INTERNATIONAL CORPUS OF LEARNER ENGLISH: VERSION 2 . Sylvaine Granger, Estelle Dagneaux, Fanny Meunier, and Magali Paquot (Eds.). Louvain-La-Neuve, France: Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 2009. Pp. 223.
INTERNATIONAL CORPUS OF LEARNER ENGLISH: VERSION 2 . Sylvaine Granger, Estelle Dagneaux, Fanny Meunier, and Magali Paquot (Eds.). Louvain-La-Neuve, France: Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 2009. Pp. 223.
复制标题
国际英语学习者语料库：第 2 版。
DOI：
10.1017/s0272263110000641
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Mark Shea
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mark Shea
言语行为、插入语、反向引导、学习者对语用规范的主体性以及各种语用特征的指导。这些数据来自各种来源，如自然主义的对话数据，口头启发任务，DCT，计算机化测试，电子邮件交流，访谈和回顾性口头报告。对话的方式可以是面对面的，也可以通过电子邮件或电话，并检查生产和理解。采用了横向和纵向研究设计以及定量和定性分析。每一章对以前研究的广泛覆盖和回顾应该对中介语语用学研究感兴趣的研究人员和研究生有用。虽然这本书包含了许多有趣的章节，但有些实验研究并没有进行得很好。方法比较研究尤其如此。在任何实验研究中，重要的考虑因素之一是对干预因素的控制，但并不是所有的作者都充分注意到这个潜在的问题。因此，一些研究没有控制参与的教师，研究人员的期望，花费在目标结构的指令，或测量仪器的时间。至少有一项研究没有对照组，对这种缺乏的解释既不科学也不有效。此外，一些作者讨论了交互作用的影响时，统计学显着差异没有发现，他们没有提到是否差异的手段，甚至达到了显着水平。这些研究大多报告了教学的积极影响，但由于这些问题，结果并不可靠。此外，仅仅显示语用发展是微不足道的，因为几乎所有的方法比较研究都报告了目标结构的显著改善，而不考虑这些结构的性质，但不一定是其他结构。为了证明教学的有效性，必须证明比较组或控制组中的非目标项目在实验组中获得同样好。另一个有点问题的方面是相当明显的印刷错误数量。例如，立山提到了三个附录，实际上并没有包括在书中。尽管有这些局限性，这本书包含了一些有见地的章节，并提供了广泛的日语中介语语用学研究领域的全面分析。
speech acts, interactional particles, back-channeling, learner subjectivity toward pragmatic norms, and instruction of various pragmatic features. The data come from a variety of sources, such as naturalistic conversation data, oral elicitation tasks, DCTs, computerized tests, email exchanges, interviews, and retrospective verbal reports. The mode of conversation may be face-to-face, or through email or telephone, and both production and comprehension are examined. Cross-sectional and longitudinal research designs are employed as well as both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The extensive coverage and review of previous research in each chapter should be useful for investigators and graduate students interested in interlanguage pragmatics research. Although the book contains many interesting chapters, some of the experimental studies were not conducted appropriately. This is especially true for method comparison studies. One of the important considerations in any experimental study is the control of intervening factors, but not all of the authors were suffi ciently attentive to this potential problem. As a result, some studies did not control for participating instructors, researcher expectancy, time spent on instruction of the target structure, or measuring instruments. At least one of the studies does not have a control group and the explanation for this lack is neither scientifi c nor valid. Moreover, some authors discuss interaction effects when statistically signifi cant differences are not found, and they fail to mention whether differences between means had even reached a level of signifi cance. Most of these studies report a positive effect of instruction, but the results are not reliable because of these problems. Moreover, showing pragmatic development alone is trivial, in that almost all of the method comparison studies report a signifi cant improvement in the target structures irrespective of the nature of these structures but not necessarily of other structures. To show the effectiveness of instruction, it is essential to show that nontargeted items included in the comparison or control groups are acquired equally well by the experimental group. Another somewhat problematic aspect is a rather noticeable number of typographical errors. For example, Tateyama refers to three appendixes that are not actually included in the book. Despite these limitations, the book contains a number of insightful chapters and provides comprehensive analyses of a wide area of Japanese interlanguage pragmatics studies.