Chapter published in:
Voices Past and Present - Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts: In honor of Merja Kytö
Edited by Ewa Jonsson and Tove Larsson
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 97] 2020
► pp. 283–300

Chapter 17
“If anyone would have told me, I would have not believed it”

Using corpora to question assumptions about spoken vs. written grammar in EFL grammars and other normative works

| Uppsala University
| Uppsala University
The aim of this chapter is to critically examine the accuracy of the advice on formal, written grammar offered in EFL teaching materials and other normative works. We use corpus data to investigate the use of four grammatical features often labelled as “informal” or “spoken” and find that the guidelines presented in university textbooks and other normative sources do not always match actual usage. Our findings call for a re-examination of the role of prescriptivism in teaching materials and in the language classroom, especially regarding the use of the split infinitive, like meaning ‘such as,’ and the conjunct though.
Keywords: normative works, prescriptivism, corpus studies, EFL instruction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Material and method
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Conditional would have
    • 3.2Three uses of like
    • 3.3 Though as a conjunct
    • 3.4The “split” infinitive
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 05 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.97.17sch
References
Aijmer, K.
2003 Engelska – ett språk utan gränser. In Gränser: Humanistdag-boken 16, E. Ahlstedt, M.-L. Follér, A. Lundqvist, M. Nyman, T. Magnusson, T. Olsson & B. Ryder Liljegren (eds), 13–20. Gothenburg: Faculty of the Humanities, Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
2002 On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], I. Wischer & G. Diewald (eds), 345–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
1988 Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Gray, B.
2011 Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 223–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Collins = Collins COBUILD English Grammar, 4th edn 2017 Glasgow: Collins.Google Scholar
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English
, 9th edn 1995 Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Connors, R. J. & Lunsford, A. A.
1988 Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication 39(4): 395–409.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
2003 English as a Global Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curzan, A.
2014 Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, A.
2006 Lexical replacement and the like(s). American Speech 81(4): 339–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
2008 The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. https://​www​.english​-corpora​.org​/coca/ (10 July 2019).
Denison, D.
1998 Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV: 1776–1997, S. Romaine (ed.), 92–329. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Estling Vannestål, M.
2015 A University Grammar of English: With a Swedish Perspective, 2nd edn. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Gabrielatos, C.
2005 Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells? Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 8(4): n.p.Google Scholar
Hancock, C. R.
1993  If he would have and if he didn’t . American Speech 68(3): 241–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. & Mair, C.
1999 ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. The International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. (K.)
2017 Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes 45(1): 40–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, N.
2003  “I wish I would have known!”: The usage of would have in past counterfactual if- and wish-clauses. Issues in Applied Linguistics 14(1): 21–48.Google Scholar
Larsson, T. & Kaatari, H.
2019 Extraposition in learner and expert writing: Exploring (in)formality and the impact of register. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5(1): 33–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
, 5th edn 2009 Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Mair, C.
1997 Parallel corpora: A real-time approach to the study of language change in progress. In Corpus-based Studies in English, M. Ljung (ed.), 195–209. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2006 Twentieth-century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Molencki, R.
2000 Parallelism vs. asymmetry: The case of English counterfactual conditionals. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (eds), 311–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
OED Oxford English Dictionary Online. OUP. http://​www​.oed​.com (15 May 2020).
Perales-Escudero, M. D.
2011 To split or not to split: The split infinitive past and present. Journal of English Linguistics 39(4): 313–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Römer, U.
2007 Learner language and the norms in native corpora and EFL teaching materials: A case study of English conditionals. In Anglistentag 2006 Halle: Proceedings, S. Volk-Birke & J. Lippert (eds), 355–363. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Rubio, F. D. & Martínez Lirola, M.
2010 English as a foreign language in the EU: Preliminary analysis of the difference in proficiency levels among the member states. European Journal of Language Policy 2(1): 23–40.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, P.
2009 Chapter 11. Linking adverbials in student and professional writing in literary studies: What makes writing mature. In Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse, M. Charles, D. Pecorari & S. Hunston (eds), 215–235. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Siemund, R.
1995 ‘For who the bell tolls’: Or why corpus linguistics should carry the bell in the study of language change in present-day English. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 20: 351–376.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. & Sager, O.
1996 Engelsk universitetsgrammatik, 2nd edn. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M.
2001 EAP-related linguistic research: An intellectual history. In Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes, J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (eds), 42–54. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar