1887
image of Exploring register with The Prime Machine
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Corpus approaches underpin a range of postgraduate studies and professional work in language, linguistics, translation and beyond. Awareness of the influences of contextual features on language choice is important for many activities: exploring new text varieties; finding relationships between social factors and language patterning; considering choices for post-editing machine translation; and understanding the very nature of language. Work on register relies on corpus methods, but more support and direction could be offered to help undergraduates gain earlier insights into the power of such corpus analysis. This paper introduces some ways register differences can be revealed through corpus tool ( ) and describes the design of a practically-oriented undergraduate module which uses this concordancer. Software features include the organization of texts and presentation of source information for readymade corpora, and methods which can be used to reveal useful starting points for register analysis of do-it-yourself corpora.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20015.jea
2021-10-14
2021-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthony, L.
    (2019a) AntConc (Version 3.5.8). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved fromhttps://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
  2. (2019b) EncodeAnt (Version 1.2.1). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved fromhttps://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/encodeant/
  3. Berber Sardinha, T.
    (2017) Lexical Priming and Register Variation. InM. Pace-Sigge & K. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lexical Priming: Applications and Advances (pp.189–229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.79.08ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.79.08ber [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernardini, S.
    (2004) Corpora in the classroom: An overview and some reflections on future developments. InJ. M. Sinclair (Ed.), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching (pp.15–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.12.05ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.12.05ber [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D.
    (1991) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2012) Register as a Predictor of Linguistic Variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. doi:  10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. M.
    (2009) Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  8. BNC Consortium
    BNC Consortium (2007) The British National Corpus (Version 3BNC XML ed.): Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
  9. Boulton, A., & Cobb, T.
    (2017) Corpus Use in Language Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 67(2), 348–393. 10.1111/lang.12224
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12224 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Wattam, S.
    (2015) Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139–173. 10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre [Google Scholar]
  11. Charles, M.
    (2012) ‘Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus-building. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 93–102. doi:  10.1016/j.esp.2011.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheng, W., Warren, M., & Xu, X.-F.
    (2003) The language learner as language researcher: putting corpus linguistics on the timetable. System, 31(2), 173–186. doi:  10.1016/S0346‑251X(03)00019‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00019-8 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cobb, T.
    (2000, 2020) The Compleat Lexical Tutor (Version 8.3), fromwww.lextutor.ca
  14. Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register in English for Academic Purposes and English for Specific Purposes. Register Studies, 1(1), 168–198. 10.1075/rs.18008.con
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18008.con [Google Scholar]
  15. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. 10.2307/3587951
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  16. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 600 million words, 1990-present. Retrieved25 February, 2020, fromhttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
  17. (2009) The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190. 10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferguson, C.
    (1983) Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in Society, 12(2), 153–172. 10.1017/S0047404500009787
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009787 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fligelstone, S.
    (1993) Some reflections on the question of teaching, from a corpus linguistics perspective. ICAME, 17, 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Flowerdew, L.
    (2015) Data-driven learning and language learning theories: Whither the twain shall meet. InA. Leńko-Szymańska & A. Boulton (Eds.), Multiple Affordances of Language Corpora for Data-driven Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.69.02flo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.69.02flo [Google Scholar]
  21. Hardie, A.
    (2012) CQPweb: Combining Power, Flexibility and Usability in a Corpus Analysis Tool. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 380–409. 10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoey, M.
    (2005) Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jeaco, S.
    (2017a) Concordancing Lexical Primings: The rationale and design of a user-friendly corpus tool for English language teaching and self-tutoring based on the Lexical Priming theory of language. InM. Pace-Sigge & K. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lexical Priming: Applications and Advances (pp.273–296). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.79.11jea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.79.11jea [Google Scholar]
  24. (2017b) Helping Language Learners Put Concordance Data in Context: Concordance Cards in The Prime Machine. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 22–39. 10.4018/IJCALLT.2017040102
    https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2017040102 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2020a) Calculating and Displaying Key Labels: The texts, sections, authors and neighbourhoods where words and collocations are likely to be prominent. Corpora, 15(2). 10.3366/cor.2020.0193
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2020.0193 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2020b) DIY needs analysis and specific text types: Using The Prime Machine to explore vocabulary in readymade and homemade English corpora. InM. Dodigovic & M. P. Agustín-Llach (Eds.), Vocabulary in Curriculum Planning: Needs, Strategies and Tools: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑48663‑1_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48663-1_11 [Google Scholar]
  27. Johns, T.
    (1991) Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. InT. Johns & P. King (Eds.), Classroom Concordancing (Vol.4, pp.1–13). Birmingham: Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D.
    (2004) The Sketch Engine. Paper presented at the2003 International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, Beijing.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kreyer, R.
    (2008) Corpora in the classroom and beyond. InB. Barber & F. Zhang (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Computer-Enhanced Language Acquisition and Learning (pp.422–437). 10.4018/978‑1‑59904‑895‑6.ch024
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-895-6.ch024 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee, D. Y. W.
    (2001) Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 37–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mair, C.
    (2002) Empowering non-native speakers: the hidden surplus value of corpora in Continental English departments. InB. Kettemann, G. Marko & T. McEnery (Eds.), Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis (pp.119–130). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Nini, A.
    (2019) The Multi-Dimensional Analysis Tagger. InT. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues (pp.67–94). London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781350023857.0012
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0012 [Google Scholar]
  33. Scott, M.
    (2008) Developing WordSmith. International Journal of English Studies, 8(1), 95–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2020) WordSmith Tools (Version 8). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20015.jea
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20015.jea
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: undergraduate corpus projects ; register analysis ; corpus tools ; data driven learning
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