Corpus  linguistics  and  the  application  of  new  technologies  in  the  foreign  language  classroom:Part  1:  Corpus  linguistics  and  the  foreign  language  classroomWeek 2: Corpus Analysis for the teacher/investigator1 Corpus Analysis for the teacher/investigatorThis  class  will  explore  how  teachers  can  use  learner  corpora  to  build  a  be4er  understanding  of  the  needs  of  learners  and  how  we  as  teachers  interact  with  them:

21. We  can  study  classroom  interac=ons  between  teachers  and  students,  

to  be4er  understand  what  interac=on  strategies  work,  and  which  do  not.  

2. We  can  also  study  texts  wri4en  by  learners  to  profile  their  linguis=c  abili=es  at  various  levels  of  proficiency,  both  in  terms  of  what  they  can  do  (studying  their  vocabulary,  grammar  and  discourse  structures),  and  equally  important,  studying  what  they  do  wrong  (error  analysis).  

Interaction Analysis: exploring how students and teachers interact in

the classroomThis  sec=on  will  explore  how  teachers  can  collect  transcripts  of  classroom  sessions,  and  analyse  them  to  discover  the  recurrent  pa4erns  of  interac=on  

between  teachers  and  students.

Reasons for Analysing Classroom Discourse:  it  is  useful  prac=ce  for  trainee  teachers  (and  more  advanced  teachers)  to  study  the  classroom  interac=ons  of  “model  teachers”  (those  teachers  who  other  teachers  judge  as  successful).  From  analysing  the  interac=ons,  the  trainee  teacher  can  see  what  kind  of  interac=ons  strategies  the  model  teacher  uses:  means  of  leading  the  students  towards  understanding,  ways  of  keeping  the  class  focused  and  under  control,  etc.  Equally  so,  teachers  can  study  their  own  interac=ons  with  students,  to  see,  in  reflec=on,  how  they  interact,  what  they  do  which  works,  and  what  does  not  work.

What media to use? Video  tapings  of  classroom  interac=ons  contain  much  more  informa=on  as  to  what  is  going  on  than  a  wri4en  transcript  of  the  interac=on.  Transcripts  will  not  show  expressions  on  faces,  or  the  intona=on  or  voice  volume  of  speakers.  For  some  purposes,  video  is  thus  preferred.  However,  transcripts  have  their  place  also,  par=cularly  as  text  is  far  simpler  to  annotate  (in  terms  of  turns,  exchanges,  moves,  etc.).  Also,  one  can  look  over  a  page  of  transcript  very  quickly,  while  to  get  at  the  “text”  in  a  video,  one  needs  to  wait  while  it  unfolds.

2.1 Quantitative vs. qualitative use of a corpus

In  a  quantitative analysis  of  a  corpus,  we  count the  number  of  occurrences  of  some  phenomenon.  The  border  between  texts  is  not  important  (for  most  purposes),  the  whole  corpus  is  seen  as  one  large  source  of  data,  which  we  can  analyse  sta=s=cally.

A  qualitative analysis  looks  closely  at  parts  of  a  text  to  see  what  is  happening  in  that  part,  to  gain  insight  into  underlying  reasons  and  mo=va=ons.  We  may  annotate  the  corpus  in  both  cases,  in  the  first  case,  to  sta=s=cally  analyse  behaviour  within  the  interac=on  (how  oPen  does  the  teacher  ini=ate?).  In  the  qualita=ve  case,  annota=on  of  a  transcript  can  be  seen  as  part  of  the  process  of  analysis  of  the  interac=on,  pulling  it  apart  and  labelling  the  pieces.

1

O’Keeffe  et  al.  (2007:  220)  push  a  qualita=ve  view  on  classroom  interac=on  corpora.  They  encourage  teachers  to  collect  interes=ng  extracts  of  classroom  interac=ons,  each  of  which  is  examined  closely,  usually  turn  by  turn.  The  corpus  is  then  seen  as  a  ‘porYolio’,  a  set  of  examples  collected  over  the  life  of  the  teacher,  to  refer  to  when  addressing  a  par=cular  problem,  or  planning  a  new  class.

2.2 Framework for Analysing Classroom Interaction

Various  frameworks  for  modelling  classroom  interac=on  have  been  proposed,  most  notably  by  Sinclair  and  Coulthard  (1975,  1992)  who  analyse  classroom  discourse  in  terms  of  acts,  moves,  exchanges,  transac=ons  and  lessons.  For  a  different  approach,  from  Conversa=on  Analysis,  see  Seedhouse  (2005).

We  will  follow  an  approach  in  the  Sinclair/Coulthard  framework,  but  as  developed  by  Berry  (1981),  Mar=n  (1992),  Eggins  and  Slade  (2005),  and  others.

2.2.1 Moves

The  basic  element  of  dialogue  analysis  is  a  move:  a  statement,  ques=on,  answer,  command,  etc.  We  don’t  use  these  categories  however,  rather:

offer-information (statements  and  answers):  A rectangle has four sides.

offer-action (offer): I can do that!

demand-information (ques=on):  What is a rectangle?

demand-action (command):  Please be quiet everyone! Note  that  ‘move’  is  a  seman=c  category,  and  each  move  type  (speech-­‐act)  can  be  realised  by  a  variety  of  different  gramma=cal  forms,  for  example:  

Demand-­‐informa=on

Offer-­‐ac=on

Demand-­‐ac=on

2.2.2 Exchanges

Interrgoga=ve  (default)  Declara=ve+rising  tone  Impera=veDeclara=ve  Interroga=ve  Impera=ve

Impera=ve  (default)  Interroga=ve  Declara=ve

Does  a  rectangle  have  4  sides?A  rectangle  has  4  sides?tell  me  whether  a  rectangle  has  4  sides!  I  will  do  thatCan  I  do  that?Let  me  do  that!Open  your  books!Could  you  open  your  books?You  should  open  your  books.

An  exchange  is  a  sequence  of  moves  which  together  construct  a  single  proposi=on  (informa=on)  or  proposal  (for  ac=on).  The  simplest  exchange  consists  of  a  single  move,  a  statement:

1.  A:  I love camping.In  some  cases,  the  addressee  can  respond  to  the  statement,  indica=ng  that  they  accept  the  statement  as

true:2.  A:  I love camping.

B.  I know.Exchanges  can  also  involve  a  ques=on/answer  format.  These  can  be  yes/no  ques=ons:

3.  A:  Do you like camping? B:  Yes, I do.

...or  content  ques=ons:4.  A:  What do you want to do?

B:  Go camping.In  some  cases,  the  asker  of  the  ques=on  will  also  state  their  acceptance  of  

the  answer:

5.  A:  What do you want to do? B:  Go camping.

2

A:  Ok.  Some=mes  they  reject  the  answer:

6. A:  Do you like camping? B:  Yes, I do. A:  No you don’t, silly.

7. A:  What do you want to do? B:  Go camping. A:  No, (star=ng  a  new  exchange)  ...It’s raining.

The  first  move  in  an  exchange  is  the  initiating move,  and  the  others  are  responding moves.

2.2.3 Transactions

A  transac=on  is  a  sequence  of  exchanges  to  perform  some  task  in  the  classroom.  Most  typically,  there  is  a  boundary  marker  to  indicate  a  new  transac=on  is  beginning:  “Right”,  “Ok”,  “Now”,  “con=nuing  on”,  etc.  OPen  however,  this  will  be  marked  just  by  intona=on/volume  (prominent  intona=on  on  the  first  words,  perhaps  with  higher  volume).

The  teacher  will  typically  begin  with  a  number  of  informing  exchanges  (ini=ate:give-­‐informa=on).  This  may  be  followed  by  some  direc=ng  exchanges  (e.g.,  Get out your book and look at page 17).  Finally,  the  teacher  will  use  some  elici=ng  exchanges  to  ask  the  students  ques=ons.  There  may  be  a  boundary  marker  to  finish  the  transac=on  (e.g.,  “Ok,  enough  of  that”).

2.2.4 Lesson

A  lesson  is  a  set  of  transac=ons.  It  will  oPen  correspond  to  a  class  period,  but  not  that  a  lesson  plan  may  extend  over  several  classes,  or  a  new  lesson  may  begin  in  the  middle  of  a  class.

2.2.5 Turns

A  turn is  simply  the  sequences  of  moves  by  a  speaker  during  which  the  other  par=cipant(s)  do  not  speak.  Turns  are  not  co-­‐extensive  with  exchanges,  as  a  turn  may  begin  with  a  response  to  one  exchange,  and  con=nue  with  the  ini=a=on  of  another,  e.g.,

Some=mes  a  speaker’s  turn  will  consist  of  a  series  of  statements  (e.g.,  if  they  are  telling  a  story,  recoun=ng  events,  etc.).  The  other  speaker  will  occasionally  u4er  a  backchannel move,  e.g.,  ‘ahah’,  ‘oh’,  ‘hmmm’,  which  shows  they  are  listening  (ac=ng  as  a  suppor=ng  move)  but  without  actually  taking  the  floor.

2.3 A Network for analysis

For  part  of  the  class,  we  will  move  to  the  language  lab  and  analyse  a  dialogue  in  the  following  terms:

Exchange  1 T:

Today we look at relative clauses.Does anybody know what a relative clause is?

Turn  1Exchange  2

S: Its a clause which come after a noun. Is that right?

Turn  2Exchange  3

T: Almost ... Turn  3

3

interact

move ACT- TYPE

solo-act frame

INITIATION initiate respond

content

MOVE- elicit

TYPE provide support

EXCHANGE- information MEDIA action

INTERACT- TYPE2

PHATIC- greet

phatic TYPE farewell

thank

Interact vs solo-act:  to  get  something  done,  we  can  either  do  it  ourselves,  or  interact  with  others  (e.g.,  look  at  a  clock,  or  ask  someone  else  what  =me  it  is).  

Frame:  this  category  covers  the  moves  which  indicate  the  start  or  end  of  a  topic,  e.g.,  “Ok”,  “Now,  etc.  

Initiate vs.  Respond:  a  move  that  starts  an  exchange  is  an  ini=ate  move,  and  later  moves  are  responses.  E.g.,  a  ques=on  is  an  ini=a=on,  

the  answer  is  the  response.  

Content vs. Phatic:  pha=c  exchanges  do  not  provide  any  real  content,  just  maintain  social  rela=ons  (politeness),  e.g.,  thanks,  gree=ng,  farewells.  

Elicit:  a  ques=on  of  some  kind  

Provide:  either  a  statement  (if  it  is  an  ini=a=ng  exchange)  or  an  answer  (if  it  is  a  response)  

Support:  where  you  acknowledge  acceptance  or  agreement  with  the  other  person’s  ‘provide’  move:  INITIATE:ELICIT RESPOND:PROVIDE RESPOND: SUPPORT

Informa=on  vs  Ac=on:  what  is  being  nego=ated:  informa=on  (statement,  ques=on)  or  ac=on  (command,  offer)  2.4 Readings Chapter  11  in  O'Keeffe,  A.  M.  McCarthy,  R.  Carter  2007.  From Corpus to Classroom.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press.  Eggins,  Suzanne  and  Diana  Slade  2005.  Analysing Casual Conversation.  London:  Equinox.  Mar=n,  James  1992  English Text: System and Structure.  Amstrerdam:  Benjamins.  Seedhouse,  Paul  2005.  The interactional architecture of the language classroom: a conversation analysis perspective. London: Sinclair,  J.  and  Coulthard,  M.  1975.  Towards  an  Analysis  of  Discourse.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.  Sinclair,  J.  and  Coulthard,  M.  1992.  ‘Towards  an  analysis  of  discourse’.  In  Coulthard,  M.  (Ed)  1992.  Advances  in  spoken  discourse  analysis.  1-­‐34.  London:  Routledge.  Wallace,  Michael  1991.  Training Foreign Language Teachers: a Reflective Approach.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press.  

. A:    do you want to to go camping?

. B:    yes.

. C:  great!

4