slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Michael Hoey University of Liverpool 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference Harrogate PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Michael Hoey University of Liverpool 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference Harrogate

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 121

Michael Hoey University of Liverpool 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference Harrogate - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 124 Views
  • Uploaded on

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 .

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Michael Hoey University of Liverpool 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference Harrogate' - clem


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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 4th 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 4th 2014

lewis s lexical approach
Lewis’s Lexical Approach

According 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

lewis s lexical approach1
Lewis’s Lexical Approach

has, however, been criticised for

  • ignoring how language is learnt
  • having no theoretical underpinning

3. trivialising the role of grammar

It is open to criticism for

  • applying only to Indo-European languages
krashen s monitor model
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.

krashen s monitor model1
Krashen’s Monitor Model

has, however, been criticised for

  • ignoring how language is learnt
  • having no linguistic underpinning
  • trivialising the role of grammar

It is open to criticism for

  • trivialising the role of the teacher
three goals
Three goals

In this paper, however, I want to show that

  • Lewis’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 characteristics of language that the Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model treat as central are not limited to English.
how do we learn language some key psycholinguistic experiments
How do we learn language? Some key psycholinguistic experiments

Most 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

(with thanks to Michael Pace-Sigge)

how do we learn language some key psycholinguistic experiments1
How do we learn language? Some key psycholinguistic experiments

Most 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

semantic priming
Semantic priming

In 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 target
semantic priming1
Semantic priming

For 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.

semantic priming2
Semantic priming

For 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.

semantic priming3
Semantic priming

Pioneering 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 work

what is the significance of this to the language learner
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.

what is the significance of this to the language learner1
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

how do we learn language some key psycholinguistic experiments2
How do we learn language? Some key psycholinguistic experiments

Most of the psycholinguistic literature used by applied linguists is more linguistic than psychological. There are two research developments from the psycholinguistic tradition that may be of relevance:

semantic priming

repetition priming

repetition priming
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.

repetition priming1
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).

repetition priming2
Repetition priming

Key papers are:

Jacoby and Dallas (1981),

Scarborough, Cortese, and Scarborough (1977),

and

Forster and Davis (1984).

repetition priming3
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.

what is the significance of this to the language learner2
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.

what is the significance of this to the language learner3
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.

three goals1
Three goals

In this paper I wanted to show that

  • Lewis’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 English
three goals2
Three goals

In this paper I wanted to show that

  • Lewis’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 English
slide25
Problems with many existing theories of language
  • Fluency 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 plausibility

and must centre around how words are learnt

d must centre around how words are learnt

the lexical priming claim
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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
hard

worked hard

tried hard

fought hard

die hard

found it hard

prayed hard

raining hard

squeezed hard

slide29
hard

hard to believe

hard to understand

hard to imagine

hard to explain

hard to follow

hard to hear

hard to remember

hard to bear

slide30
hard

hard luck

hard line

hard facts

hard evidence

hard lives

hard water

hard labour

hard winter

hard currency

slide31
wordcollocates with against and a or your(s)

a word against

your word against mine

a word against)

slide32
wordcollocates 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

etc

slide34
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 communication

the lexical priming claim1
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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
wordcollocates 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 with2294

eyes 225 10%

and also

ears and nose

ears, nose and throat

ears and eyes

ears and hands

ears and nostrils

etc

slide39
ears co-occurs with2294

eyes 225 10%

and also

squashy fingers and crinkly ears

swollen ankles and painful earsbuck teeth and cauliflower ears

bulbous nose and big ears

long tail and pointed ears

etc

slide40
ears co-occurs with2294

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

etc

slide41
ears 2294

has a semantic association with

PARTS OF BODY

at least 525 cases 23%

the lexical priming claim2
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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 denied

That’s not the reason why…

For no particular reason…

For some reason or other…

Whatever the reason…

slide44
consequence tends to be negative

e.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 result

slide45
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)

the lexical priming claim3
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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 indefinite

e.g. another consequence, one consequence, a consequence

result tends to be definite

e.g. this result, the result

slide48
reason and result tend not to be possessed

e.g. the reason was…, the result was…

reasons and results can be possessed

e.g. my reasons were…, our results

slide49
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 subjectsand human prepositional objects

slide50
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 objects

the lexical priming claim4
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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
the lexical priming textual claim
The Lexical Priming (textual) claim

Whenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we also note subconsciously

whether it is typically cohesive (its textual collocations)

the lexical priming textual claim1
The Lexical Priming (textual) claim

Whenever 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.

the lexical priming textual claim2
The Lexical Priming (textual) claim

Whenever 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 cohesion

slide56
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 stance

The 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 stance

The 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

p resident
president

I 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 Mitterandin the same text)in 50 texts.

I excluded parenthetical uses.

p resident1
president

Of the 66 occurrences that I examined,

50 (76%) were part of the cohesion of the text.

p resident2
president

Of the 50 cohesive uses,

29 (58%) were part of a cohesive chain

21 (42%) were part of a cohesive pair

p resident3
president

Of the 50 cohesive uses,

25 (50%) were cohesive by simple repetition

23 (46%) were cohesive with pronouns

23 (46%) were cohesive with a name (excluding instances of President NAME)

13 (26%) were cohesive in other ways

(They add up to more than 50 because of the possibility of there being more than one cohesive relation).

p resident4
president

Of the 50 cohesive uses,

25 (50%) were cohesive by simple repetition

23 (46%) were cohesive with pronouns

23 (46%) were cohesive with a name (excluding instances of President NAME)

13 (26%) were cohesive in other ways

(They add up to more than 50 because of the possibility of there being more than one cohesive relation).

slide64
Obama reassures king of strong Syria stance

The 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

frankly
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.

frankly1
frankly

Of the 50 uses,

5 (10%) were part of the cohesion of the text

(all pairs, no chains).

frankly2
frankly

No cohesion 45

Repetition (pair) 2

Antonym 1

Synonym 1

Hyponym 1

slide68
So as we read, and identify the cohesion, we are not only primed for the collocations, colligations and semantic associations

BUTALSO

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.

the lexical priming claim5
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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),
the lexical priming claim6
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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 relation

slide72
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 be
  • textual, i.e. the relations between clauses or parts of clauses or between larger chunks of text
  • interactive, 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 criticised
slide75
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 agoat 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 agoand as long ago as are discounted.)

slide79
So texts prime our vocabulary for us, as we saw earlier

AND

our vocabulary is in turn primed to organise texts for us

the lexical priming claim7
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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)
the lexical priming claim8
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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)
the lexical priming claim9
The Lexical Priming claim

Whenever 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)

according to a theory
According to a theory...

We can use according to a to illustrate where we have arrived.

slide86
accordingcollocates 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
accordingcollocates 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 badhas 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 objects

slide91
according to has the textual collocation of rarely being repeated directly but of being paraphrased in subsequent paragraphs as said, told etcrepetitions 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 relation
slide93
according to a research study has the textual colligation of being very strongly associated in newspapers with
  • first sentence of the news story
  • second half of the sentence, often the end of the sentence.
slide95
So...

Lexical priming can take account of

  • Collocation
  • Semantic association
  • Pragmatic association
  • Colligation (i.e.grammar)
  • Textual collocation
  • Textual semantic association
  • Textual colligation
  • Genre
what is the significance of this to the language learner4
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.

what is the significance of this to the language learner5
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 learners 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?

three goals3
Three goals

In this paper, however, I want to show that

  • Lewis’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 YES
  • The features of language that the Lexical Approach makes use of are as present in Chinese as they are in English
three goals4
Three goals

In this paper, however, I want to show that

  • Lewis’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 English
english versus chinese
English versus Chinese

NOT SHARED

  • Fairly clear boundary between words and morphemes
  • Intonation as a discourse feature
  • Time and number marked grammatically

?

NOT SHARED

  • No clear boundary between words and morphemes
  • Tone as a feature of the lexicon
  • Time and number marked lexically
the lexical priming claims
The Lexical Priming claims

As 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).
the lexical priming claims1
The Lexical Priming claims

How about Chinese?

the lexical priming claims2
The Lexical Priming claims

How about Chinese?

Work of Xiao & McEnery

slide104

hăo

làn hăo rénsomeone who tries to be on good terms with everybody

hăo xiàngseems like

hěn hăo Very well, thanks

hăo bù hăo? good or bad?

hăo fēngjĭngbeautiful scenery

hăochītasty

hăowánamusing, interesting

the lexical priming claim10
The Lexical Priming claim

As 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).
the lexical priming claims3
The Lexical Priming claims

How about Chinese?

colligation in chinese
Colligation in Chinese

hòuhuĭregret/repent

In 75 instances, a 37/38 split between positive and negative polarity in the sentences they appear in.

So hòuhuĭcolligates with negation.

the lexical priming claims4
The Lexical Priming claims

As 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

wŏhòuhuǐfàncuòwùmaking a mistake

wŏhòuhuǐchūcuòcommitting an error

wŏhòuhuǐméiqù… not going

wŏhòuhuǐtīngtā de huàlistening to his/her words

slide110
hòuhuǐin negative sentences

2294

has a pragmaticassociation 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.

three goals5
Three goals

In this paper, however, I want to show that

  • Lewis’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 English
three goals6
Three goals

In this paper, however, I want to show that

  • Lewis’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 English PROBABLY
what is the significance of this to the language learner6
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.

lewis s lexical approach2
Lewis’s Lexical Approach

has been criticised for

  • ignoring how language is learnt
  • having no theoretical underpinning

3. trivialising the role of grammar

It is open to criticism for

  • applying only to Indo-European languages
lewis s lexical approach3
Lewis’s Lexical Approach

has been FALSELY criticised for

  • Ignoring 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 NOTopen to criticism for

3. Applying only to Indo-European languages

THIS IS UNTRUE

lewis s lexical approach4
Lewis’s Lexical Approach

has been FALSELY criticised for

  • Ignoring 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.

krashen s monitor model2
Krashen’s Monitor Model

has been criticised for

  • ignoring how language is learnt
  • having no linguistic underpinning
  • trivialising the role of grammar

It is open to criticism for

  • trivialising the role of the teacher
krashen s monitor model3
Krashen’s Monitor Model

has been FALSELY criticised for

  • ignoring how language is learnt
  • having 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.

krashen s monitor model4
Krashen’s Monitor Model

has been FALSELY criticised for

  • ignoring how language is learnt
  • having no theoretical underpinning
  • trivialising the role of grammar
  • trivialising the role of the teacher

THE MODEL IS SAFE TO USE

thank you for listening
Thank you for listening

hoeymp@liv.ac.uk