Corpus Routes and Experiments in Language Teaching

Corpus quantitative approach in teaching, which is of growing interest, entails some revision of the L2 vocabulary selection procedures and provides solutions for a wide range of practical problems. The focus throughout is on the discussion of research on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of language which both teaching content and language acquisition practice could draw on. This research regards human language as a rank distribution, which has serious implications on quantitative aspect of learner’s vocabulary. We also looked into the ways to factor in the data from a small professional discourse corpus in order to target the units that have the greatest statistical prominence. Both BNC and our own collection of texts are explored. The study also elaborates on academic writing cohesive devices and grammar patterns introduction, which is approached through concordancing corpus strings to (i) provide frequency evidence and (ii) introduce a contrast in usage in various corpus genres. Striking differences that are evidenced by the frequency lists could be related not only to register, but also to the choice and instances of academic cohesive clusters which are favoured by the apprentice writers and the expert writers. With the aim of capitalizing on corpus approach a number of small-scale corpus research tasks were developed. This study also uses corpus tools and data to give a seemingly subjective phenomenon of hedging some quantitative measurement. While experimenting on corpus in the classroom, the attention of learners was drawn to various means of hedging, such as lexical bundles or down-toners that manifest themselves as important communicative strategies. Thus, corpus was used to inform both the language instructor and the student in the classroom to look in detail at differences in the use of lexical and grammatical units in different varieties of language, address contrasting register variations, and readily provide contemporary professionally relevant examples of actual language usage. It has to be noted that university students have a tendency not to perceive register violations as language errors on a par with those of grammar, lexis or punctuation. Hence, corpus investigation as raising awareness tool also proved to be an effective teaching material generator. Nowadays syllabi have the opportunity to be rather sensitive to the quantitative evidence that corpora offer us; what is more, as a result of this study, we would conclude that university students are responsive to the small-scale investigation of register differences, lexico-grammatical frequency and patterning, which have been brought directly into the L2 classroom.

corpus-based teaching, corpus-oriented approach, register features, learner vocabulary, corpus classroom techniques

1. Власова Е. А., Карпова Е. Л., Ольшевская М. Ю. Лексический минимум по языку специальности: сколько слов достаточно? Разработка принципов минимизации // Вестник НГУ. Серия: Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2019. Т. 17, № 4. C. 63-77. DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2019-17-4-63-77

2. Гвишиани Н. Б. Практикум по корпусной лингвистике: Учеб. пособие по английскому языку. М.: Высш. шк., 2008. 191 с. ISBN 978-5-06-005478-1.

3. Горина О. Г. Использование технологий корпусной лингвистики для развития лексических навыков студентов-регионоведов: Дис. … канд. пед. наук / МГУ. М., 2014. 325 c.

4. Горина О. Г., Храброва В. Е. Лингвистический хеджинг как коммуникативная стратегия (в русле корпусных исследований) // Вестник НГУ. Серия: Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2017. Т. 15, № 3. C. 44-53. DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2017-15-3-44-53

5. Краткий словарь когнитивных терминов / Под общ. ред. Е. С. Кубряковой. М.: Филол. ф-т МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова, 1997. 245 с. ISBN 5-89042-018-6.

6. Марюхин А. П. Непрямая коммуникация в научном дискурсе (на материале русского, английского, немецкого языков): Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук / Ин-т языкознания РАН. М., 2010. 24 c.

7. Орлов Г. А. Современная английская речь: Учеб. пособие для вузов по специальности «Английский язык и литература». М.: Высш. шк., 1991. 240 с.

8. Плунгян В. А. Корпус как инструмент и как идеология: о некоторых уроках современной корпусной лингвистики // Русский язык в научном освещении. 2008. № 2 (16). С. 7-20.

9. Пумпянский А. Л. Введение в практику перевода научно-технической литературы на английский язык. М.: Наука, 1981. 344 с.

10. Рябцева Н. К. Научная речь на английском языке: Руководство по научному изложению; словарь оборотов и сочетаемости общенаучной лексики; новый словарь-справочник активного типа. М.: Флинта: Наука, 1999. 601 с.

11. Салькова М. А., Мачина О. А. Двойная модальность и корпусный анализ: Актуализация обучения грамматическому аспекту современного английского языка // Вестник МГЛУ. Гуманитарные науки. 2018. Вып. 15 (810). C. 19-34.

12. Скребнев Ю. М. Введение в коллоквиалистику / Под ред. О. Б. Сиротининой. Саратов: Изд-во Сарат. ун-та, 1985. 210 с.

13. Соловьева И. В. Социокультурный статус формулы извинения pardon в английском языке по данным корпусных баз // Вестник НГУ. Серия: Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2019. Т. 17, № 1. С. 125-133. DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2019-17-1-125-133

14. Baayen, R. H. Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publ., 2002, 356 p. ISBN 1402009275.

15. Bartlett, F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental Social Psychology. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni. Press, 1932, 317 p. URL: http://www.bartlett.psychol.cam.ac.uk/RememberingBook.htm (accessed: 12.03.2020).

16. Bernadini, S. Corpora in the classroom: An overview and some reflections on future developments. In: Sinclair, J. McH. (ed.). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam [u.a.], Benjamins, 2004, 308 p. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Vol. 12). ISBN 978-90-272-22831.

17. Bestgen, Y. Comparing Lexical Bundles across Corpora of Different Sizes: The Zipfian Problem. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 2020, vol. 27, no. 3, p. 272-290 DOI 10.1080/0929 6174.2019.1566975

18. Biber, D. Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. In: Lefer, M.-A., Vogeleer, S. (eds.). Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast. Amsterdam [Phil.], John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016, p. 7. (Benjamins Current Topics. Vol. 87).

19. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. S. l.: Pearson Education Limited, 1999. 1204 p. ISBN 0-582-23725-4.

20. Carter, R., McCarthy, M. Cambridge Grammar of English: A comprehensive guide: Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. 6th ed. S. l.: Cambridge Uni. Press, 2011. 973 p. ISBN 978-0-521-85767-3.

21. Conrad, S., Biber, D. Real Grammar: A Corpus-Based Approach to English. Pearson, Longman, 2009, 150 p.

22. Crystal, D. On Keeping One’s Hedges in Order. English Today, 1988, vol. 4. no. 3 (15), p. 46-47.

23. Farr, F., Murphy, B., O’Keeffe, A. The Limerick corpus of Irish English: design, description and application. In: Farr, F., O’Keeffe, A. (eds.). Corpora, Varieties and the Language Classroom. Special Edition of Teanga 21. Dublin, IRAAL, 2004, p. 5-29.

24. Flowerdew, L. Corpora and Language Education. S. l., Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, 347 р.

25. Gorina, O. G., Tsarakova, N. S., Tsarakov, S. K. Study of Optimal Text Size Phenomenon in Zipf-Mandelbrot’s Distribution on the Basis of Full and Distorted Texts. Author’s Frequency Characteristics and derivation of Hapax Legomena. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 2020, vol. 27, no. 2, p. 134-158, DOI 10.1080/09296174.2018.1559460

26. Huddleston, R. D., Pullum, G. K. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge Uni. Press, 2002. ISBN 0-521-43146-8.

27. Hyland, K. Academic Discourse. London, Continuum, 2009.

28. Johns T., King, Ph. Should you be persuaded - two samples of data-driven Learning materials. Classroom Concordancing: ELR Journal, 1991, vol. 4, p. 1-16. URL: http://www.lexically.net (accessed: 17.03.2021).

29. Lewis, M. Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Heinlecengage, 2008, 223 p.

30. Mauranen, A. ‘But here’s a flawed argument’: socialization into and through metadiscourse. In: Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C. (eds.). Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam, Rodopi, 2003а, p. 19-34.

31. Mauranen, A. The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly, 2003b, no. 37 (3), p. 513-527.

32. O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni. Press, 2007.

33. Salazar, D. Lexical Bundles in Native and Non-native Scientific Writing: Applying a corpus based study to language teaching. Amsterdam, Phil., John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2014, ix, 212 p. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Vol. 65)

34. Salkova, M. A., Machina, O. A. Double Modality and Corpus-Based Analysis: Actualization of Teaching Modern English Grammar. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanitarian Sciences, 2018, iss. 15 (810), p. 19-34. (in Russ.)

35. Scott, M., Tribble, C. Textual Patterns: key words and corpus analysis in language education: Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 2006, 200 p.

36. West, R. et al. The Word Family Framework [WFF]. 2013. URL: http://www. teachingenglish. org.uk/article/word-family (accessed 15.02.2019).