Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 474 - 488, 29.03.2020

Nihan Yılmaz Didem Koban Koç

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712880

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Aarts, J. (1991). “Intitution-based and Observation-based grammars”, in Aijmer et al. (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 44-62). London: Longman.
  • Aksar, M. (2010). Formulaic sequences in English TV series. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Uludağ University.
  • Anğ, F. (2006). Effectiveness of corpus consultation through concordancing on the formulaic academic language use of freshman ELT students. Unpublished M.A thesis, Boğaziçi University.
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015). “Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines”, TESOL Journal, 6(3), 499-526.
  • Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. ve Finegan, E. (1999). “Longman grammar of spoken and written English”, London: Longman.
  • Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, H., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). “Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: putting a Lexical Approach to the test”, Language Teaching Research, (10)3, 245–261.
  • Chen, Y., & Baker, P. (2010). “Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing”, Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30-49.
  • Cheng, H., & Dӧrnyei, Z. (2007). “The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: the case of EFL teaching in Taiwan”, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153–174.
  • Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). “Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?”, Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ applin/amm022.
  • Dörnyei, Z. (1998). “Motivational factors in the second language attainment: A review of research in Hungary”, Acta Linguistica Hungraia. 44, 261-275.
  • Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). “The idiom principle and the open choice principle”, Text, 20(1), 29-62.
  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Hasler-Barker, M. (2015). “Complimenting in Spanish in a short-term study abroad context”, System, 48, 75-85.
  • Fox, G. (1998). “Using corpus data in the classroom”, in B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 25–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gürsoy, E. (2008). The noticing of formulaic sequences by Turkish learners of English. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Çukurova University.
  • Horwitz, E. K., M. Tallon & H. Luo (2009). “Foreign language anxiety”, in J. C. Cassady (ed.), Anxiety in schools: The causes, consequences, and solutions for academic anxieties. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). “Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study”, in N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 269–300). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  • Gómez-Burgos, E. (2015). “First year university students’ use of formulaic sequences in oral and written descriptions”, PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 17(1), 25-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v17n1.43438.
  • Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). “Pragmatic development in a second language”. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Kızı, J. A. (2009). The role of formulaic sequences in speaking fluency in intermediate English as a foreign language classes. Unpublished M.A thesis, Gazi University.
  • Kilgarriff, A. (2014). “Corpora in English language teaching”. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/corpora-english-language-teaching on January 11, 2018.
  • Koban-Koç, D. & Koç, S. E. (2017). “On the Role of Media Input in the Learning of Formulaic Sequences by EFL Learners”.TESL Canada Journal (Special Issue), 34(3), 93–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i3.1275.
  • Leech, G.(1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman: London/New York.
  • Leech, G. (1991). “The state of the art in corpus linguistics”, in Aijmer K. and Altenberg B. (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, pp 8-29. London: Longman.
  • MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). “Willingness to communicate in the second language: understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process”, The Modern Language Journal, 91, 564-576.
  • Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). “A phrasal expression list”, Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299-320.
  • McDonough, S. (2007). “Motivation in ELT”. ELT Journal, 61(4), 369-371.
  • McEnery, T.; Xiao, R., &Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-Based Language Studies. An Advanced Resource Book (Routledge Applied Linguistics). London, New York: Routledge.
  • Müjdeci, Ş. (2014). The effects of focused instruction on the receptive and productive knowledge of formulaic sequences. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Gazi University.
  • Ohlrogge, A. (2009). “Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing assessment”, in R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, and K. M. Wheatley (Eds.).Formulaic Language Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 375–86.
  • Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1996). “Language learning motivation in a new key”, in Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). New York: Longman.
  • Pemberton, C. (2018). Analysis and Evaluation of Three ESL Coursebooks. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Birmingham, UK.
  • Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). “An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and language instruction”, in P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
  • Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). “Formulaic sequences in action”, in N. Schmitt, & Ronald C. (Eds.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Schmitt, N., Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S., and Durow, V. (2004). “Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study”, in N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 55-86). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus Collocation Concordance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sinclair, J. (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Stipek, D.J. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Teubert, W. (2005). “My version of corpus linguistics”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 1–13.
  • Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Wei, L., & Ying, H. (2011). “On the role of formulaic sequences in second language acquisition”, US-China Foreign Language, 9(11), 708-713.
  • Wenden, A. (1998). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Great Britain: Prentice Hall.
  • Wood, D. (2006). “Uses and Functions of Formulaic Sequences in Second Language Speech: An Exploration of the Foundations of Fluency”. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 13-33.
  • Wray, A. (2000). “Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice”. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463-489.

Developing pragmatic comprehension and production: corpus-based teaching of formulaic sequences in an EFL setting

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 474 - 488, 29.03.2020

Nihan Yılmaz Didem Koban Koç

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712880

Öz

The present study aims to explore the effects of corpus-based teaching on English language learners’ pragmatic comprehension and production of 19 formulaic sequences (FS), categorized under agreements, disagreements, self-clarifications and other-clarifications. The study had a quasi-experimental research design with a pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test. A total of 35 students participated in the study and were divided into two groups. The experimental group (N=19) received corpus-based teaching whereas the control group (N=16) was exposed to traditional instruction and did not receive treatment at all. The results showed that there was a significant difference between the pre-test and immediate post-test and between immediate post-test and delayed post-test regarding the production of the targeted items for the experimental group. The findings indicate the effectiveness of corpus-based teaching in oral production, and the need for learners to engage with the real language data, corpus data, to improve their pragmatic competences.

Anahtar Kelimeler

English as a foreign language; competence; comprehension; production; corpus

Kaynakça

  • Aarts, J. (1991). “Intitution-based and Observation-based grammars”, in Aijmer et al. (Eds.), English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 44-62). London: Longman.
  • Aksar, M. (2010). Formulaic sequences in English TV series. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Uludağ University.
  • Anğ, F. (2006). Effectiveness of corpus consultation through concordancing on the formulaic academic language use of freshman ELT students. Unpublished M.A thesis, Boğaziçi University.
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015). “Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines”, TESOL Journal, 6(3), 499-526.
  • Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. ve Finegan, E. (1999). “Longman grammar of spoken and written English”, London: Longman.
  • Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, H., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). “Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: putting a Lexical Approach to the test”, Language Teaching Research, (10)3, 245–261.
  • Chen, Y., & Baker, P. (2010). “Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing”, Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30-49.
  • Cheng, H., & Dӧrnyei, Z. (2007). “The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: the case of EFL teaching in Taiwan”, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153–174.
  • Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). “Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?”, Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ applin/amm022.
  • Dörnyei, Z. (1998). “Motivational factors in the second language attainment: A review of research in Hungary”, Acta Linguistica Hungraia. 44, 261-275.
  • Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). “The idiom principle and the open choice principle”, Text, 20(1), 29-62.
  • Félix-Brasdefer, J. C., & Hasler-Barker, M. (2015). “Complimenting in Spanish in a short-term study abroad context”, System, 48, 75-85.
  • Fox, G. (1998). “Using corpus data in the classroom”, in B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 25–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gürsoy, E. (2008). The noticing of formulaic sequences by Turkish learners of English. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Çukurova University.
  • Horwitz, E. K., M. Tallon & H. Luo (2009). “Foreign language anxiety”, in J. C. Cassady (ed.), Anxiety in schools: The causes, consequences, and solutions for academic anxieties. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). “Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study”, in N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 269–300). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  • Gómez-Burgos, E. (2015). “First year university students’ use of formulaic sequences in oral and written descriptions”, PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 17(1), 25-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v17n1.43438.
  • Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). “Pragmatic development in a second language”. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Kızı, J. A. (2009). The role of formulaic sequences in speaking fluency in intermediate English as a foreign language classes. Unpublished M.A thesis, Gazi University.
  • Kilgarriff, A. (2014). “Corpora in English language teaching”. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/corpora-english-language-teaching on January 11, 2018.
  • Koban-Koç, D. & Koç, S. E. (2017). “On the Role of Media Input in the Learning of Formulaic Sequences by EFL Learners”.TESL Canada Journal (Special Issue), 34(3), 93–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i3.1275.
  • Leech, G.(1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman: London/New York.
  • Leech, G. (1991). “The state of the art in corpus linguistics”, in Aijmer K. and Altenberg B. (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, pp 8-29. London: Longman.
  • MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). “Willingness to communicate in the second language: understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process”, The Modern Language Journal, 91, 564-576.
  • Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). “A phrasal expression list”, Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299-320.
  • McDonough, S. (2007). “Motivation in ELT”. ELT Journal, 61(4), 369-371.
  • McEnery, T.; Xiao, R., &Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-Based Language Studies. An Advanced Resource Book (Routledge Applied Linguistics). London, New York: Routledge.
  • Müjdeci, Ş. (2014). The effects of focused instruction on the receptive and productive knowledge of formulaic sequences. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Gazi University.
  • Ohlrogge, A. (2009). “Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing assessment”, in R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, and K. M. Wheatley (Eds.).Formulaic Language Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 375–86.
  • Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1996). “Language learning motivation in a new key”, in Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). New York: Longman.
  • Pemberton, C. (2018). Analysis and Evaluation of Three ESL Coursebooks. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Birmingham, UK.
  • Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008). “An introduction to cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and language instruction”, in P. Robinson, & N. C. Ellis (Eds.). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
  • Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). “Formulaic sequences in action”, in N. Schmitt, & Ronald C. (Eds.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Schmitt, N., Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S., and Durow, V. (2004). “Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study”, in N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 55-86). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus Collocation Concordance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sinclair, J. (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Stipek, D.J. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Teubert, W. (2005). “My version of corpus linguistics”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 1–13.
  • Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Wei, L., & Ying, H. (2011). “On the role of formulaic sequences in second language acquisition”, US-China Foreign Language, 9(11), 708-713.
  • Wenden, A. (1998). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Great Britain: Prentice Hall.
  • Wood, D. (2006). “Uses and Functions of Formulaic Sequences in Second Language Speech: An Exploration of the Foundations of Fluency”. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 13-33.
  • Wray, A. (2000). “Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice”. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463-489.
Toplam 44 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Nihan Yılmaz Bu kişi benim

Didem Koban Koç

Yayımlanma Tarihi 29 Mart 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Yılmaz, N., & Koban Koç, D. (2020). Developing pragmatic comprehension and production: corpus-based teaching of formulaic sequences in an EFL setting. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(1), 474-488. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712880
AMA Yılmaz N, Koban Koç D. Developing pragmatic comprehension and production: corpus-based teaching of formulaic sequences in an EFL setting. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. Mart 2020;16(1):474-488. doi:10.17263/jlls.712880
Chicago Yılmaz, Nihan, ve Didem Koban Koç. “Developing Pragmatic Comprehension and Production: Corpus-Based Teaching of Formulaic Sequences in an EFL Setting”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 16, sy. 1 (Mart 2020): 474-88. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712880.
EndNote Yılmaz N, Koban Koç D (01 Mart 2020) Developing pragmatic comprehension and production: corpus-based teaching of formulaic sequences in an EFL setting. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 16 1 474–488.
IEEE N. Yılmaz ve D. Koban Koç, “Developing pragmatic comprehension and production: corpus-based teaching of formulaic sequences in an EFL setting”, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, c. 16, sy. 1, ss. 474–488, 2020, doi: 10.17263/jlls.712880.
ISNAD Yılmaz, Nihan - Koban Koç, Didem. “Developing Pragmatic Comprehension and Production: Corpus-Based Teaching of Formulaic Sequences in an EFL Setting”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 16/1 (Mart 2020), 474-488. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712880.
JAMA Yılmaz N, Koban Koç D. Developing pragmatic comprehension and production: corpus-based teaching of formulaic sequences in an EFL setting. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2020;16:474–488.
MLA Yılmaz, Nihan ve Didem Koban Koç. “Developing Pragmatic Comprehension and Production: Corpus-Based Teaching of Formulaic Sequences in an EFL Setting”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, c. 16, sy. 1, 2020, ss. 474-88, doi:10.17263/jlls.712880.
Vancouver Yılmaz N, Koban Koç D. Developing pragmatic comprehension and production: corpus-based teaching of formulaic sequences in an EFL setting. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2020;16(1):474-88.