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

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. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Recurrent word combinations; spoken corpus; interlanguage; corpus-driven method; contrastive interlanguage analysis

Kaynakça

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 (Unpublished master's thesis).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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
5. Aijmer, K. (2004). Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 173-190.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

9. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
10. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286.
11. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2004). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56–71.
12. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at . . .: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.
13. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
14. Can, C. (2009). İkinci dil edinimi çalışmalarında bilgisayar destekli bir Türk öğrenici İngilizcesi derlemi: ICLE’nin bir altderlemi olarak TICLE. Dil Dergisi, 144 (Nisan-Mayıs-Haziran), 16–34.
15. Can, C. (2012). Uluslararası Türk öğrenici İngilizcesi derleminde tutum belirteçleri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1, 39–53.
16. Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.
17. Cortes, V. (2002a). Lexical bundles in Freshman composition. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 131–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
18. Cortes, V. (2002b). Lexical bundles in academic writing in history and biology. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, USA.
19. Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423.
20. De Cock, S., Granger, S., Leech, G., & McEnery, T. (1998). An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 68–80). London & New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
21. De Cock, S. (2004). Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series (2), 225–246.
22. Ebeling, S. O. (2011). Recurrent word-combinations in English student essays. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 49–76.
23. Gilquin, G. (2012, Jan 3). LINDSEI. Retrieved from http://www.uclouvain.be/en-cecl-lindsei.html
24. Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6 (4), 319–335.
25. Granger, Sylviane, & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15, 19–29.
26. Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A.P.Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
27. Hernández, P. S. (2013). Lexical bundles in three oral corpora of university students. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 187–209.
28. Huang, L. (2011). Discourse markers in spoken English : A corpus study of native speakers and Chinese non-native speakers. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Brimingham, England.
29. Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21.
30. Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters : Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41–62.
31. Ishikawa, S. (2009). Phraseology overused and underused by Japanese learners of English : A contrastive interlanguage analysis. In K. Yagi & T. Kanzaki (Eds.), Phraseology, corpus linguistics and lexicography: Papers from phraseology (pp. 87–100). Nishinomiya, Japan: Kwansei Gakuin University Press.
32. Kaltenbock, G. (2004). Using non-extraposition in spoken and written texts. In K. Aijmer & A.-B. Stenström (Eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora (pp. 219–242). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
33. Kilimci, A. (2001). Automatic extraction of the lexical profile of EFL learners through corpus query techniques. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 37–47.
34. Kilimci, A. (2006). Stance and attitude in advanced Turkish learners’ written discourse. In P. Karnowski & I. Szigeti (Eds.),Proceedings of Language and Language Processing: 38th Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 347-357), Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
35. Kilimci, A. (2009). Negotiation of meaning in L2 academic writing. In G. Socarras (Ed.), Proceedings of 1st international conference on literature, languages and linguistics. Athens: ATINER
36. Kilimci, A., & Can, C. (2009). Uluslararası Türk öğrenici ingilizcesi derlemi/TICLE:Turkish international corpus of learner English. In M. Sarıca, N. Sarıca, & A. Karaca (Eds.), XXII. Ulusal dilbilim kurultayı bildirileri (pp. 1–11). Ankara: Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Yayınları.
37. Kilimci, A., (2014). LINDSEI-TR: A new spoken corpus of advanced learners of English. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 4(2), 401-410.
38. Kjellmer, G. (1991). A mint of phrases. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics (pp. 111–127). London: Longman.
39. Liu, D. (2012). The most frequently-used multi-word constructions in academic written English: A multi-corpus study. English for Specific Purposes, 31(1), 25–35.
40. McCarten, J. (2010). Corpus-informed course book design. In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 413–427). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
41. McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 182–215). London: Longman.
42. Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
43. Ping, P. (2009). A Study on the use of four-word lexical bundles in argumentative essays by Chinese English: A comparative study based on WECCL and LOCNESS. CELEA Journal, 32(3), 25–45.
44. Scott, M. (2010). WordSmith Tools (Version 5.0), [Lexical Analysis Software]. Available from http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/version5/index.html
45. Shirato, J., & Stapleton, P. (2007). Comparing English vocabulary in a spoken learner corpus with a native speaker corpus: Pedagogical implications arising from an empirical study in Japan. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 393–412.
46. Şanal, F. (2007). A learner corpus based study on second language lexicology of Turkish students of English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
47. Tono, Y. (2000). A Computer Learner Corpus Based Analysis of the Acquisition Order of English Grammatical Morphemes.In L. Burnard & T. McEnery (Eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective: Papers from the third international conference teaching and language corpora (pp. 123–132). Frankfurt: Peter lang.
48. Waibel, B. (2007). Phrasal verbs in learner English: A corpus-based study of German and Italian students. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.
49. Wei, N. (2009). On the phraseology of Chinese learners spoken English: Evidence of lexical chunks from COLSEC. In A. Jucker, D. Schreier, & M. Hundt (Eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Papers from the 29th international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 29) (pp. 271–296). Ascona, Switzerland: Rodopi.