SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

Recurrent phrases in Turkish EFL learners’ spoken interlanguage: A corpus-driven structural and functional analysis

Aysel Şahin Kızıl
Abdurrahman Kilimci
Pages
195–210
Publication Date
2014-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The significance of difference as to the structural and functional variations that particular word combinations display in the nonnative corpus as compared to the native speaker corpus is discussed and pedagogical implications are shared.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz Various studies contrasting learner language with native speaker (NS) performance have shown that recurrent multiword expressions that come so naturally to the NSs pose difficulty for the non-native (NNS) speakers and hinder their language production although usually easy to understand.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study adopts “the corpus driven ‘recurrent word combination’ method” (De Cock, 2004, p. 227) within the framework of the Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (CIA) (Granger, 1998).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The significance of difference as to the structural and functional variations that particular word combinations display in the nonnative corpus as compared to the native speaker corpus is discussed and pedagogical implications are shared.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler Recurrent word combinations · spoken corpus · interlanguage

Özet

Öz Various studies contrasting learner language with native speaker (NS) performance have shown that recurrent multiword expressions that come so naturally to the NSs pose difficulty for the non-native (NNS) speakers and hinder their language production although usually easy to understand. Therefore, the present study aims to explore the structural and functional properties of the recurrent phrases in the spoken English of the Turkish learners of English and the native speakers to find out whether these word combinations also cause difficulty for the learners under investigation. The study adopts “the corpus driven ‘recurrent word combination’ method” (De Cock, 2004, p. 227) within the framework of the Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (CIA) (Granger, 1998). The corpora drawn on in the study are the native speaker corpus, the Louvain Corpus of Native English Conversation (LOCNEC), and the subcorpora of the non-native speaker corpus LINDSEI (the Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage), which contains speech produced by advanced Turkish learners of English. Two taxonomies were used to analyze the recurrent phrases: the structural taxonomy and the functional taxonomy. The study confirms that the recurrent language characterizes both native and nonnative speech despite marked variations in terms of underuse and overuse phenomena in the learner data. The significance of difference as to the structural and functional variations that particular word combinations display in the nonnative corpus as compared to the native speaker corpus is discussed and pedagogical implications are shared.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kızıl, A. Ş., Kilimci, A. (2014). Recurrent phrases in Turkish EFL learners’ spoken interlanguage: A corpus-driven structural and functional analysis. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 195–210. https://ajindex.com/articles/28319

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Aas, H. L. (2011). Recurrent word-combinations in spoken learner English:A study of corpus data from Swedish and Norwegian advanced learners. (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Oslo, Norway. Ädel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and nonnative speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81– 92. Ädel, A., & Römer, U. (2012). Research on advanced student writing across disciplines and levels: Introducing the Michigan corpus of upper-level student papers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 3–34.
  2. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Aijmer, K. (2004). Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 173-190.
  3. Aijmer, K. (2009). “So er I just sort I dunno I think it’s just because…”: A corpus study of I don’t know and dunno in learners’ spoken English. In A. H. Jucker, D. Schreier & M. Hundt (Eds.), Corpora:Pragmatics and discourse (pp. 151–168). The Netherlands: Rodopi. Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent wordcombinations. In A.P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 101– 122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Altenberg, B. (2002). Using bilingual corpus evidence in learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286.
  5. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2004). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56–71.
  6. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at.: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.
  7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson. Can, C. (2009). İkinci dil edinimi çalışmalarında bilgisayar destekli bir Türk öğrenici İngilizcesi derlemi: ICLE’nin bir altderlemi olarak TICLE. Dil Dergisi, 144 (Ni