Capturing and representing
asymmetries in Japanese EFL
learners’ mental lexicon
SUGINO Naoki (Ritsumeikan University, Japan)
Simon FRASER (Hiroshima University, Japan)
AOTANI Noriko (Tokai Gakuen University, Japan)
SHOJIMA Kojiro (The National Center for University Entrance Examinations, Japan),
and
KOGA Yuya
(Graduate School of Education, Waseda University, Japan)
Paper presented at the Vocab@Vic 2013 Conference
RHLT2, Rutherford House, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
11:45-12:05, Wednesday 18 December, 2013
This study is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (25284110) from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
1
Background
• Background:
A part of a research project
• To
provide individualised (visual) feedback
• on
how learners have learned the words
• focusing
on “co-occurrence”
2
Background
• Background:
A part of a research project
Aotani, Kameyama, Sugino, & Amaya (2009)
Aotani, Kameyama, & Sugino (2010a)
• To
provide individualised (visual) feedback
• on
how learners have learned the words
acceptance of metaphorically expanded uses
• focusing
on “co-occurrence”
(polysemous) Adjective – Noun
run – Noun
3
Background
• Background:
A part of a research project
Aotani, Kameyama, & Sugino (2010b); Aotani, Kameyama,
Sugino, & Koga (2011); Aotani & Sugino (2012)
• To
provide individualised (visual) feedback
learner traits (strategy, motivation, self-esteem…)
SOM (self-organising map)
• on
how learners have learned the words
acceptance of metaphorically expanded uses
• focusing
on “co-occurrence”
(polysemous) Adjective – Noun
4
Background
• semantic
relatedness through paradigmatic
associations
•+
syntagmatic associations
5
Asymmetry / Directionality
• Association
• Pecina
measures
(2009): 82 lexical association measures
• Asymmetry
• Evert
(2007/2009)
• Schmitt
• Gries
(2010), Durrant (2008)
(2013), Ellis (2006)
• Corpus
to psycholinguistic studies
• Durrant
& Doherty (2010)
• Michelbacher,
• Yamashita
Evert, & Schütze (2011)
& Jiang (2010); Wolter & Gyllstad (2011,
2013)
6
Kusanagi (2013)
• focuses
on the asymmetry within the “N and N”
phrases
• association
measure based on the ratio of
transitional probabilities
• reaction
times and acceptability judgment scores
of the Japanese EFL learners
• general
insensitiveness to asymmetry observed
among the learners
7
Background
• Background:
A part of a research project
(a)symmetry within syntagmatic relations
• To
provide individualised (visual) feedback
AMISESCAL
• on
how learners have learned the words
acceptability judgment
on the attributive/predicative uses
• focusing
on “co-occurrence”
Adjective–Noun / Noun–copula–Adjective
• cf.
Karasawa (2003)
8
Asymmetry in this study
•A
pair of an adjective and a noun is symmetric if
• Adj.→N
• to
•A
and N→Adj. are both (un)acceptable,
the same degree.
pair of an adjective and a noun is asymmetric when
• either
Adj.→N or N→Adj. is acceptable.
9
The present study
• Three
types of adjectives
• attributive-only: main, only, own
• predictive-only: afraid, alive, alone
• both uses: beautiful, happy, small
• Three types of nouns
• [human]: teacher, friend
• [inanimate; concrete]: car, house
• [inanimate; abstract]: idea, love
• All words are with the familiarity scores of above
5.50 (of 7.00) (Yokokawa, 2006)
• 108 target sentences (between 7 to 9 words each)
10
The present study
• They
shared the main love of rock music.
• At the meeting, George’s idea seemed to be only.
• Finally, Albert learned that his idea was very own.
• The idea was so afraid that I couldn’t tell.
• The car looked alive on the streets of Tokyo.
• An alone car was parked on the street.
• I found the idea so beautiful that I smiled.
• They lived in a happy house by the sea.
• A small car would be easier to drive.
11
The present study
• 51
Japanese EFL learners at the university level
• those
who did not complete the test were excluded
→ 45 learners’ data were used
• Five
native speakers of English
• Instructed
to give acceptability judgement on the 5point Likert scale to each of the 108 sentences; to be
completed in 20 minutes.
• The
acceptability scores (1=totally unacceptable to
5=totally acceptable) were then converted into the
proximity scores (1→5, 2→4, 3→3, 4→2, 5→1).
12
AMISESCAL (Shojima, 2011, 2012)
•
http://www.rd.dnc.ac.jp/~shojima/ams/index.htm
13
AMISESCAL (Shojima, 2011, 2012)
• Asymmetric
von Mises Scaling
•A
kind of asymmetric multidimensional
scaling, based on the von Mises distribution in
directional statistics
• Normal
• μ:
distribution in directional statistics
mean direction
κ: concentration
14
AMISESCAL (Shojima, 2011, 2012)
• Asymmetric
von Mises Scaling
15
AMISESCAL (Shojima, 2011, 2012)
16
(A)symmetry in AMISESCAL
• Symmetry
is represented by the proximity on a two
dimensional map.
• both
acceptable: two words will be placed close to
each other.
• both
unacceptable: the two words will be placed far
from each other.
• Asymmetry
• its
is represented by
vMd’s degree (µ), concentration(κ), and size (ω).
17
Data structure
• 1-mode
• Nouns
2-way, asymmetric double bipartite proximity data
are fixed at the radius of 0.400
18
Results: Native speakers of English
19
Results: Japanese EFL learners
20
Results: JEL1 & JEL2
21
Conclusion
• By
analysing acceptability judgement scores using
AMISESCAL, (a)symmetry within syntagmatic associations
consisting of an adjective and a noun is visually
represented in terms of their positions and the vMds.
• NSEs’
representation is in accordance with the normative
grammar; JELs representation is characterised by the lack
of vMds and the similar distance from the nouns.
• Seen
individually,
• No
apparent patterns/similarities, but (a)symmetries are
present.
• The
presence of ‘spiky’ vMds, implying the associations
are represented as fixed chunks.
22
Issues for further study
• Visualising
asymmetries observed in corpora by
AMISESCAL
• ∆P
(Gries, 2013; Ellis, 2006)
• Establishing
protocols for interpretation
• accumulation
and classification of the
mappings
23
References
Aotani, N., Kameyama, T., Sugino, N., & Amaya, Y. (2009). A study of the effectiveness of the CALL program, ‘Adjective Sommelier’, as a learning tool to
improve learners’ analytical approach to the polysemous senses of TL adjectives. Proceedings of the 14th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics, 415-418.
Aotani, N., Kameyama, T., & Sugino, N. (2010a). An analysis on how Japanese learners of English perceive polysemous senses of words that are peculiar
to English: Based on the acceptability patterns of the senses of ‘run’. Proceedings of the 15th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 267-272.
Aotani, N., Kameyama, T., & Sugino, N. (2010b). On the significance of improving learners’ metaphorical thinking abilities for language acquisition.
Proceedings of the 4th CLS International Conference, 45-54.
Aotani, N., Sugino, N., Kameyama, T., & Koga, Y. (2011). An analysis on how derivation inferences instruction affects acquisition of polysemous senses
of words of Japanese learners of English. Proceedings of the 16th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 385-388.
Aotani, N., & Sugino, N. (2012). Profiles of Japanese EFL learners and their acceptance of transfer in word meaning expansion. Proceedings of the 5th
CLS International Conference.
Durrant, P. (2008). High frequency collocations and second language learning (Ph.D dissertation. University of Nottingham). Retrieved from
http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/622/1/final_thesis.pdf
Durrant, P. & Doherty, A. (2010). Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus
Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6, 125–155. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2010.006
Ellis, N.C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24. doi:10.1093/applin/ami038
Evert, S. (2007). Extended manuscript for Evert, S. (2009). Corpora and collocations. In A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An
International Handbook, article 58. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Retrieved from http://cogsci.uniosnabrueck.de/~severt/PUB/Evert2007HSK_extended_manuscript.pdf
Gries, St. Th. (2013). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next … In S. Hoffmann, B. Fischer-Starcke, & A. Sand
(Eds.), Current issues in phraseology. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics [Special issue], 18, 137–166. doi:10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri
Karasawa, S. (2003). Patterns of elaboration and inter-language development: An exploratory corpus analysis of college student essays. In D. Archer, P.
Rayson, A. Wilson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference [Special issue of UCREL Technical Paper], 16, 394–
401. Retrieved from http://ucrel.lancs.au.uk/publications/CL2003/papers/karasawa.pdf
Kusanagi, K. (2013). Second language learners’ processing of symmetric formulaic sequences: A preliminary study focusing on English N and N phrases.
LET Journal of Central Japan, 24, 15–24.
Michelbacher, L., Evert, S. & Schütze, H. (2011). Asymmetry in corpus-derived and human word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7,
245–276. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2011.012.
Pecina, P. (2009). Lexical Association Measures: Collocation Extraction. Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shojima, K. (2011). Local dependence model in latent rank theory. Japanese Journal of Applied Statistics, 40, 141–156.
Shojima, K. (2012). On the stress function of Asymmetric von Mises Scaling. Proceedings of the 4th Japanese-German Symposium on Classification, 18.
Wolter, B. & Gyllstad, H. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32, 430–
449. doi:10.1093/applin/amr011
Wolter, B. & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A comparison of congruent and incongruent collocations. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, doi:10.1017/S0272263113000107
Yamashita, J. & Jiang, N. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations.
TESOL Quarterly, 44, 647–668. doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.235998
Yokokawa, H. (Ed.). (2006). Nihon-jin eigo gakushusha no eitango shinmitsudo (Moji hen): Kyoiku, kenkyu no tameno dai ni gengo detabesu [Database of
familiarity of English words for Japanese EFL learners: Orthography]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
24
gwisno@is.ritsumei.ac.jp
25
Asymmetry in collocation studies
• Asymmetry/directionality
in formulaic
sequences
• “whether
word1 is more predictive of word2 or
the other way round”
• “bidirectional/symmetric
association
measures conflate two probabilities that are in
fact very different: p(word1|word2) is not the
same as p(word2|word1), just compare p (of|in
spite) to p(in spite|of).” (Gries, 2013, p. 141)
26
Asymmetry in collocation studies
•
∆P= p (outcome | cue=present) – p (outcome | cue=absent)
•
“∆P is the probability of the outcome given the cue (P(O|C)) minus
the probability of the outcome in the absence of the cue (P(O|-C)).
When these are the same, when the outcome is just as likely when
the cue is present as when it is not, there is no covariation
between the two events and ∆P= 0. ∆P approaches 1.0 as the
presence of the cue increases the likelihood of the outcome and
approaches -1.0 as the cue decreases the chance of the outcome a negative association.” (Ellis, 2006, p. 11; cited in Gries, 2013, p.
143)
•
∆P2|1= p (word2 | word1=present) – p (word2 | word1=absent)
•
∆P1|2= p (word1 | word2=present) – p (word1 | word2=absent)
27
AMISESCAL (Shojima, 2011, 2012)
28
Individual differences among NSEs
29
Individual differences among NSEs: NSE1
30
Individual differences among NSEs: NSE2
31
Individual differences among NSEs: NSE3
32
Individual differences among NSEs: NSE4
33
Individual differences among NSEs: NSE5
34
Results: JEL3 & JEL4
35
Results: JEL5
36
Aim of the Study
• To
demonstrate how learners’ understanding
of different uses of English adjectives can be
visualised by employing AMISESCAL
37