Professor Thom Huebner
San José State University, California, USA
Professor Shigenori Wakabayashi
Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan
Associate Professor Arunee Wiriyachitra
Thailand
Assistant Professor Bordin Chinda, Ph.D.
Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Assistant Professor Passapong Sripicharn, Ph.D.
Thammasat University, Thailand
Assistant Professor Raksangob Wijitsopon, Ph.D.
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

Featured Speaker:

Assistant Professor Raksangob Wijitsopon, Ph.D.

Affiliation:

Assistant Professor, Department of English, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

Biography:

Dr. Raksangob Wijitsopon is an assistant professor at Department of English, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. The areas of her research interests include corpus linguistics, stylistics and discourse analysis. She is particularly interested in the integration of these three perspectives in analyses of EFL learner writing, EFL textbooks and literary texts.

Title:

Key multi-word expressions in Thai learner English argumentative essays

Abstract:

Over the past decade, the concept of multi-word expressions (MWEs) has received extensive attention in foreign language teaching and learning research. The present study is different from previous studies on MWEs in that it applies the concept of keyness in corpus linguistics (Bondi and Scott, 2010) to an investigation of MWEs in a corpus of Thai undergraduates’ English argumentative essays (THAI) in comparison with a corpus of native speaker learners’ (NATIVE), via the software Wmatrix (Rayson 2008). The keyness approach throws light on individual MWEs that seem particularly characteristic of Thai EFL undergraduate writing. These key MWEs were then approached at the macro and micro levels. Systemic functional linguistic concept of language metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal and textual (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004) were applied to categorization of key items. These different functional groups of MWEs were analyzed in the light of distributional and lexicogrammatical patterns. These patterns reveal the ways in which Thai learner English writing tends to feature references to a large quantity and sources of information as well as a particular forceful tone in their argumentation. Findings from the study provide pedagogical implications for ways to improve EFL writing lessons.

References:

Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (2010). Keyness in Texts. London/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halliday, M. and Matthiesen, C. (2004). ). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Routledge. Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 13 (4), pp. 519-549.

Featured Speaker:

Assistant Professor Bordin Chinda, Ph.D.

Affiliation:

Assistant Professor, English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Biography:

Dr. Bordin Chinda is an assistant professor at the English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai University. His research interests include language test validation, impact/washback studies, performance-based assessment, innovation in language education, professional development, and English for Academic Purposes. Bordin holds a PhD in Language Testing and Assessment from the University of Nottingham, UK.

Title:

CEFR in Thailand: Where are we going and where have we been?

Abstract:

Published in 2001 by the Council of Europe and its member states, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) provides a comprehensive description of language ability, a set of illustrative descriptor scales for language proficiency levels, and guidelines for curriculum design. Since its publication, the CEFR has been playing an influential role in language education not only across Europe but also worldwide. With a rising concern on the nation’s English proficiency level, some parts of Thailand’s English education system have decided to adopt the CEFR. For example, one of the Office of Higher Education Commission’s English language education policies is that all tertiary students are required to take an English proficiency test, which, has to be equivalent to the CEFR or other standards. This paper, therefore, will describe the roles of CEFR in English language learning and teaching in Thailand. Also test development projects based on the CEFR as well as CEFR aligned tests in Thailand will be explored. Finally, a validation project to align a locally produced test to the CEFR B1 level will be explained.

Featured Speaker:

Associate Professor Arunee Wiriyachitra

Affiliation:

Associate Professor, Thailand

Biography:

Associate Professor Arunee Wiriyachitra is a teacher, author and teacher educator. She is now a freelancer in many fields of education. Her publications include numerous articles, published nationally and internationally. She has also written many textbooks for secondary and tertiary education.

Title:

CEFR in Thailand: Where are we going and where have we been?

Abstract:

Published in 2001 by the Council of Europe and its member states, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR) provides a comprehensive description of language ability, a set of illustrative descriptor scales for language proficiency levels, and guidelines for curriculum design. Since its publication, the CEFR has been playing an influential role in language education not only across Europe but also worldwide. With a rising concern on the nation’s English proficiency level, some parts of Thailand’s English education system have decided to adopt the CEFR. For example, one of the Office of Higher Education Commission’s English language education policies is that all tertiary students are required to take an English proficiency test, which, has to be equivalent to the CEFR or other standards. This paper, therefore, will describe the roles of CEFR in English language learning and teaching in Thailand. Also test development projects based on the CEFR as well as CEFR aligned tests in Thailand will be explored. Finally, a validation project to align a locally produced test to the CEFR B1 level will be explained.

Featured Speaker:

Professor Thom Huebner

Affiliation:

Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, San José State University, California, USA

Biography:

Thom Huebner, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at San José State University, has published numerous books and articles in applied linguistics and sociolinguistics. He’s held academic positions at the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University, visiting professorships at Thammasat and Chulalongkorn Universities in Bangkok, the Royal University of Fine Arts and the Royal University of Phnom Penh in Cambodia, and has been senior researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (Nijmegen, the Netherlands) and the National Foreign Language Center (Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C.), a Fulbright Scholar (Fukui, Japan), a U.S. Department of State Senior Language Specialist, and a Peace Corps volunteer in Buriram Thailand. In 2015, he was the inaugural recipient of the Charles A. Ferguson Outstanding Scholar Award from The Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C.), His current research interests are in discourse analysis and linguistic landscapes.
Contact Information:
E-mail: thom.huebner@sjsu.edu
Postal Address 9 Grand View Terrace
San Francisco, CA 94114
USA

Title:

Linguistic Landscape in Schools and Out:
Environmental print as a Resource for Language Learning

Abstract:

This paper provides a framework for the application of linguistic landscape analysis toward the achievement of language education goals (i.e., language proficiency, pragmatic competence, multimodal literacy skills, metalinguistic awareness and sensitivity to the symbolic and affective dimensions of language, cf. Cenos & Gorter 2008). The term “linguistic landscape” refers to all of the written language visible in the public space, sometimes called “environmental print.” Incorporation of the linguistic landscape into the language curriculum is compatible with current directions in language teaching methodology (i.e., “experiential learning,” “authentic language,’ “community-based,” “student-centered,” “connectedness,” etc., ACTFL 2015, MLA 2007, Ministry of Education 2008). The paper briefly describes linguistic landscape analysis and identifies goals of language and literacy education. It reviews research into the linguistic landscape of schools as a source of input for language learning (e.g., Dressler 2015, Siricharoen 2016, Li 2017). It then turns to the question of how the linguistic landscape of the community can be a resource for language learning at three levels of analysis (description or micro-analysis, interpretation or meso-analysis, and explanation or macro-analysis; cf. Schmitt 2018) and offers concrete activities appropriate at each level of education (primary, secondary, postsecondary). Research methodologies range from classroom use of pictures of signs found in the landscape to ‘language safaris’ and walking tours (e.g., Chern & Dooley 2014, Garvin & Eisenhower 2016, Bangkom 2016).
References:
ACTFL (2015). Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century. Executive Summary. Retrieved July 2, 2018 from https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/publications/standards/World-ReadinessStandards for learning languages.pdf
Bangkom, K. (2016). Linguistic landscape and language awareness: An action research with children in Rayong. Paper presented in the course Current Issues in English Applied Linguistics: Linguistic Landscape, Chulalongkorn University Program in English as an International Language, Semester 1 Academic Year 2016.
Cenoz, J. and D. Gorter (2008). Linguistic landscape as an additional source of input in second language acquisition. IRAL, International Review of applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. 46: 257-276.
Chern, C. and K. Dooley (2014). Learning English by walking down the street. ELT Journal 68(2): 113-123.
Garvin, R. T. and K. Eisenhower (2016). A comparative study of linguistic landscapes in middle schools in Korea and Texas: Contrasting signs of learning and identity construction. In Negotiating and Contesting Identities in Linguistic Landscapes, Multilingualism and Social Change, pp. 249-266.
Li, XueLi (2017). A study of the linguistic landscape in a Chinese school in Bangkok. Paper presented in the course Current Issues in English Applied Linguistics: Linguistic Landscape, Chulalongkorn University Program in English as an International Language, Semester 1 Academic Year 2017.
MLA (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Retrieved July 2, 2018 from https://www.mla.org/Resources/Research/Surveys-Reports-and-Other-Documents/Teaching-Enrollments-and-Programs/Foreign-Languages-and-Higher-Education-New-Structures-for-a-Changed-World
Ministry of Education (2008). The Basic Education Core Curriculum, B.E. 2551 (A.D. 2008). Retrieved July 2, 2018 from http://www.act.ac.th/document/1741.pdf

Featured Speaker:

Professor Shigenori Wakabayashi

Affiliation:

Professor of applied linguistics, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan

Biography:

Professor Wakabayashi obtained his M.A. from the University of Essex and M.Phil. and Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge. His academic interest lies in applied linguistics, particularly in modeling second language learners’ mental representations of morphology and syntax. He has published a number of articles in international journals, such as Second Language Research, and books, such as Generative Approaches to the Acquisition of English by Native Speakers of Japanese (Mouton de Gruyter). He was a Vice President of Chuo University, Tokyo, from 2011 to 2014, in charge of the globalization of the university. He is currently a Professor of applied linguistics, Chuo University, and a Visiting Professor at Language Institute, Thammasat University

Title:

The acquisition of articles and demonstratives, and the interpretation of telicity

Abstract:

When an activity/accomplishment verb has a singular object, the event denoted by the verb phrase with past tense is telic (having an end-point) and is incompatible with the expression of event cancellation (i.e., didn’t finish eating it), as in (1a). In contrast, an activity/accomplishment verb with a plural object tolerates event cancellation, as in (1b). Furthermore, when the definite article or a demonstrative is added to the plural NP, the event becomes telic, as in (1c, d).
(1) a. Bill ate an apple[sg], #but didn’t finish eating it.
b. Bill ate apples[pl, -def], but didn’t finish eating them.
c. Bill ate the apples[pl, +def], #but didn’t finish eating them.
d. Bill ate these apples[pl, +def], #but didn’t finish eating them.
Given that Japanese optionally projects NumberP but lacks articles, ‘Full Transfer at the Initial Stage’ predicts a better performance on (1b) than the others by low proficiency Japanese-learners of English. Data we collected did not fully support this prediction. We argue that verb phrases with non-stative verbs have multiple levels of semantic interpretation; that second language learners have access to only one of them at initial stages; and that some L1 transfer appears at a later stage of development.

Featured Speaker:

Passapong Sripicharn

Affiliation:

Assistant Professor in the Department of English, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand

Biography:

Dr. Passapong Sripicharn is Assistant Professor in the Department of English, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University, Thailand. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from the University of Birmingham, UK. His main research interest is corpus linguistics, particularly the pedagogical applications of language corpora in vocabulary and writing classes. Recently, he has gained more interest in wider applications of language corpora such as in lexicology, terminology, translation, and critical discourse analysis and he is now exploring uses of language corpora as a tool to Term Extraction and Term Base (TB) and Translation Memory (TM) that can be cooperated in Computer Assisted Translation (CAT).
Contact: Department of English and Linguistics, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat University.
Email: passapong.s@arts.tu.ac.th

Title:

Spying on your own writing: Encouraging learners to use corpus tools to explore their own writing corpus

Abstract:

This paper argues that students should also be encouraged to explore their own corpus of writing using a wide range of corpus tools in the same way they examine large, general corpora. In a study conducted with a group of upper-intermediate students taking an essay writing course at a Thai university, the students were first trained to read concordance lines generated from a large, general corpus to study lexical items that they were interested in or have problems with. Then they were instructed to use corpus tools such as ‘Vocabprofile’ (https://www.lextutor.ca/) to create a lexical overview of their first writing task (e.g. numbers of word tokens, word types, or lexical density) and inspect their lexical coverage against a wordlist such as AWL or CEFR. They also traced the changes of those profiles in the other writing tasks throughout the semester and compare the figures with those reported in their peers’ profiles. The students were also asked to use corpus analysis software such as Antconc (http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/) to further explore their own writing using a common function of concordance as well as less commonly used tools for learners such as cluster/n-gram and keyword analysis. They also compared their corpus outputs with those generated from texts produced by more experienced writers, for example, comparing reporting verbs used in their narrative essays with those used in a novel. Students’ journals and interviews suggested that the learners developed greater awareness of their own lexical uses and there was evidence suggesting that the students were able to use improve their lexical uses in subsequent essays based on the corpus analysis of their own work. Problems and limitations of such an approach, both from students’ reflection as well as teacher’s observation will be also discussed.