The Missing Pieces around Collocation: A Comparative Study of Data-Driven Learning Resources for Learning Collocation-Specific Colligations

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：13

、訪客IP：3.144.42.196

姓名

徐若華(Hsu, Ruo-Hua) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

The Missing Pieces around Collocation: A Comparative Study of Data-Driven Learning Resources for Learning Collocation-Specific Colligations
(The Missing Pieces around Collocation: A Comparative Study of Data-Driven Learning Resources for Learning Collocation-Specific Colligations)

相關論文

★ 讀者選擇閱讀題材的自主性對外語詞彙偶發學習的影響	★ 應用搭配字學習工具於網路瀏覽以提升英語學習者對搭配字之察覺能力
★ 樂高機器人多媒體教材設計、發展與可用性評估	★ 再思非刻意字彙習得裡的字詞頻率:字形變化及多詞句型的影響
★ An investigation of L2 academic readers′ awareness of stance markers and writer′s stance toward cited research	★ On the Effects of Task-Based Instruction on Vocabulary Learning: A Study of EFL Junior High School Students
★ 再思集中錯誤回饋成效之決定因素-以英語為外語寫作為例	★ Effects of Reading the Same Story First in L1 Then in L2 on L2 Incidental Vocabulary Learning

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

近年來，在第二外語的研究中，搭配詞 (collocation) 受到許多關注。然而，搭配詞周圍的特定用法 (collocation-specific colligation) 卻長期被忽略，即使是學習者再熟悉不過的搭配詞，colligational details往往成為問題所在。Collocation-specific colligation是一種比搭配詞的用法更為複雜的使用模式。例如：我們使用搭配詞spend time時，必須用動名詞 [V-ing] 搭配使用：spend time doing something；然而，使用搭配詞take time時，卻可以使用不定詞 [to V] 作搭配：take time to do something，這些斜體字即為collocation-specific colligation。本研究旨在透過兩種資料驅動 (data-driven) 方式，探討學習英語collocation-specific colligation上的不同成效。
資料驅動方式以不同的系統設計和搜尋結果區分為兩種：一種是將搜尋字呈現在橫向關係 (syntagmatic relation) 的例句中，並讓學習者從中探索搭配詞和colligation；另一種是以使用模式的方式，並同時呈現橫向和縱向關係 (paradigmatic relation)，再分別連結到各個使用模式的例句。採用第一種方式 (example-driven approach) 的是BYU-BNC；採用第二種方式 (pattern-driven approach) 的則是StringNet。本研究共有八十二位受試者，分為控制組和實驗組，實驗組再分為兩組：採用範例驅動方式 (example-driven approach) 的BYU-BNC組和採用使用模式驅動方式 (pattern-driven approach) 的StringNet組。每組共進行三次測驗，包含前測、立即後測、以及延宕測驗，實驗組則另外進行訓練和實驗課程。此外，實驗組還必須完成一份包含十個問題和兩題開放性問題的問卷，以利於了解學習工具的容易使用程度、受試者的學習成效和使用意願。
研究結果顯示，兩種不同的資料驅動學習 (data-driven learning) 方式呈現出學習英語collocation-specific colligation上的不同成效。StringNet組在立即後測的進步幅度上，顯著高於控制組，而在延宕測驗的進步幅度上則是顯著高於其他兩組，意謂著colligational knowledge的學習成效，似乎無法在立即後測的成績上顯現出來。我們也可從結果得知，能輔助學習者學習collocation-specific colligation的工具，呈現出橫向和縱向關係是重要且不可或缺的。另一方面，不論透過質性或量化問卷，調查StringNet組的受試者和BYU-BNC組的受試者對於各自使用工具的評價指出，StringNet較為有幫助、有效率也更容易使用。總體而言，本研究指出教學者可使用能呈現出橫向和縱向關係的資料驅動學習工具，並採取使用模式驅動方式進行教學設計，以協助教學collocation-specific colligation。

摘要(英)

While collocations have received substantial attention in second language research, the colligational details surrounding many of them have been neglected though they cause problems for many learners long after they have mastered the collocation. Colligation is a patterning more complex than collocation. For example, we should use spend time doing (not to do) something while we can use take time to do something. This thesis is an investigation of two data-driven approaches to learning English collocation-specific colligations.
The two data-driven approaches to learning these patterns differed with respect to whether the learner’s query results came in the form of concordance lines containing a key word in syntagmatic sequences and requiring the learner to detect collocations and colligational patterns from these exemplars or came in the form of patterns listed for the learner that showed both syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations which were in turn linked to concordance lines exemplifying each pattern separately. BYU-BNC was used for the first approach and StringNet for the second. Eighty-two students in college were divided into three groups, including one control group and two experimental groups: BYU-BNC Group in an example-driven approach and StringNet Group in a pattern-driven approach. Participants underwent a training session and an experiment session, as well as a pre-test, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test. A questionnaire containing ten Likert-scaled items solicited data from the experimental groups on three areas: (1) ease of use, (2) effect on learning, and (3) willingness to use and two open-ended questions on participants’ elicited perceptions of the two learning tools.
Based on the results reported in this thesis, the two different approaches caused different effects on learning collocation-specific colligation. The StringNet Group showed significantly greater gains than the Control Group in the immediate post-test and significantly greater gains than both the BYU-BNC Group and the Control Group in the delayed post-test. These results revealed that the syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions of a learning tool are both important in assisting learners to acquire collocation-specific colligations, and the colligational knowledge is likely to be so subtle that it was hard to attain the improvement immediately. On the other hand, both the qualitative and quantitative questionnaire show that StringNet was perceived by that group’s participants as more helpful, effective, and simpler to use compared with the BYU-BNC group’s perceptions of that tool. All in all, the findings suggest that it might be better for teachers to teach colligation using a pattern-driven approach with the DDL tools which show both the syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions.

關鍵字(中)

★ 搭配詞
★ Colligation
★ 資料驅動學習
★ BYU-BNC
★ StringNet

關鍵字(英)

★ Collocation
★ Colligation
★ Data-driven learning
★ BYU-BNC
★ StringNet

論文目次

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation of the Research 4
1.2 Two Learning Tools 8
1.2.1 BYU-BNC 8
1.2.2 StringNet 11
1.3 The Scope of the Study 15
1.4 Research Question 16
1.5 Structure of the Thesis 17
1.6 Summary of Chapter One 17

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND LITERTURE REVIEW 18
2.1 Collocation 18
2.2 Colligation 22
2.3 Data-driven Learning 25
2.3.1 The Pedagogical Functions of DDL 27
2.3.2 The Limitations of DDL 28
2.3.3 Some Implications of DDL 29
2.4 Productive and Receptive Knowledge 30
2.4.1 Productive 31
2.4.2 Receptive 31
2.5 Summary of Chapter Two 32

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 34
3.1 Participants 35
3.2 Research Design 35
3.2.1 Stage One: The Pre-test and the Training 37
3.2.2 Stage Two: The Experiment and the Immediate Post-test 39
3.2.3 Stage Three: Delayed Post-test 40
3.3 Instrument Development 41
3.3.1 Pilot Study 41
3.3.1.1 Selecting Collocations for the Pilot Study 42
3.3.1.2 Three Types of Test Items 44
3.3.1.3 Selecting Target Collocations for the Formal Study 47
3.3.1.4 The Questionnaire 51
3.4 Data Analysis for Pilot Study 54
3.4.1 The Criteria for Judging Collocations and Colligations 55
3.4.2 Assessment 59
3.4.3 Statistical Analysis 60
3.5 Pilot Result 61
3.5.1 Colligational Knowledge Performance 61
3.5.2 Participants’ Perceptions of the Two Learning Tools 62
3.6 Data Analysis for the Formal Study 63
3.7 Summary of Chapter Three 66

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 67
4.1 Test Results 72
4.1.1 Collocational Knowledge: Translation 73
4.1.2 Colligational Knowledge 75
4.1.2.1 Productive Knowledge: Translation and Fill-in-the-blank 78
4.1.2.2 Receptive Knowledge: Multiple-choice 85
4.2 Questionnaire Results 86
4.2.1 Results of Ten Items 87
4.2.1.1 Ease of Use 88
4.2.1.2 Effect on Learning 88
4.2.1.3 Willingness to Use 89
4.2.2 Results of Two Open-ended Questions 90
4.3 Observations concerning the Raw Data 96
4.3.1 The Improvement of Collocational Knowledge 96
4.3.2 The Absence of the Production of Colligations in the Translations 98
4.4 Summary of Chapter Four 101

CHAPTER FIVE: GENERAL DISCUSSION 104
5.1 Pedagogical Implications 105
5.1.1 Collocation 106
5.1.2 Colligation 108
5.1.2.1 Productive Knowledge 111
5.1.2.2 Receptive Knowledge 113
5.2 Limitations of the Present Research 114
5.3 Suggestions for Future Study 115
5.4 Conclusion 117

Reference 120

Appendix A: Training Guide for BYU-BNC 126
Appendix B: Training Guide for StringNet 129
Appendix C: Background Questionnaire 133
Appendix D: Test Items for Pre-test 134
Appendix E: Test Items for Immediate Post-test 137
Appendix F: Test Items for Delayed Post-test 140
Appendix G: Pilot Questionnaire 143
Appendix H: Formal Questionnaire 144
Appendix I: The Responses of the Open-ended Questions 145

參考文獻

Reference

Bahns, J. (1993). Lexical collocations: a contrastive view. ELT journal, 47(1), 56-63.
Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations?. System, 21(1), 101-114.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Nik, A. B. (2011). The Effect of Type of Context on EFL Learners′ Recognition and Production of Colligations. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 7(1), pp-100.
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. F. (1986a). Lexicographic description of English (Vol. 14). John Benjamins Publishing.
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. F. (1986b). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: A guide to word combinations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bernardini, S. (2001). " Spoilt for choice": a learner explores general language corpora. Learning with corpora, 1000-1030.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., Coxhead, A., & Webb, S. (2013). Gauging the effects of exercises on verb–noun collocations. Language Teaching Research, 1362168813505389.
Boulton, A. (2007). But where′s the proof? The need for empirical evidence for data-driven learning. In Proceedings of the BAAL Annual Conference 2007.
Boulton, A. (2009). Data-driven learning: Reasonable fears and rational reassurance. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics., 35(1), 81-106.
Boulton, A. (2009). Testing the limits of data-driven learning: language proficiency and training. ReCALL, 21(1), 37-54.
Boulton, A. (2010). Data‐driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language learning, 60(3), 534-572.
Boulton, A. (2011). Data-driven learning: the perpetual enigma. Explorations across languages and corpora, 563-580.
Chan, T. P., & Liou, H. C. (2005). Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL students′ learning of verb–noun collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 231-251.
Chang, Y. C., Chang, J. S., Chen, H. J., & Liou, H. C. (2008). An automatic collocation writing assistant for Taiwanese EFL learners: A case of corpus-based NLP technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 283-299.
File, K. A., & Adams, R. (2010). Should Vocabulary Instruction Be Integrated or Isolated?. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 222-249.
Firth, J. R. (1968). [Selected papers]; Selected papers of JR Firth: 1952-59. F. R. Palmer (Ed.). Longmans.
Firth, J. R. (1951). General linguistics and descriptive grammar. Transactions of the Philological Society, 50(1), 69-87.
Firth, J. R. (1957a). "A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory 1930-1955," in Studies in Linguistic Analysis, Philological Society, Oxford; reprinted in Palmer, F. (ed.) 1968 Selected Papers of J. R. Firth, Longman, Harlow.
Gabrielatos, C. (2005). Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling, or wedding bells?. TESL-EJ, 8(4), 1-37.
Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors?. System, 32(3), 301-319.
Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2010). How can data-driven learning be used in language teaching. The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 359-370.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17(3), 241-292.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2013). Halliday′s Introduction to Functional Grammar 4th Edition. Routledge.
Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. Teaching collocation, 47-70.
Hoey, M. (1998, September). Introducing applied linguistics: 25 years on. In31st BAAL Annual Meeting: Languages and Literacies.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Psychology Press.
Hoey, M. (2000). The hidden lexical clues of textual organisation: a preliminary investigation into an unusual text from a corpus perspective. Burnard/McEnery.
Hsu, T. J. (2010). The effects of collocation instruction on the reading comprehension and vocabulary learning of Taiwanese college English majors.Asian EFL Journal, 12(1), 47-87.
Hsu, J. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Lexical collocations and their relation to speaking proficiency of college EFL learners in Taiwan. Asian EFL Journal,10(1), 181-204.
Johns, T. (1988). Whence and whither classroom concordancing. Computer applications in language learning, 9-27.
Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: two examples of data-driven learning’in Johns and King (eds.) Classroom Concordancing. ELR Journal, 4.
Johns, T. (1993). Data-driven learning: An update. TELL & CALL, 3, 23-32.
Johns, T. (1994). 1 9 From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of Data-driven Learning. Perspectives on pedagogical grammar, 293.
Johns, T. (1997). Contexts: The background, development and trialling of a concordance-based CALL program. In Teaching and language corpora (pp. 100-115). London: Longman.
Johns, T. (2002). Data-driven learning: The perpetual challenge. Language and Computers, 42(1), 107-117.
Koosha, M., & Jafarpour, A. A. (2006). Data-driven learning and teaching collocation of prepositions: The case of Iranian EFL adult learners. Asian EFL journal, 8(4), 192-209.
Krishnamurthy, R. (2003). Language as chunks, not words. JALT2003 Proceedings. Tokyo, Japan, JALT.
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399-436.
Leese J. B. & Schmidt A. & Cho Y. (2014). The effects of two data-driven learning tools: StringNet and the BYU-BNC. Unpublished.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach (Vol. 1, p. 993). Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Liu, L. E. (2002). A corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of verb-noun miscollocations in Taiwan learners′ English (Master thesis, Tamkang University, Graduate Institute of Western Languages and Literature).
Marton, W. (1977). Foreign vocabulary learning as problem no. 1 of language teaching at the advanced level. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2(1), 33-57.
Nation, I. S. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9-13.
Nattinger, J. (1988). Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. Vocabulary and language teaching, 62-82.
Nattinger, J. R., DeCarrico, J. S., & Nattinger, J. R. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching (Vol. 1, p. 992). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2004). Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. How to use corpora in language teaching, 12, 125.
Nunnally, J. (1978). C.(1978). Psychometric theory.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and communication, 191, 225.
Philip, G. (2011). Colouring meaning: Collocation and connotation in figurative language. John Benjamins Publishing.
Pignot-Shahov, V. (2012). Measuring L2 receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. Language Studies Working Papers, 4, 37-45.
Rapp, R. (2002, August). The computation of word associations: comparing syntagmatic and paradigmatic approaches. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Computational linguistics-Volume 1 (pp. 1-7). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language learning, 47(1), 45-99.
Römer, U. (2005). Progressives, patterns, pedagogy: A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics (Vol. 18). John Benjamins Publishing.
Rutherford, W. E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied linguistics, 6(3), 274-282.
Schmitt, N., Dornyei, Z., Adolphs, S., & Durow, V. (2004). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences. Formulaic Sequences Acquisition, Processing and Use, 55-86.
Seidlhofer, B. (2002). Pedagogy and local learner corpora: Working with learning-driven data. Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, 213-34.
Sinclair, J. M. (1987). Collocation: a progress report. na.
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1998). The lexical item. AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE SERIES 4, 1-24.
Stubbs, M. (2001). On inference theories and code theories: Corpus evidence for semantic schemas. TEXT-THE HAGUE THEN AMSTERDAM THEN BERLIN-, 21(3), 437-465.
Wible, D. (2005). Discovering Language: Language Learning and Language Technology: Toward Foundations for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Crane Publishing.
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Tsao, N. L., Liu, A., Sung, L. C., & Chio, C. L. (2000). Putting learners first: an integrated multimedia environment for language learning. In International Conference on Engineering Education, Taipei.
Wible, D., & Tsao, N. L. (2010, June). StringNet as a computational resource for discovering and investigating linguistic constructions. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT workshop on extracting and using constructions in computational linguistics (pp. 25-31). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Wible, D., & Tsao, N. L. (2011). Towards a new generation of corpus-derived lexical resources for language learning. A Taste for Corpora: In Honour of Sylviane Granger, 45.
Wible, D., Liu, A. E., & Tsao, N. L. (2011). A browser‐based approach to incidental individualization of vocabulary learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), 530-543.

指導教授

衛友賢(David Wible)

審核日期

2015-6-22

推文