Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy
A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics
| University of Hanover
This book presents a large-scale corpus-driven study of progressives in 'real' English and 'school' English, combining an analysis of general linguistic interest with a pedagogically motivated one. A systematic comparative analysis of more than 10,000 progressive forms taken from the largest existing corpora of spoken British English and from a small corpus of EFL textbook texts highlights numerous differences between actual language use and textbook language concerning the distribution of progressives, their preferred contexts, favoured functions, and typical lexical-grammatical patterns. On the basis of these differences, a number of pedagogical implications are derived, the integration of which then leads to a first draft of an innovative concept of teaching progressives - a concept which responds to three key criteria in pedagogical description: typicality, authenticity, and communicative utility. The analysis also demonstrates that many existing accounts of the progressive are inappropriate in several respects and that not enough attention is being paid to lexical-grammatical relations.
! Winner of the "Wissenschaftspreis Hannover 2006" for outstanding research monographs !
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 18] 2005. xiv + 328 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
|
Acknowledgements
|
xiii
|
|
1. Introduction: A need to take stock of progressives
|
1–6
|
|
2. The theoretical basis of the study: Corpora, contexts, didactics
|
7–18
|
|
3. Progressives in theoretical studies and grammars of English
|
19–36
|
|
4. Progressives in spoken British English
|
37–170
|
|
5. Progressive teaching(?): Progressives in the German EFL classroom
|
171–242
|
|
6. Progressives in real spoken English and in “school” English: A comparison
|
243–273
|
|
7. Pedagogical implications: True facts, textbooks, teaching
|
275–291
|
|
8. Conclusions: Corpus, practice, theory
|
293–298
|
|
Notes
|
299–307
|
|
References
|
309–324
|
|
Index
|
325–327
|
“This is an impressive piece of work based on a very large empirical investigation. Methodologically it is sound and innovative, and theoretically highly interesting. Römer is to be congratulated on a very solid and inspiring piece of research that should not be bypassed by anyone working on the progressive in English, corpus-driven linguistics, lexical grammar or corpus-based didactics.”
Hans Lindquist, Växjö University, in International Journal of Corpus Linguistics Vol. 12:1, (2007)
“Ute Römer has presented a highly inspiring, well-written, and corpus driven investigation of the English progressive. She has considered the forms, contexts, functions, lexical aspects and didactic dimensions of progressives in great depth. Her study provides a new empirical description based on quantitative analyses of a very comprehensive dataset and shows the wealth and necessary information corpus linguistics has to offer in the description of the English language. Her excellent study and its results cannot be ignored and should be considered by a wide audience.”
Ilka Mindt, University of Würzburg, in Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 19(2): 235-239
“The study is [...] a highly significant contribution to the field of corpus-driven language teaching in that it compares the functions and contexts of naturally occurring progressive forms to the progressive taught in German English language classes. Besides the impressive data base, the merits of this unique study lie specifically in the detailed and systematic theoretical description and discussion of language patterning.
The presented analysis of the English progressive lends itself for similar studies on other lexicogrammar items, the results of which may then be used to rewrite existent grammar-oriented pedagogical descriptions of language from a lexical-grammatical perspective.
The author has indeed gone to great lengths to present the wealth of data and interpretations in a holistic and, as far as language style is concerned, attractive way that hopefully makes this research accessible to a wide research and teaching community.”
The presented analysis of the English progressive lends itself for similar studies on other lexicogrammar items, the results of which may then be used to rewrite existent grammar-oriented pedagogical descriptions of language from a lexical-grammatical perspective.
The author has indeed gone to great lengths to present the wealth of data and interpretations in a holistic and, as far as language style is concerned, attractive way that hopefully makes this research accessible to a wide research and teaching community.”
Britta Schneider, The Language Centre of the University of Jyväskylä on Linguist List 17-2153, 2006
“Ute Römer analyses massive quantities of real speech to reveal not only the variation which traditional linguistics assigns to dialects, but also the variation which is a common everyday feature of Standard English speech. Ute Römer is perfectly positioned and qualified to remain in the forefront of English corpus linguistics.”
Prof. Rainer Schulze, University of Hanover, Germany
“Römer's book shows that the traditional separation into grammar on the one hand, and the lexicon on the other doesn't do justice to the complexity of the data. The progressive is not a uniform grammatical phenomenon, but partly lexically driven.”
Prof. Bernhard Kettemann, Karl-Franzens University, Graz, Austria
“Ute Römer’s book is an insightful resource for every reader who is either curious about language forms and usage, or has an interest in the studying or teaching of languages. [...] Overall, the work by Römer provides a solid empirical overview of progressive verb forms in contemporary spoken British English. The discussion of both corpus linguistic research and language teaching is quite evident and beneficial to the reader. The author aptly explores how progressives are used in communicative situations, teaching materials, and in language textbooks to provide the reader with a wealth of information on the use of progressive verbs.”
Jane M. Govoni, Saint Leo University, in Corpora 3(1): 113-114, 2008
“Overall, this volume has many strengths. In addition to the impressive analysis of the data and the detailed presentation of results, this work succeeds in demonstrating how evidence from corpus linguistic research can be used to inform and change language teaching.”
Nicole Tracy-Ventura,
Northern Arizona University, in Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30(1), 2008
Cited by
Cited by other publications
No author info given
2014.
In Educated Fiji English [Varieties of English Around the World, G47],
No author info given
2016. References.
Language Learning 66:S1 ► pp. 313 ff.
No author info given
2017.
In Language Acquisition in CLIL and Non-CLIL Settings [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 80],
., Lalehkhojasteh & Jayakaran Mukundan
2011. A Pedagogic Corpus Analysis: Modal Auxiliary verbs in Malaysian English Textbooks.
i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching 1:2 ► pp. 45 ff.
AI, HAIYANG & XIAOYE YOU
2015. The grammatical features of English in a Chinese Internet discussion forum.
World Englishes 34:2 ► pp. 211 ff.
Arhar Holdt, Špela, Iztok Kosem & Polona Gantar
2017.
In Handbook on Digital Learning for K-12 Schools,
► pp. 91 ff.
Arizavi, Saleh & Yazdan Choubsaz
2019. To Use or Not to Use the Shorter Forms: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Apologetic Expressions “Sorry and I’m sorry” in American Spoken English Discourse.
Corpus Pragmatics 3:1 ► pp. 21 ff.
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen
2017.
In Tense-Aspect-Modality in a Second Language [Studies in Bilingualism, 50],
► pp. 27 ff.
Basterrechea, María & Regina Weinert
2017. Examining the Concept of Subordination in Spoken L1 and L2 English: The Case of If
-Clauses.
TESOL Quarterly 51:4 ► pp. 897 ff.
Cheng, Winnie & Martin Warren
2007. Checking Understandings: Comparing Textbooks and a Corpus of Spoken English in Hong Kong.
Language Awareness 16:3 ► pp. 190 ff.
CHILDS, CLAIRE
2020. The grammaticalisation of never in British English dialects: Quantifying syntactic and functional change.
Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff.
Collins, Peter
2015.
In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 67],
► pp. 271 ff.
Collins1, Peter
2008. The Progressive Aspect in World Englishes: A Corpus-based Study.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 28:2 ► pp. 225 ff.
Deshors, Sandra C.
2017. Zooming in on Verbs in the Progressive: A Collostructional and Correspondence Analysis Approach.
Journal of English Linguistics 45:3 ► pp. 260 ff.
Deshors, Sandra C. & Paula Rautionaho
2018. The progressive versus non-progressive alternation.
English World-Wide 39:3 ► pp. 309 ff.
EDWARDS, ALISON
2014. The progressive aspect in the Netherlands and the ESL/EFL continuum.
World Englishes 33:2 ► pp. 173 ff.
Frazier, Stefan & Hahn Koo
2019. The Use of the English Progressive Form in Discourse: An Analysis of a Corpus of Interview Data.
Corpus Pragmatics 3:2 ► pp. 145 ff.
Fuchs, Robert & Valentin Werner
2018. The use of stative progressives by school-age learners of English and the importance of the variable context.
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 4:2 ► pp. 195 ff.
Fuchs, Robert & Valentin Werner
2020.
In Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition and Learner Corpus Research [Benjamins Current Topics, 108],
► pp. 54 ff.
Furuta, Yae
2012. A Corpus-Driven Approach to English Expressions Based on Comparison.
International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 2:1 ► pp. 24 ff.
Furuta, Yae
2013. Postpositive Past Participles Used on Their Own.
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity ► pp. 514 ff.
Gabriele, Alison, José Alemán Bañón, Beatriz López Prego & Alonso Canales
2015.
In The Acquisition of the Present,
► pp. 113 ff.
Götz, Sandra
2015.
In Learner Corpora in Language Testing and Assessment [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 70],
► pp. 191 ff.
Keck, Casey & YouJin Kim
2014.
In Pedagogical Grammar,
Kirk, John M.
2015.
In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 67],
► pp. 87 ff.
Laitinen, Mikko & Magnus Levin
2016.
In World Englishes [Varieties of English Around the World, G57],
Lam, Phoenix
2009. The making of a BNC customised spoken corpus for comparative purposes.
Corpora 4:2 ► pp. 167 ff.
Liu, Yuqin, Lanling Han, Bo Jiang & Xiaoyan Su
2018. The application and teaching evaluation of Japanese films and TV series corpus in JFL classroom.
The Electronic Library 36:4 ► pp. 721 ff.
Man Cao, Houlin Yu & Min Liu
2012.
In 2012 International Symposium on Information Technologies in Medicine and Education,
► pp. 365 ff.
Markus, Manfred
2014.
In Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 63],
► pp. 57 ff.
MERILÄINEN, LEA
2017. The progressive form in learner Englishes: Examining variation across corpora.
World Englishes 36:4 ► pp. 760 ff.
Meriläinen, Lea
2018. The progressive form and its functions in spoken learner English.
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 4:2 ► pp. 164 ff.
Meriläinen, Lea
2020.
In Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition and Learner Corpus Research [Benjamins Current Topics, 108],
► pp. 24 ff.
Mukundan, Jayakaran, Abdolvahed Zarifi & Seyed Ali Rezvani Kalajahi
2016.
In Issues in Materials Development,
► pp. 65 ff.
Mâţă, Liliana & Andreia Irina Suciu
2011. Curricular innovative model focused on developing pedagogical competences of teachers of Language and communication.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 12 ► pp. 274 ff.
Möller, Verena
2020. From pedagogical input to learner output.
Pedagogical Linguistics
Northbrook, Julian & Kathy Conklin
2018. “What are you talking about?”.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 23:3 ► pp. 311 ff.
Paquot, Magali
2018.
In The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology,
► pp. 359 ff.
Paulasto, Heli
2014. Extended uses of the progressive form in L1 and L2 Englishes.
English World-Wide 35:3 ► pp. 247 ff.
Römer, Ute
2011. Corpus Research Applications in Second Language Teaching.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31 ► pp. 205 ff.
Römer, Ute
2016. Teaming up and mixing methods: collaborative and cross-disciplinary work in corpus research on phraseology.
Corpora 11:1 ► pp. 113 ff.
Römer, Ute
2017. Language assessment and the inseparability of lexis and grammar: Focus on the construct of speaking.
Language Testing 34:4 ► pp. 477 ff.
Römer, Ute, Matthew Brook O'Donnell & Nick C. Ellis
2014. Second Language Learner Knowledge of Verb-Argument Constructions: Effects of Language Transfer and Typology.
The Modern Language Journal 98:4 ► pp. 952 ff.
Wang, Jessie Yi-jia
2014. An Empirical Analysis of Extended Meanings of Lexical Items in a H1N1 Corpus.
International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 4:3 ► pp. 52 ff.
Wolk, Christoph, Sandra Götz & Katja Jäschke
2020. Possibilities and Drawbacks of Using an Online Application for Semi-automatic Corpus Analysis to Investigate Discourse Markers and Alternative Fluency Variables.
Corpus Pragmatics
Wulff, Stefanie & Ute Römer
2009. Becoming a proficient academic writer: shifting lexical preferences in the use of the progressive.
Corpora 4:2 ► pp. 115 ff.
Zaki, Mai
2017. Corpus-based teaching in the Arabic classroom: theoretical and practical perspectives.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 514 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 june 2020. 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.
Subjects
Linguistics
BIC Subject: CF – Linguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number: 2005050253