1,155 research outputs found

    Word sense disambiguation criteria: a systematic study

    Full text link
    This article describes the results of a systematic in-depth study of the criteria used for word sense disambiguation. Our study is based on 60 target words: 20 nouns, 20 adjectives and 20 verbs. Our results are not always in line with some practices in the field. For example, we show that omitting non-content words decreases performance and that bigrams yield better results than unigrams

    The TALANA treebank for French

    Get PDF

    The Current Treatment of English Phrasal Verbs in MEXT-authorized textbooks for Japanese Junior High School Students

    Get PDF
    This comparative analysis, focusing on the 150 highest-frequency phrasal verbs in the phrasal verb pedagogical list (Garnier and Schmitt, 2015), highlights the limited occurrence across English language textbooks for Japanese junior high school. The spoken and written data of Japanese learners of English (i.e., NICT-JLE and NICE) shows considerable differences in the usage patterns of phrasal verbs compared to native English speakers. These results indicated that Japanese learnersโ€™ underdeveloped productive knowledge of phrasal verbs could cause intelligibility problems with native speakers especially in oral communication. In order to overcome the semantic and phonological complexity of phrasal verbs, and to break away from one-word verb dependence, the textbook authors should distinguish spoken grammar from written grammar, and focus more on word frequency data based on large-scale corpora. The well-balanced word inputs from the textbooks would fully support the usersโ€™ healthy language development without avoiding useful words for real-life English speaking

    ํ•œ๊ตญ ๋Œ€ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๋…ผ์ฆ์  ์—์„ธ์ด์— ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚œ ์ ˆ๊ณผ ๊ตฌ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์˜ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ(์„์‚ฌ) -- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ์‚ฌ๋ฒ”๋Œ€ํ•™ ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด๊ต์œก๊ณผ(์˜์–ด์ „๊ณต), 2023. 2. ์˜ค์„ ์˜.์˜์–ด ๊ธ€์“ฐ๊ธฐ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ์— ๊ด€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค์€ ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์  ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ(grammatical complexity)์„ ํ•™์Šต์ž์˜ ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„๋ฅผ ๊ตฌ๋ณ„ํ•˜๋Š” ์ค‘์š”ํ•œ ์ง€ํ‘œ๋กœ ์ธ์‹ํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ดˆ๊ธฐ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค์€ ์ฃผ๋กœ ์ ˆ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ(clausal complexity)์— ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ํ•ด ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์  ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์„ ์ธก์ •ํ•˜์˜€์ง€๋งŒ, ์ตœ๊ทผ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค์€ ๊ตฌ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ(phrasal complexity)์— ์ดˆ์ ์„ ๋‘๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๋ณ€ํ™”๋Š” ์ ˆ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์ด ์ผ์ƒ ๋Œ€ํ™”๊ฐ€ ๊ฐ€์ง„ ํŠน์ง•์œผ๋กœ ๊ธ€์“ฐ๊ธฐ์˜ ์ดˆ๊ธฐ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ ๋‹จ๊ณ„๋ฅผ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ด๋Š” ๋ฐ˜๋ฉด, ๊ตฌ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ, ํŠนํžˆ ๋ช…์‚ฌ๊ตฌ์˜ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์€ ํ•™๋ฌธ์  ๊ธ€(academic writing)์ด ๊ฐ€์ง„ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์˜ ์ „ํ˜•์œผ๋กœ์จ ๋†’์€ ์ˆ˜์ค€์˜ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ ๋‹จ๊ณ„๋ฅผ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ธ๋‹ค๋Š” ์ธ์‹์— ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ํ•˜๊ณ  ์žˆ๋‹ค. ํ•˜์ง€๋งŒ ์ผ๋ถ€ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค์€ ๋ช…์‚ฌ๊ตฌ์˜ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์ด ๊ธ€์“ฐ๊ธฐ ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„์™€ ํฐ ๊ด€๋ จ์ด ์—†๋‹ค๋Š” ์ƒ๋ฐ˜๋œ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋ฅผ ๋ณด์ด๊ณ  ์žˆ๋Š”๋ฐ, ์ด๋Š” ๋Œ€๋ถ€๋ถ„์˜ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋“ค์ด ํ•™์Šต์ž ๋ชจ๊ตญ์–ด๊ฐ€ ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์  ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์— ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•˜์ง€ ์•Š๊ณ  ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•œ ๋ชจ๊ตญ์–ด๋ฅผ ๊ฐ€์ง„ ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์— ์˜ํ•ด ๋งŒ๋“ค์–ด์ง„ ์ฝ”ํผ์Šค๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ–ˆ๊ธฐ ๋•Œ๋ฌธ์ผ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. ์ด์— ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ๋Œ€ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์ด ์ž‘์„ฑํ•œ ๊ธ€์„ ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์—ฌ ์ ˆ๊ณผ ๊ตฌ์˜ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์ด ๊ธ€์“ฐ๊ธฐ ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„์™€ ์—ฐ๊ด€์„ฑ์ด ์žˆ๋Š”์ง€ ์‚ดํŽด๋ณด๊ณ , ๊ทธ๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ด€์„ฑ์— ํฌ๊ฒŒ ๊ธฐ์—ฌํ•œ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ ํŠน์ง•๋“ค์„ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์  ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์˜ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ ํŒจํ„ด์„ ์ถ”์ •ํ•˜๊ณ ์ž ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๊ธ€์„ ์งˆ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์—ฌ, ํŠน์ • ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ ํŠน์ง•์„ ๊ตฌํ˜„ํ•  ๋•Œ ์ž์ฃผ ์“ฐ์ด๋Š” ์–ดํœ˜์™€ ์˜ค๋ฅ˜ ๋นˆ๋„ ๋ฐ ์œ ํ˜•์„ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„ ์ง‘๋‹จ ๊ฐ„์˜ ์ฐจ์ด๋ฅผ ๋” ์ž์„ธํžˆ ๋ฌ˜์‚ฌํ•˜๊ณ ์ž ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์— ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋œ ์ฝ”ํผ์Šค๋Š” ์—ฐ์„ธ ์˜์–ด ํ•™์Šต์ž ์ฝ”ํผ์Šค(Yonsei English Learner Corpus, YELC 2011)์—์„œ ์ถ”์ถœํ•œ 234๊ฐœ์˜ ๋…ผ์ฆ์  ์—์„ธ์ด๋กœ ๊ตฌ์„ฑ๋˜์–ด ์žˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ์ด๋Š” CEFR์— ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ํ•˜์—ฌ ์ดˆ๊ธ‰, ์ค‘๊ธ‰, ๊ณ ๊ธ‰์˜ ๊ธ€์“ฐ๊ธฐ ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„๋ฅผ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ด๋Š” ์„ธ ๊ฐœ์˜ ํ•˜์œ„ ์ฝ”ํผ์Šค๋กœ ๊ตฌ๋ถ„๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ํ’ˆ์‚ฌ ํƒœ๊น…๋œ ์ฝ”ํผ์Šค๋ฅผ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ ์ •๊ทœํ‘œํ˜„์‹(regular expressions)์„ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ, Biber et al. (2011)์ด ์ œ์•ˆํ•œ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ๋‹จ๊ณ„์— ์žˆ๋Š” 9๊ฐœ์˜ ์ ˆ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ ํŠน์ง•๊ณผ 8๊ฐœ์˜ ๊ตฌ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ ํŠน์ง•์„ ์ถ”์ถœํ•˜์—ฌ ๊ฐ๊ฐ์˜ ๋นˆ๋„๋ฅผ ๊ณ„์‚ฐํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ํ”ผ์–ด์Šจ ์นด์ด์ œ๊ณฑ๊ฒ€์ •(a Pearson Chi-square test) ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ๊ธ€์“ฐ๊ธฐ ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„๊ฐ€ ์ ˆ๊ณผ ๊ตฌ์˜ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ๊ณผ ์œ ์˜ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ด€์„ฑ์ด ์žˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฒฐ๋ก ์ด ๋„์ถœ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์‚ฌํ›„๊ฒ€์ •์œผ๋กœ ์ž”์ฐจ ๋ถ„์„(a residual analysis)์„ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•œ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ํŠนํžˆ 5๊ฐœ ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ ํŠน์ง•์ด ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ด€์„ฑ์— ํฌ๊ฒŒ ๊ธฐ์—ฌํ–ˆ์Œ์ด ๋ฐํ˜€์กŒ๋‹ค. ์ฃผ๋ชฉํ•  ๋งŒํ•œ ๋ฐœ๊ฒฌ์€ ๊ฐ ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„ ์ง‘๋‹จ์˜ ์ฃผ์š” ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ ํŠน์ง•์ด Biber et al. (2011)์ด ์ œ์•ˆํ•œ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ๋‹จ๊ณ„์™€ ์ผ์น˜ํ•˜๋ฉฐ ๋”ฐ๋ผ์„œ ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ๋Œ€ํ•™์ƒ์˜ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ ํŒจํ„ด์ด ๋‘ ๊ฐœ์˜ ๋งค๊ฐœ๋ณ€์ˆ˜, ์ฆ‰ (1) ๊ตฌ์กฐ์  ํ˜•ํƒœ์™€ (2) ํ†ต์‚ฌ์  ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์— ์˜ํ•ด ์„ค๋ช…๋  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ์ ์ด๋‹ค. ์ฆ‰, ํ•œ๊ตญ ๋Œ€ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์  ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์€ (i) ์ ˆ์˜ ๊ตฌ์„ฑ ์„ฑ๋ถ„์œผ๋กœ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅํ•˜๋Š” ์ •ํ˜• ์ข…์†์ ˆ(finite dependent clauses functioning as clause constituents)์ธ ๋ถ€์‚ฌ์ ˆ์˜ ๋นˆ๋ฒˆํ•œ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์—์„œ (ii) ๋ช…์‚ฌ๊ตฌ์˜ ๊ตฌ์„ฑ ์„ฑ๋ถ„์œผ๋กœ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅํ•˜๋Š” ์ •ํ˜• ์ข…์†์ ˆ(finite clause types function as NP constituents)์ธ WH ๊ด€๊ณ„์ ˆ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์˜์กด์„ ๊ฑฐ์ณ (iii) ๋ช…์‚ฌ๊ตฌ์˜ ๊ตฌ์„ฑ ์„ฑ๋ถ„์œผ๋กœ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅํ•˜๋Š” ์ข…์†๊ตฌ(dependent phrasal structures functioning as noun phrase constituents)์ธ of ์ „์น˜์‚ฌ๊ตฌ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์„ ํ˜ธ๋กœ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ์˜ˆ์ƒ๊ณผ ๋‹ฌ๋ฆฌ, ๋ช…์‚ฌ์˜ ์„ ์ˆ˜์‹์–ด(premodifier)๋กœ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋˜๋Š” ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ ๋ฐ ๋ช…์‚ฌ์˜ ๋นˆ๋„๋Š” ๊ธ€์“ฐ๊ธฐ ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„์™€ ํฐ ์—ฐ๊ด€์„ฑ์ด ์—†๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ฌ๋‹ค. ์ด์— ๊ด€ํ•ด ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๊ธ€์„ ์งˆ์  ๋ถ„์„ํ•œ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ์ฒซ์งธ, ์ดˆ๊ธ‰ ์ˆ˜์ค€์˜ ๊ธ€์€ ์“ฐ๊ธฐ ์ง€์‹œ๋ฌธ(writing prompts)์— ์ œ์‹œ๋œ ํ˜•์šฉ์‚ฌ+๋ช…์‚ฌ ์กฐํ•ฉ์„ ๋ฐ˜๋ณต์ ์œผ๋กœ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒฝํ–ฅ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ๋‘˜์งธ, ๋ช…์‚ฌ+๋ช…์‚ฌ ๊ตฌ์กฐ์™€ ๊ด€๋ จํ•œ ์˜ค๋ฅ˜๊ฐ€ ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„๊ฐ€ ๋†’์•„์งˆ์ˆ˜๋ก ํ˜„์ €ํžˆ ๋‚ฎ์•„์ง€๋Š” ๊ฒฝํ–ฅ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ๋งˆ์ง€๋ง‰์œผ๋กœ, ๋ณด์–ด์ ˆ(complement clauses)๊ณผ ๊ด€๋ จํ•ด์„œ๋Š” ๋ชจ๋“  ๋Šฅ์ˆ™๋„ ์ˆ˜์ค€์˜ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์ด ๋งค์šฐ ํ•œ์ •์ ์ธ ์ข…๋ฅ˜์˜ ํ†ต์ œ ๋ช…์‚ฌ(controlling nouns)๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ–ˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ, ํ•™๋ฌธ์ ์ธ ๊ธ€ ๋ณด๋‹ค๋Š” ์ผ์ƒ ๋Œ€ํ™”์—์„œ ์“ฐ์ด๋Š” ํ†ต์ œ ๋™์‚ฌ(controlling verbs)๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋Š” ํฌ๊ฒŒ ์„ธ๊ฐ€์ง€ ๊ต์œก์  ํ•จ์˜๋ฅผ ์‹œ์‚ฌํ•œ๋‹ค. ์ฒซ์งธ, ๊ฒฝํ—˜์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋„์ถœ๋œ ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์  ๋ณต์žก์„ฑ์˜ ๋ฐœ๋‹ฌ ๋‹จ๊ณ„๋ฅผ ์ƒ์„ธํ•œ ํ‰๊ฐ€ ์ฒ™๋„ ์„ค๋ช…์ž(rating scale descriptors) ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ๊ณผ ๋ณด๋‹ค ๋งž์ถคํ™” ๋œ ์ˆ˜์—… ์„ค๊ณ„๋ฅผ ์œ„ํ•ด ํ™œ์šฉํ•ด์•ผ ํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋‘˜์งธ, ํ•™๋ฌธ์ ์ธ ๊ธ€์—์„œ ๋ณด์–ด์ ˆ๊ณผ ํ•จ๊ป˜ ์ž์ฃผ ์‚ฌ์šฉ๋˜๋Š” ํ†ต์ œ ๋ช…์‚ฌ ๋ฐ ๋™์‚ฌ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ๊ต์‹ค ์ˆ˜์—…์„ ํ†ตํ•ด, ํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์ด ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์  ๊ตฌ์กฐ๋ฅผ ํ•™๋ฌธ์ ์ธ ์–ดํœ˜๋กœ ์‹คํ˜„ํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋„๋ก ํ•ด์•ผ ํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋งˆ์ง€๋ง‰์œผ๋กœ, ํŠนํžˆ ๋ช…์‚ฌ๋ฅผ ์„ ์ˆ˜์‹ํ•˜๋Š” ๋ช…์‚ฌ ๋ฐ ๊ด€๊ณ„๋Œ€๋ช…์‚ฌ์ ˆ์˜ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์— ์žˆ์–ด ํ•™์Šต์ž์˜ ๊ธ€์—์„œ ์ž์ฃผ ๋ฐœ๊ฒฌ๋˜๋Š” ์˜ค๋ฅ˜๋ฅผ ์‹œ์ •ํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ, ๋ฌธ๋ฒ• ๊ตฌ์กฐ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ์ •ํ™•์„ฑ์„ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์‹œ์ผœ์•ผ ํ•œ๋‹ค.Studies that explore L2 writing development identify grammatical complexity as a primary discriminator for different proficiency levels of L2 writers. In the 1990s, grammatical complexity in L2 writing was often measured by clausal complexity, but the kind of complexity that has recently received particular attention is phrasal complexity. Such a move follows the recognition that clausal complexity represents the complexity of conversation and beginning levels of writing development, whereas phrasal complexity, specifically noun phrase complexity, represents the complexity of academic writing and advanced developmental levels. Some L2 writing studies, however, have yielded conflicting results, showing that phrasal features as noun modifiers have little predictive power for writing quality. One possible reason underlying these inconsistent results might be that most studies in this area have used corpus data from learners of heterogenous L1 backgrounds with no consideration for the significant effect of L1 on the use of complexity features in L2 writing. Thus, this study analyzed essay samples produced only by L1 Korean writers to investigate whether clausal and phrasal complexity is associated with L2 writing proficiency and, if so, what developmental patterns can be observed based on complexity features that contribute substantially to the association. A qualitative analysis of student writing was followed up to provide a detailed description of proficiency-level differences, especially with respect to lexical realizations and error types associated with specific complexity features. The corpus used in the present study contained 234 argumentative essays written by first-year college students, including 78 low-rated essays (A1 and A1+ levels of the CEFR), 78 mid-rated essays (B1 and B1+ levels of the CEFR), and 78 high-rated essays (B2+, C1, and C2 levels of the CEFR). Drawing on Biber et al.s (2011) developmental index, the nine clausal and eight phrasal complexity features were extracted from the tagged corpus using regular expressions to measure the frequency of each feature. The result of a Pearson Chi-square test demonstrated a statistically significant association between the three proficiency levels and the use of clausal and phrasal complexity features. The post-hoc residual analysis revealed five complexity features with great contribution to the association: finite adverbial clause, noun complement clause, WH relative clause, prepositional phrase (of), and prepositional phrase (other). Especially noteworthy is the finding that the main source of complexity at each proficiency level agrees with its corresponding developmental stage reported by Biber et al. (2011), and thus, developmental patterns for Korean college students are successfully explained by two parameters: (1) structural form (finite dependent clauses vs. dependent phrases) and (2) syntactic function (clause constituents vs. noun phrase constituents). Specifically, the development proceeds from (i) clausal complexity mainly via finite adverbial clauses (i.e., finite dependent clauses functioning as clause constituents); through (ii) the intermediate stage of heavy reliance on WH relative clauses (i.e., finite clause types functioning as noun phrase constituents); to finally (iii) phrasal complexity primarily via prepositional phrases (of) (i.e., phrasal structures functioning as noun phrase constituents). Surprisingly, premodifying adjectives and nouns were found to have no significant association with L2 writing proficiency despite being noun-modifying phrasal features. The subsequent qualitative analysis of student writing, however, illustrated greater proficiency of the highly rated essays in using these features in two regards. First, the lower-rated essays drew much more heavily on adjective-noun sequences presented in writing prompts than the higher-rated essays. Second, the number of errors in the composition of noun-noun sequences noticeably decreased in the higher-rated essays. The qualitative observation concerning that-complement clauses, on the other hand, identified the reliance on a limited set of controlling nouns and conversational styles of controlling verbs in student writing across proficiency levels. Three main pedagogical implications are provided based on the findings: (i) the use of empirically derived developmental stages to create detailed rating scale descriptors and provide more customized writing courses on the use of complexity features; (ii) the need for classroom instruction on common academic controlling nouns and verbs used in that complement clauses given the importance of academically oriented lexical realizations of grammatical structures; and (iii) the need to address recurrent errors, particularly in terms of using premodifying nouns and relative clauses.CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background of the Study 1 1.2 Purpose of the Study 4 1.3 Research Questions 5 1.4 Organization of the Thesis 6 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 8 2.1 Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing 8 2.1.1 Definition of Grammatical Complexity 9 2.1.2 Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing Studies 13 2.2 Criticism of Traditional Measures of Grammatical Complexity 15 2.2.1 Reductiveness and Redundancy of Length- and Subordination-based Measures 16 2.2.2 Inappropriateness of the T-unit Approach to the Assessment of Writing Development 21 2.3 Measures of Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing 24 2.3.1 Clausal and Phrasal Complexity in Relation to L2 Writing Development 25 2.3.2 Studies on Clausal and Phrasal Complexity in L2 Writing 31 2.4 Variation in the Use of Grammatical Complexity Features 36 2.4.1 The Effect of L1 Background 37 2.4.2 The Effect of Genre 43 2.4.3 The Effect of Timing Condition 46 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 50 3.1 Learner Corpus 50 3.1.1 Description of YELC 2011 50 3.1.2 Description of a Subset of YELC 2011 used in the Study 53 3.2 Grammatical Complexity Measures 55 3.3 Corpus Tagging and Automatic Extraction 59 3.4 Data Analysis 65 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 70 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 70 4.2 The Association between L2 Writing Proficiency and Grammatical Complexity 76 4.3 The Developmental Patterns of Grammatical Complexity 77 4.4 The Grammatical Complexity Features with Great Contribution to the Association 84 4.4.1 Finite Adverbial Clauses 84 4.4.2 Prepositional Phrases as Nominal Postmodifiers 92 4.4.3 WH Relative Clauses 100 4.4.4 Finite Complement Clauses Controlled by Nouns 106 4.5 The Grammatical Complexity Features with Little Contribution to the Association 112 4.5.1 Premodifying Adjectives 113 4.5.2 Nouns as Nominal Premodifiers 120 4.5.3 Finite Complement Clauses Controlled by Verbs or Adjectives 125 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 136 5.1 Major Findings 136 5.2 Pedagogical Implications 139 5.3 Limitations and Prospect for Future Research 142 REFERENCES 145 APPENDICES 161 ABSTRACT IN KOREAN 165์„

    Supporting Collocation Learning

    Get PDF
    Collocations are of great importance for second language learners. Knowledge of them plays a key role in producing language accurately and fluently. But such knowledge is difficult to acquire, simply because there is so much of it. Collocation resources for learners are limited. Printed dictionaries are restricted in size, and only provide rudimentary search and retrieval options. Free online resources are rare, and learners find the language data they offer hard to interpret. Online collocation exercises are inadequate and scattered, making it difficult to acquire collocations in a systematic way. This thesis makes two claims: (1) corpus data can be presented in different ways to facilitate effective collocation learning, and (2) a computer system can be constructed to help learners systematically strengthen and enhance their collocation knowledge. To investigate the first claim, an enormous Web-derived corpus was processed, filtered, and organized into three searchable digital library collections that support different aspects of collocation learning. Each of these constitutes a vast concordance whose entries are presented in ways that help students use collocations more effectively in their writing. To provide extended context, concordance data is linked to illustrative sample sentences, both on the live Web and in the British National Corpus. Two evaluations were conducted, both of which suggest that these collections can and do help improve student writing. For the second claim, a system was built that automatically identifies collocations in texts that teachers or students provide, using natural language processing techniques. Students study, collect and store collocations of interest while reading. Teachers construct collocation exercises to consolidate what students have learned and amplify their knowledge. The system was evaluated with teachers and students in classroom settings, and positive outcomes were demonstrated. We believe that the deployment of computer-based collocation learning systems is an exciting development that will transform language learning

    Using skipgrams and POS-based feature selection for patent classi๏ฌcation

    Get PDF
    Contains fulltext : 116289.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)19 p
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore