Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 23:1 (2023) ► pp.60–92

This deserves a brief mention

A multi-corpus comparison of written and spoken academic discourse in English and French with implications for pedagogy and lexicography

ORCID logo | Osnabrück University, Germany
This article takes a doubly contrastive approach to spoken academic language. On the one hand, it explores genre differences between spoken and written academic English and French; on the other, it considers divergences between spoken academic discourse in the two languages. The corpora used for this purpose were purpose-built on the basis of YouTube video subtitles and other sources. The focus of attention is on keywords and key metadiscursive routines. The results suggest that, somewhat counterintuitively, the distance between academic speech and writing is smaller in French than it is in English, so that written routines can be more easily transferred to speech in French. French written and spoken discourse shows a greater degree of abstraction and self-referentiality than is the case in English. The article selectively illustrates that both French and English have a distinct set of spoken routines that are not used in writing; these need to be described and recorded in lexicographic resources to make them available for teachers and learners.
Keywords: spoken academic discourse, written academic discourse, keywords, discourse markers, French/English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Metadiscourse and metadiscursive markers
  • 3.Corpora and method
  • 4.Corpus results and discussion
    • a.Keywords in the spoken academic corpora compared to other types of spoken discourse
    • b.Keywords in the spoken academic corpora compared to written academic discourse
    • c.Metadiscourse based on n-grams in the spoken academic corpus compared to academic writing
    • d.Verb type and density: A partial replication of Hamilton and Carter-Thomas (2017)
  • 5.Results of a questionnaire survey
  • 6.Conclusion and implications for pedagogic lexicography and language teaching
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.21004.sie
References (44)
References
Ädel, A. 2010. Just to Give you Kind of a Map of Where we are going: A Taxonomy of Metadiscourse in Spoken and Written Academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 69–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Augst, G. 2019. Der Bildungswortschatz. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
BASE (British Academic Spoken English Corpus). Corpus developed at the Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi and Paul Thompson.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 2006. University Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. 2010. Approches de la langue parlée. Paris: Éditions Ophrys.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 2017. Spoken Grammar: Where Are we and Where are we going? Applied Linguistics 38(1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dang, T. N. Y., Coxhead, A. and Webb, S. 2017. The Academic Spoken Word List. Language Learning 67(4): 959–997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dudley-Evans, A. and Johns, T. F. 1981. A Team Teaching Approach to Lecture Comprehension for Overseas Students. In The Teaching of Listening Comprehension, The British Council (ed.), 30–46. London: The British Council.Google Scholar
Dyka, S., Novakova, I. and Siepmann, D. 2017. A Web of Analogies: Depictive and Reaction Object Constructions in Modern English and French Fiction. In Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology. Europhras 2017, LNAI 10596, R. Mitkov (ed.), 87–101. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feilke, H. 1996. Sprache als Soziale Gestalt. Ausdruck, Prägung und die Ordnung der sprachlichen Typik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Paquot, M. 2008. Disentangling the Phraseological Web. In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger and F. Meunier (eds), 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. 1996. A Dictionary of French Connectors. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Function of Language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hamilton, C. E. and Carter-Thomas, S. 2017. Competing Influences: The Impact of Mode and Language on Verb Type and Density in French and English Scientific Discourse. CHIMERA: Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 4(1): 13–34.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, E. 2015. The Future of JEAP and EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 201: A1–A4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartwell, L. M., Esperança-Rodier, E. and Tutin, A. 2017. I Think we Need…: Verbal Expressions of Opinion in Conference Presentations in English and in French. CHIMERA. Romance Corpora and Linguistic Studies 4(1): 35–60. Available at [URL] [last accessed 01.07.2022].
Henschelmann, K. 2011. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von Übersetzungswörterbüchern am Beispiel französischer Abstrakta und ihres Entsprechungspotentials im Deutschen. In Studien zum romanisch-deutschen Sprachvergleich, G. Rovere and G. Wotjak (eds), 19–40. Berlin: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Rychlý, P., Smrz, P., and Tugwell, D. 2004. The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of the Eleventh EURALEX International Congress (EURALEX 2004). Lorient, France. 6–10 July 2004. 105–116.Google Scholar
Legallois, D. 2022. Routine, routinisation : à quels unités et processus a-t-on affaire exactement ? In Les routines discursives dans le discours scientifique oral et écrit, M. Luodonpää-Manni, F. Grossmann and A. Tutin (eds), 19–35. Grenoble: UGA Editions. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, D. 2012. The Most Frequently-Used Multi-Word Constructions in Academic Written English: A Multi-Corpus Study. English for Specific Purposes 31(1): 25–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembryii, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and Building a Spoken Corpus of Everyday Conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 319–344.Google Scholar
Luodonpää-Manni, M., Grossmann, F. and Tutin, A. (eds). 2022. Les routines discursives dans le discours scientifique oral et écrit. Grenoble: UGA Editions. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text. System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2003. “But Here’s a Flawed Argument”: Socialisation into and Through Metadiscourse. In Corpus Analysis, P. Leistyna and C. F. Meyer (eds), 19–34. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M., and Carter, R. 1995. Spoken Grammar: What Is it and How can we Teach it? ELT Journal 49(3): 207–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. 2011. Phrasèmes dans le dictionnaire. In Le figement linguistique: la parole entrâvée, J.-C. Anscombre and S. Mejri (eds), 41–62. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J. and Swales, J. M. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Nesi, H. and Basturkmen, H. 2006. Lexical Bundles and Discourse Signalling in Academic Lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 283–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. 2006. Key words and genres. In Textual patterns: Key words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education, M. Scott and C. Tribble (eds), 73–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siepmann, D. 2005. Discourse Markers across Languages. A Contrastive Study of Second-Level Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native Text with Implications for General and Pedagogic Lexicography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2009. Dictionnairique et lexicologie contrastive: rendre l’impossible possible? Cahiers de lexicologie 94(1): 173–198.Google Scholar
2018. L’évolution de la langue des sciences sociales et humaines de 1950 à 2000. In Études diachroniques du français et perspectives sociétales, P. Blumenthal and D. Vigier (eds), 239–268. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2020. Dictionary of Academic Usage: Words, Phrases and Model Texts for Writers and Speakers (English and German) / Wörterbuch der allgemeinen Wissenschaftssprache: Wörter, Wendungen und Mustertexte für Schreiber und Sprecher (Deutsch und Englisch). Bonn: DHV.Google Scholar
2021. German and English: Academic Usage and Academic Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siepmann, D., Gallagher, J. and Le Foll, E. in preparation. Dictionary of Academic Usage: Words, Phrases and Model Texts for Writers and Speakers (English and French).
Simpson-Vlach, R. and Ellis, N. C. 2010. An Academic Formulas List: New Methods in Phraseology Research. Applied Linguistics 31(4): 487–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tutin, A. 2007. Autour du lexique et de la phraséologie des écrits scientifiques. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 12(2): 5–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. La phraséologie transdisciplinaire des écrits scientifiques: des collocations aux routines sémantico-rhétoriques. In L’écrit scientifique: du lexique au discours. Autour de scientext, A. Tutin and F. Grossmann (eds), 27–44. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Wingrove, P. 2017. How Suitable are TED Talks for Academic Listening? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 301: 79–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yujing, J. and Tutin, A. 2019. Les routines de reformulation dans les écrits scientifiques en français. Studii de lingvistică 9(2): 177–200.Google Scholar