Alphabet Street aka Corpus Symposium at VRTwebcon 8

I was delighted to be able to take part in my first webinar as a presenter. Leo Selivan (@leoselivan) asked me to join the corpus symposium for the 8th VRT web conference along side Jenny Wright (@teflhelper) and Sharon Hartle (@hartle). You can find links to our talks at the end of this post as well as my slides.

Presenting on a webinar is definitely a unique experience like talking to yourself knowing others are watching and listening in. Other things to be noted are making sure your microphone is loud enough and that uploaded powerpoints to online systems like Adobe Connect don’t show your slide notes!

My talk was about using BYU-Wikipedia corpus to help recycle coursebook vocabulary and was titled Darling (BYU) Wiki in homage to the recent passing of the great musician Prince. Another webinar note – people can’t hear the music from your computer if you have headphones on!

As I have already posted about using BYU-Wiki for vocabulary recycling, in this post I want to give some brief notes on designing worksheets using some principles from the research literature. When talking about the slide below I did not really explain in the talk what input enhancement and input flood were. And I also did not point out that my adaptation from Barbieri & Eckhardt (2007) was  very loose : ).

worksheet-design2

Input  enhancement  draws  learners’  attention  to  targeted grammatical features by visually or acoustically flagging L2 input to  enhance  its  perceptual  saliency but  with  no  guarantee  that  learners will attend to the features” (Kim, 2006: 345).

For written text they include things such as underlining, bolding, italicizing, capitalizing, and colouring. Note that the KWIC output from COCA uses colour to label parts of speech.

Input flood similarly enhances saliency through frequency and draws its basis from studies showing importance of repetition in language learning.

Szudarski & Carter (2015) concluded that a combination of input enhancement and input flood can lead to performance gains in collocational knowledge.

Hopefully this post has briefly highlighted some points I did not cover in my 20 min talk. A huge thanks to those who took the time to attend, to Leo and Heike (Philip, @heikephilp) for organizing things smoothly and my co-presenters Jennie and Sharon. Do browse the recordings of the other talks as there are some very interesting ones to check out.

Talk recording links, slides and related blog posts

Jennie Wright, Making trouble-free tasks with corpora

Sharon Hartle, SkELL as a Key to Unlock Exam Preparation

Mura Nava, Darling (BYU) Wiki

Question and Answer Round

My talk slides (pdf)

Summary Post by Sharon Hartle

8th Virtual Round Table Web Conference 6-8 May 2016 program overview

References and further reading:

Barbieri, F., & Eckhardt, S. E. (2007). Applying corpus-based findings to form-focused instruction: The case of reported speech. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 319-346

Han, Z.,  Park, E. S., & Combs, C. (2008). Textual enhancement of input: issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics 29.4: 597–618.

Kim,Y. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly 40.2: 341–373.

Szudarski, P., & Carter, R. (2015). The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics.

Advertisements

Using BYU-Wikipedia corpus to answer genre related questions

A link was posted recently on Twitter to an IELTS site looking at writing processes and describing graphs.
The following caught my eye:

…natural processes are often described using the active voice, whereas man-made or manufacturing processes are usually described using the passive.
(http://iamielts.com/2016/02/descriptive-report-process-descriptions-and-proofreading/)

The claim seems to go back to 2011 online (http://ielts-simon.com/ielts-help-and-english-pr/2011/02/ielts-writing-task-1-describe-a-process-1.html).

This is an interesting claim. It has been shown that passives are more common in abstract, technical and formal writing (Biber, 1988 as cited by McEnery & Xiao, 2005). Here the claim is about specific written texts on natural processes and man-made processes.

Well we can simplify this by asking are there more passives used when writing about man-made processes than when writing about natural processes? Since if you use passive clauses then you don’t use active clauses and we can come to a conclusion by deduction.

BYU-Wikipedia corpus can be used to get approximations of natural process writing and man-made process writing. The keywords I used (for the title word) were ecology and manufacturing. Filtering out unwanted texts took longer than expected especially for the manufacturing corpus. In the end I had an ecology corpus of 77 articles and  153,621 words and a manufacturing corpus of 116 articles and 98,195 words.

The search term I used to look for passives was are|were [v?n*]. This gave me a total of 293 passives for ecology and 304 passives for manufacturing. According to the Lancaster LL calculator this showed a significant overuse of passives in manufacturing compared to ecology. According to the log ratio score this is about 2 times as common (if I understand this statistic correctly). Now this does not mean much as a lot of the texts in the wikipedia corpora won’t be specifically about processes but still it is interesting.

What is more interesting are the types of verbs used in passives in ecology and manufacturing. The top ten in each case:

Ecology:

 

ARE FOUND

ARE CONSIDERED

ARE KNOWN

ARE CALLED

ARE COMPOSED

ARE ADAPTED

ARE USED

ARE DOMINATED

ARE INFLUENCED

ARE DEFINED

Manufacturing:

ARE USED

ARE MADE

ARE KNOWN

ARE PRODUCED

ARE CREATED

WERE MADE

ARE DESIGNED

ARE CALLED

ARE PERFORMED

ARE PLACED

 

Thanks for reading.

References:

Biber, D. (1988) Variation Across Speech and Writing(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

McEnery, A. M. and Xiao, R. Z. (2005) Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study . Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series, 1 (1). ISSN 1747-9398 Retrieved from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/63/1/CL2005_(22)_%2D_passive_paper_%2D_McEnery_and_Xiao.pdf