基于语料库的二语产出性词块结构研究文献综述

 2022-01-01 22:23:33

全文总字数：15508字

文献综述

A Corpus-based Study of Structural Features of L2 Productive Lexical Bundles基于语料库的二语产出性词块结构研究1.IntroductionThis part is made up of three sections, research background, research purpose and the organization of the thesis.1.1 Background of the research Corpus Linguistics is a field with rapidly growing activities, even though the concept of what consists of an effective corpus is still of controversy. As the corpus linguistics developed rapidly in recent years, more and more linguists attention has been attached to the field of language acquisition, application. Meanwhile, the formula of serialization, which is known as one of the most popular topics in language teaching field also gets development.These formula sequences, in other wayslexical bundles, are linguistic elements common in a certain discourse. Not only can they reduce the cognitive burden, but also can they improve the accuracy and fluency of language production. In addition, according to the Second Language Acquisition study, lexical bundles not only exist in written but also spoken registers. This language structure is a mixture of features from vocabulary and grammar. Thus, they are playing an more and more important role in second language teaching and learning and is of great significance for second language learners and they have been applied to explain characteristics of various text registers. Many scholars in the field of vocabulary acquisition have made some achievements. For instance, Pawley Syder (1983) found that there are many lexical sequences existed in English, and that the existence of those lexical bundles may influence native-like selection and native-like fluency from the perspective of language comprehension and production. Whats more, Ding and Qi (2005) also argued that the ability to using lexical bundles was related to their writing ability.Domestic and foreign studies show that there are significant differences on the structure and function between native speaker and non-native speaker (Chen Baker, 2010), and these differences have influence on L2 learners language quality to a large extent.Although there have been many studies on lexical bundles in different domains, there is still shortage of research on the structural characteristics of L2 productive lexical bundles and comparison between L2 learners written lexical bundles and native speakers written lexical bundles. Thus, this paper aims at researching these questions remain.1.2 Purposes of the researchMany of the relevant studies indicate that there is not a completely correct answer to the problem of lexical bundles. The purposes for this research is to investigate the structure features of the 4-word productive lexical bundles used by Chinese English majors in the written registers. Through empirical research from different perspectives, we can fully understand the most important point of lexical bundles in SLA.Therefore, this study attempts to provide more detailed comparisons in L2 written registers. There is no doubt that these findings will provide some value for practical and theoretical language teaching and learning.1.3 Organization of the researchThe structure of this thesis ought to consist of five parts. The first chapter acts as general introduction, in which research background, research purposes and the organization of the research are presented.Chapter two is an overview of the literature, including the definitions and classifications of lexical bundles, as well as the structural features of lexical bundles. Whats more, some representative researches concerning this topic at home and abroad were also introduced. Chapter three is about the research method of this study. This chapter introduces research questions, the method, software, data, and identification of lexical bundles applied in the study. Chapter four provides the key findings based on the analysis of the research data and a detailed discussion of the major findings. Chapter five summarizes the major findings, the theoretical and implications, and limitations and suggestions for the future research.2.Literature ReviewThis chapter gives a detailed explanation of the theoretical framework on which the present study is based, including the definitions, classifications and relevant studies on L2 lexical bundles at home and abroad. 2.1Definitions of lexical bundlesThere are a number of ways to define lexical bundles. The appearance of lexical bundles can be dated back to the mid-1970s in which the concept of chunk was put forward by American psychologist to explain the process of a single piece of information becoming chunks. Then, Becker (1975) first proposed this concept as a special multi-word phenomenon between traditional grammar and lexicon.With regard to Biber et al.(1999), lexical bundles refer to the co-occurrence among three words or more words, which is different from collocations. Biber also introduced the concept as recurrent expressions, regardless of their idiomaticity and regardless of their structural status. That is to say, lexical bundles are usually not structural complete and not necessarily express idiomatic meaning or take the form of a phrasal or clausal unit, but must occur repeatedly in a particular text type. Afterwards, Biber et al. (1999) further defined the frequently recurring lexical phrases in English as sequence of words, occurring at least 10 times per million words in the target register and distributing across at least 5 different texts. A series of studies typically identify lexical bundles as fixed or semi-fixed modeling structures with specific lexical or grammatical traits. According to studies on first language acquisition and second language acquisition, such fixed and semi-fixed lexical structures are always used in peoples daily spoken and written language, which is the so-called lexical bundles. Different linguists do not use the same terminology to interpret the phenomenon of "multiple word sequences" due to different research methods, backgrounds and perspectives. Therefore, it is generally believed that the lexical bundles have not yet reached a unified agreement on its identification, classification and definition, which has been considered one of the difficulties in the current linguistics research.Lexical bundles have three major characteristics that distinguish them from other kinds of formulaic expressions. First, lexical bundles are by definition extremely common. Second, most lexical bundles are not idiomatic in meaning and not perceptually salient. And finally, lexical bundles usually do not represent a complete structural unit. Biber et al. (1999) found that only 15% of the lexical bundles in conversation can be regarded as complete phrases or clauses, while less than 5% of the lexical bundles in academic prose represent complete structural units. Instead, most lexical bundles bridge two structural units: they begin at a clause or phrase boundary, but the last words of the bundle are the beginning elements of a second structural unit.2.1.2 Classification of lexical bundlesA large number of researchers have defined and classified lexical bundles based on their own perspectives and priorities since the 1970s, of which structural and functional classification are the two major standards to classify them. Owing to the mixed structuralfeatures, and unlimited sub-classification in each category, it is too complicated to make a clear classification for a large number of studies. Therefore, it is undeniable that there are no definite definition and practical model of lexical bundles in actual research. So, this paper will select and elucidate several typical classifications related to the topic at home and abroad.Becker (1975) divided the prefabricated sequences used by native speakers into six categories. 1) Poly words refer to fixed multi-word sequences2) Phrasal constraints refer to phrase frameworks with fixed words 3) Meta-messages refer to phrases that can replace a certain message 4) Sentence builders refer to a sentence type 5) Situational utterances refer to short sentences that have a certain pragmatic function in certain social situations And 6) verbatim texts refer to texts stored as a whole, and directly excerpted from the original text. Although this classification is incomplete and imperfect, it undeniably gives a deep insight into constructing the valuable framework for further studies.On the basis of Becker's study, Nattinger DeCarrico (1992) came up with a finer lexical phrase classification from the prospect of structure and function. The following is the four structural standards of the lexical bundle. 1) Concerning their length and grammatical level. 2) Concerning canonical or non-canonical shape.3) Concerning whether lexical bundles can be fixed or variable. 4) Concerning the continuity of lexical bundles. It distinguishes whether lexical bundles contain an uninterrupted word sequence or are interrupted by variable lexical fillers. According to the above results, Biber et al. (1999) established the most frequent lexical bundles in academic prose and conversation based on the Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus, which has been widely used in the subsequent study of lexical bundles. As (Li Liu) said in 2016 that Biber is the pioneer of studies on lexical bundles, who not only categorises lexical bundles structurally but also settles the cornerstone for studying lexical bundles from a structural view of point.They developed structural and grammatical categorizations and made a registration comparison. They begin to say that even if lexical bundles are not complete structural units, they have a strong grammatical relevance, so that they can be divided into several basic structural types. The primary distinction for this purpose is between clausal bundles (e.g. , I think it) and phrasal bundles (e.g. ,as a result) .To better fit the framework of the study, Ma (2009) modified Biber's taxonomies into seven categories: 1) verb phrase expressions 2) noun phrase expressions 3) prepositional phrase expressions 4) expressions with clausal fragments 5) expressions with conjunction fragments 6) expressions with modifying fragments and 7) expressions with paralleling conclusion fragment Based on the taxonomies designed by Biber el al. (1999) and the modified one by Ma (2009), some categories will be modified to meet the needs of this study.2.3 Previous studies on L2 written lexical bundlesForeign empirical studies on lexical bundles mainly focus on three aspects: psychological representation and processing advantages of lexical bundles, the influence of lexical bundles acquisition on language competence, internal and external factors of affecting learners acquisition of lexical bundles (Qu Peng，2016). Domestic researches on lexical bundles began at the end of the 1990s. As (Zhang, 2016) said that the researchers initially put their focus on the introduction and discussion of the theory of the lexical bundles from 1999 to 2003, but since 2004, there have been an increasing number of empirical studies on lexical bundles.Recent years, more and more studies have investigated the difference in the use of lexical bundles between native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers(NNS). Hyland (2008) pointed out that lexical bundles used by L2 learners from a specific register were always inconsistent with those used by native speakers and writers.Sanchez (2013) made the research on 4-word lexical bundles from the aspect of forms, structures and functions in one native speakers corpus and two L2 speakers corpora. This research investigated the students English degree from the same university and in the same major in their first and third year. And the results indicate that there were significant differences in the types of lexical bundles and their structures and functions between native and non-native speakers.At the same time, many other scholars also put much emphasis on lexical bundles in the study of SLA. The focus of previous research has focused on the constructions and functions of different academic types of lexical bundles (Pan et al, 2016; Hyland, 2008; Swales, 1990; Ellis, 2002a, 2002b). Moreover, a large number of scholars employ corpus linguistic methods and other related corpus to analyze the use and distribution of lexical bundles. For example, Wang Zhang (2006) studied the features of lexical bundles used in second language writing. Written English Corpus of Chinese Learners (WECCL) and Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS) were taken as source data and reference data respectively. While China experiences a relatively short history of studies on lexical bundles due to weak in theoretical basis, backward in methodology and lack in contents(Li, 2016). Even though, domestic researchers still have made considerable efforts in studying the relationship between ones ability to use lexical bundles and their L2 proficiency, the recognition and processing of lexical bundles, the instruction of lexical bundles (Qu Peng，2016).Hu, Shi and Ji (2017) make a comparison on the structures and functions of 3-word lexical bundles used between freshmen, sophomore and juniors majoring in English in China and native speakers. And it turns out that the number of lexical bundles used by those three grades English majors is more than that of native speakers.ReferencesBecker, J. (1975). The phrasal lexicon. Bolt beranek and newsman report, No. 3081, AI report No. 28.Biber, D. (1986). Spoken and written textual dimensions in English. Resolving the contradictory findings of language, 64, 384-414. Biber, D. :Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbook, Applied linguistics, 25 (4), 371-405.Chen, Y. Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in l1 and l2 academic writing. Language learner and technology, 14 (2): 30-49.Ellis, N. C. (2002a). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 24 (2): 143-188.Ellis, N. C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(2): 297-339.Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International journal of applied linguistics, 18 (1), 41-62.Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual review of applied linguistics, 32, 150-169.Nattinger, J. R. DeCaricco, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai foreign language education.Pawley, A. Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native-like selection and native-like fluency. Richards, J. Schmidt, R. (Eds). Language and communication. London: Longman.Sanchez, H. (2013). Purificacion: Lexical bundles in three oral corpora of university students. Nordic journal of English studies, 13 (1):187-209.Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge university. 丁言仁、戚焱（2005），词块运用与与英语口语和写作水平的相关性研究，解放军外国语学院学报（3）：35-38。

胡元江、石海漫、季萍（2017），英语学习者与本族语者议论文词块的结构与功能特征基于语料库的对比研究，《外语研究》，（4）: 58-62。

马广慧 (2009)，英语专业学生二语限时写作中的词块研究，外语教学与研究，（4）：54-60潘璠（2016），语料库驱动的英语本族语和中国作者期刊论文词块结构和功能对比研究，《外语与外语教学》，（4）：115-120。

戚焱、丁言仁 （2011），中美大学生口语中词块使用特点对比分析,外语界，（3):52-59。

曲典宁、彭金定（2016），国外语块实证研究20年：回顾与展望，《外语学刊》，（2）：109-114。

王立非、张岩（2006），基于语料库的大学生英语议论文中的语块使用模式研究，外语电化教学，（4）：36-41张溪（2016），英语作文中的词块使用特征研究，山东：山东大学出版社。

杨文凤（2018），中国学习者英语议论文中的词块结构和功能的语料库驱动的研究。

剩余内容已隐藏，您需要先支付 10元 才能查看该篇文章全部内容！立即支付

以上是毕业论文文献综述，课题毕业论文、任务书、外文翻译、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。

您可能感兴趣的文章