Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:06:56.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing conversational grammar in EFL: a case for hedging strings

Bringing insights from corpus linguistics and construction grammar into the English language classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2014

Sergio Torres-Martínez
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The influence of corpus-based grammars has been pervasive in the past two decades in language learning as an important reference for researchers, teachers, and language enthusiasts alike. Yet such advances in the compilation of large digitized samples of language have not yet resulted in many practical implementations in EFL contexts. This is certainly due to the reluctance of many teachers to introduce corpora into their practice, in the belief that such a shift is technically cumbersome and time-consuming (Boulton 2010). I shall take up this issue in the last section of this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 24 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, W. & Hüttner, J. 2011. ‘Some “friendly” confusion: SCOTS and ELF.’ ELT Journal 65(2), 183–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. 1993. ‘Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.’ Educational Psychologist 28, 117–48.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2010. ‘Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation.’ Language Learning 60(2), 534–72.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. 2010. ‘New approaches to hedging.’ Online at <http://www.bu.edu/sed/files/2010/10/2010-Pragmatic-Competence-The-Case-of-Hedging.pdf> (Accessed March 12, 2014).+(Accessed+March+12,+2014).>Google Scholar
Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J. & Hung, B. T. 2007. ‘Comparison facilitates children's learning of names for parts.’ Journal of Cognition and Development 8, 283–307.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1989. Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. 1997. ‘Grammar, tails and affect: Constructing expressive choices in discourse.’ Text 17(3), 406–29.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. & DeCarrico, J. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H. & Meloni, C. 2000. Internet for English Teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.Google Scholar