東華大學圖書館 |

Describing the Language Experience of University Students.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Describing the Language Experience of University Students./
作者:	Hashimoto, Brett James.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (267 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-01, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International82-01A.
標題:	Linguistics. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28022932click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798662469761

Describing the Language Experience of University Students.
Hashimoto, Brett James.

Describing the Language Experience of University Students. - 1 online resource (267 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-01, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northern Arizona University, 2020.

Includes bibliographical references

The purpose of this dissertation is to describe university students' typical language experience. More specifically, this dissertation examines English language experience (i.e., language input, output, and interaction) at an American university. It accomplished this primarily through two studies. The first study is a survey study aimed at describing university student language experience in terms of register and specific situational parameters. The second study is a corpus study aimed at linguistically and functionally describing typical university students' written language experience using lexico-grammatical features in a multidimensional analysis approach. Describing typical university students' language experience is important for at least two reasons. First, proportional descriptions of university students' language experience are useful in language learning and teaching in helping to prioritize features that are more important (Biber & Reppen, 2002). Second, despite the fact that linguistic corpora are often used in applied linguistics as if they proportionally represent typical language experience, they are not designed expressly for that purpose. Therefore, they are limited in the extent that they are used to represent typical language experience. In other words, corpora are often used across many disciplines of applied linguistics as if they represented the typical language experience, for example, in research using frequency-based word lists (e.g., Brezina & Gablasova, 2015) or corpus-based psycholinguistic measures (e.g., Mandera, Keuleers, & Brysbaert, 2015). Put simply, different sampling methods in corpus research are useful for different purposes. Historically, corpora have almost all been sampled non-proportionally because non-proportional samples are more useful for describing variation within and across varieties of language (Biber, 1993a). However, in this dissertation, the point of the corpus is not to help in describing language variation but in typical written language experience, which a non-proportional sample is less useful for. There have been some corpora that are based on proportional samples of texts from the population (e.g., BNC 1994 spoken demographic subcorpus, Crowdy, 1993; Burnard, 1995 and CORE, Biber & Egbert, 2016). But, there has never been a proportionally sampled corpus designed to represent typical language experience. As mentioned, this dissertation contains two studies. The first study described university students' language experience situationally using a new approach that combines diary and survey methods. Fifty-three university students were recruited to document their language experience for a minimum of a four-hour period. First, they logged all of their language in a logbook/diary where they noted the time of day, the type of language used, and the length of time of usage. Then, referencing their logbooks, they filled out a survey for each logbook entry detailing the register and other situational information about the language that was experienced. Proportions for participants' language experience were then calculated based on the register, processing mode, mode, interactiveness, and whether the text was productive or receptive. The typical language experience of university students was then characterized using descriptive statistics of the proportions of language experience within the sample of students.The results from the analyses of the survey data revealed that university students are using a wide range of registers in both interesting and unexpected ways. For example, university students reported using 37 distinct registers with face-to-face conversations being the most used, making up 12% of students' language experience on average. The surveys also revealed that language experience is highly variable from student to student and that, on average, students are engaging with more than one register of language at the same time between about 12-23% of the time. The results of the surveys also showed that university students' most common processing mode was listening at 49% of their language experience (more than double any other mode with reading = 21%, writing = 18%, speaking = 12%). They also found that 64% of university student language experience is non-interactive. The second study described students' written language experience linguistically and functionally. For the sake of feasibility, spoken language was excluded from the corpus analysis. A written corpus of typical university students' language experience was developed by gathering all of the written language that university students experienced over a given period of time. The written language collected from participants was converted into the Proportional American University Student Experience (PAUSE) Corpus, which consists of 580 texts totaling in 405,954 word tokens and spanning 21 registers. The corpus data was annotated with linguistic features from the Biber Tagger. The data was then analyzed by calculating the mean dimension scores for each register based on Biber's (1988) multidimensional analysis and mapping registers onto the first five dimensions from that analysis.Based on the corpus analysis, it was found that university student written language experience was characterized by high rates of features used to convey information densely and that were used for non-narrative purposes and low rates of features used for persuasion. Using this method, prose-light registers were analyzed and found to be neither phrasally nor clausally complex. In addition to the analyses of the survey and corpus data, the methods of the study were critically evaluated to assess their validity. Evaluative methods included pilot studies, a participant assessment, a follow-up survey, phone application tracker data, student observations, a critical comparison between the participant sample and the student population at NAU, a critical evaluation of the representativeness of the corpus, manual checking of the texts in the corpus, and accuracy checking of features tagged by the Biber Tagger. Together these methods revealed that participants were potentially underreporting some types of language use such as oral messaging and oral social media feed (i.e., their use of Snapchat) and overreporting other types of language use such as music lyrics, that the corpus is likely too small to linguistically represent many features used in the multidimensional analysis, and that the participant sample was likely biased to overrepresent lower division students and students who were English majors. In summary, this dissertation sheds light onto the nature of how university students are experiencing language on a day-to-day basis. This type of information is useful for EAP professionals and learners who seek to understand the language of the university students. This research also develops new approaches to describe the typical language experience of a group of people that has potential for application in many areas.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2023

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798662469761Subjects--Topical Terms:

524476
Linguistics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Corpus designIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

Describing the Language Experience of University Students.
LDR:08494nmm a2200409K 4500 001 2365012
005 20231213130516.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 241011s2020 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798662469761
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28022932
035 $a AAI28022932
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Hashimoto, Brett James. $3 3705833
245 1 0 $a Describing the Language Experience of University Students.
264 0 $c 2020
300 $a 1 online resource (267 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-01, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Biber, Douglas;Egbert, Jesse.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northern Arizona University, 2020.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a The purpose of this dissertation is to describe university students' typical language experience. More specifically, this dissertation examines English language experience (i.e., language input, output, and interaction) at an American university. It accomplished this primarily through two studies. The first study is a survey study aimed at describing university student language experience in terms of register and specific situational parameters. The second study is a corpus study aimed at linguistically and functionally describing typical university students' written language experience using lexico-grammatical features in a multidimensional analysis approach. Describing typical university students' language experience is important for at least two reasons. First, proportional descriptions of university students' language experience are useful in language learning and teaching in helping to prioritize features that are more important (Biber & Reppen, 2002). Second, despite the fact that linguistic corpora are often used in applied linguistics as if they proportionally represent typical language experience, they are not designed expressly for that purpose. Therefore, they are limited in the extent that they are used to represent typical language experience. In other words, corpora are often used across many disciplines of applied linguistics as if they represented the typical language experience, for example, in research using frequency-based word lists (e.g., Brezina & Gablasova, 2015) or corpus-based psycholinguistic measures (e.g., Mandera, Keuleers, & Brysbaert, 2015). Put simply, different sampling methods in corpus research are useful for different purposes. Historically, corpora have almost all been sampled non-proportionally because non-proportional samples are more useful for describing variation within and across varieties of language (Biber, 1993a). However, in this dissertation, the point of the corpus is not to help in describing language variation but in typical written language experience, which a non-proportional sample is less useful for. There have been some corpora that are based on proportional samples of texts from the population (e.g., BNC 1994 spoken demographic subcorpus, Crowdy, 1993; Burnard, 1995 and CORE, Biber & Egbert, 2016). But, there has never been a proportionally sampled corpus designed to represent typical language experience. As mentioned, this dissertation contains two studies. The first study described university students' language experience situationally using a new approach that combines diary and survey methods. Fifty-three university students were recruited to document their language experience for a minimum of a four-hour period. First, they logged all of their language in a logbook/diary where they noted the time of day, the type of language used, and the length of time of usage. Then, referencing their logbooks, they filled out a survey for each logbook entry detailing the register and other situational information about the language that was experienced. Proportions for participants' language experience were then calculated based on the register, processing mode, mode, interactiveness, and whether the text was productive or receptive. The typical language experience of university students was then characterized using descriptive statistics of the proportions of language experience within the sample of students.The results from the analyses of the survey data revealed that university students are using a wide range of registers in both interesting and unexpected ways. For example, university students reported using 37 distinct registers with face-to-face conversations being the most used, making up 12% of students' language experience on average. The surveys also revealed that language experience is highly variable from student to student and that, on average, students are engaging with more than one register of language at the same time between about 12-23% of the time. The results of the surveys also showed that university students' most common processing mode was listening at 49% of their language experience (more than double any other mode with reading = 21%, writing = 18%, speaking = 12%). They also found that 64% of university student language experience is non-interactive. The second study described students' written language experience linguistically and functionally. For the sake of feasibility, spoken language was excluded from the corpus analysis. A written corpus of typical university students' language experience was developed by gathering all of the written language that university students experienced over a given period of time. The written language collected from participants was converted into the Proportional American University Student Experience (PAUSE) Corpus, which consists of 580 texts totaling in 405,954 word tokens and spanning 21 registers. The corpus data was annotated with linguistic features from the Biber Tagger. The data was then analyzed by calculating the mean dimension scores for each register based on Biber's (1988) multidimensional analysis and mapping registers onto the first five dimensions from that analysis.Based on the corpus analysis, it was found that university student written language experience was characterized by high rates of features used to convey information densely and that were used for non-narrative purposes and low rates of features used for persuasion. Using this method, prose-light registers were analyzed and found to be neither phrasally nor clausally complex. In addition to the analyses of the survey and corpus data, the methods of the study were critically evaluated to assess their validity. Evaluative methods included pilot studies, a participant assessment, a follow-up survey, phone application tracker data, student observations, a critical comparison between the participant sample and the student population at NAU, a critical evaluation of the representativeness of the corpus, manual checking of the texts in the corpus, and accuracy checking of features tagged by the Biber Tagger. Together these methods revealed that participants were potentially underreporting some types of language use such as oral messaging and oral social media feed (i.e., their use of Snapchat) and overreporting other types of language use such as music lyrics, that the corpus is likely too small to linguistically represent many features used in the multidimensional analysis, and that the participant sample was likely biased to overrepresent lower division students and students who were English majors. In summary, this dissertation sheds light onto the nature of how university students are experiencing language on a day-to-day basis. This type of information is useful for EAP professionals and learners who seek to understand the language of the university students. This research also develops new approaches to describe the typical language experience of a group of people that has potential for application in many areas.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2023
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
650 4 $a Language. $3 643551
650 4 $a English as a second language. $3 516208
653 $a Corpus design
653 $a English for academic purposes
653 $a Mixed- and multi-method research
653 $a Proportional sampling
653 $a Typical language experience
653 $a University student language
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0441
690 $a 0679
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 783688
710 2 $a Northern Arizona University. $b English. $3 2095140
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 82-01A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28022932 $z click for full text (PQDT)