Linguistic Analysis - Essay Example

Linguistic Analysis Introduction: The following report is a linguistic analysis of a casual conversation between three people who appear to be ofAsian origin, primarily Japanese. This report will examine a transcript of a casual conversation as a speech event, note turn taking and grammatical aspects within the text of the transcript. There is a high incidence of grammatical phenomena such as indeterminate sentences, subordinate clauses disconnected from main clauses and interrupted structures with other speakers intervening. Literature review: Discourse studies of language are generally qualitative and corpus linguistics finds wide applicability because it can compare the linguistic characteristics of discourse from different spoken and written registers.(Biber et al, 2007:10). According to Granger, where second language acquisition and foreign language teaching are concerned, the pedagogical use of data, whether for immediate or delayed use, needs to be assessed on the basis of achievement of proficiency in accuracy, complexity and fluency, depending upon whichever target is desired. (Granger in Karin, 2009:15). As further detailed below, grammatical elements play a significant role in analysis of oral discourse and will be relevant in this report as well. A study was carried out to examine how the integration of corpus and contextualized lexico-grammar into the teaching of foreign and second language affected the outcomes (Liu and Jiang, 2009). The study involved 244 participant students learning English as a foreign language and as a second language at a Chinese University, and the researchers have concluded that the integration of corpus had a beneficial effect, resulting in improvements in student command and understanding of lexico-grammar and enhanced skills of discovery learning (Liu and Jiang, 2009). “For many researchers, the speech event still represents a level of analysis that has the advantage of preserving information about the social system as a whole while at the same time allowing the researcher to get into details of the personal acts” (Duranti, 1998:219). The basic unit for analysis of verbal interaction is the speech event, because it focuses upon the interaction between the speakers (Gumperz 1986: 16-17). The conversational unit being analyzed in this report is a single event because it maintains the same number of speakers throughout and deals with the same topic, i.e, the research on learner activity (Saville-Troike 1989: 27). The basic assumption underlying the speech event would be that it also imparts an understanding of the social activities and context within which this interaction occurs, with participants coordinating their activities around some common task (Duranti, 1998:218). In this instance, the participants are discussing the research being carried out on their learning of English and the related activities. An analysis of the underlying lexicogrammatical signatures within linguistic corpora(Gilquin et al, 2007: 322) is facilitated through error tagging systems. One example of an error tagging system that is devised by Nicholls (2003; cited in Granger, 2007:256) is a three tier system specifying the error domain (the form, grammar, lexis, etc), the category of the error (for instance, whether tense, gender or number) and the word category (adjective, noun, verb, etc), which offers tremendous potential in teaching of English as a foreign language.(Meurnier, 2007). One of the findings that has emerged from learner corpora is that some linguistic features are common to learners from all foreign language groups, which may be developmental, while some appear characteristic to particular linguistic groups. Riney and Takagi (1999), have highlighted the results of various studies that have examined the correlation between global foreign accent and voice onset time in Japanese EFL speakers. One of the findings was that VOT did not change over time in Japanese speakers of English, suggesting that there may be phonological similarity between Japanese and English diaphones. While voice onset time might be similar however, the specific pronunciation of some of the words reveals the distinct differences arising as a result of differences in dialect. Carter and McCarthy(2006) offer the view that spoken grammars have uniquely special qualities that distinguish them from written grammar and these are sometimes elements perceived to be errors in written speech. They have set out ten different criteria that would be applicable in the case of spoken grammar. The first is clauses and in spoken grammar, these tend to be incomplete or may be characterized by the use of subordinate clauses that do not appear to be connected with any main clauses, etc. Secondly, conversational grammar is generally simple in use of adjectives Data Analysis: In the conversation between three students, A, B and C, there are some grammatical errors noticeable which are characteristic of the foreign roots of these students, especially in that they do not conform to the format of well formed sentences with main and subordinate clauses(Lerner, 1991). Some examples of such problematic constructions that may not be quite complete in terms of clauses and their construction include the following: (a) I think they are investigate (line 01), Engli-erm Japanese speaker, and then that people (line 01), what’s the strategies (line 11A) where there is a discordance in tense, use the English (line 06) or using the article where it is not necessary, explains the....when they use the language (line 13A) which is similar to many instances in the text where sentences are not completed, but expressed in bits and pieces with some connecting words missing in between, based on what situation the author wanted to make this result (lines 35 and 36), where again, there is a discordance in tense and also a faulty construction of the sentence because the clauses and sub clauses are misaligned, it’s not interview (line 62C) where an article is missing. Another aspect that is especially noticeable in this transcript is the faulty pronunciation of several words, which reflects the foreign element, i.e, learning of English as a second language. Some examples are sassessful for successful (lines 44A and 48C), use for use (line 41A), diffrant for different (line 48C), quesin for question (line 18B) sitwashan for situation (line 18B and 27B). Another indication of the foreign element is in the pronunciation of the letter “t” as a “d” or eliminating to pronounce it altogether. One example of this is line 13 A, where the speaker says and they talk about the strategy. In this instance the speaker pronounces about as abou with the “t” appearing at the end of the sentence remaining silent and not pronounced at all. Similarly, the use of article “the” in association with the word English, as in when do they use the English and how often do they use the English is also a manifestation of the speaker’s origin in another language rather than English as a native language. Moreover, phrasal complexity is almost non existent; the speakers use simple phrases and clause elements are not correctly positioned, so that placement of verbs follows the patterns existing in the native language rather than English. There are several instances of indeterminate sentences and in throughout the text, with lots of false starts, hesitations and repetitions, with phrases such as erm, hhh, uhm, yeh, etc. The rate of speaking is also variable but on the whole, it appears that Speaker B’s contribution is mostly restricted to interjections, with only one or two sentences being comprehensive. Similarly, Speaker C’s contribution is also sparse and it is Speaker A that is the main contributor to the transcript. The rate of speaking is also not very fast, it may be noted that the total words spoken are 630 and this is over a five minute span which works out to an average of 100 words per minute, hence most of the time appears to be taken over by fillers and repetitions, pauses and interjectory words such as hhh, hmn, etc. The dialogue also demonstrates the phenomenon of turn taking, where speaker change occurs, as spelt out by Saks(1974, 1978), i.e., there is some overlapping of speech, but in general, the conversation continues without undue gaps and silences. This is because the transition-relevance place that marks the boundary of each segment of speech appears clear. Examples of TRPs that occur throughout the text of the speech and mark boundaries spelling out the transition from one phase to the other are as follows: “using....then what’s the strategies” (line no: 11A). This line is the twelfth one from the beginning of the conversation. Speaker A is expressing a view and it must be noted that Speaker B interrupts five times, with a “yes” twice, “erm” once, “ah” once and “Ok”, but they may not strictly represent TRPs. The reason is that the sentences are incomplete and the speaker A obviously intends to continue, so that speaker B merely indicates that she is listening by using single words to register continued interest. Follow up interview, right? (line no: 11A). In this instance, it is the question intonation that serves as the symbol of transition from one phase of the conversation to another. According to Oyo et al (2004), the personality and anxiety characteristics of Japanese students affect their oral performance in English. In this recording, the conversation is a casual one, yet it may be noted that Speaker A appears more fluent and confident about her English than the Speaker B, who is more hesitant and unsure and Speaker C who only contributes a few sentences. Bibliography: Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor and Thomas A. Upton, 2007. “Discourse on the Move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure”, Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 28. Carter, Ronald & Michael McCarthy, 2006. “Cambridge Grammar of English: A comprehensive guide: Spoken and Written English: Grammar and Usage,” Cambridge University Press. Duranti. 1998. "Communicative Competence." Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (edn. J. Mey), Amsterdam: Pergamon. Gilquin, Gaetanelle, Granger, Sylviane and Paquot, Magali, 2007. “Learner corpora: the missing link in EAP pedagogy”, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6:319-335. Granger, Sylvanie, 2007. “Integrating learner corpora and natural language processing: A crucial step towards reconciling techological sophistication and pedagogical effectiveness”, ReCall, 19(3): 252-268. Gumperz. John J. 1996. On teaching language in its sociocultural context. In Social Interaction, Social Context and Language. Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, D.I. Slobin et al. (eds), 469-480. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Karin, Aijmer 2009. Corpora and Language Teaching, University of Gothenburg, Studies in Corpus Linguistics 33, viii, 232 pp. John Benjamins Publishing Company Lerner, G. H, 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress”, Language In Society, 20, 441-458. Liu, Dilin and Jiang, Ping, 2009. “Using a corpus based lexicogrammatical approach to grammar instruction in EFL and ESL contexts”, The Modern Language Journal, 93(i) 61-79 McCarthy, M and Carter, R, 2001. “Ten criteria for a spoken grammar”, In Hinkel, E and Foots, S, 2001. “New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms”, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Meunier F, 2007. “Reprint of The pedagogical value of native and learner corpora in EFL grammar teaching”(2002). IN Teubert W. and R. Krishnamurthy (eds) Corpus Linguistics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Volume 2. London and New York:, Routledge. 119-141 Oya, Taeko, Manalo, Emmanuel and Greenwood, Jackie, 2004. “The influence of personality and anxiety on the oral performance of Japanese speakers of English”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18: 841-855. Riney, Timothy J, 1999. “Global foreign accent and voice onset time among Japanese EFL speakers”, Language Learning, 49(2): 275-302 Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Basil Blackwell Read More