The interview with Guy Aston, Professor of English Language and Translation at the University of Bologna (Italy), which opens the present volume, introduces us to an applied perspective of Corpus Linguistics. Differently from the other contributors, he emphasizes the role of teaching and learning as an integral part in doing corpus studies. One might consider this to be commonsensical given that two of his specific questions deal precisely with such topics (namely, learner corpora and student autonomy). Aston’s concern for learners, however, pervades his interview, as, for instance, when he highlights the role of the language classroom in the development of Corpus Linguistics, in the concept of representativeness, in the advantages and disadvantages of the corpus approach, and in encoding corpora with extra information. All in all, Aston’s statements encourage us to consider the impact of Corpus Linguistics beyond the research paradigm. His interview leads us to reflect on the potentials of corpora to our (language) classrooms and how our research may inform our own teaching practice.
Reader at Lancaster University (United Kingdom), Paul Baker stresses the role corpus research plays in bringing to light social concepts which may underpin texts. The three specific questions he addresses reflect this concern and go hand in hand with his research interests: critical discourse analysis, gender issues and sociolinguistics. He reports on the potential of using corpora to carry out research in areas which have been traditionally viewed as mostly qualitative, favoring the investigation of small samples of language. In line with a social perspective, Baker prefers not to place Corpus Linguistics under a single label (be that ‘science’, ‘methodology’ or any other), assuming that it can have a different nature depending on its role in any given project. As a matter of fact, he argues in favor of a less rigid way of conceiving fields of study so that their boundaries become more fluid. Baker believes this perspective will lead the path of future corpus users.
Based at the Linguistics Department and at the Applied Linguistics Graduate Program (both at the Catholic University of São Paulo, Brazil), Tony Berber Sardinha brings a South American perspective to the present volume. More specifically, he draws on his teaching/research experience in Brazil to comment on the constraints corpus linguists might experience when working in such an environment as well as on the opportunities they are offered. His interview brings to the fore the corpus studies carried out in languages other than English (namely, Portuguese and Spanish) in a variety of answers, ranging from his historical overview of Corpus Linguistics to the way he conceives the future of this field. Based on his programming skills, Berber Sardinha comments on the development of recent software in which he has been (directly or indirectly) involved aimed at teaching foreign languages and at identifying metaphors.
In the opening of her interview, Susan Conrad, Professor of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University (United States), comments on the role of Corpus Linguistics in a country where language research has differed substantially from that of the European tradition. A major concern of hers, Conrad discusses the concept of variation in terms of language, dialect, knowledge areas and speakers, to cite just some examples. When considering the notion of registers, she holds that their study can be greatly enhanced by corpora and their probing tools. Conrad, however, does not restrict herself to research considerations: she also writes about the role of Corpus Linguistics, in a more general sense, to teaching – here understood as teaching not only languages but also civil engineering, as illustrated in her interview.
In this interview, Mark Davies, Professor of (Corpus) Linguistics at Brigham Young University (United States), shows his interest in languages such as English, Spanish and Portuguese. This interest is revealed in his involvement with corpora compilation (Corpus of Historical American English, Corpus del Español, and Corpus do Português, to name three instances). From his practical experience, Davies comments on the constraints one may find when trying to make a corpus available on the Internet and on what kind of technological knowledge is expected of corpus linguists. In line with the practice in this field, the author makes use of data to show us the role that intuition should play in linguistic analysis and generalizations. In terms of approach, he stresses that corpora may be used for both synchronic and diachronic purposes – the latter being discussed in more detail in one of his specific questions.
Stefan Th. Gries, Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa Barbara (United States), brings out a challenging notion of Corpus Linguistics. He proposes its understanding should be merged with psycholinguistic and cognitive concerns. Gries has no qualms in classifying Corpus Linguistics as a methodology. This explains his many references to methodological issues, ranging from the design of corpora to their comparison and/or analysis. In addition, Gries also discusses extensively statistical issues, including how much knowledge a corpus analyst needs to have in order to embark on such an investigation. This sharp methodological concern is also expressed in his prospects for the practice in Corpus Linguistics, which, according to him, needs to develop from a statistical standpoint.
Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Hong Kong, Ken Hyland focuses on what is gained when writing practices are informed by Corpus Linguistics. Based on his studies, Hyland discusses the styles of specific community of writers. In fact, he addresses issues which lie at the heart of the university setting, such as academic literacy, social construction of knowledge, and interpersonal features. While most of his examples refer to academia, some other spheres of life also find a place in his interview. In a thought-provoking way, he offers a distinction between ‘consolidating’ and ‘innovative’ research when writing about the future of Corpus Linguistics, arguing that it has been seeing too much of the former. He holds that ground-breaking investigations are needed to make sure that the field will continue to evolve and draw the attention of newcomers.
Professor Emeritus at the University of Oslo (Norway), Stig Johansson unfortunately passed away before this book was completed, and his interview is here published posthumously. In his contribution, the wealth of languages available in the world assumes special relevance, with mentions to languages such as Dutch, German, Norwegian and Swedish, besides English. Johansson points out that these languages (as well as any other) may be studied on their own, but this is not the only possibility available to researchers. As he explains, a lot can be gained from cross-linguistic studies (i.e. contrasting any pair of languages) – whether by means of comparable or parallel corpora.
From an interdisciplinary stance, Sara Laviosa, Lecturer in English and Translation Studies at the University of Bari (Italy), discusses the use of corpora in translation studies, and highlights the advantages that are opened up to translation practitioners and researchers when working with Corpus Linguistics. In addressing her specific questions, she first details the benefits that the corpus approach has brought to translation studies. From an applied perspective, she then discusses the kind of information found in corpora that is absent or lacking in traditional resources most commonly used by professionals. Finally, taking into account their practical needs, Laviosa comments on the specificities of choosing suitable corpora for translation tasks and explains important terms in corpora classification.
Professor Emeritus of English Linguistics at Lancaster University (United Kingdom), Geoffrey Leech raises several points about Corpus Linguistics per se in a thought-provoking way. As far as the historical perspective is concerned, he indicates whom he considers the founding fathers of this field and justifies his choices. When writing about representativeness, he argues that the suffix ‘-ity’ is better suited for this term (‘representativity’) when compared to ‘-ness’. This is because the former would allow for a continuum in which corpora could be classified as more (or less) representative of a (specific use of a) language. A corpus linguist at heart, Leech sees no drawbacks in this approach, but rather credits any shortcomings to the way it is put into practice. In terms of applications, Leech discusses his research experience in approaching both pragmatics and style by means of corpora.
Chair of the English Department at the University of Zimbabwe, Bill Louw contributes with an account of the philosophical aspects in Corpus Linguistics. He states that the popularity of corpora among language researchers in the recent years relates most directly to the search for truth. Louw takes no shortcuts to express his opinions. In one case, for instance, he expresses his opinion that linguists form “an unscientific community”. As regards literary research, Louw brings out the challenges corpora have posed to traditional (and long-held) notions in literature as well as the possibilities of (re)introducing the social aspect in corpus stylistics. In terms of the literature curriculum, he argues that students/teachers should not be forced to use corpora. Instead, the potential of the corpus approach should be demonstrated as a way of inviting them to follow the empirical way.
In his contribution, Geoffrey Sampson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Sussex (United Kingdom) and currently Research Fellow at the University
of South Africa, highlights the relationship between Corpus Linguistics and Syntax. He shows how this bond has a two-way nature. In his view, the use of corpora in language research allows one to better understand syntactic issues and the development of language complexity. However, the other way is also true in Sampson’s view since he believes the focus on syntax is one of the major factors contributing to the growth of interest in Corpus Linguistics. From a more general perspective, Sampson argues in favor of linguistics remaining a creative activity which develops in unexpected ways. As for the prospects of Corpus Linguistics, he predicts its death – not of this approach itself, but of the term. He believes the label ‘corpus linguistics’ will disappear when corpora become just another resource available to linguists.
Reader in Corpus Linguistics at Aston University (United Kingdom), Mike Scott is perhaps mostly associated with WordSmith Tools, the computer program he has designed and has been working on since 1996 (currently in its fifth version). The author’s technological concern is clear from the onset of his interview when he comments on the role played by the availability of personal computers in the development of Corpus Linguistics. In line with this practical concern, Scott writes about one of the major problems in compiling corpora: the issue of copyright. What lies ahead in the future, according to the researcher, is the creation of a newer generation of corpora, which will allow users to have audio and visual materials (in the first stage) together with the transcribed text. This specific technological concern, however, does not stop Scott from claiming that the questions to be asked by practicing corpus linguists should be always socially relevant in the first place.
Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan (United States), John Swales initially warns his readers that he is not an insider when it comes to the foundations of Corpus Linguistics. Perhaps this detachment allows him to report on how he changed his understanding of the corpus approach from a science to a methodology. Although he worked with both the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) and the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP), Swales argues against the idea that the corpus approach should be the only one available to researchers. In fact, he holds that they need to be free to choose what better suits their research objectives. In his specific questions, Swales also comments on the role of corpora in the study of genres, academic literacy and pedagogy, and contrastive rhetoric.
The interview with Guy Aston, Professor of English Language and Translation at the University of Bologna (Italy), which opens the present volume, introduces us to an applied perspective of Corpus Linguistics. Differently from the other contributors, he emphasizes the role of teaching and learning as an integral part in doing corpus studies. One might consider this to be commonsensical given that two of his specific questions deal precisely with such topics (namely, learner corpora and student autonomy). Aston’s concern for learners, however, pervades his interview, as, for instance, when he highlights the role of the language classroom in the development of Corpus Linguistics, in the concept of representativeness, in the advantages and disadvantages of the corpus approach, and in encoding corpora with extra information. All in all, Aston’s statements encourage us to consider the impact of Corpus Linguistics beyond the research paradigm. His interview leads us to reflect on the potentials of corpora to our (language) classrooms and how our research may inform our own teaching practice.
Reader at Lancaster University (United Kingdom), Paul Baker stresses the role corpus research plays in bringing to light social concepts which may underpin texts. The three specific questions he addresses reflect this concern and go hand in hand with his research interests: critical discourse analysis, gender issues and sociolinguistics. He reports on the potential of using corpora to carry out research in areas which have been traditionally viewed as mostly qualitative, favoring the investigation of small samples of language. In line with a social perspective, Baker prefers not to place Corpus Linguistics under a single label (be that ‘science’, ‘methodology’ or any other), assuming that it can have a different nature depending on its role in any given project. As a matter of fact, he argues in favor of a less rigid way of conceiving fields of study so that their boundaries become more fluid. Baker believes this perspective will lead the path of future corpus users.
Based at the Linguistics Department and at the Applied Linguistics Graduate Program (both at the Catholic University of São Paulo, Brazil), Tony Berber Sardinha brings a South American perspective to the present volume. More specifically, he draws on his teaching/research experience in Brazil to comment on the constraints corpus linguists might experience when working in such an environment as well as on the opportunities they are offered. His interview brings to the fore the corpus studies carried out in languages other than English (namely, Portuguese and Spanish) in a variety of answers, ranging from his historical overview of Corpus Linguistics to the way he conceives the future of this field. Based on his programming skills, Berber Sardinha comments on the development of recent software in which he has been (directly or indirectly) involved aimed at teaching foreign languages and at identifying metaphors.
In the opening of her interview, Susan Conrad, Professor of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University (United States), comments on the role of Corpus Linguistics in a country where language research has differed substantially from that of the European tradition. A major concern of hers, Conrad discusses the concept of variation in terms of language, dialect, knowledge areas and speakers, to cite just some examples. When considering the notion of registers, she holds that their study can be greatly enhanced by corpora and their probing tools. Conrad, however, does not restrict herself to research considerations: she also writes about the role of Corpus Linguistics, in a more general sense, to teaching – here understood as teaching not only languages but also civil engineering, as illustrated in her interview.
In this interview, Mark Davies, Professor of (Corpus) Linguistics at Brigham Young University (United States), shows his interest in languages such as English, Spanish and Portuguese. This interest is revealed in his involvement with corpora compilation (Corpus of Historical American English, Corpus del Español, and Corpus do Português, to name three instances). From his practical experience, Davies comments on the constraints one may find when trying to make a corpus available on the Internet and on what kind of technological knowledge is expected of corpus linguists. In line with the practice in this field, the author makes use of data to show us the role that intuition should play in linguistic analysis and generalizations. In terms of approach, he stresses that corpora may be used for both synchronic and diachronic purposes – the latter being discussed in more detail in one of his specific questions.
Stefan Th. Gries, Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa Barbara (United States), brings out a challenging notion of Corpus Linguistics. He proposes its understanding should be merged with psycholinguistic and cognitive concerns. Gries has no qualms in classifying Corpus Linguistics as a methodology. This explains his many references to methodological issues, ranging from the design of corpora to their comparison and/or analysis. In addition, Gries also discusses extensively statistical issues, including how much knowledge a corpus analyst needs to have in order to embark on such an investigation. This sharp methodological concern is also expressed in his prospects for the practice in Corpus Linguistics, which, according to him, needs to develop from a statistical standpoint.
Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Hong Kong, Ken Hyland focuses on what is gained when writing practices are informed by Corpus Linguistics. Based on his studies, Hyland discusses the styles of specific community of writers. In fact, he addresses issues which lie at the heart of the university setting, such as academic literacy, social construction of knowledge, and interpersonal features. While most of his examples refer to academia, some other spheres of life also find a place in his interview. In a thought-provoking way, he offers a distinction between ‘consolidating’ and ‘innovative’ research when writing about the future of Corpus Linguistics, arguing that it has been seeing too much of the former. He holds that ground-breaking investigations are needed to make sure that the field will continue to evolve and draw the attention of newcomers.
Professor Emeritus at the University of Oslo (Norway), Stig Johansson unfortunately passed away before this book was completed, and his interview is here published posthumously. In his contribution, the wealth of languages available in the world assumes special relevance, with mentions to languages such as Dutch, German, Norwegian and Swedish, besides English. Johansson points out that these languages (as well as any other) may be studied on their own, but this is not the only possibility available to researchers. As he explains, a lot can be gained from cross-linguistic studies (i.e. contrasting any pair of languages) – whether by means of comparable or parallel corpora.
From an interdisciplinary stance, Sara Laviosa, Lecturer in English and Translation Studies at the University of Bari (Italy), discusses the use of corpora in translation studies, and highlights the advantages that are opened up to translation practitioners and researchers when working with Corpus Linguistics. In addressing her specific questions, she first details the benefits that the corpus approach has brought to translation studies. From an applied perspective, she then discusses the kind of information found in corpora that is absent or lacking in traditional resources most commonly used by professionals. Finally, taking into account their practical needs, Laviosa comments on the specificities of choosing suitable corpora for translation tasks and explains important terms in corpora classification.
Professor Emeritus of English Linguistics at Lancaster University (United Kingdom), Geoffrey Leech raises several points about Corpus Linguistics per se in a thought-provoking way. As far as the historical perspective is concerned, he indicates whom he considers the founding fathers of this field and justifies his choices. When writing about representativeness, he argues that the suffix ‘-ity’ is better suited for this term (‘representativity’) when compared to ‘-ness’. This is because the former would allow for a continuum in which corpora could be classified as more (or less) representative of a (specific use of a) language. A corpus linguist at heart, Leech sees no drawbacks in this approach, but rather credits any shortcomings to the way it is put into practice. In terms of applications, Leech discusses his research experience in approaching both pragmatics and style by means of corpora.
Chair of the English Department at the University of Zimbabwe, Bill Louw contributes with an account of the philosophical aspects in Corpus Linguistics. He states that the popularity of corpora among language researchers in the recent years relates most directly to the search for truth. Louw takes no shortcuts to express his opinions. In one case, for instance, he expresses his opinion that linguists form “an unscientific community”. As regards literary research, Louw brings out the challenges corpora have posed to traditional (and long-held) notions in literature as well as the possibilities of (re)introducing the social aspect in corpus stylistics. In terms of the literature curriculum, he argues that students/teachers should not be forced to use corpora. Instead, the potential of the corpus approach should be demonstrated as a way of inviting them to follow the empirical way.
In his contribution, Geoffrey Sampson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Sussex (United Kingdom) and currently Research Fellow at the University
of South Africa, highlights the relationship between Corpus Linguistics and Syntax. He shows how this bond has a two-way nature. In his view, the use of corpora in language research allows one to better understand syntactic issues and the development of language complexity. However, the other way is also true in Sampson’s view since he believes the focus on syntax is one of the major factors contributing to the growth of interest in Corpus Linguistics. From a more general perspective, Sampson argues in favor of linguistics remaining a creative activity which develops in unexpected ways. As for the prospects of Corpus Linguistics, he predicts its death – not of this approach itself, but of the term. He believes the label ‘corpus linguistics’ will disappear when corpora become just another resource available to linguists.
Reader in Corpus Linguistics at Aston University (United Kingdom), Mike Scott is perhaps mostly associated with WordSmith Tools, the computer program he has designed and has been working on since 1996 (currently in its fifth version). The author’s technological concern is clear from the onset of his interview when he comments on the role played by the availability of personal computers in the development of Corpus Linguistics. In line with this practical concern, Scott writes about one of the major problems in compiling corpora: the issue of copyright. What lies ahead in the future, according to the researcher, is the creation of a newer generation of corpora, which will allow users to have audio and visual materials (in the first stage) together with the transcribed text. This specific technological concern, however, does not stop Scott from claiming that the questions to be asked by practicing corpus linguists should be always socially relevant in the first place.
Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan (United States), John Swales initially warns his readers that he is not an insider when it comes to the foundations of Corpus Linguistics. Perhaps this detachment allows him to report on how he changed his understanding of the corpus approach from a science to a methodology. Although he worked with both the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) and the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP), Swales argues against the idea that the corpus approach should be the only one available to researchers. In fact, he holds that they need to be free to choose what better suits their research objectives. In his specific questions, Swales also comments on the role of corpora in the study of genres, academic literacy and pedagogy, and contrastive rhetoric.
The interview with Guy Aston, Professor of English Language and Translation at the University of Bologna (Italy), which opens the present volume, introduces us to an applied perspective of Corpus Linguistics. Differently from the other contributors, he emphasizes the role of teaching and learning as an integral part in doing corpus studies. One might consider this to be commonsensical given that two of his specific questions deal precisely with such topics (namely, learner corpora and student autonomy). Aston’s concern for learners, however, pervades his interview, as, for instance, when he highlights the role of the language classroom in the development of Corpus Linguistics, in the concept of representativeness, in the advantages and disadvantages of the corpus approach, and in encoding corpora with extra information. All in all, Aston’s statements encourage us to consider the impact of Corpus Linguistics beyond the research paradigm. His interview leads us to reflect on the potentials of corpora to our (language) classrooms and how our research may inform our own teaching practice.
Reader at Lancaster University (United Kingdom), Paul Baker stresses the role corpus research plays in bringing to light social concepts which may underpin texts. The three specific questions he addresses reflect this concern and go hand in hand with his research interests: critical discourse analysis, gender issues and sociolinguistics. He reports on the potential of using corpora to carry out research in areas which have been traditionally viewed as mostly qualitative, favoring the investigation of small samples of language. In line with a social perspective, Baker prefers not to place Corpus Linguistics under a single label (be that ‘science’, ‘methodology’ or any other), assuming that it can have a different nature depending on its role in any given project. As a matter of fact, he argues in favor of a less rigid way of conceiving fields of study so that their boundaries become more fluid. Baker believes this perspective will lead the path of future corpus users.
Based at the Linguistics Department and at the Applied Linguistics Graduate Program (both at the Catholic University of São Paulo, Brazil), Tony Berber Sardinha brings a South American perspective to the present volume. More specifically, he draws on his teaching/research experience in Brazil to comment on the constraints corpus linguists might experience when working in such an environment as well as on the opportunities they are offered. His interview brings to the fore the corpus studies carried out in languages other than English (namely, Portuguese and Spanish) in a variety of answers, ranging from his historical overview of Corpus Linguistics to the way he conceives the future of this field. Based on his programming skills, Berber Sardinha comments on the development of recent software in which he has been (directly or indirectly) involved aimed at teaching foreign languages and at identifying metaphors.
In the opening of her interview, Susan Conrad, Professor of Applied Linguistics at Portland State University (United States), comments on the role of Corpus Linguistics in a country where language research has differed substantially from that of the European tradition. A major concern of hers, Conrad discusses the concept of variation in terms of language, dialect, knowledge areas and speakers, to cite just some examples. When considering the notion of registers, she holds that their study can be greatly enhanced by corpora and their probing tools. Conrad, however, does not restrict herself to research considerations: she also writes about the role of Corpus Linguistics, in a more general sense, to teaching – here understood as teaching not only languages but also civil engineering, as illustrated in her interview.
In this interview, Mark Davies, Professor of (Corpus) Linguistics at Brigham Young University (United States), shows his interest in languages such as English, Spanish and Portuguese. This interest is revealed in his involvement with corpora compilation (Corpus of Historical American English, Corpus del Español, and Corpus do Português, to name three instances). From his practical experience, Davies comments on the constraints one may find when trying to make a corpus available on the Internet and on what kind of technological knowledge is expected of corpus linguists. In line with the practice in this field, the author makes use of data to show us the role that intuition should play in linguistic analysis and generalizations. In terms of approach, he stresses that corpora may be used for both synchronic and diachronic purposes – the latter being discussed in more detail in one of his specific questions.
Stefan Th. Gries, Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa Barbara (United States), brings out a challenging notion of Corpus Linguistics. He proposes its understanding should be merged with psycholinguistic and cognitive concerns. Gries has no qualms in classifying Corpus Linguistics as a methodology. This explains his many references to methodological issues, ranging from the design of corpora to their comparison and/or analysis. In addition, Gries also discusses extensively statistical issues, including how much knowledge a corpus analyst needs to have in order to embark on such an investigation. This sharp methodological concern is also expressed in his prospects for the practice in Corpus Linguistics, which, according to him, needs to develop from a statistical standpoint.
Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Hong Kong, Ken Hyland focuses on what is gained when writing practices are informed by Corpus Linguistics. Based on his studies, Hyland discusses the styles of specific community of writers. In fact, he addresses issues which lie at the heart of the university setting, such as academic literacy, social construction of knowledge, and interpersonal features. While most of his examples refer to academia, some other spheres of life also find a place in his interview. In a thought-provoking way, he offers a distinction between ‘consolidating’ and ‘innovative’ research when writing about the future of Corpus Linguistics, arguing that it has been seeing too much of the former. He holds that ground-breaking investigations are needed to make sure that the field will continue to evolve and draw the attention of newcomers.
Professor Emeritus at the University of Oslo (Norway), Stig Johansson unfortunately passed away before this book was completed, and his interview is here published posthumously. In his contribution, the wealth of languages available in the world assumes special relevance, with mentions to languages such as Dutch, German, Norwegian and Swedish, besides English. Johansson points out that these languages (as well as any other) may be studied on their own, but this is not the only possibility available to researchers. As he explains, a lot can be gained from cross-linguistic studies (i.e. contrasting any pair of languages) – whether by means of comparable or parallel corpora.
From an interdisciplinary stance, Sara Laviosa, Lecturer in English and Translation Studies at the University of Bari (Italy), discusses the use of corpora in translation studies, and highlights the advantages that are opened up to translation practitioners and researchers when working with Corpus Linguistics. In addressing her specific questions, she first details the benefits that the corpus approach has brought to translation studies. From an applied perspective, she then discusses the kind of information found in corpora that is absent or lacking in traditional resources most commonly used by professionals. Finally, taking into account their practical needs, Laviosa comments on the specificities of choosing suitable corpora for translation tasks and explains important terms in corpora classification.
Professor Emeritus of English Linguistics at Lancaster University (United Kingdom), Geoffrey Leech raises several points about Corpus Linguistics per se in a thought-provoking way. As far as the historical perspective is concerned, he indicates whom he considers the founding fathers of this field and justifies his choices. When writing about representativeness, he argues that the suffix ‘-ity’ is better suited for this term (‘representativity’) when compared to ‘-ness’. This is because the former would allow for a continuum in which corpora could be classified as more (or less) representative of a (specific use of a) language. A corpus linguist at heart, Leech sees no drawbacks in this approach, but rather credits any shortcomings to the way it is put into practice. In terms of applications, Leech discusses his research experience in approaching both pragmatics and style by means of corpora.
Chair of the English Department at the University of Zimbabwe, Bill Louw contributes with an account of the philosophical aspects in Corpus Linguistics. He states that the popularity of corpora among language researchers in the recent years relates most directly to the search for truth. Louw takes no shortcuts to express his opinions. In one case, for instance, he expresses his opinion that linguists form “an unscientific community”. As regards literary research, Louw brings out the challenges corpora have posed to traditional (and long-held) notions in literature as well as the possibilities of (re)introducing the social aspect in corpus stylistics. In terms of the literature curriculum, he argues that students/teachers should not be forced to use corpora. Instead, the potential of the corpus approach should be demonstrated as a way of inviting them to follow the empirical way.
In his contribution, Geoffrey Sampson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Sussex (United Kingdom) and currently Research Fellow at the University
of South Africa, highlights the relationship between Corpus Linguistics and Syntax. He shows how this bond has a two-way nature. In his view, the use of corpora in language research allows one to better understand syntactic issues and the development of language complexity. However, the other way is also true in Sampson’s view since he believes the focus on syntax is one of the major factors contributing to the growth of interest in Corpus Linguistics. From a more general perspective, Sampson argues in favor of linguistics remaining a creative activity which develops in unexpected ways. As for the prospects of Corpus Linguistics, he predicts its death – not of this approach itself, but of the term. He believes the label ‘corpus linguistics’ will disappear when corpora become just another resource available to linguists.
Reader in Corpus Linguistics at Aston University (United Kingdom), Mike Scott is perhaps mostly associated with WordSmith Tools, the computer program he has designed and has been working on since 1996 (currently in its fifth version). The author’s technological concern is clear from the onset of his interview when he comments on the role played by the availability of personal computers in the development of Corpus Linguistics. In line with this practical concern, Scott writes about one of the major problems in compiling corpora: the issue of copyright. What lies ahead in the future, according to the researcher, is the creation of a newer generation of corpora, which will allow users to have audio and visual materials (in the first stage) together with the transcribed text. This specific technological concern, however, does not stop Scott from claiming that the questions to be asked by practicing corpus linguists should be always socially relevant in the first place.
Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan (United States), John Swales initially warns his readers that he is not an insider when it comes to the foundations of Corpus Linguistics. Perhaps this detachment allows him to report on how he changed his understanding of the corpus approach from a science to a methodology. Although he worked with both the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) and the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP), Swales argues against the idea that the corpus approach should be the only one available to researchers. In fact, he holds that they need to be free to choose what better suits their research objectives. In his specific questions, Swales also comments on the role of corpora in the study of genres, academic literacy and pedagogy, and contrastive rhetoric.