jnl11 最近の更新履歴 JACET関西支部ライティング指導研究会

(1)

ISSN 1883-7840

JACET ^{関西支部ラ} ^テ ^{ング指導研究会紀要}

第 ₁₁ 号

2015 ^年 3 ^月

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

The Bulletin of the Writing Research Group,

JACET Kansai Chapter

Vol. 11

(March, 2015)

＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿

An Error Analysis on English Articles in Learners’ TOEFL-type

Essays: A Focus on Generic and Non-generic Errors

KAWANISHI, Kei

Graduate School of Kyoto University

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to survey and explain the types of article errors in TOEFL-type essays written by Japanese university students. L2 article pedagogy and research have focused solely on the first mention and second mention use of articles, particularly in narrative text. However, the article errors in the author’s teaching context seemed to follow a different referential pattern. Attributing the difference in genre (narrative or academic) to be the key in identifying referential patterns, a further review of the literature and the data allowed for an assumption that reference may follow a generic/non-generic pattern in academic prose, prompted by reasoning involving generalization (e.g., sample to population). Based on this assumption, error analysis of keywords in learner writing identified that errors could be attributed to the difficulty in expressing generic reference, and distinguishing generic from non-generic reference. The findings suggest that when a generalization is made about a population from a sample, generic and non-generic references may be used respectively. Pedagogically, where only the first mention and second mention rule in narrative text were available, the implications from the findings offer a different set of rules for instruction of articles, namely, generic/nongeneric in academic prose containing generalization.

Key Words: error correction, articles, generic reference, non-generic reference

1. Article Errors in L2 Writing

In the context of second and foreign language (L2) writing instruction, it is not infrequent to encounter inaccuracies in learner writing. Errors can be a concern to instructors; treatment of errors through different kinds of feedback has been a topic of interest in both L2 writing classrooms as well as in research (e.g., Ferris, 1999).

Article errors in L2 writing may be especially relevant to research investigating the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF). Articles have been the choice of grammar in examining the effectiveness of this pedagogical approach in a number of studies (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Sheen, 2007; Shintani & Ellis, 2013). Thus, it was not surprising when I, as an instructor who encountered article errors in the classroom, turned to the body of CF research on articles for implications. A problem, however, became

(5)

immediately apparent. The kinds of articles dealt in said research were of different variants from the ones in my context. In fact, L2 pedagogy has been criticized for solely focusing on what is called the first mention second mention (1M2M) rule of articles (Yoo, 2009). In my teaching context, learners were misusing generic and non-generic articles, rather than the familiar variants.

This paper reports on an exploratory investigation conducted on learners’ article errors in TOEFL-type essays at a Japanese university. Before analyzing actual errors from the classroom, the existing body of CF research on articles is reviewed. The review section will identify the focus of previous research, the 1M2M rule and its relationship to narrative text employed in the elicitation of those two types of articles. Since no L2 writing error studies were found on other types of article use, language acquisition research on articles will be reviewed in order to gain some insight into the generic and non-generic use of articles. After clarifying the difference between the existing body of research on 1M2M article errors and of those in the present study, an error analysis on articles in learner writing will be presented.

2. An Overview of Errors

Before further proceeding with analysis and discussion, the types of errors under discussion should be fully clarified. Since what prompted this study was anecdotal evidence encountered in the classroom, some assumptions were made regarding errors through analysis of learner writing.

Below are some sentences extracted from student essays written to the TOEFL prompt titled “Stay in Hometown or Move” in previous years in the same course as the participants of this study. Underlined sections indicate errors, and the corrections by a native-speaker of English (NS hereafter) are supplied in parentheses.

(1) We should live in a city (cities). (2) I want to live in cities (a city).

(3) When we graduate from our universities (university)…

While all examples may seem like errors in the singular-plural dimension upon first glance, the corrections in (1) and (3) contain important implications. When extracted from their original contexts, (1) and (3) are not ungrammatical. This prompted me to look at the difference between two versions of the sentence:

(1) We should live in a city. (1’) We should live in cities.

(3) When we graduate from our universities… (3’) When we graduate from university…

The difference between (1) and (1’) as well as (3) and (3’) is the type of reference, or more specifically what is known as generic and non-generic reference. That is, (1) indicates that

“we”, perhaps a family or a group of friends should live in an actual city, such as Kyoto,

(6)

while (1’) is an statement that denotes city life is preferable in general. Similarly, “we” and

“our universities” in (3) refer to specific (grammatically termed “non-generic”) people and their schools, while “we” and “university” in (3’) refer generically to people and universities in general (See 3.1 for generic and non-generic reference). Similarly, the correction in (1) also seems to contain a change in the type of reference being used. In this light, the error in (2) could also be attributed to the difficulty in selecting from among the generic referring expressions “cities,” “the city” and “a city” (See 3.1.2 for a review of generic use of articles) rather than to the difficulty counting the number of cities the writer wants to live in.

Sample errors like the above three cases allow for an assumption that the errors may concern generic and non-generic reference, like the one between “university” and “our universities”. While reference involves non-article forms like other determiners (e.g., “our”) and the countability of the noun (e.g., “university” vs. “our universities”), the literature on articles seems to cover the phenomenon of reference most effectively. With this in mind, the English article system, its pedagogy, and its acquisition are briefly reviewed in the section that follows.

3. Literature Review

3.1 The English Article System

A review of the English article system indicates that it contains a number of plurifunctional forms. Consider the following:

(4) The tiger is dangerous. (5) A tiger is dangerous. (6) Tigers are dangerous.

(7) The tiger escaped from the cage. (8) A tiger escaped from the cage. (9) Tigers escaped from the cage.

Examples (4)-(6) represent what is called generic reference, and (7)-(9) represent non-generic reference. The former three are about the tiger species, while in the latter three, the sentences are about one or more members of the species. As these examples demonstrate, the choice of an article may not immediately represent its meaning.

The article system is said to contain as many as five forms: a, the, and sm¹, as well as two absences of articles: NULL, and ZERO² (Chesterman, 1991; Quirk et al., 1985). The number of articles may range from the minimum of two (a, the) to the maximum of five, depending on the researcher. Part of the reason for this variability is that some researchers posit NULL and ZERO articles for what others may consider a mere absence of articles.

Different articles are used to denote meanings like countability, plurality, and definiteness (Quirk et al., 1985). In the following sections, two types of the non-generic use of articles (the first mention a and the second mention or anaphoric the) as well as the generic use of articles are reviewed.

(7)

3.1.1 The 1M2M use of articles

What is known as the 1M2M rule in pedagogy refers to two forms of non-generic reference. Consider the example below:

(10) There once lived a tiger. The tiger’s name was…

As the term first mention suggests, the article a introduces a subject, and the is used for the second mention of the same tiger. The two forms of reference are considered non-generic, as they refer to individual members of—in this case—the set of all tigers rather than to the species itself.

3.1.2 Generic use of articles

Generic use of articles, on the other hand, allows one to refer generically, in this case, to the species ‘tiger’. Consider examples (4)-(6). Notice three of the article forms (a, the and ZERO) can express more or less the same meaning. Definite singulars, indefinite singulars and plurals accompanied by the ZERO article (known as a bare plural³) can all express generic reference.

3.2 Pedagogy of Articles and the Role of Text Types

In L2 pedagogy concerning articles, researchers and teachers seem to agree that discourse plays an important role (e.g., Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Hughes & McCarthy, 1998). The sections below will review the 1M2M use of articles in narrative text, and then move onto the use of generic articles in academic prose.

3.2.1 1M2M use of articles and narrative text

Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) states that simple narratives like fables and folktales are the best for presenting the 1M2M rule. In fact, Aesop’s Fox and Crow used in Sheen’s (2007) corrective feedback study was also presented in Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) as well as Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (1999). CF studies have also utilized such narrative tasks to elicit 1M2M article use and to encourage noticing in learners (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Sheen, 2007; Shintani & Ellis, 2013). As seen in this section, narrative text seems to provide an optimal context for the 1M2M use of articles. Noting this trend in L2 pedagogy, Yoo (2009) argues the emphasis on this single rule to be exaggerated, especially with regard to the frequency of actual article use. An interesting point to note is that the essays learners in my context wrote was not narrative; that is, they were writing TOEFL-type essays that were either argumentative or expository.

3.2.2 Generic use of articles and academic prose

Research linking the generic use of articles to argumentative and/or expository text (referred to as academic prose hereafter) is not as abundant as the 1M2M articles and narrative text. In academic writing, Swales and Feak (2004) indicates that generic reference serves a role in extended definitions.

(8)

While there are some materials indicating L2 learners how to differentiate between the generic and non-generic use of articles (e.g., Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Quirk et al., 1985), little information was found on when to use the noun as generic or non-generic. On this topic, interesting insights can be gained by examining a series of acquisition studies.

Research has examined generics in children acquiring English monolingually and those acquiring it bilingually (Ionin & Montrul, 2009; Perez-Leroux et al., 2004). These linguists were interested in finding out whether genericity is coded as a definite plural such as in Spanish or a bare plural such as in English in children, and while their research aims are not directly relevant to L2 pedagogy, the tests used in their studies offer many implications for adult L2 learners engaged in academically-oriented writing.

In such an experiment, researchers present stories of unusual examples of animals that do not fit within the general nature of the species, in this case, two herbivorous tigers and two spotted zebras. Such exceptions do not contradict the facts that tigers are generally

carnivorous and zebras are striped. Children are then asked true or false questions about the unusual members as expressed by a non-generic reference (e.g., the tigers) and about the species expressed with a generic (e.g., tigers). See the questions following the passage below where article use is the sole difference between the references in a) to c).

In our zoo, we have two very unusual tigers. Most tigers eat meat all the time. But our two tigers are vegetarian: they love to eat carrots, and they hate meat.

a) The tigers like carrots. (TRUE) b) Tigers like meat. (TRUE) c) These tigers like meat. (FALSE)⁴

(Ionin & Montrul, 2009, p.159)

The experimental design like above seems to use reasoning, especially generalization to elicit generic/nongeneric pattern of reference. While these studies employ exceptional members rather than typical (i.e., the carnivorous majority), the parallel of sample-to-population type generalization with referential patterns may also be utilized in understanding L2 referential errors in essays requiring reasoning (See Figure 1 for the parallel of reference and reasoning).

Figure 1. Generic/non-generic reference and generalization 3.3 Error Analysis

The above sections have presented different uses of articles and their relationships to

(9)

discourse, and suggested a possible link between generic and non-generic types of reference and reasoning. The aim of the present study is to confirm what errors are present and how they can be explained. I will now turn to the review of the method of investigation and error analysis for some key points: what it means to be erroneous and how to define errors. James (2001) describes grammaticality as follows: “It is the grammar (not you or I) who decides whether something said by a learner is grammatical (p.65).” This is in line with Corder (1967/1974) who states that ungrammaticality involves “breaches of rules of the code (p.101).”

Another aspect the present study should be concerned with is acceptability. Acceptability is the term used when contexts rather than rules are concerned (James, 2001). Contexts such as the location of the sentence in the paragraph or the essay may be related to referential errors, such as in the case of syntactically correct examples like “our universities” being an error of “university.”

On defining errors, several researchers have held that errors should be labeled by corrections. James (2001) indicates that error analysis is target language oriented, and shows how having not said what is expected is the way error analysis has labeled errors (pp.93-95). This has been true since Burt and Kiparsky (1972) encouraged to the categorization of learner errors “according to what the person who says them has to learn about English (p.8).”

This means that in error analysis, corrections (e.g., not having said “university”) define errors (e.g., having said “our universities”). In the case of this study, corrections provide much insight into what function learners may be failing to express. Errors, on the other hand, are considered to indicate only what the learner is misusing in place of the correct form.

4. The Objective of the Investigation

Thus far, it has become clear that while there have been some acquisition studies of generic use of articles, L2 pedagogy and research have mostly focused on the 1M2M use of articles. When discussing the use of articles in L2 pedagogy, it has not been evident how the generic and non-generic use of articles can be contrasted. The present study is conducted to confirm the following two assumptions that were made based on the preliminary analysis of learner errors (1)-(3) and the review of the literature:

(i) The pattern of reference is affected by generalization in academic prose. (ii) Article errors in academic prose frequently involves generic reference.

5. Methods

5.1 Participants and Prompts

In order to confirm the assumptions made based on preliminary evidence, a systematic data collection and exploration of learner errors were necessary. In order to draw a sample similar to the learners errors as in (1)-(3), the writing data was drawn from the same course at the same school in a different year. Specifically, participants were recruited from the second year students at the research university. They had completed academic writing and reading courses in their first year, and were taking a course designed for takers of the TOEFL test. A

(10)

total of 57 and 56 students submitted their essays for the two topics below, yielding a total of 64 participants (Some students did not submit for both topics). Using the structure section from the TOEFL Practice Tests Workbook (Educational Testing Service, 1997), the students scored the average of 28.58 (SD = 5.08) out of 40, making their average estimate proficiency to be 520-540 TOEFL PBT points.

Writing topics that seemed to allow for the sample-to-population type generalization were selected from past TOEFL writing prompts available from ETS and ETS Criterion^®.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People always learn from their mistakes. Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

http://www.ets.org/Media/Products/Criterion/topics/topics.htm

Many people have a close relationship with their pets. These people treat their birds, cats, or other animals as members of their family. In your opinion, are such relationships good? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

http://web.binus.ac.id/els/file/TWE_topics_633786023742919255.pdf

These prompts were chosen for containing keywords that may behave in a sample-to-population manner in relation to generic and non-generic reference. For the first prompt, it was assumed that learners were likely to argue that a mistake they made before (non-generic) may have taught them something about learning from mistakes (generic). Similarly in the second prompt, it was thought that learners were likely to discuss the pets they own (non-generic) and generalize their experience to pet-human relationships. For this prompt, the hypernym animal as well as the hyponyms dog, cat, and any species and subspecies names (e.g., my Chihuahua) were considered.

5.2 Error Analysis

The literature has indicated corrections are more significant than errors. However, it is possible not to choose corrections over errors. In the analysis of learner errors, errors and corrections were both labeled and categorized into Table 2. A native-speaker collaborator error-corrected all the essays, and the errors as well as corrections were tagged onto a text file. For the categories, refer to Table 1 below for abbreviations and examples.

The errors and corrections were later counted. For instance, if a learner used the word mistakes but the native speaker corrected it to my mistakes it was BP*PP, using a “bare plural” form for the “possessive plural”. Some instances of error corrections were also extracted along with their contexts for a closer and more qualitative analysis. The 16 students whose writing was drawn as excerpts appear with arbitrary names, consisting of Student A to P.

(11)

Table 1 Categories of Errors, Their Abbreviations, and Examples

bare plural quantified plural possessive plural deictic plural definite plural

BP QP PP DEP DP

e.g., mistakes e.g., some mistakes e.g., our mistakes e.g., these mistakes e.g., the mistakes bare singular indefinite singular possessive singular deictic singular definite singular

BS IS PS DES DS

e.g., mistake e.g., a mistake e.g., their mistake e.g., this mistake e.g., the mistake Note. Bare singular is not singular, but termed so in comparison to bare plural.

6. Results and Discussion

6.1 Referential Patterns and Logical Structure

As for assumption i), excerpts such as the below indicate that the generic/non-generic referential pattern does seem to have a relationship to the sample-to-population pattern of generalization. The writer below provides an example with “my mistakes” and moves to a generalization using words and phrases like “mistakes” and “our own failure(s).”

Let me take an example of my mistakes in having a presentation. When I was a freshman, I had a chance to… Based on my experience of learning from mistakes, I strongly insist that we can always learn from our own failures. (Student A)

This writer moves from a more general idea of “pets” to his or her example, “my pets” and generalizes again with “one’s pets.”

Pets are very cute and they heal our heart. Though I’m very tired, when I feed my pets and look at them, I’m refreshed very much… From these reasons, I think one’s pets are necessary part of his or her family, and a relationship like this is wonderful. (Student B)

Yet another writer moves from the idea of “pets” to his or her personal example, “my pet.”

Pets do not speak, but I think we can communicate with them when we are eager to know what they think. I can guess my pet’s feelings, because I always… (Student C)

6.2 Generic and Non-generic Errors in Academic Prose

Regarding assumption ii), all the errors relating to keywords in the essays written to the two prompts were counted up and entered into Table 2.

The vertical column in Table 2 shows categories for errors (i.e., original forms) by the learners, while the horizontal rows show categories for corrections (i.e., changes made by the NS collaborator). For instance, if a learner wrote down mistakes (bare plural: BP)” for their mistakes (possessive plural: PP), one count of error was placed in the first row, third column, where 31 errors have been noted.

Based on the error count, four major types of errors emerged. They are 1) a tendency to use the bare singular in generic contexts, 2) errors among generics, 3) over-specification

(12)

errors, where generics are supposed to be used, and one non-generic error category, 4) overgeneralization. A clear and general tendency was that many of the errors and error categories established concerned generics, either among themselves or generics that were expressed with non-generics or vice versa. It may be worthy to note that the a/the errors related to the 1M2M rule do not make up many of the errors: two indefinite singulars for definite singulars, one definite singular for an indefinite singular; one bare plural for a definite plural, and perhaps the only relevant, 13 definite plurals for bare plurals (See 6.2.3 for more details).

Table 2 Errors as Defined by Corrections

BP QP PP DEP DP IS DS PS DES BS other sum

BP 31 1 9 2 43

QP 2 9 2 2 15

PP 13 1 14

DEP 0

DP 13 5 2 1 8 29

IS 9 2 2 2 15

DS 1 1 1 3 6

PS 6 6

DES 0

BS 21 1 12 1 1 36

other 5 1 6 12

sum 59 5 45 3 11 32 13 8 0 0 0 176

6.2.1 Use of the bare singular in generic contexts

Bare singular, a term given to the use of the bare form, occurred 36 times in the learners’ writing, with its overwhelming majority of 33 instances happening in generic contexts, (i.e., in place of bare plurals or indefinite singulars).

(11) But generally speaking, it is said that mistake (mistakes, BS*BP) is more impressive than success. (Student D)

(12) Finally, living with pet (pets, BS*BP) is very good for children's education. (Student E) (13) When you make mistake (a mistake, BS*IS)… (Student F)

(14) Firstly, pet (a pet, BS*IS) is a creature and it has feelings as well as us. (Student G)

The examples (11), (12), and (14) are all general statements, and (13) talks about a hypothetical situation with an unspecific a, also known as a conjured up⁵ instance.

6.2.2 Errors among generic forms

Another error type included learners using a bare plural in place of an indefinite singular (9 instances), or vice versa (9 instances).

(13)

(15) I sometimes make mistakes, but sometimes don’t notice that I make made mistakes (made a mistake, BP*IS) (Student H)

(16) If you have pets (a pet, BP*IS), you have to buy food and toys (Student I) (17) People often make a mistake (mistakes, IS*BP)… (Student J)

(18) One reason why people had better have a pet (pets, IS*BP) is that lives of people who have a pet can become rich. (Student K)

The examples (15) to (18) represent these errors. Hypothetical situations with conjured up instances of keywords like (15) and (16) are often misrepresented with bare plurals, and generic statements can be misrepresented with an unspecific a as in (17) and (18). While indefinite singular and bare plural may be synonymous in the subject position of a general statement, the object position might make the generic status difficult for the learners.

6.2.3 Over-specification in generic contexts

In addition to errors among generics, learners sometimes used overly specific expressions where a bare plural was called for, much like in the “our universities” for “university” example in (3). One of the error types was using a possessive plural in place of a bare plural, the other was using a definite plural for a bare plural.

(19) Today, many people have their pets (pets, PP*BP) and feel close to them as if they were real friends or members of their family. (Student L)

(20) For example, treating their pets (pets, PP*BP) with carefully makes children think the importance of life and how to deal with other animals. (Student M)

(21) If they fail in something, they give up trying to challenge them because they don’t know how to cope with the mistakes (mistakes, DP*PP). (Student N)

(22) For example, noise from the room and dirt at the road, made by the dogs or cats (dogs or cats, DP*PP). (Student O)

The examples (19) to (22) demonstrate that rather general statements expressing pets and mistakes in general were over-specified with possessives like their and the definite article the.

6.2.4 Overgeneralization in non-generic contexts

In contrast to the overspecification examples above, using the generic bare plural for a possessive plural in non-generic contexts was frequent, occurring 31 times. See the examples 23 and 24.

(23) I learned many things from mistakes (my mistakes, BP*PP). (Student K)

(24) However, when they have close relationships with pets (their pets, BP*PP) and treat them as members of their family… (Student P)

Contrary to 6.2.3, some errors were produced as a result of statements that should refer to concrete and/or specific ideas becoming expressed with generics.

(14)

7. Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which Japanese university students misuse generic and non-generic reference in TOEFL-type academic prose, especially with regard to the two assumptions made at the beginning:

(i) The pattern of reference is affected by generalization in academic prose. (ii) Article errors in academic prose frequently involves generic reference.

The four types of errors that emerged in the results section reveal that the errors can be divided into two categories: those where generic reference is misused in generic contexts (6.2.1 and 6.2.2) and those where generic and non-generic reference are used in the wrong context (6.2.3 and 6.2.4). These tendencies suggest that the 1M2M rule of article use that is so often taken up in the L2 pedagogy and CF studies in L2 narrative text may not be so effective in academic prose. Rather, the findings suggest generic and non-generic dichotomy may be the key in understanding learner errors in academic prose. Though the analysis was limited to description, examining written product only, the error types imply the pedagogical possibility of dichotomous instruction of generic and non-generic use of articles in academic prose that employs generalization.

Notes

1. Some researchers consider sm, the unstressed variant of some to be an article.

2. A NULL article is definite (e.g., Italy, Mt.Fuji) and a ZERO article is indefinite (e.g., dogs, water). For further discussion, see Quirk et al. (1985) and Chesterman (1991).

3. The bare plural, as Carlson (1977) refers to it, is ZERO + plural. Researchers like Carlson and Chesterman consider the true plural equivalent of a to be sm, whereas a bare plural is inherently generic. See Carlson (1977) for a thorough discussion.

4. In this context, (1) the tigers and (3) these tigers are synonymous and non-generic in English, and only (2) tigers is generic among the three variants.

5. The generic reference made with a is sometimes called “conjured up” as the reference is made to a non-specific, arbitrary instance (e.g., See Langacker, 1999, p. 273-277).

Acknowledgement

This study was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows.

References

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.

Burt, M. K., & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English. Rowly,

(15)

Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Carlson, G. N. (1977). A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 413–456.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book. New York: Heinle & Heinle.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (Eds.) (2000). Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chesterman, A. (1991). On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Corder, S. P. (1974). The significance of learners’ errors. In J.C. Richards (Ed.), Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 19–28). London: Longman. (Reprinted fromIRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161–170, 1967, Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.)

Educational Testing Service. (1997). TOEFL^® Practice Tests Workbook (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Ferris, D. (1999). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (1998). From sentence to discourse: Discourse grammar and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 263–287.

Ionin, T., & Montrul, S. (2009). Article use and generic reference: Parallels between L1- and L2-acquisition. In M. del Pilar Garcia Mayo, & R. Hawkins (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition of Articles: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Implications. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

James, C. (2001). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. London: Routledge.

Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Munn, A., Schmitt, C., & DeIrish, M. (2004). Learning definite

determiners: Genericity and definiteness in English and Spanish. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla & C. Smith (Eds), BUCLD 28 Proceedings Supplement. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/ APPLIED/BUCLD/supp.html

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svatrvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills (Vol. 1). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Yoo, I. W. (2009). The English definite article: What ESL/EFL grammars say and what corpus findings show. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 267–278.

(16)

______________________________________________________________________________________ JACET^関西支部 ^ン ^{指導研究会紀要} ^第11^号 pp. 13–21. (2015)

英語エッセイおける語彙の再叙

― 実行可能 coherence評価向けての基礎研究 ―

Lexical Reiteration in an English Essay:

A Fundamental Study toward Feasible Assessments of Coherence

ABE, Makoto

Dokkyo University

Abstract

In the field of L2 writing, coherence has been researched from the viewpoint of discourse analysis. However, cohesion, a linguistic aspect of coherence, deserves more attention in order to develop an objective method of assessing coherence. Thus, this study investigates the characteristics of lexical reiteration, a part of lexical cohesion, in an English essay written by a university student to explore the possibility of assessing coherence through cohesion. The data was one essay script responding to an argumentative essay task. The in-depth analysis involved segmenting the essay into sentences, identifying key concepts, and labeling them into eight categories of lexical reiteration, which are repetition, synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, meronymy, co-hyponymy, co-meronymy, and metonymy. As a result, out of 171 pairs of sentences, 73 cases of lexical reiteration were observed and the most frequently used category was synonymy. The results also indicate certain sentences and paragraphs included more cases of lexical reiteration. The findings suggest pedagogical emphasis on discourse functional elements (e.g., thesis statement) may interfere with the lexical cohesion in learner writing.

Key Words: coherence, cohesion, lexical reiteration

1.

本研究，日本大学 ₁ 次ン指導い，学習者書い英語エ

coherence ^{内容的一貫性，整合性} ^様々 ^訳語 ^在 ^評価 ^実行 ^能 ^手法 ^開発

最終的目標基礎研究あ。体的，著者担当ン授

業提出エ _cohesion 結束性訳多いう，語彙 _cohesion

一種あ再叙 lexical reiteration ^分析 ^方法 ^能性 ^課題 ^考察 ^。本稿 ^前半 ^， coherence cohesion coherence ^定着 ^訳語 ^見 ^い ^，本稿 ^両者 ^英語 ^表

(17)

記定義理論的背景，_coherence評価先行研究概観，要性問題点指

摘，後半，著者担当ン授業受講生書い ₁編英語エ用い

，語彙再叙一語句や類義語異文文あい見現象分析，結

果考察。

2. ^{先行研究}

2.1 Coherence Cohesion

Coherence cohesion ^{外国語教育研究以外} ^，談 ^分析，言語学，心理言語学，認知言語学各分広使用概念あ。定義試 ₁₉ 世紀遡 _(Lee,

2002) ^，応用言語学や外国語教育研究い，両概念解釈研究目的応異，

用語や定義厳密統一。，_coherence _cohesion ，解釈いあ

，両者顕わ要素相互意味いう点共通い。

近，_coherence 抽象的知覚いあ，手や聞手主観的断

あ対，_cohesion 客観的言語的要素確認在

あ区 (e.g., Bell, 1991; Hoey, 1991; Stotsky, 1983) ^。 ^，近う _coherence 定義見直試見。

Lee (2002) coherence^研究 ^歴史的 ^概観 ^うえ ^，coherence cohesion ^文

展開やメン構造，情報構造，メ，₁₉₆₀ 代以降談

分析研究や言語学分整理概念定義い。_Lee ，

coherence ^文章 ^際 ^手 ^負担 ^軽減 ^あ ^定義 ^紹 ^い ^，

う定義あ語句 (target) ^認識 ^理解 ^発 ^， ^先行 ^語句 ^土 (priming) いう心理言語学分影響考え e.g., Hoey, 2005 ^。Ruegg and

Sugiyama (2013) ^，近 cohesion ^留意 ^書 ^十分 coherent

い批多，メう手得性関

う談的要素，論述型エ特必要あ述い。Cotton and Wilson (2011) IELTS ^ン ^評価基準 1 ^あ “coherence and cohesion”

評価い調査。研究論述型エンョン，

，ンョンい構成一般的あい文化的要因考慮要

あ指摘，談的指標用い， _coherence 完全明訳

い，限界言及い。

2.2 Coherence^{の評価} 関する先行研究

Watson Todd et al. (2004) ^，coherence ^客観的 ^測定 ^，^{操作的定義} ^能 topic-base

approach ^注目 ^。 ^研究 ^先 ^， ^あ ^英文エ T-unit ^主節 ^従属節 ^組

合わ分節，₂ 回以使わ詞，，詞句鍵概念い。，鍵

概念度や鍵概念士関係特定，動計的分析得 _coherence 測

定値教師評価強い相関示報告い。Knoch (2007) Watson Todd et al. (2004) coherence ^評価方法 ^客観性，^実行 ^能性 ^問題 ^あ ^指摘 ^，topical structure approach ^基 coherence ^評価手法 ^開発 ^試 ^。Topical structure approach ^文 topic ^主

主語 _comment 述語あ動詞修飾要素区談分析や言

語学研究見 _theme _rheme 区実質的似い，文文あい _topic

comment ^内容的 ^一 ^う coherence ^種類 ^特定 ^う ^。あ ^文

(18)

topic ^後続 ^文 topic ^指 ^一 ^例 parallel progression ^呼び，topic comment 一 sequential progression ^呼ぶ ^方法 ^，coherence ^種類 6^種類 ^カ

分類。，₉段ベ評価尺度各ベ _coherence 特徴明

記述文作成，尺度使得評価信性妥当性従来尺度高

報告い。_Knoch 研究参加者あ評価者，開発尺度 _coherence

全明いいメン得，評価客観性実行能性高

時，_coherence 過足明評価基準作示唆い。_Watson

Todd et al. (2004) ^や Knoch (2007) ^要 ^先行研究 ^あ ^，coherence ^完全 ^知覚 ^い

扱，研究 _coherence 評価際言語的要素再

分析必要性示唆いう見え。実際，Watson Todd et al. (2007) ^{文章全体} coherence ^{研究} connectedness ^{いう語} ^使 ^い ^{評価} ^あ ^，cohesion^， propositional coherence ^記 ^う theme rheme ^関係 ^注目 , interactional coherence

機能関 ₃種類要素分析い。，１

尺度複数要素混在う弁力弱う (Knoch, 2007) ^， ^実

行能評価方法開発ン限側面注目必要あ。，

本研究，語彙 _cohesion 一部あ再叙注目，度文章 _coherence 高

結び前提い分析試再叙関 _3.3.3 参照。，本研究い

，_cohesion _coherence ，文文あい言語的結び，文文，パ

パ，，文章全体い見意味や内容や一貫性定

義。

3. ^{方法}

3.1 ^{参加者}

本研究参加者著者 ₂₀₁₄ 度担当ン科目 Writing Skills II ^，秋

学期開講科目授業受講大学生 ₁ 生あ。エ分析事例細検討目

的，受講者 ₁ ，研究目的エ使用許得うえ参加依。

，参加者あ大学生，習熟度編制い，_TOEIC 均 ₄₈₀点

所属い。

3.2 ^{授業}

当秋学期科目成目標カ型的良い型エ書

うあ。前春学期単文複文文文種類やンン

部分，パ内構成基礎学習。受講生 ₁週目 ₅週目

，賛成反対自分立場明示論論述型エ学習。体的，₁

週目論述型エ型的構成，₂ 週目 ₄ 週目エ主要要素あ

ンョン，，ンョン書方学習。，₅ 週目再びエ

全体構成復習活動授業行。参加者学生全週出

席，エ基本的構成学習済あ。

3.3 ^{分析}

3.3.1 ^{分析単}

エ授業秋学期 ₅週目出題課題宿題あ。エ

(19)

題目 “Some people insist that dangerous sports should be banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?” ^あ ^，^大学1 ^生 ^あ ^参加者 ^秋学期5^週目 ^課 ^課題 ^あ

。課題提出 ₁週間費や，辞書使用能あ。語数 ₂₅₀ 語

前後設定，参加者あ学生 ₁₉ 文 ₂₄₇ 語エ提出。先行研究一部

coherence ^{有無や種類} ^定 ^際 ^分析単 T-unit ^主節 ^従属節 ^組 ^合わ ^採

用。，本研究基春学期授業，文種類単文や複文扱

週あ，文種類一種類偏い方い指導。，本研究

い，文種類書手意在いう前提基，_T-unit 文分析単

。，エ指導い採用多い，ンョン，，

ンョン ₃ 要素エ書方指導中心あ，パ

内，パ間全文文あい語彙再叙対象。文間 ₁₇₁ 所

分析再叙種類 _3.3.3参照視覚的確認う ₁参照。

3.3.2^{鍵概念} ^{抽出}

文文あい語彙再叙見箇所特定，再叙種類定，文中

定対象語句，わ，鍵概念抽出客観的行う必要あ。_Watson

Todd et al. (2004) ^鍵概念 ^詞， ^， ^詞句 ^。 ^，本研究 ^，談 ^的 ^指標や文法的 _cohesion ，語彙 _cohesion 一種あ再叙焦点絞 _coherence 分析

目的，鍵概念内容語詞，動詞，形容詞，詞構成句構造対

象。，エ使わい比較的度高い語，再叙語彙

cohesion ^生 ^出 ^い ^見 ^い ^多い ^断 ^，本研究 ^度 7 ^回以

度₁₈回 _sport，₉回 _people，₇回 _play 派生形語除外 dangerous sports

やa number of people ^修飾語句 ^い ^分析対象 ^含 ^。 ^， ^度 ^限 ^，

Lewis (1993) ^提唱 7 ^基本動詞 ^あ have, take, get, make, go, come, give ^，実質的

語似意味使わい動詞 _have 意味使わい _include 除外。

以，鍵概念抽出過程言語的操作あ。

本研究，談的要素，_coherence 測指標，鍵概念抽出

作業応用。Paltridge (2006) Halliday (1994) ^{分類} ^基 ^，theme topical, textual, interpersonal 3 ^分類 ^， ^う ^，interpersonal theme ^文 ^要素 ^関係 ^規定

機能担い，蓋然性，通常性，型性，明白性，意見，了解，得，推測，希望分類

述い，近盛議論いメ様 _textual

interpersonal ^い ^区 ^{，談} ^{的機能} ^応 ^{区分} ^{定義} ^い ^。 ^う

interpersonal theme ^特定 ^，^例え ^，in my opinion ^意見 ^やsome people ^型性。some

… others … ^機能 ^再叙以外 ^内容語 ^語句 ^除外 ^。

うプ経，分析対象残内容語構成句構造表 ₁

い太表記文文あい比較，語彙再叙種類定わあ，

際，語語，語句，句句い比較。，あ句例え risk of injury あ語例え，_danger 比時，句含いあ語_(risk) 再びう

一方語 (danger) ^比較 ^。 ^，比較 ^語句 ^士 ^異 ^品詞

比較い場合，片方両方語句詞化，再叙定行う能。

jnl11 最近の更新履歴 JACET関西支部ライティング指導研究会

JACET ^{関西支部ラ} ^テ ^{ング指導研究会紀要}

第 ₁₁ 号

2015 ^年 3 ^月

目次

The Bulletin of the Writing Research Group,

JACET Kansai Chapter

Vol. 11

(March, 2015)

Contents

An Error Analysis on English Articles in Learners’ TOEFL-type

Essays: A Focus on Generic and Non-generic Errors

KAWANISHI, Kei

Lexical Reiteration in an English Essay:

A Fundamental Study toward Feasible Assessments of Coherence

ABE, Makoto

jnl11 最近の更新履歴 JACET関西支部ライティング指導研究会

JACET 関西支部ラ テ ング指導研究会紀要

第 11 号

2015 年 3 月

目 次

The Bulletin of the Writing Research Group,

JACET Kansai Chapter

Vol. 11

(March, 2015)

Contents

An Error Analysis on English Articles in Learners’ TOEFL-type

Essays: A Focus on Generic and Non-generic Errors

KAWANISHI, Kei

Lexical Reiteration in an English Essay:

A Fundamental Study toward Feasible Assessments of Coherence

ABE, Makoto

JACET ^{関西支部ラ} ^テ ^{ング指導研究会紀要}

第 ₁₁ 号

2015 ^年 3 ^月

目次