3. 3
Outline
Outline
Graded Readers
Review of
Literature
Research
Question
Style
Data
Methods
Result &
Discussion
✔ Keywords
✔ PCA
✔ Examples
Conclusion
5. Review of Literature 1
Krashen (1989) インプット仮説
Day and Bamford (1998) 多読の役割
Nation (2001), Shmitt et al. (2011)
98%の語彙理解→60%の読解
Qian (2002) 語彙知識の広さと深さと読解
の関係
Yano et al. (1994), Oh (2001) Baseline vs.
Linguistic Simplification vs. Elaboration
5
6. Review of Literature 2
Kobayashi (2006), Kobayashi and Kitao
(2010) Penguin Readersと教科書の語彙
の関係
Semino (2011) Shakespeareの原文と簡略
化された英文の語彙
伊藤 (2011) ORとGRの語彙分析
6
11. OR & GR Example
The Original (OR)
…I think we may take it that Prescott, the
American criminal, used to live in the very
room which our innocent friend now devotes
to his museum. … (OR_The three Garridebs. txt)
Graded Readers Level 5 (GR)
…My guess is that Prescott, the American
criminal, used to live in Little Ryder Street, in
the room where old Mr Garrideb keeps his
collection. … (GR_The three Garridebs. txt)
11
13. Token, Type, and Lemma
例文 卯城 et al.(2009)
President Obama's statement “What is
required of us now is a new era of
responsibility” requires us to think of how we
should be responsible for our behavior.
• 述べ語数(Tokens) 28語
• 異なり語数(Types) 24語
→is, us, of →28‐4
• 見出し語数(Lemmas) 22語
→require, requires, required→24‐2
14. Positive 50 Key words
Rank Frequency Keyness words 有意確率
1 36 47.761 saint p < 0.05
2 216 44.256 mr p < 0.05
3 29 41.138 captain p < 0.05
4 71 40.572 garrideb p < 0.05
5 23 32.627 replied p < 0.05
6 33 32.432 please p < 0.05
7 119 30.315 house p < 0.05
8 83 30.183 asked p < 0.05
9 65 29.96 went p < 0.05
10 60 28.644 looked p < 0.05
11 90 27.486 t p < 0.05
12 112 24.27 about p < 0.05
13 24 22.727 terrible p < 0.05
14 257 22.01 said p < 0.05
15 38 21.588 carriage p < 0.05
16 15 21.278 tomorrow p < 0.05
17 94 19.982 did p < 0.05
18 260 19.885 holmes p < 0.05
19 14 19.86 decided p < 0.05
20 1159 19.521 i p < 0.05
15. Positive 50 Key words
Rank Frequency Keyness words 有意確率
21 21 18.755 immediately p < 0.05
22 17 18.146 unusual p < 0.05
23 52 17.44 strange p < 0.05
24 14 16.716 nobody p < 0.05
25 36 16.671 money p < 0.05
26 17 15.715 completely p < 0.05
27 11 15.604 haven p < 0.05
28 29 14.598 everything p < 0.05
29 66 14.276 like p < 0.05
30 45 14.213 frances p < 0.05
31 10 14.186 schlessinger p < 0.05
32 620 14.106 he p < 0.05
33 195 14.093 on p < 0.05
34 14 14.054 quickly p < 0.05
35 12 13.921 extremely p < 0.05
36 27 13.827 hotel p < 0.05
37 69 13.581 yes p < 0.05
38 45 13.284 police p < 0.05
39 18 12.923 almost p < 0.05
40 320 12.832 but p < 0.05
16. Positive 50 Key words
Rank Frequency Keyness words 有意確率
41 11 12.529 plan p < 0.05
42 27 12.504 servant p < 0.05
43 49 12.245 london p < 0.05
44 38 11.96 told p < 0.05
45 14 11.787 disappeared p < 0.05
46 21 11.541 person p < 0.05
47 26 11.486 peters p < 0.05
48 59 11.445 old p < 0.05
49 12 11.364 jumped p < 0.05
50 8 11.348 owner p < 0.05
17. 分析・考察 Positive Key Words
• 敬称・特定の登場人物名前の増加。
e.g. saint (1), mr (2), garrideb (4), holmes (18)
Immediately (21) やquickly (34)、動作を急がせる語
彙の増加。
• unusual (22), strange (23), terrible(13) などネガ
ティブな意味の表現の増加。
• I (20), nobody (24), he (32) の代名詞の増加。
17
18. 分析・考察 Positive Key Words
●completely (26), extremely (35), almost (39) など
量的に強調を表す表現の増加。
●said (14), replied (5), asked (8), told (44) など発話
を表す動詞の増加。
18
●接続詞 but (40)の増加。
19. Negative 50 Key words
Rank Frequency Keyness words 有意確率
1 66 90.675 which p < 0.05
2 67 22.225 by p < 0.05
3 429 21.633 it p < 0.05
4 184 19.596 as p < 0.05
5 34 18.678 should p < 0.05
6 11 16.577 might p < 0.05
7 719 15.673 of p < 0.05
8 300 15.222 his p < 0.05
9 32 13.659 may p < 0.05
10 9 12.975 most p < 0.05
11 1 11.59 companion p < 0.05
12 214 10.881 with p < 0.05
13 6 10.84 yet p < 0.05
14 3 10.834 passed p < 0.05
15 65 9.983 some p < 0.05
16 1 8.817 client p < 0.05
17 5 8.73 within p < 0.05
18 23 8.395 say p < 0.05
19 3 8.235 having p < 0.05
20 286 7.816 my p < 0.05
20. Negative 50 Key words
Rank Frequency Keyness words 有意確率
21 1 7.439 save p < 0.05
22 6 6.738 far p < 0.05
23 2 6.134 god p < 0.05
24 7 6.042 lay p < 0.05
25 3 5.725 words p < 0.05
26 22 5.555 hand p < 0.05
27 95 5.46 so p < 0.05
28 1 5.393 nervous p < 0.05
29 1 5.393 obvious p < 0.05
30 17 5.359 matter p < 0.05
31 6 5.103 point p < 0.05
32 26 5.054 their p < 0.05
33 79 4.867 our p < 0.05
34 2 4.854 follow p < 0.05
35 2 4.854 maid p < 0.05
36 11 4.848 hour p < 0.05
37 128 4.797 from p < 0.05
38 1 4.719 drawn p < 0.05
39 1 4.719 household p < 0.05
40 5 4.698 entered p < 0.05
21. Rank Frequency Keyness words 有意確率
41 5 4.698 none p < 0.05
42 25 4.649 over p < 0.05
43 78 4.568 if p < 0.05
44 3 4.521 close p < 0.05
45 3 4.521 nor p < 0.05
46 3 4.521 step p < 0.05
47 11 4.407 once p < 0.05
48 1 4.052 quick p < 0.05
49 1 4.052 remarked p < 0.05
50 1 4.052 trap p < 0.05
22. 分析・考察 Negative Key Words
• which (1), by (2), with (12), of (7) など後置
修飾を行う機能語の減少。
• If (43), nor (45), so (27) の接続詞の減少。
• should (5), might(6), may(9) の助動詞の
減少。
• client (16), companion (11) のいくつかの
名詞の減少。
• his (8), my (20), our (33), their (32) の所
有格代名詞の減少。
22
23. Added WordsとDeleted Words
• OR CorpusのNegative Key WordsとGR
CorpusのPositive Key Wordsを比較
(Added Words)
• OR CorpusのPositive Key WordsとGR
CorpusのNegative Key Wordsを比較
(Deleted Words)
24.
25.
26. Added Words and Deleted Words 1
captain, replied, decided,
tomorrow, haven,
schlessinger, owner, policemen
upon, inspector, however, st, fellow, instant,
colonel, remarkable, cab, curious,
morrow, singular, indeed, sprang, den, lodge,
glanced, lascar, pray, absolutely, evidence,
eye, features, stair, save, confederate,
drew, glance, hydraulic, shlessinger
27. Added Words and Deleted Words 2
captain vs. colnel
tomorrow vs. morrow
on vs. upon
however
44. Factor 1: Explicitness
"You want me to see him?"
"What do you say, Mr. Holmes? Don't you think
it would be wiser? ... (OR The Three Garrideb)
' You want me to see him? ' said Mr Nathan
Garrideb, as if this suggestion were a great
shock to him.
' Well, what's your opinion, Mr Holmes? ' asked
Mr John Garrideb. ' Don't you think it would be
better for him to go? ... (GR The Three Garrideb)
44
45. Factor 2: Century
: up, down, back, out, into,
at, by, on, upon, way,
come, room, door
: may, can, would, should,
think, see, know
• 19世紀の作品
E, P, T
→場所の提示、物の移動 客観性
• 20世紀の作品
G, D
→モダリティ、知覚動詞 思考
47. Factor 2 and Factor 4 Word Plot
47
Third person /
Objective style
First person /
Subjective style
48. Factor 2 and Factor 4 Text Plot
48
Third person /
Objective style
First person /
Subjective style
49. Factor 4 Subjectivity 1
"And I say east," said my patient.
"I am for west," remarked the plain-clothes man. "There
are several quiet little villages up there."
"And I am for north," said I, "because there are no hills
there, and our friend says that he did not notice the
carriage go up any." …(OR The engineer's thumb)
' And I say east, ' said Hatherley.
' I think it is to the west, ' said the second policeman. '
There are several quiet little villages up there. '
' And I think it is to the north, ' I said, ' because there are
no hills there, and Mr Hatherley says that he did not
notice the carriage going up any. ' …(GR The engineer's
thumb)
50. Factor 4 Subjectivity 2
… "We agreed to work on our own lines, Mr. Holmes.
That's what I am doing."
"Oh, very good," said Holmes. "Don't blame me." (中略)
"Let us say no more about it." "You're welcome always
to my news. This fellow is a perfect savage, as strong
as a cart-horse and as fierce as the devil.…
(OR Wisteria Lodge)
… ' You have your methods, Mr Holmes, and I have
mine. ' ' Oh, very good, ' said Holmes. ' But don't
blame me if things go wrong.' (中略) ' Let us say no
more about it …' ' But let me tell you about the cook.
He's a wild man, as strong as a carthorse and as
violent as the devil.....(GR Wisteria House)
54. 資料
Doyle, A. C. (1999). Sherlock Holmes Short Stories.
(selected and retold by Anthony Laude)Edinburgh: Pearson
Education Limited.
資料サイト
Project Gutenberg
2011/06/11(http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page)
Wikilivres 2011/05/21(http://wikilivres.info/wiki/Main_Page)
Someya Yasumasa Word Level Checker 2012/05/20 (http://someya-net.
com/wlc/)
使用プログラム
Anthony Laurence “AntConc” 2011/06
(http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/)
e.Typist NEO Ver. 13.0 (株) メディアドライブ
2011/05(http://mediadrive.jp/)
サクラエディタ 2011/06
(http://sakura-editor.sourceforge.net/)
55. 55
References 1
Anthony, L. (2004). AntConc: A learner and classroom friendly, multi-platform corpus
analysis toolkit. IWLeL 2004: An Interactive Workshop on Language e-Learning,
7-13.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive Reading in the Second Language
Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Honeyfield. (1977). Simplification. TESOL Quartely, 17, 503-516.
石川慎一郎. (2008). 『英語コーパスと言語教育―データとしてのテクスト―』 東
京:大修館書店.
石川慎一郎,前田忠彦,山崎誠. (編著) (2010). 『言語研究のための統計入門』 東
京:くろしお出版.
伊藤亮太.(2011). 「コーパスを基にしたGraded Readersの語彙分析」. 配布資料
2011年度法政大学英文学会, 2011年10月22日.
Kobayashi, Y. (2006). A corpus-based approach to the vocabulary control of graded
readers. Theoria, 35, 89-110.
Kobayashi, Y., & Kenji, K. (2010). Comparing graded Readers and Authorized English
Language Textbooks in Junior and Senior Schools ―From the Viewpoint of
Vocabulary and Readability―. Journal of Culture and Information Science, 5 (1),
1-14.
56. 56
Reference 2
Leech, G., & Mick, S. (2007). Style in Fiction A Linguistic Introduction to English
Fictional Prose. 2nd edition, Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Leow, R. P. (1993). To simplify or not to simplify: A look at intake. SSLA, 15, 333-355.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Oh, S-Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension:
Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 69-96.
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the Relationship Between Vocabulary Knowledge and
Academic Reading Performance: An Assessment Perspective. Language Learning 52
(3), 513-536.
斉藤俊雄,中村純作,赤野一郎. (編著) (2005). 『英語コーパス言語学―基礎と実践―
改訂新版』 東京:研究社.
Semino, E. (2011). Using Corpus Linguistic Methods to Compare a Simplified Version of
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet with the Original Play. Paper presented at
Corpus Linguistics 2011 DISCOUSE AND CORPUS LINGUISTICS, Birmingham 20
July. 2011.
57. 57
Reference 3
Shmitt, N., Xiangyng, J., & Willam, G. (2011). The Percentage of Words Known in a
Text and Reading Comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 95, 26-43.
Stephen, K. (1989). We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional
Evidence for the Input Hypothesis., The Modern Language Journal, 73 (4), 440-
464.
染谷泰正. (2009). 『オンライン版「英文語彙難易度解析プログラム」(Word Level
Checker)の概要とその応用可能性について』 (http://someya-net.com/wlc/).
Tabata, T. (1995). Narrative Style and the Frequencies of Very Common Words: A
Corpus-Based Approach to Dickens's first person and third person narratives.
English Corpus Studies, 2, 91-109.
卯城祐司. (編著) (2009). 『英語リーディングの科学―「読めたつもり」の謎を解く
』東京:研究社.
卯城祐司. (編著) (2012). 『英語リーディングテストの考え方と作り方』東京:研究
社
Yano, Y., Long, M. H., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated
texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44, 189-
219.