Cover not available
Article published In:
Corpus-based Approaches to Spoken L2 Production: Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus
Edited by Vaclav Brezina, Dana Gablasova and Tony McEnery
[International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5:2] 2019
► pp. 126–158

The Trinity Lancaster Corpus

Development, description and application

| Lancaster University, UK
| Lancaster University, UK
| Lancaster University, UK

This paper introduces a new corpus resource for language learning research, the Trinity Lancaster Corpus (TLC), which contains 4.2 million words of interaction between L1 and L2 speakers of English. The corpus includes spoken production from over 2,000 L2 speakers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds at different levels of proficiency engaged in two to four tasks. The paper provides a description of the TLC and places it in the context of current learner corpus development and research. The discussion of practical decisions taken in the construction of the TLC also enables a critical reflection on current methodological issues in corpus construction.

Keywords: Trinity Lancaster Corpus, spoken language, transcription, corpus design, corpus compilation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The Trinity Lancaster Corpus in the context of learner corpus research on spoken L2
  • 2.The development of the Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Key issues
    • 2.1Representativeness
    • 2.2Amount of evidence in a corpus: Corpus size, number of speakers and size of samples
    • 2.3Transcription
      • 2.3.1The type of transcription and the role of transcription conventions
      • 2.3.2Consistency and reliability of transcription
  • 3.TLC: Structure and variables
    • 3.1Speaker-related characteristics
      • 3.1.1Proficiency in English
      • 3.1.2Linguistic and cultural background
      • 3.1.3Sociolinguistic characteristics: Age, gender and education
      • 3.1.4Learning experience: Age of exposure, learning history and patterns of L2 use
    • 3.2The nature of interaction: Linguistic setting and the speaking tasks
      • 3.2.1The linguistic setting
      • 3.2.2Speaking tasks
  • 4.Conclusion: Applications and future directions
    • 4.1Applications in research and teaching
    • 4.2Future directions: The Trinity Lancaster Corpus of L1 English interaction (TLC-L1)
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 24 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.19001.gab
References
Adolphs, S. & Knight, D.
2010 “Building a spoken corpus”. In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge, 38–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K.
2014 “Pragmatic markers”. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195–218.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T., Michel, M., Murakami, A., & Meurers, D.
2017 “Task effects on linguistic complexity and accuracy: A large-scale learner corpus analysis employing natural language processing techniques”. Language Learning 67(S1), 180–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arche, M. J.
2008 SPLLOC Transcription Conventions. [URL] (accessed August 2019).
Aston, G., & Burnard, L.
1998 The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Capstone.Google Scholar
Baker, P. & Egbert, J.
(Eds.) 2016 Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus Linguistic Research. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S.
2009 Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breiteneder, A., Pitzl, M. L., Majewski, S. & Klimpfinger, T.
2006 “VOICE recording-Methodological challenges in the compilation of a corpus of spoken ELF”. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2), 161–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brezina, V. & Meyerhoff, M.
2014 “Significant or random. A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brezina, V.
2018 Statistics in Corpus Linguistics. A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callies, M.
2015 “Using learner corpora in language testing and assessment: Current practice and future challenges”. In E. Castello, K. Ackerley & F. Coccetta (Eds.), Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics: Research and Applications for Foreign Language Teaching and Assessment. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 21–35.Google Scholar
Cameron, D.
2001 Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Carlsen, C.
2012 “Proficiency level – A fuzzy variable in computer learner corpora”. Applied Linguistics 33(2), 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cervantes, I. M. & Gablasova, D.
2017 “Phrasal verbs in spoken L2 English: The effect of L2 proficiency and L1 background”. In V. Brezina & L. Flowerdew (Eds.), Learner Corpus Research: New perspectives and applications. London: Bloomsbury, 28–46.Google Scholar
O’Connell, D. C. & Kowal, S.
1994 “Some current transcription systems for spoken discourse: A critical analysis”. Pragmatics 4(1), 81–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, G.
1995 “Theoretical issues: transcribing the untranscribable”. In G. Leech, G. Myers & J. Thomas (Eds.), Spoken English on Computer: Transcription, Mark-up and Application. Harlow: Longman, 35–53.Google Scholar
Crowdy, S.
1994 “Spoken corpus transcription”. Literary and Linguistic Computing 9(1), 25–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayrell, C. & Urry, J.
2015 “Mediating climate politics: The surprising case of Brazil”. European Journal of Social Theory 18(3), 257–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W.
1991 “Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research”. Pragmatics 1(1), 71–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
2002 “Frequency effects in language processing. A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, R., Götz, S. & Werner, V.
2016 “The present perfect in learner Englishes: A corpus-based case study on L1 German intermediate and advanced speech and writing”. In V. Werner, E. Seoane & C. Suárez-Gómez (Eds.), Re-Assessing the Present Perfect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 297–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D. & Brezina, V.
In preparation. Challenges in transcribing spoken learner language: Lessons from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus.
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V. & McEnery, T.
2019 “The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Applications in language teaching and materials development”. In S. Götz & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Learner Corpora and Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 8–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Exploring learner language through corpora: Comparing and interpreting corpus frequency information”. Language Learning 67(S1), 130–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D. & Brezina, V.
2017 “Disagreement in L2 spoken English: From learner corpus research to corpus-based teaching materials”. In V. Brezina & L. Flowerdew (Eds.), Learner Corpus Research: New perspectives and applications. London: Bloomsbury, 69–89.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T. & Boyd, E.
2017 “Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task type and speaker style”. Applied Linguistics 38(5), 613–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D. & Brezina, V.
2015 “Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus”. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015. Dordrecht: Springer, 117–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., De Cock, S. & Granger, S.
2010 The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G.
2015 “From design to collection of learner corpora”. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 9–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S.
2015 “Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal”. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1), 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
2015 “Some current quantitative problems in corpus linguistics and a sketch of some solutions”. Language and Linguistics 16(1), 93–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W. & Lüdge, T.
2003 “Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 35(12), 1737–1769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J.
2014 Speech production and second language acquisition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.
1998 “Preface. Learner corpora: what they are and what can be done with them”. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer. London: Longman, xiv–xx.Google Scholar
2000 “Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented research”. Language Learning 50(4), 675–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “New resources, or just better old ones? The Holy Grail of representativeness”. In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 134–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. & McEnery, T.
2017 “The spoken BNC2014”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3), 319–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M.
2005 Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
2000 The CHILDES Database: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn. Mahwah NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Xiao, R. & Tono, Y.
2006 Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Hardie, A.
2011 Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, C.
(Ed.) 2006 Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myles, F.
2015 “Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research”. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 309–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E.
1979 “Transcription as theory”. Developmental Pragmatics 10(1), 43–72.Google Scholar
Papageorgiou, S.
2007 Relating the Trinity College London GESE and ISE Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference. Final project report, February 2007 London: Trinity College London.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L.
2016, February. The N crowd: Sampling practices, internal validity, and generalizability in L2 research. Presentation given at University College London, London, UK.Google Scholar
Porte, G.
(Ed.) 2012 Replication Research in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roever, C.
2010 “Effects of cultural background in a test of ESL pragmalinguistics: A DIF approach”. In G. Kasper, H.t. Nguyen, D. R. Yoshimi & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, Vol. 121. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, 187–212.Google Scholar
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Demmen, J., Koller, V., Payne, S., Hardie, A., & Rayson, P.
2017 “The online use of violence and journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: a mixed methods study”. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 7(1), 60–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.
2005 “Corpus and text – basic principles”. In M. Wynne (Ed.), Developing Linguistic Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1–16.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H.
2008 “Introduction”. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd edn. London: Bloomsbury, 1–8.Google Scholar
Thompson, P.
2005 “Spoken language corpora”. In M. Wynne (Ed.), Developing Linguistic Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 59–70.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2003 “Introduction: Some surprises for psychologist’s”. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language. London: Taylor and Francis, 7–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N. & Myles, F.
2015 “The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research”. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1), 58–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trinity College London
2016 Exam Information: Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE). Available at [URL]
Wall, D., & C. Taylor
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
Wong, D. & Kruger, H.
2018 “ Yeah, yeah yeah or yeah no that’s right: A multifactorial analysis of the selection of backchannel structures in British English”. In V. Brezina, R. Love & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech. London: Routledge, 120–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 16 other publications

Curry, Niall & Tony Clark
2020. Spelling Errors in the Preliminary English B1 Exam: Corpus-Informed Evaluation of Examination Criteria for MENA Contexts. In The Assessment of L2 Written English across the MENA Region, ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
Curry, Niall, Robbie Love & Olivia Goodman
2022. Adverbs on the move: investigating publisher application of corpus research on recent language change to ELT coursebook development. Corpora 17:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Du, Hang
2022. Grammatical and lexical development during study abroad: Research on a corpus of spoken L2 Chinese. Foreign Language Annals 55:4 ► pp. 985 ff. DOI logo
Dubois, Tanguy, Magali Paquot & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2022. Alternation phenomena and language proficiency: the genitive alternation in the spoken language of EFL learners. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 DOI logo
Huang, Danqing, Dirk Geeraerts & Weiwei Zhang
2021. A diachronic analysis of the FIRE character. Chinese Semiotic Studies 17:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Lan-fen & Tomáš Gráf
2021. Expanding lindsei to spoken learner English from several L1s across cefr levels. Corpora 16:2 ► pp. 271 ff. DOI logo
Kreyer, Rolf
2020. Review of Brezina & Flowerdew (2017): Learner Corpus Research. New Perspectives and Applications. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 6:2 ► pp. 262 ff. DOI logo
Liang, Chaohui, Jiling Shang & Qiangyi Li
2022. English Syntactic Analysis and Word Sense Disambiguation Strategy of Neutral Set from the Perspective of Natural Language Processing. Advances in Multimedia 2022 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Zuqin
2022. Analysis model of college students' mental health based on online community topic mining and emotion analysis in novel coronavirus epidemic situation. Frontiers in Public Health 10 DOI logo
Paquot, Magali, Dana Gablasova, Vaclav Brezina & Hubert Naets
2022. Phraseological complexity in EFL learners’ spoken production across proficiency levels. In Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Learner Corpus Research [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 104], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Römer, Ute
2022. Applied corpus linguistics for language acquisition, pedagogy, and beyond. Language Teaching 55:2 ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Saeki, Mao, Yoichi Matsuyama, Satoshi Kobashikawa, Tetsuji Ogawa & Tetsunori Kobayashi
2021. 2021 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), ► pp. 629 ff. DOI logo
Weisser, Martin
2021. Chapter 6. Profiling learners through pragmatically and error annotated corpora. In Beyond Concordance Lines [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 102], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Winter, Tatjana & Elen Le Foll
2022. Testing the pedagogical norm. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Wisniewski, Katrin
2022. Gesprochene Lernerkorpora des Deutschen: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 50:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Di & Qiangyi Li
2022. Design of Chinese Corpus Based on Semantic Mining Algorithm. Advances in Multimedia 2022 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 may 2023. 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.