1 / 18

Profiling Research through Error-Annotated Learner Corpora: Insights and Findings

This study showcases the potential of error-annotated learner corpora in profiling language proficiency research. By focusing on common European Framework (CEF) levels from A1 to C2, we analyze the role of errors as criterial features that help differentiate between levels. Utilizing the International Corpus of Learner English, we conduct a threefold analysis comprising error annotation, rating phases, and error counting to develop a detailed error profile. Results reveal that while errors serve as useful indicators of proficiency development, they alone cannot fully capture language ability.

geona
Télécharger la présentation

Profiling Research through Error-Annotated Learner Corpora: Insights and Findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Showcasing the potential of error-annotated learner corpora for profiling research Jennifer Thewissen Centre for English Corpus Linguistics (CECL)

  2. Profiling research • Definition • Finding ‘criterial features’ that discriminate between different levels of proficiency (e.g. Hawkins & Buttery, 2010) • CEF levels • C2 • C1 • B2 • B1 • A2 • A1

  3. Feature we focussed on • Construct of accuracy, viz. errors • Focus on four proficiency levels, viz. B1, B2, C1, C2 • Aim = See whether errors constituted a «criterial feature» to distinguish these levels

  4. Data & methodology

  5. International Corpus of Learner English (Granger et al., 2009)

  6. Threefold analysis • Error annotation, i.e. errortagging phase • CEF rating phase • Errorcounting phase

  7. Error annotation

  8. Error tagging examples The fastspread of televisioncantransformitinto a double-edged(FS)wheapon$weapon$. I willtry to giveseveral(XNUC)proofs$proof$ of the truth of the sentence. • 46errorsubcategories • Result: a detailederror profile per text

  9. The CEF rating procedure • Individual rating of the 223 learner scripts according to the linguisticdescriptors in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF) (Council of Europe, 2001) • B1, B2, C1 or C2 (with + and – increments) • 2 professionalraters (+ 1 rater in cases of widedisagreement) (r = 0.70)

  10. Tracking development CEF score Error profile Development: Progress? Stabilisation? Regression?

  11. Error counting: potential occasion analysis (GNN)

  12. Statistical analyses: ANOVA & Ryan (GNN) GNN = [B1/B2]>[B2/C1]>[C1/C2]

  13. Results for profilingresearch

  14. 4 main error developmental patterns

  15. Two dominating error patterns

  16. Where do progress and stabilisation mainly occur? Discriminating power of errors

  17. Preliminary observations for profilingresearch

  18. Some concluding remarks • Errors (negative features) • Stronger discriminatory power between certain levels (viz. B1 vs. B2) than others (viz. B2 vs. C1 vs. C2) • Need to capture other features than errors (e.g. positive features) • Conclusion for profiling research: errors are useful but they are not enough in and of themselves

More Related