The implications of a corpus linguistic theory for learning the English language and the Chinese language too Michael Hoey University of Liverpool 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference ID: 488300
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Old Approaches, New Perspectives" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Old Approaches, New Perspectives: The implications of a corpus linguistic theory for learning the English language (and the Chinese language too)
Michael
Hoey
University of Liverpool
48th Annual International IATEFL Conference
Harrogate
April 4
th
2014 Slide2
Old Approaches, New Perspectives: The implications of a corpus linguistic theory for learning the English language (and the Chinese language too)
Michael
Hoey
University of Liverpool
48th Annual International IATEFL Conference
Harrogate
April 4
th
2014 Slide3
Lewis’s Lexical ApproachAccording to Michael Lewis, the successful language learner is someone who can recognise, understand and produce lexical phrases as ready-made chunks.
So in teaching, the emphasis needs to be on vocabulary in context and particularly on fixed expressions in speech.
When someone learns vocabulary in context, they pick up grammar naturally.
When someone learns grammar separately, they don’t pick up much (useful) vocabulary
Slide4
Lewis’s Lexical Approachhas, however, been criticised forignoring how language is learnthaving no theoretical underpinning3. trivialising
the role of grammar
It is open to criticism for
applying
only to Indo-European languagesSlide5
Krashen’s Monitor Model According to Stephen Krashen,the crucial requirement for successful language learning is comprehensible input. The only way to acquire a language is by reading and listening to naturally occurring spoken
and written language input
that is very slightly above the current level of the learner.
This is a subconscious process,
and
conscious
learning
does not result in knowledge of the language, only knowledge about the language. Slide6
Krashen’s Monitor Model has, however, been criticised forignoring how language is learnth
aving
no
linguistic underpinning
t
rivialising the role of grammar
It is open to criticism for
trivialising the role of the teacherSlide7
Three goalsIn this paper, however, I want to show thatLewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic evidenceThe Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic
theory
The characteristics of language that the Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model treat as central are not limited to English. Slide8
How do we learn language? Some key psycholinguistic experimentsMost of the psycholinguistic literature used by applied linguists is more linguistic than psychological.
But there are two research developments from the
psycho
linguistic tradition that may be of relevance:
semantic priming
repetition priming
(with thanks to Michael Pace-
Sigge
)Slide9
How do we learn language? Some key psycholinguistic experimentsMost of the psycholinguistic literature used by applied linguists is more linguistic than psychological.
But there are two research developments from the psycholinguistic tradition that may be of relevance:
semantic priming
repetition priming Slide10
Semantic primingIn semantic priming experiments, informants are shown a word or image (referred to as the prime) and then shown a second word or image (known as the target word). The speed with which the target word is recognized is measured.
Some primes appear to
slow up
informants’ recognition of the target
and others appear to
accelerate
informants’ recognition of the targetSlide11
Semantic primingFor example,the prime word
wing
will have no effect on the recognition of the word
director
will typically inhibit the recognition of the word
pig
and will typically speed up the recognition of the word
swan
. Slide12
Semantic primingFor example,
the prime word
milk
will have no effect on the recognition of the word
available
,
will typically inhibit the recognition of the word
horse
but will speed up the recognition of the word
cow
.
At the moment, this is probably not true of
beef
, which draws attention that we are talking about linguistic experience, not world knowledge
. Slide13
Semantic primingPioneering semantic priming work was conducted by Meyer and
Schvaneveldt
(1971),
Shelton and Martin (1992)
and McRae and
Boisvert
(1998)
amongst many others.
Note – it is OLD and UNCONTROVERSIAL workSlide14
What is the significance of this to the language learner?We have proof that words are closely linked to each other in the listener’s mind,
and that words that are closely linked can be recognised more quickly (and presumably used more quickly).
This doesn’t fit well with the idea that words are slotted into grammatical frames.
Slide15
What is the significance of this to the language learner?We have proof that words are closely linked to each other in the listener’s mind,
and that words that are closely linked can be recognised more quickly (and presumably used more quickly).
This does fit well with the lexical
approach.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Slide16
How do we learn language? Some key psycholinguistic experimentsMost of the psycholinguistic literature used by applied linguists is more linguistic than psychological. There are two research developments from the
psycho
linguistic tradition that may be of relevance:
semantic priming
repetition priming Slide17
Repetition priming Repetition priming is rather different from semantic priming, in that the prime and the target are identical. Experiments with repetition priming
centre
around exposing informants to word combinations and then, sometimes after a considerable amount of time and after they’ve seen or heard lots of other material, measuring how quickly or accurately the informants recognize the combination when they finally see/hear it again. Slide18
Repetition priming For example, a listener may be shown the word
SCARLET
followed by the word
ONION.
A day later, if s/he is shown the word
SCARLET
again, s/he will recognise
ONION
more quickly than other words.
The assumption must be that s/he remembers the combination from the first time, since the words
SCARLET ONION
will only rarely have occurred before (if ever). Slide19
Repetition priming Key papers are: Jacoby and Dallas (1981),
Scarborough,
Cortese
, and Scarborough (1977),
and
Forster and Davis (1984).Slide20
Repetition priming Repetition priming potentially provides an explanation of both semantic priming and collocation.If a listener or reader encounters two words in combination, and stores them as a combination,
then the ability of one of the words to accelerate recognition of the other is explained.
If the listener or reader then draws upon this combination in his or her own utterance, then the reproduction of collocation is also explained. Slide21
What is the significance of this to the language learner?We have proof that a listener’s encounters with words in combination may result in their being
closely linked to each other in the listener’s
mind, without there being any conscious learning.
This
doesn’t fit well with the idea that words are slotted into grammatical frames.
Slide22
What is the significance of this to the language learner?We have proof that a listener’s encounters with words in combination may result in their being
closely linked to each other in the listener’s
mind, without there being any conscious learning.
It does fit in well with
Krashen’s
arguments.
Slide23
Three goalsIn this paper I wanted to show thatLewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s
Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic
evidence
DEFINITELY
The
Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic
theory.
The features of language that the Lexical Approach makes use of are as present in Chinese as they are in EnglishSlide24
Three goalsIn this paper I wanted to show thatLewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic
evidence
The
Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic
theory.
The features of language that the Lexical Approach makes use of are as present in Chinese as they are in EnglishSlide25
Problems with many existing theories of languageFluency is harder to explain than creativity
There is no single language but lots of varying languages masquerading as a single language, but most theories try to ignore this.
When we hear or read a word with multiple meanings (i.e. almost every word in common usage), we know which meaning is meant – but how?
Collocations are universal, but grammars largely operate as if they are trivial.Slide26
Accounting for collocation has to be central to any account of fluency and therefore to any theory of language with psychological plausibilityand must centre around how words are learnt
d must centre around how words are learntSlide27
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously the words it occurs with (
its collocations
),
the grammatical patterns it occurs in (its colligations),
the meanings with which it is associated (its semantic associations),Slide28
hardworked hardtried hardfought hard
die hard
found it hard
prayed hard
raining hard
squeezed hardSlide29
hardhard to believehard to understandhard to imagine
hard to explain
hard to follow
hard to hear
hard to remember
hard to bearSlide30
hardhard luckhard linehard facts
hard evidence
hard lives
hard water
hard labour
hard winter
hard currencySlide31
word collocates with against and a
or
your(s)
a word against
your word against mine
a word against)Slide32
word collocates with against and
a
or
your(s)
a word against
your word against mine
a word against)Slide33
ears collocates with eyes 225 10%and also
ears and nose
ears, nose and throat
ears and eyes
ears and hands
ears and nostrils
etcSlide34
Crucially, once a priming has been created, it is itself subject to further priming, e.g.
eyes and ears
is primed for most of us to collocate with
act as
the Bank of China, which acts as Peking’s eyes and ears among Hong Kong’s banking community
14 out of 124 lines of
eyes and ears
in the Guardian corpus (11%)Slide35
Crucially, once a priming has been created, it is itself subject to further priming, e.g.
a word against
is primed for most of us to co-occur with
sending & receiving communicationSlide36
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously the words it occurs with (
its collocations
),
the meanings with which it is associated (its
semantic associations
),Slide37
word collocates with against and
a
a word against
has a semantic association with
sending & receiving communication
(e.g.
hear a word against
)
send/receive a word against has a pragmatic association with denial
(e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against)Slide38
ears co-occurs with 2294
eyes
225 10%
and also
ears and nose
ears, nose and throat
ears and eyes
ears and hands
ears and nostrils
etcSlide39
ears co-occurs with 2294 eyes
225 10%
and also
squashy fingers and crinkly ears
swollen ankles and painful ears
buck teeth and cauliflower ears
bulbous nose and big ears
long tail and pointed ears
etcSlide40
ears co-occurs with 2294 eyes
225 10%
and also
close the eyes and put the ears to work
follow my nose and keep my ears open
shielding his eyes and covering his ears
zaps the eyes and blasts the ears
biting our nails and covering our ears
etcSlide41
ears 2294 has a semantic association with
PARTS OF BODY
at least
525 cases 23%Slide42
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously the words it occurs with (
its collocations
),
the meanings with which it is associated (
its semantic associations
),
the pragmatics it is associated with (
its pragmatic associations
),Slide43
reason is often deniedThat’s not the reason why…
For no particular reason…
For some reason or other…
Whatever the reason…Slide44
consequence tends to be negativee.g. the grim consequence, one dire consequence, a bleak consequence
result
tends to be positive
e.g.
a great result, the perfect result, a fine resultSlide45
send/receive a word against has a pragmatic association with denial
(e.g.
wouldn’t hear a word against
)
denial
+
send/receive
a word against
has a pragmatic association with
hypotheticality
(e.g.
wasn’t prepared to say a word against
)Slide46
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we also note subconsciously the grammatical patterns it is associated with (
its colligations
)
the genre and/or style and/or social situation it is used in,
whether it is used in a context we are likely to want to emulate or not Slide47
consequence tends to be indefinitee.g. another consequence, one consequence, a consequence
result
tends to be definite
e.g.
this result, the resultSlide48
reason and result tend not to be possessede.g.
the reason was…, the result was…
reasons
and
results
can be possessed
e.g.
my reasons were…, our resultsSlide49
denial + send/receive a word against colligates with modal verbs
(e.g.
wouldn’t hear a word against
)
denial
+
send/receive
a word against
also colligates with
human subjects
and human prepositional objectsSlide50
denial + send/receive a word against colligates with modal verbs
(e.g.
wouldn’t hear a word against
)
denial
+
send/receive
a word against
also colligates with
human subjects
and
human prepositional objectsSlide51
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we also note subconsciously the grammatical patterns it is associated with (
its colligations
),
the genre and/or style and/or social situation it is used inSlide52
denial + send/receive a word against is used in reasonably colloquial English. Slide53
The Lexical Priming (textual) claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we also note subconsciously whether it is typically cohesive (its
textual collocations
)
Slide54
The Lexical Priming (textual) claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we also note subconsciously whether it is typically cohesive (its
textual collocations
)
i.e. we note whether a
lexical item (or combination of lexical items)
is occurring
as part of a cohesive chain or
avoiding
such a
chain
.Slide55
The Lexical Priming (textual) claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we also note subconsciously whether it is typically cohesive (its
textual collocations
)
We also
note whether
the
lexical item (or combination of lexical items)
occurs
with
particular types of
cohesionSlide56
denial + send/receive a word against is not used in cohesion, i.e. you don’t get successive repetitions of
word
or verbs of
communication
in a text.Slide57
Obama reassures king of strong Syria stanceThe United States is considering allowing shipments of portable air defence systems to Syrian rebels, as President Obama sought to reassure Saudi Arabia’s king that the US is not taking too soft a stance over the conflict.
The president and King Abdullah met for more than two hours at the monarch’s desert oasis outside the capital city of Riyadh. Obama advisers said the two leaders spoke frankly about their differences on key issues, with the president assuring the king that he remains committed to the Gulf region’s security.
The Guardian, Saturday 29 March 2014 Slide58
Obama reassures king of strong Syria stanceThe United States is considering allowing shipments of portable air defence systems to Syrian rebels, as
President
Obama sought to reassure Saudi Arabia’s king that the US is not taking too soft a stance over the conflict.
The
president
and King Abdullah met for more than two hours at the monarch’s desert oasis outside the capital city of Riyadh. Obama advisers said the two leaders spoke frankly about their differences on key issues, with the
president
assuring the king that he remains committed to the Gulf region’s security.
The Guardian, Saturday 29 March 2014 Slide59
presidentI looked at 66 independent uses of the word president (i.e. non-cohesive with each other, e.g. unconnected references to President Bush and
President
Mitterand
in the same text)
in 50 texts.
I excluded parenthetical uses. Slide60
presidentOf the 66 occurrences that I examined,50 (76%) were part of the cohesion of the text.Slide61
presidentOf the 50 cohesive uses,29 (58%) were part of a cohesive chain21 (42%) were part of a cohesive pairSlide62
presidentOf the 50 cohesive uses,25 (50%) were cohesive by simple repetition23 (46%) were cohesive with pronouns23 (46%) were cohesive with a name (excluding instances of
President NAME
)
13 (26%) were cohesive in
other
ways
(
They add up to more than 5
0
because of the possibility of
there being more
than one
cohesive
relation). Slide63
presidentOf the 50 cohesive uses,25 (50%) were cohesive by simple repetition23 (46%) were cohesive with pronouns23 (46%) were cohesive with a name (excluding instances of
President NAME
)
13 (26%) were cohesive in
other
ways
(
They add up to more than 5
0
because of the possibility of
there being more
than one
cohesive
relation). Slide64
Obama reassures king of strong Syria stanceThe United States is considering allowing shipments of portable air defence systems to Syrian rebels, as President Obama sought to reassure Saudi Arabia’s king that the US is not taking too soft a stance over the conflict.
The president and King Abdullah met for more than two hours at the monarch’s desert oasis outside the capital city of Riyadh. Obama advisers said the two leaders spoke
frankly
about their differences on key issues, with the president assuring the king that he remains committed to the Gulf region’s security.
The Guardian, Saturday 29 March 2014 Slide65
frankly I looked at 50 independent uses of the word frankly
(i.e. non-cohesive with each other)
in 50 texts.
I
excluded
disjunct
uses
. Slide66
frankly Of the 50 uses,
5 (10%) were part of the cohesion of the text
(all pairs, no chains).Slide67
frankly No cohesion 45 Repetition (pair) 2 Antonym 1
Synonym 1
Hyponym
1Slide68
So as we read, and identify the cohesion, we are not only primed for the collocations, colligations and semantic associations
BUT
ALSO
for the cohesive relationships between the occurrences of the item or between the item and other items
(or for the absence of such relationships).
BETWEEN
texts
.Slide69
There is no difference in principle between being primed by a single text and primed on many occasions by many different texts.
then maybe the same is true in reverse – perhaps there is no difference in principle between cohesion
WITHIN
a text and cohesion
BETWEEN
texts.Slide70
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously
whether it is typically cohesive (its
textual collocations
)
whether the word is associated with a particular textual relation (its
textual semantic associations
)
the positions in a text that it occurs in, e.g. does it like to begin sentences? Does it like to start paragraphs? (its textual colligations),Slide71
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously
whether
the word is associated with a particular textual relation (its
textual semantic associations
)
i.e. we note whether a
lexical
item (or combination of lexical items)
occurs as
part of a specific type of semantic
relationSlide72
The claim is that every lexical item (or combination of lexical items) may be positively or negatively primed for occurring as part of a specific type of semantic or pragmatic relation or in a specific textual pattern, e.g. contrast, comparison, time sequence, cause-effect, exemplification,
Problem-Solution, Gap in Knowledge filling. Slide73
The semantic relations or discourse patterns a word may be primed to associate with may betextual, i.e. the relations between clauses or parts of clauses or between larger chunks of textinteractive
, reflecting and incorporating relations between a speaker and a listener of the kind described in conversational analysis Slide74
denial + send/receive a word against is used in contexts where someone has been or is about to be criticisedSlide75
McCarthy (1998) notes that got is associated with the Problem element of
Problem-Solution
patterns. Slide76
Hunston (2001) likewise notes that the combination may not be is associated with contrast
between ideal and more achievable.Slide77
Of 100 examples of sixty in my data,
41
occurred in a contrast relation,
37
occurred within the Problem component of a Problem-Solution pattern
16
occurred in a non-contrastive comparison relation
21 instances not accounted for.
(They add up to more than 100 because of the possibility of a clause being in more than one textual relation). Slide78
Of 100 instances of ago at the beginning of a clause,
55
occurred in a contrast relation
16
occurred in some kind of comparison relation.
(The proportions rise still further if instances of
not long ago
and
as long ago
as
are discounted.)Slide79
So texts prime our vocabulary for us, as we saw earlierAND
our vocabulary is in turn primed to organise texts for usSlide80
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously
whether it is typically cohesive (its
textual collocations
)
whether the word is associated with a particular textual relation (its
textual semantic associations
)
the positions in a text that it occurs in, e.g. does it like to begin sentences? Does it like to start paragraphs? (
its textual colligations
)Slide81
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously
the
positions in a text that it occurs in, e.g. does it like to begin sentences? Does it like to start paragraphs? (
its textual colligations
)Slide82
The Lexical Priming claimWhenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously
the
positions in a text that it occurs in, e.g. does it like to begin sentences? Does it like to start paragraphs? (
its textual colligations
)
i.e. we note whether a lexical
item (or combination of lexical items)
occurs
in a special position in a text, e.g. at the beginning of sentences – or paragraphs! (its textual colligations)Slide83
denial + send/receive
a word against
is typically used at the end of a sentenceSlide84
It was announced yesterday is typically used at the end of
the sentence of a newspaper textSlide85
According to a theory... We can use according to a to illustrate where we have arrived.Slide86
according collocates with against and a
a word against has a semantic association with sending & receiving communication
(e.g. hear a word against)
send/receive a word against has a pragmatic association with denial
(e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against)Slide87
according collocates with to and a
a word against has a semantic association with sending & receiving communication
(e.g. hear a word against)
send/receive a word against has a pragmatic association with denial
(e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against)Slide88
according to a has a semantic association, in newspapers, with research sources(e.g. according to a study
)
send/receive a word against has a pragmatic association with denial
(e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against)Slide89
according to a research source has, in newspapers, a pragmatic association with reporting something bad has a pragmatic association with denial
(e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against)
denial + send/receive a word against has a pragmatic association with
hypotheticality
(e.g. wasn’t prepared to say a word against)Slide90
according to a research study has the colligation in newspapers of being often followed by a which clause
(e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against)
denial + send/receive a word against also colligates with human subjects and human prepositional objectsSlide91
according to has the textual collocation of rarely being repeated directly but of being paraphrased in subsequent paragraphs as said, told etc
repetitions
of word or verbs of communication in a text.Slide92
according to a research source has the textual semantic association of being usually part of a claim-evidence relationSlide93
according to a research study has the textual colligation of being very strongly associated in newspapers withfirst sentence of the news story
second half of the sentence, often the end of the sentence. Slide94
according to a research study has the genre characteristic of being used in newspaper English. Slide95
So...Lexical priming can take account ofCollocationSemantic associationPragmatic associationColligation (
i.e.grammar
)
Textual collocation
Textual semantic association
Textual colligation
Genre Slide96
What is the significance of this to the language learner?The existence of collocation, semantic association, pragmatic association and colligation wholly supports Michael Lewis’s view of the centrality of lexis.
Slide97
What is the significance of this to the language learner?The existence of textual collocation (i.e. cohesion), textual semantic association, and textual colligation wholly supports Stephen
Krashen’s
view that
l
earners need to be exposed to naturally occurring data that interests them and slightly extends them.
How else could the textual features of lexis be acquired?
Slide98
Three goalsIn this paper, however, I want to show thatLewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic evidenceThe Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic
theory
YES
The features of language that the Lexical Approach makes use of are as present in Chinese as they are in EnglishSlide99
Three goalsIn this paper, however, I want to show thatLewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic evidenceThe Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic
theory
The features of language that the Lexical Approach makes use of are as present in Chinese as they are in EnglishSlide100
English versus ChineseNOT SHAREDFairly clear boundary between words and morphemesIntonation as a discourse featureTime and number marked grammatically
?
NOT SHARED
No clear boundary between words and morphemes
Tone as a feature of the lexicon
Time and number marked lexicallySlide101
The Lexical Priming claimsAs we have more and more encounters with the word, syllable, or word combination, we come to identify
the
word or words that characteristically accompany it (its collocations),
the
grammatical patterns with which it is associated (its colligations),
the
meanings with
which
it is associated (its semantic associations),
and
the pragmatics with which it is
associated
(its pragmatic
associations). Slide102
The Lexical Priming claims How about Chinese?Slide103
The Lexical Priming claims How about Chinese?
Work of Xiao &
McEnerySlide104
hăo làn hă
o
rén
someone who tries to be on good terms with everybody
h
ă
o
xiàng
seems like
hěn
h
ă
o
Very
well, thanks
h
ă
o
bù
h
ă
o?
good or bad?
h
ă
o
fēng
jĭng
beautiful scenery
hăo
chī
tasty
hăo
wán
amusing, interestingSlide105
The Lexical Priming claimAs we have more and more encounters with the word, syllable, or word combination, we come to identify the word or words that characteristically accompany it (its collocations),
the
grammatical patterns with which it is associated (its colligations),
the
meanings with
which
it is associated (its semantic associations),
and
the pragmatics with which it is
associated
(its pragmatic
associations). Slide106
The Lexical Priming claims How about Chinese?Slide107
Colligation in Chinesehòuhuĭ regret/repentIn 75 instances, a 37/38 split between positive and negative polarity in the sentences they appear in.
So
hòuhuĭ
colligates with negation.Slide108
The Lexical Priming claimsAs we have more and more encounters with the word, syllable, or word combination, we come to identify the word or words that characteristically accompany it (its collocations), the grammatical patterns with which it is associated (its colligations),
the meanings with which it is associated (its semantic associations),
and the pragmatics with which it is associated (its pragmatic associations). Slide109
hòuhuǐ 2294 has a semantic association with
UNHAPPY ACTION TAKEN (OR
HAPPY ACTION NOT TAKEN)
BY SPEAKER
wŏ
hòuhuǐ
fàn
cuòwù
making a mistake
wŏ
hòuhuǐ
chū
cuò
committing an error
wŏ
hòuhuǐ
méi
qù
…
not going
wŏ
hòuhuǐ
tīng
tā
de
huà
listening to his/her wordsSlide110
hòuhuǐ in negative sentences 2294
has a
pragmatic
association with
SUGGESTION
Of
the 38 negative instances, 12 (31.6%)
were used to make a suggestion,
usually
of the kind “don’t
do something you will regret” or “avoid doing something you may regret”.
No instance
in the positive form
is used to make a suggestion. Slide111
Three goalsIn this paper, however, I want to show thatLewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic evidenceThe Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic
theory
The features of language that the Lexical Approach makes use of are as present in Chinese as they are in EnglishSlide112
Three goalsIn this paper, however, I want to show thatLewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic evidenceThe Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic
theory
The features of language that the Lexical Approach makes use of are as present in Chinese as they are in English
PROBABLYSlide113
What is the significance of this to the language learner?If languages as apparently different as English and Chinese operate according to the same lexical principles, even though they differ significantly in culture, grammar and phonology,
then it would seem sensible to build on the underlying shared ground.Slide114
Back to Lewis and KrashenSlide115
Lewis’s Lexical Approachhas been criticised forignoring how language is learnthaving no theoretical underpinning3. trivialising
the role of grammar
It is open to criticism for
applying
only to Indo-European languagesSlide116
Lewis’s Lexical Approachhas been FALSELY criticised forIgnoring how language is learnt
Having no theoretical
underpinning
trivialising
the role of
grammar
LEWIS SEES GRAMMAR AS AN OUTPUT OF LEXIS, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE
It
is NOT
open to criticism for
3. Applying only to Indo-European languages
THIS IS UNTRUESlide117
Lewis’s Lexical Approachhas been FALSELY criticised forIgnoring how language is learnt
Having no theoretical
underpinning
trivialising
the role of
grammar
3
. Applying only to Indo-European languages
THE MODEL IS SAFE TO USE.Slide118
Krashen’s Monitor Model has been criticised forignoring how language is learnth
aving
no
linguistic underpinning
t
rivialising the role of grammar
It is open to criticism for
trivialising the role of the teacherSlide119
Krashen’s Monitor Model has been FALSELY criticised forignoring how language is
learnt
h
aving
no theoretical
underpinning
trivialising the role of grammar
IT CORRECTLY RECOGNISES THE ANCILLARY NATURE OF GRAMMAR
trivialising the role of the teacher
IT
DOES NOT, BUT THE TEACHER TAKES A NEW KIND OF ROLE.Slide120
Krashen’s Monitor Model has been FALSELY criticised forignoring how language is
learnt
h
aving
no theoretical
underpinning
trivialising the role of grammar
trivialising the role of the teacher
THE MODEL IS SAFE TO USESlide121
Thank you for listening hoeymp@liv.ac.uk