1 / 21

In Search of a Measure of Grammaticality: A Probabilistic Approach

In Search of a Measure of Grammaticality: A Probabilistic Approach. Liang Maocheng. In Search of a Measure of Orality: A Probabilistic Approach. Xu Jiajin. Register Variation: A SP-WR case. Xu Jiajin Beijing Foreign Studies University. Written language bias. For decades

yardley-rosario
Download Presentation

In Search of a Measure of Grammaticality: A Probabilistic Approach

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. In Search of a Measure of Grammaticality: A Probabilistic Approach Liang Maocheng

  2. In Search of a Measure of Orality: A Probabilistic Approach Xu Jiajin

  3. Register Variation: A SP-WR case Xu Jiajin Beijing Foreign Studies University

  4. Written language bias • For decades • Have we gone astray in linguistic inquiry? • In the least, equal attention should be given to spoken language.

  5. What are the defining features of spoken language?

  6. Written/literate features • Long, embedded complete sentences • Relative clauses • Long, nominalised abstract words • Passive voice • etc

  7. Spoken features • Incomplete sentences, ellipsis • Questions, interrogative sentences • Tag questions • Inversion, post-posed elements • Contractions • Small, easy everyday words • Interactive, interpersonal, expressive • Hedges, discourse marker use • Fillers, pause markers • Negation (Yes). No.

  8. Why do they differ? • According to Wallace Chafe (1982), two factors explain the differences between written discourse and verbal interaction: • 1) Writing takes longer than speaking; • 2) Writers do not contact with readers.

  9. The first factor is responsible for the very many fragments in SD; and • the second factor is responsible for the detachment from the readers as opposed to the high involvement in verbal communication.

  10. Distinctive features b/t speech & writing • Think about typical written discourse and typical spoken discourse • Academic writing (research articles) • Everyday casual conversation (small talk)

  11. Paper reading and replicate • Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse • Stephanie Petch-Tyson

  12. Spoken features of learner writing • Writer reader visibility • Petch-Tyson（1998）

  13. Questions for reading • Research aims • Data • Method • Conclusion • Critique

  14. Biber’s MF/MD model • 67 features (Biber 1988) • 125 features (Biber 2007) • 141 features (Xiao 2009) • Features collected in literature and according to intuition • List of spoken features will never be exhausted. • BFSU_MF_MD tool

  15. Two overarching approaches • Rule-based: Sth that we are sure about • Pro and con • - Can never be exhaustive • - A blind men and elephant matter • + It’s good enough if we get the best part. • 5万和3万没有差别 • Probabilistic: Greedy and exhaustive

  16. Spoken corpus Written corpus vs SP Word list WR Word list SP Keyword list A keyword approach to Speech writing difference How a keyword list is generated? vs

  17. Task: Keywordcorpus driven approach • Observed: dem: • Demographically sampled spoken data • Reference: aca + fic + news • Probabilistic approach

  18. Bibliography 1/3 Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. Biber, D. et al. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written Language. London: Longman. Brazil, D. 1995. A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: OUP. Cameron, D. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: SAGE Publications. Carter R. & M. McCarthy. 1997. Exploring Spoken Language. Cambridge: CUP. Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Campoy, M. & M. Luzón. (eds.). 2007. Spoken Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Bern: Peter Lang.

  19. Bibliography 2/3 Cornbleet, S. & R. Carter. 2001. The Language of Speech and Writing. London: Routledge. Ellis, R. & G. Barkhuizen. 2005. Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: OUP. Hughes, E. (ed.). 2006. Spoken English, TESOL and Applied Linguistics. New York: Palgrave. McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Muller, S. 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Petch-Tyson, S. 1998. Writer/ reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger ( ed. ) . Learner English on Computer. 107-118.

  20. Bibliography 3/3 丁海涛，2008，A Keyword Approach to Spoken Features in the English Essays by Chinese non-English Major College Students，中国外语教学研究中心硕士论文。 文秋芳、丁言仁、王文宇，2003，中国大学生英语书面语中的口语化倾向，《外语教学与研究》（4）：268-275。 文秋芳，2009，学习者英语语体特征变化的研究，《外国语》（4）。 吴琼，2007，A Register Analysis of Spoken English of Chinese EFL Learners: A Multi-dimensional Approach（中国英语学习者英语口语语域的多维度研究），中国外语教学研究中心硕士论文。 许家金、许宗瑞，2007，中国大学生英语口语中的互动话语词块研究，《外语教学与研究》（6）：437-443。

  21. Thank you xujiajin

More Related