Michael Hoey University of Liverpool 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference Harrogate

Old Approaches, New Perspectives:The implications of a corpus linguistic theory for learning the English language(and the Chinese language too) Michael Hoey University of Liverpool 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference Harrogate April 4th 2014

Old Approaches, New Perspectives:The implications of a corpus linguistic theory for learning the English language (and the Chinese language too) Michael Hoey University of Liverpool 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference Harrogate April 4th 2014

Lewis’s Lexical Approach According to Michael Lewis, the successful language learner is someone who can recognise, understand and produce lexical phrases as ready-made chunks. So in teaching, the emphasis needs to be on vocabulary in context and particularly on fixed expressions in speech. When someone learns vocabulary in context, they pick up grammar naturally. When someone learns grammar separately, they don’t pick up much (useful) vocabulary

Lewis’s Lexical Approach has, however, been criticised for • ignoring how language is learnt • having no theoretical underpinning 3. trivialising the role of grammar It is open to criticism for • applying only to Indo-European languages

Krashen’s Monitor Model According to Stephen Krashen, the crucial requirement for successful language learning is comprehensible input. The only way to acquire a language is by reading and listening to naturally occurring spoken and written language input that is very slightly above the current level of the learner. This is a subconscious process, and conscious learning does not result in knowledge of the language, only knowledge about the language.

Krashen’s Monitor Model has, however, been criticised for • ignoring how language is learnt • having no linguistic underpinning • trivialising the role of grammar It is open to criticism for • trivialising the role of the teacher

Three goals In this paper, however, I want to show that • Lewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic evidence • The Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic theory • The characteristics of language that the Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model treat as central are not limited to English.

How do we learn language? Some key psycholinguistic experiments Most of the psycholinguistic literature used by applied linguists is more linguistic than psychological. But there are two research developments from the psycholinguistic tradition that may be of relevance: semantic priming repetition priming (with thanks to Michael Pace-Sigge)

How do we learn language? Some key psycholinguistic experiments Most of the psycholinguistic literature used by applied linguists is more linguistic than psychological. But there are two research developments from the psycholinguistic tradition that may be of relevance: semantic priming repetition priming

Semantic priming In semantic priming experiments, informants are shown a word or image (referred to as the prime) and then shown a second word or image (known as the target word). The speed with which the target word is recognized is measured. Some primes appear to • slow up informants’ recognition of the target and others appear to • accelerate informants’ recognition of the target

Semantic priming For example, the prime word wing will have no effect on the recognition of the word director will typically inhibit the recognition of the word pig and will typically speed up the recognition of the word swan.

Semantic priming For example, the prime word milk will have no effect on the recognition of the word available, will typically inhibit the recognition of the word horse but will speed up the recognition of the word cow. At the moment, this is probably not true of beef, which draws attention that we are talking about linguistic experience, not world knowledge.

Semantic priming Pioneering semantic priming work was conducted by Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971), Shelton and Martin (1992) and McRae and Boisvert (1998) amongst many others. Note – it is OLD and UNCONTROVERSIAL work

What is the significance of this to the language learner? We have proof that words are closely linked to each other in the listener’s mind, and that words that are closely linked can be recognised more quickly (and presumably used more quickly). This doesn’t fit well with the idea that words are slotted into grammatical frames.

What is the significance of this to the language learner? We have proof that words are closely linked to each other in the listener’s mind, and that words that are closely linked can be recognised more quickly (and presumably used more quickly). This does fit well with the lexical approach. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

How do we learn language? Some key psycholinguistic experiments Most of the psycholinguistic literature used by applied linguists is more linguistic than psychological. There are two research developments from the psycholinguistic tradition that may be of relevance: semantic priming repetition priming

Repetition priming Repetition priming is rather different from semantic priming, in that the prime and the target are identical. Experiments with repetition priming centre around exposing informants to word combinations and then, sometimes after a considerable amount of time and after they’ve seen or heard lots of other material, measuring how quickly or accurately the informants recognize the combination when they finally see/hear it again.

Repetition priming For example, a listener may be shown the word SCARLET followed by the word ONION. A day later, if s/he is shown the word SCARLET again, s/he will recognise ONION more quickly than other words. The assumption must be that s/he remembers the combination from the first time, since the words SCARLET ONION will only rarely have occurred before (if ever).

Repetition priming Key papers are: Jacoby and Dallas (1981), Scarborough, Cortese, and Scarborough (1977), and Forster and Davis (1984).

Repetition priming Repetition priming potentially provides an explanation of both semantic priming and collocation. If a listener or reader encounters two words in combination, and stores them as a combination, then the ability of one of the words to accelerate recognition of the other is explained. If the listener or reader then draws upon this combination in his or her own utterance, then the reproduction of collocation is also explained.

What is the significance of this to the language learner? We have proof that a listener’s encounters with words in combination may result in their being closely linked to each other in the listener’s mind, without there being any conscious learning. This doesn’t fit well with the idea that words are slotted into grammatical frames.

What is the significance of this to the language learner? We have proof that a listener’s encounters with words in combination may result in their being closely linked to each other in the listener’s mind, without there being any conscious learning. It does fit in well with Krashen’s arguments.

Three goals In this paper I wanted to show that • Lewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic evidence DEFINITELY • The Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic theory. • The features of language that the Lexical Approach makes use of are as present in Chinese as they are in English

Three goals In this paper I wanted to show that • Lewis’s Lexical Approach and Krashen’s Monitor Model are entirely compatible with (and supported by) reliable psycholinguistic evidence • The Lexical Approach and the Monitor Model are supported by at least one worked-out linguistic theory. • The features of language that the Lexical Approach makes use of are as present in Chinese as they are in English

Problems with many existing theories of language • Fluency is harder to explain than creativity • There is no single language but lots of varying languages masquerading as a single language, but most theories try to ignore this. • When we hear or read a word with multiple meanings (i.e. almost every word in common usage), we know which meaning is meant – but how? • Collocations are universal, but grammars largely operate as if they are trivial.

Accounting for collocation has to be central to any account of fluency and therefore to any theory of language with psychological plausibility and must centre around how words are learnt d must centre around how words are learnt

The Lexical Priming claim Whenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously • the words it occurs with (its collocations), • the grammatical patterns it occurs in (its colligations), • the meanings with which it is associated (its semantic associations),

hard worked hard tried hard fought hard die hard found it hard prayed hard raining hard squeezed hard

hard hard to believe hard to understand hard to imagine hard to explain hard to follow hard to hear hard to remember hard to bear

hard hard luck hard line hard facts hard evidence hard lives hard water hard labour hard winter hard currency

wordcollocates with against and a or your(s) a word against your word against mine a word against)

ears collocates with eyes 225 10% and also ears and nose ears, nose and throat ears and eyes ears and hands ears and nostrils etc

Crucially, once a priming has been created, it is itself subject to further priming, e.g. eyes and ears is primed for most of us to collocate with act as the Bank of China, which acts as Peking’s eyes and ears among Hong Kong’s banking community 14 out of 124 lines of eyes and ears in the Guardian corpus (11%)

Crucially, once a priming has been created, it is itself subject to further priming, e.g. a word against is primed for most of us to co-occur with sending & receiving communication

The Lexical Priming claim Whenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously • the words it occurs with (its collocations), • the meanings with which it is associated (its semantic associations),

wordcollocates with against and a a word against has a semantic association with sending & receiving communication (e.g. hear a word against) send/receive a word against has a pragmatic association with denial (e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against)

ears co-occurs with2294 eyes 225 10% and also ears and nose ears, nose and throat ears and eyes ears and hands ears and nostrils etc

ears co-occurs with2294 eyes 225 10% and also squashy fingers and crinkly ears swollen ankles and painful earsbuck teeth and cauliflower ears bulbous nose and big ears long tail and pointed ears etc

ears co-occurs with2294 eyes 225 10% and also close the eyes and put the ears to work follow my nose and keep my ears open shielding his eyes and covering his ears zaps the eyes and blasts the ears biting our nails and covering our ears etc

ears 2294 has a semantic association with PARTS OF BODY at least 525 cases 23%

The Lexical Priming claim Whenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we note subconsciously • the words it occurs with (its collocations), • the meanings with which it is associated (its semantic associations), • the pragmatics it is associated with (its pragmatic associations),

reason is often denied That’s not the reason why… For no particular reason… For some reason or other… Whatever the reason…

consequence tends to be negative e.g. the grim consequence, one dire consequence, a bleak consequence result tends to be positive e.g. a great result, the perfect result, a fine result

send/receive a word against has a pragmatic association with denial (e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against) denial + send/receive a word against has a pragmatic association with hypotheticality (e.g. wasn’t prepared to say a word against)

The Lexical Priming claim Whenever we encounter a word (or syllable or combination of words), we also note subconsciously • the grammatical patterns it is associated with (its colligations) • the genre and/or style and/or social situation it is used in, • whether it is used in a context we are likely to want to emulate or not

consequence tends to be indefinite e.g. another consequence, one consequence, a consequence result tends to be definite e.g. this result, the result

reason and result tend not to be possessed e.g. the reason was…, the result was… reasons and results can be possessed e.g. my reasons were…, our results

denial + send/receive a word against colligates with modal verbs (e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against) denial + send/receive a word against also colligates with human subjectsand human prepositional objects

denial + send/receive a word against colligates with modal verbs (e.g. wouldn’t hear a word against) denial + send/receive a word against also colligates with human subjects and human prepositional objects

Michael Hoey University of Liverpool 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference Harrogate