1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pedagogical Linguistics
  4. Volume 1, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

(EFL) materials have often been criticized for a lack of authenticity. However, their direct impact on learner language has rarely been assessed. We compare pedagogical input from EFL and (CLIL) materials to texts produced by learners taught via the textbooks in question. The analysis of corpus data showed that EFL textbooks did not systematically differ from CLIL materials in terms of conditional frequency and verb forms combinations. No significant difference was detected for CLIL and non-CLIL learner texts either. Both groups did, however, deviate from novice native writing in that conditionals expressing low hypotheticality were overrepresented while conditionals expressing a higher level of hypotheticality were underrepresented and frequently erroneous. Misrepresentations revealed for EFL textbooks in previous research were found to match the deviations in learner language in a way that aids L2 development rather than impairing it. Hence, fundamental changes are not required, even though more studies should be undertaken to investigate the direct impact of teaching materials on learner output.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pl.00001.mol
2020-02-28
2025-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pl.00001.mol
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Comrie, B.
    (1986) Conditionals: A typology. InE. Closs Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp.77–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753466.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Gabrielatos, C.
    (2003) Conditional sentences: ELT typology and corpus evidence. Paper presented at the36th Annual BAAL Meeting, University of Leeds/UK, 4–6 September 2003. eprints.lancs.ac.uk/140, last accessed22 September 2019
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (2006) Corpus-based evaluation of pedagogical materials: If-conditionals in ELT coursebooks and the BNC. Paper presented at the7th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference, Université Paris 7 Denis Diderot, 1–4 July 2006. eprints.lancs.ac.uk/882, last accessed22 September 2019
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (2007) If-conditionals as modal colligations: A corpus-based investigation. InM. Davies, P. Rayson, S. Hunston, & P. Danielsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference: CL 2007. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/256_Paper.pdf, last accessed5 May 2019
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2013) If-conditionals in ICLE and the BNC: A success story for teaching or learning?InS. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp.155–166). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Granger, S.
    (2015a) The contribution of learner corpora to reference and instructional materials design. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp.485–510). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139649414.022
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.022 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2015b) Contrastive interlanguage analysis. A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra [Google Scholar]
  9. Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M.
    (2009) The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Hasselgård, H.
    (2010) Adjunct adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511676253
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676253 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2016) Conditional clauses in novice academic English: A comparison of Norwegian learners and native speakers. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(2), 95–112. 10.35360/njes.364
     https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.364 [Google Scholar]
  12. Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2010) The CLIL differential. Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. InC. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp.169–189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.7.09jex
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.09jex [Google Scholar]
  13. Klieme, E., Eichler, W., Helmke, A., Lehmann, R. H., Nold, G., Rolff, H.-G., Schröder, K., Thomé, G., & Willenberg, H.
    (2006) Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Zentrale Befunde der Studie Deutsch Englisch Schülerleistungen International (DESI). https://www.dipf.de/de/forschung/aktuelle-projekte/pdf/biqua/desi-zentrale-befunde, last accessed22 August 2019
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Maden-Weinberger, U.
    (2009) Modality in learner German – A corpus-based study investigating expressions of modality in argumentative texts written by British learners of German. Lancaster: Lancaster University, PhD thesis.
  15. McEnery, T., Love, R., & Brezina, V.
    (2017) Compiling and analysing the Spoken British National Corpus 2014. Special Issue ofInternational Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3). 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.01mce
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.01mce [Google Scholar]
  16. Meunier, F., & Reppen, R.
    (2015) Corpus versus non-corpus-informed pedagogical materials: Grammar as the focus. InD. Biber, & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp.498–514). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.028
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.028 [Google Scholar]
  17. MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus und Sport Baden-Württemberg)
    MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus und Sport Baden-Württemberg) (1994) Bildungsplan für das Gymnasium. Villingen-Schwenningen: Neckar-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg)
    MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg) (2004) Bildungsplan 2004. Allgemein bildendes Gymnasium. Ditzingen: Philipp Reclam Jun.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Möller, V.
    (2017) Language acquisition in CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Learner corpus and experimental evidence on passive constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.80
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.80 [Google Scholar]
  20. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Römer, U.
    (2004) Comparing real and ideal language learner input: The use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. InG. Aston, S. Bernadini, & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora and language learners (pp.151–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.17.12rom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.17.12rom [Google Scholar]
  22. (2005) Progressives, patterns, pedagogy. A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.18 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2007) Learner language and the norms in native corpora and EFL teaching materials: A case study of English conditionals. InS. Volk-Birke, & J. Lippert (Eds.), Anglistentag 2006 in Halle. Proceedings (pp.355–364). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Schwarz, H.
    (1998) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 2: 6. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (1999a) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 3: 7. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. (1999b) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 4: 8. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2001) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 5: 9. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2002) English G 2000. Ausgabe A. Band 6: 10. Schuljahr. Berlin: Cornelsen.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Svartvik, J.
    (1966) On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Zydatiß, W.
    (2009) Die Gerechtigkeitsfalle bilingualer Bildungsgänge. InD. Caspari, W. Hallet, A. Wegner, & W. Zydatiß (Eds.), Bilingualer Unterricht macht Schule. Beiträge aus der Praxisforschung (pp.161–173). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.00001.mol
Loading
From pedagogical input to learner output
Pedagogical Linguistics 1, 95 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.00001.mol
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.00001.mol
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.00001.mol
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conditional sentences; content and language integrated learning; foreign language teaching; learner writing; teaching materials

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error