A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora
Introduction
In many ways, the position of corpus linguistics, as a powerful methodology-technology, is well-established. It has been consolidating its position in lexicography (e.g., the CoBuild dictionaries), in grammars of languages (e.g., Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999, the CoBuild grammar series represented by Francis et al., 1996, Francis et al., 1998, Hunston and Francis, 2000), and in diachronic studies (e.g. Hickey et al., 1997, Kytö et al., 1994, Nevalainen and Kahlas-Tarkka, 1998, Rudanko, 2000). Further, the value of corpus-based approaches for language specialists such as language majors, language teachers and translators is becoming increasingly recognized (Bowker and Pearson, 2002, Cheng et al., 2003, Granger et al., 2002, Hunston, 2002, Kennedy, 1998, Partington, 1998, Sinclair, 2004). Mair (2002) has also interestingly argued that the availability of appropriate corpora has been of great benefit to foreign language lecturers, such as Anglicists in Germany, because they are no longer beholden to the whims of native-speakers for judgments of acceptability and correctness.
Corpus linguistics has also established itself as an important tool for determining the linguistic features of registers and genres (Biber, 1988, Lee, 2000) and, in EAP, for elucidating and comparing how different disciplines use language in their major genres (Bernardini, 2002, Flowerdew, 1998, Gavioli, 2002, Ghadessy et al., 2001, Hyland, 2000, Hyland, 2003, Luzon Marco, 2000, Thompson, 1998). However, it is less clear how – and when – these research findings can best be carried over into effective pedagogical practice. There are a number of issues here. One resides in the comparative merits of static, pre-prepared on-paper teaching products versus more spontaneous on-line work in front of a computer. A textbook such as Thurstun and Candlin (1997) shows what can be done with the former approach, but in their companion article (Thurstun & Candlin, 1998), they do acknowledge the danger of concordancing burnout: “Over-exposure to concordance lines can conceivably tire students if teaching of this type depends solely on deduction from concordance lines” (p. 278). This in turn raises a second issue: Should concordance work be supplementary to more traditional EAP instruction, or can it be made central with traditional instructor explication and exemplification reduced to the periphery?
A third factor to be considered is the level of disciplinary acculturation of the target participants. If those participants are just beginning to attempt the professional genres of their chosen specialization, then they probably need considerable help at the macro or structural level (such as with audience analysis and/or with the organization of the paper). This in turn suggests that a wholesale commitment to a corpus-based approach may not be fully effective, since concordancing tends to work better at the lexico-grammatical and phraseological levels rather than the structural level. On the other hand, if they already possess the appropriate genre knowledge, as is often the case with non-native speaker of English students completing their doctoral degrees, then what they may be mostly missing is fine-tuning of lexical and syntactic subtleties, particularly in terms of their strategic and rhetorical implications.
A fourth and final issue that we raise at this time concerns the degree of specialization in the corpora to be made available or to be constructed. What might be the merits and uses of a large, if sub-dividable, corpus such as the British National Corpus (BNC), as opposed to a collection of scholarly writing, such as Hyland’s corpus of 240 research articles drawn from eight fields (Hyland, 2001), as further opposed to highly tailored corpora that reflect pretty exactly participants’ target discourses? And where in this mix might we best place an academic spoken corpus? Should this be used for sustained or only occasional cross-register comparisons?
It is these kinds of questions that we attempted to grapple with in an experimental course for doctoral students at the English Language Institute (ELI) of the University of Michigan in the US. At this institution, as often elsewhere, successful advanced EAP (English for Academic Purposes) courses tend to focus on rhetorical consciousness-raising, often via comparison and discussion of different versions of the same discourse, or of comparable discourses, often from different disciplines (Belcher, 2004, Casanave, 2003, Swales and Feak, 2000, Thompson and Tribble, 2001). With the various types of corpora and concordancers now available, it seems that such an approach might be utilized with even greater facility, accuracy, and comprehensiveness if the right kinds of learners had access to the right texts and the right kind of corporist tools in the right kind of environment. This paper therefore outlines and analyses an experimental course in corpus-informed EAP. The course was deliberately entitled “Exploring your own discourse world” – for reasons that will become apparent – and had a primary focus on advanced academic writing, with a secondary one on academic speaking. The great majority of the sessions took place in a computer lab, where Wordsmith Tools (Scott, 1996) and various corpora were installed, and where the instructors’ monitors could be projected on a screen for all to see.
In the next section, we present an overview of the course, illustrating and discussing the kinds of discoursal and other linguistic phenomena examined and the sometimes surprising observations made. Here we place some emphasis on what worked and what worked less well. We then move into a consideration of the results of the corpus studies conducted by our students based on corpora they had themselves compiled. We conclude with overall reflections on this corpus-informed course, seen from the point of view of both EAP learners and instructors, as well as viewed from the perspective of the four issues outlined earlier.
Section snippets
Outline of the course
This 13-week course was conceived of as having three main components:
- •
Weekly 2-h laboratory sessions (hands-on concordancing and EAP lessons) for the first 10 weeks.
- •
Optional weekly individual consultations (miscellaneous written work handed in for comments and corrections, plus assistance with corpus compilation), as well as (Weeks 11 and 12) help with the preparation of the final projects. The consultations also proved useful by giving us clues about specific areas of weakness that the use of
Selected details from the computer classroom
Due to the fact that this was an experimental course, both instructors agreed that it would be best to have a ‘dynamic syllabus’ (also known – disparagingly – as ‘making up the syllabus as you go along’, or – more creatively – as ‘just in time materials’). There was inevitably a fair amount of trial-and-error, and some activities worked better than others. The whole enterprise was also marked by the kind of incidentalism that Swales (2002) has criticized as being characteristic of corpus
The student presentations
As mentioned earlier, students were told at the beginning that they would have to give a presentation on some corpus-based findings. Work towards their presentations was, however, generally concentrated toward the end of the course, when their self-compiled ESP corpora were ready for analysis. In the end, there were three presentations, one shared and two individual. Only one of the three presentations was based on a comparison of the two kinds of corpora they compiled for themselves (published
Discussion
In a recent survey of computer use in EFL classrooms in UK institutions of higher education, Jarvis (2004) found that concordancing was being used, on average, in about one in ten of the ESP/EAP courses. This use, according to his returned questionnaires, was considerably less than that reported for web-based language learning materials, e-mail writing tasks, word-processor tasks, and even the use of PowerPoint. Although Jarvis did not solicit information about how much of course time might be
David Lee is an Assistant Professor at the Nagoya University of Commerce and Business. He was formerly a post-doctoral research fellow at the English Language Institute (ELI), University of Michigan, where he worked on the MICASE (Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English) project, conducting research on the corpus and enhancing and promoting its usefulness for language teachers in materials development and language testing. His doctoral study conducted at Lancaster University (UK), Modelling
References (63)
- et al.
Dissertation writing in action: The development of a dissertation writing support program for ESL graduate research students
English for Specific Purposes
(1998) - et al.
The language learner as language researcher: putting corpus linguistics on the timetable
System
(2003) Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing?
System
(1997)- et al.
Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors?
System
(2004) Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles
English for Specific Purposes
(2001)Investigating the classroom applications of computers on EFL courses at Higher Education Institutions in UK
Journal of English for Academic Purposes
(2004)Microconcord: A language learner’s research tool
System
(1986)- et al.
ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2004) The learner as corpus designer
Trends in teaching English for specific purposes
ARAL
(2004)
Systematising serendipity: Proposals for concordancing large corpora with language learners
Exploring new directions for discovery learning
Variation across speech and writing
Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use
Working with specialized language: A practical guide to using corpora
Multiple uses of applied linguistics in a multi-disciplinary graduate EAP class
ELT Journal
Concordancing oneself: Constructing individual textual profiles
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century?
TESOL Quarterly
Some reflections on the question of teaching, from a corpus linguistics perspective
ICAME Journal
Concordancing on an expert and learner corpus for ESP
CALL Journal
Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs
Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and adjectives
Some thoughts on the problem of representing ESP through small corpora
Fine brush and freehand: The vocabulary-learning art of two successful Chinese EFL learners
TESOL Quarterly
Corpora in applied linguistics
Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English
Cited by (277)
The rhetorical organization of discussions sections of qualitative research articles in Applied Linguistics and the use of meta-discourse markers
2023, Journal of English for Academic PurposesA corpus-based genre analysis of promotional-informational discourse in online painting exhibition overviews
2023, English for Specific PurposesPatterns and functions of I in academic writing: From a local grammar approach
2023, Journal of English for Academic PurposesThe gap between intentions and reality: Reasons for EAP writers’ non-use of corpora
2022, Applied Corpus LinguisticsCorpus-aided EAP writing workshops to support international scholarly publication
2022, Applied Corpus Linguistics
David Lee is an Assistant Professor at the Nagoya University of Commerce and Business. He was formerly a post-doctoral research fellow at the English Language Institute (ELI), University of Michigan, where he worked on the MICASE (Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English) project, conducting research on the corpus and enhancing and promoting its usefulness for language teachers in materials development and language testing. His doctoral study conducted at Lancaster University (UK), Modelling Variation in Spoken And Written English: the Multi-Dimensional Approach Revisited, is scheduled to be published by Routledge in 2005.
John M. Swales is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Michigan, where he was also Director of the English Language Institute from 1985 to 2001. His latest book-length publications are the second edition of “Academic Writing for Graduate Students” (with Christine Feak) (University of Michigan Press, 2004), and “Research Genres: Explorations and Applications (CUP, 2004). In 2004, he was awarded an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Uppsala, Sweden.