Introduction
Lexicalphrasesarecomprisedoftwoormorewords.ForthediscourseofEnglishfor Academic Purposes (EAP),writing,they can act as building blocks.Later in Second Language Acquisition (SLA)learner・s development,EAP writing,lexicalphrases can be drawnupontoimprovetheirEAPwritingskills.Inaddition,lexicalphrasesinEAPwriting functioninorderforalearnertoacquirepragmaticcompetence.Researchintothisareaof applied linguistics in the SLA field was motivated by the observed high frequency of conjunctionsinsentencefirstpositioninEAPwritingatoneJapaneseuniversity.Thatis,the proliferation ofAlso,Like,Because,But and And warrants investigation into effective 学苑英語コミュニケーション紀要 No.918 60～88（20174）
Abstract
WhenthefunctionsoflexicalphrasesaretaughtandframedwithinthediscourseofEAP writing,learnersacquirepragmaticcompetence.Thispilotstudysoughttoascertainwhether theinstructionalmethodologyofimplicitorexplicitteachingapproachesbetterfacilitatedthe acquisitionofEAP lexicalphrasesinSLA learnerwriting.Focusonform wasthedominant SLA theoreticalrationale introduced to underscore noticing and input enhancement.The researchdesigntargetedEAPstudentsataJapaneseuniversity.Theexogenousmotivationfor the study was to improve the SLA ofEAP writing with respectto lexicalphrases.The statisticalmodelsofANOVA andt-testswereusedtoascertainlearnergains,andapre-test, post-test,anddelayedpost-testwereusedtocapturetheeffectsoftheinstructionaltreatment. Thestatisticalmodelsshowedpositiveeffectforlearnergainsandtheseweremaintainedmore significantly forclassroom explicitinstructionalapproachesthan implicit.In short,forthe pedagogicaldevelopmentofSLA learners・EAP writing,afocusonform instructionalmethod is advocated.By inputting lexicalphrases into learners・early SLA,the manipulation on retrievalofoutputisfacilitatedatalaterstageoftheirlanguagedevelopment.In addition, targeting theEAP writing form oflexicalphrasesispertinentduetoglobaltestsofEAP languageproficiencyholdingagatekeepingfunctionforlearners・personaladvancement. Keywords:EAPwriting,lexicalphrases,pragmaticcompetence,focusonform,noticing,SLA,
implicit,explicit,inputenhancement,learnergains,output
EAPfocusonform,LexicalPhrasesforWriting:
ImplicationsofGainsfrom ExplicitTeachingMethodology
overtheInputEnhancementPedagogyofImplicitTeaching
classroom teaching methodology which could serve to placate this phenomenon.In preference,EAP written lexicalphrases,including:In addition to,For instance,Dueto this,Despitethis,andInconsequenceareconsideredoptimal.Tosubstantiatethisclaim,this paperwillpresentthetheoreticalrationaleand presentthefindingsofthefirststageof whatis a larger research project.Moreover,although this paper seeks to quantifiably demonstratethisclaim・svalidityfrom inputandoutputperspectives;itisimportanttonote thatoutputwillnotbestatistically analysed in thispaper.For thefirststageofthis research project,thispaperwillpresentquantitativedatawhich hasbeen restrictedtothe explorationofimplicitandexplicitinstructionalclassroom pedagogyintermsoftheinput enhancementforEAP written lexicalphrases.In consequence,thetheoreticalrationaleof this paper willorient towards input enhancement and present issues that impede the gatheringofstatisticallyquantifiabledatainlinguisticperformanceofEAP lexicalphrases, forwriting,thatis,output.
Beginning with thetheoreticalrationale,atfirst,Schmidt・s(1990)NoticingHypothesis with respectto inputenhancementwillbe outlined.For the mostpart,Schmidt(1994) explains thatin language learning,when a form is paid attention to or noticed,itis consciously experienced.From such a stimulusevent,theSLA learnerdevelopsconscious awareness,and theform issubsequently stored in a learner・slong term memory.Thus givingrisetotheintroductionofLong・s(1998)notionoffocusonform.Thisisduetothis researcher・s pedagogicalapproach,which indicates that noticing is essentialto register targetedlanguage,inotherwords,focusonform.Thatis,formsarestoredinthememory, despitethefactthata learnermay notunderstand theirmeaning orfunction,they are retrievedasoutputinsubsequentlanguagedevelopmentalstages.Thesecanberevealedfor instancewhenacommunicationproblem arisessinceittriggerstoalearnerthattheyhave partiallyunderstoodeitherthemeaningorthefunctionofthenew form inearlierstagesof attending to input.Moreover,thisisan optimalcondition in learners・controlovertheir meansofproduction.Izumi・s(2002)studyconsideredaclearaccountofthisprocess.Izumi・s (2002)study isa complex research design which accountsforinputenhancementthrough noticing,and presentsstatisticalanalysisofquantifiableoutputdata.In thisstudy,itis introducedasagoalforfuturestagesofthispaper・sresearcher・slargerresearch design. Therefore,statisticalanalysisofEAP writing,lexicalphrasedatawillnotbeincluded in thispaper.
However,sincethispaperwillprefaceinputenhancement,White・s(1998)study willbe presented.Thisresearcherfoundthatacquisitionmightbespedupbyusingtypographical enhancementsuchashighlighting,circling,orunderling.Ontheotherhand,theresearch also revealed thata purely implicitfocuson form may notbeadequateenough forSLA leaners.Yet,on comparison with L1learners,explicitinstruction wasdeemedtobemore effectivefortheaforementioned.ThisisfurthersupportedbyreferencetoEllis(2009),whose
overview ofvariousstudiesintheconstructsofSLA implicitandexplicitlanguageteaching isextensive.Ellis(2009)lamentstheimplicit-explicitinterfaceconundrum whichreflectsthe difficulty in ascertaining what a leaner acquires explicitly and what has been learnt implicitly.Ellis (2009)advocates that research must be ongoing with regard to this predicament.
Following thetheoreticalrationale,thecategorization oflexicalphrases,asthetarget focus on form for this paper is considered necessary. Predominantly, Nattinger and DeCarrico・s(1992)bookonlexicalphraseswillbedrawnfrom.Intheform/functionsection ofthisbook,theydefinedthefunctionsoflexicalphrasesaspragmaticcompetence.Thatis, alanguagelearnerskillwhichenableslearnerstoselectform/functioncompositesaccording tocircumstance.A benefitisthatlexicalphrasechunkscanbelearnedinassociationwith their functions in context(For example,EAP writing).Contextwillalso be argued as necessarytoshowcasetoSLA learnershow phrasesareusedbyreferencingtheresearchof Nagyetal.(1985).AlthoughNagyetal.(1985)advocatesincidentalvocabularylearningthrough reading;this researcher also acknowledges its limitations.In short,unless a learner・s reading exposurehasbeen prolonged and extensive,acquisition isunlikely withoutmore explicitexplanationsofthetargetform (Nagy&Scott,2000).Intermsofphrasecategorization, this paper willintroduce Siepmann・s (2005)analysis of taxonomies.This willserve to demonstrate the researcher・s stance regarding how the lack of correct and cohesive categorizationofphrasesobfuscatesresearchinthisparticularfieldofappliedlinguistics.
Afterthetheoreticalrationaleand lexicalphraseclassification hasbeen outlined,this paperwillmoveontotheresearchmethodologyoftheresearchdesign.Followingthat,the resultsoftheresearch willbepresented.Theresearch design soughtprimarily toprovide implicit and explicit instructional treatmentto Japanese university, SLA learners in sophomore,EAP classes.Theresearchwasconductedovera15-weekperiod.Inthefirst10 weekstheinstructionaltreatmentwascarriedout.Thetargetforms,EAP writing,lexical phrases,weretaughtimplicitlyandexplicitly,byalternatingtheconstructsweekly,overa 10-week period.Atthesametime,yetovera15-week period,thetesting instrumentwas administeredinfourclasses.InWeek1,thepre-test,inWeek10thepost-testandinWeek 15thedelayedpost-testwereconducted.ThestatisticalmodesofanalysisusedwereANOVA andt-tests.Thisposthocquantifiabledataanalysisresultedinaclearanswertotheresearch question.Thatis,SLA learnergains(dependentvariables)weregreaterwhenEAP writing, lexicalphrasesweretaughtexplicitly,notimplicitly(independentvariables).
Basedon thefindingsoftheresultssection,thispaperwilldiscusshow forthefirst stageofthelargerresearchprojecttheseresultsseem verypositive.However,thesedonot significantlycontributetotheresearch.Moreover,theexclusionofEAPwritingdata,which isthesection ofthislargerresearch projectthatcould contributetotheliterature,were excluded.Following the discussion section,the future directions willaddress how this
researchintendstoaddresstheresearchdesignflawsandhow toprocureandanalyseEAP writingdata.
In sum,this paper will,to a larger extent,outline the theoreticalrationale and categorization oflexicalphrasesfrom theperspectiveofEAP writing.With respecttothe datathatwascollected,itlargelyreflectedinputenhancementornoticing;thus,theanalysis ofoutputislacking.Thelatteriswheregreatercontributiontotheliteraturecanbemade andinthesecondstageofthisresearchprojectforthcoming,itwillbeattempted.
1.TheoreticalRationale 1.1 Noticing
Forastart,Schmidt(1990,2010)arguedthatconsciousnoticingisnecessaryforlearning to takeplace,asdemonstrated by theresearcher・sproposaloftheNoticing Hypothesis. Schmidt(1990)claimeditis・ahypothesisthatinputdoesnotbecomeintakeforlanguage learning unlessitisnoticed,thatis,consciously registered・ (Schmidt,1990,ascited in Schmidt,2001,p.27).Thetheory wasputforth toprovidean alternateview oflanguage learning.Thus,it differed from previously established notions of unconscious learning processes(Schmidt,2010).Atthetime,Robinson(1995)surmisedthatSchmidt・s(1990)notion ofnoticing,or conscious attention to input,for the promotion ofL2 developmentwas supportedbyotherresearchersintheSLA field.Thisadvocationincludesresearchareas,for instance,consciousraisingorfocusonform (Robinson,1995citesFotos& Ellis,1991;Long, 1998,1991;Rutherford,1987;andSharwoodSmith,1991,1993).Inshort,thisstancesomewhat countersclaimsto Krashen・sview ofSLA asa subconsciousprocessin which conscious learning servesasamonitororediting function ofaknowledgebase,and thatwhich is non-consciouslyacquired(Robinson,1995citesKrashen1981,1982& 1985).Albeitnotinfull supportofKrashen,Schmidt(2010)does raise the predicamentthatwould arise ifthe importanceofunconsciousprocessesinlanguagecomprehensionandacquisitionweretobe denied. Further acknowledging that in the literature, there is ・no consensus on consciousness.・Ascitedby Harley (1998),Schmidt(1994)statesthatin languagelearning, whenaform ispaidattentiontoornoticed,itisconsciouslyexperiencedandtwofold;that is,・...theregistration oftheoccurrenceofa stimuluseventin consciousawarenessand subsequentstorageinlongterm memory・(1994,p.179).Statingfurtherthat,theacquisition ofthe targetlanguage form willnotoccur unless this noticing takes place.Moreover, instruction isthekey toincreasethesalienceoftheseformsin inputsothatlearnersare morelikelytonoticethem.
Despitethedebateofconsciousnessbeingsignificantlymoreextensivethanisindicated above,asuccinctsummarybyIzumi(2002)highlightsthreekeypositions.Theseinclude,at first,reference to Schmidt・s (1990)Noticing Hypothesis (elucidated aforementioned).In addition,Izumipointsoutthenecessity oflearners・・focalattention and awareness.・The
secondposition,citedbyIzumi(2002,p.543)isfrom TomlinandVilla(1994)whobelievethat of・...threeinterrelatedprocessesofattentionalertness,orientation,anddetectiononly detection,whichdoesnotrequireconsciousawareness,iscrucialforlearning;theothertwo processesmayhelptoincreasethechanceofdetectionand,thus,learning.・Thethirdstance isbased on Robinson・s(1995)proposalwhich redefinesSchmidt・snoticing with regard to whatisdetected and then,・furtheractivated asa resultofattentionalresourcesfrom a centralexecutive・(p.543).Whatismore,maintainingthatthedifferingdemandsofatask furtherstimulatedistinctformsofcognitiveprocessing.
1.2 Focusonform
Inordertomoreclearlysituatethenotionofthepreviouslymentionednoticing(attentional resources)asapplicabletolanguageteachingintheclassroom,Long・s(1998)workingpaper, published by Long and Robinson (1998)isreferred to.Firstly,Long and Robinson (1998) ascertain thatlanguageteaching hasbeen susceptibletopendulum swings.Atthetimeof publication,they attributedthis,simultaneously,tothelack ofbroadly acceptedlanguage learningtheoryandcommonclassroom practice.Inconsequence,theresearchershighlighted frustrationwithafocusonformSteachingmethodologysinceitprefacesgrammar,andis highly interventionist.Theswing towardsde-emphasison grammar and largely,a non-interventionist,・focusonmeaning・stancepedagogythusevolved.However,asLong(1998) posited,thiswasalso nota viableoption sinceit・...affectstheway a coursedesigner approaches the thorny issue of grammar in the communicative classroom・ (p.35).The researcherproffered thefollowing question:・Isteaching a new languagemoresuccessful when themain focusistheL2asobjectortheL2asamedium ofcommunication while studentsarelearning something else,likethehistory,cultureorgeography ofa society wheretheL2isspoken?・(Long,1998,p.35)Lamentingbothpedagogicalapproaches,Long (1998)proposedtheveritablemiddleground;focusonform (Long& Robinson,1998):
Focuson form refersto how attentionalresourcesareallocated,and involvesbriefly drawing students・attention to linguistic elements (words,collocations,grammatical structures,pragmaticpatterns,and so on),in context,as they arise incidentally in lessonswhoseoverridingfocusisonmeaning,orcommunication,thetemporaryshifts in focalattention being triggeredby students・comprehension orproduction problems. (Long,1998,p.40)
In brief,Long・s(1998)methodology reinforcesSchmidt・s(1983)work in thatthrough inducing,noticingisessentialtoregistertargetedlanguage,thatis,focusonform.Indoing so,formscanbestoredinthememory,despitethefactthatalearnermaynotunderstand theirmeaning orfunction untillaterlanguagedevelopmentalstages.Hence,learnersbuild skillstolearnnew items,andtocategorizethem linguisticallyandnotnecessarilyaccording
tometalinguisticawareness.Thisisin responsetothelimitationsofsolely focusing on a meaningbasedsystem;inotherwords,targetlanguageisattendedtoasanobject,orasit is systematically provided.Long (1998)argued that a focus on form approach would thereforebe・radical・intermsofitspsycholinguisticdimensionsinceittakesintoaccount thelearner・sinternalsyllabus.Inaddition,thisstanceendorsesthataninternalsyllabusis underalearner・scontrol,andthatitpresentsitselfwhenacommunicationproblem arises. Thisindicatesthatlearnerspartiallyunderstandeitherthemeaningorthefunctionofthe new form,whilstattending to input.Moreover,itis considered thatthese are optimal conditionsinlearners・controlovertheirmeansofproduction.
1.3 Limitationsofinputenhancementinlearneracquisition
White(1998)publishedastudyentitled,Gettingthelearners・attention,A typographical inputenhancementstudy.In particular,ithighlights・...theeffectsofmanipulating and enhancinginput,implicitlyandexplicitly,withtheaim ofincreasingtheusefulnessforL2 acquisitionoftheinputavailableintheclassroom・(p.85).White(1998)soughttoascertain whether students having difficulty acquiring a linguistic feature,could aid acquisition through enhancement of the target linguistic feature.In this study,a focus on form approach wasadoptedin responsetomounting research which suggestedthatiflanguage instructionfocusespredominantlyonmeaning,thatis,attheexclusionofformallanguage aspects,learnerswillbeaffected.Forexample,learnersmaynotbeabletoattainhighlevels oflinguisticknowledge,ordemonstratethatknowledge,despiteextensivemeaning based exposure(White,1998 citesHarley & Swain,1984;Lightbrown & Spada,1990;Swain & Lapkin,1982,1986).Thus,in ordertoproducethelanguage,ithasbeen putforwardthat meaningbasedclassroomscanimpedehigherlevelsofaccuratelearningbecauseofalimited numberofopportunitiestoconveytheirmessage(CitedbySwain,1985,1993).Furthermore, White(1998)statesthatthequalityofinputavailableforacquisitionshouldbeinvestigated, especiallyifitinvolvesdrawingonthelinguisticoutputofotherlearners.White(1998)cites Hulstijin (1989)thatatthepointofinputencoding,attention to form isnecessary and adequateforlanguageacquisitiontotakeplace.
Thus,White・s (1998)study sought to increase the ・perceptualsalience ofa set of linguisticfeatures withoutplacing excessive demands on learners・attentionalresources・ (White,1998,p.86,citesVanPatten).To do so,White(1998)attempted to demonstrateif typographicalenhancementcouldhighlightanddirecttheattentionoflearnerstothetarget formsinamannermoreexplicitthaninputfloods,yetlessexplicitthanruleexplanation. Thesetypographicalenhancementsincluded manipulation ofitalics,bolding,enlargement, andunderliningaskeyforWhite・s(1998)investigation.Inconclusion,White・s(1998)study foundthatacquisition may bespedupby using typographicalenhancement;however,the researchercontendedthatimplicitfocusonform maynotbeadequateoncomparisonwith
L1 learners.In other words,there is a relative ceiling thatis less pronounced than if studentshadreceivedexplicitinstruction.
1.3.1 Output・srolevis-a-visfocusonform
While Izumi・s (2002)article entitled,Output,input enhancement,and the noticing hypothesis:An experimentalstudyofESL relativization providesclarification thatnoticing isessential,Izumiraisesthattheamountandtypeofattention forlearnersisapointof contentionamongresearchers.Izumi・s(2002)articleputsforwardtwostanceswithregardto ・PedagogicalAttemptstoPromoteLeaners・Noticing ofForm・(p.543)forthepurposeof developingtheliterature.Theseare:1)visual(textualortypographical)inputenhancement and2)learner・soutput.OfnoteisthatIzumi(2002)drawsattentiontotheresearchdesign, wherebylearneroutputbecomesanindependentvariable.Izumialsoadvocatesthatregarding 1)itcanbeintroducedbyexternalmeanssuchasunderliningorhighlighting.Whereasfor 2)Izumistatesthatitemergesthroughtheprocessesofproduction;thatis,whenlearners attendtotheformsin outputandthusnoticemoreofthatform forsubsequentexposure toinput.Thus,Izumi(2012)surmisesthatvisualinputenhancementisanexternalprocess fordrawingattentiontoform,whileproducingoutputisaninternalone.Thisassessment wasbasedonIzumi・s(2012)review ofnineindependentresearchstudies,from whichIzumi gatheredthatfourwereabletoseelearnergainsfrom visualenhancement,twosomewhat less,andanothertwo,verylittle.
1.4 Issueswiththeassessmentofimplicitandexplicitlearnerknowledge
Ellis・s (2009)book,Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, TestingandTeaching,providesextensiveanalysisandmoreoverreflectsonSLA trendswith respect to the proliferation of the interface notion of implicit-explicit instructional methodology.Inthebook,Ellis(2009)promulgatesthatduetothedifferentwaysinwhich implicitandexplicitinstruction havebeen operationalized,thedistinction between thetwo methodsisnotstraightforward.Forexample,Ellisdemonstrateshow NorrisandOrtega・s (2000) meta-analysis classifications distinguish implicitas instructionaltreatment,which includesenriched input.Thatis,inputseeded with thetargetstructureorsentencesfor memorization. Meanwhile, explicit instruction included on one hand, a metalinguistic explanation,whileon theother,production practice.Tofurtherclassify thetwotypesof instruction,Ellis(2009)believesthattheterminology ofreactiveand proactiveshould be introduced.Yet,in doing so,another layer of misclassification is added.Ellis (2009) elucidatesthisthrough conducting acomparison ofDoughty・s(1991)study andRobinson・s (1996)study(citedinEllis,2009).InDoughty・sstudy,Ellismusesimplicitinputenhancement couldbeclassifiedasreactiveifstudentsskimmedtextswhicharepresentedbyacomputer and received supportonly in termsofstrategiesforlexicaland semanticrephrasing and
sentenceclarification.Whileexplicitinstructionwouldbecategorizedasproactivewhenitis comprisedofrulestatementsandon-screensentencemanipulation.IncontrasttoRobinson・s instructionaltreatment,therewerefourconditionsofwhich Ellis(2009)classified two as implicitanddirect,andtheothertwoasdirectexplicitandindirectexplicit.Fortheformer, theselearnerswererequired to rememberand beexposed to sentencesimbued with the targetphrase,andthetreatmentencompassedmeaningbasedconditions.Meanwhileforthe latter,direct explicit examples,students searched and identified rules,and for indirect explicit, written rules and explanations were provided. Thus, through attempting to succinctlydefineimplicitandexplicit,Ellis(2009)hasrevealedwidespreadmisclassifications.
Furthermore,Ellis (2009)introduces the three positions relating to the interface of implicitandexplicitknowledge,which are1)Non-interface,2)Strong Interfaceand3)the Weak Interface.ElliscitesDeKeyser・s(1995)study andDeJong・s(2005)study toillustrate thedifferentpositionswithregardtointerface.Nonetheless,intheend,Ellis(2009)surmised thatbothstudieshadeffectivetestinstrumentsforpossiblymeasuringexplicitknowledge, since students could produce grammatically the rules in different contexts.Ellis (2009) regarded thisasdeductive,orexplicit.Asaresult,Ellis(2009)claimed thatitwasmore effectivetodemonstratethedeductiveandexplicitin SLA instructionalmethodology,than theinductiveimplicitcondition.Thus,Ellis(2009)concluded thatthesetwostudiesreflect therelativeeaseofascertaining whataleaneracquiresexplicitly,vis-a-viswhathasbeen learntimplicitly.Thistypifiesanongoingresearchpredicamentwhenexaminingtheeffects ofwhatareconsidered to bethetwo main typesofform-focused assessment,explicitas deductiveandimplicitasinductive(Ellis,2009).
More specifically,Ellis (2009)cites DeKeyser (1995)and DeJong・s (2005)studies as examplesofdifferencesin theoperationalization ofthe・same・constructsofimplicitand explicit.DeKeyser (1995)had learners carry out the following:fillout a computerized judgementandproductiontest,todescribeapicture,andtestgrammaticalruleswi thgap-fill.WhereasinDeJong・s(2005)study,testingtheconstructsconsistedof:listeningtestsof dialogueaboutapicture,grammaticaljudgementtests,andoralproductionquestionnaires. Ellis(2009)lamentsthatthesestudiestypify how researcherscontinueto unsuccessfully define implicit and explicit knowledge as distinct constructs.Thus,Ellis proffers that common foundationsforempiricaltestsoftheimplicit-explicitinterfaceofthesepositions remainselusive.Inresponsetothenonuniformedclassifications,Ellis(2009)operationalizes theconstructsofL2implicitandexplicitknowledgeasfollows(SeeTable1):
2.TargetFocusonForm:LexicalPhrases
Lexicalphrasescanbereferredtoaslexicalchunksorformulaicsequences.AsStaples etal.(2013)putforward,formulaicsequenceshavebeen show n by researchersto bean importantmeasureoflearnerdevelopment,andSLA theorypointsoutthatearlystagesof languagelearning rely heavily on such sequences(Staplesetal.,2013citesEllis,1996and Wray,2002).Infact,sincetheytendtobestoredasawholeunit,theyaredrawnuponin later stages in learner development of language acquisition through reanalyzing and reprocessingtoform moremalleableconstructions(Staplesetal.,2013citesEllis,1996and Wray,2002).
2.1 Specificlexicalphrasedefinition
Although lexicalphrasesaresyntacticstringsorcollocations,they arenotordinary
Table1.OperationalizingtheconstructofL2implicitandexplicitknowledge (Ellis,2009)
Criterion ImplicitKnowledge (ExplanaliyzedknowlcitKnowledgeedge) Degreeofawareness Thetaskrequiresthe
learnertorespond accordingto・feel・
Thetaskencouragesthe learnertorespondusing ・rules・
Timeavailable Thetaskistime-pressured Thetaskisperformed withoutanytimepressure Focusofattention Thetaskcallsfora
primaryfocusonmeaning
Thetaskcallsfora primaryfocusonform Systemacitity Thetaskresultsin
consistentresponses
Thetaskresultsin variableresponses Certainty Thetaskresultsin
responsesthatthelearner iscertainare correct/incorrect Thetaskresultsin responses,the correctness/incorrectness ofwhichthelearneris uncertainabout Utilityofknowledgeof
metalanguage
Thetaskdoesnotrequire thel earnertousemeta-linguisticknowledge
Thetaskinvitesthe learnertouse
metalinguisticknowledge Learnability Thetaskfavorslearner
whobeganlearningas children
Thetaskfavorslearners whohaverecei vedform-focusedinstruction
syntactic strings.In fact,they are more precisely defined as collocations that have a pragmaticfunctionofwhichtwomaintypesexist(Nattinger& Decarrico,1992).Theseare 1)stringsofspecific(non-productive)lexicalitemswhichcanbecanonicalornon-canonical (non-canonicalformsarenottypicalofEnglishexpressions),suchas,atanyrate.Theyare alternatively categorized as 2)generalized and productive frames which underlie specific lexicalphrases,such as,a yearago,which can alsobecanonical,ornon-canonicalin the caseofaway with allthebureaucrats.Theseresearchersarguethatlexicalphrasesare ・crucialintermediariesbetween thelevelsoflexisand grammarand havebeen too long neglectedinlinguisticanalysis・(p.37).NattingerandDeCarrico(1992)believethatthereis merittofurtherdescribelexicalphrasesandaccountforvariationofthistargetform,and tocategorisethem fordescriptiveandpedagogicpurposes.Yettheresearchesacknowledge thattheirclassification isnotan exhaustivelistofthefunctionsassociated with various lexicalphrases.
Inthisway,NattingerandDeCarrico(1992)attempttoclassifylexicalphrasesintofour aspectsbased on structuralcriteria.Firstly,polywordsrepresentshortphrases,and are either canonical or non-canonical. Moreover, they allow for no variability and are continuous.They function in orderto relateonetopicto another,to summarize,and or shifttopicsandetcetera.Somesuch examplesare,forthemostpart,which isacanonical qualifier, or, in part, which is a non-canonical qualifier. Secondly, institutionalized expressionsrepresenta sentenceora finiteexpression,and arepredominantly canonical, invariable,andadditionally,continuous.Thatis,canonicalcanberepresentedby,thepublic seldom forgivesandnon-canonical,bethatasitmay.Thirdly,phrasalconstraintsareshort tomedium phrases,which can beboth canonicalandnon-canonical,andalsovariableand continuous.For instance,in the case of canonicalsummarizers,in short,in sum,in summary and non-canonicalexemplifierssuch as,forinstanceand forexample.Fourthly, sentence builders provide the framework for sentences that have slots for either the parametersor argumentsoftheidea.They can becanonicaland non-canonical,display variationandclausalelements,andarebothcontinuousanddiscontinuous.Summarizersfor examplearecanonical,thepointisthat,and comparatorswhich arenon-canonical,and follow thesequence,the_erX,the_erY,thatis,thegreaterthenumberofsubjects,the bettertheresults.
2.2 Lexicalphrasesaspragmaticcompetence
Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992)refer to lexicalphrasesasform/function composites which areseededin pragmaticcompetence.Itisarguedby NattingerandDeCarrico(1992) thatpragmaticcompetencearoseoutoftheabsenceoflearnercompetenciesandperformance not proposed in the Chompskyan model. They surmise that linguistic performance predominantlyaccountsforlanguageinuse,whereaslinguisticcompetenceprovidesthebase
forgeneratingalanguage・sgrammar.Withregardtopragmaticcompetence,Nattingerand DeCarrico(1992)supportthatitisthislanguagelearnerskillwhichenablestheselectionof form/functioncompositesinparticularcircumstances.Indoingso,NattingerandDeCarrico (1992)ascertain thatlexicalphrasechunkscan belearnedin association w ith functionsin context.Figure1showsfrom thedashedlines,thedelimitationsintermsofhow pragmatic competenceissituatedinrelationtogrammarforlearners(Nattinger& DeCarrico,1992).
2.3 Lexicalphrasesasmacro-organisers
Moreover,lexicalphrasescanbedistinguishedfrom idiomsorclichesintermsoftheir function.Forexamplein discourse,lexicalphrasescouldexpresscomparativerelationships amongideas,forinstance,ontheotherhand.Whenphrasesserveasdiscoursedevices,the function of w hat the information to follow is going to be,considers the preceding information,and w hether or notitcontrasts,thusacting asexemplifiers.Thishasled lexicalphrasestoberecognizedmoreoftenthannotasmacro-organisers.Dueinparttothe way they signalhigh-levelinformation,comprised of:・marking topics,shifts in topics, summaryoftopics,exemplification,relationshipsbetweentopics,evaluations,qualifications, and asides・(Nattinger& DeCarrico,1992,p.90).However,they arenotaslinearasthe aforementioned description suggests.Thisisbecausethey dividehigh-levelinformation to coordinateasglobalmarkers,andsubordinateforlocalmarkers.In short,・Gl obalmacro-orgnisersarethosewhichsignaltheintroductionofatopicatthebeginningofadiscourse, theshifttoanew topic,andthesummaryofatopic・(Nattinger& DeCarrico,1992,p.95). Whereas,the・Localmacro-organiserssequencethehighlevelinformationwithintheoverall framework w hich hasbeen setby theglobalmacro-organisers・ (Nattinger& DeCarrico, 1992,p.95).Theseincludemarkersof・exemplification,relationsbetween topics,sub-topics, orothersubordinatematerial,evaluativecomments,qualificationofpreviousmaterial,and asides・(Nattinger& DeCarrico,1992,p.95).
2.4 Lexicalphraseswithindiscourse,integratingreadingandwriting
Withspecificreferencetolexicalphraseswithindiscourse,ofnoteisthatNattingerand DeCarrico (1992)highlightthedifferentstancesofproduct-based vis-a-visprocess-centered
discourse perspectives.The former lends itself to the connection of sentences through cohesivedevices,whilethelattertodeviceswhichfocusontextualcoherence.Inconsidering this,theresearchersaddthatwhenreadingactivitiesfocusonlexicalphrases,thisform is beneficialto both reading and writing pedagogy.Thus,from a process-centered discourse perspective,which is notably supported by Carrell(1987),as cited by Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), reading comprehension and writing convention research has been complementary.In otherwords,Liand Schmitt(2009)citeCoxhead and Byrd (2007)and Hyland (2008)to underscore thatfor academic discourse;formulaic sequences or lexical phrasesareboth centraltoandan importantbuilding block forcharacteristicfeaturesof academictexts.Theresearchersclaim thatanovicewritercannotbeconsideredcompetent inunderstandingtheconventionalsequencesofthedisciplineuntiltheyhaveadoptedthem. Thatis,when considering,thedualbenefitsofproductandprocessorientatedapproaches, EnglishasaSecondLanguage(ESL)learnersshouldbetaughtboththetop-levelrhetorical structures of texts, and also how to, through linguistic devices, signal a text・s organizationalplan(Li& Schmitt,2009).
Furthermore,thereading ofappropriateacademicwriting textsprovidesmodeling for studentssincethey can draw upon contextualcues.Thediscussion ofNagy etal.(1985) regarding contextis thus relevant;since the argumentthatcombining definitionaland contextualprocesseswith regard tolearning vocabulary,ismoreeffectivethan practicing eitherin isolation.Contextisstated asnecessary toshow thestudentshow theword is used.Although Nagy etal.(1985)donotdiscounttheneedforinstruction ofvocabulary; theyacknowledgethatitisanintensivetaskforinstructorstocarryoutwell.Underthese circumstances,Nagy etal.(1985)advocatesthatincidentalword learning can arisefrom reading;yetpositsthatthismethodislesseffectivewhenconsideringthatnotalllearners havebeen exposed to ・systematicintensiveand prolonged vocabulary instruction・(Nagy, 1998,p.15).The effects ofwhich would show learner gains in reading comprehension. Despitethemisgivings,researchinthisareatendstosupportincidentalwordlearning.In later studies,Nagy・sstanceon contextand incidentallearning ofvocabulary isfurther developed when Nagy and Scott (2000)examine metalinguistic approaches in terms of awarenessand utilisation ofcontextvis-a-visusageofdefinitions.Nagy and Scott(2000) reiterateNagy・searlierclaims,wherebyevenifstudentslearnwordsimplicitlyfrom context, itisonlyeffectiveifexposureisextensive.Inconsequence,theresearchersconcludethatthe aforementioned givesriseto explicitexplanationsof,ordefinitionsto maketheprocess moreefficient(Nagy& Scott,2000).
2.5 Lexicalphrases:Issueswithclassificationandvarianceintaxonomies
AsSiepmann(2005)acknowledges,providingastructuraltaxonomyoflexicalphrasesin academictextsisbeneficial.However,Siepmann (2005)iscriticalofHyland・s(1998)well
-establishedtaxonomy.Table2showsanadaptedversionofHyland・staxonomybySiepmann (2005).The columns labelled category,functions,and examples are reintroduced in the proceedingTable3.Thistablecomparesandcontrastsfourresearchers,VandeKopple(1985), Hyland (1998),Hutz(1997)and Fraser(1988).However,compared with thecategoriesand functionsofHyland・staxonomy,theclassificationsoflexicalphrasesareattimesamalgams of the two.In tabulating these disparate classifications of lexicalphrases,Siepmann demonstratesthevarietyofclassificationsofthistargetform.Siepmann(2005)arguesthat itwasimportanttotabulatetoaddressmethodologicalconcernsofinconsistency.Onebeing that,taxonomiesarerelativelytopdown,grammatical,category-basedandhaveinsufficient empiricalbasis.Inthesecondinstance,Siepmann(2005)believesthattheyareoftenbasedon the・linguist・ssemanticintuitions・(p.86).
Table2.Varietyinlexicalphraseclassifications(Adaptedfrom Hyland,1998:442) (CitedbySiepmann,2005)
Category Function Examples Textualmetadiscourse
Logicalconnectives Expresssemanticrelation betweenmainclauses
Inaddition
Framemarkers Explicitlyrefertodiscourse actsoftextstages
Toreiterate
Endophoricmarkers Refertoinformationinother partsofthetext
Notedabove/SeeFig.1/
Evidentials Refertosourceofinformation from othertexts
AccordingtoX/Y states
Codeglosses Helpreadersgraspmeanings ofideationalmaterial
Forexample/Inotherwords/ Suchas
Interpersonalmetadiscourse
Hedges Withholdwriter・sfull commitmenttostatements
Itispossible
Emphatics Emphasizeforceofwriter・s certaintyinmessage
Infact/Itisclear
Attitudemarkers Expresswriter・sattitudeto propositionalcontent
Itisclaimed/X states
Relationalmarkers Explicitlyrefertoorbuild relationshipwithreader
3.Methods:ResearchDesign
Theactionresearchconductedinthispilotstudyinitiallysoughttocollatedatainthe similarveinofIzumi(2002).Inotherwords,datawhichcoulddemonstratelearnergainsin outputafter inputand inputenhancement.However,flaws in the research design with respecttooutput,thatis,writingdatacollection,delimitedthisdatacollation.Despitethis setback,thispilotstudycouldtestafairlywellestablishednotionthatexplicitoverimplicit teaching methodsin theclassroom would show greaterlearnergains,albeitwith a less commonemphasisonlexicalphrases.Thegainsthereforerepresentedthedependentvariable asshown in Figure2.Therefore,themodifiedresearch question,appropriateforthedata analysed is:To whatextentdoesa focuson form explicitteaching methodology overan implicit approach show more positive gains in students EAP writing lexical phrase acquisition?
Table3.Classificationsofdiscoursemarkers(Adaptedfrom Siepmann,2005) Examples VandeKopple
(1985) Hyland(1998) Hutz(1997) Fraser(1988) Inaddition Textconnectives Logicalconnectives Causalityandresult,
Exemplification, Addition
Messagerelationship markers
Insum Actionmarkers, Textconnectives
Framemarkers Textstructuring, Summaryand generalization, Orderofimportance, Chronologicalorder
Discourseactivity markers
Thefollowing Endophoricmarkers Textstructuring Topicmarkers Accordingto Narrators,
Attributors
Evidentials Topicmarkers
Inotherwords Codeglosses (Defining, explaining, limiting)
Codeglosses Specification(in particular), Explanation(in thissense) Topicmarkers (elaborative) (explanatory) Itispossible/ tendsto Modalitymarkers, Hedges Hedges D egreeofprobability Infact/Itis clear Modalitymarkers, Emphatics
Emphatics Emphasis Topicmarkers X claims Attitudemarkers,
Commentary
Relationalmarkers Messagerelationship markers
3.1 Participants
The participants were 87 ESL sophomore students at a private,female Japanese university learning EAP reading and writing forthepurposesofpotentially writing an English thesison graduation (N＝86(Q1)),(N＝87(Q2)).ForQ1,onestudentoutlierwas deleted.Theirageswerearound1920.Thesecondyearstudentshavehadjuniorandsenior high schoolEnglish andtwosemestersofEnglish,aspartofan English majordegreeat universitylevel.ThegeneralEnglishproficiencyoftheparticipantsisestimatedatanIELTs band ofbetween 4.006.00,ortheUpperlevelofB1and LowerlevelofB2according to CEFR levels.Thisassumption isbased on textbookscompleted in thefirstyearoftheir studywithinthedepartment.Insecondyear,fourcoursesareconductedentirelyinEnglish, andtaughtby nativespeakers.Therearefiveclasslevels,andtheinstructionaltreatment wasadministeredto,anddatacollectedfrom,theupperandlowertwoofthefiveclasses, with themiddleclassexcluded from thestudy.Participantsweretaking both a 15-week EAP reading course,assessed by portfolios and an EAP writing course,assessed by argumentativeessays.Threeportfoliosandessaysweredue,oneofeachperfiveweeks,over the15-week course.In addition,theessay questionswereconveyed simultaneously to the writing,andreadingcourseteachers.Ideally,theportfoliopromotesthecollection,collation, and interaction with reading materialsby studentsofthesourcesrequired to writethe essay in thewriting course.Therewerealsotwo15-week speaking coursesthatindirectly anddirectlyreinforcedtheessaytopics;onespeakingcoursewasspecificallyfrom anAmerican perspectiveandtheotherfrom aJapaneseperspective.Thethreetopics,oneperfiveweeks
for the reading and writing courses included,1)The Constitution and gun controlin America,2)Foreignaid,and3)Quotasforwomenintheworkforce.With2)and3)covering materialforbothAmericaandJapan.Thus,theportfolio,essay,andspeakingcourseswere moderatingvariables,asindicatedinFigure2.
3.2 Instructionaltreatment:Scheduleandsamples 3.2.1 Schedule
The instructionaltreatmentofexplicitteaching and implicitteaching activities was conductedwithin groupratherthan having aresearch design which includedexperimental and controlgroups.Thisresearch design wasselected in ordertoavoid ethicalissues,in otherwords,toensurethatnoparticipantwasdisadvantagedby adifferentinstructional treatment.Thefocuson form EAP writing lexicalphraseswereloosely based on Knott・s (1996)taxonomy.Theywereselectedbasedonusagejudgementsfrom Knott(1996)andthe researcher・sintuitionpriortothe15-weekcoursesrunninginsemesteroneofthe2016/2017 Japaneseuniversityacademicyear.Thelexicalphrasesweretaughtfortenweeks,asshown in Table4.Theinstructionalmethod,thatisexplicitorimplicitteaching oftheselexical phrases alternated weekly within the 10-week period.Specifically,explicit teaching was conducted in theodd weeks,Week 1,Week 3,Week 5,Week 7and Week 9and implicit teachingwascarriedoutintheevenweeks,Week2,Week4,Week6,Week8,andWeek10. Theinstructionaltreatmentwasavoidedinthefinalfiveweeks.Thiswascarriedoutinorder tonotinfluencewhetherornotlearningwasmaintainedbetweenWeeks10and15.Inother words,betweenthePost-testandtheDelayedPost-test(SeeTable4).
Table4.Instructionaltreatmentschedule
Week InstructionalTreatment Instrumentation Test:Q1,Q2,Q3 ImplicitTeaching ExplicitTeaching
1 X Inadditionto Pre-test
2 Thatis/Inshort X
3 X Tobeginwith/Forastart
4 Consideringthat/Giventhat X
5 X Duetothis/Asaresult 6 Owingto X 7 X Inspiteofthis 8 Ontheotherhand X 9 X Tosum up 10 Inthatcase/Inthesameway X Post-test 11 X X 12 X X 13 X X 14 X X 15 X X DelayedPost-test
3.2.2 Instructionaltreatment:Explicitandimplicitsamples
Theexplicitinstructionalteaching treatmentprimarily included theteacherproviding explicitinstruction ofthepragmaticfunction ofthelexicalphraseson thechalkboard or displayedontheprojector.Twotothreesentenceshadtobeusedinordertoprovidecontextand elicitthecorrectfunctionofthelexicalphraseasitappearswithinasentencewithrespecttothe largerEAPwritingdiscourse.Forexample,inthebelow Sample1(SeeFigure3.),Thatisand Inshortexhibitthepragmaticfunctionofactingasarestatementoftheprevioussentence. Thisexplicitinstruction wasfollowed up by a secondary activity whereby studentswere askedtoreproducethisform inunmeasured,informal,andin-classoralorwrittenactivities.
Regarding the implicitinstructionaltreatment,students were asked to highlight,circle and/orunderlinethetargetlexicalphrasefrom acontextualizedA4pagereadingaboutthe topic (See Figure 4).As a secondary activity,participants could have presented lexical phrasesintheirportfoliosoressays;however,theydidsoindependently.
Bearingarmsisaconstitutionalrightin America・sconstitution andin particular,the RepublicanPartyprotectsthisamendment.Thatis/Inshort,theRepublicanPartypolicies, ingeneral,opposeguncontrolmeasures.
Figure3.Sample1ofexplicitteachingofthelexicalphrase,Thatis/Inshort
Week1.Reading,Topic#1/3:GunControlinAmerica Instructions:
Inthefollowingreading,highlight,circleorunderlinelexicalphrasesinthebelow extract whichindicatethatthefollowingsentencewillbeasummaryorrestatementofinformation. GunControl:TheUnitedStates
［Extract］A numberofgunadvocatesconsiderownershipabirthrightandanessential partofAmerica・sheritage.TheUnitedStates,withlessthan5percentoftheworld・s population,hasabout3550percentoftheworld・scivilian-ownedguns,accordingtoa 2007reportbytheSwitzerland-basedSmallArmsSurvey.Inshort,itranksnumberone infirearmspercapita.TheUnitedStatesalsohasthehighesthomicide-by-firearm rate amongtheworld・smostdevelopednations.Thatis,moreAmericancitizensarekilledby gunswhencomparedtocitizensofotherdevelopedcountries.
Theabovetextwascreatedbyslightlymodifyingtheinformationfrom thefollowingsources: Masters,J.(2016,January16).GunControlAroundtheWorld:A Primer,Lessonsfrom Canadato Japan.TheAtlantic.RetrievedApril18,2016from TheAtlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/worldwide-gun-control-policy/423711 GunLawsinAlaska.(n.d.).Wikipedia.RetrievedApril18,2016from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Alaska
3.3 Instrumentation
Ascanbeseenfrom Table4,thetestinginstrumenttocollectdataconsi stedofapre-testinWeek1,apost-testinWeek10andadelayedpost-testinWeek15.Therewerethree typesoftesting questions.Thesewereadministeredby apaper-basedtestin ordertotest students・acquisitionoflexicalphrases.Thephrasescomprisedoftwoormorewordsfrom variouspragmaticcategoriesandwereofvaryingdifficultlylevels.Question1(Q1)wasmultiple choice;Question2(Q2)wasagap-fillandQuestion3(Q3),ashortessay.Q1gavefourchoices (a,b,cord),andhadtoreplaceasubstandardconjunctionsuchas,Likewiththecorrectlexical phrasesuchas,Thatis(SeeFigure5).InQ2,forthegap-fill,thefirstletterwasgiven,and thecorrectnumberofspacesindicatedforeachwordthatmadeupthephrase(SeeFigure5). AsforQ3,althoughithasbeenexcludedfrom thispaper,thisquestionrequestedtest-takersto producethelexicalphrasesinthecontextofashortessay.Therationalebehindusingthe threeitem typeswastoincrementallyincreasethedifficultyofeachquestiontobeabletotest theabilityofthestudenttoretrievethelexicalphrase.Inshort,Q1testedreceptiveknowledge, however in Q2 and Q3,the questions w ere designed so thatstudents w ere required to retrievethelexicalphrasesfrom theirownmemory.InQ2,itiseasiersincetheyaregiven prompts,thatis,thefirstletterofeachwordinthelexicalphrase.However,forQ3,this question w aspurely based on outputin context,and theunderstanding ofthepragmatic functioninadditiontobeingabletoretrievetheappropriatelexicalphrase.SinceQ3didnot elicitthelexicalphrasestothedegreenecessary toanalyse;itwasconsideredtobeeither i)notexplainedwellorii)toomuchofacognitiveloadonthestudents.Q3willberevised forlaterstudieswhich seek tostimulateoutputdriven data.TheresearcherdevelopedQ1, Q2,andQ3andthedistractorquestions.Furthermore,with regardtothemultiplechoice andgap-fill,accordingtosoundpractice,thequestionswerescrambledanddistractorsadded when the post-test and delayed post-test w ere administered.However,for analysis the distractorswerenotincluded,andthesame12itemsforQ1andQ2wereanlaysedforthe pre-test,post-testanddelayedpost-test.Moreover,Q3,whichsoughttocollateoutputdata, yetduetopoorresearchdesignandinstrumentation,weredeletedfrom thisstudy.
SampleQuestion,Q1,MultipleChoice:
13.Inthelasttwodecades,developingnationshaveimprovedchildmortality(/death)rates. Likebettermedicalpracticeshavedecreasedthedeathrate.
a)Thatis
b)Itwascriticizedthat c)That・swhy
d)Itwasnotthecasethat SampleQuestion,Q2,Gap-fill:
6)Thisthesishasputforwardvariouskeypointsrelatedtohealthcare.
I s , anationalhealthcaresystem isessentialforahealthysociety. N.B.SampleQuestion3,Q3:Outputincontext(Removedfrom theresultsofthisstudy)
Itisimportanttonotethatwithregardtoconsent,studentswereaskedtosignaform attached tothetest.Thisconsentform wasremoved tokeep theiranonymity.Theform outlinedtoparticipantshow theirdatawastobecalculatedasagroupforthemeansand standarddeviationsonly(SeeAppendix).Inaddition,departmentalapprovalwasgivenata meeting in early 2016foradministering thedata collection,sincethestudy involved one part-timeteacher.
4.Results 4.1 Q1
AsforQ1,asshown in Table5,thestudents・scoresimprovedsignificantly afterthe treatment/coursework.Aftertreatment,theeffectwasmaintained untilthedelayed post-test.Themeansshow thattheexplicitscoresrosefrom atthepre-testto post-testand furtherroseatthedelayedpost-test.Thatis,theyrosefrom 3.48to3.87andwentupagain to3.99.Inthiscase,thisreflectsapositiveresultduetothesegains.Moreover,thescores aroseafterimplicittreatment.Thiscanbeseenby3.30atthepre-test,androseto3.53at thepost-andforthedelayedpost-test3.59.Thisisseentobequitegoodresults.Interms ofstandarddeviation,itrangedfrom 0.761.06.Skew andkurtosiswerealllessthan＋ or － 1.0,whichisagoodindicationofnormaldistribution.
Table5.DescriptivestatisticsforQ1
Explicit Implicit Pretest M 3.48 3.30 95％ CI LowerBound 3.26 3.09 UpperBound 3.71 3.51 SD 1.07 1.00 Skewness 0.25 0.07 SES 0.26 0.26 Kurtosis 0.78 0.65 SEK 0.51 0.51 Posttest M 3.87 3.53 95％ CI LowerBound 3.69 3.33 UpperBound 4.06 3.73 SD 0.87 0.93 Skewness 0.39 0.01 SES 0.26 0.26 Kurtosis 0.50 0.81 SEK 0.51 0.51 DelayedPosttest M 3.99 3.59 95％ CI LowerBound 3.79 3.38 UpperBound 4.19 3.79 SD 0.93 0.97 Skewness 0.50 0.48 SES 0.26 0.26 Kurtosis 0.33 0.13 SEK 0.51 0.51 Note.N＝86.
4.2 Q2
AsforQ2asshown in Table6,thestudents・scoresimproved significantly,yetless significantly forQ2than Q1afterthetreatment/coursework.Aftertreatment,theeffect wasmaintained untilthedelayed post-test.Themeansshow thattheexplicitscoresrose from atthepre-testtopost-testandfurtherroseatthedelayedpost-test.Thatis,theyrose from 2.03to2.52andwentupagainto2.68.Inthiscase,thisreflectsapositiveresultdue tothesegains.Moreover,thescoresroseafterimplicittreatment.Thiscanbeseenby1.08 atthepre-test,androseto1.82atthepost-testandforthedelayedpost-testto1.81.This isseen toberelatively goodresults.In termsofstandarddeviation,itrangedfrom 0.76 1.06.Skew andkurtosiswerealllessthan＋ or－ 1.00,whichisagoodindicationofnormal distribution.
A two-wayrepeatedmeasuresANOVA (analysisofvariance)wasconductedtoevaluate the effectoftreatmentwith two levels (explicitteaching offorms by the teacher and typologicalunderlining offormsby theparticipant)on thestudents・acquisition oflexical phrasesandtestwith threelevels(pre-test,post-testanddelayedpost-test)ofscores.The dependentvariables were the students・testscores on each treatmentateach test.The treatmentmaineffectwasdeterminedusingtheunivariatetestresults.Thetestmaineffect
Table6.DescriptivestatisticsforQ2
Explicit Implicit Pre-test M 2.03 1.08 95％ CI LowerBound 1.77 0.85 UpperBound 2.30 1.31 SD 1.26 1.07 Skewness 0.03 0.60 SES 0.26 0.26 Kurtosis 1.08 0.45 SEK 0.51 0.51 Post-test M 2.52 1.82 95％ CI LowerBound 2.30 1.59 UpperBound 2.74 2.05 SD 1.03 1.08 Skewness 0.34 0.18 SES 0.26 0.26 Kurtosis 0.32 0.54 SEK 0.51 0.51 DelayedPost-test M 2.68 1.81 95％ CI LowerBound 2.43 1.56 UpperBound 2.93 2.05 SD 1.16 1.16 Skewness 0.59 0.16 SES 0.26 0.26 Kurtosis 0.33 0.62 SEK 0.51 0.51 Note.N＝87.
andtreatmentX testinteractioneffectweretestedusingthemultivariatecriterionofWilks・ Lambda (Λ).The main testeffectwas significant,Λ＝.75 F(1,86)＝13.88,p＝.001.The interactioneffectwasnotsignificant,Λ＝.98,F(1,86)＝.83,p＝.44.Thetreatmentmaineffect wasF(1,86)＝13.70and p＝.001,η2＝0.14showing thatthetreatmentfactoraccountsfor
14％ ofthevariance.
Threepaired-samplet-testswereconductedtofollow upthesignificanttestmaineffects. TheHolm・ssequentialBonferroniadjustmentto controlforType1error.Differencesin mean ratingsofthetestsweresignificantly differentbetween Test1andTest3,t(86)＝ －5.23,p＝0.001(α＜0.0067)andTests1& 2,t(86)＝－3.65,p＝.001(α＜0.025).However,the differencebetweenTest2andTest3wasnotsignificant,t(86)＝－1.14,p＝0.26(α＝＜0.05). Tofollow upthemain treatmenteffect,T1mean andT2mean werecomputed.Thepai r-wisetestresultsconfirmedthattheexplicittreatmentwassignificantlymoreeffectivethan theimplicittreatment,t(86)＝－3.70,p＝0.001.Tofollow upthemaintesteffect,themeans forTest1,Test2,and Test3werecomputed.Thepair-wisetestbetween thethreetest meansshowed thatthedifferencebetween Test1mean and Test2mean wassignificant, t(86)＝－3.65,p＝0.001,andthedifferencebetweenTest1meanandTest3meanwasalso significant,t(86)＝－5.22,p＝0.001.Inaddition,thedifferencebetweenTest2meanandTest 3meanwasnotsignificant,t(86)＝－1.14,p＝0.26.
5.Discussion
Thispaperwasableto furtherestablish whatcurrentresearch in theliteraturehas shown with respectto implicitand explicitmethodologieswhen quantifiabledata isthe outcome.That is,statisticaldata is easier to gather to show how explicit teaching demonstrates larger learner gains than that ofimplicit teaching.In this research,the particularform,EAPwriting,lexicalphrases,wastargetedandtheparticipantsunderstudy demonstratedlargergainsinthetargetform whentheyweretaughtexplicitlyratherthan implicitly.This result substantiates arguments put forward in this paper・s theoretical rationale.Thatis,asSchmidthasclaimed,noticing ofinputin orderto raiseconscious awarenessisimportant.Further,Longreinforcedthisbyindicatingthatbyfocusingona targetform,itissoundteachingmethodology.Inotherwords,arelativemiddlegroundas opposed to focuson meaning or focuson formS.Although asWhitefound,an implicit teachingmethodology,suchastypographical,whetheritbeunderliningorcirclingoftarget phrases,canbeinadequateforlearneracquisition.Nagy・spositionelucidates further that unlesslearnershaveextensiveand prolonged exposureto targetformsthrough reading, acquisitionbythismoreimplicitmethodologycanbeaweakstance.
Forthisreason,Izumi・sstudyisvitaltothenextstagesofthisresearchproject.That being the case,Izumi・s research documents the fullspectrum from noticing and input enhancement,and in doing so,draws on similar theoreticalrationale as this paper.In
contrast,in Izumi・s research design,writing outputwas also partofthe instructional treatmentand data collection and analysis.Moreover,Izumi・s study targeted the form, relativisation.Nonethelessand despitethisdeveloped and complex research design,by not addressingcontext,itprovidesforanareathatthispaper・sresearchercouldseektoaddress a gap in theliterature.Thatis,to incorporatethediscourserequisiteforEAP writing, lexicalphrases.With respectto thetheoreticalrationalefor theneed ofcontext,Nagy brieflyoutlinedthatthequalityofthereadingmaterialsneedstobeanappropriatemodel forthelinguisticperformancerequired;inthiscase,EAP writing.
In light of the aforementioned,it is highly pertinent to return to Nattinger and DeCarrico・sdefinition ofalexicalphrase.Theseresearchersassertthatalexicalphraseis aform ofpragmaticcompetence.Therefore,iflearnersarenotawareofhow thesetarget formsfunctionindiscourse,forinstanceanEAPwritingconventions,suchasanargumentative essay,then itwillremain difficulttojudgetheirlinguisticperformance.Moreover,asLi andSchmittcontended,whenconsideringthedualbenefitsofproductandprocessorientated approaches,ESL learnersshouldbetaughtboththetop-levelrhetoricalstructuresoftexts, andalsohow to,throughlinguisticdevices,signalatext・sorganizationalplan.
Inthisrespect,implicitteachingmethodologies,whereinputisenhanced,canprovidefor essentialnoticingorconsciousnessraising.However,themorespecificwayinwhichlexical phrasesfunction in EAP written discourseisalsoimportant.Siepmann drew attention to thefactthattheliteratureconflictsintermsoftaxonomiesapttoprovideforcomprehensive classification andcategorization oflexicalphrases.Albeitin aslightly dissimilarvein,yet stillrelevant,thisgivesrisetoEllis・implicitandexplicitinterfaceconundrum.Ellisargues thatresearchersofthesemethodologieshavealsonotsoughttopermeateintoSLA theory commonimplicitorexplicitconstructs.
Furthercomplicating theaforementioned,isthefactthatlexicalphrasesoften remain in learners・memories,andaredrawn upon in laterstagesoftheirlanguagedevelopment. ThispropelsnecessaryresearchintooutputasthemosteffectivemeasureofSLA forEAP written lexicalphrases.At present,SLA applied linguistics researchers tend to avoid analysisofoutputdriven data.When collating data,multiplechoiceand gap-fillprovide relatively easily administrableand immediately quantifiabledata.Itisimportantto note that,oflate,technologicaladvanceshavebeen madein corpuslinguistics(Kaneko,2010; Cortes,2012).Asa result,itcould bepostulated thattheoreticaldevelopment,which has largelybeenorientatedtowardsspokenoutput,couldbenefitfrom theseadvancesinterms ofEAP writing,SLA researchdevelopment.
Despitetheoriginalintention ofthispilotstudy to contributeto theliteraturewith regardstoreplicating andbuilding on studiessuch asIzumi・s,theresearch in thispaper wasobfuscatedby poorpre-planning with respecttooutput.Thisappliedtoboth the15-week instructionaltreatment and testing instrumentation.Irrespective of whether the
teacherwasapplyingtheinstructionaltreatmentofimplicitorexplicitconstructs,therewas nodependentvariableintermsofwritingoutput.Duetothis,thetestinginstrument,Q3, which soughtto gatheroutputfordata collection did notbeartheresultsto beableto qualitatively analyse letalone provide quantitative data.This mustbe rectified for the futurestagesofthisongoingactionresearchproject.
6.FutureDirections
Therefore,the future direction of the larger research project should be orientated towardsoutputorlinguisticperformancein termsofstudents・pragmaticcompetenceof lexicalphrases.ItisalsoarguedasimportanttoseedthisresearchinthecontextofEAP exclusively.In thisvein,Swales・publications,stemming from the1990s,haveprovided a fundamentalplatform forresearchintheEAPgenre.Inbrief,Swales(2016)genrepedagogy research has outlined three achievementpoints.These include:1)Noticing (or rhetorical consciousness-raising);2)Highlightingstudentsattentionto:genrestructure,style,citation formsandfunctions,andphraseologyratherthanjustcontent;and,3)Fosteringatransferable skillsetofvalueforstudentsto draw on when they need to actindependently (Swales, 2016).
BuildingonSwales・pastresearch,yetwithparticularreferencetoEAP writing,lexical phrases,twoarticlesareworthy ofmention.They areconsideredimportanttothefuture stagesofthisstudy sincethey reflecttheemergenceofanicheresearch fielddedicatedto research in thepragmaticcompetenceoflexicalphrases.They are:1)Formulaicsequences andEAPwritingdevelopment:LexicalbundlesintheTOEFLiBTwritingsectionbyStaples, Egbert,BiberandMcClair(2013)and2)・Thepurposeofthisstudyisto:Connectinglexical bundlesand movesin research articleintroductions・by Cortes(2013).Cortes(2013)cites Swales・(1981)moveanalysiswhichisamethodologytoanalyseparticulartexts・rhetorical organization,withinagenre.
Basedontheaforementioned,theissuesrelatedtothecategorizationoflexicalphrases now cometothefore.ThisisparticularlyrelevantsinceforanalyzingESL SLA texts,the adoptionofcorpusanalysisishighlyrecommended.Cortes(2013)goessofarastosaythat duetotheadvancesincomputers,andwith regard totheirusageforanalyzinglanguage corpora,theshifttowardsresearchintoformulaicexpressionsorlexicalphrasesisemerging. Moreover,as the issues associated with taxonomies were presented in the theoretical rationale,so too mustfutureresearch adopta solid taxonomy ofEAP writing,lexical phrases.Thispapersuggeststhatinordertodoso,furtherinvestigationintoCortes・(2013) research,which createdan appropriatetaxonomy fortheintroduction section ofacademic Englisharticlesiswarranted.Infact,theresearchofBiberetal.(2003,2004)wasbuilton originalresearchbyCortes(2001).Since,BiberandCortes(2012)haverepublishedresearch whichfocusedon・［the］generalfunctionalclassificationofthelexicalbundlesidentifiedin
the corpus of introductions・ (p.38). Collectively three major functional groups were established:1)stancemarkers,2)discourseorganisersand3)referentialexpressions.Firstly, anexampleofalexicalbundle/phrasesuchas,itisimportantto,wouldbecategorizedas a stancemarker,with impersonalattitudinal/modality stance.In thecaseofa discourse organizerforinstance,ontheotherhand,wouldbefurthercategorizedintothegroup,topic elaboration/clarification.Intheform ofreferentialexpressions,anexampleofthespecification ofattributesofreferentialbundlesandframing attributesin expressionswouldbe,in the contextof.
Therefore, the import of classification of EAP writing, lexical phrases is clear. Furthermore,ProfessorTounoYukioofTokyoUniversity ofForeign Studies,arenowned corpuslinguisticsexpertindicatedthesameafterviewingtheresearchdesignofthisproject. ProfessorTounosurmizedthatwithoutcarefulpre-planningandcorrectclassificationofthe EAP writing,lexicalphrases prior to administering the instructionaltreatment,corpus linguisticanalysiswillnotbeeffectivelyaccomplished(Touno,2016).
In terms of whether EAP writing lexical phrases are relevant outside the ESL classroom,the future is bright.This is due to globalEnglish proficiency tests.More specifically,thescoreofthewritingsectionofIELTsandTOEFL entranceexams,whichis highlyevaluatedasonekeyindicatorofglobalEnglishproficiencystandards.AsMcNamara (2010)claimed,languagetestsoccupyimportantrolesincontemporarysociety,especiallyin gatekeeping.Thatis,thesetestsallow accesstomembershipofvaluedsocialgroups,andfor opportunitiesinpersonaladvancement.Simply,theydeterminewhetherastudent・sabilities aregood enough to enterinto foreign university levelinstruction (Shasha,2011 reviews McNamara& Roever,2006).Thiscrossesoverintothenotionofwashbackfrom thefieldof testing in SLA.Especially in terms of the positive or negative impact caused on all stakeholders,parents,employers,university admission officersand etcetera.Furthermore, anothermajorimpactthataffectsthelanguagelearnerisinthewaythatacandidatelearns and preparesforthetestand engagesin activitiesbeyond theclassroom (Hawkey,2006). Althoughthesetestsmaynotbeofinteresttoallstudents,oreducationalinstitutionsfor thatmatter;theyareanindicatorofaglobalstandardofEnglishlanguageproficiencyin whichallESL SLA institutionsshouldconsiderwhendesigninginstitutionalprograms. Conclusion
Inconclusion,duetoinadequatepre-planningfortheclassroom instructionaltreatment, which wasexacerbated by a flawed outputquestion in thetesting instrument;thispilot studycouldnotcollatedataoflexicalphrasesinanEAP writingcontexteffectively.Thus, contributiontotheliteratureintermsofthelinguisticperformanceofEAP writing,lexical phrases,and how they function in discourse;thatis,pragmaticcompetence,could notbe made.Instead,thispapercenteredonhow learners・attentionalresourcescouldbeinfluenced
with respectto input,namely in terms ofimplicitor explicitfocus on form language instruction.Ofwhich,theresultsofthisstudyfound,from quantifiabledata,learnergains inexplicitconstructinstruction.Itcouldbesurmised,andwhichisnotdissimiliartoother studiesaforementioned in thispaper,thatresearch data which showslearnergainsfrom explicit teaching as the instructionalmethodology,are relatively more manageable and widespread.Itispositedthatthisisduetotheexpedientnatureofthemeasurabilityofthe explicitconstruct,comparedwiththatoftheimplicit.
Despitethequantifiabledatashowinglesserlearnergainsbeingachievedfrom implicit languageinstruction,intermsofthisstudy,theremaybeatheoreticalrationaletoexplain. Itisposited thatthisphenomena can somewhatbeattributed to thefactthata lexical phraseisamorecomplexlanguagechunkandinalllikelihood,isstoredinlearnermemory, and retrieved at a later point in a learner・s development.This is in accordance with Schmidt・sandLong・sconceptofnoticingandinputenhancementrespectively.Inshort,this study proffersthattomoreaccurately gaugeSLA in lexicalphrasesforESL leanersand forEAP writing,lexicalphraseresearch,instructionalteaching methodologiesofnoticing and input enhancement are best actioned with output.This claim is based on Izumi・s research. Moreover, for clear outcomes in linguistic performance, such as pragmatic competencewithrespecttohow lexicalphrasesfunction,focusonform isputforwardasan inextricable component of the research design・s instrumentation.Previous studies have shownthatthenotionofimplicitandexplicitinstructionalmethodologyintheclassroom as constructscan successfully operationalizetargetlanguageifa focuson form pedagogy is observed.Even so,asEllishasraised,theimplicit-explicitinterfaceconundrum negatively pervadesaccurateSLA appliedlinguisticresearchforthesetwoapproaches.Inotherwords, despitetheireffectivenessin classroom instructionalmethodology,they need to bebetter definedforfutureresearchandclassroom applicationtofullybenefitfrom theinterface.
Clearly,explicitclassroom instruction can beoperationalizedthrough afocuson form instructional approach. Albeit less measureable, implicit instruction can provide for foundationssuch asaccuratemodelling ofthetargetdiscourse,EAP writing.However,as Nagy argues,thequality ofthereading materialwhich modelsthediscoursetoelicitthe targetform ishighlyrelevant.Therefore,asaplatform from whichtoextendthisresearch in output,Swales・research is considered pertinent.Genre analysis,coined by Swales, introducestheconceptofmoveanalysis.Thistheoreticalrationalehasbeenmorespecifically adapted to suitEAP writing,lexicalphraseacquisition by Cortesand Biber.Thismove analysiscanalsoaidindevelopingmoreuniformityintheclassificationoflexicalphrases. In termsofoutput,thefuturedirectionsofthenextstageofthislarger research projectintend,tosomeextent,referencearesearchdesignsimilartoIzumi・s.Thereasonfor thisisthatIzumi・sstudy accountsforoutput.In addition,itisalsoconsidered thatthe contextofEAP writing;inotherwords,itsdiscourse,cannotbeignored.Inobservingthis,
thecategorization ofthevariousfunctionsofpragmaticcompetencewillneedtobesetto more accurately reflect relevant EAP writing,lexicalphrases in future research.Even thoughtheinstructionandinstrumentationdesignflaw impededoutputdatacollectionfor this particular study,it is anticipated that by incorporating the progressions in EAP writingresearch,suchasthosewhichhavebeenspurredonbyadvancesincorpuslinguistics technology,wouldbenefitfutureresearch.
Moreover,itisanticipatedthatthedemandon English SLA learnerstoimprovetheir EAPwritingskillswillcontinue.ParticularlyastheythemselvesseektomeetglobalEnglish language proficiency benchmarks set by TOEFL and IELTS.Therefore,although it is difficulttooperationalizeresearch projectswhich analysestudentoutputin termsofEAP writing,andmorespecificallylexicalphrases;thisresearchareasupportspresentandreal -worldapplicationsforactionability.
Thus,in theacknowledgementthatformalEAP writing conventionsarerelevant,this paperpositsthatpragmaticcompetenceinlexicalphrasesisimportantforEnglishlanguage programs.Althoughthisparticularstudyhasitsdelimitations,itismoreorlessaplatform forfutureresearchintheoutputofEAP writing,lexicalphrases.Inconclusion,thispaper hassoughttomitigateagainstthetrendofadoptinglessformalpragmaticcompetenceinlexical phrases.Thatis,itseekstoencouragelearnersandteachersalikeinthefieldofEAP SLA toreplacereductiveandcognitivelysimplewordssuchasAnd,orButwithlexicalphrases including,InadditiontoorOntheotherhand.Indoingso,inEAPwriting,lexicalphrases willbecomemoreindicativeofsoundclassroom instructionalpedagogy.
Acknowledgements
SpecialthanksmustgotoProfessorYoshimasaOgawafrom ShowaWomen・sUniversityforhis guidanceintermsoftheresearchdesignandstatisticalanalysis;alsotoAssociateProfessor,Jeffrey TrambleyofMusashinoGakuinforassistanceindatacollection.
ReferenceList
Carrel,P.(1987).ContentandFormalSchematainESLReading.TESOL Quarterly,21,3(September), 461481
Cortes,V.(2013).Thepurposeofthisstudyisto:Connecting lexicalbundlesandmovesin research articleintroductions.JournalofEnglishforAcademicPurposes,12,3343
Creswell,J.W.(2003).ResearchDesign:Qualitative,Quantitative,andMixedMethodsApproaches(2nd Edition).California,USA:SagePublications,Inc.
Ellis,R.(2009).Introduction,Part2,Part3,Part4andConclusion.ImplicitandExplicitKnowledge inSecondLanguageLearning,TestingandTeaching.InEllis,R.,Loewen,S.,Elder,C.,Erlam,R., Philp,J.& Reinders,H.(Eds.).(pp.1333).SecondLanguageAcquisition,Bristol,UK:Multilingual Matters
Harley,B.(1998).(Chapter8).Theroleoffocus-on-form tasksin promoting childL2acquisition.In Doughty C.& Williams,J.Focuson Form in Classroom SecondLanguageAcquisition (pp.156 177).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress
Hawkey,R.(2006).ImpactTheory andPractice:StudiesoftheIELTS testandProgettoLinge2000. SeriesEditorsMilanovic,M.& Weir,C.,InStudiesinLanguageTesting24.CambridgeUniversity Press.Retrievedfrom http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/images/329230-studies-in-language-testi ng-volume-24.pdf
Izumi,S.(2002).Output,inputenhancement,andthenoticing hypothesis:An experimentalstudy of ESL relativization.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,24,541577
Knott,A.(1996).A Data-Driven Methodology forMotivating a SetofCoherenceRelations.Ph.D, UniversityofEdinburgh
Kaneko,T.(2010).UseofEnglishbyJapaneseLearners;StudyofErrors.Sanshusha:Tokyo
Li,J.& Schmitt,N.(2009).Theacquisitionoflexicalphrasesinacademicwriting:A longitudinalcase study.JournalofSecondLanguageWriting,18,85102
Long,M.(1998).Focuson Form in Task-basedLanguageTeaching.University ofHawai・iatManoa WorkingPapersinESL,Vol.16,No.2,Spring1998,3549
Long,M.& Robinson,P.(1998).Focuson form:Theory,research,and practice.In Doughty,C.& Williams,J.(Eds.),Focusonform inclassroom secondlanguageacquisition(pp.1541).Cambridge, UK:CambridgeUniversityPress
McNamara,T.& Roever,C.(2006).Language Testing:The SocialDimension.Language Testing Quarterly,8,99102
McNamara,T.(2010).Theuseoflanguagetestsin theserviceofpolicy:issuesofvalidity.Revue Fran・aisedeLinguistiqueAppliquee,1,Volume15
Nagy,W.E.& Anderson,R.C.(1995,November).MetalinguisticAwarenessandLiteracy Acquisition inDifferentLanguages.CenterfortheStudyofReading,TechnicalReport618.Campaign,Illinois: UniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign
Nagy,W.,Herman,P.& Anderson,R.(1985).Learning words from context.Reading Research Quarterly,20,233253
Nagy,W.E.(1998).Vocabulary Instruction andReading Comprehension.Center for the Study of Reading,TechnicalReportNo.431.Campaign,Illinois:UniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign Nagy,W.E.& ScottJ.A.(2000).VocabularyProcesses.InKamil,M.,Mosenthal,P.,Pearson,P.D.&
Barr,R.(Eds.),HandbookofReadingResearch,VolumeIII(pp.269284).Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Reprintversion.
Nattinger,J.R.& DeCarrico,J.S.(1992).LexicalPhrases and Language Teaching.Oxford,UK: OxfordUniversityPress
Robinson,P.(1995).Attention,Memory,andthe・Noticing・Hypothesis.LanguageLearning,45,283331 Schmidt,R.(1990).TheRoleofConsciousnessinSecondLanguageLearning.AppliedLinguistics,11,
129158
Schmidt,R.(1994).Implicitlearning andthecognitiveunconscious:OfartificialgrammarsandSLA. InEllis,N.(Ed.),Implicitandexplicitlearningoflanguages(pp.165209).London:AcademicPress Schmidt,R.(2001).Attention.InRobinson,P.(Ed.),Cognitionandsecondlanguageinstruction(pp.3
Schmidt,R.(2010).Attention,awareness,andindividualdifferencesinlanguagelearning.InChan,W. M.,Chi,S.,Cin,K.N.,Istanto,J.,Nagami,M.,Sew,J.W.,Suthiwan,T.& W alker,I.,Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 24 (pp.721737).Singapore:National University of Singapore,CentreforLanguageStudies.Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT %20Attention,%20awareness,%20and%20individual%20differences.pdf
Shasha,Xu.(2011).Languagetesting:Thesocialdimension.［Review ofthebook Languagetesting: Thesocialdimension,byMcNamara,T.& Roever,C.］LanguageinSociety,40,1,130131 Siepmann,D.(2005).Identifying meaningsand functions,An attemptata functionaltaxonomy of
SLDMs.Discourse Markers Across Languages,A contrastive study of second-leveldiscourse markersin nativeandnon-nativetextwith implicationsforgeneralandpedagogiclexicography. (pp.82105)LondonandNew York:RoutledgeTaylorandFrancisGroup
Staples,S.,Egbert,J.,Biber,D.,& McClair,A.(2013).Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development:LexicalbundlesintheTOEFL iBT writingsection.JournalofEnglishforAcademic Purposes,12,214225
Swain,M.(1985).Communicativecompetence:Somerolesofcomprehensibleinputandcomprehensible outputinitsdevelopment.InGass,S.& Madden,C.(Eds.).Inputinsecondlanguageacquisition. Rowley,MA:NewburyHousePublishers
Swain,M.(1993).TheOutputHypothesis:JustSpeaking andWriting Aren・tEnough.TheCanadian ModernLanguageReview.50:1(October),158164
Swales,J.［TESOL Academic］.(2016,January6).ProfessorSwalesonGenre& EnglishforAcademic Purposes［VideoFile］.Retrievedfrom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W--C4AzvwiU&feature= youtu.be
Touno,Yukio.(2016,March11).CorpusLinguisticsSeminar.Seminarpresentedforagraduatecredit courseatShowaWomen・sUniversity,Tokyo
White,J.(1998).(Chapter 5).Getting the learners・attention,A typographicalinputenhancement study.FocusonForm inClassroom andSecondLanguageAcquisition.EditedbyDoughty,C.& Williams,J.(pp.85113)CambridgeApplied Linguistics,SeriesEditorsLong,M.& RichardsJ. Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress
（クリスティーセイジ 英語コミュニケーション学科）
Appendix ConsentForm
StudentConsentForm:ResearchinTransitions
XXX University DepartmentofXXX
2016.Date DearStudents,
You havebeen invited toparticipatein a seriesofthreetestsresearching Japanese universitystudentusageoflexicalphrases.
Thistestisvoluntary,anonymousand confidential.Furthermore,ithasnoeffecton yourgradeforthiscourse.
Yourdatawillnotbeindividuallyanalysed.Rather,thegroupdatawillbecalculated. Ifthereisanypartthatmayidentifyyou,itwillremainentirelyconfidentialtothe researcheronly.
If you have any questions about the study,please feelfree to contact the data collectors・emails:XXXX
Yoursignatureindicatesthatyou havegiven consent,yetyou arefreetowithdraw yourparticipationatanytime.
Thankyouforyourparticipation! DataCollectors ___________________________________________ Cuthere____ Signature: Studentnumber: (CONFIDENTIAL) Date: XXX
