First Stage in the Construction of METU Turkish English Exam Corpus (METU TEEC)

Öz

This paper presents and discusses the first stages in the construction of the Middle East Technical University Turkish English Exam Corpus (METU TEEC), which has been compiled by a research team at Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey. The corpus consists of 1914 Linguistics and ELT exam papers (955483 words in total) written in timed circumstances with no access to reference material by the students at the Foreign Language Education (FLE) department at METU, Ankara between January 2005 and December 2012. The corpus is intended to cater for the needs of both theoreticians/researchers and practitioners/pedagogues; therefore, each of the scripts included in the corpus is tagged with rich meta information about the informants (e.g., age, gender, years of learning English), the exam (e.g., course, type of question, academic year) and exam writers (e.g., educational background, experience). This system allows the compilation of sub-corpora according to the needs and interests of the researchers and practitioners. The first sections of the paper present the context and the needs for such a corpus while the latter sections discuss the development of the coding and tagging systems employed for this corpus.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Specialised corpus development,learner corpus,exam English,text type,Turkey and Turkish

First Stage in the Construction of METU Turkish English Exam Corpus (METU TEEC)

Öz

This paper presents and discusses the first stages in the construction of the Middle East Technical University Turkish English Exam Corpus (METU TEEC), which has been compiled by a research team at Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey. The corpus consists of 1914 Linguistics and ELT exam papers (955483 words in total) written in timed circumstances with no access to reference material by the students at the Foreign Language Education (FLE) department at METU, Ankara between January 2005 and December 2012. The corpus is intended to cater for the needs of both theoreticians/researchers and practitioners/pedagogues; therefore, each of the scripts included in the corpus is tagged with rich meta information about the informants (e.g., age, gender, years of learning English), the exam (e.g., course, type of question, academic year) and exam writers (e.g., educational background, experience). This system allows the compilation of sub-corpora according to the needs and interests of the researchers and practitioners. The first sections of the paper present the context and the needs for such a corpus while the latter sections discuss the development of the coding and tagging systems employed for this corpus

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Specialised corpus development, learner corpus, exam English, text type, Turkey and Turkish

Kaynakça

1. Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
2. Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca. London: Continuum.
3. Aktaş, T. (2005). Yabancı dil öğretiminde iletişimsel yeti. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 89-100.
4. Alansary S., Nagi M., & Adly N. (2007). Building an International Corpus of Arabic Progress of Compilation Stage. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Language Engineering (pp. 337-366). Cairo, Egypt.
5. Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2002). The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing.Applied Linguistics, 22, 173-189.
6. Aston, G. (1997). Small and large corpora in language learning.In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & J. Melia (Eds.), Practical applications in language corpora (pp. 51-62). Łódź: Łódź University Press.
7. Barnes, A. (2002). Maintaining language skills in pre-service training for foreign language teachers. In H. Trappes-Lomax & G. Ferguson (Eds.), Language in language teacher education (pp. 199-214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
8. Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier & V. Viana (Eds.), Avaliaçoes E Perspectivas: Mapeando Os Estudos Empiricos Na Area deHumanas [Appraisals and Perspectives: Mapping Empirical Studies in the Humanities] (pp. 163-184). Rio de Janeiro: The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

9. Bear, J. (1992). Context and content in English language teacher education. In A. J Mountford & H. Umunç (Eds.), Tradition and innovation: ELT and teacher training in the 1990’s: Volume 2 (pp. 24-34). Ankara: The British Council.
10. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written register. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
11. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (2007). Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Sixth Impression). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
13. Carletta, J., Kilgour, J., O’Donnell, T., Evert, S., & Voormann, H. (2003). The NITE object model library for handling structured linguistic annotation on multimodal data sets. Proceedings of the EACL Workshop on Language Technology and the Semantic Web (3rd Workshop on NLP and XML, NLPXML-2003), Toulouse.
14. Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1998). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course (Second Edition). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
15. Connor, U., & Precht, K. (1998). Business English: learner data from Belgium and the U.S. In J. Hung & S. Granger (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Annual Symposium on Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, 14-16 December 1998 (pp. 25-33). Hong Kong: Department of English, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
16. Demirel, Ö. (1989). Yabancı dil öğretmenlerinin yeterlikleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4, 5-26.
17. Demirel, Ö. (1990). Yabancı dil öğretmenlerinin yeterlikleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5, 133-161.
18. Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (1998).The spread of English in Turkey and its current sociolinguistic profile.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19(1), 23-39.
19. Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two.New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Ellis, R. (2001). The study of second language acquisition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Gorard, S. (2003). Quantitative methods in social science. London: Continuum.
22. Granger, S. (1998). The International Corpus of Learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538-546.
23. Granger, S. (2002). A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung, J. & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 3-33). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
24. Granger, S. (2003). Error-tagged Learner Corpora and CALL: A Promising Synergy. CALICO Journal, 20(3), 465-480.
25. Gürbüz, N. (2006). Differing perceptions of pre-service English teachers’ strengths and weaknesses in the practicum: A case study in Turkey. English language teacher education and development, 9, 39-46.
26. Hanson, J. (2011). Teacher reflection and identity – teaching a language from within an L2 cultural identity, or teaching from within L1 culture about L2. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 1, 1‐38.
27. Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2010). Summative evolution of an undergraduate ‘English Language Testing and Evaluation’ course by future English language teachers. English Language Teacher Education and Development (ELTED), 13 (Winter 2010), 40-51.
28. Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2011, July). Indirectness in L2 exam papers: Characteristics of the English that native speakers of Turkish use on subject exams. Paper presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Politeness: Corpus Approaches, METU, Ankara, Turkey.
29. Hewings, M. (1999). Advanced grammar in use: a self-study reference and practice book for advanced learners of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Işık, A. (2008). Yabancı dil eğitimimizdeki yanlışlar nereden kaynaklanıyor? Journal of Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 15-26.
31. James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
32. József, H. (1998). Advanced writing in English as a foreign language: A corpus-based study of processes and products. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Janus Pannonius University, Pécs, Hungary.
33. Kırkgöz, Y. (2009). Globalization and English language policy in Turkey. Educational Policy, 23(5), 663-684.
34. Kızıldağ, A. (2009). Teaching English in Turkey: Dialogues with teachers about the challenges in public primary schools. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(3), 188-201.
35. Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (2003). A communicative grammar of English (Third edition).Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
36. Lipton, G. (1996). FLES* Teacher preparation: Competencies, content and complexities. In Z. Moore (Ed.), Foreign language teacher education (pp. 37- 58). USA: University Press of America.
37. Lüdeling, A., Walter, M., Kroymann, E., & Adoplphs, P. (2005).Multi-level error annotation in learner corpora.Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2005 Conference. Birmingham, UK, 14-17 July 2005 (Retrieved from: https://linguistik.huberlin.de/institut/professuren/korpuslinguistik/forschung/falko/pdf/FALKO-CL2005.pdf)
38. Mouranen, A. (2003). The corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in academic settings.TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 513-527.
39. Oğuz, E. (1999). İlköğretimde yabancı dil (İngilizce) öğretimi sorunları [The Problems of foreign language (English) teaching in elementary schools].Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Kocaeli University: Kocaeli, Turkey.
40. Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12-28.
41. Paker, T. (2007). Problems of teaching English in schools in Çal Region and suggested solutions. 21. yüzyıla girerken geçmişten günümüze Çal yöresi: Baklan, Çal, Bekilli. Çal Yöresi Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışma Derneği Yayını, 3, 684-690.
42. Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1976). A universal grammar of English.Essex: Longman.
43. Schiller, A, Teufel, S., & Thielen, C. (1995) Guidelines für das Tagging deutscher Textcorpora mit STTS Technical report. IMS Stuttgart / Seminar für Sprachwissenschaften, Tübingen.
44. Schmidt, T. (2004). EXMARaLDA - ein System zur computergestützten Diskurstranskription. In A. Mehler & H. Lobin (Eds.), Automatische Textanalyse.Systeme und Methoden zur Annotation und Analyse natürlichsprachlicher Texte (pp. 203-218). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
45. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.IRAL, 10(3), 209-231.
46. Sowden, C. (2007). Culture and the ‘good teacher’ in the English language classroom. ELT Journal, 61(4), 304-310.
47. Şallı-Çopur, D. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in initial years of service: A case study on the graduates of METU Foreign Language Education program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Middle East Technical University: Ankara, Turkey.
48. Thomas, A. L. (1987). Language teacher competence and language teacher education. In R. Bowers (Ed.), Language teacher: An integrated programme for ELT teacher training: ELT Documents 125 (pp. 33-42). Oxford: Modern English Publications in associations with the British Council.
49. Tılfarlıoğlu, F. Y., & Öztürk, A. R. (2007). An analysis of ELT teachers’ perceptions of some problems concerning the implementation of English Language Teaching Curricula in elementary schools. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 3(1), 202-217.
50. Tono, Y. (2003). Learner corpora: Design, development and application. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference (pp. 800-809). Lancaster, UK, 28-31 March 2003.
51. Turner, T. (2002). What is metadata? Kaleidoscope, 10(7), 1-3.
52. Weil, M., & Pullin, P. (2011). English as a lingua franca in education - Internationalisation speaks English. Education Permanente, 1, 28-29.
53. Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.