Corpora-in-language-educ教学讲解课件

CorporainlanguageeducationCorpusLinguisticsRichardXiaolancsxiaoz@AimsofthissessionLectureThestateoftheartofusingcorporainlanguageeducationIssuesofusingcorporainlanguageteachingCasestudy:UsingcontrastivecorpuslinguisticstoinformSLAresearchLabsession(Homework)SemanticprosodyandDDLCorpusrevolutionAnincreasinginterestsincetheearly1990sinapplyingthefindingsofcorpus-basedresearchtolanguagepedagogy10well-receivedbiennialinternationalconferencesTeachingandLanguageCorpora(TaLC,1994-2012)Atleast30authoredoreditedbooks,coveringawiderangeofissuesconcerningtheuseofcorporainlanguagepedagogy,e.g.corpus-basedlanguagedescriptions,corpusanalysisinclassroom,andlearnercorpusresearch Wichmannetal(1997),Partington(1998),Bernardini(2000),BurnardandMcEnery(2000),KettemannandMarko(2002,2006),Aston(2001),Ghadessy,Henry,andRoseberry(2001),Hunston(2002),Grangeretal(2002),ConnorandUpton(2002),Tan(2002),Sinclair(2003,2004),Aston

etal(2004),Mishan(2005),Nesselhauf(2005),Römer(2005),Braun,KohnandMukherjee(2006),Gavioli(2006),ScottandTribble(2006),Hidalgo,QueredaandSantana(2007),O’Keeffe,McCarthyandCarter(2007),Aijmer(2009),Bennett(2010),Campoy,Gea-valorandBelles-Fortuno(2010),Cunningham(2010),HarrisandJaén(2010),Jaén,ValverdeandPérez(2010),Reppen(2010),Volodina(2010)CorpusrevolutionBookspublishedinChina杨达复(2000),濮建忠(2003),何安平(2004a,2004b),华南师范大学外国语学院(2005),卫乃兴,李文中,濮建忠(2005),杨惠中(2005),王立非,梁茂成等(2007)Teachingandcorpora:AconvergenceLeech’s(1997)threefocusesoftheconvergenceIndirectuseofcorporainteaching(e.g.referencepublishing,materialsdevelopment,languagetesting,andteachertraining)Directuseofcorporainteaching(e.g.teachingabout,teachingtoexploit,andexploitingtoteach)Developmentofteaching-orientedcorpora(e.g.LSPandlearnercorpora)Corpusanalysiscanbeilluminating‘invirtuallyallbranchesoflinguisticsorlanguagelearning’(Leech1997:9)Directvs.indirectusesIndirectusesLargelyrelatingtowhattoteachDirectusesPrimarilyconcerninghowtoteachDevelopmentofteachingorientedcorporaCanrelatetobothReferencepublishingCorpusrevolutioninreferencebooks(atleastforEnglish)Nearlyunheardoffordictionariesandreferencegrammarspublishedsincethe1990snottoclaimtobebasedoncorpusdata;evenpeoplewhohaveneverheardofacorpusareusingtheproductofcorpusresearchCorpus-baseddictionariesLearnerdictionariesFrequencydictionariesCorpus-basedreferencegrammarsLongmanGrammarofSpokenandWrittenEnglishCollinsCOBUILDseriesHunston’SPatternGrammarSyllabusdesignandmaterialsdevelopment

PreviousresearchhasdemonstratedthattheuseofgrammaticalstructuresinTEFLtextbooksdiffersconsiderablyfromtheuseofthesestructuresinnativeEnglish‘akindofschoolEnglishwhichdoesnotseemtoexistoutsidetheforeignlanguageclassroom’(Mindt1996:232)Theorderinwhichthoseitemsaretaughtinnon-corpus-basedsyllabi‘veryoftendoesnotcorrespondtowhatonemightreasonablyexpectfromcorpusdataofspokenandwrittenEnglish’(ibid:245-6)Syllabusdesignandmaterialsdevelopment

Corporacanbeusefulinthisarea-asimpleyetimportantroleofcorporainlanguageteachingistoprovidemorerealisticexamplesoflanguageusagereflectingthenuancesandcomplexitiesofnaturallanguageCorporacanalsoprovidedata,especiallyfrequencydata,whichmayfurtherimpactonwhatistaught,andinwhatorderTouchstonebookseries(McCarthyetal2005-2006)BasedontheCambridgeInternationalCorpusAimingatpresentingthevocabulary,grammar,andlanguagefunctionsthatstudentsencountermostofteninreallifeSyllabusdesignandmaterialsdevelopment

Hunston(2002:189):‘Theexperienceofusingcorporashouldleadtoratherdifferentviewsofsyllabusdesign.’TheLexicalSyllabus(Willis1990),asimplementedintheCollinsCOBUILDEnglishCourse(Willis,WillisandDavids1988-1989)Threefocusesofalexicalsyllabus:‘(a)thecommonestwordformsinalanguage;(b)thecentralpatternsofusage;(c)thecombinationswhichtheyusuallyform’(SinclairandRenouf1988)Notasyllabusforvocabularyitemsonly,butrathercovering‘allaspectsoflanguage,differingfromaconventionalsyllabusonlyinthatthecentralconceptoforganizationislexis’(Hunston2002:189)LanguagetestingAnemergingareaoflanguageteachingwhichhasstartedtousethecorpus-basedapproachAlderson(1996)envisagedthefollowingpossibleusesofcorporainlanguagetestingtestconstruction,compilationandselection,testpresentation,responsecapture,testscoring,andcalculationanddeliveryofresults‘Thepotentialadvantagesofbasingourtestsonreallanguagedata,ofmakingdata-basedjudgmentsaboutcandidates’abilities,knowledgeandperformanceareclearenough.Acrucialquestioniswhetherthepossibleadvantagesarebornoutinpractice’(Alderson1996:258-259)LanguagetestingTheconcernraisedinAlderson’sconclusionappearstohavebeenaddressedsatisfactorily10yearslaterNowadays,computer-basedtestsareconsideredtobecomparabletopaper-basedtests(cf.Choi,KimandBoo2003),asexemplifiedbycomputer-basedversionsofTOFELtestsMajortestserviceproviderslikeUCLEShaverecentlyusedcorporaintesting(cf.Ball2001;Hunston2002:205)AsanarchiveofexaminationscriptsTodeveloptestmaterialsTooptimizetestproceduresToimprovethequalityoftestmarkingTovalidatetestsTostandardizetestsTeacherdevelopmentCorporahavebeenusedrecentlyinlanguageteachertrainingtoenhanceteachers’languageawarenessandresearchskillsRationale:Forstudentstobenefitfromtheuseofcorpora,teachersmustfirstofallbeequippedwithasoundknowledgeofthecorpus-basedapproachTheintegrationofcorpusstudiesinlanguageteachertrainingisonlyaquiterecentphenomenon(cf.Chambers2007)Itmaytakemoretime,and‘perhapsanewgenerationofteachers,forcorporatofindtheirwayintothelanguageclassroom’insecondaryeducation(Braun2007:308)DirectusesofcorporaLeech’s(1997)threedirectusesofcorporainteaching1)TeachingaboutTeachingcorpuslinguisticsasanacademicsubjectPartofthecurriculaforlinguisticsandlanguagerelateddegreeprogramsatbothpostgraduateandundergraduatelevel2)TeachingtoexploitProvidingstudentswith‘hands-on’know-howsothattheycanexploitcorporaasstudent-centredlearningactivities3)ExploitingtoteachUsingthecorpus-basedapproachtoteachinglanguageandlinguisticscourses,whichwouldotherwisebetaughtusingnon-corpus-basedmethods(1)and(3)aremainlyassociatedwithlanguage/linguisticsprogrammesFromthreeP’stothreeI’sThetraditionalthree-PapproachPresentation–Practice–ProductionTheexploratorythree-Iapproach(cf.CarterandMcCarthy1995)Illustration:lookingatrealdataInteraction:discussingandsharingopinionsandobservationsInduction:makingone’sownruleforaparticularfeature,which‘willberefinedandhonedasmoreandmoredataisencountered’(ibid1995:155)Data-drivenlearning(DDL)DirectuseofcorporainpedagogyisessentiallyDDLJohns(1991):‘researchistooserioustobelefttotheresearchers’Thelanguagelearnershouldbeencouragedtobecome‘aresearchworkerwhoselearningneedstobedrivenbyaccesstolinguisticdata’(Johns1991)Johns(1997:101)comparesthelearnertoalanguagedetective:‘EverystudentaSherlockHolmes!’HisDDLwebsitegivessomeverygoodexamplesofdata-drivenlearningwww.lancs.ac.uk/fass/projects/corpus/Kibbitzers/Kibbitzers.chw

Data-drivenlearning(DDL)TheDDLapproachinvolvesthreestagesofinductivereasoningwithcorpora(Johns1991)Observation(ofconcordancedevidence)Classification(ofsalientfeatures)Generalization(ofrules)RoughlycorrespondingtoCarterandMcCarthy’s(1995)threeI’sintheexploratorycorpus-basedapproach,butfundamentallydifferentfromthetraditionalthree-PapproachThree-Papproach:top-downdeductionThree-I/DDLapproach:bottom-upinductionData-drivenlearning(DDL)Canbeeitherteacher-directedorlearner-led(i.e.‘discoverylearning’)tosuittheneedsoflearnersatdifferentlevels,butbasicallylearner-centredLeech(1997:10):Theautonomouslearningprocess‘givesthestudenttherealisticexpectationofbreakingnewgroundasa“researcher”,doingsomethingwhichisauniqueandindividualcontribution’Thisistrueofadvancedlearnersonly!Thekeytosuccessfuldata-drivenlearningistheappropriatelevelofpedagogicalmediationdependingonthelearners’age,experience,andproficiencylevel,etc‘Acorpusisnotasimpleobject,anditisjustaseasytoderivenonsensicalconclusionsfromtheevidenceasinsightfulones’(Sinclair2004:2)Directuses:CurrentsituationSofarconfinedlargelytolearningatmoreadvancedlevels,especiallyintertiaryeducationAlmostabsentingeneralELTclassroom,e.g.secondaryeducation(andintheteachingofotherforeignlanguagesatalllevels)Learners’age,levelandexperienceTimeconstraintsandcurricularrequirementsKnowledgeandskillsrequiredofteachersforcorpusanalysisandpedagogicalmediationAccesstoappropriateresourcessuchascorporaandtools…orindeedprobablyacombinationofallofthesefactorsLSPfessionalcommunicationThirdfocusofconvergence:Developmentofteaching-orientedcorpora:LSP,parallel,andlearnercorporaTeachingoflanguageforspecificpurposesandprofessionalcommunicationcanbenefitgreatlyfromdomain-orgenre-specificspecializedcorporabothdirectlyandindirectly,e.g.Coxhead’s(2000)AcademicWordList(AWL)PaulNation’sRangeandGSL/AWLhttp://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nationBiber’s(2006)comprehensiveanalysisofuniversitylanguagebasedontheTOEFL2000SpokenandWrittenAcademicLanguageCorpusMcCarthyandHandford’s(2004)explorationofpedagogicalimplicationsregardingspokenbusinessEnglishonthebasisoftheCambridgeandNottinghamSpokenBusinessEnglishCorpus(CANBEC)LSPfessionalcommunicationSpecializedcorporaintranslationteaching‘Largecorporaconcordancing’(LCC)canhelpstudentstodevelop‘awareness’,‘reflectiveness’and‘resourcefulness’,theskillsthatdistinguishatranslatorfromthoseunskilledamateurs(Bernardini1997)Corporahelptraineetranslatorsbecomeawareofgeneralpatternsandpreferredwaysofexpressingthingsinthetargetlanguage,getbettercomprehensionofsourcelanguagetextsandimproveproductionskills(Zanettin1998)ComparableandparallelcorporaintranslationstudiesParallelconcordancingParallelcorporaandparallelconcordancingareparticularlyusefulintranslationteachingTheycanalsoaidtheso-called‘reciprocallearning’(Johns1997)i.e.twolanguagelearnerswithdifferentL1backgroundsarepairedtohelpeachotherlearntheirlanguageLearnercorporaWelcomedasoneofthemostexcitingrecentdevelopmentsincorpus-basedlanguagestudiesForindirectuse,theyhavebeenexploredtoinformcurriculumdesign,materialsdevelopmentandteachingmethodology(cf.Keck2004)Fordirectuse,theyprovideabottom-upapproachtolanguageteachingandlearning-asopposedtothetop-downapproachwithnativecorporaofthetargetlanguage(Osborne2002)LearnercorporaCanalsoprovideindirect,observable,andempiricalevidencefortheinvisiblementalprocessoflanguageacquisitionandserveasatestbedforhypothesesgeneratedusingthepsycholinguisticapproachinSLAresearchProvideanempiricalbasisenablingthefindingspreviouslymadeonthebasisoflimiteddataofahandfulofinformantstobegeneralizedHavewidenedthescopeofSLAresearchsothatinterlanguageresearchnowadaystreatslearnerperformancedatainitsownrightratherthanasdecontextualisederrorsintraditionalerroranalysis(cf.Granger1998:6)Ongoingdebate:Frequency&authenticityOftenconsideredastwoofthemostimportantadvantagesofusingcorporaAlsothetargetsofcriticismfromlanguagepedagogyresearchersCorpusdataimpoverisheslanguagelearningbygivingundueprominencetowhatissimplyfrequentattheexpenseofrarerbutmoreeffectiveorsalientexpressions(Cook1998)Corpusdataisauthenticonlyinaverylimitedsenseinthatitisde-contextualized–genuinebutnotauthentic(Widdowson1990,2000,2003)…flawedargumentsFrequency‘Usingcorpusdatanotonlyincreasesthechancesoflearnersbeingconfrontedwithrelativelyinfrequentinstancesoflanguageuse,butalsooftheirbeingabletoseeinwhatwaysuchusesareatypical,inwhatcontextstheydoappear,andhowtheyfitinwiththepatternofmoreprototypicaluses’(Osborne2001:486)‘Frequencyrankingwillbeaparameterforsequencingandgradinglearningmaterials’because‘frequencyisameasureofprobabilityofusefulness’and‘high-frequencywordsconstituteacorevocabularythatisusefulabovetheincidentalchoiceoftextofoneteacherortextbookauthor’(Goethals2003:424)FrequencyDoyouagree?‘Whatisfrequentinlanguagewillbepickedupbylearnersautomatically,preciselybecauseitisfrequent,andthereforedoesnothavetobeconsciouslylearned’(KaltenböckandMehlmauer-Larcher2005:78)Thisisnottrue,however–cross-linguisticdifferenceDeterminerssuchasaandthearecertainlyveryfrequentinEnglish,yettheyaredifficultforChineselearnersofEnglishbecausetheirmothertonguedoesnothavesuchgrammaticalmorphemesanddoesnotmaintainacount-massnoundistinctionFrequencyFrequency‘shouldbeonlyoneofthecriteriausedtoinfluenceinstruction’;‘thefactsaboutlanguageandlanguageusewhichemergefromcorpusanalysesshouldneverbeallowedtobecomeaburdenforpedagogy’(Kennedy1998:290)overallteachingobjectiveslearners’concretesituationscognitivesaliencelearnabilitygenerativevalueteachers’intuitionsFrequencyItwouldbeinappropriateforlanguageteachers,syllabusdesigners,andmaterialswriterstoignore‘compellingfrequencyevidencealreadyavailable’(Leech1997:16)‘Whatevertheimperfectionsofthesimpleequation“mostfrequent”=“mostimportanttolearn”,itisdifficulttodenythatfrequencyinformationbecomingavailablefromcorporahasanimportantempiricalinputtolanguagelearningmaterials.’Lech,G.(2011)‘WhyfrequencycannolongerbwignoredinELT’.外语教学与研究2011(1).Frequencycanatleasthelpsyllabusdesigners,materialswritersandteachersaliketomakebetter-informedandmorecarefullymotivateddecisions(cf.GavioliandAston2001:239)AuthenticityCorpusdataareauthenticbydefinitionWiddowson(1990,2000)questionstheuseofauthentictextsinlanguageteachingAuthenticityoflanguageintheclassroomis‘anillusion’(1990:44)becauseeventhoughcorpusdatamaybeauthenticinonesense,itsauthenticityofpurposeisdestroyedbyitsusewithanunintendedaudienceoflanguagelearnersAuthenticityWiddowson’s(2003)distinctionbetweengenuineness(featuresoftextasaproduct)vs.authenticity(featuresofdiscourseasa

process)Corporaaregenuineinthattheycompriseattestedlanguageuse,buttheyarenot

authenticforlanguageteachingbecausetheircontexts(asopposedtoco-texts)havebeendeprivedImplication?Onlylanguageproducedforimaginarysituationsintheclassroomis‘authentic’AuthenticityProduct(text)cess(discourse)InterestingbutnotalwaysusefulUsingproductasevidenceforprocessmaynotbelessreliable;sometimesthisistheonlypracticalwayoffindingaboutprocess(cf.Stubbs2001)Stubbs(2001)drawsaparallelbetweencorporaincorpuslinguisticsandrocksingeology‘bothassumearelationbetweenprocessandproduct.Byandlarge,theprocessesareinvisible,andmustbeinferredfromtheproducts.’AuthenticityLikegeologistswhostudyrocks(products)becausetheyareinterestedingeologicalprocesses(e.g.earthquakes,volcanoes)towhichtheydonothavedirectaccess,SLAresearcherscananalyzelearnerperformancedata(products)toinfertheinaccessiblementalprocessofSLAAuthenticityIfwedofollowWiddowson’sdistinction…Genuine:attestedAuthentic:occurringinrealcommunicativecontext…aretheimaginarysituationsconjuredupforclassroomteachingauthentic?Dotheyoccurinrealcommunicativecontext?Whenstudentsarelearningandpractisingashopping‘discourse’,aretheyactuallydoingshopping?AuthenticityFurthermore,inventedexamplesoftendonotreflectnuancesandcomplexitiesofrealusage(Fox1987)Studentswhohavebeentaught‘schoolEnglish’cannotreadilycopewithEnglishusedbynativespeakersinreallife(Mindt1996:232)‘Thepreferencefor“authentic”textsrequiresbothlearnersandteacherstocopewithlanguagewhichthetextbooksdonotpredict’(Wichmann1997:xvi)CorporaareusefulforthispurposeCorpus-basedpedagogy:TodayCurrently,corporaappeartohaveplayedamoreimportantroleinhelpingtodecidewhattoteach(i.e.indirectuses)thanhowtoteach(i.e.directuses)IndirectusesofcorporaseemtobewellestablishedDirectusesofcorporainteachingarelargelyconfinedtotertiaryeducationandarenearlyabsentingenerallanguageclassroomFromtodaytotomorrowIfcorporaaretobefurtherpopularisedtomoregenerallanguageteachingcontext,therearetwoprioritiesinnearfutureCorpuslinguistsmustcreateandfacilitateaccesstocorporathatarepedagogicallymotivated,inbothdesignandcontent,tomeetpedagogicalneedsandcurricularrequirementssothatcorpus-basedlearningactivitiesbecomeanintegralpart,ratherthananadditionaloption,oftheoveralllanguagecurriculumLanguageteachersshouldbeprovided,throughpre-servicetrainingorcontinuedprofessionaldevelopment,withtherequiredknowledgeandskillsforcorpusanalysisandpedagogicalmediationofcorpus-basedlearningactivitiesCorpus-basedpedagogy:TomorrowIfthesetwotasksareaccomplished,itismyviewthatcorporawillnotonly‘revolutionizetheteachingofgrammar’inthe21stcenturyasConrad(2000:549)haspredicted,theywillalsofundamentallychange,withtheaidofanewgenerationofteachers,thewaysweapproachlanguageteaching,includingbothwhatistaughtandhowitistaughtUsingCCLtoinformSLAIntroducingContrastiveCorpusLinguistics(CCL)Presentingabriefsummaryoftherelevantfindingsinacorpus-basedcontrastivestudyofpassivesinEnglishandChinese(Xiao,McEneryandQian2006)ExploringpassivesintheChineselearnerEnglishCorpus(CLEC)incomparisonwithacomparablenativeEnglishcorpusContrastivecorpuslinguisticsContrastiveanalysis(CA)RecognisedasanimportantpartofforeignlanguageteachingmethodologyfollowingWWIIDominantthroughoutthe1960sButsoonlostgroundtomorelearner-orientedapproachessuchaserroranalysis,performanceanalysisandinterlanguageanalysisRevivedinthe1990s…largelythankstotheadvancesofthecorpusmethodology,whichisinherentlycomparativeinnature(Salki2002,Xiao2011)ContrastiveCorpusLinguisticsbringstogetherthestrengthsofcontrastiveanalysisandcorpusanalysisContrastivecorpuslinguisticsPparablecorporaParallelcorpus:sourcetextsplustranslationsComparablecorpus:differentnativelanguagessampledwithcomparablesamplingcriteriaandsimilarbalanceCanparallelcorporabeusedincontrastivestudies?‘translationequivalenceisthebestavailablebasisofcomparison’(James1980:178)‘studiesbasedonrealtranslationsaretheonlysoundmethodforcontrastiveanalysis’(Santos1996:i)ContrastivecorpuslinguisticsTranslatedlanguageismerelyanunrepresentativespecialvariantofthetargetnativelanguagewhichisperceptiblyinfluencedbythesourcelanguage...unreliableforcontrastiveanalysisifrelieduponaloneBaker1993;Gellerstam1996;Teubert1996;Laviosa1997;McEneryandWilson2001;McEneryandXiao2002;McEneryandXiao2007;XiaoandYue2009,Xiao2010,2011,2012Incontrast,comparablecorporaarewellsuitedforcontrastivestudyastheyareunaffectedbytranslationeseContrastivecorpuslinguisticsComparablecorporainthisstudyTwoEnglishcorporaFreiburg-LOB(FLOB)BNCdemo(4Mwordsofconversations)TwoChinesecorporaLancasterCorpusofMandarinChinese(LCMC)LDCCallHomeMandarinTranscripts:300KwordsEnglishandChinesedataarecomparableincompositionsandsamplingperiodsProvidingareliablebasisforthecross-linguisticcontrastofpassivesinthetwolanguagesEnglishvs.Chinesepassives(1)TentimesasfrequentinEnglishasinChineseDynamicityPragmaticmeaningDifferenthabitualtendencyUnmarkednotionalpassivesChineselearnersofEnglishareverylikelytounderusepassivesintheirinterlanguageEnglishvs.Chinesepassives(2)PassiveformationEnglishpassivesAuxiliarybe/getfollowedbyapastparticipialverbChinesepassivesPassivisedverbsdonotinflectmorphologicallyAlsothenotionofauxiliaryverbsislesssalientinChineseSyntacticpassives

(e.g.被,叫,让)Lexicalpassives(e.g.挨,受（到）,遭（到）)Unmarkednotionalpassiveandtopicsentences(topic+comment)Specialstructures(e.g.disposal把andpredicative是…的)ChoiceofcorrectauxiliariesandproperinflectionalformsofpassivisedverbscanconstituteadifficultareaforChineselearnerstoacquireEnglishpassivesEnglishvs.Chinesepassives(3)Longvs.shortpassivesShortpassivesarepredominantinEnglish(over90%inspeechandwriting)Oftenusedasastrategythatallowsonetoavoidmentioningtheagentwhenitcannotormustnotbementioned3outof5syntacticpassivemarkersinChinese(为…所,叫,

让)

onlyoccurinlongpassivesFor被and给passives,proportionsofshortforms(60.7%and57.5%respectively)aresignificantlylowerthaninEnglishTheagentmustnormallybespeltoutatearlystagesofChinese,thoughtheconstraintshavebecomemorerelaxedChineselearnersofEnglishareexpectedtooveruselongpassivesandunderuseshortpassivesEnglishvs.Chinesepassives(4)ChinesepassivesaremorefrequentlyusedwithaninflictivemeaningChinesepassiveswereusedatearlystagesprimarilyforunpleasantorundesirableevents(bei,“suffer”)MarkingnegativepragmaticmeaningsisnotabasicfeatureoftheEnglishpassivenorm(bepassives)Get-passivessometimes(37.7%ofthetime)refertoundesirableeventsChineselearnersaremorelikelytouseEnglishpassivesforundesirablesituationsInterlanguageofChineselearnersCLEC(learndata):theChineseLearnerEnglishCorpusOnemillionwordsEssaysFiveproficiencylevels(highschoolstudentsanduniversitystudents)Fullyannotatedwithlearnererrorsusingatagsetof61errortypesclusteredin11categoriesLOCNESS(controldata):theLouvainCorpusofNativeEnglishEssaysca.300,000wordsEssaysBritishA-LevelchildrenandBritishandAmericanuniversitystudentsRoughlycomparableintermsoftasktype,learnerageandsamplingperiodUnderuseofpassivesCorpusWordsPassivesFrequencyper100KwordsLLscorepvalueCLEC1,070,6029,711907LL=1235.61.d.f.p<0.001LOCNESS324,3045,4651,685Longvs.shortpassivesAscanbeexpectedfromthecontrastiveanalysis,incomparisonwithnativeEnglishwriting,longpassivesaremorefrequentinChineselearnerEnglishLongpassivesinCLEC9.14%:888outof9,711LongpassivesinLOCNESS8.44%:461outof5,465...thedifferenceismarginalandnotstatisticallysignificantLL=2.184,1d.f.,p=0.139PragmaticmeaningsPassivesaremorefrequentlynegativeinChineselearnerEnglishCLECNegative:25.7%Positive:5.9%Neutral:68.4%LOCNESSNegative:16.8%Positive:4.4%Neutral:78.8%LL=7.4,2d.f.,p=0.025Consistentwithearlierfinding(50.5%vs.15%)Passiveerrorsvs.learnerlevelsErrortypesvs.learnerlevelsErrortypesareassociatedwithlearnerlevelswhenthedatasetistakenasawholeLL=51.774,12d.f.,p<0.001ButsimilarlearnergroupsalsoshowsimilarerrortypesST2>>ST3:statisticallysignificant(LL=27.303,3d.f.,p<0.001)ST3>>ST4:notsignificant(LL=6.955,3d.f.,p=0.073)ST4>>ST5:statisticallysignificant(LL=18.563,3d.f.,p<0.001)ST5>>ST6:notsignificant(LL=6.987,3d.f.,p=0.072)

ST2ST3/ST4

ST5/ST6

(High(Junior/Senior

(Junior/Senior school

non-English

Englishmajor students)

majorstudents)

students)UnderuseerrorsLikelytobearesultofL1transfer,ascanbepredictedfromresultsofcross-linguisticcontrastandconfirmedbythelearner-nativecorpuscomparisonTypicallyoccurwithverbswhoseChineseequivalentsarenotnormallyusedinpassives,e.g.AbirthdaypartywillholdinLily’shouse.(ST2)ThewomaninwhitecalledAnneCatherick.(ST5)AlsooccurundertheinfluenceoftheChinesetopicsentenceThesupperhaddone.(ST2)

晚饭

<*bei>

做好