School of Languages and Linguistics - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 26
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes
    Storch, N (SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2007-04)
    Although the literature on language pedagogy encourages the use of pair work in the second language classroom, students sometimes seem reluctant to work in pairs, particularly on grammar-focused tasks. This study investigated the merits of pair work by comparing pair and individual work on an editing task and by analysing the nature of pair interaction. The study was conducted in four intact ESL tertiary classes. Students in class A completed the task in pairs and in class B individually. In classes C and D students were given the choice of completing the task in pairs or individually. In class A all pair talk was audio recorded. Analysis of the edited texts showed that there were no significant differences between the accuracy of tasks completed individually and those completed in pairs. Analysis of the transcribed pair talk showed that most pairs engaged actively in deliberations over language and tended to reach correct resolutions. Thus the results suggest that although pair work on a grammar-focused task may not lead to greater accuracy in completing the task, pair work provides learners with opportunities to use the second language for a range of functions, and in turn for language learning.
  • Item
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    The benefactive construction in South Efate
    Thieberger, N (UNIV HAWAII PRESS, 2006-12)
    The benefactive construction in South Efate employs a prepositional phrase in the position immediately preceding the main verb. This position facilitates the expression of an additional participant in a sentence without competing for slots held by other participants (core arguments or adjuncts). Possessive morphology encoding the benefactive has been noted for other Oceanic languages, with distinct word-order marking a final stage of grammaticalization of the benefactive. While South Efate shares features with southern Vanuatu languages, it is shown that a preverbal benefactive is an areal feature of several languages to the north of South Efate, potentially supporting South Efate's position in the Central Vanuatu subgroup.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    From prefixes to suffixes
    Harvey, M ; Green, I ; Nordlinger, R (John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006-12-31)
    This article provides a counterexample to the commonly held, if unexamined, proposition that morphemes reconstructed as affixes do not change their position with respect to the root. We do not expect to find that a proto-prefix has suffix reflexes, nor that a proto-suffix has prefix reflexes. In this paper we show, through detailed reconstruction, that paradigms of class/case suffixes in a number of Northern Australian languages derive historically from a paradigm of proto-prefixes, through the encliticization and reduction of prefixed demonstratives to nominals. This process has only left a few traces of the demonstrative stems in the synchronic forms.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Australia's community languages1
    Clyne, M ; Kipp, S (Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2006-12-01)
  • Item
  • Item
  • Item
  • Item
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    LEARNERS' PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING Case Studies
    Storch, N ; Wigglesworth, G (CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS, 2010-06)
    The literature on corrective feedback (CF) that second language writers receive in response to their grammatical and lexical errors is plagued by controversies and conflicting findings about the merits of feedback. Although more recent studies suggest that CF is valuable (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007), it is still not clear whether direct or indirect feedback is the most effective, or why. This study explored the efficacy of two different forms of CF. The investigation focused on the nature of the learners’ engagement with the feedback received to gain a better understanding of why some feedback is taken up and retained and some is not. The study was composed of three sessions. In session 1, learners worked in pairs to compose a text based on a graphic prompt. Feedback was provided either in the form of reformulations (direct feedback) or editing symbols (indirect feedback). In session 2 (day 5), the learners reviewed the feedback they received and rewrote their text. All pair talk was audio-recorded. In session 3 (day 28), each of the learners composed a text individually using the same prompt as in session 1. The texts produced by the pairs after feedback were analyzed for evidence of uptake of the feedback given and texts produced individually in session 3 for evidence of retention. The learners’ transcribed pair talk proved a very rich source of data that showed not only how learners processed the feedback received but also their attitudes toward the feedback and their beliefs about language conventions and use. Closer analysis of four case study pairs suggests that uptake and retention may be affected by a host of linguistic and affective factors, including the type of errors the learners make in their writing and, more importantly, learners’ attitudes, beliefs, and goals. The findings suggest that, although often ignored in research on CF, these affective factors play an important role in uptake and retention of feedback.