Cover not available
Part of
Learner Corpora and Language Teaching
Edited by Sandra Götz and Joybrato Mukherjee
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 92] 2019
► pp. 7–28

The Trinity Lancaster Corpus

Applications in language teaching and materials development

| Lancaster University
| Lancaster University
| Lancaster University
Corpora and corpus techniques have long been an important source of knowledge about language; they have also been increasingly used for language teaching purposes. This chapter discusses the role of spoken learner corpora in language pedagogy and in development of language teaching materials. In particular, it focuses on the Trinity Lancaster Corpus (TLC) and its pedagogical applications. With over four million words, the TLC is one of the largest corpora of L2 spoken English, representing language from L2 English speakers engaged in different speaking tasks. The chapter uses data from the TLC to illustrate the use of corpus findings in teaching pragmatics in spoken language use, focusing on three case studies: expression of disagreement, ability to adjust language choice according to linguistic setting, and engaged listenership.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Description of the resource
    • 2.1Corpus overview
      • 2.1.1The nature of interaction: Linguistic setting and the speaking tasks
      • 2.1.2Linguistic and cultural background
      • 2.1.3Proficiency in spoken English
      • 2.1.4Sociolinguistic characteristics: Age, gender and education
      • 2.1.5Learning experience: Age of acquisition, learning history and patterns of use
    • 2.2Accessing and searching the TLC
  • 3.Issues in the corpus analysis of learner language
    • 3.1Transcription: Capturing spoken learner language
    • 3.2Comparison of (sub)corpora
  • 4.Applications of spoken learner corpora in language teaching
    • 4.1The use of spoken corpora in language teaching
    • 4.2Using learner corpora in language teaching
  • 5.Using the TLC for pedagogical purposes
    • 5.1Comparison across proficiency levels: Expression of disagreement
      • Corpus findings
      • Pedagogical implications
    • 5.2Comparison across tasks: Ability to adjust linguistic choice according to situation
      • Corpus findings
      • Pedagogical implications
    • 5.3Comparison between less and more successful learners: Active and engaged listenership
      • Corpus findings
      • Pedagogical implications
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.92.02gab
References (55)
References
Adolphs, Svenja & Knight, Dawn. 2010. Building a spoken corpus. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Anne O’Keefe & Michael McCarthy (eds), 38–52. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Mossman, Sabrina, & Vellenga, Heidi E. 2014. Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal 6(3): 499–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Gena R. 2010. Using Corpora in the Language Learning Classroom: Corpus Linguistics for Teachers. Ann Arbor IN: University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callies, Marcus. 2015. Using learner corpora in language testing and assessment: Current practice and future challenges. In Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics: Research and Applications for Foreign Language Teaching and Assessment, Erik K. Castello, Katherine Ackerley & Francesca Coccetta (eds), 21–35. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Carlsen, Cecilie. 2012. Proficiency level – A fuzzy variable in computer learner corpora. Applied Linguistics 33(2): 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald, & McCarthy, Michael. 2017. Spoken grammar: Where are we and where are we going? Applied Linguistics 38(1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Angela. 2015. The learner corpus as a pedagogic corpus. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds), 445–464. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. 2011. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe. <[URL]> (28 May 2018).
Cullen, Richard & Kuo, I-Chun. 2007. Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: a missing link? TESOL Quarterly 41(2): 361–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2004. The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in French as a foreign language: An overview. Journal of French Language Studies 14(3): 301–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1991. Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 1(1): 71–106.Google Scholar
Farr, Fiona. 2003. Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: the case of student-tutor meetings. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(1): 67–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, Robert, Götz, Sandra & Werner, Valentin. 2016. The present perfect in learner Englishes: A corpus-based case study on L1 German intermediate and advanced speech and writing. In Re-Assessing the Present Perfect, Valentin Werner, Elena Seoane & Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds), 297–338. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, Dana. 2014. Areas of difference between more and less successful candidates in GESE at Grades 7 and 8. Commissioned report. Trinity College London.Google Scholar
Gablasova, Dana & Brezina, Vaclav. 2015. Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015, Jesús Romero-Trillo (ed.), 117–136. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Disagreement in L2 spoken English: From learner corpus research to corpus-based teaching materials. In Learner Corpus Research: New Perspectives and Applications, Vaclav Brezina & Lynne Flowerdew (eds), 69–89. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Gablasova, Dana, Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony. 2017. Exploring learner language through corpora: Comparing and interpreting corpus frequency information. Language Learning 67(S1): 155–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, Dana, Brezina, Vaclav, McEnery, Tony, & Boyd, Elaine. 2017. Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics 38(1): 613–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, Dana, Brezina, Vaclav, & McEnery, Tony. In preparation. The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Development, description and application.
Gilmore, Alex. 2004. A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal 58(4): 363–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Paquot, Magali. 2008. Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction 1(1): 41–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, De Cock, Sylvie, & Granger, Sylviane. 2010. The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 2004. Computer learner corpus research: Current state and future prospects. In Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multidimensional Perspective, Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton (eds), 123–145. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1): 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Noriko & Cohen, Andrew D. 2014. Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, Scott & Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008. Cross-linguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Christian, Byrne, Shelly & Halenko, Nicola. 2017. Successful Spoken English: Findings from Learner Corpora. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther & Mehlmauer-Larcher, Barbara. 2005. Computer corpora and the language classroom: On the potential limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL 16(1): 65–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele & Rose, Kenneth R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Baisa, Vít, Bušta, Jan, Jakubíček, Miloš, Kovář, Vojtěch, Michelfeit, Jan, Rychlý, Pavel & Suchomel, Vít. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1(1): 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2000. Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented research. Language Learning 50(4): 675–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Limberg, Holger. 2016. Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research 20(6): 700–718. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael & O’Keeffe, Anne. 2004. Research in the teaching of speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 26–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Hardie, Andrew. 2011. Corpus linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Xiao, Richard. 2011. What corpora can offer in language teaching and learning. In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Eli Hinkel (ed.), 364–380. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2006. Corpus linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art – and beyond. English Corpus Linguistics 3: 5–24.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2004. Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. In How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 12], John Sinclair (ed.), 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne, McCarthy, Michael & Carter, Ronald. 2007. From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona & Pochon-Berger, Evelyne. 2011. Developing “methods” for interaction: a cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In L2 Interactional Competence and Development, Joan Kelly Hall, John Hellermann & Simona Pekarek Doehler (eds), 206–243. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. In Structures of Social Action, J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Reppen, Randi. 2010. Using Corpora in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Roever, Carsten. 2010. Effects of cultural background in a test of ESL pragmalinguistics: A DIF approach. In Pragmatics Language Learning, Gabriele Kasper, Hanh T. Nguyen, Dina R. Yoshimi & Jim K. Yoshioka (eds), 187–212. Honolulu HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Römer, Ute. 2010. Using general and specialized corpora in English language teaching: Past, present and future. In Corpus-Based Approaches to English Language Teaching, Maria C. Campoy, Begoña Belles-Fortuno & Maria Lluisa (eds), 18–35. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Rose, Kenneth R. 2005. On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33(3): 385–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko. 2011. Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 289–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thonus, Terese. 2007. Listener responses as a pragmatic resource for learners of English. The CATESOL Journal 19(1): 132–145.Google Scholar
Timmis, Ivor. 2002. Native-speaker norms and International English: A classroom view. ELT Journal 56(3): 240–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Corpus Linguistics for ELT: Research and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trinity College London. 2016. Exam Information: Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE). <[URL]> along with videos of the speaking tasks (28 May 2018).
Usó-Juan, Esther. 2007. The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning, Eva A. Soler & Maria P. Safont Jordà (eds), 223–243. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vellenga, Heidi. 2004. Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely. TESL-EJ 8(2): 1–17.Google Scholar
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English. Director: Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Angelika Breiteneder, Theresa Klimpfinger, Stefan Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka. <[URL]> (28 May 2018).
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1980. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wall, Diane & Taylor, Cathy. 2014. Communicative Language Testing (CLT): Reflections on the “Issues Revisited” from the perspective of an examinations board. Language Assessment Quarterly 11(2): 170–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Steve. 2010. What features of spoken and written corpora can be exploited in creating language teaching materials and syllabuses. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Anne O’Keefe & Michael McCarthy (eds), 333–345. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Gablasova, Dana, Vaclav Brezina & Tony McEnery
2022. The Trinity Lancaster Corpus. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research ► pp. 126 ff. DOI logo
Valenzuela, Hannah
2020. Pragmatics. In Linguistics for TESOL, ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.