International Journal of Corpus Linguistics - Volume 14, Issue 3, 2009

The present study utilizes a corpus-driven approach to identify the most common multi-word patterns in conversation and academic writing, and to investigate the differing pattern types in the two registers. The paper first surveys the methodological characteristics of corpus-driven research and then contrasts the linguistic characteristics of two types of multi-word sequences: ‘multi-word lexical collocations’ (combinations of content words) versus ‘multi-word formulaic sequences’ (incorporating both function words and content words).
 Building on this background, the primary focus of the paper is an empirical investigation of the ‘patterns’ represented by multi-word formulaic sequences. It turns out that the multi-word patterns typical of speech are fundamentally different from those typical of academic writing: patterns in conversation tend to be fixed sequences (including both function words and content words). In contrast, most patterns in academic writing are formulaic frames consisting of invariable function words with an intervening variable slot that is filled by content words.

This paper describes the BE06 Corpus, a one million word reference corpus of general written British English that was designed to be comparable to the Brown family of corpora. After providing a description of the Brown sampling frame, and giving the rationale for building a new corpus, the process of building the BE06 is elaborated upon, with reference to collecting previously published texts from internet sources, defining “British” authors and enabling accessibility of the corpus. Three studies of lexical frequency using BE06 and comparable corpora (LOB, FLOB and BLOB) are then carried out. These involve a comparison of the 20 most frequent lexical items, an examination of pronoun usage, and an investigation of keywords derived from comparing the 1991 FLOB corpus with the BE06. The paper ends with a critical evaluation of the worth of using the same sampling frame for linguistic studies of diachronic variation.

This paper deals with the semantics of two discourse markers, viz. French en fait (“in fact”) and Dutch eigenlijk (“actually”), commonly associated with the expression of “opposition” and “reformulation”. A special focus lies on methodological issues in the description of such markers, since their non-propositional meanings seem to require what is called a ‘combined corpus approach’, including written and spoken comparable data as well as translation corpora. It is argued that eigenlijk and en fait are best described as adversatives, at the intersection of “opposition” and “reformulation” which constitute their basic meanings, and from which other meanings such as “causality”, “counterexpectation”, “enhancement” and “attenuation” can be inferred. Evidence from all sets of corpora moreover suggests that it is the semantic underspecification of en fait and (especially) eigenlijk which ultimately accounts for their high level of polysemy.

While the study of idiolect is a neglected area in corpus linguistics, the present article suggests that it can be fruitful. As a tool for studying an idiolect, the three-million-word Tony Blair Corpus is introduced. The maximiser collocations occurring in this corpus are compared to those in the BNC in order to identify those which are truly typical of the individual. A quantitative analysis involving three measures of collocational strength (normalised frequency, Mutual Information and log-likelihood) provide candidate collocations which strongly diverge in the two corpora. These are then subjected to tests of synonym preference and register specificity, resulting in a small number of collocations which can count as Blairisms.

This article reviews and discusses four somewhat contentious issues in the application of corpus linguistics to pedagogy, ESP in particular. Corpus linguistic techniques have been criticized on the grounds that they encourage a more bottom-up rather than top-down processing of text in which concordance lines are examined atomistically. One criticism levelled against corpus data is that a corpus presents language out of its original context. For this reason, some corpus linguists have underscored the importance of ‘pedagogic mediation’ to contextualize the data for the students’ own writing environment. Concerns relating to the inductive approach associated with corpus-based pedagogy have also been raised as this approach may not always be the most appropriate one. A final consideration relates to the issue of whether a corpus is always the most appropriate resource to use among the wealth of other resources available.