• No se han encontrado resultados

SELECCIÓN DEL METODO DE SEPARACIÓN

In document Documentos del proyecto. (página 44-49)

Multi-wordunitsgivemeaningtotextandarepartofwhatwelearnwhenwe

learnalanguage.However,thenatureandroleofphraseologyinlanguagepeda- gogyhastendedtobeneglectedoverthelastfewdecades.Thismayseemsurpris-ingbecause,asSinclairetal.(1970:ix)acknowledgedintheOSTIreport,“the

ideaofcollocationfirstemergedintheworkoflanguageteachersbetweenthetwo

worldwars,particularlythatofHaroldPalmerinJapan”.Asearlyas1933Palmer

suggestedthat“acollocationisasuccessionoftwoormorewordsthatmustbe

learnedasanintegralwholeandnotpiecedtogetherfromitscomponentparts”

(1933:i);“Thereisavastandlittle-chartedlinguisticterritorylyingbetween(but

sometimesoverlapping)therespectivefieldsofthelexicographerandthegram-marian”(1933:11);“Amereselectionofcommoncollocationsisfoundtocontain

thousandsofexamples–andthereforetoexceedbyfarthepopularestimateof

thenumberofsinglewordscontainedinaneverydayvocabulary…”(1933:13).

Palmer’slanguageteachingmethodologyinvolvedurginghisJapanesestudentsto

learnlargenumbersofcollocationsbyheartasiftheyweresinglelexemes.

Morerecently,Firth(1957),Sinclairetal.(1970),Hakuta(1974),Halliday&

Hassan(1976),WongFillmore(1976),Nattinger(1980),Peters(1983),Pawley&

Syder(1983)andWray(2002)areamongthosewhohavekeptremindingusof

theformulaicnatureofmuchofourspeechbehaviour,andthatlearningalan-guageinvolveslearningmanymulti-wordsequences.

Inthislight,wemightbeforgivenforthinkingitwouldbeobviousthatin

additiontoprovidinginsightswhichcontributetothedescriptionofalanguage

andhowitisused,moderncorpus-basedresearchwouldhavethepotentialto

contributeconsiderablytolanguagepedagogy,notonlythroughdirectapplica-tionsofdistributionalinformationtocurriculumcontent,butalsobyinforming

teachersaboutthenatureoflanguagelearning.Further,asNesselhauf(2005:237)

hassuggested,uptoathirdofthecollocationsusedbylearnersofEnglishtendto

besourcesoferror,andlengthofexposuretoEnglishinEnglish-speakingcoun-trieshasamorepositiveeffectonlearningcollocationsthanthenumberofyears

alearnerhashadofclassroominstruction.Workonphraseologyinrelationto

languagelearninghastendedtoemphasisetheformandthearbitrarynatureof

collocations,rangingfromthedescriptionofso-calledproverbialsequencesof

words(e.g.Make hay while the sun shines),todescriptionsoflexicalisedcom-poundssuchas,civil war,andill-gotten gains, andso-called‘idiomatic’sequences

suchasheavy rain(ratherthanthick rain).

Ifwemaybepermittedtospeculateastowhyphraseologyhasnotfeatured

moreprominentlyinlanguagepedagogywemayconsiderthefollowing:

i. SincePalmer’s1933listofseveralthousandEnglishcollocations,subjectively

identified,therehasnotbeenareliablewayofestablishingwhatconstitutes

themulti-wordunitsinalanguage,and whatprinciplesmay governtheir

composition. The development of computer corpus-based analysis has of

coursemadeiteasiertoidentifyrecurringmulti-wordunits.

ii. Therehasbeenapersistenttensionamonglanguageteachersinmanypartsof

theworldoverthelast50yearsbetweenform-focusedandmessage-focused

approachestolanguagepedagogy.Analysisofphraseologyhastendedtofa- vourpedagogicalapproachesbasedonform.Itisrelativelyeasywithcom-puterassistancetodiscovermanytokensofaparticularstructuresuchasthe

following,forexample:at the__ of the__ (e.g.at the end of the day).Thereis

however,noobvioussemanticcoherencehere,andthereforelittletoengage

themotivationoflearners.

 Theavailabilityofcorpus-baseddescriptionsofphraseologyfocusingespe- ciallyonformcameattheverytimethatlanguageteachingtheoryandprac-ticewasfavouringafocusonmessagesandfunction,through‘communicative

languageteaching’,takingaccountofadvancesinsociolinguistics,discourse

38 GraemeKennedy

iii. Thereisnotriedandtrue‘method’forteachingphraseology.Distributional

informationfromacorpusisnotnecessarilyareliableguideforinclusionina

could encourage learner autonomy, in some way suggesting that language

learnerscouldbemadetobelikeaspiringdescriptivelinguists,discovering languagesasunappliedsystems.Inadditiontobeinginfluencedbydescrip-tions of grammar and lexis, language teaching curriculum development is

alsodrivenbyerroranalysis(asdevelopedinlearnercorpora),andbyneeds

analysis.Further,itisnotnecessarilyefficienttohavetodiscoverthediffer-encesinusebetweentall,high,uprightandverticalthroughacorpus,when

thedifferencesaremadeexplicitingooddictionaries.

iv. Although teachers have long recognised that there are different kinds of

learninginvolvedinlanguagelearning,therelativeweightgiventoeachhas

nounpluralsand-edpasttensemorphemes,orthatadjectivesandnouns

havegenderagreementinFrench.Instructiononthecodeandonhowtouse

ittoperformspeechactsispartofexplicitlearning.However,itisobviously

impossibletomakeexplicitthewholecomplexgrammatical,lexicalandprag-maticsystemofalanguage.

 Thefocusofexplicitteachingandlearningshouldbetheitemsofalanguage

whicharefrequentanduseful.FewlearnersofEnglishwilleverhavebeen

toldexplicitlythatinEnglishwesaythank you very much,butnot*thank you much;thatifwesayI completely forgot to ring youitisprobablylesslikelyto

seemoffhandorinsultingthanifwesayI forgot to ring you;thatwearemore

likelytoseea heavily-laden truckthana laden truck.Learningsuchphraseol-ogyhaslargelybeenlefttoimplicitlearningwhichoccurswhenthefocusof

pedagogyisonmessagesratherthanform.

 Whilerecognizingthatitisnoteasytoteachexplicitlythekindofphraseo- logicalcomplexityrevealedbythecorpus,thechallengeforlanguageteach-ers is how to devise methodologies which maximize the opportunities for

implicitlearning,forlearnerstogetenoughexperienceofmulti-wordunits

inuseinordertointernalisethem.ItshouldbeclearfromTables1–8that

someofthecollocationswhichcontainthestrongestbonds,asmeasuredby

theMIscore,areinfactnotfrequent,andshouldnotbeapedagogicalprior-ity.Frequentcollocations(e.g.very good,enjoy life,give rise,send back,start again,find a way,stop talking,lose weight,at the moment),canfindaplacein

explicitteachingandlearninginacurriculum,whileinfrequentcollocations

suchasfinding solaceorlosing momentumshouldbelefttoimplicitlearning,

partofahiddencurriculumofbothcollocationalformsandsemanticprefer- ence.Fromapedagogicalviewpoint,itis,ofcoursethemostfrequently-oc-curringcollocationswhichnormallyneedtobelearnedfirst.Someexplicit

instructioninusingfrequently-occurringcollocationstaughtasvocabulary

isthereforealmostcertainlyworthwhile.

v. Thereismuchaboutphraseologythatlinguistsdonotyetunderstand.For

example,howmuchoflanguageuseisformulaic?Whatarethebestwaysof

teachingphraseology,ascomparedwithlearningitthroughexposure?Itis

alltooeasyforlinguistswhoarenotdeeplyinvolvedinlanguageteaching

toassumethatphraseologyshouldbepartoftheexplicitcurriculum.There

isaneed,however,formoreresearchevidencetosupporttheinclusionof

phraseologyintheexplicitcurriculum.Oneparticularironyisthatamong

Englishteachersatleast,phraseologyhasoftenbeencondemnedas‘cliché’

when formulaic, prefabricated multi-word units are produced by native

speakers,whereastheabilitytousesuchmulti-wordsequencesissimultane-40 GraemeKennedy

ouslyrecognisedasamarkoffluencyifappliedtosecondorforeignlanguage

learners.

vi. Corpus-based research has particularly challenged language educators to

workouthowtomaximizetheexposureneededforlearnerstoacquiremulti-wordsequencesthatcannoteasilybetaughtexplicitly.Theencouragement

ofautonomouslanguagelearning,especiallythroughreading,isobviously

veryimportanttohelpmaximizeexposuretolanguageinuse.Itmaybethat

readingofallkinds,includingliteraryworks,maymakeanoverduereturnfor

greaterattentioninlanguagepedagogy,forreadingdoesprovidethekindof

exposurewhichfacilitatesimplicitlearning.Inadditiontothiscontribution

tolanguageteachingpractice,researchinphraseologycanalsocontributeto

languageacquisitiontheorybyrevealingsomethingofthesemanticcomplex- ityoflanguagesandthecognitiveprocesseswhichliebehindlanguagelearn-inganduse,andwhichenableustobecomefluentlanguageusers.

Developingcapacityincorpus-basedresearchhasalreadyprovidedrichopportu- nitiesforresearcherstoundertakedescriptionsoflanguagesforpedagogicalpur- poses.Therehavealreadybeenadvancesinlexicographyfromcorpus-basedre-search,leadingtonewkindsofdictionaries.Thereisroomformore.Forexample,

adictionaryofthe2000mostfrequentwordsinEnglish(orinparticulargenresof

English)showingthelinguisticecologyofeachoftheheadwordsmorefullythan

hashithertobeenpossiblecouldbeausefulprojectforlanguagepedagogyandfor

revealingnewinsightsaboutlanguageuseandhumancognition.

References

Biber,D.,S.Johansson,G.Leech,S.Conrad&E.Finegan(1999).Longman grammar of spoken and written English.London:Longman.

Bybee,J.&P.Hopper(eds.)(2001).Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure.Amster-dam:JohnBenjamins.

Church,K.&P.Hanks(1990).Wordassociationnorms,mutualinformation,andlexicography.

Computational Linguistics,16,22–29.

Ellis,N.(ed.)(1994).Implicit and explicit learning of languages.London:AcademicPress.

Firth,J.(1957).Papers in linguistics, 1934–1951.London:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hakuta,K.(1974).Prefabricatedpatternsandtheemergenceofstructureinsecondlanguage

acquisition.Language Learning,24,287–298.

Halliday,M.&R.Hasan(1976).Cohesion in English.London:Longman.

Kennedy,G.(2003).AmplifiercollocationsintheBritishNationalCorpus:Implicationsfor

Englishlanguageteaching.TESOL Quarterly, 37, 467–487.

Kirsner,K.(1994).Secondlanguagevocabularylearning:Theroleofimplicitprocesses.InEllis,

N.(ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of languages, 283–311. London:AcademicPress.

Lehmann,H.-M.,P.Schneider&S.Hoffmann(2002).BNCWeb.Zurich:UniversityofZurich.

Availablefromhttp://escorp.unizh.ch/.

Lewis,M.(1993).The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward.London:Language

TeachingPublications.

Louw,B.(1993).Ironyinthetextorinsincerityinthewriter?Thediagnosticpotentialofse-manticprosodies.InBaker,M.,G.Francis&E.Tognini-Bonelli(eds.)Text and technology:

In honour of John Sinclair, 157–176. Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Nattinger,J.(1980).AlexicalphrasegrammarforESL.TESOL Quarterly, 14,337–344.

Nesselhauf,N.(2005).Collocations in a learner corpus.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Palmer,H.E.(1933).Second interim report on English collocations.Tokyo:Kaitakusha.

Partington,A.(2004).“Utterlycontentineachother’scompany”.Semanticprosodyandseman-ticpreference.International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,9 (1),131–156.

Pawley,A.&F.Syder(1983).Twopuzzlesforlinguistictheory:Nativelikeselectionandnative-likefluency.InRichards,J.&R.Schmidt(eds.)Language and communication,191–226.

London:Longman.

Peters,A.(1983).The units of language acquisition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Sinclair,J.(1987).Looking up.London:Collins.

Sinclair,J.,S.Jones&R.Daley(1970).English collocation studies: The OSTI Report.(editedby

RameshKrishnamurthy2004)London:Continuum.

Stubbs,M.(2001).Words and phrases.Oxford:Blackwell.

Wong-Fillmore,L.(1976).TheSecondTimeAround.PhDdissertation,StanfordUniversity.

Wray,A.(2002).Formulaic language and the lexicon.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

In document Documentos del proyecto. (página 44-49)