This paper critically discusses how corpus linguistics in general, but learner corpus research in particular, has been dealing with all sorts of frequency data in general, but over- and underuse frequencies in particular. I demonstrate on the basis of learner corpus data the pitfalls of using aggregate data and lacking statistical control that much work is unfortunately characterized by. In fact, I will demonstrate that monofactorial methods have very little to offer at all to research on observational data. While this paper is admittedly very didactic and methodological, I think the discussion of the empirical data offered here – a reanalysis of previously published work – shows how misleading many studies potentially and provides far-reaching implications for much of corpus linguistics and learner corpus research. Ideally/maximally, this paper together with Paquot & Plonsky (2017, Intntl. J. of Learner Corpus Research) would lead to a complete revision of how learner corpus linguists use quantitative methods and study over-/underuse; minimally, this paper would stimulate a much-needed discussion of currently lacking methodological sophistication.
{"title":"On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more\u0000 generally","authors":"S. Gries","doi":"10.1075/JSLS.00005.GRI","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JSLS.00005.GRI","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper critically discusses how corpus linguistics in general, but learner corpus research in particular, has been dealing with\u0000 all sorts of frequency data in general, but over- and underuse frequencies in particular. I demonstrate on the basis of learner\u0000 corpus data the pitfalls of using aggregate data and lacking statistical control that much work is unfortunately characterized by.\u0000 In fact, I will demonstrate that monofactorial methods have very little to offer at all to research on observational data. While\u0000 this paper is admittedly very didactic and methodological, I think the discussion of the empirical data offered here – a\u0000 reanalysis of previously published work – shows how misleading many studies potentially and provides far-reaching implications for\u0000 much of corpus linguistics and learner corpus research. Ideally/maximally, this paper together with Paquot & Plonsky (2017, Intntl. J. of Learner Corpus Research) would lead to a complete\u0000 revision of how learner corpus linguists use quantitative methods and study over-/underuse; minimally, this paper would stimulate\u0000 a much-needed discussion of currently lacking methodological sophistication.","PeriodicalId":29903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44529375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Meta-analysis has become increasingly popular in second language acquisition research (SLA) and has provided valuable summative information about a number of key areas. There are, however, dangers. This article examines a number of key issues that need to be considered in conducting a meta-analysis – inclusiveness, the heterogeneity of language learners, the definition of the independent and dependent variables, the need to consider alternative explanations of observed effects, the importance of examining the quality of the studies included in the analysis, and the apples and oranges problem. These issues are illustrated in a discussion of number of SLA meta-analyses (e.g. Norris and Ortega, 2000; Plonsky, 2011; Qureshi, 2016; Spada and Tomita, 2010). The article concludes by suggesting a number of factors that need to be considered in deciding whether to conduct a meta-analysis and when carrying one out. I argue the need for systematic reviews but suggest that these can often best present their findings in narrative form rather than statistically. I also suggest that a preliminary narrative account of the findings of s systematic review can indicate whether a meta-analysis is appropriate.
{"title":"Meta-analysis in second language acquisition research","authors":"R. Ellis","doi":"10.1075/JSLS.00002.ELL","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JSLS.00002.ELL","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Meta-analysis has become increasingly popular in second language acquisition research (SLA) and has provided valuable summative\u0000 information about a number of key areas. There are, however, dangers. This article examines a number of key issues that need to be\u0000 considered in conducting a meta-analysis – inclusiveness, the heterogeneity of language learners, the definition of the\u0000 independent and dependent variables, the need to consider alternative explanations of observed effects, the importance of\u0000 examining the quality of the studies included in the analysis, and the apples and oranges problem. These issues are illustrated in\u0000 a discussion of number of SLA meta-analyses (e.g. Norris and Ortega, 2000; Plonsky, 2011; Qureshi, 2016; Spada and Tomita, 2010). The article concludes by suggesting a number of factors that\u0000 need to be considered in deciding whether to conduct a meta-analysis and when carrying one out. I argue the need for systematic\u0000 reviews but suggest that these can often best present their findings in narrative form rather than statistically. I also suggest\u0000 that a preliminary narrative account of the findings of s systematic review can indicate whether a meta-analysis is\u0000 appropriate.","PeriodicalId":29903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48384294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study investigates the influence of L1 frequency on the acquisition of L2 idioms with an experiment employing structured input instruction based on the input processing model. Intermediate L2 Korean learners completed a pretest, computer-assisted instructional treatment session, and posttest. The tests included production, interpretation, and meaning tasks, which manipulated amount of context and idiom type (i.e., Shared L1-L2 idioms, which have linguistic representations in both languages and are subgrouped by high or low L1 frequency, and L2 Only idioms, which have no L1 equivalent). The results show that high L1 frequency had a consistently facilitatory effect on the learning of equivalent L2 idioms, but that context had the strongest effect on the learning of L2 idioms that have no counterpart in the L1.
{"title":"The influence of L1 frequency in instructed second language learning of L2 idioms","authors":"Ebru Türker","doi":"10.1075/JSLS.17007.TUR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JSLS.17007.TUR","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study investigates the influence of L1 frequency on the acquisition of L2 idioms with an experiment employing structured input\u0000 instruction based on the input processing model. Intermediate L2 Korean learners completed a pretest, computer-assisted\u0000 instructional treatment session, and posttest. The tests included production, interpretation, and meaning tasks, which manipulated\u0000 amount of context and idiom type (i.e., Shared L1-L2 idioms, which have linguistic representations in both languages and are\u0000 subgrouped by high or low L1 frequency, and L2 Only idioms, which have no L1 equivalent). The results show that high L1 frequency\u0000 had a consistently facilitatory effect on the learning of equivalent L2 idioms, but that context had the strongest effect on the\u0000 learning of L2 idioms that have no counterpart in the L1.","PeriodicalId":29903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43311726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study investigated Chinese EFL learners’ use of circumstance, demand, and significant, three challenging words each being a member in a synonym set: circumstance in the case/circumstance/event/situation set, demand in the ask/demand/request/require set, and significant in the important/meaningful/significant set. Via an expert rating and a close examination of all the uses of the three words in Wen, Wang, and Liang’s (2005) Spoken and Written English Corpus of Chinese Learners, the study has uncovered various inappropriate usages as well as successfully acquired usages involving the three words. The results reveal a failure by many Chinese EFL learners to understand the three words’ semantic usage differences with their respective synonyms. The study has also identified L1 interference, inadequate descriptions of these words in dictionaries, and insufficient instructional attention to the semantic usage differences among synonyms as likely reasons for the learners’ inappropriate usages. Pedagogical and research implications are also discussed.
{"title":"A corpus study of Chinese EFL learners’ use of circumstance, demand, and significant","authors":"Dilin Liu","doi":"10.1075/JSLS.00006.LIU","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JSLS.00006.LIU","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study investigated Chinese EFL learners’ use of circumstance, demand, and significant, three\u0000 challenging words each being a member in a synonym set: circumstance in the\u0000 case/circumstance/event/situation set, demand in the\u0000 ask/demand/request/require set, and significant in the\u0000 important/meaningful/significant set. Via an expert rating and a close examination of all the uses of the\u0000 three words in Wen, Wang, and Liang’s (2005) Spoken and Written English Corpus of\u0000 Chinese Learners, the study has uncovered various inappropriate usages as well as successfully acquired usages involving the three\u0000 words. The results reveal a failure by many Chinese EFL learners to understand the three words’ semantic usage differences with\u0000 their respective synonyms. The study has also identified L1 interference, inadequate descriptions of these words in dictionaries,\u0000 and insufficient instructional attention to the semantic usage differences among synonyms as likely reasons for the learners’\u0000 inappropriate usages. Pedagogical and research implications are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":29903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49526525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：