Cover not available
Part of
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
  • Appendix
Published online: 5 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.97.17sch
References (35)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
, 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.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. <[URL]> (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
. <[URL]> (10 July 2019).
Hancock, C. R. 1993. If he would have and if he didn’t . American Speech 68(3): 241–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. & Jiang, F. (K.). 2017. Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes 45(1): 40–51. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 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
Mair, C. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. OUP. <[URL]> (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. DOI logoGoogle 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.. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar