Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T09:37:03.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic Corpora and Language Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Simon Murison-Bowie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years there have been many claims made for the importance of corpus linguistics to the fields of language description and language teaching. The strong case suggests that without a corpus (or corpora) there is no meaningful work to be done. The weak case is that there are additional descriptive and pedagogic perspectives facilitated by corpus-based work which improve our knowledge of the language and our ability to use it.

Information

Type
Technology in Language Instruction
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 16 , March 1996 , pp. 182 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aston, G. 1995. Corpora in language pedagogy: Matching theory and practice. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B. (eds.) Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 257–270.Google Scholar
Aston, G. 1995. Forthcoming. Enriching the learning environment. In Wichmann, A., Fligelston, S., McEnery, A. and Knowles, G. (eds.) Teaching and language corpora. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Aston, G. and Burnard, L.. 1995. The BNC handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA (Preliminary draft). Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1975. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum. 1. 1. 1–14.Google Scholar
Church, K. and Hanks, P.. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information and lexicography. Computational Linguistics. 16. 1. 22–29.Google Scholar
Church, K., Gale, W., Hanks, P. and Hindle, D.. 1991. Using statistics in lexical analysis. In Zernick, U. (ed.) Lexical acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 115–165.Google Scholar
Church, K., Gale, W., Hanks, P. and Hindle, D.. and Moon, R.. 1994. Lexical substitutability. In Atkins, B. and Zampoli, A. (eds.) Computational approaches to the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clear, J. 1993. From Firth principles: Computational tools for the study of collocation. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.) Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 1994. Linguistic norms and pragmatic exploitations or, why lexicographers need prototype theory, and vice versa. In Kiefer, F., Kiss, G. and Pajzs, J. (eds.) Papers in computational linguistics: Complex '94. Budapest: Research Institute for Linguistics. 89–113.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. and Johns, T.. 1984. Computers in language learning. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Howatt, A. 1984. A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jencks, C. 1995. The architecture of the jumping universe. London: Academy Editions.Google Scholar
Johns, T. 1991a. Should you be persuaded—two examples of data-driven learning materials. In Johns, T. and King, P. (eds.) Classroom concordancing. Birmingham: ELR Journal. 4. 91. 1–16.Google Scholar
Johns, T. 1991b. From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of date-driven learning. In Johns, T. and King, P. (eds.) Classroom concordancing. Brimingham: ELR Journal. 4. 91.27–45.Google Scholar
Johns, T. 1991b. Forthcoming. Contexts: The background, development and trialling of a concordance-based CALL program. In Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S., McEnery, A. and Knowles, G. (eds.) Teaching and language corpora. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. 1992. Preferred ways of putting things with implications for language teaching. In Svartvik, J. (ed.) Directions in corpus linguistics. Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82. Berlin: Mouton Gruyter. 335–373.Google Scholar
Kettermann, B. 1995. Concordancing in English language teaching. TELL and CALL Volume 4/95. 4–15.Google Scholar
Kettermann, B. 1995. Forthcoming. Using a corpus to evaluate theories of child language acquisition. In Wichmann, A., Fligelston, S., McEnery, A. and Knowles, G. (eds.) Teaching and language corpora. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. Forthcoming. Teaching and language corpora: A convergence. In Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S., McEnery, A. and Knowles, G. (eds.) Teaching and language corpora. Harlow: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1966. Unpublished lecture. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
McMordie, W. 1909. English idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mindt, D. Forthcoming. Corpora and the design of teaching materials. In Wichmann, A., Fligelston, S., McEnery, A. and Knowles, G. (eds.) Teaching and language corpora. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Moon, R. E. 1994. Fixed expressions and text: A study of the distribution and textual behaviour of fixed expressions in English. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Murison-Bowie, S. 1983. Blending grammatical an notional/functional syllabuses. In Rasegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 15.1. Rome: Bulzoni Editore.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. and DeCarrico, J.. 1992. Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H.. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic therory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. (eds.) Language and communication. London: Longman. 191–226.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1991. Rules of language. Science. 253. 530–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Renouf, A. 1987. Moving on. In Sinclair, J. (ed.) Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. (eds.) 1983. Language and communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Scott, M. Forthcoming. Wordsmith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, M. and Johns, T.. 1993. MicroConcord. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1987. The nature of evidence. In Sinclari, J., (ed.) Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Sincliar, J. Forthcoming. Corpus evidence in language description. In Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S., McEnery, A. and Knowles, G. (eds.) Teaching and language corpora. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Stern, H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language. 2.1.23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. 1989. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wichmann, A. Forthcoming. Why this book? In Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S., McEnery, A. and Knowles, G. (eds.) Teaching and language corpora. Harlow: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. 1990. Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, E. 1976. Arbitrainess and motivation: A new theroy. Foundations of Language. 14.Google Scholar