Advertisement

Linguistic Features of Collaboration in Peer Response: Modal Verbs as Stance Markers

  • Eric FriginalEmail author
  • Joseph J. Lee
  • Brittany Polat
  • Audrey Roberson
Chapter

Abstract

Chapters 11 and 12 have demonstrated the need for a corpus-based approach to further understand spoken learner-learner (peer response) interactions, and described one way of addressing this need: the L2PR corpus. We have also explored the results of a qualitative analysis of social dynamics in the corpus, and considered the relationship between these dynamics and learning outcomes. In sum, our analysis in Chap. 12 found that pairs who assume a collaborative or expert-novice stance, as opposed to a dominant-dominant or dominant-passive one (Storch 2002), experience better revision outcomes after peer response sessions. In the current chapter, we analyze one feature of learner stance in two sub-sections of the corpus: collaborative talk and non-collaborative talk. Comparing frequencies in the use of modal verbs across the two sub-corpora, we explore how the two groups of learners use these devices to deliver and respond to feedback during peer response sessions.

References

  1. Biber, D. (2006a). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biber, D. (2006b). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Conrad, S. (2002). Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Gu, T. (2014). A corpus-based study on the performance of the suggestion speech act by Chinese EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(1), 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kecskés, I. (2007). Formulaic language in English Lingua Franca. In I. Kecskés & L. R. Horn (Eds.). Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects (Vol. 1), (pp. 191–218). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. O’Boyle, A. (2010). The dialogic construction of knowledge in university classroom talk: A corpus study of spoken academic discourse. PhD thesis, Queen’s University Belfast.Google Scholar
  9. O’Boyle, A. (2014). “You” and “I” in university seminars and spoken learner discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Roberson, A. (2015). The second language peer response (L2PR) corpus. Atlanta: Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  11. Shirato, J., & Stapleton, P. (2007). Comparing English vocabulary in a spoken learner corpus with a native speaker corpus: Pedagogical implications arising from an empirical study in Japan. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Friginal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joseph J. Lee
    • 2
  • Brittany Polat
    • 3
  • Audrey Roberson
    • 4
  1. 1.Applied Linguistics and ESLGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Ohio UniversityAthensUSA
  3. 3.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Hobart and William Smith CollegesGenevaUSA

Personalised recommendations