-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.002

Forsberg, F. (2010). Using conventional sequences in L2 French. Iral-international Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching – IRAL-INT REV APPL LINGUIST, 48, 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2010.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2010.002

Gablasova, D. / Brezina, V. / McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 67, 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225

Gilquin, G. / Paquot. M. (2008). Too chatty. Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 1 (1), 41 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil

Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: collocations and formulae. In: A. Cowi (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198294252.003.007

Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 24–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.24

Hulstijn, J. H. /Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11 (03), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008123

Jones, M. / Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences. In: N. Schmitt (ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 269–292). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.9.14jon

Kazemi, M. / Katiraei, S. / Rasekh, A. E. (2014). The impact of teaching lexical bundles on improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 864–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.493

Martinez, R. / Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33 (3), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams010

Nasiri, M. / Khorshidi, S. (2015). Dynamic assessment of formulaic sequences in Iranian EFL learners’ writing. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1, 26–32.

Nattinger, J. R. / DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.223

Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.14

Opacki, M. (2017). Reconsidering early bilingualism: A corpus-based study of Polish migrant children in the United Kingdom. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-07250-1

Opacki, M. / Gozdawa-Gołębiowski, R. (2017). Towards a distribution-based corpus analysis of transfer-susceptible NP modifiers. A case of Polish advanced users of L2 English. Konin Language Studies, 5 (1), 9–35.

Paquot, M. / Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098

Pawley, A. (2007). Developments in the study of formulaic language since 1970: A personal view. Phraseology and Culture in English, 3–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197860.3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197860.3

Pawley, A. / Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In: J. C. Richards / R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.

Pers, E. / Pauwels, P. (2015). Learning academic formulaic sequences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.04.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.04.002

Schmitt, N. / Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action. An introduction. In: N. Schmitt (ed.), Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.9.02sch

Schmitt, N. / Dörnyei, Z. / Adolphs, S. / Durow, V. (2004). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In: N. Schmitt (ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.9.05sch

Simpson-Vlach, R. / Ellis, N. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058

Siyanova, A. / Schmitt, N. (2007). Native and nonnative use of multi-word vs. one-word verbs. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.005

Siyanova, A. / Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation: A multi- study Perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64 (3), 429–458. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.3.429

Skehan, P. /Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In: P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language learning (pp. 183–205). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009

Szudarski, P. / Carter, R. (2016). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations: L2 input types and acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26 (2), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12092

Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16 (2), 180–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.2.180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.2.180

Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language. London, New York, New Delhi: Bloomsbury Academic.

Wray, A. (2005). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Wray, A. / Namba, K. (2003). Use of formulaic language by a Japanese-English bilingual child: A practical approach to data analysis. Japanese Journal for Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, 9 (1), 24–51.

Yorio, C. A. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In: K. Hyltenstam & L. K. Obler (eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss (pp. 55–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611780.005

Themes by Openjournaltheme.com