Cover not available
Article published In:
Register in L1 and L2 Language Development
Edited by Bethany Gray and Jesse Egbert
[Register Studies 3:2] 2021
► pp. 207–246

Register variation in school EFL textbooks

ORCID logo | Osnabrück University
This study applies additive Multi-Dimensional Analysis (MDA) (Biber 1988) to explore the linguistic characteristics of ‘school English’ or ‘textbook English’. It seeks to find out how text registers commonly featured in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) textbooks differ from comparable registers found outside the EFL classroom. To this end, a Textbook English Corpus (TEC) of 43 coursebooks used in European schools is mobilised. The texts from six textbook register subcorpora and three target language corpora are mapped onto Biber’s (1998) ‘Involved vs. Informational’ dimension of General English. Register accounts for 63% of the variance in these dimension scores in the TEC. Additional factors such as textbook level, series and country of publication/use only play a marginal role in mediating textbook register variation. Textbook dialogues score considerably lower than the Spoken BNC2014, whereas Textbook Fiction scores closest to its corresponding reference Youth Fiction Corpus. Pedagogical and methodological implications are discussed.
Keywords: coursebooks, language teaching materials, multidimensional analysis (MDA), textbook English
Article outline
  • 1.Background
    • 1.1School English as a Foreign Language (EFL) textbooks
    • 1.2Textbook English studies
    • 1.3A multivariate exploration of textbook English
    • 1.4Aims and research questions
  • 2.Data and methods
    • 2.1Corpus design and data collection
      • 2.1.1Textbook English corpus (TEC)
    • 2.2Target language reference corpora
      • 2.2.1Spoken BNC2014
      • 2.2.2Youth fiction corpus (YFC)
      • 2.2.3Informative texts for teens corpus (ITTC)
    • 2.3Comparative additive MDA
      • 2.3.1Tagging and counting linguistics features
      • 2.3.2Computing the mean dimension scores for the new registers
      • 2.3.3Computing dimension scores for additional reference corpora
      • 2.3.4Comparing dimension scores
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Variation across textbook English registers
    • 3.2The specificities of textbook English registers
      • 3.2.1Textbook conversation
      • 3.2.2Textbook informative texts
      • 3.2.3Textbook fiction
  • 4.Conclusion and recommendations
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 23 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20009.lef
References (67)
References
Al-Surmi, M. (2012). Authenticity and TV Shows: A Multidimensional Analysis Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 671–694. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F., & Eckhardt, S. E. (2007). Applying Corpus-Based Findings to Form-Focused Instruction: The Case of Reported Speech. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 319–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T., & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2014). Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T., & Veirano Pinto, M. (2017). American television and off-screen registers: A corpus-based comparison. Corpora, 12(1), 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2019). Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. London: Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T., Veirano Pinto, M., Mayer, C., Zuppardi, M. C., & Kauffmann, C. H. (2019). Adding Registers to a Previous Multi-Dimensional Analysis. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues (pp. 165–188). New York, NY: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and Writing in the University: A Multidimensional Comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., … Urzua, A. (2004). Representing Language Use in the University: Analysis of the TOEFFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1994). Multi-dimensional analyses of authors’ styles: Some case studies from the eighteenth century. In D. Ross & D. Brink (Eds.), Research in humanities computing (Vol. 31, pp. 3–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chujo, K. (2004). Measuring Vocabulary Levels of English Textbooks and Tests Using a BNC Lemmatised High Frequency Word List. Language and Computers, 51(1), 231–249.Google Scholar
Clarke, I., & Grieve, D. J. (2017). Dimensions of Abusive Language on Twitter. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online, 1–10. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Conrad, S. (2004). Corpus variety: Corpus linguistics, language variation, and language teaching. In J. McH. Sinclair (Ed.), Studies in Corpus Linguistics (Vol. 121, pp. 67–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp. 94–107). (Original work published 2001)Google Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2013). Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies. New York: Routledge. (Original work published 2001) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. M. (1996). Academic discourse in two disciplines: Professional writing and student development in biology and history (PhD dissertation). Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & Römer, U. (2019). Examining Lexical and Cohesion Differences in Discipline-Specific Writing Using Multi-Dimensional Analysis. In T. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues (pp. 189–216). Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. (2014). A Multi-Dimensional analysis of essay writing: What linguistic features tell us about situational parameters and the effects of language functions on judgments of quality. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Studies in Corpus Linguistics (Vol. 601, pp. 197–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dumont, A. (2018). Fluency and disfluency: A corpus study of non-native and native speaker (dis)fluency profiles (PhD dissertation). Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain. Retrieved from [URL]
Egbert, J., & Mahlberg, M. (2020). Fiction – one register or two?: Speech and narration in novels. Register Studies, 2(1), 72–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J., & Staples, S. (2019). Doing Multi-Dimensional Analysis in SPSS, SAS, and R. In T. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues (pp. 125–144). Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and Second Language Acquisition: The Roles of Frequency, Form, and Function Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 329–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Council (Ed.). (2004). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR) (6. pr). Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
Forchini, P. (2012). Movie language revisited. Evidence from multi-dimensional analysis and corpora. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friginal, E., & Hardy, J. A. (2014). Conducting Multi-Dimensional Analysis Using SPSS. In T. B. Sardinha & D. Biber (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber (pp. 297–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabrielatos, C. (2013). If-conditionals in ICLE and the BNC: A success story for teaching or learning? In S. Granger, F. Meunier, & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, moving ahead (Presses Universitaires de Louvain, pp. 155–166).Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. (2004). A Comparison of Textbook and Authentic Interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 363–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2016). Discourse markers in L2 English: From classroom to naturalistic input. In O. Timofeeva, A.-C. Gardner, A. Honkapohja, & S. Chevalier (Eds.), Studies in Language Companion Series (Vol. 1771, pp. 213–249). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, S. (2013). Fluency in Native And Nonnative English Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouverneur, C. (2008). The Phraseological Patterns of High-frequency Verbs in Advanced English for General Purposes: A Corpus-driven Approach to EFL Textbook Analysis. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 223–243). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, B., & Egbert, J. (2019). Editorial: Register and register variation. Register Studies, 1(1), 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015). The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., & Goodluck, H. (1978). Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computer. Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Le Foll, E. (2020, October). Issues in Compiling and Exploiting Textbook Corpora. Presented at the Japanese Association for English Corpus Studies 2020, Tokyo. DOI logo
Le Foll, Elen. (2021). Bibliographic metadata of the Textbook English Corpus (TEC) (Version v. 1.1) [Data set]. Zenodo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Foll, E. (in preparation). Textbook English: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Language of EFL textbooks used in Secondary Schools in France, Germany and Spain.
Lenth, R. (2020). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means [Manual]. Retrieved from [URL]
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
Love, R., Hawtin, A., & Hardie, A. (2018, September). The British National Corpus 2014: User manual and reference guide. Retrieved from [URL]
Lüdecke, D. (2020). sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science [Manual]. Retrieved from [URL]
Meunier, F., & Gouverneur, C. (2009). New types of corpora for new educational challenges: Collecting, annotating and exploiting a corpus of textbook material. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Studies in Corpus Linguistics (Vol. 331, pp. 179–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. (2011). ESL Reading Textbooks vs. University Textbooks: Are We Giving Our Students the Input They May Need? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 32–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mindt, D. (1987). Sprache, Grammatik, Unterrichtsgrammatik: Futurischer Zeitbezug im Englischen I (first). Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg.Google Scholar
(1995). Schulgrammatik vs. Grammatik der englischen Sprache. In Perspektiven des Grammatikunterrichts (Vol. 4041).Google Scholar
Muhammad, S. (2020). A corpus based comparison of variation in online registers of Pakistani English using MD analysis (PhD dissertation). University of Münster.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mundry, R., & Sommer, C. (2007). Discriminant function analysis with nonindependent data: Consequences and an alternative. Animal Behaviour, 74(4), 965–976. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nini, A. (2014). Multidimensional Analysis Tagger (MAT) (Version 1.3). Retrieved from [URL]
(2019). The Multi-Dimensional Analysis Tagger. In T. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues (pp. 67–96). New York: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quaglio, P. (2009). Television Dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rautionaho, P., & Deshors, S. C. (2018). Progressive or not progressive?: Modeling the constructional choices of EFL and ESL writers. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 4(2), 225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, U. (2004). A Corpus-Driven Approach to Modal Auxiliaries and Their Didactics. In J. McH. Sinclair (Ed.), How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching (pp. 185–199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Pedagogical applications of corpora: Some reflections on the current scope and a wish list for future developments. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 54(2), 121–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svartvik, J., & Quirk, R. (1980). A corpus of English conversation (Vol. 561). Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Usó-Juan, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2010). The teaching of speech acts in second and foreign language instructional contexts. In Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures (pp. 423–442). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veirano Pinto, M. (2019). Using Discriminate Function Analysis in Multi-Dimensional Analysis. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues (pp. 217–230). Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning Pragmatics from ESL & EFL Textbooks: How Likely? TESL-EJ Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 8(2), n. p.Google Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Using R. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolk, C., Götz, S., & Jäschke, K. (2020). Possibilities and Drawbacks of Using an Online Application for Semi-automatic Corpus Analysis to Investigate Discourse Markers and Alternative Fluency Variables. Corpus Pragmatics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuppardo, M. C. (2013). A linguagem da aviação: Um estudo de manuais aeronáuticos baseado na Análise Multidimensional. [Aviation Language: A Study of Aeronautical Handbooks Based on Multi-Dimensional Analysis], 111, 6–25.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Berber Sardinha, Tony
2024. AI-generated vs human-authored texts: A multidimensional comparison. Applied Corpus Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 100083 ff. DOI logo
Bottini, Raffaella & Elen Le Foll
2024. The more proficient the learners, the less sophisticated their L2 vocabulary?. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research DOI logo
Castellano-Risco, Irene
2024. The Corpus. In Lexical Demands in CLIL Primary-School Textbooks, ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Pérez-Paredes, Pascual
2024. Review of Zihan Yin and Elaine Vine eds. 2022. Multifunctionality in English: Corpora, Language and Academic Literacy Pedagogy. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-367-72509-9. DOI: https://doi. org/10.4324/9781003155072. Research in Corpus Linguistics 12:1 ► pp. 212 ff. DOI logo
Tao, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2024. A Multidimensional Analysis of a High-Stakes English Listening Test: A Corpus-Based Approach. Education Sciences 14:2 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Le Foll, Elen
2022. “I’m putting some salt in my sandwich”.. In Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 105], ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Le Foll, Elen
2023. The Potential Impact of EFL Textbook Language on Learner English: A Triangulated Corpus Study. In Demystifying Corpus Linguistics for English Language Teaching, ► pp. 259 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
[no author supplied]
2024. Textbook English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 116], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 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.