Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T16:53:35.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Putting the CEFR to good use: Designing grammars based on learner-corpus evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2013

Michael McCarthy
Michael McCarthy*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, UKmactoft@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This lecture considers what reference and pedagogical grammars and grammar teaching materials for L2 learners should ideally include, based on corpus evidence from both native-speaker and learner corpora. I demonstrate how learner corpora can be used to track the emergence of grammatical features, from the elementary level to advanced, how learners get to grips with new grammar and what we can learn from the statistical output of error-coded corpora. Additionally, we look at how the divide between lexis and grammar becomes progressively blurred and how corpus information can best be used to produce useful grammars and teaching materials for students at different levels. The advanced level in particular is focused on. The lecture is presented within the framework of the English Profile Project (EPP), a large, international, inter-disciplinary project which uses corpora to investigate learner competence at different levels of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR).

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 99 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Biber, D., Gray, B. & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45.1, 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttery, P. & Caines, A. (2012). Normalising frequency counts to account for ‘opportunity of use’ in learner corpora. In Tono, Y., Kawaguchi, Y. & Minegishi, M. (eds.), Developmental and crosslinguistic perspectives in learner corpus research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. A., McCarthy, M. J., Mark, G. & O'Keeffe, A. (2011). English grammar today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1–33.Google Scholar
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar teaching: practice or consciousness-raising? In Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, A. (2008). English profile: Functional progression in materials for ELT. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes 33, 19–25.Google Scholar
Green, A. (2012). Language functions revisited: Theoretical and empirical bases for language construct definition across the ability range. English Profile Studies, vol. 2. Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. & Buttery, P. (2010). Criterial features in learner corpora: Theory and illustrations. English Profile Journal 1.1, e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. & Filipović, L. (2012). Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. English Profile Studies, vol. 1. Cambridge: UCLES/Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Healy, M. & Onderdonk Horan, K. (2012). Looking at language in hotel management education. In Farr, F. & Moriarty, M. (eds.), Language, learning and teaching: Irish research perspective. Berlin: Peter Lang, 141–165.Google Scholar
Hewings, M. (1999/2005). Advanced grammar in use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Khalifa, H. & French, A. (2009). Aligning Cambridge ESOL examinations to the CEFR: Issues and practice. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes 37, 10–14.Google Scholar
Liu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly 45.1, 36–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, G. & O'Keeffe, A. (2012). The English Grammar Profile. Paper presented at the English Profile Network Seminar. Hughes Hall, Cambridge, UK, 2–3 February 2012.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. J. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. J. (2010). Spoken fluency revisited. English Profile Journal 1.1, e4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. J., McCarten, J. & Sandiford, H. (2012). Viewpoint 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milanovic, M. (2009). Cambridge ESOL and the CEFR. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes 37, 2–5.Google Scholar
Murakami, A. (2013). Cross-linguistic influence on the accuracy order of L2 English grammatical morphemes. In Granger, S., Gaëtanelle, S. & Meunier, F. (eds.), Proceedings of learner corpus research 2011. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shirai, Y. & Kurono, A. (1998). The acquisition of tense-aspect marking in Japanese as a second language. Language Learning 48. 2, 245–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ek, J. A. & Trim, J. (2001) Vantage. Council of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar