Applications Of Corpora In Applied Linguistics English Language
- Melinda Tan: Authentic linguistic communication or linguistic communication mistakes? Lessons from a scholar principal
- Tan ‘s Methodology
- Tan ‘s Decision
- Christoph Ruhlemann: A Register Approach to Teaching Conversation: Farewell to Standard English?
- Ruhlemann ‘s Methodology
- Ruhlemann ‘s Decision
- Rachel Allan: Can a Graded Reader Corpus Provide ‘authentic ‘ Input?
- Allan ‘s Methodology
- Allan ‘s Decision
- Gillian Claridge: Simplication in Graded Readers: Measuring the Authenticity of Graded Text
- Claridge ‘s Methodology
- Claridge ‘s Decision
- Dee Gardner: “ Vocabulary Recycling in Childrens ‘s Authentic Reading Materials: A corpus-based Probe of narrow reading
- Gardner ‘s Methodology
- Gardner ‘s Decision
- My point of position
Authenticity is one of many applications of principal in applied linguistics. Hunston ( 2002 ) has lined out genuineness accent as one of the applications of principal in applied linguistics.
“ When mention books are written with the assistance of a principal, illustrations can be chosen that illustrate the most typical usage of a word or phrase and, if illustrations are taken from the principal itself, genuineness is guaranteed, in the sense that each illustration has been used in echt communicating. It is of import to acknowledge that genuineness and typicality are non the same thing. Any principal contains legion illustrations of a given word that are reliable – they are portion of existent texts – but are the merchandise of invention, word drama, or simple uneven fortunes, and are hence non typical. Conversely, some dictionary authors invent sentences that reflect typical use but which have non been used in reliable state of affairss. ”
From the above statement we should now that illustrations taken from the principal are believed as the most reliable and are used in day-to-day life communicating. However, in the diary articles that I have read, this statement is argued through some manners. The treatments on genuineness are chiefly based on the issues and the inquiries such as, ( 1 ) how reliable is reliable? ( 2 ) Can error be considered as reliable? ( 3 ) Can graded reader principal provide reliable input? ( 4 ) How reliable is the simplified text? ( 5 )
Melinda Tan: Authentic linguistic communication or linguistic communication mistakes? Lessons from a scholar principal
The genuineness statements that Hunston has made are the chief issues of the 5 diaries that I have read. The first article by Melinda Tan titled “ Authentic linguistic communication or linguistic communication mistakes? Lessons from a scholar principal ” re-examines the common impression of ‘authentic ‘ linguistic communication usage by representing them in utilizing illustrations of Thai English. Tan in her article portions her position with Leech ( 1997 ) about the usage of scholar principals research to supply valuable beginning information for SLA pupils. Harmonizing to Tan ( 2005 ) the claim that scholar informations which made up of ‘overuses ‘ , ‘underuses ‘ or ‘misuses ‘ of the mark linguistic communication, has given misguided feeling among instructors and research workers that learner linguistic communication is so flawed or ever being interpreted in the sense that it is unnatural and does non exhibit native like linguistic communication behavior. She found that the above ‘authenticity ‘ standards are really much based on imperialistic premises about the ownership of English alternatively of the present function of English as a tongue franca.
Tan ( 2005 ) besides suggests that non-native talkers would hold troubles in placing which type of uses are the reliable versions. She exemplifies this in the sample taken from the Bank of English Corpus. The phrase is ‘brownie point ‘ . She reveals that in the Collins Cobuild Dictionary, the phrase is used in both and remarkable signifier. Harmonizing to Tan ( 2005 ) this double use makes EFL pupils might happen troubles in following out the most reliable usage of the phrase. However, from the bank of English Corpus, it is found that plural signifier is the most used. Sing on the fact that the most frequent is the most reliable ( as what Hunston ( 2002 ) claims, if illustrations are taken from the principal itself, genuineness is guaranteed ) , hence the plural signifier should be considered as the reliable usage.
Tan ‘s Methodology
In explicating genuineness should be viewed in English as a tongue franca, Tan ( 2005 ) has revealed that linguistic communication mistakes made by non-native talkers ( in this instance Thai EFL pupils ) of English linguistic communication should be considered as ‘authentic ‘ usage as good. This is because certain parts of the address of English linguistic communication are non existed in Thai contexts. Some of them have been fossilized ( due to L1 intervention ) and hence they seem culturally original in context. This instance has been analysed via Thai English Language Corpus ( TELC ) . Tan strongly believes the relationship between linguistic communication behavior and one ‘s ain civilization. This can be seen when she quoted Morgan ( 1998 ) stating this relationship as an analogy – linguistic communication is put at the tip of iceberg and the internal civilization of the user is at the base of the iceberg. Tan ( 2005 ) has besides shown how civilization difference usage of words exists between English and Thai context. This is done by mentioning to online BNC and BoE principal for the English context of the word ‘joyful ‘ . She found that ‘joyful ‘ in English native talker is used to associate to an emotion ensuing from ‘something that causes great felicity ‘ on the other manus Thai English defines ‘joyful ‘ as ‘feeling happy ‘ or ‘refreshed ‘ which besides related to Buddhist value of simpleness and self-generated heat.
Tan ‘s Decision
From that happening Tan ( 2005 ) suggests that the manner in which we use principals should be re-examined in the visible radiation of the basic significance of the word ‘authentic ‘ . Therefore, ‘authentic linguistic communication should mention to genuine linguistic communication usage and has the capacity to show the societal and cultural facets of a non-native English speech production society. In add-on, if larning a linguistic communication involves larning some facets of the civilization of that foreign linguistic communication, it should besides be embedded with scholars ‘ ain cultural facets.
Christoph Ruhlemann: A Register Approach to Teaching Conversation: Farewell to Standard English?
The 2nd diary that touches on ‘authenticity ‘ issue is by Christoph Ruhlemann, titled ‘A Register Approach to Teaching Conversation: Farewell to Standard English? ‘ . The treatments that he has gone through are based on three purposes. The first 1 is about some ignored colloquial characteristics in relation to Standard English ( SE ) , reasoning that the contrast between the grammars of conversation and SE is so blunt that the impression of SE is debatable in speaking of the spoken linguistic communication. He besides see what the contrast implies for EFL instruction, reasoning that for reliable conversation to be taught efficaciously ; it is necessary to cut down the function of SE to a ‘core assortment ‘ that has its topographic point in learning composing while colloquial grammar might function as the underlying theoretical account in learning address. Last, he argues that redefinition of SE would best be implemented in a ‘register attack ‘ which shift the accent from a massive position of linguistic communication to a register-sensitive position therefore acknowledge the cardinal functional diverseness of linguistic communication usage.
Register is the cardinal word in Ruhlemann ‘s article. This is because he suggests that redefinition of SE should be implemented in what so called ‘register attack ‘ . In specifying registry, Ruhlemann ( 2008 ) states that registries are societal ( Crystal 2003: 290ff ) or functional assortments ( Halliday 2004: 27 ) such as athleticss commentaries, legal discourse, academic discourse and conversation. Registers are different from idioms or regional assortments ( e.g: Indian English or British English ) . Harmonizing to Ruhlemann ( 2008 ) since registry is societal in nature, it is besides a ‘variety harmonizing to usage ‘ ( Halliday 1978: 35 ) .
The contrast of registry is the Standard English ( SE ) . This is besides an of import keyword in Ruhlemann ‘s treatment. He has listed out 5 indispensable features of SE. The first 1 is SE is ‘a minority assortment ‘ because it is non widely produced. Second, even though SE is non widely produced, it is widely understood. Third, SE is found on top of societal graduated table since those who use them come from the top societal hierarchy. Fourth, due to that prestigiousness perceptual experience, SE is equated to ‘educated English ‘ ( e.g Quirk et Al. 1985: 18 ) and therefore represents ‘a desirable educational mark ‘ . Finally, SE has been the major theoretical account in EFL for both authorship and address due to its esteemed image.
Ruhlemann ‘s Methodology
From the analyses of big principals Ruhlemann ( 2008 ) besides illustrates that typical characteristics of conversation are mostly different with SE and we can take this consequences for granted to exemplify that conversation is basically distinguished from SE in order to establish the subsequent treatment of deductions fro EFL learning on land that is shared with the reader. Due to that Ruhlemann ( 2008 ) has looked into few colloquial such as the usage of ‘I say ‘ and ‘I says ‘ every bit good as the usage of aphetic signifier like ‘yeah ‘ and ‘cos ‘ . The illustrations are taken from the demographically-sampled subcorpus of the British National Corpus ( BNC ) .
The issues originating in the survey are a cardinal requirement to learning reliable conversation in the EFL schoolroom is a alteration in attitude toward conversation, instructors ‘ attitudes, instructors ‘ attempt to familiarise scholars with existent conversation face the job of how to exemplify some registries and how existent conversation should be taught. To exemplify reliable conversation and its grammar in the schoolroom, Ruhlemann ( 2008 ) suggests us to utilize principal.
Ruhlemann ‘s Decision
From the drawn-out treatment Ruhlemann ( 2008 ) concludes that reliable address, peculiarly in its most common signifier, conversation, diverges from SE to such an extent that utilizing SE as the underlying theoretical account assortment should be replaced by colloquial grammar. Due to that impulse, he suggested that such register attack should be implemented that is in the wider context of switching the accent from a massive position of English to a register-sensitive position of English. It is besides of import to be stressed that learning reliable conversation is more contributing to the scholars ‘ chief end of come closing to the linguistic communication as realized by its users.
Rachel Allan: Can a Graded Reader Corpus Provide ‘authentic ‘ Input?
The 3rd article is from Rachel Allan titled “ Can a Graded Reader Corpus Provide ‘authentic ‘ input? ” The rubric itself illustrates the effect of the article. In presenting his survey Allan ( 2008 ) says that graded readers are a utile manner of actuating scholars to read extensively through the handiness they provide by restricting the Numberss of caput words. This handiness besides makes them a valuable resource when made into a principal, a database of texts, for scholars non yet able to pull strings an reliable principal. A ranked principal gives such scholars the chance to analyze and research linguistic communication in a new ways, such as through data-driven acquisition ( DDL ) .
Allan ( 2008 ) defines that Data-Driven Learning ( DDL ) refers to the usage of a principal texts with concordancing package in which to happen replies to linguistics inquiries. She describes that DDL is non a communicative attack. However, it is in harmoniousness with many of the other current subjects in linguistic communication instruction teaching method, being learner-centred, utilizing reliable linguistic communication input every bit good as promoting scholars to gain linguistics characteristics.
Allan ‘s Methodology
In this survey Allan ( 2008 ) has used British National Corpus ( BNC ) to analyze balls of ranked principal. She has used Penguin graded reader texts level 4 ( B1 ) and level 5 ( B2 ) . The analysis is to see whether they were comparable with an reliable principal. She used two and three word bunchs happening in the ranked principal chiefly consisted of preposition + article, capable + verb + complement, noun phrase + of. These showed dealingss of clip and topographic point, other prepositional dealingss, interpersonal maps and associating maps therefore they might match to reliable principal.
From the survey of the two texts, Allan ( 2008 ) found that balls from B2 occurs at frequence of 10 per million while in B1 it shows that B1 principal has more limited scope and reflects strong collocations in mundane use. However, there is less grounds of idiomatic linguistic communication. From the illustrations provided in the articles, Allan ( 2008 ) says that although some balls in common use may be screened out in the scaling procedure and due to text genre ; happenings of balls in B2 graded principal may reflect reliable linguistic communication usage rather closely. In B1 the size and scaling do impact entree to normally used balls. For the instructor who is looking for a manner into DDL with lower-level scholars Allan ( 2008 ) suggests that graded principal may offer sensible balance of handiness and genuineness in the informations it provides.
Allan ‘s Decision
Allan ( 2008 ) concludes that from his little graduated table survey statement for utilizing ranked principal in DDL is provided. The information of smaller principal may non be reliable but it does incorporate reliable characteristics. Learners are likely to be overwhelmed by the informations and more likely to be able to understand it and pull decisions from it. Learning can be staged in a manner that it can non be through an reliable principal with scholars introduced to a limited figure of senses and utilizations of a peculiar word or phrase, merely as they would be through degrees of scholar dictionary or text edition ; traveling through degrees of scholar principals would let them to intensify cognition bit by bit.
Allan ( 2008 ) reveals that the restrictions of the principal restrict the scholars ‘ exposure to some frequent balls. This appears to be bound with text type in the ranked principal and the predomination of fiction. It is hard possibly impossible to happen ranked texts which reflect the scope included within an reliable principal.
Gillian Claridge: Simplication in Graded Readers: Measuring the Authenticity of Graded Text
The 4th journal article is by Gillian Claridge titled “ Simplication in Graded Readers: Measuring the Authenticity of Graded Text ” . In the introductory paragraph, Claridge ( 2005 ) quotes Honeyfield ( 1977 ) to stress on the being of random distribution of high and low frequence words, unexpected brushs with assorted low frequence words, and fluctuations in sentence lengths and collocation in the most normal or unsimplified text. Swaffar ( 1985 ) is quoted to stress about the less genuineness gained by any simplified text and to demo features of reliable texts such as auctorial cues, repeat, redundancy and discourse markers. From the two positions, Gillian ( 2005 ) reveals the purpose of the survey which to compare simplified and original texts by utilizing Honeyfield ‘s standard of fluctuation in word frequence distribution every bit good as to do comparing in audience-specific term by utilizing Swaffar ‘s features of reliable messages.
Claridge ‘s Methodology
The survey is based on two original texts and the ranked reader simplified versions of each. They were Allan Poe ‘s The Gold Bug ( POE ) and Arthur Conan Doyle ‘s The Adventure of The Speckled Bandn ( SB ) . The original texts were labelled as SB Original and simplified version as SB GR. A computing machine programme called RANGE was used to find the distribution of frequence of words at given degree of English, all the words in a text were categorised harmonizing to frequence.
In the survey, it is found that for the POE text the word count is about the same in the original and the simplification but hard words have been paraphrased. The simplified version does non pass on the same significance as the original version. Therefore, Claridge ( 2005 ) agrees with Honeyfield ( 1977 ) that it is non a good simplification of the original. However, she disagrees with his opinion that it is level and homogeneous because set against his ain standard of word frequence distribution. For Swaffar ‘s other features of reliable messages, the text passes every trial.
For SB text Claridge ( 2005 ) found that the original text is surely more elaborate than in simplified version. Some phrases are combined into two sentences but despite the decrease in item the chief points are clearly conveyed even with a certain sum of redundancy, a grade of reliable message and the ambiance of certain event is conveyed by the usage of direct address.
Claridge ‘s Decision
Claridge ( 2005 ) concludes that the word frequence distribution is about every bit varied at that degree as that in the original. The saving of the indispensable characteristics of a ‘normal ‘ English text in the simplification has been shown in the countries of linguistic communication content. It seems just to reason that well-written graded readers can offer an reliable reading experience for scholars which will assist fix them for reading unsimplified texts.
Dee Gardner: “ Vocabulary Recycling in Childrens ‘s Authentic Reading Materials: A corpus-based Probe of narrow reading
The last diary is by Dee Gardner titled “ Vocabulary Recycling in Childrens ‘s Authentic Reading Materials: A corpus-based Probe of narrow reading. In this article, Gardner ( 2008 ) investigates the claim that aggregations of reliable texts with a common subject or written by one writer, afford readers with more perennial exposures to new words than unrelated stuffs.
In his survey Gardner ( 2008 ) clarifies his focal point on reliable reading stuffs for they are reasonably unpredictable in footings of linguistic communication demands they place on readers every bit good as the language-learning they afford. It is besides non same with reliable unwritten communicating which frequently simplified in order to accomplish the conditions of comprehendible input because reliable written linguistic communication is made lasting in print therefore writer is removed from the readers in footings of both clip and infinite. Gardner ( 2008 ) besides clarifies his focal point on specialized vocabulary since the high-frequency words and high-frequency content words can be found in reliable kids ‘s texts. From Gardner ‘s literature reappraisal of old surveies of vocabulary recycling in narrow-reading stuffs, we can see that the of import points for intents of current survey is that the theme-related text were tightly related to each other whereas the unrelated narratives had no connexions beyond the fact that they belonged to the newspaper in general.
Gardner ‘s Methodology
Gardner ( 2008 ) uses kids thematic principal to organize aggregation of texts in three subjects. They are tight science-based subject, semi tight history-based subjects and loose science-based subjects. The probe includes a sum of 48 texts in order to set up the four aggregations in each of the three subjects. The stuffs have been categorised into two types. The first one consists of control aggregations and has been viewed as illustrations of broad reading while the other type are thematic aggregations which are labelled as narrow reading. The probe involves 3 preliminary processs. They are scanning, equalization of word count and designation of specialized vocabulary. After the specialized words were identified, 3 steps of vocabulary recycling were selected for comparing intents. They are entire figure of specialized types, entire figure of specialized items and entire figure of specialized types that repetition at least six times.
Gardner ‘s Decision
In decision Gardner ( 2008 ) states that narrow reading has some concrete advantages in footings of specialized vocabulary recycling but that such advantages may be much more complex than antecedently indicated. For one, the impact of writing on specialized vocabulary recycling may non be reciprocally supportive concepts, looking alternatively to be to a great extent register-sensitive. That is, subjects work best for expositive aggregations and individual writing works best for narrative aggregations.
My point of position
The inquiries and issues arise from the cardinal word ‘authenticity ‘ has really much supply us some point of positions in corpus-based English linguistic communication learning teaching method. One of it is the relationship between civilization and vocabulary instruction. Taking Tan ( 2005 ) as illustration, she suggests that in the instruction of vocabulary, instructors of EFL or ESL categories should see English as lingua franca in order to associate it with local civilization. In my sentiment if this to be implemented, each civilization should hold ain principal aggregation which based on the local context. In Malayan context it could be implemented, nevertheless I believe that to larn any linguistic communication means larning the linguistic communication and the civilization side by side. That would be the best manner to get the hang the linguistic communication in its original context.
The other issue is about the choice of reliable stuffs. Allan ( 2008 ) has discussed the usage of Data-Driven Learning ( DDL ) in analyzing the principal of a type of stuff called Graded Reader whether it supply reliable input. Harmonizing to Johns ( 1994 ) and Hadley ( 1997 ) ( as cited in Meyer, 2002 ) DDL method has pupils look into a principal of native-speaker address or composing with a concordancing programme to give them existent illustrations of linguistic communication use instead than the contrived illustrations frequently found in grammar books. Allan ‘s trial on genuineness of the stuffs gives us some kind of counsel in choosing suited stuffs for the pupils. I do believe genuineness of the text selected can assist the ESL pupils to larn the linguistic communication in its ain environment and civilization every bit good as they can see how the linguistic communication is used in its native context.
Claridge ( 2005 ) besides has touched on the importance of genuineness of stuffs used in the schoolroom. In her survey, she measured the genuineness in simplified text by comparing it with the original version. Her concern was to cognize whether the simplified version expressed the same significance like the original version. In my sentiment this survey gives kind of counsel to ESL instructors to be careful and selective in the procedure of stuff choice. This is because non all simplified version convey the same significance as the original reading stuffs. Therefore corpus programme does play its function here to assist instructors in the choice procedure.
On the other manus Gardner ( 2008 ) investigated the genuineness of reading stuffs by looking at the vocabulary recycling in thematic reading stuffs. He suggests that thematic reading stuffs used provide more perennial vocabulary exposure. This is another attack that I interested in. I feel that it can be implemented in choosing text for literature constituent for Malaysia ‘s English linguistic communication schoolroom. Alternatively of holding the chief purpose of exposing pupils to the linguistic communication for aesthetic intents, pupils can derive broad scope of vocabulary as what this survey found.
Apart from the old issues there is an impulse from Ruhlemann ( 2008 ) to redefine the term of Standard English ( SE ) which is ever seen as the reliable beginning of principal survey. He suggests utilizing register attack in principal survey because it is societal in nature. I do agree with Ruhlemann because ESL pupils should be exposed to many societal context use of English linguistic communication. It would be utile to ESL pupils in larning communicating.
Finally in decision I do agree with Meyer ‘s ( 2002 ) statement that principal can assist ESL instructors in many ways, runing from the theoretical to the practical, doing them valuable resources for descriptive, theoretical and applied treatments of linguistic communication. Since principal linguistics is a methodological analysis, many people in lingual field could utilize principals in their surveies of linguistic communication. From my reading I found that principals have proven to be valuable resources: they are used for production of lexicons, analyzing linguistic communication alteration and fluctuation, understanding the procedure of linguistic communication acquisition and bettering foreign and second-language direction. Therefore, ESL instructors should pretermit incorporating principals in the linguistic communication teaching method.