This paper aims to connect recent corpus research on phraseology with current language testing practice. It discusses how corpora and corpus-analytic techniques can illuminate central aspects of speech and help in conceptualizing the notion of lexicogrammar in second language speaking assessment. The description of speech and some of its core features is based on the 1.8-million-word Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) and on the 10-million-word spoken component of the British National Corpus (BNC). Analyses of word frequency and keyword lists are followed by an automatic extraction of different types of phraseological items that are particularly common in speech and serve important communicative functions. These corpus explorations provide evidence for the strong interconnectedness of lexical items and grammatical structures in natural language. Based on the assumption that the existence of lexicogrammatical patterns is of relevance for constructs of speaking tests, the paper then reviews rubrics of popular high-stakes speaking tests and critically discusses how far these rubrics capture the central aspects of spoken language identified in the corpus analyses as well as the centrality of phraseology in language. It closes with recommendations for speaking assessment in the light of this characterization of real-world spoken lexicogrammar.
AldersonJ. C.KremmelB. (2013). Re-examining the content validation of a grammar test: The (im)possibility of distinguishing vocabulary and structural knowledge. Language Testing, 30(4), 535–556.
2.
AnthonyL. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved from www.laurenceanthony.net/.
3.
BachmanL.PalmerA. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BachmanL.PalmerA. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BestgenY.GrangerS. (2014). Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 28–41.
6.
BiberD. (1988). Variation in speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BiberD. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8.
BiberD. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311.
9.
BiberD.LeechG.JohanssonS.ConradS.FineganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
10.
BloomfieldL. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
11.
BurnardL. (2007). Reference guide for the British National Corpus (XML edition). Retrieved from www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG/.
CarterR.McCarthyM. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 141–158.
15.
CarterR.McCarthyM. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
ChengW. (2008). Concgramming: A corpus-driven approach to learning the phraseology of discipline-specific texts. CORELL: Computer Resources for Language Learning, 1, 22–35.
17.
ChengW.GreavesC.WarrenM. (2006). From n-gram to skipgram to concgram. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(4), 411–433.
EllisN. C. (2008). Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language. In MeunierF.GrangerS. (Eds.), Phraseology in language learning and teaching (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21.
EllisN. C.RömerU.O’DonnellM. B. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley.
22.
ErmanB.WarrenB. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62.
FulcherG. (1996). Does thick description lead to smart tests? A data-based approach to rating scale construction. Language Testing, 13(2), 208–238.
25.
FulcherG. (2003). Testing second language speaking. London: Longman.
26.
GrangerS.BestgenY. (2014). The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52(3), 229–252.
27.
HoeyM. (2005). Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
28.
HunstonS. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HunstonS.FrancisG. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30.
HylandK. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
LadoR. (1961). The construction and use of foreign language tests. New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
LeechG. (2000). Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented research. Language Learning, 50(4), 675–724.
34.
LuomaS. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
O’DonnellM. B.RömerU.EllisN. C. (2013). The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83–108.
36.
RömerU. (2005). Progressives, patterns, pedagogy: A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37.
RömerU. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 140–162.
38.
RömerU. (2010). Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type: The construction of meaning in academic book reviews. English Text Construction, 3(1), 95–119.
39.
RueggR. (2015). An experiment in the ability of raters to evaluate lexis in writing. Language in Focus Journal, 1(1), 38–50.
40.
RueggR.FritzE.HollandJ. (2011). Rater sensitivity to qualities of lexis in writing. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 63–80.
41.
ScottM.TribbleC. (2006). Textual patterns. Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
42.
ShiotsuT.WeirC. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24(1), 99–128.
43.
SinclairJ. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
SinclairJ. M. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.
45.
SinclairJ. M. (2008). The phrase, the whole phrase, and nothing but the phrase. In GrangerS.MeunierF. (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 407–410). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
46.
SimpsonR. C.BriggsS. L.OvensL.SwalesJ. M. (2002). The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
47.
StefanowitschA.GriesS. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–43.
48.
StubbsM. (2001). Words and phrases. Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
49.
TaylorL. (Ed.) (2011). Examining speaking: Research and practice in examining second language speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
VidakovićI.GalacziE. D. (2013). The measurement of speaking ability 1913–2012. In WeirC. J. WeirVidakovićI.GalacziE. D.Measured constructs: A history of Cambridge English language examinations 1913–2012 (pp. 257–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
WulffS.RömerU. (2009). Becoming a proficient academic writer: Shifting lexical preferences in the use of the progressive. Corpora, 4(2), 115–133.
