Tables
1.2Mean factors for all texts in conversation in Biber (1988).
2.1Results of the Pearson correlation between turn length (in word tokens) and turn coordinate for each dimension.
2.2The linguistic features most strongly associated with Dimension 2.
2.3The turns most strongly associated with positive and negative Dimension 2.
2.4The Dimension 2 association of the turns in the Conversation task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.5The Dimension 2 association of the turns in the Discussion task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.6The Dimension 2 association of the turns in the Interactive task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.7Cultural and linguistic background associations with Dimension 2.
2.8The linguistic features most strongly associated with Dimension 3.
2.9Turns most strongly associated with positive and negative Dimension 3.
2.10The Dimension 3 association of the turns in the Conversation task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.11The Dimension 3 association of the turns in the Discussion task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.12The Dimension 2 association of the turns in the Discussion task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.13The Dimension 3 association of the turns from groups of learners defined by their linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
2.14The linguistic features most strongly associated with Dimension 4.
2.15Turns most strongly associated with positive and negative Dimension 4.
2.16The Dimension 4 association of the turns in the Conversation task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.17The Dimension 4 association of the turns in the Discussion task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.18The Dimension 4 association of the turns in the Interactive task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.19The Dimension 4 association of the turns from groups of learners defined by their linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
2.20The linguistic features most strongly associated with Dimension 5.
2.21Turns most strongly associated with positive and negative Dimension 5.
2.22The Dimension 5 association of the turns in the Conversation task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.23The Dimension 5 association of the turns in the Discussion task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.24The Dimension 5 association of the turns in the Interactive task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
2.25The Dimension 5 association of the turns from groups of learners defined by their linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
3.1The linguistic features strongly associated with Dimension 2.
3.2The association of the discourse units in the Conversation, Discussion, and Interactive tasks with Dimension 2 according to the mark learners received.
3.3The Dimension 2 association of the discourse units in the Conversation task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
3.4The Dimension 2 association of the discourse units in the Discussion task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
3.5The Dimension 2 association of the discourse units in the Interactive task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
3.6The linguistic features strongly associated with Dimension 3.
3.7The Dimension 3 association of the discourse units in the Conversation, Discussion and Interactive tasks from groups of learners defined by overall mark.
3.8The Dimension 3 association of the discourse units in the Conversation task according to learners’ proficiency, grade and overall mark.
3.9The Dimension 3 association of the discourse units in the Discussion task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
3.10The Dimension 3 association of the discourse units in the Interactive task from groups of learners defined by proficiency, grade and overall mark.
4.1The linguistic features strongly associated with Dimension 4.
4.2The association of the examiner turns to Information-Seeking (negative Dimension 2) function at grade 6 according to learners’ mark.
4.3The Dimension 4 association of the discourse units in the Conversation, Discussion, and Interactive tasks according to the mark the learners received.
4.4The association of the examiner turns to Dimension 7 (Narrative versus Stance Seeking) according to the task and the learners’ grade and mark.
4.5The association of the discourse units in the Discussion task to Dimension 4 (Informational Narratives versus Seeking and Encoding Stance) according to the learners’ mark, grade and proficiency level.
4.6The association of the discourse units in the Conversation task to Dimension 4 according to the learners’ mark, grade and proficiency level.
4.7The linguistic features strongly associated with Dimension 5.
4.8The association of the discourse units in the Discussion task on Dimension 5 according to the mark learners’ received.
4.9The association of the discourse units in the Discussion task according to learners’ mark, grade and proficiency level on Dimension 5.
4.10The association of the discourse units in the Conversation task on Dimension 5 according to learners’ mark, grade and proficiency level.
5.1Functions at turn level in the TLC L1 in tasks shared between L2 (grades 6–8) and L1 speakers (grade 12).
5.3Frequency of feature in Conversation compared to Discussion.
5.8The percentage of speakers not producing a specific feature in either task by grade.
5.9Features at each grade in Conversation compared to the TLC L1.
5.10Features at each grade in Discussion compared to the TLC L1.
5.11The standard deviation of four grammatical features across the Conversation and Discussion tasks in the L1 data.
5.12Users not producing a grammatical function, by task, in grade 8 L2 data and the L1 data.
5.13Speakers not using a specific feature in either task in the L2 grade 8 data and the L1 data.
5.14The percentage of uses of a feature in examinee speech following the use of the same feature by the examiner in Conversation.
5.15The percentage of uses of a feature in examinee speech following the use of the same feature by the examiner in Discussion.
5.16Functions at discourse unit level in the TLC L1 in tasks shared between L2 (grades 6–8) and L1 speakers (grade 12).
6.7The discourse unit view of discourse functions in the BNC 2014, functions with reversed polarity relative to the turn-level view are marked with an asterisk.
8.1A micro-structural short-text MDA of the narrative in Figure 8.1.
9.1Examples of different narrative elements in our TLC narrative sample.
9.2Percentage of candidates who produced at least one narrative for each L1 group, ranked from highest to lowest.
9.3Average number of turns per narrative for each L1 group, ranked from most to least frequent.
9.4Average number of elements per narrative for each L1 group, ranked highest to lowest.
9.5Average number of unique elements produced by candidates within each L1 group, ranked highest to lowest.
9.6Percentage of candidates who produced each narrative element from each L1 group.
9.7Average age and age range for each L1 group, ordered from youngest to oldest (on average).
9.8Proportion of age categories in each L1 group, ordered from youngest to oldest (on average; see Table 9.7).
9.9Percentage of candidates who produced at least one narrative for each age category, ranked from highest to lowest.
9.10Percentage of young candidates who produced at least one narrative for each L1 group, ranked from highest to lowest.
9.11Average number of turns per narrative for young candidates in each L1 group, ranked from most to least frequent.
9.12Average number of elements per narrative for young candidates in each L1 group, ranked highest to lowest.
9.13Average number of unique elements produced by young candidates within each L1 group, ranked highest to lowest.
9.14Percentage of young candidates who produced each narrative element from each L1 group.
9.15Proportion of candidates who received at least one prompt out of those who produced at least one narrative, grouped by L1 and ranked from highest to lowest.
9.16Proportion of candidates within each age category who did and did not receive at least one prompt, expressed as percentages of overall number of candidates who produced at least one narrative within each category.
9.17Proportion of prompts that were initiating or mid-narrative for each L1 group, expressed as percentages.
9.18Elements following initiating prompts for each L1 group, expressed as percentages.
9.19Elements following mid-narrative prompts for each L1 group, expressed as percentages.
Open access