論論文題目

氏

名文 の英 文 要 旨

The Effects of Corpus Use on Error Correction and Error
Identification in L2 Writing

Yoshiho Satake

As there have been too few studies conducted on the effects of corpus use onerror correction and identification in second language (L2) writing, the purpose of thisstudy is to examine the effects of data-driven learning (DDL) on L2 error correction anderror identification to explore how information from corpus linguistics influences
learning in L2 writing.
The principle aim is to detect the error types for which DDL provides good error
correction and identification in L2 writing in order to maximize the benefits of corpus
use for L2 teaching and learning in classrooms.
Another aim is to compare the effects of teacher feedback and peer feedback, asthey should have different effects on error correction with corpus use. The author
examines the types of errors that learners can identify and correct with corpus use
without teacher feedback, and the types of errors for which learners need teacher

feedback to identify and correct with corpus use, so that we can use the informationfrom these results to make teacher instruction effective and contribute to learnerautonomy.
The author hypothesizes that reading many examples of the target word(s) in a
corpus helps learners correct and detect certain types of L2 errors in writing, as they caninduce the correct pattern from the examples. Another hypothesis is that different typesof feedback have different effects on error correction and error identification withcorpus use. To confirm these hypotheses, the author used timed essay tasks. The
participants were first given 25 minutes to write an essay based on a topic given by theauthor without access to reference materials such as the corpus or dictionaries. The
participants were next given teacher or peer feedback on their errors. Based on the given
feedback, they were given 15 minutes to perform revision tasks with use or non-use ofreference materials. The participants’ essays were then collected. The author madelearner corpora of the participants’ essays with error annotations containing information
about parts of speech, error types, and feedback types. The author finally performed anerror analysis based on the error annotations.
This study has two independent variables: reference materials and feedback.
Concerning the reference materials, the variable has three levels: corpus, dictionaries,and non-use of reference materials. The author compared the participants’ correction oferrors with corpus use, dictionaries, and non-use of reference materials. The feedback
variable also has three levels: teacher feedback, peer feedback, and no feedback. The
participants’ corrections of errors were all based on one of the forms of feedback.
A summary of the main findings is as follows. First, corpus use contributed toaccurate error correction in L2 writing. The advantages of corpus use were easy accessto the exact target phrases and the frequency information of co-occurring words, which
especially helped the participants to correct omission errors and word order errors.
Second, error correction with corpus use based on teacher feedback promoted
more accurate correction than that based on peer feedback or no feedback, probably
because the author tried to detect errors that are correctable with corpus use. A
combination of teacher feedback and corpus use was particularly helpful in correcting
omission errors and agreement errors. Since different feedback had different effects oncorrecting errors, appropriate feedback is needed for efficient error correction.
Third, corpus use promoted greater error identification than dictionary use, while
corpus use promoted less error identification than no use of reference materials. Corpus
use was particularly helpful in detecting collocational errors such as omission andaddition errors and form-related errors such as number and agreement errors because

learners could make an inductive inference based on example sentences of the target
phrases. As with error correction, the advantage of corpus use for error identification
was easy access to the target phrases and information on frequency.
Judging from these findings, to make the most of the effects of corpus use,teachers must give enough instruction about the error types learners need to focus on
and the number of errors they need to detect and correct during a limited time. Teachers
especially need to offer learners instruction on appropriate error types for each feedback
when learners correct their errors based on peer feedback or self-correct them based on
no feedback, as peer feedback and no feedback contributed to less accurate correction
than teacher feedback. To use a corpus to contribute to accurate error correction in L2
writing in classrooms, teachers need to consider various factors such as feedback, errortypes, learners’ language proficiency, and task types so that DDL can promote accuracyin L2 learning and serve as a practical option in L2 classes.
Among the advantages of this research is that its findings suggest how corpus use
can promote practice in the SLA and English Language Teaching (ELT) areas. Thefindings should contribute to the spread of DDL in L2 classrooms and the application ofcorpus linguistics to SLA and ELT.
Limitations of this research include some unclear points: the long-term effects ofcorpus use with new texts, the effects of peer feedback on accurate correction withcorpus use, and the influence of learners’ proficiency on the effects of corrective
feedback remain unclear. Further research is needed in these fields.
It seems reasonable to conclude that this research has provided practicalsuggestions for introducing DDL into L2 classes, and on the theoretical side has
contributed to promoting the application of corpus linguistics in the SLA and ELT
fields.