Chapter published in:
Learner Corpora and Language Teaching
Edited by Sandra Götz and Joybrato Mukherjee
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 92] 2019
► pp. 157–174

Comparing errors across an L2 spoken and written error-tagged Japanese EFL learner corpus

| Chuo University
The present study compared the spoken and written production of Japanese EFL learners prompted by the same picture description task. It focused on how production modes affect the accuracy and error rates of learner language across proficiency levels, by analysing linguistic features related to grammar and lexical choice. The results showed that linguistic features other than third-person singular -s showed significant differences between the modes. Third-person singular -s may be problematic for Japanese EFL learners as participants’ accuracy rates did not improve in the less time-pressured written production mode. Nevertheless, third-person singular -s was the only linguistic feature that could distinguish between intermediate-low and intermediate-mid levels of spoken production.
Published online: 06 May 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.92.08abe
References

References

Abe, Mariko
2007a A corpus-based investigation of errors across proficiency levels in L2 spoken production. JACET Journal 44: 1–14.Google Scholar
2007b Grammatical errors across proficiency levels in L2 spoken and written English. The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics 49: 117–129.Google Scholar
2015 Syntactic Variation across Proficiency Levels in EFL Learner Speech. PhD dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
2017 Tense and aspect errors in L2 written production of Japanese learners of English. Paper presented at the meeting of the Language in Focus 2017.
Corder, Pit
1967 The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 161–169. Crossref.Google Scholar
Dagneaux, Estelle, Denness, Sharon & Granger, Sylviane
1998 Computer-aided error analysis. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics 26: 163–174. Crossref.Google Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, María Belén & Papp, Szilvia
2008 The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. In Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Szilvia Papp & María Belén Díez-Bedmar (eds), 147–175. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dose-Heidelmayer, Stefanie & Götz, Sandra
2016 The progressive in advanced spoken learner language: A corpus-based analysis of use and misuse. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 54(3): 229–256. Crossref.Google Scholar
Dulay, Heidi C. & Burt, Marina K.
1973 Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23: 245–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Rod
2008 The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ellis, Rod & Barkhuizen, Gary
2005 Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Foster, Pauline & Skehan, Peter
1996 The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(3): 299–323. Crossref.Google Scholar
Field, Andy, Miles, Jeremy & Field, Zoë
2012 Discovering Statistics Using R. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Robert, Götz, Sandra & Werner, Valentin
2016 The present perfect in learner Englishes: A corpus-based case study on L1 German intermediate and advanced speech and writing. In Re-Assessing the Present Perfect, Valentin Werner, Elena Seoane & Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds), 297–338. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & De Cock, Sylvie
2013 Errors and disfluencies in spoken corpora: Setting the scene. In Errors and Disfluencies in Spoken Corpora [Benjamins Current Topics 52], Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Sylvie De Cock (eds), 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Götz, Sandra
2015 Tense and aspect errors in spoken learner English: Implications for language testing and assessment. In Learner Corpora in Language Testing and Assessment [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 70], Marcus Callies & Sandra Götz (eds), 191–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, Silviane
1999 Use of tenses by advanced EFL learners: Evidence from an error-tagged computer corpus. In Out of Corpora: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora, Hilde Hasselgård & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 191–202. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Granger, Silviane & Rayson, Paul
1998 Automatic profiling of learner texts. In Learner English on Computer, Silviane Granger (ed.), 119–131. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T.
2013 Statistical tests for the analysis of learner corpus data. In Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data, Ana Díaz-Negrillo [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 59], Nicolas Ballier & Paul Thompson (eds), 287–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Frequency tables, tests, effect sizes, and explorations. In Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy [Human Cognitive Processing 43], Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds), 365–389. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Deshors, Sandra C.
2014 Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora 9(1): 109–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, Shin’ichiro
2013 The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. In Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World 1, Shin’ichiro Ishikawa (ed.), 91–118. Kobe: Kobe University.Google Scholar
2014 Design of the ICNALE-Spoken: A new database for multi-modal contrastive interlanguage analysis. In Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World 2, Shin’ichiro Ishikawa (ed.), 63–75. Kobe: Kobe University.Google Scholar
Izumi, Emi, Uchimoto, Kiyotaka & Isahara, Hitoshi
2004 A Speaking Corpus of 1200 Japanese Learners of English. Tokyo: ALC Press.Google Scholar
Kaneko, Tomoko
2004 The use of past tense forms by Japanese learners of English. In English Corpora under Japanese Eyes, Junsaku Nakamura, Nagayuki Inoue & Tomoji Tabata (eds), 215–230. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, Yuichiro
2013 A comparison of spoken and written learner corpora: Analyzing developmental patterns of vocabulary used by Japanese EFL learners. In Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking Back, Moving Ahead, Silviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds), 277–287. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
2014 Computer-aided error analysis of L2 spoken English: A data mining approach. Proceedings of the Conference on Language and Technology 2014, 127–134.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Yuichiro & Murakami, Akira
2016 Contrastive analysis of L2 speech and writing: A multi-dimensional approach. Paper presented at the meeting of the Asia Pacific Corpus Linguistics Conference 2016.
Kobayashi, Yuichiro & Yamada, Hirofumi
2008 The use of metadiscourse markers in Japanese EFL learners’ English. English Corpus Studies 15: 161–173.Google Scholar
Krashen, Stephen
1982 Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard & Tono, Yukio
2006 Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miura, Aika
2008 Patterns in use and developmental processes of nominal modifiers in L2 spoken and written corpora. English Corpus Studies 15: 135–148.Google Scholar
Murcia-Bielasa, Susana & MacDonald, Penny
2013 The TREACLE project: Profiling learner proficiency using error and syntactic analysis. In Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking Back, Moving Ahead, Silviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds), 335–344. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Nomura, Mariko
2010 Interlanguage variability in linguistic features: A comparative analysis of Japanese EFL learners’ spoken and written corpora. STEP BULLETIN 22: 30–46.Google Scholar
Paquot, Magali & Plonsky, Luke
2017 Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 3(1): 61–94. Crossref.Google Scholar
Rüdiger, Sofia
2016 Cuppa coffee? Challenges and opportunities of compiling a conversational English corpus in an expanding circle setting. In A Blend of MaLT: Selected Contributions from the Methods and Linguistic Theories Symposium 2015, Hanna Christ, Daniel Klenovšak, Lukas Sönning & Valentin Werner (eds), 49–71. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Helmut
1994 Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. Revised version of a paper presented at the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, UK.
Suzuki, Rie & Tono, Yukio
2008 The use of the verb GET by Japanese EFL learners: Comparing NICT JLE with JEFLL. English Corpus Studies 15: 149–160.Google Scholar
Tarone, Elaine
1983 On the variability of interlanguage system. Applied Linguistics 4(2): 373–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thewissen, Jennifer
2013 Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal 97: 77–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tono, Yukio
2006 L2 acquisition of grammatical morphemes. In Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book, Tony McEnery, Richard Xiao & Yukio Tono, 247–263. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2007 JEFLL Corpus, Corpus of 10,000 Japanese EFL Learners: Analysing Written Composition of Junior and Senior High School Students. Tokyo: Shogakkan.Google Scholar
2008 An overview of developmental lexico-grammatical features in NICT JLE corpus and JEFLL corpus. English Corpus Studies 15: 119–133.Google Scholar
2013 Criterial feature extraction using parallel learner corpora and machine learning. In Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 59], Ana Díaz-Negrillo, Nicolas Baillier & Paul Thompson (eds), 169–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie & Gries, Stefan T.
2015 Prenominal adjective order preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A multifactorial corpus study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(1): 122–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar