Luiz Otavio Barros - Corpus data X textbook info

8/14/2019 Luiz Otavio Barros - Corpus data X textbook info

1/21

Luiz Otvio Barros 1999. All rights reserved. 1

Lancaster University

Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages

MA in Applied Linguistics for ELT

Corpus Linguistics November 1998

Luiz Otavio de Barros Souza

[email protected]

Well, you couldsay that, but you wouldnt: Textbookdescriptions, corpus data and two English linking words.

Part 1

A Introduction

This paper will report a small-scale piece of research using corpora to

investigate the extent to which a selection of EFL reference books,

dictionaries and coursebooks tell the truth about the rules governing the

use of two selected English cohesive devices: despiteand in spite of. The

basic theoretical assumption underlying this paper can be usefully

summarised by Leechs views (1990) on the importance of textual data:

Testing against data is the only guarantee that one can talk

meaningfully about the truth or falsehood of theories or statements

about language. And the most obvious kind of linguistic data one

has is textual data (pg. 55).

Underpinned by this assumption, the issue of telling the truth in this

paper will be addressed from a predominantly pedagogical point of view.

To begin with, the choice ofdespite and in spite of for investigation was

pedagogically motivated, as we will shortly see. Similarly, most of the

books and dictionaries I will be referring to in this paper were produced

for the EFL market. And finally, the corpus-based findings derived from


2/21


this study will be used to raise a few hypotheses which might help to shed

some light on the classroomteaching/learning of the words under study.

The aim of this paper is by no means to present new and shocking

findings to the world (Mc Enery and Wilson 1996: 147). As I have

mentioned, this is a tentative attempt to investigate the validity of what is

currently known -largely intuitively- about the cohesive devices being

investigated. It goes without saying, therefore, that there is a second

assumption underlying all the methodology that has been used in this

study: there is room for both introspection and the analysis of attestable

examples of language use. In other words, the approach was corpus-

based rather than corpus-driven (Ooi 1998: 51), or to portray this issue

in Summers terms (1996: 266) corpus-based, not corpus-bound.

B Fuzzy edges

It is important to decide at the outset whether the cohesive devices under

study will be labelled Lexisor Grammar. Since most of the reference books

used in this project are Grammar books, the reader might be misled into

assuming that it is my belief that despite and in spite of deserve a

grammatical, rather than lexical treatment. That is not the case. I am

aware that the boundaries between Grammar and Lexis are far from clear-

cut, but an in-depth discussion would be beyond the scope of this paper.

At any rate, when one examines the literature there seems to be

compelling evidence (Ooi:1998) that it is indeed difficult to draw a line:

Do we need to divide Grammar and Lexis ? There appears to be

less of such a need; instead there is a trend towards lexicalism,

where the notion of a word is expanded and enriched to include

more types of linguistic information vis--vis the grammar. (pg. 19)


3/21


Therefore, it seems sensible to refer to despiteand in spite ofas Grammar

Words (see Sinclair and Renouf 1991:128).

C My motives in choosing despite and in spite of.

As someone who has done a fair amount of EFL teaching to Brazilian

students of all levels and age groups, I have come across a plethora of

error types. Being aware of the probable nature of most of those errors has

always provided me with a number of insights which have, in turn, guided

most of my pedagogic interventions. However, there is one aspect of Lexis

(or should we say Grammar?) which my students have always had

considerable difficulty with: cohesive devices, the so-called linking words.

For the purpose of this paper, I am going to concentrate on despiteand in

spite of, which are clearly some of the most difficult for the students with

whom I have worked.

Students errors could be divided into two distinct categories. The first of

these comprises errors related to the syntactic (rather than semantic)

properties ofdespiteand in spite of. The examples below illustrate typical

errors often made by upper-intermediate, pre-FCE1 learners:

Despite I have money, Im not happy.

Ill go in spite its late.

The second category comprises discourse produced by more proficient

learners, characterised by grammatical and often acceptable instances of

1FCE stands for First Certificate in English, the most popular EFL examination currently available.

devised by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.


4/21


usage, which nonetheless sound dissonant to native speakers (Magee

and Rundell 1996: 19). Those are examples of things you could say, but

you wouldnt (see Lewis 1993: 77). The errors in neither category appear

immediately attributable to L1 interference, since in Portuguese apesar

de and a despeito de share the same meaning and formal syntactic

constraints. Additionally, one could argue that because cohesive devices

are used mostly in written English, students usually have time to think

and monitor their output when using them, which makes it unlikely that

inaccurate use is the result of processing problems and performance slips

only. It soon became apparent to me that there might be something wrong

with the way in which these words are taught. To address this issue I will

examine the kind of exposure and lexico-grammatical information that

current EFL materials provide students with.

D EFL materials: a survey

To learn more about the treatment ofdespite and in spite of in current

EFL materials, I have compiled information from a number of grammars,

general coursebooks and monolingual dictionaries. In each case, I

analysed the way in which those words are dealt with, focusing on both

rules and examples2. The findings are presented in the tables below.

Group 1 - General coursebooks

Source and brief description. Example sentences

Soars and Soars 1998

In the vastly popularHeadwayseries, despite and in spite of

are dealt with as part of the

1. He writes all personal letters by hand DESPITE having a PC.He writes all personal letters by hand ALTHOUGH he has a PC.

2For a discussion on the role of exemplar and rule-based systems in second language acquisition, see

Skehan 1998: 60.


5/21


writing syllabus. Before writingan argumentative composition,students are asked to join thesentences in a table containing anumber of other contrast words.

2. It took only an hour to get to the airport IN SPITE OF the traffic.It took only an hour to get to the airport HOWEVER they still

missed the place.

Oneill et al1987

These examples were takenfrom an UCLES-FCEpreparation book. The writerdevotes a whole page toalthough and despite. Studentsare asked to compare twoexamples (3) and then dosentence transformationexercises. (4)

3. Despite his lack of qualifications, he fooled a lot of people.Although he had no qualifications, he fooled a lot of people.

4. Despite the good weather, we stayed indoors.Although the weather was good, we stayed indoors.

(In all examples despite appeared in the middle of the sentence.)

Willis and Willis 1989

In their relentlessly ambitious

Collins Cobuild English Course,the writers chose treat despiteand in spite of separately.Examples 5 and 6 were takenfrom the despite grammar box.

5. Yelties did not delay their concert despite the loss of their flight

case. (= although their flight case was lost...)6. Despite not having their own instruments, the concert still wentahead. (=even though they didnt have...)

Table 1 - coursebooks.

Group 2 - Reference Grammars

Source and brief description. Example sentences

Swam and Walter 1997

Surprisingly, there was not asingle example of despite.Although and in spite of werecontrasted in one small tablewithout any further information orpractice.

7. In spite of the rain, we went for a walk.Although it was raining, we went for a walk.

Eastwood 1992

Despite and in spite ofwere

included in a chapter onpreposition + ing. The sentenceson the right were part of a tablealong with 8 examples usingvarious prepositions.

8. Laurie went to work in spite of / despite not feeling well.


6/21


Azar 1989

A similar table to the one usedby Eastwood (above). But onlywords showing opposition wereused.

9. I went swimming in spite of / despite the cold weather.Although / even though / though it was cold, I went swimming.

Leech and Svartvik 1975

In their grammar for advancedlearners, undergraduates andteachers of English, Leech andSvartvik list despite and in spiteofunderphrases and adverbs ofcontrast. Interestingly, mention ismade of the fact that despite andin spite ofare formal words.

10. We are enjoying ourselves in spite of the weather.11. Despite a shortage of steal, industrial output has increased by5%.

Murphy 1994

The best-selling EFL grammar inthe world deals with despite andin spite of more thoroughly.Students are given rules such asafter these words we use anoun, a pronoun or an ing form.You can also say despite/in spiteof the fact that...

12. In spite of / Despite the rain, we enjoyed our holidays.13. In spite of / Despite having all the necessary qualifications, shedidnt get the job.

Table 2 - reference grammars

Group 3 - Monolingual dictionaries.

Dictionary Examples

Oxford Advanced LearnersDictionary

14. They had a wonderful holiday, despite the bad weather.15. Despite wanting to see him again, she refused to reply to hisletters.

Longman Dictionary ofContemporary English

16. Despite all our efforts to save the school, the County decidedto close it.17. She went to Spain despite the factthat the doctor had told herto rest.

18. Despite herself, she found his attention rather enjoyable.Table 3 - monolingual dictionaries.

D Brief analysis of EFL materials and a few initial hypotheses

A cursory glance at tables 1, 2 and 3 shows that :


7/21


1. In spiteof and despiteare used interchangeably in four examples.

2. Even when that is not explicitly the case, no mention is made

whatsoever of any difference is usage, use or relative frequency.

3. There are four instances ofin spiteand despitefollowed by an ingverb.

In spiteand despite+ noun phrase make up 77% of the examples.

4. Again, the relative frequency of the two patterns is never mentioned.

5. There are no apparent collocational patterns, though mention is made

ofdespite the facttwice.

6. The semantic prosody (see Ooi 1998: 62) of the words under study is

predominantly negative. Interestingly, there are six references to weather

(!), five of which to bad weather.

The linguistic generalisations above have given rise to a number of

questions which this paper will attempt to answer by exploring the

linguistic ecology (Kennedy 1991: 98) of the words under study:

Do native speakers of English use despitemore often than in spite ofor

vice versa?

Despite / in spite of + ingverb or despite / in spite of + noun phrase.

Which pattern in more frequent?

Are there any collocational patterns?

Do despiteand in spite oftend to have a negative semantic prosody? In

other words, is it pragmatically odd to say, for example, despite her

beautyor despite his happiness?

To answer those questions, I have undertaken a small-scale corpus-

based investigation of despite and inspite of , drawing on material

from the 100-million word British National Corpus3. On the basis of

the data from the BNC, I will discuss the extent to which there is a

3For detailed information on the BNC, see Aston 1996: 178.


8/21


mismatch between the picture that emerged from the examples

analysed in the previous section and linguistic generalisations based

on attestable examples of real language use provided by the BNC.


9/21


Part 2

In the second part of this paper, I will analyse the combinatorial properties

ofdespite and in spite of and make a few tentative claims based on the

emerging empirical evidence. The key word here is tentative. It must be

borne in mind that this is a small scale study based on the observation of

a modest, random sample of concordance lines: 1019 for despiteand 879

for in spite of. This in itself clearly limits the generalisability of any claims I

might want to make. Similarly, most of my analyses are expressed in

percentages, which seems sensible enough since my aim is to derive only

partially accurate insights from the corpus data. On those grounds, it

seems reasonable to suggest that a statistical analysis of the data would

be beyond the scope of this paper.

We will now consider each of the questions asked in part 1, section D in

turn.

E Do native speakers use despite more often than in spite ofor vice versa?

Despite and in spite of differ markedly in their relative frequency. The

former occurs as many as 14589 times in the British National Corpus,

while the latter is limited to only 2797 occurrences. These figures allow me

to make the only broad generalisation in the entire paper: despiteis used

far more frequently than in spite of, at least in written English, of which

the BNC is 90% made up. At this point, it would probably be interesting

to report the relative frequency of other contrast words and phrases which

are often semantically associated with (and therefore pedagogically

exploited alongside) despiteand in spite of.


10/21


word occurrences

however 60492although 43613

though 34177

despite 14589

nevertheless 7225

even though 5888

on the other hand 5307

in spite of 2797

nonetheless 1306

conversely 821

having said that 320Table 4 - frequency of contrast words and phrases

From a non-native speakers perspective, I was not surprised to find words

like however and although at the top levels of frequency. I would have

expected, however, to see a greater number of occurrences ofeven though

and on the other hand, which are generally heavily emphasised in EFL

materials.

F ing verbs vs. noun phrase. Which pattern is more

frequent?

According to most of the EFL materials I analysed, despiteand in spite of

can be followed by either an ing verb or a noun phrase. However, no

distinctions were made about the relative frequency in which these two

patterns are used. To discover that, I surveyed a BNC sample through

Wordsmith, a piece of software for corpus research. As I mentioned before,

my sample contained 1019 despite sentences and 879 in spite of

sentences. By isolating the [w V*G]4 tags and examining each token in a

context of seven following words, I found out that despite / in spite of +

4all ingverbs.


11/21


ingverb is a much less frequent pattern than is commonly assumed:

total ing %

despite 1019 91 8.9%

in spite of 879 70 7.9% Table 5 - despite and in spite of + ing. See files inspall.cnc and dispall.cnc

Table 5 shows that ing verbs account for 8.9% of the total corpus

instances ofdespiteand 7.9% ofin spite of. To attempt a more fine-grained

classification, I also investigated the ing pattern in three distinct

categories: the ing form of be [w VBG], have [w VHG] and other lexical

verbs [w VVG]. The results are shown in table 6:

[w VBG] [w VHG] [w VVG]despite 30 2,9% 26 2,5% 35 3,4%

in spite of 20 2,2% 29 3,3% 30 3,4% Table 6- 3 categories of ing. See files inspvhg.cnc , inspvbg.cnc,

inspvvg.cnc, despvbg.cnc, despvhg.cnc and despvvg.cnc.

Most of the 161 tokens instanced examples of despite / in spite of

immediately followed by an ingverb:

HSO 162 As quality carpet, it still looks as good as ever in spite of [w VBG] being well used.CHK 870 Well organised folks can book a permit to camp up to a year in advance, but we

managed to get in despite [w VHG] having no permit.

On certain occasions, however, there were singular / plural / proper

nouns ( [w NN1] , [w NN2], [w NP0] respectively), or personal pronouns ( [w

PNP]) placed between despite / in spite ofand the ingverb:

FPF 3304 I thought I heard birds, despite the[w NN1] sky [w VVG] showing no signs of thinning.FPX 1799 In spite of so much[w NN1] time[w VBG] being given to singing, many children also

learn at least one musical instrument.

Sentences like these were relatively common in the concordance (45


12/21


occurrences), and they illustrate the point I made earlier about the

importance of intuition interacting with corpus data. Had I limited myself

to analysing those sentences in which the [w VVG] tag was placed

immediately after despite / in spite of, I would have failed to include

examples like the ones above.

Therefore, there is a further possible subdivision. For practical purposes, I

will refer to the first group of sentences as A and to the second group as B.

+ VVG + VBG +VHG Total (V*G)

A B A B A B A B A+B

Despite 29 6 20 10 22 4 71 20 91

In spite of 21 9 11 9 12 7 44 25 70

Table 7.- 3 categories of ing, with and without a noun before the verb. See files inspvhg.cnc , inspvbg.cnc,inspvvg.cnc, despvbg.cnc, despvhg.cnc and despvvg.cnc.

Table 7 shows that out of the 161 ing examples, 45 (28%) belonged to

group B. Interestingly, this sort of pattern was not exemplified in any of

the EFL materials I surveyed earlier in this paper.

At this point we return to the question of which syntactic pattern is more

frequent. Since we know that despite / in spite of + ing make up only

8,9% and 7,9% of all occurrences, it is safe to assume that the

overwhelming majority of the occurrences are noun phrases.

G Are there any common collocations?

In this section I examine the commonest collocational patterns ofdespite

and in spite of. I will analyse singular [w NN1] and plural [w NN2] nouns

separately with a view to obtaining more fine grained categorisations. I

begin with in spite of + singular nouns. 395 tokens were analysed, in a

context of seven following words.


13/21


NN1 collocate number of occurrences

%

the fact that 44 11

lack of 6 1.5

interest 4 1

recession 4 1

opposition 4 1

Table 8 - NN1 collocates. See file inspnn1.cnc

As table 8 shows, the fact that is overwhelmingly more frequent than the

other collocates. Interestingly, only two EFL books referred to the fact that

at all, one of which being the Longman corpus-based dictionary. As for the

lower-frequency collocations, even though I ignored collocates that had

less than four occurrences, it is still questionable whether interest,

recession and opposition merit the label collocation ( or whether they

should be referred to as co-locations - see Lewis 1993 ). In other words,

in view of such a small body of data, one cannot be sure whether such co-

occurrences did not happen by chance. Or to portray this issue in

Kjellmers terms (1991), one might say that there is no generally valid cut

off point between collocations and accidental groupings of words (pp 126).

The reader should bear these points in mind when interpreting the

information in the remaining tables.

Table 9 presents the most frequent Despite+ [w NN1] collocates. This time,

540 tokens were analysed.


%

the fact that 71 13%

lack of 10 1,8%

evidence 8 1,5%

success 8 1,5%

recession 5 0,9%setback 5 0.9% Table 9 - NN1 collocates. See file despnn1.cnc

Table 10 compares collocates shared by despiteand in spite of.

despite in spite of


14/21


the fact that 13% 11%

lack of 1,8% 1,5%

recession 0.9% 1% Table 10 -NN1 collocates: despite vs. in spite of.

The data shown in tables 8, 9 and 10 allow us to observe that the phrase

the fact thattends to collocate strongly with both prepositions. Lack ofalso

appears to occur with more than random frequency. Indeed, it could be

safely argued that as far as NN1 collocates go, despiteand in spite ofseem

to operate in a similar way.

We now turn to an analysis of plural noun [w NN2] collocates. 201 in spite

oftokens were analysed.


%

efforts 11 5.5%

difficulties 7 3.5%

attempts 5 2.5%

warnings 5 2.5%

years 5 2.5%

problems 4 2%

doubts 4 2%

claims 4 2% Table 11 - NN2 collocates. See file inspnn2.cnc

Table 11 shows that the relatively higher frequencies may suggest that inspite ofattracts stronger plural collocates. Indeed, a phrase like in spite of

his best effortssounds, to a large extent, as if it has a life of its own, as it

were. Despite (259 tokens) seems to follow the same trend, as shown in

tables 12 and 13.


%

efforts 12 4.6%

attempts 10 3.8%problems 6 2.3%

claims 5 1,9%

difficulties 4 1,5%

assurances 4 1.5%

protests 4 1.5%

fears 4 1.5% Table 12 - NN2 collocates. See file despnn2.cnc


15/21


despite in spite of

efforts 4.6% 5.5%

difficulties 1.5% 3.5%

attempts 3.8% 2.5%

problems 2.3% 2%

claims 1.9% 2% Table 13 -NN2 collocates: despite vs. in spite of.

All things considered, the answer to the question asked at the beginning of

this section (are there common collocational patterns?) would be a

definite yes for the fact that and a tentative possibly for NN2 collocates

such as effortsand attempts.

H Do despite and in spite oftend to have a negative semantic prosody?

An immediately noticeable feature of the collocational environment of

despite and in spite of is the predominantly negative aura of meaning

(Louw 1993, cited by Ooi 1998: 62) created by its collocates. A cursory

glance at tables 8 to 13 reveals a preponderance of negative semantic

associations: lack, recession, opposition, setbacks, warnings, problems,

difficulties.

However, before making any tentative claims or generalisations, it is

important to analyse not only the most frequent collocates, but also a

minimally representative sample of other adjacent words operating in the

immediate right-hand environment of despite and in spite of. While

markedly negative words such as the ones mentioned above do not require

an in depth analysis of the whole sentence in which they are embedded, a

number of other words probably do. For example, a noun such as feature,which at first glance one might regard as attitudinally neutral, is heavily

dependent on context and has the potential to be used negatively, as

illustrated by the sentences below:

G3D 757 amazingly addicted to the continuation of the status quo despite all its desperatefeatures, just like the primary sufferer is addicted to the continuation of his own


16/21


drinking or drug use.J27 218 Nevertheless, despite the above positive features of assessment and certification, theremay be some well motivated and diligent pupils who still fail to achieve all the learningoutcomes.

In other words, most seemingly neutral adjacent words must be analysed

in contextif they are to provide us with any evidence of semantic prosody.

Therefore, in order to work with a manageable body of data, l restricted my

analysis to samples of approximately a hundred random sentences from

each of the following: in spite+ [w NN1], despite+ [w NN1] , in spite of+ [w

NN2], despite + [w NN2]. Because common collocates have already been

dealt with, I will exclude those and focus on nouns which may not have

made it to the list of top collocates, but nonetheless still tell us about the

semantic prosody ofdespiteand in spite of. Needless to say, negativeand

positiveare perhaps best dealt with as two ends of a continuum that can

accommodate fuzziness and shades of grey. So for present purposes, I will

arbitrarily classify the words as negative, neutral/negative, neutral,

neutral/positive, positive, as shown in tables 13-18.

In spite of+[w NN1] - 91 sentences analysed.

A- Negative B-Neg/Neutral Neutral A-Neut/posit B- Positive

Number ofoccurrences

32 20 15 14 10

A+B= 52 ( 57%) 15 (16,5%) A+B= 24 (26,3%)

Examples arroganceboycott

gloomhostilityinflation

evidence(related tosuicide)

expenditure

jargon

force (ofgravity)

preference(forhighnecks)

evidence(related toqualifications)

breadth of(sample)

beauty

dexterity

improvement

richness

smile

Table 13 -in spite of - NN1 shades of meaning. See file inspnn1s.cnc

Despite+ [w NN1] - 107 sentences analysed.

5 uninterpretable occurrences.

A- Negative B-Neg/Neutral Neutral A-Neut/posit B- Positive


17/21


18/21


Despitevs. in spite of - NN1

Negative + Neg/neutral Neutral Positive + Pos/neutral

despite 53,2% 17,7% 24,3%

in spite of 57 % 16,5% 26,3%Table 17-despite vs. in spite of - NN1 shades of meaning.

Despitevs. in spite of- NN2

Negative + Neg/neutral Neutral Positive + Pos/neutral

despite 57% 14% 20.5%

in spite of 57,6 % 10,8% 26%Table 18-despite vs. in spite of - NN2 shades of meaning.

Needless to say, more study is needed to establish the precise sort of

constraints operating here, but by analysing the information presented

above, one begins to get a feeling the semantic prosody ofdespiteand in

spite ofis predominantly negative. In that respect, the two words appear to

behave in remarkably similar ways: differences of 4% and 6% arising out

of a purely intuitive categorisation such as the one I undertook in this

study are hardly significant.

I Final thoughts

Maybe the most obvious question to put at the end of this study is: did it

reveal anything I did not know already? The answer is both yesand no.

For example, I was unaware of the fact that despiteis about five times as

common as in spite of. Also, this study confirmed what I knew intuitively

about the different syntactic constraints of despite and in spite of, but

shed new light on their relative frequency. As regards collocational

properties, though my assumption that the fact that was a frequent

collocate was corroborated by the data, it came as a surprise to discover

that there were other nouns which despite and in spite of seemed to

attract with more than random frequency. And finally, when it comes to

the semantic prosody of those words, the data suggested that negative


19/21


associations are more frequent than neutral or positive ones, which I

suspected to be the case.

The pedagogical relevance of the above is obvious. I can see clearly now

that the sort of information I have been giving students about the use of

despiteand in spite ofis at best limited. Therefore, in order to enable them

to use those words more effectively, I might now make a number of

alternative pedagogical choices, grounded in attestable examples of real

language use. For example, since I am now aware that despite / in spite of

+noun phrase is by far the most frequently occurring pattern, it might be

sensible to concentrate on it rather than place equal emphasis on both

noun phrase and ing, at least at intermediate/upper-intermediate levels.

In the same way, there are grounds for arguing that despite/in spite of

deserve a lexical rather than grammatical treatment. In that respect, an

ever-increasing number of scholars have discussed the importance of

chunkingas a teaching strategy (see Lewis 1993 for a discussion on the

usefulness of lexical chunking). That means, for example, that if students

are taught that in real life people do actually say despite the fact quite

often, they will probably be better able to express a wider range of ideas

more easily and effortlessly, since the fact that is a collocate with a lot of

generative potential. Similarly, one could argue that drawing students

attention to the fact that despite / in spite ofoften have a negative aura of

meaning might be a useful way to help create memorable semantic

associations would might, in turn, ease retrieval and accurate use.


20/21


References

Aston, G. 1996 The British National Corpus: a Language Learning Resource. In Botley, S. etal.(eds.) Proceedings of TALC 1996. (pps 178-191) Lancaster: UCREL.

Azar, B.S. 1989 Understanding and Using English Grammar. New York: Prentice Hall Regents.

Eastwood, J. 1992 Oxford Practice Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kennedy, G. 1991 Between and Through: the Company they Keep and the Functions they Serve.In Aijmer,K. and Altenberg,B. (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics. (pps 95-110) New York: Longman.

Kjellmer, G. 1991 A Mint of Phrases. In Aijmer,K. and Altenberg,B. (eds.) English Corpus

Linguistics. (pps 111-127) New York: Longman.

Leech, G. 1990 Telling the Truth about Text ? Text10: 55-60

Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1975 A Communicative English Grammar. London: Longman, 1975.

Lewis, M. 1993 The Lexical Approach. London: ITP.

Magee, S. and Rundell, M. 1996 The Role of the Corpus-Based Phrasicon in English LanguageTeaching. In Botley, S. et al.(eds.) Proceedings of TALC 1996. (pps 17-28) Lancaster: UCREL.

Mc Enery, T. and Wilson, A. 1996 Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Murphy, R. 1994 English Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ooi, V.B.Y. 1998 Computer Corpus Lexicography. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Oneill, R. et al. 1987 Success at First Certificate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, J.M. and Renouf, A. 1991 Collocational Frameworks in English. In Aijmer,K. andAltenberg,B. (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics. (pps. 129-144) New York: Longman.

Skehan, P. 1998 A Cognitive Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Soars, J. and Soars. L. 1998 Headway Upper Intermediate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swam, M. and Walter, C. 1997 How English Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Summers, D. 1996 Computer Lexicography: the Importance of Representativeness in relation toFrequency. In Short, M. and Thomas, J. (eds.) Using Corpora for Language Research. (pps. 260-266) London: Longman.

Willis, D. and Willis, J. 1988 The Collins Cobuild English Course 3. London: Collins ltd.


21/21


Documents

Luiz Otavio Barros - Corpus data X textbook info