A Corpus-based Study of Connectors: Research from the CAS Learner Corpus of English Essays

Haiyang Ai, Gong PengGraduate University, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Outline of the talk

Introduction

Previous Studies

Methodology and Corpus Building

Results and Discussion

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication

Definition of connectors

Connectors are devices used to state the relationship between units of discourse (Biber et al, 1999)

Including conjunctions, some adverbs (e.g. firstly, namely, alternatively), and some prepositional phrases (e.g. in brief, in fact, of course)

Classification of connectors

Quirk et al’s (1985) framework

A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language

Adding of corroborative category - (Granger & Tyson, 1996)- (Altenberg & Tapper, 1998)

Quirk et al’s (1985) framework

listing

enumerative e.g. for a star, finally

additiveequative e.g. in the same way, likewise

reinforcing e.g. moreover, further

summative e.g. in sum, altogether

appositive e.g. for example, namely

resultive e.g. as a result, consequently

inferential e.g. therefore, in that case, otherwise

contrastive

reformulatory e.g. more precisely, rather

replacive e.g. better, again

antithetic e.g. by contrast, instead

concessive e.g. in any case, however

transitionaldiscoursal e.g. by the way, incidentally

temporal e.g. in the meantime, meanwhile

Connectors investigated (68 items) Listing:

first, second, third, firstly, secondly, thirdly, finally, furthermore, in addition, moreover, lastly, last but not least, to begin with, for another, in the first place, in the second place, similarly, for one thing, for another

Summative: to sum up, to conclude, in summary, in short, in brief, in conclusion, overall, all in all, altogether

Appositive: that is, that is to say, in other words, for instance, for example, namely, e.g.( eg), i.e.( ie)

Connectors investigated (68 items)

Resultive: consequently, hence, therefore, thus, as a result, as a consequence, in consequence,

Inferential: otherwise, in that case Contrastive:

however, although, (even) though, on the other hand, instead, after all, on the contrary, in contrast, besides, nevertheless, anyway, still, by contrast, nonetheless, alternatively

Transitional:meanwhile, eventually, subsequently, originally

Corroborative: actually, in fact, of course, indeed, apparently

Rationales to use corpus data

Corpus data are real and authentic => empirical study

Combines intuitions of many, more objective (McEnergy & Wilson, 2001)

Corpora are precious resources for testing out linguistic hypothesis (Meyer, 2002)

Learner corpus serves as the meeting point of corpus linguistics and SLA (Granger 1998) => pioneer: Sylviane Granger, ICLE

Research questions

What’s the semantic distribution?

What’s the top 10 most frequently used connectors?

Which connectors are overused?

What’s the differences and similarities compared with related studies, and why (universal features vs. transfer-related?)

Hypothesis

Hypothesis: PhD students at GUCAS would overuse c

onnectors in their English writings

Formulated based on Previous studies from HK and Taiwan

(Crewe 1990, Field & Yip 1992, Milton & Tsang 1993, Bolton et al 2002, Chen 2006)

The author’s own observation

Significance

Systematic and corpus-based connector studies on PhD students writing of in GUCAS => shed some light on the everlasting cohesion & coherence problems in ESL/EFL writing

Quantitative analysis can provide teachers (esp. at GUCAS) with a better idea on what needs to be done

The construction of the CASCLEE computer learner corpus itself (Resources)

Outline again

Approaching Connectors

Previous Studies

Methodology and Corpus Building

Results and Discussion

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication

Previous corpus-based studies Milton & Tsang (1993)

high ratio of overuse of entire range of connectors (HKUST vs. Brown, LOB)

Granger & Tyson (1996) 108 connectors, CIA method overuse <= L1 transfer

Altenberg & Tapper (1998) timed + untimed essays underuse (resultive, contrastive) <=

prefer less formal connectors

Previous corpus-based studies

Bolton et al (2002)

Overuse exists in both groups, ICE-HK vs. ICE-GB

Raised 3 methodological issues

Chen (2006)

Latest, published on IJCL, Taiwanese EFL Learners

Slightly overused connectors

Increase learner’s register differences

Outline

Introduction

Previous Studies

Methodology and Corpus Building

Results and Discussion

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication

Corpus building

Corpus name: CASCLEE - CAS Corpus of Learner English Essays

Corpus Size: 494 essays, 120, 836 words, covering timed and untimed writings

Data analysis: WordSmith Tool 4.0 + Manual Extraction

Sampling & Representativeness Learner Background & Register of text

Method: CIA

Contrastive interlanguage analysis (Granger 1996) L2 vs. L1

L2 vs. L2

Reference corpora

Informative Writings of BNC Sampler Corpus (L1)

The ICLE French Subcorpus (L2)

Outline

Introduction

Previous Studies

Methodology and Corpus Building

Results and Discussion

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication

Overall frequencies (normalised)

Overall Connector Usage

131.9

46.7

99.5

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

CASCLEE BNC Sampler-Informative

ICLE-French

The Three Corpora

Per 1

0, 0

00 w

ords

Semantic distributionSemantic Distribution of Connectors in the Three Corpora

577.6

77.8116.7

84.4

18.2

322.8

11.6

110.1

44.74.7

53.675.0

8.1

192.8

25.062.7

116.1

28.4

196.5

137.2

12.5

264.7

14.2

225.9

0. 0

100. 0

200. 0

300. 0

400. 0

500. 0

600. 0

700. 0

listin

g

sum

mat

ive

appo

sitiona

l

resu

ltive

infe

rent

ial

cont

rast

ive

trans

ition

al

corrob

orat

ive

categories

per

10

0,

00

0 w

ord

s

CASCLEE NF BNC Sampler-Informative NF ICLE-French NF

Top 10 most frequently used connectors

Rank CASCLEE BNC Sampler-info. ICLE-French

1 first however indeed

2 second although however

3 however thus therefore

4 secondly (even) though of course

5 for example therefore moreover

6 although for example for example

7 (even) though of course for instance

8 finally indeed in fact

9 firstly instead thus

10 of course in addition on the other hand

Quantitative difference: Overuse

Overused connectors

Group A (see Table 4)

Group B (see Table 5)

Comparing with related studies

Altenberg & Tapper (1998)Overuse of furthermore, for instance, still, of course (CASCLEE also)

Bolten et al (2002)overuse both exist in ICE-HK & ICE-GB

Chen (2006) slightly overused

Major findings

PhD students overused a whole range of connectors (hypothesis supported)

They significantly overused listing and summative connectors

Overuse of connectors exist both in CASCLEE and ICLE French subcorpus

Outline

Introduction

Previous Studies

Methodology and Corpus Building

Results and Discussion

Conclusion and Pedagogical

Implication

Conclusion

Objectives and contributions Build the CASCLEE learner corpus Analyzing connectors based on Quirk et al (1

985) framework Methodology: contrastive interlanguage analysi

s L1 vs. L2 (CASCLE vs. BNC Sampler-info) L2 vs. L2 (CASCLEE vs. ICLE-French)

Pedagogical Implication

Pedagogical implication Focus on contrastive, resultive and appositional connect

ors, over 70% Listing connectors should be addressed Correct forms of connectors

Looking forward… More large-scale, corpus-based studies on EFL

learners’ connector usage

Probe into the possible causes for certain connector usage patterns

The End !