Online Corpus Tools as English Writing References for College Students in Taiwan

1. Online Corpus Tools as English Writing References for College Students in Taiwan Name: Shu-Li Lai Ph.D./National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan. E-mail: shulilai@gmail.com Date: 18.02.2011

2. Outline • Background • Purpose of the Study • Method • Findings and Discussion • Conclusion

3. Background • A lot of discussion about how corpus tools could be used to help EFL writing and vocabulary learning. • Corpus tools help-- • Deepen L2 writer’s understanding of vocabulary • Raise students’ awareness of collocation • Provide authentic examples for error detection and revision during the writing process. • The existing research has established that corpus tools have a significant impact on vocabulary learning and L2 writing.

4. Research Gap • Little is known about • Whether EFL writers will use the corpus tools to solve their lexical problems during the writing process • How EFL writers actually apply corpus tools during the writing process.

5. Research Questions • To what extent will the students make use of the corpus tools during the writing process when they are also provided with dictionaries? • What are the purposes of the students’ corpus consultation when engaging in a writing task?

6. Research Site and Participants • Research site • An introductory writing class in NTUST. • Participants • 14 Non-English majors • Majors: 11 (engineering), 2 (business), 1 (design) • Age: 19-25 • Language Proficiency • Reading: • Almost all of them could read well. • 12 out of 14 passed the reading section of the intermediate GETP. • Writing: • Only 2 of them once received formal writing training. • Others rarely had a chance to write in English. • Computer Literacy • All of them had good computer literacy.

7. 4 Corpus Tools & 2 Dictionaries • Major tools been investigated • 2 online concordancers • bilingual--TotalRecall (Chinese-English) • monolingual--VLC • 2 online collocation retrieval systems (CCRS) • bilingual—Tango (Chinese-English) • monolingual--NTNU CCRS • Supplementary tools to the corpus tools • bilingual: Online Yahoo Dictionary • monolingual: Cambridge Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (CALD)

8. TotalRecall—a Bilingual Concordancer (Sinorama, 1990-2000) http://candle.fl.nthu.edu.tw/totalrecall/totalrecall/totalrecall.aspx?funcID=1

9. Tango—a Bilingual Collocation Retrieval System http://candle.fl.nthu.edu.tw/collocation/webform2.aspx?funcID=9

10. Tango A search for the target word—cause

11. VLC Concordancer—Monolingual Concordancer http://vlc.polyu.edu.hk/

12. A search of “cause”

13. NTNU Web-Based English Collocations Retrieval System http://140.122.83.241/wiki/default.htm

14. The Yahoo Dictionary http://tw.dictionary.yahoo.com/

15. Cambridge Advanced Learners’ Dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

16. Instruments • Three online timed writing tasks • Three stimulus recalls and the semi-structured interviews. • To findwhen and why Ss turn to corpus tools

17. The Research Timeline Timetable Week Questionnaire Tool Training PowerCam Task1 Recalls & Interviews Task 2 Recalls & Interviews Task 3 Recalls & Interviews Phase 1Tool Training Phase 2Writing 1 Phase 3Writing 2 Phase 4Writing 3 An introductory writing class, focusing on paragraph writing skills

18. Data Sources • Major data source • 42 stimulus recalls (14 participants x 3 times) • Some other sources • Video clips of the writing process (N=42) • The researchers’ observation and research notes • Ss writing samples (N=42)

19. Findings and Discussion • The overall findings • RQ 1: Frequency • RQ 2: Purposes

20. Results • Ss did turn to the corpus tools for help during the writing process. • The bilingual dictionary was still the most relied upon tool. • TotalRecall was most favored among the 4 corpus tools, accounting for 84.3% of total corpus use.

21. The Distribution of the Six tools • The two bilingual tools--Yahoo dictionary and TotalRecall were the two major references the students used.

22. The Distribution of Tool Use in Each Writing Task • W1: • TotalRecall was almost the only corpus tool Ss used (31.3%). • Ss heavily relied on the Yahoo dictionary (64.2%). • W2: • The use of the four corpus tools all increased. • The use of Yahoo dictionary decreased. • W3: • There was a drop of the use of corpus tools.

23. Discussion for RQ1 • The bilingual concordancer (TotalRecall) was used more often than the other corpus tools. • Help turn their thought in L1 to L2 • Observe the bilingual concordance lines are easier and faster. • User-friendly and flexible in the forms of keywords • Allow search of words, phrases, and a string of words. (e.g. 風土民情) • No need to identify the part of speech of keywords.

24. Discussion for RQ1 • Time was needed to get used to these new reference tools. • Most Ss showed a delayed use of the corpus tools. • Individual differences were found. • Some Ss were willing to try while some were more resistant to them. • Some Ss stick to only TotalRecall while some tried out all the four corpus tools.

25. The Top Five Purposes of the Use of the Yahoo Dictionary • Students consulted the Yahoo dictionary 604 times for 15 purposes.

26. The Top Five Purposes of the Use of the Corpus Tools • Students consulted the corpus tools 309 times for 15 purposes.

27. Differences among the Four Corpus Tools

28. Consultation Purposes and Aspects of Word Knowledge for Productive Use • For Meaning • The meaning of a word refers to the relationship between a word and its concepts and referents (Nation, 2003; Schmitt, 2000) • For Form • The spelling of a word, or the spelling of inflected and derived forms. • For Usage • Usage of a word refers to collocations, constraints on use, and grammatical functions.

29. For Meaning • WhenSs needed information on meaning, they turn to both Yahoo dictionary and TotalRecall. • Differences: • Yahoo to translate a single word in Mandarin to English (e.g. merit, manner) • TotalRecall to find an L2 equivalent for a string of keywords (e.g. phrases, idioms) • TotalRecall (corpus tools) displays flexibility in processing longer phrases with various combinations of keywords.

30. For Form • When such information was needed, Ss tended to use the Yahoo dictionary much more often. • Yahoo provide direct information on word form. • Exception (culturally bound words) • When Ss needed to look for the spelling of words that were related to the name of a local food, a local road, or concepts related to Chinese culture, they turned to TotalRecall.

31. For Usage • Corpus tools were chosen more often  need to check or confirm collocation. • Either Yahoo and corpus tools need to retrieve example sentences to figure out the usage of a word or sentence structure. • Yahoo to check part of speech and countablility.

32. The Bilingual Dictionary vs. Corpus Tools • Ss preferred a corpus tool when they needed information about: • word usage (e.g. affordable 這個字怎麼用) • collocation behavior (e.g. 查injury 之前的動詞) • grammar pattern (e.g. consider在句子中怎麼用) • Ss tended to use the bilingual dictionary when they needed information about: • word meaning (e.g. 收視率) • word form (e.g. check the spelling of domestic) • Corpus tools were used for meaning and form when • The Yahoo dictionary failed to provide a clear definition • Ss needed an English equivalent for • a phrase (e.g. 朝九晚五) • a string of keyword (e.g. 需要改善的) • culturally bound words (e.g. 蚵仔煎) • When Ss needed to confirm an intuition regarding word form and word meaning.

33. Conclusion • Students WILL turn to corpus tools for help if they have access to these tools and if they are given appropriate training. • Most students NEED TIME to learn how the corpus tools work and how to apply these tools to solve their writing problems. • Students tend to use corpus tools and dictionaries for different purposes.

34. Implication for Instruction • Students need tools other than the bilingual dictionary in order to compensate and to complement the limitations of the bilingual dictionary. • Bilingual concordancers are effective writing references, and therefore should be introduced to the students in class.