Variação estrutural em atos diretivos no discurso de sala de aula universitária: Um estudo baseado em corpus

Kia, Elnaz

Elnaz Kia

Second Language Teaching and Research Center (L2TReC), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. E-mail: elnaz.kia@utah.edu

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2542-8121

Figuras (2)
Tabelas (16)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Equation for calculating the rate of occurrence of a linguistic feature in a corpus (Biber, Conrad, & Reppen, 1998______; CONRAD, Susan; REPPEN, Randi. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge University Press.).

Thumbnail

Figure 2
A sample duplicate file annotated for individual algorithms in each sub-type

Thumbnail

Table 1
Felicity conditions for directive speech acts (Searle, 1969SEARLE, John. R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .:66)

Thumbnail

Table 2
Breakdown of lectures across disciplines with different levels of instruction in T2K-SWAL

Thumbnail

Table 3
Breakdown of lectures across disciplines with different levels of interactivity in T2K-SWAL

Thumbnail

Table 4
Breakdown of 14 lectures in Engineering and Humanities across levels of instruction

Thumbnail

Table 5
Breakdown of 14 lectures in Engineering and Humanities across levels of interactivity

Thumbnail

Table 6
Structural types of directives, frequencies, and coding reliability

Thumbnail

Table 7
Explicit structural types of directives included in automatic identification of directives

Thumbnail

Table 8
Precision of the developed program for identifying different types of directives

Thumbnail

Table 9
Accuracy of the imperative directives included in final analysis

Thumbnail

Table 10
Two-way MANOVA for directive structural types across disciplines, levels of interactivity, and instruction levels

Thumbnail

Table 11
Pairwise comparisons of positive unmitigated imperative directives’ mean scores across disciplines in high interactivity lectures

Thumbnail

Table 12
Pairwise comparisons of positive unmitigated imperative directives’ mean scores across levels of interactivity in Engineering

Thumbnail

Table 13
Pairwise comparisons of positive mitigated imperative mean scores across disciplines in medium interactivity lectures

Thumbnail

Table 14
Pairwise comparisons of positive mitigated imperative mean scores across levels of interactivity in Education

Thumbnail

Table 15
Pairwise comparisons of positive personal unmitigated obligation modal directives’ mean scores across disciplines in high interactivity lectures

Thumbnail

Table 16
Pairwise comparisons of positive personal unmitigated obligation modal directives’ mean scores across levels of interactivity in Engineering

Disciplines	Instruction Level # of texts (# of words)			Total # of texts (# of words)
	Lower Division	Upper Division	Graduate
Business	8 (45,345)	20 (136,969)	8 (70,275)	36 (252,589)
Engineering	8 (47,555)	14 (75,384)	8 (55,332)	30 (178,271)
Humanities	10 (68,764)	12 (94,346)	9 (92,583)	31 (255,693)
Social Sciences	15 (126,777)	15 (111,339)	8 (64,030)	38 (302,146)
Natural Sciences	9 (49,701)	7 (42,058)	9 (76,670)	25 (168,429)
Education	4 (26,602)	4 (26,674)	8 (88,509)	16 (141,785)
Total	54 (364,744)	72 (486,770)	50 (447,399)	176 (1,298,913)

Disciplines	Interactivity # of texts (# of words)			Total # of texts (# of words)
	Low	Medium	High
Business	3 (15,257)	13 (92,893)	20 (144,439)	36 (252,589)
Engineering	20 (113,147)	7 (51,255)	3 (13,869)	30 (178,271)
Humanities	8 (53,226)	9 (73,192)	14 (129,275)	31 (255,693)
Social Sciences	11 (89,573)	17 (134,052)	10 (78,521)	38 (302,146)
Natural Sciences	11 (68,961)	10 (59,979)	4 (39,489)	25 (168,429)
Education	1 (8,347)	5 (46,029)	10 (87,409)	16 (141,785)
Total	54 (348,511)	61 (457,400)	61 (493,002)	176 (1,298,913)

Disciplines	Instruction Level # of texts (# of words)			Total # of texts (# of words)
	Lower Division	Upper Division	Graduate	Lecture
Engineering	3 (193,27)	3 (15,566)	1 (1,025)	7 (35,918)
Humanities	2 (7,432)	3 (21,854)	2 (18,521)	7 (47,807)
Total	5 (26,759)	6 (37,420)	3 (19,546)	14 (83,725)

Disciplines	Interactivity # of texts (# of words)			Total # of texts (# of words)
	Low	Medium	High	Lecture
Engineering	2 (8,587)	3 (19,327)	2 (8,004)	7 (35,918)
Humanities	2 (8,634)	2 (15,462)	3 (23,711)	7 (47,807)
Total	4 (17,221)	5 (34,789)	5 (31,715)	14 (83,725)

Clause type	Structural type	Linguistic patterns	Frequency* (%)	Inter-coder agreement (%)
Declaratives	1. Performatives	I ask you to V	2.51%	90%
		I suggest
		I recommend
		You are required to V
		I expect you to V
	2. Obligation modals	You have to	14.29%	81%
		You must
		You should
		You are going to
		You ought to
		You’d better
	3. Intention and desire verbs	You need to	14.67%	85.4%
	3. Intention and desire verbs	You want to	14.67%	85.4%
	4. Permission/suggestion/possibility modals	You can	17.76%	72.8%
		You could
		You may
	5. If you + verb		2.32%	66.7%
	6. Would/wouldn’t	I would(n’t) V	4.44%	100%
	6. Would/wouldn’t	You would(n’t) V	4.44%	100%
	7. Non-sentential	e.g., “you my dear.”	0.77%	0%
	8. Other declaratives	e.g., “It’s something to keep in mind for next year.”	5.60%	55%
Imperatives	9. Imperative	Base form of the verb	24.13%	71.8%
	10. Subject + imperative	You + base form of the verb	4.44%	72.2%
	11. Present progressive	e.g., “Looking at the order of these place time ones.”	0.77%	66.7%
	12. Let’s	Let’s V	5.79%	35.5%
Interrogatives	13. Feasibility/ability modal questions	e.g., “Would you pass that back to Joe.”	0.58%	N/A**
	14. Non-modal questions	e.g., “are you passing out that article then?”	1.74%	N/A
	15. Suggestory formulae	e.g., “How about if I allowed you to write it out? neatly?”	0.19%	N/A

Structural Types	Example Linguistic Patterns
Imperatives	Base form of the verb
Imperatives	Let’s V
Obligation Modals	You have to
	You must
	You should
	You are going to
	You ought to
Intention and Desire Verbs	You need to
Intention and Desire Verbs	You want to
Permission/Suggestion/Possibility Modals	You can
	You could
	You may
Directive Vocabulary (performatives in Table 6)	I ask you to V
	I suggest
	I recommend
	You are required to V
	I expect you to V

Structural Type	Personal/Impersonal	Mitigated/Unmitigated	Positive/Negative	Index #	OverallCount	Program Precision
Obligation Modals	Personal	Unmitigated	Positive	5	1,289	100%
	Personal	Unmitigated	Negative	6	149	100%
	Personal	Mitigated	Positive	7	47	100%
	Personal	Mitigated	Negative	8	0	N/A
	Impersonal	Unmitigated	Positive	9	41	100%
	Impersonal	Unmitigated	Negative	10	2	100%
	Impersonal	Mitigated	Positive	11	2	100%
	Impersonal	Mitigated	Negative	12	0	N/A
Total					1,530
Intention and Desire Verbs	Personal	Unmitigated	Positive	13	934	100%
	Personal	Unmitigated	Negative	14	105	100%
	Personal	Mitigated	Positive	15	74	100%
	Personal	Mitigated	Negative	16	1	100%
	Impersonal	Unmitigated	Positive	17	1	100%
	Impersonal	Unmitigated	Negative	18	0	N/A
	Impersonal	Mitigated	Positive	19	0	N/A
	Impersonal	Mitigated	Negative	20	0	N/A
Total					1,115
Permission/suggestion/possibility modals	Personal	N/A	Positive	21	2,915	100%
	Personal	N/A	Negative	22	360	100%
	Impersonal	N/A	Positive	23	5	100%
Total					3,280
Directive Vocabulary	Personal	N/A	Positive	24	48	100%
Personal	N/A	Negative	25	10	100%
Impersonal	N/A	Positive	26	21	100%
Impersonal	N/A	Negative	27	1	100%
Total					80

Structural Type	Personal/Impersonal	Mitigated/Unmitigated	Positive/Negative	Index #	Overall Count	Directive Precision
Imperatives	N/A	Unmitigated	Positive	1	600	100%
	N/A	Unmitigated	Negative	2	28	100%
	N/A	Mitigated	Positive	3	39	100%
	N/A	Mitigated	Negative	4	1	100%
Total					668

Source	*Value*	F	*Hypothesis df*	*Error df*	p	Partial η²
Discipline × Instruction	.284	1.096	160	1103.721	.212	.118
Discipline × Interactivity	.190	1.483	160	1103.721	.000**	.153
Instruction × Interactivity	.628	.985	64	499.459	.512	.110
Discipline	.352	1.865	80	615.694	.000**	.189
Instruction	.762	1.157	32	254	.266	.127
Interactivity	.585	2.444	32	254	.000**	.235

Interactivity	Discipline (I)	Discipline (J)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error
High	Engineering	Business	192.870	27.213
		Education	187.792	29.567
		Humanities	184.565	28.912
		Natural Sciences	178.282	37.172
		Social Sciences	189.128	29.394

Discipline	Interactivity (I)	Interactivity (J)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	p ¹
Engineering	Low	Medium	0.434	19.730	1.000
	Low	High	-194.932	26.935	0.000**
	Medium	Low	-0.434	19.730	1.000
	Medium	High	-195.366	31.573	0.000**
	High	Low	194.932	26.935	0.000**
	High	Medium	195.366	31.573	0.000**

Interactivity	Discipline (I)	Discipline (J)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	p ¹
Medium	Education	Business	3.693	0.888	0.001**
		Engineering	4.051	1.013	0.002**
		Humanities	4.061	0.957	0.001**
		Natural Sciences	4.042	0.922	0.000**
		Social Sciences	3.869	0.884	0.000**

Discipline	Interactivity (I)	Interactivity (J)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	p ¹
Education	Low	Medium	-1.959	1.995	0.983
	Low	High	3.157	2.076	0.392
	Medium	Low	1.959	1.995	0.983
	Medium	High	5.116	0.980	0.000**
	High	Low	-3.157	2.076	0.392
	High	Medium	-5.116	0.980	0.000**

Interactivity	Discipline (I)	Discipline (J)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	p ¹
High	Engineering	Business	18.089	4.141	0.000**
		Education	19.318	4.499	0.000**
		Humanities	16.691	4.399	0.003**
		Natural Sciences	17.078	5.656	0.045*
		Social Sciences	15.255	4.473	0.013*

Discipline	Interactivity (I)	Interactivity (J)	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	p ¹
Engineering	Low	Medium	4.547	3.002	.396
	Low	High	-15.626	4.099	.001**
	Medium	Low	-4.547	3.002	.396
	Medium	High	-20.173	4.804	.000**
	High	Low	15.626	4.099	.001**
	High	Medium	20.173	4.804	.000**

[TFN1] *To calculate the frequency percentage for each structural type, raw frequency of directives with each structural type was divided by the total number of directives found in the 14 sample texts and the result was multiplied by 100.

[TFN2] **The structural types that do not have a coding reliability measure (i.e., N/A) were not present in the 8 sample texts used for piloting the operational definition of directives.

Preparatory condition	H is able to do A.
Sincerity condition	S wants H to do A.
Propositional content condition	S predicts a future act A of H.
Essential condition	Counts as an attempt to get H to do A.

Brasil

Brasil

Variação estrutural em atos diretivos no discurso de sala de aula universitária: Um estudo baseado em corpus

RESUMO