Volume 6 (2015) Issue 1
Examining
Successful Language Use at C1 Level: A Learner Corpus
Study into the Vocabulary and Abilities Demonstrated by Successful Speaking
Exam Candidates
Shelley
Byrne (Preston (Lancashire), United Kingdom
Abstract
This study situates itself
amongst research into spoken English grammars, learner success and descriptions
of linguistic progression within the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001). It follows previous corpus research
which has sought to document the language required by learners if they are to
progress through levels and ultimately ‘succeed’ when operating in English. In
the field of language testing, for which the CEFR has been a valuable tool,
qualitative descriptions of learner competence and abilities may not provide
sufficient detail for students, assessors and test designers alike to know
which language is required and used by learners at different levels. This
particular study therefore aims to identify the language and abilities demonstrated
by successful C1 candidates taking the University of Central
Lancashire
Key words: Learner corpora, spoken grammar,
language testing
1 Introduction
Success in
second language acquisition has been subject to various avenues of
investigation. From the examination of individual cognitive and affective
characteristics (Cook 2008; Dornyei & Skehan 2003; Ellis 2008; Gardner
& MacIntyre 1992; Robinson 2002; Rubin 1975) to the application of learner
models or “yardstick[s]” (House 2003: 557), researchers and practitioners have
aimed to demystify what makes language learners successful. Another approach in
this pursuit has been to explore more deeply the features that language
comprises using corpus linguistics, a technique which has often been used to
explicate how lexico-grammatical forms differ or correspond in spoken and
written discourse (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad & Finegan 1999, Leech
2000, Conrad 2000, McCarthy & Carter 1995). The compilation of descriptive
grammars and various corpora (Biber et al. 1999, Carter & McCarthy 2006,
Cambridge English Corpus (CEC) 2012, the British National Corpus (BNC) 2004,
and the Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE)
2012), has resulted in enhanced knowledge of spoken and written English
features that has not only aided comparison, but has simultaneously provided a
source of knowledge for learners.
However,
the native-speaker (NS) foundations upon which such grammars and corpora are
assembled have generated debate and criticism. Despite some learners’
aspirations to conform to native speaker models (Timmis 2002), questions have
arisen regarding the applicability of a linguistic model potentially inappropriate,
unachievable, conflicting or irrelevant in a world where English as a lingua
franca is used often beyond native-speaker contexts (Alpetkin 2002,
Canagarajah 2007, Cook 1999, Cook 2008, Kramsch 2003, Norton 1997, Phillipson
1992, Piller 2002, Prodromou 2008, Stern 1983, Widdowson 1994). Research into
successful spoken and written language use has therefore begun to place
emphasis on learner corpus research centring on language use by non-native
speakers who operate and function as “successful users of English” (Prodromou
2008: xiv) (International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) (Granger, Dagneaux, Meunier, & Paquot 2009), the
Vienna-Oxford Corpus of International English (VOICE 2013), and Cambridge
English Profile Corpus (CEPC n.d.)).
Within the
European language provision context, research is also delineating learner
success and language use in terms of the proficiency descriptors provided by
the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe [CoE] 2001), a document
outlining the wide-ranging competencies of language learners in a variety of
language learning settings. In a bid to satisfy its aims of providing a
non-prescriptive, adaptable guide for language provision, no illustration is
given as to the actual language to be evidenced at different levels (Alderson
2007, Weir 2005). Put simply, while readers can discover what learners should
be able to do with their language,
less guidance is offered for what language
should be used in order to do it. It is this intentional limitation which has
stimulated this study focusing on a particular set of speaking exams. As the
uptake of CEFR levels and proficiency scales was considerable in the field of
language assessment (Little 2007), this study aims to reveal what language is required
by speaking test candidates if they are to be successful
in C1 level exams. Building upon the findings of a B2 study conducted by
Jones, Waller & Golebiewska (2013), it reports on data from a spoken C1
test corpus of learner language in order to answer the following research
questions:
RQ1 What percentage of the
words used by C1 learners come from the first thousand and second thousand most
frequent words in the BNC?
RQ2a What were the twenty most frequent words used by successful
learners at C1 level?
RQ2b What were the important keywords at C1 level?
RQ2c What were the most frequent three- and four-word chunks used by
these learners?
RQ3 What C1 CEFR indicators are
present in terms of spoken interaction, spoken production and strategies?
2 Literature Review
The impetus
for identifying a spoken grammar of English arose from criticisms towards
traditional grammars heavily influenced by the written word and their
applicability to the diverse, wide-ranging speakers and contexts encompassed by
the medium of informal conversation. Ensuing research, facilitated
by developments and findings in corpus linguistics techniques (Leech
2000), prompted the compilation of large spoken corpora including the CEC, BNC
and CANCODE. In addition to providing real examples of language for
practitioners and learners, such corpora have done much to expand knowledge of
written and spoken lexico-grammars and their distinctions. With knowledge of
the target language system being integral to success in language learning (Griffiths
2004), an increased knowledge of grammar is believed to do much to raise
learners’ potentials to “operate flexibly in a range of spoken and written
contexts” (McCarthy & Carter 1995: 207).
One area of lexico-grammatical knowledge broadened by corpus
linguistics relates to vocabulary, in particular the use of lexical chunks.
Vocabulary, learned for its communicative purpose (Laufer & Nation 1995)
aids the construction and comprehension of meaning, enhances the acquisition of
new vocabulary, extends the knowledge of the
world and is fundamental to student performance (Chujo 2004). In terms of
success and language learning, it seems crucial that research should aim to
identify what and how much vocabulary is needed to achieve
a particular purpose (Adolphs & Schmitt 2004). Studies based on the NS
corpora above have, however, demonstrated that
vocabulary is rarely used in isolation. It is often combined to form
prefabricated chunks (Wray 2002), formulaic expressions (Schmitt 2004) or
“standardised multiword expressions” (Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers &
Demecheleer 2006: 246) which can fulfil various linguistic functions including
collocations, fillers in speech and idiomatic expressions. Constituting varying
proportions of total language use (Erman & Warren 2000, Foster 2001),
lexical chunks not only influence the assessment of learner proficiency and
success, but they also facilitate spoken production. They reduce memory
constraints, they can make students sound more native-like, they can maintain
accuracy and they can act as “zones of safety” (Boers et al. 2006: 247; also
Wray 2002 and Skehan 1998). With estimations asserting that chunks comprise
32.3% and 58.6% of NS spoken discourse, investigations of learner success
should indeed take them into account to ascertain whether they are used and
whether lexical chunk instruction may be of benefit to learners.
Returning
to the notion of learner success, corpus findings and spoken grammars based on
the NS may seem somewhat paradoxical in the pursuit of a “natural spoken
output” in the classroom (McCarthy & Carter 2001: 51). Questions have been raised as to whether NS findings can
indeed provide appropriate grammatical insights beneficial to the
development of ‘natural’ non-native speech. Although many teachers and learners
may endeavour to achieve a native-like standard in English (Timmis 2002), the
NS model for many learners can be deemed “utopian, unrealistic,
and constraining” (Alptekin 2002: 57) and at times unconducive to the goals of
individuals who may operate in English beyond traditional, inner-circle NS
contexts (Andreou & Galantomos 2009, Kachru 1992). Recent years have
therefore seen an increase in the application of learner corpora to obtain
greater insight into proficiency and linguistic achievement during second
language learning (e.g. ICLE, VOICE, and CEC). By exposing learners to examples
from successful learners of English rather than those of native speakers, it is
thought they will be able to consult a model which is more realistic, appropriate
and, ultimately, within reach.
A further
branch bridging the discussion of successful language use and corpus
linguistics concerns associations with learner competency descriptors within
the CEFR (CoE 2001). In addition to detailing
extensively the skills learners possess and cultivate across a wide range of
social and educational contexts, the CEFR comprehensively describes
communicative language activities and competences. Specifically, in relation to
the focus of this study, its six Common
Reference Levels and can-do statements
outline the abilities of language learners at different stages. However,
despite its intentional, non-exhaustive nature (CoE 2001, Coste 2007, North
2006, Weir 2005), it has faced criticism. While
some highlight its misuse, its lack of support from second language acquisition
theory and its sometimes problematic application caused by vague definitions
and vocabulary, others have stressed the absence of actual language use to
enhance the understanding of its competency
descriptors (Alderson 2007, Fulcher 2004, Figueras 2012, Hulstijn 2007;,Weir 2005). In short,
the detailed guidance offered in describing abilities at each of the six levels
is not replicated in the form of illustrative linguistic structures and
vocabulary to be encountered or mastered by learners. One large-scale study,
the CEPC (n.d.) has begun to tackle these issues. Via the compilation of an
intended 10 million word (20% spoken, 80% written) learner corpus covering levels A1-C2, the CEPC intends to document
the language required by learners to satisfy descriptors at each level.
While the
present, much smaller study may seem to share aims
similar to the CEPC, its context is more focussed. While the CEPC incorporates
general and specific written and spoken English language use by learners from
across the world, the lexico-grammatical findings in this study will relate
only to successful spoken language use in C1 speaking examinations produced by
UCLanESB so that test writers, assessors,
teachers and students can all be made aware of how language can be used to
fulfil CEFR criteria.
3 Methodology
A learner
corpus of 26,620 words was constructed, using sample language from the UCLanESB
spoken tests at C1 level. Samples were taken from 31 adult candidates (16 males,
15 females) of mixed nationalities who achieved a solid pass score on the test each. Following completion of the speaking
tests, conducted in groups of two or three candidates, speakers were given a mark of 0-5 for vocabulary, grammar,
discourse management, interactive ability, and pronunciation; a global score was then calculated. It was this global score
which was used as a measure for success. As a score of 2.5 equates to a pass, only exams in which both or all
candidates achieved a score of 3.5 or 4 were incorporated into the corpus.
Students attaining a mark outside this score bracket may not have displayed a
solid, successful performance at C1 level and would therefore not assist the
aims of the research. Steps were also taken to verify the global scores of
exams incorporated into the corpus: all exam assessors had completed UCLanESB
standardisation, all exams had been second-marked and the researcher did not
take part in any exam, neither as an assessor nor as
an interlocutor.
To
correspond with other general English tests, and to assess an array of speaking
skills (O’Sullivan Weir & Saville 2002), the test
was divided into three scripted parts (the
format description being taken from Jones, Waller & Golebiewska
2013: 32):
Part A: The
interlocutor asks for mainly general personal information about the candidates
(question-answer form). Candidates answer in turn. This stage lasts for
approximately two minutes.
Part B: Candidates
engage in an interactive discussion based on two written statements. The interlocutor
does not take part. This stage lasts for approximately four minutes.
Part C: Candidates
discuss questions related to the topic in Part B both together and with the
examiner. This stage lasts for approximately four minutes.
The C1
tests were transcribed using the CANCODE
transcription conventions (Adolphs 2008) to facilitate analysis. Accessible to
prospective readers, and still precise and reliable for illustrating
interactions between the candidates and interlocutors, they were conducive to analysis
during explorations of data which often involved the omission of interlocutor
data. Once transcribed, data were subjected to various analyses. A lexical
profile (Laufer & Nation 1995) was first created, using the Compleat Lexical Tutor (Cobb 2014) to
identify the percentage of words used,
belonging to the first and second thousand most frequent words in the spoken
BNC (Leech, Rayson & Wilson 2001) alongside calculations of token-type ratios to allow for preliminary
comparisons of lexical repetition. Wordsmith Tools (Scott 2014) software
was utilised to calculate word frequency and keyword lists which employed a
keyness ratio of 1:50 (Chung & Nation 2004) and the spoken BNC as a
reference. To answer the final part of the second research question, three- and
four-word lexical chunks were then sorted according to their frequency via
Anthony’s (2014) Antconc software. The final stage involved a
qualitative analysis of learner language, using NVIVO software (QSR 2012). This
helped to determine the occurrence of relevant, spoken C1 can-do
descriptors and the language used to realise them. Relevant speaking
descriptors were taken from the production, interaction and strategy use
sections of the CEFR (CoE 2001: 58-87).
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Research Question 1 (RQ1)
Research
Question 1 was the following one:
What percentage of the words
used by C1 learners come from the first thousand and second thousand most
frequent words in the spoken BNC?
The
percentage of words from the first thousand (K-1) and second thousand (K-2)
most frequent words in English are shown in Table 1 below:
|
Frequency Level
|
Families (%)
|
Types (%)
|
Tokens (%)
|
Cumulative Tokens %
|
Type-Token Ratio
|
|
K-1 Words
K-2 Words
|
607
(58.48)
236
(22.74)
|
927
(63.71)
285
(19.59)
|
19307 (92.25)
976 (4.66)
|
92.25
96.91
|
14.38
|
Tab. 1: Percentage of words from the
first and second thousand most frequent English
words
As can be
seen, a cumulative majority of words, 96.91%, originated from the first 2000
most frequent words in English. Although this
majority is dominated by words from the K-1 band, in sum, the data still demonstrate that less than one in every twenty words
belonged to bands beyond the 2000 word limit. For students to be successful at
C1 level, therefore, it is crucial that candidates have knowledge of words
originating from the K-1 and K-2 bands, an assertion supported by several
writers (McCarthy 1999, O’Keefe, McCarthy & Carter 2007).
Further
insights into C1 success can also be obtained by examining the coverage
provided by word families: groups consisting of headwords, their inflections
and derivations (Nation 2001, Nagy et al, 1989). Whilst it is acknowledged that
learners require a wide-ranging vocabulary in order to satisfy long-term learning
goals (Nation 2001), much research recognises the need for students to make use
of a limited, useful vocabulary, a vocabulary which is continually repeated and
recycled in order to satisfy a range of spoken and written functions (Nation
2001, Nation & Waring 1997, Cobb n.d.). Such a useful vocabulary in English
is said to mostly comprise the first 2000 word families: in written texts, this
figure provides a coverage of approximately 80% (Francis & Kucera 1982,
Cobb n.d., Nation & Waring 1997, Nation 2001), whilst in unscripted spoken
texts, the percentage coverage rises to 96% (Adolphs & Schmitt 2004) or 97%
(Schonell et al, 1956, cited in Adolphs & Schmitt 2004). The data in Table
1 indicate that K-1 word families (58.48%) and
K-2 word families (22.74%) only supplied a combined coverage of 81%. This
figure, greatly reduced in comparison with the estimations of Schonell et al.
(1956) and Adolphs & Schmitt (2004), is, however, somewhat anticipated. C1
learners will not have a vocabulary breadth comparable to that of native
speakers, nor will they be able to draw on an equal, or readily available,
knowledge of the inflections or derivations belonging to a particular headword.
The above
deduction could therefore have implications for the expectations placed upon
successful C1 learners in relation to CEFR descriptors. With C1 encompassed by
the proficient user label in the CEFR (CoE, 2001: 23), it may be easy to
assume candidates to be able to employ more advanced lexis. However, with such
a high proportion of K-1 and K-2 words and a type-token ratio of 14, which
suggests a certain degree of repetition at this level, emphasis might not be placed on the advanced nature of
vocabulary, but on the flexibility and
frequency with which the first 2000 words can be used as per the C1 level
descriptor presented earlier. For instance, although example statements such as
the excerpt below do not seem impressive in terms of lexical difficulty (bold
type represents words beyond K-2), they do contain vocabulary which i) meets the
demands of the task and ii) can be reproduced for use in other parts of the
test[1]:
Example:
<$3M> Okay can I go first? Okay erm
tourism in my country is not really important why because erm my country has a
lot of problems like erm there are a lot of things that er need to be atte=
attended to before tourism so basically what they are focussing on is not
tourism at all they are trying to focus on agriculture
and the production the industries and the rest so like tourism is like neglected in my country.
4.2
Research Question 2a:
What were the twenty most
frequent words used by successful learners at C1 level?
|
Rank
|
Word
|
Frequency
|
Coverage (%)
|
|
|
Individual
|
Cumulative
|
|||
|
1
|
THE
|
1071
|
5.18
|
5.18
|
|
2
|
ER
|
733
|
3.55
|
8.73
|
|
3
|
I
|
718
|
3.47
|
12.20
|
|
4
|
AND
|
590
|
2.85
|
15.05
|
|
5
|
TO
|
581
|
2.81
|
17.86
|
|
6
|
ERM
|
450
|
2.18
|
20.04
|
|
7
|
IS
|
377
|
1.82
|
21.86
|
|
8
|
IN
|
369
|
1.79
|
23.65
|
|
9
|
YOU
|
360
|
1.74
|
25.39
|
|
10
|
YEAH
|
354
|
1.71
|
27.10
|
|
11
|
THINK
|
313
|
1.51
|
28.61
|
|
12
|
AND
|
309
|
1.49
|
30.10
|
|
13
|
LIKE
|
302
|
1.46
|
31.56
|
|
14
|
OF
|
281
|
1.36
|
32.92
|
|
15
|
SO
|
255
|
1.23
|
34.15
|
|
16
|
THEY
|
250
|
1.21
|
35.36
|
|
17
|
IT'S
|
234
|
1.13
|
36.49
|
|
18
|
IT'S
|
230
|
1.11
|
37.60
|
|
19
|
THAT
|
174
|
0.84
|
38.44
|
|
20
|
BECAUSE
|
173
|
0.84
|
39.28
|
Tab.
2: Most frequent words used by successful C1 learners
Upon
initial inspection, these word frequency results may seem rather unsurprising.
When compared with frequency lists for the spoken BNC (Leech, Rayson &
Wilson 2001) and the Cambridge
Firstly,
the CEFR C1 descriptor clearly states its position regarding hesitancy: fluent
expression should be executed “without much obvious searching” (CoE 2001: 27).
The fillers er and erm, nevertheless, occupy
the second and the sixth position, respectively, in the C1 frequency
list. This, too, is rather predictable in that of a variety of “performance
additions” such as fillers, discourse markers and delays, er and erm
are regarded as the most common (Clark & Foxtree 2002: 74). They can also
be used to cope with memory demands which can cause uncertainty, delay or
inability when answering questions (Smith & Clark 1993), and it can be
assumed that learners will have to exploit a much narrower vocabulary to fulfil
their linguistic needs, a task potentially increasing the occurrence of pauses.
While delaying expressions such as well, what do you call it and how
will I put it are found in the C1 data, they are not as flexible as er
and erm; arguably, they may neither seem as natural. Ultimately, despite
the C1 descriptor, it should be expected that successful C1 students will still
use er and erm frequently.
Developing
from hesitation, it is relevant to discuss how word frequency may be influenced
by the nature of the C1 exam and the task demands placed upon candidates. For
instance, words such as think, so and because would be
expected in an exam which frequently elicits opinions and reasonings in order
to assess abilities to “formulate ideas and opinions with precision” (CoE 2001:
27). In the case of think (38th position in CANCODE; 46th position in
the spoken BNC), the data and the aims of some vocabulary instruction for
giving opinions may conflict. Some exercises make an effort to present learners
with alternatives to I think which represented 260 occurrences in the C1
data, such as in my opinion (ten occurrences), I believe (seven
occurrences), from my point of view (one occurrence) and as far as
I’m concerned or if you asked me (zero occurrences).
In the C1 data, these other forms were heavily eclipsed in terms of frequency.
This finding raises the question as to whether students should be expected to
use these alternative phrases when I think delivers success at C1. It
may seem basic, but it is efficient and more target-like when compared with NS
corpus data.
C1
descriptors also require learners to provide sufficient conclusions to their
utterances. A productive can-do statement looks for evidence that C1
learners are able to supply an “appropriate conclusion” to “round-off” their
arguments (CoE 2001: 27). In relation to task demands, this can offer some
explanation as to why the conjunction so appears frequently in the C1
corpus (in the spoken BNC, this function occupied 274th position).
Corresponding to word usage for expressing purpose, as
documented in Carter & McCarthy’s Cambridge Grammar of English (2006: 143), a high majority of
occurrences of so did involve its use as a subordinating conjunction to
introduce “result, consequence and purpose”. Whilst this contrasts greatly from
Carter & McCarthy’s (2006) observation that so in NS spoken English
is used most frequently as a discourse marker (e.g. so what are we supposed
to be doing?), the C1 data show that not only is this usage very frequent,
but that this could be a direct result of the demands placed upon students by
the exam tasks. Similarly, the high frequency of because in the C1 data
should have been foreseeable; students are repeatedly asked for explanations
for their opinions. Also, although cos does appear in the C1 frequency
data (76th position) and its use is expected in informal speech (Carter &
McCarthy 2006), because is used more often to give reasons and extra
information in support of opinions in the main clause, as in the following
example (words in bold have been discussed in
this section):
Examples:
<$11F> I think if you er put a
bins and it er has a labels or er write about which one is er for recycling mm people will do
right so I think it's a good way to
protect the environment. How about you?
<$12F> Okay I take your point but erm this is some problem about the bins
because erm I often see a lot of
people they can't recognise the symbol on the bins because erm they sometimes they walking on the road they just erm keep they eyesight in the street so they can't erm remember the symbol
on the bins.
A final
finding to be highlighted here refers to a notable difference in the C1 data
which contrasts the findings of Jones, Waller and Golebiewska’s (2013) study
into UCLanESB’s B2 spoken test data. Despite the arguable value of teaching
students high frequency verbs such as go, have and do
(Willis 1990) for use as full, auxiliary and delexicalized verbs (Lewis 1993,
1997), such verbs did not appear in the most frequent C1 words seen in Table 2.
In fact, go, although still much more frequently used than have
and do in the B2 data, only appears in 49th position. Such a
finding may initially suggest that C1 students have a greater repertoire of
vocabulary that can satisfy similar meanings or functions. Although this would
require greater exploration, this conclusion may appear valid in the C1 data,
especially when the low occurrence of circumlocution and paraphrase (see RQ3;
findings) is considered. The successful C1 students in this study may,
therefore, have demonstrated the necessary “good command” of vocabulary to
satisfy the CoE’s (2001: 28) C1 descriptor of range.
4.3
Research Question 2b
What were the important
keywords at C1 level?
|
Rank
|
Keyword
|
Frequency
|
RC. Frequency
|
RC %
|
|
1
|
ER
|
733
|
90,254
|
0.09
|
|
2
|
ERM
|
450
|
63,095
|
0.06
|
|
3
|
YEAH
|
354
|
83,012
|
0.08
|
|
4
|
THINK
|
313
|
88,700
|
0.09
|
|
5
|
I
|
717
|
732,523
|
0.74
|
|
6
|
LIKE
|
302
|
147,936
|
0.15
|
|
7
|
IT'S
|
234
|
126,792
|
0.13
|
|
8
|
MAYBE
|
87
|
10,023
|
0.01
|
|
9
|
TOURISM
|
55
|
1,461
|
|
|
10
|
BECAUSE
|
173
|
100,659
|
0.1
|
|
11
|
HOTEL
|
82
|
10,911
|
0.01
|
|
12
|
SO
|
254
|
239,549
|
0.24
|
|
13
|
COUNTRY
|
99
|
27,959
|
0.03
|
|
14
|
|
31
|
141
|
|
|
15
|
PEOPLE
|
162
|
116196
|
0.12
|
|
16
|
MM
|
100
|
34736
|
0.03
|
|
17
|
YOU
|
360
|
588503
|
0.59
|
|
18
|
UM
|
32
|
651
|
|
|
19
|
REALLY
|
98
|
46477
|
0.05
|
|
20
|
IMPORTANT
|
89
|
38721
|
0.04
|
Tab.
3: Top 20 keywords used by successful C1 learners
Preliminary
observation seems to corroborate conclusions from the examination of the
frequency lists. Not only do words such as er, erm, think,
like, so and because appear much more highly in the C1
frequency lists when compared to the reference corpora lists used, but they
also seem to be of particular significance to the success of C1 test
candidates. Once again, the implied importance of these words could be a
product of test design and the task demands placed on students. It could also
be assumed that the keyword ranking of this lexis could be due to their
fluctuating usage: their high frequency and usefulness not only corresponds to
the nature of the C1 exam, but also to the valuable range of functions the
words fulfil for successful candidates.
For
instance, the cases of think and like may demonstrate the variety
afforded, a variety which may help to satisfy criteria relating to C1 expectations
of students to be able to use language “flexibly and effectively” (CoE 2001:
27). When exploring Key Word In Context (KWIC) concordance data to discover the
way in which these words were used, think and like varied.
Unsurprisingly, think was used to give and obtain opinions throughout
the exam (the most frequent question asked by students was What do you
think?). As the examples below demonstrate, it also was utilised to create
hedging phrases, expressions of uncertainty, and it was occasionally modified
to add emphasis:
Examples:
<$7F> Yeah it will help the
environment environment I think.
<$2M> Erm I really think that this is the most important bit about the hotel
er the place where I would spend the night if it's er I really think that if erm the room's totally quiet like the walls
are too thick that the sound can't pass over them <$O2> it's perfect for
me </$O2>
In relation
to like, it became increasingly apparent, when scrutinising
the KWIC data that its use not only altered according to its word class,
but also according to the exam section. The data showed that like was
used as a lexical verb, a preposition, and as a filler (as shown below):
Examples:
<$19M> Er usually I like [verb] light music and pop music.
The light music er especially for before I go to bed and pop music for example
when I travelling somewhere I usually use my headphones to listen it.
<$29M> Well first of all I live in Qatar it's a sm= small country and my
neighbourhood is actually in <$G3> it's in Doha
<$24M> But for me like [filler] all these are related like [preposition] stress rent smoking
and maybe you you have stress because you don't sleep enough.
Like allowed students to provide examples and analogies and it also
acted as a filler during voiced pauses (Carter & McCarthy 2006). Although
it was predominantly used as a lexical verb in Part A of the exam, its usage in
parts B and C changed when it began to be used more as a filler, similar to the
way young native speakers use it today (Carter & McCarthy 2006). Since Part
B removes the interlocutor’s support and Part
C “aims to push candidates towards their linguistic ceiling” (Jones, Waller
& Golebiewska 2013: 33), it is anticipated that the occurrence of pauses
will increase. However, at C1, perhaps the use of like in this way
evidences a mastering or attempts by learners to employ NS filler lexis.
4.4
Research Question 2c
What were the most frequent
three- and four-word chunks used by these learners?
Table 4
presents the most frequent three- and four-word chunks used by successful C1
students. The chunks in bold also appeared in
the top 20 in the spoken BNC’s chunk data (Adolphs & Carter 2013):
|
Three-word chunks
|
Four-word chunks
|
|
1. [47] I THINK IT
|
1. [35]I THINK IT’S
|
|
2. [41] IN MY COUNTRY
|
2. [15] WHAT DO YOU THINK
|
|
3. [36] I DON’T
|
3. [11] I AGREE WITH YOU
|
|
4. [36] THINK IT’S
|
4. [11] I DON’T KNOW
|
|
5. [35] A LOT OF
|
5. [11] LOCATION OF THE
HOTEL
|
|
6. [32] SO I THINK
|
6. [11] YEAH I AGREE
WITH
|
|
7. [27] IT’S A
|
7. [10] IT’S IT’S
|
|
8. [25] DO YOU THINK
|
8. [10] THE LOCATION OF
THE
|
|
9. [25] OF THE HOTEL
|
9. [8] DO YOU THINK
ABOUT
|
|
10. [24] I THINK THE
|
10. [7] A LOT OF PEOPLE
|
|
11. [23] I THINK THAT
|
11. [7] IN MY COUNTRY IS
|
|
12. [23] IT’S NOT
|
12. [7] SO I THINK IT
|
|
13. [22] I AGREE WITH
|
13. [6] A LOT OF THINGS
|
|
14. [22] IT’S VERY
|
14. [6] I THINK THAT THE
|
|
15. [22] YEAH IT’S
|
15. [6] MOST OF THE TIME
|
|
16. [21] ER I THINK
|
16. [6] THINK IT’S VERY
|
|
17. [21] ERM I THINK
|
17. [6] TOURISM IN MY
COUNTRY
|
|
18. [20] WHAT DO YOU
|
18. [6] YEAH IT’S VERY
|
|
19. [18] DON’T HAVE
|
19. [5] A FOUR STAR
HOTEL
|
|
20. [18] I THINK ERM
|
20. [5] BUT I THINK IT
|
Tab.
4: Most frequent three- and four-word chunks
An initial comparison of
the C1 results above and the 20 most frequent chunks in the BNC (Adolphs &
Carter 2013) and CANCODE (McCarthy 2006) reveal that whilst chunk frequency was
relatively low in the C1 data, there is evidence that successful candidates
replicate some of the most common chunks typical of NS speech.
With
regards to the composition of the C1 chunks, the data suggest that they represent another
way in which knowledge of the K-1 and K-2 word
families can be exploited. A profile using the Compleat Lexical Tutor revealed that 94%
of three- and four-word chunk lexis originated from the K-1 band, task-related
lexis from the K-2 (e.g. location and hotel)
constituted 4%, and erm (2%) was considered off-list. A similar analysis
of the BNC’s most frequent three- and four-word chunk lexis determined that
100% of the words came from the K-1 band. To
make use of chunks, therefore, no complex, less-familiar vocabulary is needed;
although NS chunks may prove problematic for learners to “identify and master”
(Wray 2000: 176), the lexis they comprise should correspond to the vocabulary that C1 students already possess.
Lexical
chunks are also deemed advantageous for their impact
on fluency, memory and, particularly, listener perceptions of
proficiency (Schmitt 2000, Boers et al. 2006, Wray 2000). Chunks are believed
to be stored holistically, their availability demands less cognitive capacity
and they can “transform” perceptions even of low-level learners’ fluency
(O’Keefe, McCarthy & Carter 2007: 77). The fact that they appear in C1
speech, although less frequently than in B2 speech (Jones, Waller & Golebiewska
2013) may show that they could be a component of successful C1 candidates being
judged to be fluent and spontaneous (CoE 2001). Furthermore, they are flexible
and perform a range of lexical and functional roles (see RQ 3) and they can, at
C1, include fillers. Although lexical chunks are usually identified through a
lack of hesitation (Ellis & Sinclair 1996), C1 students may be able to give
the impression of fluency despite the use of vocalised fillers. Ultimately,
students who are able to incorporate chunks into their production will be seen
as more proficient and more successful to those who cannot (Boers et al. 2006).
4.5
Research Question 3
What C1 CEFR indicators are
present in terms of spoken interaction, spoken production and strategies?
A qualitative
analysis of the C1 test data aimed to establish which speaking can-do
statements were demonstrated for production, interaction and strategy use.
Although students received solid pass grades which denoted a certain degree of
achievement, it was necessary to see how their exam performance corresponded to
CEFR descriptors. The corpus data have already identified the lexis contained
in their language, but success also involves learning what the C1 students
actually did with their language.
Fig. 1: C1 can-do occurrence
across all parts of the exam
Of 660 can-do
instances, approximately 45% related to production. Although the nature of
the test did influence this category (there was less evidence of sub-theme
integrations, conclusions, speculation and outlining of issues in the shorter,
less demanding section, Part A), the data suggest that C1 candidates should
develop and lengthen their answers to demonstrate productive abilities if they
are to be considered successful. Although the CEFR does not specify for which
‘complex subjects’ this should be done, the example statement below does
illustrate how this could be achieved.
Example:
<$3M> Okay erm immediate transport
problems in my country would be the fact that <$=> erm the erm
<$G?> </$=> it would be er like the transportation agency or should
I say like erm the people er like that handle transport are not very strict.
Erm young people like er people like four years older younger than me like
sixteen years olds or fifteen year olds are allowed to drive. Basically it's
not allowed in the er law in my country but even if you're fifteen or thirteen
they could drive around in a car and if like a policeman should stop you or a
road safety person should stop you you could bribe them like really low amounts
like anybody could afford it and they will let you go.
It was also
pertinent to note that interactive and strategic can-do language
occasionally appeared similar across some learners in the sample. For instance,
some candidates employed the same lexical chunks, although somewhat low in
terms of frequency, to satisfy the demands placed upon them. In order to
develop the progress of the exam and invite
responses (interaction) the chunk what do you (20 occurrences) was
combined with think, admire, feel and reckon. This
particular chunk may afford the students a greater degree of fluency and
flexibility; it may not require additional processing and it is a chunk which
may be adapted via the inclusion of a “slot” or space for numerous words
depending on the desired meaning (Schmitt 2000: 400). Students also showed
similarity in the way they used language to gain time during the exam. The
chunk I agree with (22 occurrences) was judged to be a stalling
technique on eleven occasions and a quarter of instances of er I think, erm
I think, and I think erm were used as a delaying tactic. Although
phrases like let’s say…, what do you call
it and how will I put it were found. Perhaps this final finding may support
claims that the teaching of chunks should concentrate on multifunctional
phrases which can be of maximum benefit and of maximum flexibility at C1.
Furthermore, chunks which appear to be lexically important but which additionally have a functional capacity could also be a feature for instruction since chunks offer
a degree of efficiency, relevance and familiarity which may help to develop
pragmatic competence (Schmitt 2000).
5 Conclusion
The
findings outlined here have various implications for language pedagogy and
success in learning English. Vocabulary used by the C1 learners stemmed mostly
from the first thousand words of the BNC. Being successful in speech seems to
advocate a fundamental need for students to learn these words. It may also
justify Nation’s (2001: 16) claim that such lexis should receive “considerable”
attention since words beyond K-2 do not yield great profit in terms of
occurrence. Pedagogy could therefore supplement learners in two ways:
· Firstly, as per Nation’s
advice, classroom time could be maximised by exposing students to more frequent
vocabulary.
·
Secondly, teachers and
successful language learners could impart their knowledge of language learning
strategies. These readily available tools for language learning may help
learners exploit their target language knowledge, they can extend learning in
and out of the classroom and they are themselves believed to be a sign of a
successful language learner (Griffiths 2004, Oxford 1994, Oxford & Nyikos
1989). Specific strategies related to guessing word meaning from context,
remembering words and using materials such as dictionaries and wordlists may
result in greater efficiency for teaching and learning low-frequency
vocabulary.
Another
implication relates to the treatment of vocabulary by learners. Since many
learners “rely far more on word-by-word processing” (Foster, Tonkyn &
Wigglesworth 2000: 356), pedagogy could make students more aware of the value
of learning vocabulary in chunks instead of on
an individual basis (Boers et al. 2006). Successful C1 students were able to
employ some lexical chunks in their speech. Not only did most of these chunks
employ lexis from the K-1 category, but they also assisted in the realisation
of some CEFR can-do statements and they may have given the assessor a
greater impression of fluency and proficiency. Introducing learners to chunks
used frequently by native speakers and successful learners in speech may allow
them to take full advantage of their positive effects. If attention is also
paid to the way in which chunks can be multifunctional, students once again could
apprehend and reach the full potential of their
English vocabulary.
With
regards exam performance, this study could offer C1 learners some valuable
advice. Although some students, teachers and indeed some assessors may
discourage and disapprove of hesitation, it was found that successful
candidates did still exercise delaying techniques. Er and erm
were amongst the most frequent words used; phrases such as I think and I
agree with you were also used to fill pauses. Although the CEFR places
importance on spontaneous and fluent speech at C1, candidates can still pass
and be successful despite some hesitation. With regards
to the occurrence of can-do descriptors, successful C1 learners
evidenced their productive abilities more frequently than interactive and
strategic criteria. It is the author’s experience that learners are taught not
to give one-word answers; it could also be suggested that practitioners should
go beyond this and provide students with relevant examples from learner or
native corpora as to how more detailed answers could
be achieved. For instance, students may assume that greater complexity
is needed to develop ideas. The data, however, demonstrated that productive
language often involved the use of simple contractions such as because
and so to connect ideas.
Finally, it
remains to be acknowledged that this study involved a
rather small corpus. Additional research with an increased corpus size
is needed. A comparison of C1 data with other levels in the CEFR is also
required so that speaking exam success at different stages can be examined and
then compared to identify areas of similarity and contrast. Such research could
also provide a platform for subsequent investigations which would reveal more
about exam performance for the benefit of teachers, researchers, course
developers and, of course, students.
References
Adolphs, Svenja (2008). Corpus and context: Investigating pragmatic
functions in spoken discourse. Amsterdam
Adolphs, Svenja & Norbert Schmitt
(2004). Vocabulary coverage according to spoken discourse context. In Paul
Bogaards & Batia Laufer (Eds.) (2004). Vocabulary in a second language:
Selection, acquisition, and testing. Amsterdam
Adolphs, Svenja & Ronald Carter (2013).
Spoken corpus linguistics: From monomodal
to multimodal. London
Alderson, J. Charles (2007). The CEFR and
the need for more research. In: The Modern Language Journal 91(4), 659-663.
Alptekin, Cem (2002). Towards intercultural
communicative competence in ELT. In: ELT journal 56(1), 57-64.
Anthony, Lawrence
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey
Leech, Susan Conrad, & Edward Finegan (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London
Boers, Frank, June Eyckmans, Jenny Kappel,
Helene Stengers & Murielle Demecheleer (2006). Formulaic sequences and
perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. In: Language
Teaching Research 10(3),
245-261.
British National Corpus (BNC) (2004):
British National Corpus: What is the BNC?
(http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/corpus/index.xml; 21.05.14).
Cambridge English Corpus (CEC) (2014): (http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/what-we-do/cambridge-english-corpus; 30.01.15).
Canagarajah, Suresh (2007). Lingua franca
English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. In: The
Modern Language Journal 91,
923-939.
Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy
(2006) Cambridge Cambridge : Cambridge University
Chujo, Kiyomi (2004). Measuring vocabulary
levels of English textbooks and tests using a BNC lemmatised high frequency
word list. In: Language and Computers 51(1), 231-249.
Chung, Teresa Mihwa & Paul Nation
(2004). Identifying Technical Vocabulary. In: System 32(2), 251-263.
Clark, Herbert & Jean Fox Tree (2002).
Using ‘uh’ and ‘um’ in spontaneous speaking. In: Cognition 84(1),
73-111.
Cobb, Tom (2014). Compleat Lexical Tutor.
(http://www.lextutor.ca/; 21.05.14).
Cobb, Tom (n.d.): Why and how to use
frequency lists to learn words. (http://www.lextutor.ca/research/; 21.05.14).
Conrad, Susan (2000). Will Corpus
Linguistics Revolutionize Grammar Teaching in the 21st Century?*. In: Tesol
Quarterly 34(3),
548-560.
Cook, Vivian (1999). Going beyond the native
speaker in language teaching. In: TESOL quarterly 33(2), 185-209.
Cook, Vivian (2008). Second language
learning and language teaching. London
Coste, Daniel (2007). Contextualising uses
of the common European framework of reference for languages. In Report of
the intergovernmental Forum: The Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: challenges and
responsibilities (pp. 38-47).
Council of Europe
[CoE] (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Dornyei, Zoltan, & Peter Skehan (2003).
Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. In: Catherine Doughty &
Michael Long (Eds.) (2003). The Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford
Ellis, Nick & Susan Sinclair (1996).
Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in
good order. In: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A 49(1), 234-250.
Ellis, Rod (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford :
Oxford University
Erman, Britt, & Beatrice Warren (2000).
The idiom principle and the open-choice principle. In: Text 20(1), 29–62.
Figueras, Neus (2012). The impact of the
CEFR. In: ELT Journal 66(4),
477-485.
Foster, Pauline (2001). Rules and routines:
A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native
and non-native speakers. In Bygate, Martin, Peter Skehan, and Merrill Swain
(Eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic
tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow :
Longman. 75-93.
Foster, Pauline, Tonkyn, Alan, &
Wigglesworth, Gillian (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all
reasons. In: Applied Linguistics 21(3),
354-375.
Francis, W.
Nelson and Kucera, Henry (1982). Frequency
analysis of English usage. Boston ,
MA
Fulcher, Glenn (2004). Deluded by
artifices? The common European framework and harmonization. In: Language
Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal 1(4), 253-266.
Gardner, Robert, & MacIntyre, Peter
(1992). A student's contributions to second language learning. Part I:
Cognitive variables. In: Language teaching 25(04),
211-220.
Granger, Sylvaine, Estelle Dagneaux, Fanny
Meunier & Magali Paquot (2009): International Corpus of Learner English.
(http://www.uclouvain.be/en-cecl-icle.html; 16.06.14)
House, Julianne (2003). English as a lingua
franca: A threat to multilingualism? In: Journal of sociolinguistics 7(4), 556-578.
Hulstijn, Jan (2007). The shaky ground
beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language
Proficiency1. In: The Modern Language Journal 91(4), 663-667.
Kachru, Braj (1992). World Englishes:
Approaches, issues and resources. In: Language teaching 25(01), 1-14.
Kramsch, Claire (2003). The privilege of
the non-native speaker. In: The Sociolinguistics of Foreign-Language
Classrooms: Contributions of the Native, the Near-native, and the Non-native
Speaker. 251-62.
Jones, Chris, Daniel Waller & Patrycja.
Golebiewska (2013). Defining successful spoken language at B2 level: findings
from a corpus of learner test data. In: The
European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL 29-46.
Laufer, Batia & Paul Nation (1995).
Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. In: Applied
linguistics 16(3),
307-322.
Leech, Geoffrey (2000). Grammars of Spoken
English: New Outcomes of Corpus‐Oriented Research. In: Language learning 50(4), 675-724.
Leech, Geoffrey, Paul Rayson & Andrew
Wilson (2001) Word Frequencies in Written
and Spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London
Lewis, Michael (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, Michael (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching
Publications.
Little, David (2007).
“The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the
Making of Supranational Language Education Policy”. In: The Modern Language Journal. 91: 645.
McCarthy, Michael (1999). What Constitutes
a Basic Vocabulary for Spoken Communication? In: Studies in English Language and Literature 1, 233-249.
McCarthy, Michael (2006). Explorations in Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge : Cambridge
University
McCarthy, Michael & Ronald Carter
(1995). Spoken Grammar: What is it and How can we Teach it? In: ELT Journal 49(3), 207-218.
McCarthy, Michael & Ronald Carter
(2001). Ten criteria for a Spoken Grammar. In: Eli Hinkel and Sandra Fotos
(Eds.) (2002). New Perspectives on
Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah ,
NJ : Lawrence
Nagy, William, Richard Anderson, Marlene
Schommer, Julian Scott, and Anne Stallman (1989). Morphological Families in the
Internal Lexicon. In: Technical
Report No. 450.
Nation, Paul (2001). Learning vocabulary
in another language. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Nation, Paul, & Waring, Robert (1997).
Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In: Vocabulary: Description,
acquisition and pedagogy, 6-19.
North, Brian (2006): The Common European
Framework of Reference: Development, theoretical and practical issues.
(http://www.nationaalcongresengels.nl/cgi-bin/north-ede-wagingen%202007-paper.pdf;
30.01.15)
Norton, Bonny (1997). Language, identity,
and the ownership of English. In: Tesol Quarterly 31(3), 409-429.
O’Keefe, Anne, Michael McCarthy &
Ronald Carter (2007). From corpus to
classroom. Cambridge : Cambridge University
O’Sullivan, Barry, Cyril Weir & Nick
Saville (2002) Using Observation Checklists to Validate Speaking-test Tasks.
In: Language Testing 19(1), 33-56.
Phillipson, Robert (1992). Linguistic
imperialism: African perspectives. In: ELT
Journal 50(2),
160-167.
Piller, Ingrid (2002). Passing for a native
speaker: Identity and success in second language learning. In: Journal
of sociolinguistics 6(2), 179-208.
Prodromou, Luke (2008). English as a
lingua franca: A corpus-based analysis. London: Continuum.
QSR International (2012).
(http://www.qsrinternational.com/; 21.05.14)
Robinson, Peter (Ed.) (2002). Individual differences and
instructed language learning (Vol. 2). John Benjamins Publishing.
Rubin, Joan (1975). What the" good
language learner" can teach us. In: TESOL quarterly, 41-51.
Schmitt, Norbert (2000). Key concepts in
ELT. In: ELT journal 54(4),
400-401.
Schmitt, Norbert (Ed.) (2004). Formulaic
sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (Vol. 9). Amsterdam
Scott, Michael (2014). WordSmith Tools. Liverpool : Lexical Analysis Software.
Skehan, Peter (1998). A cognitive
approach to language learning. Oxford : Oxford
University
Smith, Vicki, & Clark, Herbert (1993).
On the course of answering questions. In:
Journal of memory and language
32(1), 25-38.
Stern, Hans Heinrich (1983). Fundamental
Concepts of Language Teaching: Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Applied Linguistic Research. Oxford
University
Timmis, Ivor (2002). Native-speaker Norms
and International English: A Classroom View. In: ELT Journal 56(3), 240-249.
VOICE (2013): Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English.
(https://www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/what_is_voice;
30.01.15).
Weir, Cyril (2005). Limitations of the
Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. In: Language
Testing 22(3),
281-300.
Widdowson, Henry George (1994). The
ownership of English. In: TESOL quarterly, 28(2),
377-389.
Willis, Dave (1990). The Lexical Syllabus. London
Wray, Alison (2000). Formulaic sequences in
second language teaching: Principle and practice. In: Applied
linguistics 21(4),
463-489.
Wray, Alison (2002). Formulaic language
and the lexicon. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Author:
Shelley Byrne
Associate lecturer
E-mail: sbyrne@uclan.ac.uk