e-1 ai haiyang

7/31/2019 E-1 Ai Haiyang

1/28

A Corpus-based Study of Connectors: Research

from the CAS Learner Corpus of English Essays

Haiyang Ai, Gong Peng

Graduate University, Chinese Academy of Sciences


2/28

Outline of the talk

Introduction

Previous Studies

Methodology and Corpus Building

Results and Discussion

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication


3/28

Definition of connectors

Connectors are devices used to state the

relationship between units of discourse

(Biber et al, 1999)

Including conjunctions, some adverbs (e.g.

firstly, namely, alternatively), and some

prepositional phrases (e.g. in brief, in fact,

of course)


4/28

Classification of connectors

Quirk et als (1985) framework

A Comprehensive Grammar of the

English Language

Adding ofcorroborative category

- (Granger & Tyson, 1996)

- (Altenberg & Tapper, 1998)


5/28

Quirk et als (1985) framework

listing

enumerative e.g. for a star, finally

additiveequative e.g. in the same way, likewise

reinforcing e.g. moreover, further

summative e.g. in sum, altogether

appositive e.g. for example, namely

resultive e.g. as a result, consequently

inferential e.g. therefore, in that case, otherwise

contrastive

reformulatory e.g. more precisely, rather

replacive e.g. better, againantithetic e.g. by contrast, instead

concessive e.g. in any case, however

transitionaldiscoursal e.g. by the way, incidentally

temporal e.g. in the meantime, meanwhile


6/28

Connectors investigated (68 items)

Listing:first, second, third, firstly, secondly, thirdly,finally, furthermore, in addition, moreover,lastly, last but not least, to begin with, foranother, in the first place, in the second place,

similarly, for one thing, for another

Summative:to sum up, to conclude, in summary, in short,in brief, in conclusion, overall, all in all,altogether

Appositive:that is, that is to say, in other words, forinstance, for example, namely, e.g.( eg),i.e.( ie)


7/28

Connectors investigated (68 items)

Resultive:consequently, hence, therefore, thus, as aresult, as a consequence, in consequence,

Inferential: otherwise, in that case

Contrastive:however, although, (even) though, on the otherhand, instead, after all, on the contrary, incontrast, besides, nevertheless, anyway, still,by contrast, nonetheless, alternatively

Transitional:meanwhile, eventually, subsequently, originally

Corroborative:actually, in fact, of course,indeed, apparently


8/28

Rationales to use corpus data

Corpus data are real and authentic =>empirical study

Combines intuitions of many, more

objective (McEnergy & Wilson, 2001)

Corpora are precious resources for testingout linguistic hypothesis (Meyer, 2002)

Learner corpus serves as the meetingpoint of corpus linguistics and SLA(Granger 1998)=> pioneer: Sylviane Granger, ICLE


9/28

Research questions

Whats the semantic distribution?

Whats the top 10 most frequently used

connectors?

Which connectors are overused?

Whats the differences and similarities

compared with related studies, and why(universal features vs. transfer-related?)


10/28

Hypothesis

Hypothesis:PhD students at GUCAS would overuse

connectors in their English writings

Formulated based on

Previous studies from HK and Taiwan(Crewe 1990, Field & Yip 1992, Milton &Tsang 1993, Bolton et al 2002, Chen

2006)

The authors own observation


11/28

Significance

Systematic and corpus-based connectorstudies on PhD students writing of inGUCAS => shed some light on theeverlasting cohesion & coherence

problems in ESL/EFL writing

Quantitative analysis can provide teachers(esp. at GUCAS) with a better idea onwhat needs to be done

The construction of the CASCLEEcomputer learner corpus itself (Resources)


12/28

Outline again

Approaching Connectors

Previous Studies





13/28

Previous corpus-based studies

Milton & Tsang (1993)

high ratio of overuse of entire range ofconnectors (HKUST vs. Brown, LOB)

Granger & Tyson (1996)

108 connectors, CIA method

overuse


14/28

Previous corpus-based studies

Bolton et al (2002)

Overuse exists in both groups, ICE-HK vs.ICE-GB

Raised 3 methodological issues

Chen (2006)

Latest, published on IJCL, Taiwanese EFLLearners

Slightly overused connectors

Increase learners register differences


15/28

Outline

Introduction

Previous Studies





16/28

Corpus building

Corpus name: CASCLEE - CAS Corpus ofLearner English Essays

Corpus Size: 494 essays, 120, 836 words,covering timed and untimed writings

Data analysis:WordSmith Tool 4.0 + Manual Extraction

Sampling & Representativeness

Learner Background & Register of text


17/28

Method: CIA

Contrastive interlanguage analysis(Granger 1996)

L2 vs. L1

L2 vs. L2

Reference corpora

Informative Writings of BNC SamplerCorpus (L1)

The ICLE French Subcorpus (L2)


18/28

Outline

Introduction

Previous Studies





19/28

Overall frequencies (normalised)

Overall Connector Usage

131.9

46.7

99.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

CASCLEE BNC Sampler-

Informative

ICLE-French

The Three Corpora

Per10,

000word

s


20/28

Semantic distribution

Semantic Distribution of Connectors in the Three Corpora

577.6

77.8116.7

84.4

18.2

322.8

11.6

110.1

44.7

4.7

53.675.0

8.1

192.8

25.062.7

116.1

28.4

196.5

137.2

12.5

264.7

14.2

225.9

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

listin

g

summativ

e

appo

sitio

nal

resulti

ve

inferential

contrastiv

e

tran

sitio

nal

corrob

orativ

e

categories

per100,

000w

ords

CASCLEE NF BNC Sampler-Informative NF ICLE-French NF


21/28


22/28

Quantitative difference: Overuse

Overused connectors

Group A (see Table 4)

Group B (see Table 5)


23/28

Comparing with related studies

Altenberg & Tapper (1998)Overuse offurthermore, for instance, still,of course (CASCLEE also)

Bolten et al (2002)overuse both exist in ICE-HK & ICE-GB

Chen (2006)

slightly overused


24/28

Major findings

PhD students overused a wholerange of connectors (hypothesissupported)

They significantly overused listingand summative connectors

Overuse of connectors exist both inCASCLEE and ICLE French subcorpus


25/28

Outline

Introduction

Previous Studies



Conclusion and PedagogicalImplication


26/28

Conclusion

Objectives and contributions

Build the CASCLEE learner corpus

Analyzing connectors based on Quirk etal (1985) framework

Methodology: contrastive interlanguageanalysis

L1 vs. L2 (CASCLE vs. BNC Sampler-info)

L2 vs. L2 (CASCLEE vs. ICLE-French)


27/28

Pedagogical Implication

Pedagogical implication

Focus on contrastive, resultive and appositionalconnectors, over 70%

Listing connectors should be addressed

Correct forms of connectors

Looking forward

More large-scale, corpus-based studies on EFL

learners connector usage

Probe into the possible causes for certain connectorusage patterns


28/28

The End !

e-1 ai haiyang

Documents