Chapter published in:
Learner Corpora and Language Teaching
Edited by Sandra Götz and Joybrato Mukherjee
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 92] 2019
► pp. 7–28

The Trinity Lancaster Corpus

Applications in language teaching and materials development

| Lancaster University
| Lancaster University
| Lancaster University
Corpora and corpus techniques have long been an important source of knowledge about language; they have also been increasingly used for language teaching purposes. This chapter discusses the role of spoken learner corpora in language pedagogy and in development of language teaching materials. In particular, it focuses on the Trinity Lancaster Corpus (TLC) and its pedagogical applications. With over four million words, the TLC is one of the largest corpora of L2 spoken English, representing language from L2 English speakers engaged in different speaking tasks. The chapter uses data from the TLC to illustrate the use of corpus findings in teaching pragmatics in spoken language use, focusing on three case studies: expression of disagreement, ability to adjust language choice according to linguistic setting, and engaged listenership.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Description of the resource
    • 2.1Corpus overview
      • 2.1.1The nature of interaction: Linguistic setting and the speaking tasks
      • 2.1.2Linguistic and cultural background
      • 2.1.3Proficiency in spoken English
      • 2.1.4Sociolinguistic characteristics: Age, gender and education
      • 2.1.5Learning experience: Age of acquisition, learning history and patterns of use
    • 2.2Accessing and searching the TLC
  • 3.Issues in the corpus analysis of learner language
    • 3.1Transcription: Capturing spoken learner language
    • 3.2Comparison of (sub)corpora
  • 4.Applications of spoken learner corpora in language teaching
    • 4.1The use of spoken corpora in language teaching
    • 4.2Using learner corpora in language teaching
  • 5.Using the TLC for pedagogical purposes
    • 5.1Comparison across proficiency levels: Expression of disagreement
      • Corpus findings
      • Pedagogical implications
    • 5.2Comparison across tasks: Ability to adjust linguistic choice according to situation
      • Corpus findings
      • Pedagogical implications
    • 5.3Comparison between less and more successful learners: Active and engaged listenership
      • Corpus findings
      • Pedagogical implications
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 06 May 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.92.02gab
References
Adolphs, Svenja & Knight, Dawn
2010 Building a spoken corpus. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Anne O’Keefe & Michael McCarthy (eds), 38–52. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, Mossman, Sabrina, & Vellenga, Heidi E.
2014 Developing corpus-based materials to teach pragmatic routines. TESOL Journal 6(3): 499–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Gena R.
2010 Using Corpora in the Language Learning Classroom: Corpus Linguistics for Teachers. Ann Arbor IN: University of Michigan Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Callies, Marcus
2015 Using learner corpora in language testing and assessment: Current practice and future challenges. In Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics: Research and Applications for Foreign Language Teaching and Assessment, Erik K. Castello, Katherine Ackerley & Francesca Coccetta (eds), 21–35. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Carlsen, Cecilie
2012 Proficiency level – A fuzzy variable in computer learner corpora. Applied Linguistics 33(2): 161–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald, & McCarthy, Michael
2017 Spoken grammar: Where are we and where are we going? Applied Linguistics 38(1): 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Angela
2015 The learner corpus as a pedagogic corpus. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds), 445–464. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
2011 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of Europe. https://​www​.coe​.int​/t​/dg4​/linguistic​/source​/framework​_en​.pdf> (28 May 2018).
Cullen, Richard & Kuo, I-Chun
2007 Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: a missing link? TESOL Quarterly 41(2): 361–386. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, Jean-Marc
2004 The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in French as a foreign language: An overview. Journal of French Language Studies 14(3): 301–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
1991 Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 1(1): 71–106.Google Scholar
Farr, Fiona
2003 Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: the case of student-tutor meetings. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(1): 67–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, Robert, Götz, Sandra & Werner, Valentin
2016 The present perfect in learner Englishes: A corpus-based case study on L1 German intermediate and advanced speech and writing. In Re-Assessing the Present Perfect, Valentin Werner, Elena Seoane & Cristina Suárez-Gómez (eds), 297–338. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, Dana
2014 Areas of difference between more and less successful candidates in GESE at Grades 7 and 8. Commissioned report. Trinity College London.Google Scholar
Gablasova, Dana & Brezina, Vaclav
2015 Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015, Jesús Romero-Trillo (ed.), 117–136. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Disagreement in L2 spoken English: From learner corpus research to corpus-based teaching materials. In Learner Corpus Research: New Perspectives and Applications, Vaclav Brezina & Lynne Flowerdew (eds), 69–89. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Gablasova, Dana, Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony
2017 Exploring learner language through corpora: Comparing and interpreting corpus frequency information. Language Learning 67(S1): 155–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, Dana, Brezina, Vaclav, McEnery, Tony, & Boyd, Elaine
2017 Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: The effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics 38(1): 613–637. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, Dana, Brezina, Vaclav, & McEnery, Tony
In preparation. The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Development, description and application.
Gilmore, Alex
2004 A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal 58(4): 363–374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Paquot, Magali
2008 Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction 1(1): 41–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, De Cock, Sylvie, & Granger, Sylviane
2010 The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane
2004 Computer learner corpus research: Current state and future prospects. In Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multidimensional Perspective, Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton (eds), 123–145. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1): 7–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Noriko & Cohen, Andrew D.
2014 Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, Scott & Pavlenko, Aneta
2008 Cross-linguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Christian, Byrne, Shelly & Halenko, Nicola
2017 Successful Spoken English: Findings from Learner Corpora. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther & Mehlmauer-Larcher, Barbara
2005 Computer corpora and the language classroom: On the potential limitations of computer corpora in language teaching. ReCALL 16(1): 65–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, Gabriele & Rose, Kenneth R.
2002 Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Baisa, Vít, Bušta, Jan, Jakubíček, Miloš, Kovář, Vojtěch, Michelfeit, Jan, Rychlý, Pavel & Suchomel, Vít
2014 The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1(1): 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2000 Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented research. Language Learning 50(4): 675–724. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Limberg, Holger
2016 Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research 20(6): 700–718. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael & O’Keeffe, Anne
2004 Research in the teaching of speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 26–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Hardie, Andrew
2011 Corpus linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Xiao, Richard
2011 What corpora can offer in language teaching and learning. In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Eli Hinkel (ed.), 364–380. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato
2006 Corpus linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art – and beyond. English Corpus Linguistics 3: 5–24.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja
2004 Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. In How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 12], John Sinclair (ed.), 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne, McCarthy, Michael & Carter, Ronald
2007 From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona & Pochon-Berger, Evelyne
2011 Developing “methods” for interaction: a cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In L2 Interactional Competence and Development, Joan Kelly Hall, John Hellermann & Simona Pekarek Doehler (eds), 206–243. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. In Structures of Social Action, J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Reppen, Randi
2010 Using Corpora in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Roever, Carsten
2010 Effects of cultural background in a test of ESL pragmalinguistics: A DIF approach. In Pragmatics Language Learning, Gabriele Kasper, Hanh T. Nguyen, Dina R. Yoshimi & Jim K. Yoshioka (eds), 187–212. Honolulu HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Römer, Ute
2010 Using general and specialized corpora in English language teaching: Past, present and future. In Corpus-Based Approaches to English Language Teaching, Maria C. Campoy, Begoña Belles-Fortuno & Maria Lluisa (eds), 18–35. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Rose, Kenneth R.
2005 On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System 33(3): 385–399. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko
2011 Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 289–310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thonus, Terese
2007 Listener responses as a pragmatic resource for learners of English. The CATESOL Journal 19(1): 132–145.Google Scholar
Timmis, Ivor
2002 Native-speaker norms and International English: A classroom view. ELT Journal 56(3): 240–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Corpus Linguistics for ELT: Research and Practice. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trinity College London
2016 Exam Information: Graded Examinations in Spoken English (GESE). http://​www​.trinitycollege​.com​/site​/?id​=368 along with videos of the speaking tasks (28 May 2018).
Usó-Juan, Esther
2007 The presentation and practice of the communicative act of requesting in textbooks: Focusing on modifiers. In Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning, Eva A. Soler & Maria P. Safont Jordà (eds), 223–243. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vellenga, Heidi
2004 Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely. TESL-EJ 8(2): 1–17.Google Scholar
VOICE
2013 The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English. Director: Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Angelika Breiteneder, Theresa Klimpfinger, Stefan Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka. http://​voice​.univie​.ac​.at​/pos/> (28 May 2018).
Vygotsky, Lev S.
1980 Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wall, Diane & Taylor, Cathy
2014 Communicative Language Testing (CLT): Reflections on the “Issues Revisited” from the perspective of an examinations board. Language Assessment Quarterly 11(2): 170–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Steve
2010 What features of spoken and written corpora can be exploited in creating language teaching materials and syllabuses. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Anne O’Keefe & Michael McCarthy (eds), 333–345. Abingdon: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Gablasova, Dana, Vaclav Brezina & Tony McEnery
2019. The Trinity Lancaster Corpus. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5:2 ► pp. 126 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2021. 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.