a...
:1 “(12: i
. 12.3.3134 4..

mm.
... Joan

‘ Ewaruyqfl,
.. . x
1.

 

:
J -
. .J. 1%..qu

«main 9:1. ,
. I. I . . , . , . . . . . . .1.-ill‘ixu .‘HJAA . .
V _ ,, . , .fifiiafi 5.. , . .meam:

n . ...
, . 1" . 1.

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A CORPUS-BASED APPROACH TO ESL:
TEXTBOOK AND MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT AND
EVALUATION

presented by

Angela Komsic Super

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in TESOL

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature

Q/flbflj 07% 2007/

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

.-—.-----.-a—-o-o—--

 

 

._.___-_

__ -—-—~—.‘

v .- r‘._...__v '

 

W
Michigan State

University

i...-

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

27 2"”9
0605 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRClDateDue.p65-p.15

A CORPUS-BASED APPROACH TO ESL:
TEXTBOOK AND MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
By

Angela Komsic Super

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Linguistics

2004

ABSTRACT

A CORPUS-BASED APPROACH TO ESL:
TEXTBOOK AND MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION

By

Angela Komsic Super

Taking both the advantages and limitations of using a corpus-based approach in
language learning into account, I make the claim that corpora are most suitably utilized
only if they are used for the purpose of curriculum and textbook development and
evaluation. I focus this claim by providing the results of three studies that I have
conducted.

The first study provides evidence for one way that corpora may most effectively
be utilized (based on empirical data) for the purpose of textbook evaluation. The second
study focuses on the ways in which ESL teachers and researchers may develop textbooks
based on information (e. g. idioms) gathered from simple corpus concordance searching in
relevant corpora, and how to most effectively transform basic search results into
communicative teaching materials. The third study focuses on the ways in which a
corpus-based approach may be used for the purpose of materials development in an ESP
classroom.

Each study is introduced with justifications based on prior research done on
communicative teaching methods in ESL. Each study is concluded with further
implications and elaboration on how language teachers can easily and most effectively

use corpora in their classrooms.

 

 

"I"...
“L. .-

39,;
hm“.

r—o
(I:

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my primary advisor and professor, Dr. Debra Hardison, for
her constant encouragement and guidance, without which this thesis would not have been
possible. Dr. Hardison’s dedication to research and to students’ interests is truly
admirable and greatly appreciated.

I would also like to thank my second committee member and professor, Dr.
Charlene Polio, for encouraging me to explore my interests and giving me the initial idea

to write a thesis in the first place.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vi

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND: CORPUS LINGUISTICS ................................................... 4
Taking a ‘Corpus-Based’ Approach ..................................................... 4
Corpus Linguistics and Language Learning ............................................ 5

CHAPTER 2

TEXTBOOK EVALUATION .................................................................... 12
Background ................................................................................. 12
Justification & Research Questions ..................................................... 13
Methodology ............................................................................... 15
Results ...................................................................................... 19
Discussion .................................................................................. 25

CHAPTER 3

TEXTBOOK DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 28
Background ................................................................................ 28
Justification & Research Questions .................................................... 33
Methodology .............................................................................. 34
Results .................................................................................... 35
Discussion ................................................................................. 36

CHAPTER 4

ESP MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................... 39
Background ............................................................................... 39
Justification & Research Questions ..................................................... 45
Methodology .............................................................................. 46
Results .................................................................................... 47
Discussion ................................................................................. 48

CHAPTER 5

WHY TAKE A ‘CORPUS-BASED APPROACH’? ......................................... 55
Discussion ................................................................................. 55
Conclusion ................................................................................ 58

APPENDICES .................................................................................... 60
Appendix A ................................................................................ 61
Appendix B ................................................................................ 63
Appendix C ................................................................................ 66

Appendix D ................................................................................. 70

REFERENCES ................................................................................... l 48

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: MICASE speech events

Table 2: MICASE gender and academic role distribution
Table 3: MICASE academic divisions distribution

Table 4: MICASE discourse mode distribution

Table 5: Idioms from Madden and Rohlck’s Discussion & Interaction in the Academic
Community (2000)

Table 6: Sample colloquial expressions from Madden and Rohlck’s Discussion &
Interaction in the Academic Community ( 2000)

Table 7: Frequency results (per 1 million) of the idioms found in MICASE
Table 8: Frequency results of “Idioms in the News”, as found in COBUILD
Table 9: List of alternative idiomatic expressions searched

Table 10: Alternative idiomatic expressions results

Table 11: List of geometric expressions searched

Table 12: Alternative geometric expressions results

Table 13: Occurrences of sample colloquial expression from MICASE
Table 14: Frequent 2-word clusters in MICASE

Table 15: Frequent 3-word clusters in MICASE

Table 16: Frequency 4-word clusters in MICASE

Table 17: Frequent 5-word clusters in MICASE

Table 18: Most frequent idiomatic expressions, as found in MICASE

Table 19: Rank order of the 20 most frequent words used in an economics text compared

with their occurrence in general academic English (adapted from Sutarsyah and Kennedy,
1994)

vi

LIST OF TABLES (cont’d)

Table 20: M.A. TESOL core courses at MSU

Table 21: Corpora created

Table 22: Frequencies

vii

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this thesis is to provide various models and guidelines to illustrate
the many ways in which a corpus-based approach can most effectively be utilized in the
TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) field in general, and in ESL
(English as a Second Language) textbook and materials development and evaluation in
particular.

While much literature is available in the field of corpus linguistics, there is a
paucity of materials that illustrate how corpora may most effectively and efficiently be
used for communicative purposes in the language-learning classroom. Research that has
been conducted most recently has focused on the use of corpora in the classroom by
demonstrating the many ways in which corpus-searching can benefit second language
learners independently (outside of the classroom) by guiding language students and
teachers to conduct extensive searches which may provide information about collocation
and phrase patterns, collocation and synonymy, connotation and semantic prosody,
syntax, cohesion in texts, metaphor, and frequency. While such research has created a
useful base for the incorporation of corpora in the classroom, it also has its limitations
since such extensive data-driven searching is not only time-consuming and not always
accessible, but also reserved for only the most motivated of language learners and
teachers.

Taking both the advantages and limitations of using a corpus-based approach in
language learning into account, I conclude by making the claim that corpora are most

suitably utilized only if they are used for the purpose of curriculum and textbook

development and evaluation. 1 focus this claim by providing the results of three studies
that I have conducted which demonstrate 1.) The ways in which corpora may be used for
textbook evaluation, 2.) The ways in which corpora may be used for textbook
development, and 3.) The ways in which corpora may be used for ESP (English for
Specific Purposes) materials development.

The first study provides evidence for one way that corpora may most effectively
be utilized (based on empirical data) for the purpose of textbook evaluation. This study
compared an academic speech textbook, Discussion and Interaction in the Academic
Community (Madden & Rohlck, 2000), with a corpus of academic speech, the Michigan
Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE). Frequencies of expressions and
collocations were compared, and the results suggested that the textbook was not in fact
representative of academic speech, as it had previously claimed. The MICASE corpus, as
well'as the COBUILD corpus, were then utilized in order to update the textbook and
provide more realistic data and content for the textbook authors.

The second study focuses on the ways in which ESL teachers and researchers may
develop textbooks based on information gathered from simple corpus concordance
searching in relevant corpora, and how to most effectively transform basic search results
into communicative teaching materials. This study specifically looked at which idioms
are most common in academic speech. Two other researchers and I read through the
entire MICASE corpus and noted all idiomatic expressions based on our criteria for the
term “idiom”. What were found were 600 occurrences of idioms in the MICASE,
providing empirical evidence of idioms in academic speech, should any researcher

choose to develop a textbook focusing on this topic. This study provides a substantial

amount of evidence for language teachers in academic environments who would like to
teach idioms, without relying solely on idiosyncratic intuition. Furthermore, this study
sets a methodological framework as to the most efficient and productive searching
techniques (as well as limitations) for language researchers choosing to create textbooks
using an empirical corpus-based approach.

The third study focuses on the ways in which a corpus-based approach may be
used for the purpose of materials development in an ESP classroom. In this study, I
created a written corpus of writing taken from 14 native speaker graduate students in the
M.A. TESOL program at Michigan State University for the purpose of providing a tool
with which non-native speakers in the M.A. TESOL department may improve their
writing in English in their graduate classes. Some of the sub-corpora that were created
from the master corpus include various corpora for each core TESOL course. This study
serves solely as a model, and introduces the many ways in which corpora may best be
utilized to create a specific curriculum that best fits the needs of the students, as well as
considerations and limitations that need to be taken into account if creating corpora for
materials development (e. g. what data to collect, how to collect it, what to do with it,
etc.).

Each study will be introduced with justifications based on prior research done on
communicative teaching methods in ESL. Each study will be concluded with further
implications on how language teachers can easily and most effectively use the methods
described in their classrooms.

Overall, it is assumed that, if found effective, the methods studied could be

adopted by many teachers without special training.

 

CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND: CORPUS LINGUISTICS

Taking a ‘Corpus-Based Approach’

Corpus linguistics is currently a growing discipline that is slowly integrating itself
into various spheres of language analyses and applied linguistics. Corpus linguistics
technology requires a computer that can store a collection of natural text files (the
corpus), and then apply software to those files to produce frequency lists, lists of key
words, and, most importantly, strings of words showing which words co-occur (or
collocate) with others in natural language. Therefore, to take a ‘corpus-based approach’
means to utilize a corpus or various corpora as a means of conducting language research
based on empirical data. A corpus allows one to analyze actual usage patterns in natural
texts, thereby making extensive use of computers for analysis, saving much time on
behalf of the researcher. Often it is possible for a computer to analyze language through
simple programming methods, rather than spending extensive periods of time reading
through texts and trying to find language patterns or real-world examples of language in
various contexts. The text files in a corpus may consist entirely of written texts (as in the
Helinski Corpus of English Texts), entirely of transcriptions of speech (as in MICASE —
the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English), or of both (as in the Bank of English
/ COBUILD).l These corpora are typically constructed on certain principles that lead to
appropriate sampling, and they can vary greatly in size. The Bank of English corpus
roughly contains over 400 million words from various sources (i.e. newspapers,
magazines, books, etc.) taken from both American and British media, whereas small

specialized corpora, especially those devoted to single genres, such as telephone calls or

British teen slang, can be significantly smaller. The pros and cons of large diffuse
corpora and small narrow ones is a matter of current debate (Simpson & Swales, 2001 ).
However, from a more global and historical perspective:
Many of the developments in corpus linguistics over the last 15 years are due to
the work of European scholars, with particularly active groups in the United
Kingdom and Scandinavia. Despite the work of Douglas Biber at Northern
Arizona, Michael Barlow at Rice University, and important corporist groups at
the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Pennsylvania,
North America has generally lagged behind. For many years now, for example,
the Europeans have had several annual or biennial conferences on corpus
linguistics, under such acronyms as ICAME (International Computer Archive of
Modern English) and TALC (Teaching and Language Corpora). In North
America, the first national symposium devoted to this kind of linguistics was held
at the University of Michigan in May 1999. (Simpson & Swales, 2001, p. 2)
The various areas of applied linguistics that are currently implementing a corpus-
based approach are: lexicography, grammar analysis (e.g. syntax, semantics, pragmatics),

sociolinguistics (e.g. dialects, registers, etc), language acquisition, style (e. g. writing),

and various pedagogical applications (e. g. language teaching).

Corpus Linguistics and Language Learning

Given the recent emergence of corpus linguistics in North America, one particular
area that has just recently been gaining attention is the area of corpus linguistics and
language teaching. There has been a paucity of materials that illustrate how corpora may
most effectively and efficiently be used in the language learning classroom, and many
language teachers are not even aware of the infinite possibilities that the corpus-approach
may offer to language learners. Nevertheless, as technology in the classroom increases at
a steady rate, the use of corpora may prove to be extremely useful in the development of

language teaching materials in the future, given the appropriate guidance.

In the past 15 years of corpus linguistics and language learning research, there
have been two general approaches to using corpus-based materials: Teachers can either
analyze the corpora themselves for materials design or assessment, or they can decide to
introduce them into the classroom and train students in their use. In the first case:

...teachers might use corpus-based investigations to (i) determine the most

frequent patterns in a particular domain; (ii) enrich their knowledge of the

language, perhaps in response to questions raised in the classroom’ (iii) provide

“authentic data” examples; and (iv) generate teaching materials. (Barlow, 1996, p.

30)

In the second case:

...teachers may also wish to have their students explore corpus materials, either in

following a path of investigation determined by the teacher (so that the students

come to understand a particular pattern of usage such as say versus tell or the
collocations of bright) or in exploring an issue in a more open-ended way.

(Barlow, 1996, p. 30)

Furthermore, one early study conducted by Johns ( 1991a, 1991b) has described a number
of ways teachers can create materials and exercises for use in the classroom, and he has
also developed a theory of what he calls “data driven learning” (DDL). The basis of this
kind of learning is inductive acquisition on the part of students “through the process of
analyzing the patterns of language use of specifically selected items as revealed through
corpora” (Tribble & Jones, 1990; Johns, 1991a). Advocates of this method argue that
this provides a more meaningful context in which to learn grammar (as opposed to simply
being taught grammar rules) and appropriate word usage. Johns outlines three general
effects of adopting the DDL approach:

[It] can have a considerable influence on the process of language learning,

stimulating enquiry and speculation on the part of the learner, and helping the

learner also to develop the ability to see patterning in the target language and to

form generalizations to account for that patterning. The second main effect of
DDL is on the role of the teacher, who has to learn to become a director and

 

Kalli

' :9- EL

 

 

i

‘..
‘.‘ »..~—_— «o-

 

4.

‘ .
“52‘

 

 

t“.
Uzi".
. .'j'

 

A l

 

coordinator of student-initiated research... The third... is a revelation of the place
of grammar in language learning and language teaching... The DDL approach
makes possible a new style of “grammatical consciousness raising” (Rutherford,
1987) by placing the learner’s own discovery of grammar at the center of
language learning. (Johns, 1991a, p. 2-3)

Taking the possibilities of data-driven language learning into account, Aston (1997)

follows up by suggesting that approaches to using corpus resources in the classroom can

be divided into two general areas, those for reference and those for browsing: .
On the one hand, they might be treated as a reference tool, which could be looked E
up to provide examples and therefore clarify doubts on particular problems which I

had arisen in other language activities. From this perspective the corpus could be
seen as complementing the grammar, the dictionary, and the encyclopedia. On
the other hand, a corpus might be treated as a course of activity in itself, a
hypertext to be browsed in, where the user passes from one text or concordance to
another, and where, rather then being determined by a preselected goal,
progressive discoveries occur on a negotiated step-by-step basis. (as cited in
Partington, 1997, p. 7)

 

1?

Nevertheless, while it is true that such research has created a useful base for the
incorporation of corpora in the classroom, it also has its limitations since such extensive
data-driven searching is not only time-consuming and not always accessible, but also
reserved for only the most motivated of language learners and teachers.

Some core researchers who have contributed to developing the area of corpus
linguistics and language learning beyond DDL include Partington (1998), Biber, Conrad,
Reppen (1998), and Kennedy (1998), who have focused their implementation of the use
of corpora in the classroom by demonstrating the many ways in which corpus searching
and concordancing can benefit second language learners independently (outside of the
classroom) by guiding language students and teachers to conduct extensive searches
which may provide information about collocation and phrase patterns, collocation and

synonymy, connotation and semantic prosody, syntax, cohesion in texts, metaphor, and

frequency, all of which may be used to create language learning materials and textbooks.
Collectively, their work has greatly contributed to corpus linguistics and language
learning research being conducted today.

Partington’s book, Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language
Research and Teaching (1998), was considered a breakthrough when it was first
published since it bridged the gap between previous corpus-based studies and the
possibility of taking a corpus-based approach for more communicative language learning.
Partington focused his early research by going beyond data-driven language learning, and
offering various demonstrations of how it is possible to interrogate a medium-sized
corpus for purposes such as those described above (DDL), but also for purposes of
enriching the teacher’s awareness of language (e.g. with concordance searching), refining
and developing syllabi and materials (e. g. developing authentic materials based on
empirical data), as well as creating activities as a means of developing students’ study
skills and understanding of the target language (in this case, English). While these
techniques had been speculated upon for years, this text was the first to publicly bring
attention to instruction for language teachers when looking at various concordance
searches and the illustration of how search results may easily be developed into general
communicative language learning materials.

Another researcher who has contributed to the shift from DDL to using corpora to
develop communicative language learning materials is Kennedy (1998). According to
Kennedy (1998), there are a number of ways the language in a corpus can influence
language-teaching pedagogies:

However valuable may have been the focus on learning language as
communication (particularly in increasing language fluency), there has been

 

growing recognition that systemic accuracy is also relevant, and consequently

there has been a more recent revival of interest among language teachers in what

is being learned: the content of language teaching... Curriculum designers and
classroom teachers need to have access to this information through better
reference materials and syllabuses. .. First it can influence the content of language
teaching by affecting the selection of what to teach, the sequencing of pedagogy,
and the weight given to items or parts of the language being taught, thus
contributing directly to the content of instruction. Secondly, through the
consciousness-raising of teachers about language and language use, it can show
that likelihood of occurrence, or frequency of use, is an important measure of

usefulness. (Kennedy, 1998, p. 281)

Most notably, Kennedy was one of the first language researchers to use a corpus for
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (see Chapter 4 Background), as well as one of the
first to integrate corpora for the purpose of developing teaching pedagogy, noting not
only the importance of teaching the collocations of highest frequency for ESP, but also
noting the importance of teaching those collocations which teachers have known to cause
the greatest difficulties among their students. Kennedy’s contribution to corpus
linguistics and language learning, apart from numerous specialized studies, has been in
the area of teaching pedagogy and teaching objectives, illustrating how easily (and
abundantly) corpora provide natural texts that may be used to create language-learning
materials for every specialized classroom.

Lastly, another group of pioneer researchers who have contributed to the
development of corpus linguistics in communicative language learning are Biber, Conrad,
and Reppen (1998). Their contribution to the area of corpus linguistics and
communicative language learning over the years focuses primarily on register variation
and ESP, and language acquisition and development. More specifically, various studies

that they have conducted have illustrated the creations of various corpora made up of

student writing. Until the time of their research, it was most common for teachers to

analyze specialized published corpora, rather than create corpora on their own from
students’ work for analysis. Some particular studies conducted by Biber, Conrad, and
Reppen (1998) include the creation of corpora to compare the writing of third grade
students with the writing of sixth grade students in order to examine development during
a three-year time span, as well as the creation of corpora to compare the writing of native
speakers with that of non-native speakers. The idea that teachers could create their own I
corpora (whether for ESP or in order to analyze their own students’ writing) was not a

new idea, but Biber, Conrad, and Reppen ( 1998) focused on illustrating how easily this

 

task could be accomplished given the right software, as well as some justifications for t
why language researchers and teachers should consider this option.

In the last five years, there has been yet another breakthrough in the field of
corpus linguistics and language learning, simply in that taking a ‘corpus-based approach’
has become more accepted in the field of language learning, and more accessible (with
most university libraries now subscribing to various core corpora, and still other corpora
becoming available online). Due to the increase in distribution and accessibility, teachers
are increasing their use of corpora in the classroom (See Appendix A for samples of
communicative language learning materials using corpora). However, while taking a
‘corpus-based approach’ has been proven to be empirically sound and data reliable, many
researchers and language teachers question whether or not taking a ‘corpus-based
approach’ is more time-consuming than it is worth. It is true that teachers can create
quick exercises for students to do in class, focusing on data-driven language learning,
although it is difficult to say whether the use of corpora in this manner will ever become

the prevailing method of implementation. However, it may be possible to summarize the

10

background research in corpus linguistics by stating that one common advantage of using
corpora lies in textbook and materials development and evaluation. Many currently-used
textbooks contain only invented examples and their descriptions are based apparently
upon intuition or second-hand accounts, whereas other books, such as the books produced
by the Collins COBUILD project, are explicitly empirical and rely for their examples and
descriptions upon corpora and other sources of real life language data (McEnery &
Wilson, 1996). Therefore, while the majority of language teachers may not choose to
incorporate corpora directly into their own classrooms, how would they respond to
textbooks based on corpora?

Motivated teachers and students who choose to use corpora for DDL can surely
benefit in their language studies if they successfully take on the “learners as researchers”
persona, but realistically this may include only a small percentage of people. Therefore,
taking both the advantages and limitations of taking a ‘corpus-based approach’ in
language learning into account, and in an attempt to increase corpora use in the
classroom, I conclude by making the claim that corpora are most suitably utilized only if
they are used for the purpose of curriculum and textbook development and evaluation,
rather than for the purpose of data—driven language learning. In this case, corpora are
utilized for the purpose of including natural texts into language textbooks based on
empirical data, thereby improving the textbooks empirically. Following are three studies

that demonstrate this possibility.

 

Notes:

1For more information, see http://wwaing.upenn.edu/midcng. http://wwwhti.umich.edu/micase,
http://titania.cobuild.collins.co.uk/boe info.html

11

 

CHAPTER 2
TEXTBOOK EVALUATION

Background

Teachers of English as a Second Language are often encouraged to increase their
use of authentic materials in the classroom and to deviate from using their course
textbook as a sole means of providing input to their students. However, there are several
definitions of authenticity in materials. Rogers and Medley (1988) use the term
‘authentic’ to refer to all language samples that “reflect a naturalness of form, and an
appropriateness of cultural and situational contexts that would be found in the language
as used by native speakers” (p. 468). Porter and Roberts (1987) state that authentic texts
are those “whose instances of spoken language were not initiated for the purpose of
teaching... not intended for non-native learners” (p. 176). It is well known that there are
varying degrees of authenticity in TESOL literature; however, their pedagogical purpose
remains relatively the same.

Within the TESOL field, it is possible to summarize the use of authentic materials
in stating that authentic materials are consistently believed to be more effective in the
ESL classroom (as opposed to non-authentic materials developed for the purpose of an
activity), at the same time providing a more communicative and realistic base for any
classroom activity. For example, there may be some correlation between the
effectiveness of a task-based activity in the ESL classroom and its degree of authenticity
- the underlying explanation for this being that students who are using authentic
materials successfully during a task-based activity will be more equipped to perform a

particular task outside of the classroom (as the result of the classroom task being duly

12

representative of what the student may encounter outside the classroom). Another reason
a language teacher may choose to use authentic materials in the classroom regards
student motivation. Authentic materials, while having a pedagogical rationale, are also
more popular among language learners in that their implementation contributes to
improved motivation in the language classroom. While it is possible to create suitable
non-authentic materials, there is always the risk that those materials may not be
representative of real-world encounters with language and/or that students may realize
their non-authenticity and experience a decrease in motivation as a result of a lack of
incentive for something that is not based on “real-world language”. While these are just a
few examples of why a language teacher may choose to use authentic materials in the
classroom, the benefits of authentic materials clearly subjugate the use of non-authentic
materials.

Taking the multiple benefits of using authentic materials in the classroom into
account, it would be a shame to ignore the abundancy with which corpora provide
authentic materials of many genres to language teachers and learners. Corpus examples
are important in language learning as they expose students at an early stage in the
learning process to the kinds of sentences and vocabulary that they will encounter in
reading genuine texts in the language or in using the language in real communicative

settings (McEnery & Wilson, 1996).

Justification & Research Questions
While teachers frequently use authentic materials in the classroom, and may even

use corpora for data-driven learning exercises in or outside the classroom, it seems that

13

they do so in hopes of supplementing a textbook, or providing more communicative input
for their students. However, what is overlooked in this case is that it is often textbooks
that need supplementing (with authentic materials) and teachers spend endless hours
trying to come up with new ways to provide such a medium for their students. While this
supplementationl has been proven to be effective in language learning classrooms, it is
still important to look at the broader picture. That picture states that textbooks can in fact
be updated with more authenticity through the use of a corpus-based approach, and if a
corpus of a corresponding nature exists, then there is no reason a textbook cannot be
based solely on authentic pieces.

One particular study I conducted focused on the dynamics of comparing academic
teaching materials to a corpus in order to assess the suitability of materials being taught
(What is accurately represented? What is misrepresented?), as well as to look at how a
corpus could be used in order to update teaching materials with authentic materials for
speakers of English as a second or foreign language. Specifically, this study compared
Madden and Rohlck’s (2000) textbook Discussion and Interaction in the Academic
Community (created without the assistance of a corpus) to the Michigan Corpus of
Academic Spoken English (MICASE)2. Both the textbook and the MICASE were
created at the University of Michigan and therefore have some relationship with one
another. The particular features that were assessed were the colloquial and idiomatic
expressions taught in the textbook, as well as the context in which they occurred. Lastly,
this study looked at suggestions for the textbook according to various corpora. The
research questions that will be discussed in regards to this study are: How can a corpus be

used in order to create better ESL teaching materials (i.e. textbooks)? What is the

14

 

 

frequency of expressions and idioms taught in Madden and Rohlck’s (2000) Discussion
& Interaction in the Academic Community as found in MICASE? How do these
frequencies compare to the COBUILD corpus? Are there variations of these expressions
and idioms in MICASE? Are there enough variations to be significant? (i.e. Are these
expressions outdated?) In what contexts are the expressions being taught and are they
‘context-appropriate’? Are there idioms in MICASE that are frequent enough to be P
taught? What about other idioms “From the News” (COBUILD) that might be

applicable? What are some other ways in which the textbook could be improved, ‘

 

according to empirical corpora analysis?

Methodology

As noted previously, the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English
(MICASE) was utilized for the purpose of this study. MICASE was established at the
University of Michigan in 1999. It is compiled of 20 different speech event types and
consists of approximately 1.6 million words overall (Table 1). Moreover, MICASE is

representative of various discourse modes, genders, academic roles, and academic

divisions (Tables 2 — 4).

Table l: MICASE speech events

 

 

 

 

 

Speech Transcripts Speakers Words % of % % % %
Event Total Male Female Faculty“ Students”
Type Corpus

Advising 5 20 58,817 3.5 43.5 56.5 14.2 37.2
Colloquia 13 118 151,639 8.9 52.9 47.1 76.9 10.8
Discussion 9 1 12 74,904 4.4 36.8 63.2 33 66.7
Sections

Dissertation 4 26 56, 837 3.4 55.1 44.9 36.5 62.7
Defenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

Table 1 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviews 6 13,015 0.8 82.6 17.4 56.0 44.0
Labs 42 73,815 4.4 69.8 30.2 15.1 67.9
Large 31 217 257,311 15.2 52.6 47.4 93.5 5.9
Lectures
Small 31 289 320,893 18.9 43.8 56.2 74.0 22.6
Lectures
Meetings 6 60 70,038 4.1 65.8 34.2 15.8 61.6
Office Hours 8 79 120,629 7.1 32.1 67.9 26.9 72.8
Seminars 8 79 151,071 8.9 60.2 39.8 58.8 34.9
Study 8 36 129,725 7.7 31.7 68.3 0 100.0
Groups
Student 11 146 143,369 8.5 23.9 76.1 15.4 77.6
Presentations
Service 2 90 24,691 1.5 40.6 59.4 .02 60.2
Encounters
Tours 2 19 21,768 1.3 58.4 41.6 0 60.9
Tutorials 18 27,014 1.6 35.4 64.7 15.9 80.9
Table 2: MICASE gender and academic role distribution
Speaker Total Total Words % of Total
Categiry Speakers Corpus
Gender Male 729 786, 487 46%
Female 842 909, 053 54%
Academic Faculty 160 825, 829 49%
Role
Male 84 446, 925 26%
Female 76 378, 904 22%
Students 1, 039 742, 348 44%
Undergraduates 782 368, 433 22%
Male 336 142, 102 8%
Female 446 226, 331 13%
Graduates 257 373, 915 22%
Male 121 158, 696 9%
Female 136 215, 219 13%
Language Native Speakers 1, 449 l, 493, 586 88%
Status
Non-native 122 201, 954 12%
Speakers
Totals 1, 571 l, 695, 540
Table 3: MICASE academic divisions distribution
Academic Speech Speakers Words % of % % % %
Division Events Total Male Female Faculty Students
Corpus
Humanities 36 349 434, 26 56 44 63 29
& Arts 669

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3 (cont’d).

Social 35 452 420, 347 25 25 63 44 55

Sciences &

Education

Biological 32 257 325, 347 19 19 59 55 42

& Health

Sciences

Physical 36 314 358, 776 21 21 45 44 52

Sciences &

Engineegg

Other/NA 13 199 156, 292 9 9 63 20 41

Totals 152 1, 571 1,695,540 !
Table 4: MICASE discourse mode distribution

Primary Speech Speakers Words % of % % % %

Discourse Events Total Male Female Faculty Students

Mode Corpus

Monolqgic 61 472 554, 335 33 50 50 84 14

Panel 9 133 141, 505 8 27 73 16 76 ,

Interactive 57 643 715, 333 42 46 54 26 63 L

Mixed 25 323 284, 367 17 51 49 54 39

Totals 152 l, 571 1,695,540

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Note: In these tables, percentages for faculty and students do not add up to 100% because of other speaker
roles (e.g. staff, researchers, visitors) not included in these counts.

The Wordsmith and MonoConc Pro programs were used almost entirely for the purpose
of this research. Within Wordsmith and MonoConc Pro, both concordances and
wordlists were created in order to analyze the information from various perspectives.
The MICASE online version was also used for a portion of this research, primarily for the
examination of contextual representativeness, as the online version allows one to browse
the texts easily and look directly at particular occurrences of idiomatic expressions in
specific environments. COBUH.D online was also examined for a portion of this
research.

My methodology for collecting and analyzing data began by first compiling the
various lists of words being taught in Madden and Rohlck’s Discussion and Interaction

in the Academic Community (2000), as well as noting the contexts in which they were

17

being taught. There were two long lists of idioms that I was particularly interested in
analyzing, namely one list called “Idioms from Geometry”, another list called “Idioms in
the News”, the latter consisting of baseball idioms that were said to occur with great

frequency in various newspapers (See Table 5).

Table 5: Idioms from Madden and Rohlck’s Discussion & Interaction in the Academic Community (2000).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Idioms in the News Q. 42) Idioms from Geometry (p. 94)
Playing hardball Give (me) a straight answer
Threw (him) a curve Going around in circles
Out of left field Drew a blank
Pinch hit Gone off on a taflent
Strike out Get to the point
Hit a home run Read between the lines
Start at square one
To draw a parallel

 

The next step was to collect other words and colloquial expressions being taught
throughout the text. Some of the more specialized expressions can be seen in Table 6

below. (Note: The complete version of all expressions can be found in Appendix B).

Table 6: Sample colloquial expressions from Madden and Rohlck’s Discussion & Interaction in the
Academic 2000
& 1
Come on That’s

I ’t follow I don’t think so
What are
Are

 

Overall, these idioms and phrases served as the initial base of this research. Note: The
textbook offered more phraseology than what is merely being analyzed in this project.
The choice of what was analyzed will be discussed later on.

Expressions (including all variations thereof) were assessed using a concordance
search in MICASE. Once the frequency data were recorded, I then searched the

COBUILD in order to examine the frequency of “Idioms in the News”. In order to

18

maintain comparable data, I only examined U.S. newspapers and news in COBUILD,
which resulted in a corpus of approximately 15 — 16 million words, inclusive of both
spoken and written news. The purpose of this comparative search was to see whether or
not the “News” idioms were appropriate representations of common idioms in US.
newspapers and news broadcasts as the textbook claimed.

The research then separates into different branches as follows: For the idioms
that were not found in MICASE, other possible “more modem” or “common” idioms
(according to A Dictionary of American Idioms (2001)) were then searched in the
concordance in order to act as possible suggestions for updating the textbook. Moreover,
COBUILD was searched a second time in order to discover what idioms occurred with
greatest frequency, possibly illustrating alternatives to the “Idioms in the News” which
were not represented in the COBUH.D. This approach to searching served the purpose of
possibly updating the textbook, while still maintaining the appropriate context of idioms
being taught (i.e. “Idioms in the News”). Furthermore, I also looked at contexts of the
various colloquial expressions in the MICASE in order to examine what common 2-
word, 3-word, 4—word, and 5-word clusters occurred with greatest frequency, in order to

reveal common idiomatic expressions (as possible suggestions for updates as well).

Results

My initial prediction regarding overall frequency of occurrences of the selected
idioms was that these idioms would be found in MICASE, perhaps illustrating minor
variations. It was these variations that I was planning on examining in order to suggest

revisions for the textbook. However, when I did search for the idioms (and all variations

l9

thereof), what I found was that all but two of the idioms did not occur in the MICASE at
all! The two idiomatic expressions that did occur in one form or another were “Gone off

on a tangent” and “Get to the point”. The occurrences are as follows in Table 7.

Table 7: Frequency results (per 1 million) of the idioms found in MICASE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gone off on a Occurrences Get to the point Occurrences
tangent
Gonna go off on a 1 Going to the point 1
flgent
Go off on a 2 Got to the point 1
flgent
Go off on such a l Gotten to the point 1
flent
Getting to the point 1
Get to the point
Other “to the point” 14
exmessions

 

 

 

 

Note: Only occurrences are given, as the frequencies of these idioms were less than 1%.

Since the occurrence of overall idioms was surprisingly low (or non-existent for that
matter), it was necessary to search the COBUILD in order to make sure the “Idioms from
the News” were, in fact, common, up-to-date idioms from the news. These results
showed variation from the MICASE corpus, in that some of the idioms that did not occur

in MICASE did occur with some frequency in the COBUILD (See Table 8).

Table 8: Frequency results of “Idioms in the News”, as found in COBUILD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Idioms in the News Occurrences

Playing hardball 23
Threw (him) a curve 0
Out of left field 4
Pinch hit 0
Strike out 50+*
Hit a home run 0

 

 

 

*The most common definition meaning “to strike out in anger”, rather than the definition of “to fail”, as
given in the textbook.

As can be seen in the data above, both “playing hardball” and “strike out” occurred in the

COBUILD with some frequency, yet they did not occur in the MICASE. This supports

20

 

 

,.
fl".

.‘Ju

 

 

 

 

 

..vw—vr "

VIEW.

3
sir

..M_...\m...\. has... ._.\. m...\

the textbook in that these may be considered to be common idioms in the news, therefore
being duly representative. However, “threw (him) a curve”, “pinch hit”, and “hit a home
run” still did not occur.

In order to suggest alternatives to the idioms that did occur, I used my intuition to

come up with more modern versions of particular idioms and searched these expressions

in MICASE (See Table 9).

Table 9: List of alternative idiomatic expressions searched

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Idiomatic alternative Instead of:

To be frank To give a straigflnswer
To go off To floff on a tangent
Cut to the chase Get to the point

Start from scratch Start from square one
Threw (him) for a loop Threw (him) for a curve
Out of nowhere/out of the blue Out of left field

To score/To hit the jackpot To hit a home run

 

However, of the alternative idioms, the idioms in Table 10 were the only ones that came

even remotely close to having alternatives.

Table 10: Alternative idiomatic expression results

 

 

 

 

 

Textbook Idiom New idiom Frequency of New Idiom
Start from square one Start from scratch 4
Threw (him) for a curve Threw (him) for a loop 3
Out of left field Out of the blue 2

 

 

 

 

While the new idioms offer possible revisions of the idioms in the textbook, a new
problem arises because these new idioms are of a different context/theme. For example,
while “start from scratch” may be a revision of the outdated idiom “start from square
one”, it does not comply as being an idiom from geometry. This in mind, I then compiled
a list of geometry idioms, as found in A Dictionary of American Idioms (2001), that could

serve to fill the position of deleted idioms (due to infrequency)(See Table 11).

21

Table 11: List of gometric expressions searched
Geometry Possibilities
Count me out

To come full circle

A vicious circle

Fair and square

A square deal

To square an account

Take care of number one
Safety in numbers
One-sided

Put two and two together
Draw the line

Pluses outweigh the minuses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The search had to be limited to idioms from geometry, as alternative baseball idioms
could be not found. However, of all of the above geometric idioms searched, the

following are the only idioms that offer possible alternatives (See Table 12).

Table 12: Alternative geometric expressions results

 

 

 

 

 

Geometry Idiom Occurrence in MICASE
Safety in numbers 6
One-sided 4
Draw the line 2
“Come full circle” idioms 4

 

 

 

 

Since the baseball idioms proved to be infrequent in both the MICASE corpus and
the COBUILD, and there were no alternative baseball idioms found in either corpus, I
then searched for common idioms in the COBUILD in order to satisfy the “Idioms in the
News” contextual requirement. However, this proved to be more problematic than
originally planned, since the amount of idioms found in the COBUILD was so extensive
that it was difficult to narrow the results down to a concise list of practical idioms to
include in the textbook. Therefore, this would depend on what the authors of the
textbook would be interested in teaching (i.e. instead of a baseball theme, another theme

would have to be chosen). Therefore, this portion of the research proved to be indefinite

22

since anything would be possible, and it was difficult to judge what the “good” themes
would be without factual reasoning.

The next step of this study was to examine the various colloquial expressions (as
seen in Table 6 and Appendix B). This portion of the research was reassuring on behalf
of the textbook in that the majority of the expressions in the textbook were found in the
MICASE corpus in some form or another, and with adequate frequency. However, there
were discrepancies since the expressions proved to be difficult to search for due to the
length of the phrases. However, it was worth doing the searches in order to see the list
actually represented in MICASE, as this was a large portion of the textbook’s teachings.
However, as a sample (and due to the more specific nature of these phrases), we will go
back to the Table 6 expressions, and look at the sample colloquial expressions given and

their results in detail (See Table 13).

Table 13: Occurrences of sample colloquial expressions from MICASE — results from Table 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colloquia] Expressions Occurrences

Come on 42
I don’t follow 1

What are you gettingat? 0

Are you suggesting...? 0
That’s typical 0
I don’t think so 21

 

 

Again, there are discrepancies in these data since the longer phrases are exhibiting zero
occurrences. “That’s typical” has zero occurrences as well, however, this may be due to
being an outdated idiom. What to maintain and what to alter according to these results
would be dependent on the author’s objectives in creating the textbook, although these
results offer a base with which to begin any alterations.

In order to examine how the “Colloquial Expressions” section of the textbook

could be further supplemented, I then created wordlists in order to examine the most

23

commonly used word cluster expressions in order to offer that material as alternatives to
certain colloquial expressions, if alternatives were being looked for at any point in the
future. In doing so, 2-word, 3-word, 4-word, and 5-word clusters were then filtered out
in order to see what counted as colloquial or not. Again, it is important to keep in mind
that there will always be discrepancies in these data, as this is a subjective method open

to interpretation. The most common 2-word, 3-word, 4-word, and 5-word colloquial

expressions in the MICASE are as follows (See Tables 14 — 17).

Table 14: Frequent 2-word clusters in MICASE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2-word clusters Occurrences Frequency (per 1 million)
Kind of 1,996 15%
Sort of 1,672 12%
A lot 1,424 11%
A little 1,108 8%
Lot of 1,060 8%

 

Table 15: Frequent 3-word clusters in MICASE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3-word clusters Occurrences Frequency (per 1 million)
A lot of 1,024 8%
A little bit 542 4%
The fact that 218 2%
In other words 185 1%
In order to 166 1%
A couple of 147 1%
Point of view 1 18 <1 %
A bunch of 95 <1%

 

Table 16: Frequent 4-word clusters in MICASE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4-word clusters Occurrences Frequency (per 1 million)
At the same time 114 1%
A little bit of 78 <1 %
A lot of the 78 <1%
In terms of the 71 <1%
On the other hand 54 <1 %
It turns out that 42 <1%

 

Table 17: Frequent 5-word clusters in MICASE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S-word clusters Occurrences Frequency (per 1 million)
You know what I mean 54 <1%
As a matter of fact 16 <1%
From the point of view 11 <1%
Soonand soon 11 <1%
In a number of ways 6 <1 %

 

24

 

 

 

 

Discussion

It is difficult to suggest what should be changed in Discussion and Interaction in
the Academic Community (2000), as this is an obvious decision only to be made by the
authors, according to what they want to work with and what they have had the most
success with in teaching in the past. However, these data may be useful in updating the
textbook in order to better represent actual speech in the University of Michigan’s
academic community, if that is in fact an objective of the textbook. In trying to suggest
what should remain the same and what should be changed, it is important to take into
account the need for a structural format. For example, prior to doing this particular
research study, I spoke with Theresa N. Rohlck, co-author of the textbook. Upon my
inquiring about what they (the co-authors) chose to go into the textbook, she commented
on the notion that students need some type of structural format, or pedagogical norm, for
conversation for example, regardless of the words chosen to go into that format. For
example, it is necessary to teach a language learner the basic format of conversation (i.e.
Hello, How are you? I’m fine, How are you?), regardless of how many times people
actually strictly comply with this format and word-usage in everyday conversation.
Perhaps while the most common form of greeting around campus may be “Wassup?”, it
would not necessarily be appropriate to teach this to an academic student, as this may not
be the most professional form of the greeting, nor the most effective for the students’
academic purposes. Therefore, while we may see great frequencies of certain words or
idioms within a corpus, it is still necessary to have a human evaluator who decides what
is textbook-appropriate and what is not (based on what students’ objectives are for taking

an English for Academic Purposes course). This in mind, I would suggest maintaining

25

 

the colloquial expressions used throughout the text, as these seem to be general
structural-context-appropriate phrases and significantly represented in the MICASE.
Furthermore, another suggestion I would make regarding this textbook would be to
modernize some of the idioms. This could be done through the analysis of some of the
clusters given, or through the modernization of the present idioms in the textbook
according to the alternative suggestions given.

Overall, while this study provides one way in which a corpus may be used to
evaluate a textbook, what is important are the implications for textbook evaluation in
language learning for language teachers and future textbook editors. For example, while
I have looked at how a textbook may be updated according to empirical data and only
provided suggestions for the textbook, it is important to note that sometimes (despite the
lack of empirical data), language researchers may choose to continue to teach particular
idioms and expressions if they have been proven effective in their own classrooms.
Therefore, how can the continuation of teaching idioms and expressions not found in the
MICASE be justified? When should a language teacher/textbook editor choose materials
based only on empirical data from a corpus, and when should they teach what they deem
intuitively appropriate for their students?

One important and unique characteristic of a corpus-approach is that it
incorporates both empirical quantitative data and qualitative human analytical techniques.
Therefore, despite the credibility of a corpus, I conclude that it is still necessary for
language teachers to utilize some type of filtering and selection based on their language

teaching goals and on the needs of their students.

26

 

Therefore, here are some guided questions to take into consideration for teachers
interested in assessing their own textbooks through the comparison of their textbook to a
corresponding corpus:

1.) What is the credibility of the materials being taught? Are the chosen materials
based on empirical research or teachers ‘intuition’?

2.) What is the frequency of idioms and expressions being taught in the textbooks, as
found in corpora?

3.) Are there variations of these expressions, and are there enough variations to be
significant?

4.) In what contexts are the expressions being taught and are they context-
appropriate?

5.) Are there high frequency expressions and idioms that occur in the corpus, but not
in the textbook?

6.) What are your language teaching goals? What are the specific needs/interests of
your students?

7.) How do you justify teaching expressions that do not occur in any corpus?

 

Notes:

I It is important to note the distinction between authentic materials as texts in the language classroom and
authentic materials as a basis for deciding what to teach. In the former case, it is possible to take whole
texts and simply use them as authentic reading/comprehension material. However, in the latter case, it is
possible to create a corpus or implement an existing corpus, and teach the vocabulary and structures from
that corpus, but never actually use the whole texts themselves. This particular study, and other studies in
this thesis, focuses solely on the latter use of authentic materials.

2 While this is the first time that a corpus has been used in order to assess Madden and Rohlck’s textbook
(2000), the MICASE has been analyzed in the past in order to assess and create teaching materials and
textbooks. Data collected for MICASE have already been used for the purpose of creating instructional
materials projects. Elizabeth Axelson, University of Michigan English Language Institute (ELI) Lecturer,
used transcripts and sound files to develop training materials for International Teaching Assistants,
focusing on “linguistic aspects of interactive teaching” (MICASE online:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/micasc). Susan Reinhart of the University of Michigan’s ELI has also
incorporated MICASE data in a textbook on oral presentations (U-M Press). Furthermore, the testing
division, the major sponsor of MICASE, has been using the database as a resource for test development and
validation (MICASE online). Word frequency information based on MICASE has been employed in the
development of new items for the listening section of the Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in
English (ECPE). Moreover, there have been numerous other studies done and papers published using
MICASE for the purposes of analyses ranging over many topics and fields.

27

. £- JL‘.‘n.!.ll..o-‘ V

 

CHAPTER 3
TEXTBOOK DEVELOPMENT

Background

While there has been an increase in the number of teachers using authentic
materials, one area of instruction that is largely overlooked in ESUEFL classrooms is the
development of pragmatic awareness. Specifically, there is a need to provide students
with pragmatically appropriate conversational models, especially in English speaking
classes. Tanaka (1997) best explains this need by relating L2 pragmatics to the
effectiveness of speaking with native speakers of the target language. For example,
Tanaka mentions that although native speakers of a language tend to be tolerant of
grammatical errors, they are less tolerant of pragmatic errors. Therefore, there is a
present need for pragmatic instruction in our ESUEFL classrooms for the main reason
that students desire to speak with native speakers of their target language (in this case,
English) in order to continue to improve their L2 proficiency, and will more likely feel
comfortable doing so once they have received some type of input in the classroom.
Therefore, the issue at hand regards the best way to teach speaking pragmatic proficiency
in an L2.

In an early study, Bardovi-Harli g, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgan, and
Reynolds (1991) explore the concept of the need to increase the role of pragmatics in
English-language instruction. Their assumption is based on the lack of “natural”
materials provided in many ESL textbooks, as well as the lack of natural examples of
“pragmatically-appropriate” conversational models for learners (Bardovi-Harlig et al.,

1991). They provide some background of this assumption, stating:

28

Language learners interacting with speakers of a target language must be exposed
to language samples that observe social, cultural, and discourse conventions — or
in other words, which are pragmatically appropriate. Speakers who do not use
pragmatically appropriate language run the risk of appearing uncooperative at the
least, or, more seriously, rude or insulting (Bardovi-Harlig etal., 1991, p. 4).
This possibility of seeming rude or insulting is the basis of their argument for the need to
develop pragmatic awareness in ESL conversation classrooms. Furthermore, they
explore the notion that teaching pragmatics in an L2 is easier said than done for the main
reason that there are infinite amounts of speech events, and it would be impossible to
teach/give input about all situations that students are likely to face. Furthermore, they
offer methods to teach pragmatic awareness in conversation classrooms, not only to
advanced learners, but to learners at lower levels as well. This research is based on the
notion that it is more beneficial to the L2 learners if teachers make students aware of
pragmatics in speech, rather than giving them specific input on specific speech acts.
There are four steps to the pragmatic-awareness model:
Four steps to integrating pragmatically appropriate language into the classroom:
1. Identification of the speech act
2 Data collection and description
3. Text and materials evaluation
4 Development of new materials (Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991, p. 5)
It is believed that the reason that it is so important to allow students to come to their own
assumptions about pragmatics in L2 speech is because directly teaching pragmatics is
based on the intuition of the instructor or the textbook and this intuition may not always
be accurate as well.

The main argument that Bardovi-Harli g et al. (1991) maintain is the notion that it

is more important for L2 learners to know the structure of conversation (as previously

29

 

J71.”

Ingthiol
L ~ 3‘
gtm‘

> 5""
s‘b.bi§

1......

£miLU
v

TIC-33 .

{T}3JF

nuva

 

 

mentioned in Chapter 2 of this thesis), rather than being taught explicitly words or
phrases to use in conversation since all conversations differ. They go on to offer specific
exercises that L2 learners can benefit from if pragmatic awareness in conversation is their
language goal. Some of these exercises are: practice with a native speaker, structured
model approaches, classroom role-play, and data collection by students.

The article concludes with the statement that teaching pragmatics “empowers
students to experience and experiment with the language at a deeper level” (Bardovi-
Harlig et al., 1991, p. 13). Therefore, creating pragmatic awareness in English
conversation classrooms will allow L2 learners to overcome cultural boundaries and to
equip them with not only the structural aspects of the language, but with the pragmatics
as well.

Tanaka (1997) also explores this same issue of pragmatics in the L2. Tanaka
begins his argument for the ESL student’s need for pragmatic competence by offering his
understanding of someone who is “communicatively competent”, which is someone who
is able to use not only grammar structures effectively, but also someone who has acquired
pragmatic knowledge of the sociocultural rules of speaking (Tanaka, 1997, p. 14).
However, because this pragmatic competency is most likely to take a very long time to
achieve, Tanaka believes that it therefore should be an inclusive part of English
conversation curricula so that English learners will obtain the necessary input and
interactional opportunities.

The method that Tanaka encourages is the “leamers-as—researchers” approach,
which is similar to Bardovi-Harlig et al.’s ( 1991) conclusions about the most beneficial

ways to encourage pragmatic awareness in the classroom. Tanaka, however, also

30

acknowledges the notion that ESL and EFL learners of English often have limited access
to native speakers in order to obtain real-world data of speech pragmatics. Therefore,
Tanaka offers a solution to this dilemma by providing possible classroom activities and
homework assignments for students to interact with native speakers of English and to
make these activities optimal opportunities to obtain pragmatic data in order to develop
their own pragmatic competence.

However, while Tanaka (1997) and Bardovi-Harlig et a1. (1991) offer the
background regarding the necessity to teach pragmatic awareness in the classrooms,
neither acknowledges the usefulness of teaching idioms in this feat. Fernando (1996)
states: “No translator or language-teacher can afford to ignore idioms or idiomaticity if a
natural use of the target language is an aim” (p. 234). Furthermore, these sentiments are
echoed by Wray (2000), although somewhat less prescriptively.

Gaining full command of a new language requires the learner to become sensitive to

native speakers’ preferences for certain sequences of words over others that might

appear just as possible. From the bizarre idiom, through the customary collocation, to
the turns of phrase that have no apparent linguistic merit than that ‘we just say it that
way’, the subtleties of a language may floor even the proficient non-native, not so
much because of a non-alignment between interlanguage and target language forms,
as because the learner lacks the necessary sensitivity and experience that will lead
him or her unerringly away from all the grammatical ways of expressing a particular

idea except the most idiomatic. (p. 463)

There is certainly a great deal of truth to these claims. Learners often have an
insatiable desire to learn idioms, as this knowledge is related to a heightened level of
fluency in a language. In fact, according to the Longman Advanced English Dictionary,
the term “idiomatic” is defined as “typical of the way in which someone using their own

language speaks and writes.” In response to such statements implying native speaker

competence (along the same lines as Tanaka’s notion of ‘pragmatic competence’), many

31

ESL textbooks dealing with spoken English include idioms and idiomatic expressions in
their content, to varying degrees. However, as most language teachers will agree,
teaching idioms is by no means an easy task.

Duquette (1995) proposes that idioms, culturally embedded and grouped into units of
speech, are helpful in developing communicative and pragmatic competence. According
to Duquette, it is necessary to gain knowledge of background cultural information in
order to use language skills properly. He explains that language proficiency requires
more than just being able to speak the target language. Duquette focuses on three
principles of language acquisition:

1.) Language comprehension and language performance requires socio-cultural and

“context-defined cues” in order to be meaningful and communicative.

2.) “Comprehensible input” plays a large role in increasing comprehension and

promoting the acquisition process.

3.) Target group motivation, integration, acceptance, and identification are important
factors in developing communicative competence. (Duquette, 1995, p. 37)
Therefore, one reason that Duquette suggests that the use of idioms by L2 learners should

help to increase communicative and pragmatic competence is that the acquisition of
idioms and other commonly used expressions give self-confidence to the L2 student
(Duquette, 1995). Since cultural meaning may vary from one group to another, and
meaning is already ‘built-into’ these expressions, the L2 student has the opportunity to
enable him/her to be well understood in a particularly reliable manner. “Idioms seem to
‘bridge the barrier’ because they are simple to grasp, frequently used, semantically and
culturally loaded, and embedded into the target culture” (Duquette, 1995, p. 37).

Duquette goes on to offer suggestions for language learners and teachers in order

to demonstrate ways in which idioms may be taught so that they are more meaningful, or

32

communicative. One step is to combine idiom teaching with real-life experience. For
example, presenting sensory input to the class in the form of a video, a guest speaker, a
visit to the supermarket, etc., in order to provide students with concrete background
information. This information can then be applied to classroom activities that exercise
these task-based idiomatic expressions (Duquette, 1995). These suggestions are directly
correlated to the prior background articles on developing pragmatic awareness; therefore,
idioms are in fact a possible means of developing competence in L2 speech, as well as

developing pragmatic awareness in speech overall.

Justification & Research Questions

What do we as language teachers teach in the classrooms when achieving
pragmatic competency is our goal as ESL language teachers? It is well known that
students have an insatiable desire to have pragmatic awareness, and a part of that includes
a desire for “the idiom”. While teaching idioms is by no means an easy task on the part
of the language teacher, there are methods that are believed to be more empirically sound
than others. For example, many textbooks teach idioms in a special ‘idiom’ section of
the text, but do we know where these idioms were obtained and who decided that these
idioms were significant enough to be taught? Furthermore, many instructors teach
idioms as an integrative part of their teaching curricula. However, how do the teachers
decide which idioms are most frequently used, and how does this account for speaker
idiosyncrasies? In response to such inquiries, Ibelieve that it is necessary to go beyond
basic teacher intuition and begin to base our teaching on empirical data obtained through

research. Therefore, one response to this is to collect such empirical data through a

33

corpus-based approach to the development of an “idiom” textbook. The research
questions that are addressed in this study are: 1.) Do any idioms occur in academic
speech for use in academic language learning classrooms/textbooks? 2.) What idioms
occur in academic speech (MICASE), and with what frequency? 3.) Are there enough
idioms found to compose, supplement, or replace existing “idiom” textbooks based solely
on intuition? 4.) How can the idioms found in MICASE be taught communicatively, if

their collection is to be used to create a textbook?

Methodology
The second study began out of an interest in which idioms occurred in academic
speech. The methodology that we followed for finding all of the idioms was to first
manually search through the MICASE (Michigan Corpus of Academic English) and read
through all of the transcripts (Simpson, Mendis, & Komsic, 2002). The MICASE corpus
is made up of over 1.6 million words, and over 20 speech events. Often there would be
two readers per transcript. All idioms and idiomatic expressions were then recorded into
a Microsoft Access Database based on our guidelines/criteria for the term “idiom”. Our
rationale/criteria for selecting idioms for our list included:
1. Idioms
a.) Multiword expressions which cannot be understood by taking the meaning
of individual components
b.) Semantic opacity of the whole
c.) Compound words which are metaphoric, and are either semantically
opaque or cannot be understood by individual components (e. g. oddball,
full-fledged)
2. Phrasal Verbs

a.) 3-part phrasal verbs, e. g. verb+prep+prep or verb+prep+noun (e. g. fall
into place)

34

b.) 2-part phrasal verbs in which the VP is more commonly known as a noun
(and thus requires additional semantic processing on the part of the
listener/learner) (e. g. breeze through, flesh out)

However, we rejected the following two categories:

1. 2-part phrasal verbsl (e.g. get up, wake up)
2. Single verb phrases used metaphorically

Results

After one year of reading through transcripts and recording idiom data, our results
showed over 600 occurrences of idiomatic expressions in the MICASE, which constituted
over 200 different idiomatic expressions! These idioms should prove to be very useful to
language teachers who desire to incorporate idioms into their academic classrooms.
Some of the most frequent idioms in the MICASE follow in Table 2 (See Appendix C for

a complete list). This list gives all idioms occurring three or more times in the MICASE:

Table 18: Most frequent idiomatic expressions, as found in MICASE
IdiOmatic Expressions Occurrences

Bottom line 17
Come into play 16
What the hell 14
Down the line 12
Pros and cons 1 1
Flip a coin, flip side of a/the same coin 10
Pick up on s.th.

Hand in hand

_R_ight off the bat (strfiht = 1)
What the heck

Draw a/the line (between)

On target

Out the door

The % picture

Thumbs up

Fall back on

On track

Rule/s of thumb

Take (s.th) at face value

Beat to death

Fall in love

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmooooqqqqqooooooa

 

35

Table 18 (cont’d).

 

 

 

Get around (to doings_.th)
Put the heat on
Caught up in s.th.

 

Come out of the closet
Fall into place
Full-fledged

Get a handle on

Goes to show

Line of attack

Nitty-gritty

On the same page

Ring a bell

Splitting hairs

Take my word for it
Truck alog on

Catch up with

Cutting edge

Drive me crazy/bananas
Fall/throw by the wayside
Fine tune

For all intents and purposes
Get a head start on

Give and take

Have/has the foggiest notion/idea
Hit the wall, hittinga (rock) wall
In a nutshell

In line with s.th.

Lined up in advance

On the right track

Pick (a) fight

Plug and chug

Rears its ugly head

Run into a wall

Steering clear of

The kitchen sink

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW-fi‘i##hhA-fiAhhhhmm

 

 

 

 

Discussion

The above list is just a small portion of the culturally loaded idioms found in the
MICASE. These data are significant because they supply not only authentic materials
(texts) with which to teach the context of particular idioms in class, but also an empirical
collection of idioms that are not solely based on teacher intuition, providing not only the

cultural information with which to improve pragmatic awareness, but in the appropriate

36

1‘ 1'9
58;;5wl
U

arm

\ um

113121111

......

 

 

:,.>
gov: ‘ t 2.5%." '

 

register as well. The implications for teaching these idioms are endless since the
creativity of language learning teachers may also be non-finite.

However, the issues that are important to address at this stage are whether or not
data (in this case, idioms) based on empirical data are worth more than data (idioms)
based solely on intuition for textbook development, and if one chooses to use data
collected through a ‘corpus-based approach’, what would the best way be to teach these
communicatively? In this first case, there seems to be no question that empirical data
should outweigh idiosyncratic data in textbook development if authenticity and true
pragmatic awareness are our goals, and therefore I hope this study and others provide
support of that stance. In the latter case, there is a question regarding the best way to
include idioms in textbooks and how to teach them most effectively. In this case, if one
chooses to take a ‘corpus-based approach’ for textbook development, it will change
textbooks in two ways. The first way is that textbooks will be able to contain natural
texts (e.g. for reading), which can contain the idiomatic expressions. In this case, there
may‘still be communicative activities that are found in many textbooks, but rather the
only thing that will change will be that all of the materials in the textbook are authentic,
taken from natural language occurrences. The second way that textbooks will change
will be in terms of how they may be updated. In the past, if a particular “idiom” textbook
needed to be updated, it would be a matter of starting completely over to create a new
textbook with the “newest” expressions. However, by implementing a ‘corpus-based
approach’ for textbook development, it would be possible simply to do concordance
searches (similar to those done in Study 1 of this thesis) to validate the credibility of the

idioms being taught, and checking which idioms are still frequently used, and which are

37

in need of updating. This assumption is based, however, on the belief that corpora are
kept up to date.

The overall implications that corpora and textbook development have for
developing communicative curricula in the ESL classroom will be addressed in the final
chapter of this thesis. However, what is important to note about this study is the evidence
provided for the abundancy of idioms in academic speech (serving as a substitution for
previously developed textbooks based only on intuition). It also acts as a model for

future textbook developers wishing to create textbooks based on empirical data.

 

Notes:

1The above list was based on various literature reviews of the term ‘idiom’. The reason that we chose to
omit regular 2-part phrasal verbs from our study was due to the great frequency of phrasal verbs within the
MICASE. On an interesting note, most newer textbooks teach only 2-part phrasal verbs which may solve
the problem of having outdated idioms in their textbooks.

38

CHAPTER 4
ESP MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT

Background

Until this point, I have looked at the ways in which a corpus-based approach may
be utilized in order to evaluate and develop textbooks. However, one particularly useful
application of a corpus—based approach that should not be overlooked is the use of
corpora in the development of ESP (English for Specific Purposes) materials and
curricula in general, and ESP for university graduate students in particular, which will be
the focus of this chapter.

The creation of a corpus to accommodate a specific population is an emerging
application that has only been done in a relatively small number of documented instances,
most often in the cases of teaching “content” in language classrooms. According to
Kennedy (1998), there are a number of ways the language in a corpus can influence
language-teaching pedagogies.

However valuable may have been the focus on learning language as

communication (particularly in increasing language fluency), there has been

growing recognition that systemic accuracy is also relevant, and consequently
there has been a more recent revival of interest among language teachers in what
is being learned: the content of language teaching... Curriculum designers and
classroom teachers need to have access to this information through better
reference materials and syllabuses. .. First it can influence the content of language
teaching by affecting the selection of what to teach, the sequencing of pedagogy,
and the weight given to items or parts of the language being taught, thus
contributing directly to the content of instruction. Secondly, through the
consciousness-raising of teachers about language and language use, it can show
that likelihood of occurrence, or frequency of use, is an important measure of

usefulness. (Kennedy, 1998, p. 281)

In this case, it seems that the ESP classroom (e. g. ESP teachers and their curricula) could

greatly benefit from the use of corpora, since corpora are a specialized means of

39

accessing specialized vocabulary in specialized texts. While I also agree that corpora
may be used in any general language classroom or EAP classrooms (for the purpose of
incorporating authentic materials into the curricula), the fact remains that if a teacher was
interested in creating corpora (and hence, using that corpora) for their own class
objectives (e. g. curricula), it would be an easier feat to do so for the purpose of using it in
an ESP classroom rather than in an EAP or general English classroom due to the fact that
there would be no confusion as to what texts to input into the corpus, and why those texts
should be analyzed.

For example, Sutarsyah and Kennedy (1994) illustrated one study where a corpus
was made to accommodate a specific population, thereby examining the usefulness of
EAP vocabulary for particular university graduate students. As Sutarsyah and Kennedy
have shown, advanced learners of English (university graduate students) wishing to study
English only for the purpose of undertaking business studies or economies are unlikely to
have received exposure to relevant vocabulary if they are part of a general English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) course. Sutarsyah and Kennedy compared a corpus consisting
of texts from many academic fields with one of roughly the same size consisting of a
single economics text. They found almost two-and-a-half times as many different types
of words in the general text as in the specialized text, suggesting that as far as vocabulary
is concerned, the learners working through the general academic texts meet new words
that would rarely recur, and that EAP courses that go beyond the 3,000 most common
words in English may be of little value for learners with specialized needs for learning

English. Table 19 shows that learners exposed to the economics specialized text get

40

about five times as much exposure to the most frequent content words in that text that

they would in a corpus consisting of texts from general academic sources.

Table 19: Rank order of the 20 most frequent words used in an economics text compared with their
occurrence in general academic English (adapted from Sutarsyah and Kennedy, 1994

 

 

Rank Order Freguency
Word Economics General Economics General
academic academic
English English

price 9 479 3, 080 90

cost 14 471 2, 251 91
demand 17 411 1,944 102
curve 21 525 1, 804 83

firm 23 991 1, 743 4]
supply 24 509 1, 590 86
quantity 25 807 l, 467 53
margin 27 * l, 427 24
economy 29 224 1, 353 172
produce 31 234 l, 237 167
income 33 442 l, 183 96
market 36 372 1, 104 110
labour 40 313 l, 004 131
increase 41 113 1, 002 277
consume 42 623 995 70
total 47 362 946 114
change 48 92 927 316
rate 49 104 915 293
capital 5 1 842 907 50
work 52 58 906 480

 

* = not in the first 1, 000 words of general academic English

Therefore, the above results show the specificity of language material that an

ESP/content-specific corpus may offer, as well as the various ways that students need

subject/field-specific vocabulary and language attention.

However, one important thing Kennedy notes following this study is that corpora

should be used “judiciously for pedagogical purposes, informing instruction rather than

determining it as to avoid the risk of a return to prescriptivism” (Kennedy, 1998, p. 290).
Furthermore, he states:

Frequency of occurrence in corpora should be only one of the criteria used to

influence instruction. Sometimes, according to the goals of the learners, less

frequent items or processes in a language may deserve more attention than the

most frequent, simply because they are known to be learning problems with a

wide range of uses. (Kennedy, 1998, p. 290)

This idea leads to the next topic of EAP, a case in which there is usually a class
full of university students, each with individual language needs (e. g. students from
different academic departments), and it is not possible to address vocabulary in such a
specialized way. This EAP situation is more common at universities in the United States
than the idealized environment which Sutarsyah and Kennedy (1994) describe, in which a
teacher could simply choose to teach only vocabulary that will most benefit the students
based on their field of study. Therefore, it is also necessary to understand how corpora
may be used for more general academic populations as well.

Graduate students face a variety of writing tasks as they work toward their chosen
degrees, although these tasks will vary from one degree program to another. Swales and
Feak (1994) give a general account of how university students at the graduate level may
improve their academic writing, focusing on the structure and vocabulary of academic
writing. In doing so, they focus on academic writing as a type of genre, the expectations
that are involved in becoming a successful writer within that genre, and how students
should learn more procedural or discourse organizing vocabulary for the aim of writing
academic texts in a structured format. The areas that Swales and Feak address are

academic organization (e. g. introduction, main body paragraphs, conclusion, etc.),

academic style (e.g. vocabulary shift), flow (e. g. general to specific), and presentation

42

(e. g. paragraph formatting, etc.). The work resembles the multitude of EAP textbooks
available, and does not address the use of taking a corpus-based approach in this
particular text. However, what is interesting to note about their text is that it addresses
the specialized needs of university students, and looks at the ways in which they may
work on improving their genre-specific vocabulary. This may be done in conjunction
with the MICASE corpus. In this sense, EAP is a type of ESP, since EAP teachers must
address the needs of their students not in terms of their academic fields, but as
participants in the academic community/genre.

However, taking both the work of Sutarsyah and Kennedy ( 1994), and Swales and
Feak (1994) into account, a potential debate arises regarding the type of curriculum that
is most effective for graduate students. Are more common “procedur ” and “discourse
organizing” vocabulary items most effective, or are more specialized vocabulary items
most commonly found in a students’ own field most effective? A corpus-based study by
Liu and Nesi (1999) addressed this issue by investigating the best type of corpora that
would meet the needs of graduate students in engineering - common vocabulary or
technical, field-specific vocabulary. The first corpus contains the most common English
words (generally taught in EAP classrooms) labeled as “subtechnical” vocabulary items,
and the second corpus contains the most common English words in the electrical
engineering field (based on engineering texts that were being used in their academic
program) labeled as “technical” vocabulary items. While it has been a widely accepted
practice that EAP teachers concentrate on vocabulary that is neither technical nor general,
Liu and Nesi (1999) speculate that the choice of words to fit this category varies. In their

study, they created a list of the most common “technical” vocabulary items taken from

43

the engineering corpora, as well as a list of the most common “subtechnical” vocabulary
items. They chose a group of advanced (upper level) graduate students in engineering
and had the students choose which words they found familiar, in hopes of testing to see
which words they were most likely to encounter in engineering, therefore illustrating
which words should be taught to this select group. What they found was that both the
‘technical’ and ‘subtechnical’ words were recognized with the same degree of frequency,
and that the ‘subtechnical’ words that were recognized were procedural or discourse
organizing. In their analysis, they noted that it seemed as though the students should
have recognized a higher number of common technical words specific to engineering,
and that their findings suggested that the subjects had not acquired all the essential
technical vocabulary through course work, even though these students were at the end of
their study period and were about to return to their countries of origin as qualified
engineers! These findings challenge the opinion regarding the type of vocabulary that
needs to be taught in EAP classes, since it illustrates that these particular students were
not taught (or did not learn) the most important vocabulary for their field. While this
particular study did have its weaknesses in terms of the way that the words were tested
out of context, ignoring the subjects’ ability to produce or recognize words in context, it
raised the question of whether graduate university students have the appropriate
opportunities (apart from EAP classes) to learn specialized vocabulary for their chosen
fields. While the answer to this question is beyond the scope of this particular study, I
believe that it is still important to address the possibility of ESP for graduate students,

given that opportunity. In other words, while it may not be possible to have ESP classes

at universities for all academic departments, there may be some universities where it is a

possibility, at least to some degree.

Justification & Research Questions

Therefore, this particular study looks at the various ways corpora may be used in
the ESP language classroom as well as the teaching applications and benefits of taking a
corpus-based approach when creating ESP teaching materials. More specifically, this
study looks at a small population of M.A. TESOL students at Michigan State University
(MSU) and the ways in which corpora may benefit their English writing needs.

To give some background for the justification for this study, non-native speakers
of English entering the M.A. TESOL program often complain about the lack of
advanced/mastery level EAP courses offered at MSU. Many of these students are far too
advanced in their English language skills to take most of the existing EAP courses;
however, many have voiced that they would like some means of improving their English
skills (both written and oral) in order to help them excel in their TESOL courses, as well
as in their futures in teaching English.

One way of improving the writing skills of this select population is through the
utilization of a corpus-based approach. The purpose of this research was to find a
realistic tool for the improvement of the writing skills of students in the M.A. TESOL
program; therefore, I have designed and developed various written corpora based on
papers collected from native speakers of English in the M.A. TESOL program at MSU.
It was then possible to look at the various teaching applications of the corpora frequency

data for both non-native (and native speakers) of English, as well as what these data

45

imply about the various core TESOL courses. The questions that will be explored in this
particular study based on the empirical data found are: 1.) What can be implied from the
data frequencies of the corpora? 2.) What are some of the various teaching applications
of these corpora in this ESP situation? 3.) How can the corpora be used to help students
improve their writing skills? 4.) What do the corpora say about the writing skills of the
native speakers? and 5.) What are the benefits and limitations of taking a corpus-based
approach in this situation, namely using this approach for ESP curriculum and materials

development?

Methodology

As previously mentioned, I designed and developed various written corpora based
on papers collected from native speakers of English in the M.A. TESOL program. Papers
from M.A. TESOL core courses (See Table 20 below) were collected from 14 native

speaker participants.

Table 20: M.A. TESOL core courses at MSU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Course Number Course Name

LLT 461 Introduction to Second Language Acquisition

LLT 807 Introduction to TESOL

LLT 808 Advanced Studies in TESOL

LLT 841 Siecial Topics in Langtgge Teachitg and Learning
LLT 896 Practicum

 

The criteria for the papers to be incorporated into the corpus were that they had to have
been written in the past four years (Fall 1999- Spring 2003)‘, and to have received a
grade of 3.5 or higher (on a 4.0 scale)2. A total of 99 papers were included in the

corpora, each as a separate text file. The papers which were incorporated into the corpora

46

included: 461 and 808 summary papers, 461 topic papers, all term/research project
papers, project proposals, book reviews, 896 reflective journals, all 841 papers, 807
classroom teaching observation papers, 896 peer reviews, and also various miscellaneous
papers/essays written in 461 and 807. Lesson plans were not included, nor were papers
from the core course 8722. All texts then had to be marked up or tagged accordingly, and
submitted into the corpus. Software used for analyses were Wordsmith and MonoConc
Pro.‘ One Master TESOL Corpus was developed, as well as various smaller corpora (one

for each course).

Results
As noted in Table 21 below, six corpora were initially created overall: 1 corpus

per TESOL core course, as well as a Master Corpus that contained all texts combined:

Table 21: Corpora Created

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corpus Number of Text Number of words % of Master Corpus
Files

LLT 461 21 50, 132 35.4

LLT 807 21 28, 912 20.4

LLT 808 12 16,045 11.3

LLT 841 9 15, 622 11.0

LLT 896 36 31, 058 21.9

Total = Master 99 141, 769 100

Corpus

 

 

 

 

 

The Master Corpus contained 141,769 words based on the above-mentioned 99 text files.
This is a relatively large corpus when taking the size of the M.A. TESOL population and
the (only) 14 native speaker participants into consideration. At this point it is important

to note the word counts and proportions of each of the smaller corpora in the Master

47

Corpus. For example, the LLT 896 corpus ended up having the most text files, while it
was only ranked second in overall word frequency. Similarly, the LLT 461 and LLT 807
corpora contained the same amount of text files, yet a large discrepancy was seen in the
comparison of their word tokens. All frequency data results per corpus may be seen in
Appendix D. These frequency data results include most frequent word tokens per each

corpus3.

Discussion

There are numerous conclusions that one may make from the data frequency
results, all of which are dependent on the interest and needs of the language learner or
teacher who is analyzing the corpus. However, it is important to note that the list of
possibilities is endless, and the implications and applications discussed below are only
some examples of these possibilities. In this case, let us begin by looking at the initial

research questions of this particular study.

I. ) What can be implied from the data frequencies of the corpora?

Analyzing the smaller corpora, we see that there is a large difference between
various core courses. For example, the word “I” is used 629 times in the LLT 896
corpus, whereas it is only used 41 times in the LLT 808 corpus (refer to Appendix D).
This may be in part because the LLT 896 corpus included many reflective journals,
which were of a more informal nature than the skills summary papers of LLT 808. Can
we conclude that native speakers in the M.A. TESOL program are more likely to use the

first person in informal writing, but not in formal writing? Can we conclude that LLT

48

896 has more informal homework assignments than 808? Possibly. Other examples of
comparisons between TESOL core courses are between the LLT 807 corpus and the LLT
808 corpus. The two courses are similar, as 808 is a more advanced, theoretical
continuation of 807. The frequency lists are similar, both containing words “students”,
“language”, and “vocabulary” in their high frequency words (refer to Table 22 and
Appendix D). However, the word “exercises” is a high frequency word in the LLT 807
corpus, yet not in the LLT 808 corpus (refer to Table 22 below). Similarly, the word
“pragmatic” is a high frequency word in LLT 808, yet it does not occur at all in the LLT

807 corpus (nor do any derivatives of the word).

Table 22: Frequencies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LLT 807 LLT 807 % LLT 808 LLT 808 %

tokens (per 28, 912 tokens (per 16, 045
words) words)
Students 433 1.50% l 19 0.74%
Language 144 0.50% 176 1.10%
Vocabulary 156 0.54% 73 0.45%
Exercises 122 0.42% 8 >.01%
Pragmatic 0 0% 58 0.36%

 

Therefore, depending on one’s objectives in analyzing the content of coursework
(formality, length of papers, bibliographies, grammar usage, etc.), it can be as simple as
comparing two lists of frequencies. While these assumptions from simple word
occurrences are speculative, this provides an example of one of the possible analyses one

may do with language in the corpora in general.

49

2.) What are some of the various teaching applications of these corpora in this ESP
situation?

In Table 22, we see only frequency lists of extremely common words which
students in the M.A. TESOL program are likely to already know. However, if we look
more carefully, it would be possible to take the most common words in each course and
have students study those particular content words that are specialized for the TESOL
field, either on their own or in a highly specialized, advanced ESL course for the non-
native speakers in the M.A. TESOL program. In other words, the applications of taking a
corpus-based approach in an ESP classroom are similar to those in any language
classroom where communicative competence in a particular area is crucial. However,
some specific potential teaching applications of the TESOL corpora are:

1.) Using collocations to teach correct word usage and “TESOL” vocabulary for

incoming TESOL students (e. g. feedback vs. metalinguistic feedback vs.

corrective feedback, etc.)

2.) Creating pre-reading exercises for non-native speakers based on vocabulary in
context (of research articles, for example)

3.) Obtaining access to real-world examples of academic writing for the purpose
of improving the writing skills (in LLT 841, etc.) of all TESOL students (both
native and non—native speakers), and

4.) Analyzing various written assignments and writing styles and looking at how
to write effectively in the TESOL field in general (e. g. looking at introductions
and conclusions from TESOL Quarterly, etc.).

This list is virtually endless, and may depend on the needs of the students. However, in
whichever case one chooses to utilize the corpus for the purpose of language materials,

the corpora will be available for analyses. Furthermore, as with any language tool, the

use of corpora in the classroom will only improve with teacher piloting and time.

50

3. ) How can the corpora be used to help students improve their writing skills?
Some examples of how M.A. students in the program could use the corpora to
improve their writing skills on their own are:

1.) Students could examine collocations in order to understand correct word usage
and grammar

2.) Students could read other past student essays to understand vocabulary for
future classes, and

3.) Students can become familiar with the structure of various writing styles as

well as with various written assignments for their courses (e. g. Book reviews,

Summary Papers, Reflective Journals, etc.)
In other words, it would be relatively simple to create a specific “Introduction” corpus, as
well as a “Book review” corpus (or virtually any type of corpus depending on student
interests); however, given the small amount of papers used for this research and the fact
that there was such a variety of papers submitted (resulting in only 2 or 3 of each
assignment type), this was not possible, but is a future research possibility. With such
specialized corpora available, TESOL students could use these corpora to focus on
writing styles and techniques that they are expected to master in order to finish the M.A.
program", even though the writing techniques may not be explicitly taught in the various
TESOL core courses. Furthermore, students could examine essays together in class in
order to gain insight on how to write effectively (since essentially the essays submitted
into the Master Corpus have received a grade of 3.5 or above). Again, these are just a
few of the ways that the M.A. TESOL students may use these specific corpora, yet the

list is endless.

51

4. ) What do the corpora say about the writing skills of the native speakers in the M.A.
TESOL program ?

My initial assumptions about the nature of the corpora would be that the
frequency lists would contain more complex and intricate vocabulary words which would
prove useful for non-native speakers looking to improve their breadth of vocabulary use
in their writing. However, looking at the top 1000 most frequent words in each corpus, I
do not believe that there are words that current non-native speakers in the M.A. TESOL
program do not currently use themselves in their own papers. Therefore, while I would
have to create a corpus of non-native speaker papers in the M.A. TESOL program to
confirm this supposition, I think it is possible that there is a high correlation between
vocabulary usage of native speakers and non-native speakers. Perhaps one way that the
lists could prove to be useful would be for incoming students (both native speakers and
non-native speakers) who wish to familiarize themselves with the program, as well as the
expectations of graduate academic writing. However, it is at this point that it is important

to address the limitations encountered in this study.

5.) What are the benefits and limitations of taking a corpus-based approach in this
situation, namely using this approach for ESP curriculum and materials development?
One possible limitation of this particular research study is the size of the corpus.
One million words are considered to be “standard” for a total size of a corpus. However,
while size does not necessarily matter since corpus design is partially defined by research
goals, I still would have liked to create a larger corpus (250,000 words). However, the

number of native speakers in the M.A. TESOL program, those who were willing to

52

participate, and the issue of finding where we saved our papers limited this inquiry. Also,
in order for the TESOL Master Corpus to be more representative of student writing, there
should have been more balance between courses (e. g. each course being 1/5 of the total
corpus). However, because of the total number of text files, it was necessary to include
all files in the corpus, therefore contributing to the disproportion between courses.
Another potential problem, which may arise by making the corpora available to all
students, is plagiarism. Therefore, professors would have to implement some type of
system to check for this.

Overall, these studies looked at a variety of issues in and applications of a corpus-
based approach when creating ESP teaching materials and curricula. This research is
relatively new; therefore, I hope to have offered a broad enough background for the
reader. Also, I hope that the guidelines provided in the text for the implementation of a
corpus in the classroom were supported well enough to have proven how useful a corpus-
based approach might be for language teachers. Finally, and most importantly, I hope to
have contributed to one possible means of creating some type of language improvement
medium that may be used in improving the writing skills of the M.A. TESOL students in

the future.

 

Notes:

1Within this particular time frame, the TESOL core courses were taught by the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LLT 461 LLT 807 LLT 808 LLT 841 LLT 896

Fall 1999 Professor 1 Professor 2 N/A N/A Professor 4
Spring 2000 N/A N/A Professor 1 Professor 1 Professor 1
Fall 2000 Professor 1 Professor 2 N/A N/A Professor 4
Spring 2001 N/A N/A Professor 1 Professor 2 Professor 2
Fall 2001 Professor 1 Professor 2 N/A N/A Professor 4
Spring 2002 N/A N/A Professor 1 Professor 1 Professor 1
Fall 2002 Professor 3 Professor 2 N/A N/A N/A

Springflm N/A N/A Professor 1 Professor 2 Professor 2

 

53

 

2Although the course “872: Research Methods” is a core course of the M.A. TESOL program at MSU, I
decided not to include these particular papers because the majority of papers from this course were article
reviews and research papers whose topics were chosen by the students based on their individual interests,
and therefore were not papers which could be deemed as “typical of “an 872 paper since everyone was
working on separate topics.

3 Most frequent word tokens per corpus include any word types that occur in the corpus 5 or more times.
4For example, in order to matriculate from the M.A. TESOL program, one must complete either a Masters

Thesis or a Teaching Portfolio (which includes various works of writing, including a personal statement of
teaching philosophy and a textbook review).

54

CHAPTER 5
WHY TAKE A ‘CORPUS-BASED’ APPROACH?

Discussion

This thesis looked at the many ways in which a corpus-based approach can most
effectively be utilized in the TESOL field in general, and in ESL textbook and materials
development and evaluation in particular.

Chapter 1 gave the reader a background on corpus linguistics and the research that
has been done to-date in corpus linguistics’ application to language learning. From this
background literature, I concluded that corpora could best be utilized for the purpose of
textbook and materials development and evaluation, rather than simply data-driven
language learning.

Chapter 2 provided evidence for one way that corpora may most effectively be
utilized (based on empirical data) for the purpose of textbook evaluation. The study
compared an academic speech textbook, Discussion and Interaction in the Academic
Community (Madden & Rohlck, 2000), with the MICASE. Frequencies of expressions
and collocations were compared, and the results suggested that the textbook was not
representative of academic speech, as it had previously claimed. The MICASE corpus, as
well. as the COBUILD corpus, were then utilized in order to update the textbook and
provide more realistic data and content for the textbook authors.

Chapter 3 of this thesis focused on the ways in which ESL teachers and
researchers may develop textbooks based on information gathered from simple corpus
concordance searching in relevant corpora, and how to most effectively transform basic

search results into communicative teaching materials. This study specifically looked at

55

what idioms are most common in academic speech. Findings revealed 600 occurrences
of idioms in the MICASE, providing empirical evidence of idioms in academic speech,
should any researcher choose to develop a textbook focusing on this topic. This study
provided a substantial amount of evidence for language teachers in academic
environments who would like to teach idioms, without relying solely on idiosyncratic
intuition. Furthermore, this study set a methodological framework as to the most
efficient and productive searching techniques (as well as limitations) for language
researchers choosing to create textbooks using an empirical corpus-based approach.

Lastly, Chapter 4 focused on the ways in which a corpus-based approach may be
used for the purpose of materials development in an ESP classroom. In this study, I
created a written corpus of writing taken from 14 native speaker graduate students in the
M.A. TESOL program at MSU for the purpose of providing a means with which
incoming non-native speakers in the M.A. TESOL program may improve their writing in
English in their graduate classes. This study served solely as a prototype model, and
introduced the many ways in which corpora may best be utilized to create a specific
curriculum that meets the needs of the students, as well as considerations and limitations
that need to be taken into account if creating corpora for materials development (e. g.
what data to collect, how to collect it, what to do with it, etc.).

However, while I have focused mostly on the advantages of using a corpus-based
approach in textbook and materials development and evaluation, there are multiple
limitations to take into consideration as well before wholeheartedly accepting this new

approach.

56

One criticism is that corpora can never replace the grammarian’s intuition. Many
language teachers may say that only the language teacher can know what is appropriate,
or not appropriate. Furthermore, many teachers may complain that a corpus-based
approach takes too long to find empirical data — they would rather ‘make do’ with what
they already have. However, while some say that this is a limitation to creating language
exercises in the classroom, it is not a limitation when creating or assessing textbooks, or
when creating corpora to accommodate the content material of a particular population,
which is what I have attempted to show in this thesis.

There are some other limitations of using a corpus-based approach when creating
teaching materials, including that a computer cannot account for speaker idiosyncrasies.
It is time-consuming to create corpora, and also the computer cannot do all of the
language analyses; therefore, human qualitative input is always necessary to check for
computer errors. While it may be relatively easy for a teacher to skim through and check
the corpus materials for suitability (considering the amount of time that they would
normally spend creating non-authentic materials or finding authentic materials anyway),
the amount of time it takes to create corpus-based materials does seem to remain the
biggest downfall of the technique. However, again, while the initial time it may take to
evaluate or develop materials using this approach may be relatively great, the
teacher/researcher does save time in the long run since they can easily return to the
corpus to update their materials, rather than starting “from scratch” (a model for this has
been shown in Chapter 2 of this thesis).

Lastly, there does seem to be another limitation of using a corpus-based approach

in that it should not be used all of the time, nor should it completely replace

57

communicative curricula or textbooks that have proven to be effective for any language
teacher. Rather, it is more important that the methods described in this thesis be used
strategically and with empirical purpose. Owen (1993) has argued that over-dependence
on a’corpus as a basis for the development of pedagogical grammar can lead to
“irrelevance, oversight and misrepresentation” (p.185). However, it could be argued that,
at a developmental stage, of course corpus-based approaches to pedagogy may contain
inaccuracies and lack of balance, but that it is already believed that “these shortcomings
already exist in curricula based on intuition, traditional descriptions, tasks or other bases”

(Kennedy, 1998, p. 290).

Conclusion

Overall, this thesis has looked at a variety of issues in and applications of a
corpus-based approach when creating and assessing ESL teaching materials. This
research is relatively new, and therefore I hope to have offered a broad enough
background for the reader. Also, I hope that the guidelines provided in the text for the
implementation of a corpus in the classroom were supported well enough to have proven
how useful a corpus-based approach might be for language teachers.

In conclusion, what is most important to have gained from this research is the fact
that a corpus-based approach allows one to obtain empirical data from language analyses
in an efficient and effective manner. I recommend that this be for the purpose of
evaluating a textbook, developing a particular textbook in some genre, or creating ESP
materials for a select population, instead of simply data-driven language learning

practices. In each of these cases, there are both advantages and limitations involved in

58

whether or not someone should choose to implement a corpus-based technique in the
future; however, it should be clear that a corpus-based approach may be the solution to
finding unlimited real-world scenarios and vocabulary in context, as well as
pragmatically-loaded contexts that may be used in the ESP classroom. The applications
of corpora in language teaching should not be any different from other communicative
methods that have been proven to be effective in the classroom; however, the main
difference in adopting this approach is that it will provide an authentic medium to
motivate student learning, provide empirical data (that was not available before) with
which to develop textbooks, and provide justification for teaching more specialized
vocabulary to university graduate students that they may not receive in their own EAP
courses. Lastly, and most importantly, the methods described in this thesis are not
reserved simply for the computer-oriented, but rather may be adopted, using the models
described, for most teachers without special training, thereby further promoting their

accessibility, and leaving no reason that these methods should not be considered.

59

APPENDICES

60

APPENDIX A
SAMPLE ACTIVITIES USING A ‘CORPUS-BASED APPROACH’

1. (taken from an MSU Colloquium handout presented by L. Zwier and C. Mazak of MSU’s ELC
(4/1 1/2002))

 

Vocabulary Detectives

Learning vocabulary is not just memorizing definitions, or even being able to use the word in a sentence.
Really learning vocabulary involves learning the kinds of words that are used with the vocabulary word,
and the situations that you are likely to find the vocabulary word in. For example, you might know that
“scrutiny” means “looking closely at”. But you might not know that you would hardly ever hear a native
English speaker saying to a friend ‘I watched the TV show with a lot of scrutiny.”

So, how do you learn more about how and when to use a new word? Become a vocabulary detective!
Look at the list of sentences [taken from a corpus]. Then, work on these questions in groups.

What part of speech is this word?

Look at the sentences. What comes before the word?

What comes after the word?

Make a few formulas for using this word. What kinds of things usually go with the word?
Practice making sentences with the word.

.U‘PP’NE'"

 

Words that come before... SCRUTINY Words that come after...
scrutiny
scrutiny
scrutiny
scrutiny

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Practice and Test Items Based on Above Class Exercise

 

Directions: Look at the sentences below. Circle the one where the word in bold is used
incorrectly. Then explain WHY it is incorrect.

1. The rock star is under intense scrutiny.
2. The teacher is under scrutiny for doing a wonderful job.
3. The mayor was under scrutiny for doing a bad job.

 

 

Sample response: Number 2 is incorrect because “scrutiny” should be used in a negative
context only, and the context of number 2 is positive.

 

 

 

61

 

I will give you a situation. You write a sentence using the word.
Situation: The President of MSU has been stealing money from the university.

Scrutiny:

 

 

 

 

 

2. (taken from an MSU Colloquium handout presented by Dr. R. Simpson of U of M’s ELI
(ll22l2002))

Focus: so +ADV/ADV +that clause

Directions: Match the sentence fragments on the left with the corresponding that-clause on the right.

 

1. We liked science and engineering so a. that dealers don’t want to touch crack.
much
b. that even in sending them through the
2. The bird is nestled so deep inside there earth the probability of them doing
anything on the way was, practically nil.
3. Now, typically you guys are so close
together 0. that de decided to import those two
pillars himself.

4. The faculty in this area are so good
(1. that in order to get to it you usually have
5. We want to see the penalties so stiff to destroy it.

6. They collided so rarely e. that there are many areas that cannot be
cultivated at all.

7. He thought it was so cool, and, he was
so rich f. that you can’t even distinguish between
the four of you.

8. In Chiapas, the topography is so steep
g. that we don’t want to lose them.

h. that we were willing to put up with this.

 

 

 

 

62

APPENDIX B
COMPLETE LIST OF PHRASES, COLLOQUIAL EXPRESSIONS, AND
IDIOMS, FROM MADDEN AND ROHLCK’S DISCUSSION & INTERACTION IN
THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY (2000), CATEGORIZED BY CONTEXT

 

UNIT 1: INTERACTING IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY

 

 

Colloquia] Challenges (p.15)
Come on

I don’t follow

What are you getting at?

Are you srggesting. . .?

I don’t quite understand

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapport and Complaining (p.16)
That’s typical
1 don’t think so

 

 

 

 

Nggotiating the Office Hour (p. 24)

I’m going to take...
I need to take...

 

 

 

Listenng to the News: Idioms in the News (p. 42)
Playing hardball

Threw (him) a curve

Out of left field

Pinch hit

Strike out

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hit a home run

 

 

 

UNIT 2: PARTICIPATING IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY

 

 

Opinions and Discussions: Getthg Started (pp. 46)

 

What do you think about. . .?

 

How do you feel about. . .?

 

Doyou agree with. . .?

 

AICLOU opposed to. . .?
What is your country’s position on. . .?

 

 

 

Givinggnd Gettfig Opinions (pp. 47 - 49)
What do you think/feel about. . .?

Would you agr_ee/say that. . .?

What’s jOUl‘ opinion on/about. . .?

I believe/think/feel (that)...

I’m convinced (that)...

It seems to me (that)...

I don’t feel strongly either way

Actuall , I can see both points of view/both sides
I’m not sure, I haven’t really thought about it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

I don’t know
R1 ’5
’5 true
I think so too...
I kind of
I’m much in
’re ' ..
W ma but...
W I don’t ' with that
I see it somewhat differentl
I see what ’re sa but...
You’re

and
The ' of this article is...
The 'nt is that...
This article information about...
Most '
Not
This article focuses on...

More Work on and
That’s not ri ..

That’s not what I meant...

You’re but what I mean is...
We all that...

We discussed the

Most of us that...

the Discussion 64 -
T I would like to...
I want to .
T I’m to talk about...
As we know...
As we have seen...
As we have all read...

It’s clear that...
however...
I would like to discuss...

in Discussions 71
have to add two
want to sa .
I for a moment. ..?
is this situation the same as in
with what *** 'ust said?
what is of this?

a Discussion 72
to conclude...
conclusion...
me summarize what we’ve talked about

 

 

We’re just about out of time so I’d like to conclude by saying...

 

 

MMe Discussion: Feedback (pp. 75 - 76)

 

Are you saying that...?

 

I don’t guite understand what you are saying

 

Could you regeat that?

 

Are you followiflme?

 

Is that clear?

 

Is everyone with me?

 

Excuse me, but...

 

Ah, I think we need to move on to...

 

Perhaps we can get back to your point after we hear from...

 

 

 

UNIT 3: PRESENTING DATA IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY

 

 

Idioms from Geometry (pp. 94)

 

Give (me) a straight answer

 

Going around in circles

 

Drew a blank

 

Gone off on a tangent

 

Get to the point

 

Read between the lines

 

Start at square one

 

To draw a parallel

 

 

Difficult Questions: Asking and Answerirg (pp. 105 - 109)

 

In other words...

 

What I’m saying is...

 

I mean...

 

What do you mean. . .?

 

I’m sorry, what exactly is your question?

 

I ggess I just don’t see your point. Could you clarify?

 

That’s a very interesting question. What I have looked at it is...

 

That’s good Question, but in my case. ..

 

I don't have the data (get), but...

 

That’s our next step

 

We haven't thought much about it yet, but if you would like to talk afterward we can...

 

I’d like to hear more about what you’re saying

 

 

I feel I’ve answered the question, but we could continue our discussion later

 

 

65

APPENDIX C
COMPLETE LIST OF IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS, AS FOUND IN MICASE

 

Idiomatic Eeressions Occurrences
A dry run
All in my head
All wet
Au oddball
_83g of tricks
Ball game
Bang for your buck
Beat around the bush
Beat into the flound
Beat the system
Beat to death
Bent out of shape
Blow by blow
Blow the whistle/whistle blower
Bottom line
Bouncing off of walls
Break even
Breathing down our neck
Breeze thrggh
Can’t win for low
Catch up with
Catch you on (another day...)
Catch-22
Catght up in s.th.
Chicken and egg question
Child’s play
Clean slate
Clean-cut
Clear cut
Come into play
Come out of the closet
Crash and burn
Creek without a paddle
Cry wolf
Cut a deal with
Cut so. off
Cut to the chase
Cutting edge
Dancifl to that tune
Dead end
Does the trick
Doesn’t cut it
Down and out
Down the line
Draw a/the line (between)
Drive me cruflananw
Drop in the bucket

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—e
\l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NI—N—‘I-‘A—qu—I—ni—n—_

 

_
O‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNN~WNUD~N-$

 

 

 

:3.—

 

 

 

 

qu

 

 

 

66

 

Fall back on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6
Fall in love 5
Fall into place 4
Fall/throw by the wayside 3
Feather in their cap 1
Fine tune 3
First-come first-served 1
Flesh out 2
Flip a coin, flip side of a/the same co 10
Floodigg the markets

 

Foot in the door

 

For all intents and purposes

 

For good

 

Full-fledged

 

Garden variety

 

Get a grasp of

 

Get a handle on

 

Get a head start on

 

Get around (to doing s.th)

 

Get to the bottom of things

 

Give and take

 

£0 back on your word

 

Goes to show

 

Going to town

 

Good heavens

 

Goodness gracious

 

Hand in hand

 

Hand wavirg

 

Happy camper

 

Have/has the foggiest notion/idea

 

Having the world at his doorstep

 

Hit the wall, hitting a (rock) wall

 

Hit you over the head

 

I see the error of my ways

 

Ice breaker

 

In a nutshell

 

In bed with

 

In limbo

 

In line with s.th.

 

In the dark

 

Igyour wildest dreams

 

It’s all downhill

 

Jump to conclusions

 

Just for the hell of it

 

Just trying to get by

 

Keep an eye on

 

Keep it up

 

Keep tabs (on)

 

Lay in on the line

 

Learning curve

 

Let the cat out of the bag/cat was...

 

Line of attack

 

Line to walk (fine?)

 

 

I—nA—H—u—tu—n—NNu—u—Iu—nNut—-—W———w—w—Nm———ANw—mw&~t—thu—Lpi—u—n

 

67

 

 

Lined up in advance

 

Litmus test

 

Live to tell about it

 

Long road

 

Makirg out like bandits

 

Million dollar question

 

Neck and neck

 

Nittt gritty

 

No holds barred

 

No mean feat

 

__Q_dds and ends

 

Off guard

 

Off the deep end

 

Off the wall

 

On a Magentfloff

 

On target

 

On the ball

 

On the fringe

 

On the right track

 

On the same page

 

On the same wavelength

 

On track

 

One catch

 

One fell swoop

 

One nit to pick

 

Open door

 

Out of this world

 

Out of whack

 

Out on a limb

 

Out the door

 

Pain in the neck

 

Pick (aflht

 

Pick up on s.th.

 

Pick up where the last one took off

 

Pie in the sky

 

Play devil’s advocate

 

PluLand chpg

wNHNSqu—N—u—t—y—n—Q—hw—n—QN—i—aN—r—Ia—nhu—u—su—nu—u—nu—IU.)

 

Pros and cons

H
fl

 

Pulls the rug out from

 

Put a spin on

 

Put the heat on

 

Put them in their place

 

Rears its tidy head

 

Revolving door

 

Riding piggyback

 

Right off the bat (straight = 1)

 

Right on the dot

 

Right smack between

 

Ring_a bell

 

Ripe for the picking

 

Rule/s of thumb

 

Run into a wall

 

 

Run it by you

 

 

NWO‘F-‘nh-‘F‘le—UJ—MNN

 

 

Run of the mill

 

Scared to death

 

Send chills up and down the spine

 

Set his sights on

 

Shadow hanging over them

 

Shift gears

 

Sick of, sick (to death) of

 

Smack dab in the middle of

 

Smack up against

 

Splittirg hairs

 

Stand out like a soar thumb

 

Steering clear of

 

Stick (their) neck out

 

Straight face

 

Strike a happy medium

 

Strike fear into the heart

 

Strike out on his own

 

Struck (such) a chord

 

Take (s.th) at face value

 

Take (something) to heart

 

Take him to task

 

Take it on faith

 

Take my word for it

 

Take on a life of its own

 

Take the plunge

 

Tall order

 

The big picture

 

The ivory tower

 

The kitchen sink

 

The saving grace

 

Thick of somethifl

 

Thorn in your side (side in your thorn)

 

Throw off guard

 

Throw someone for a loop

 

Thumb you nose

 

Thumbs up

 

Time on gour/his hands

 

Tipped your hand

 

Tongue in cheek

 

Touch base

 

Truck alog on

 

Turn a blind eye

 

Turn a deaf ear

 

Turn a profit from

 

Turn of events

 

Turn of phrase/speech

 

Turn the tables/tables are turned

 

Upper hand (get/got the)

 

 

What the heck

 

What the hell

 

Which way to turn

 

 

Mimi—MN—u—e—e—ANH—NQ—u—n——n——ewN\I———Au—N—Qt—e—u—n—NNu—A—t—v—nu—o—u—a—t—ot—o

 

69

 

APPENDIX D
COMPLETE WORD FREQUENCY LIST FOR CREATED CORPORA

Master Corpus

99 files; 141, 769 words

8444 5.9562% the 438 0.3090% which
4421 3.1 185% to 433 0.3054% second
4240 2.9908% and 423 0.2984% what
4159 2.9336% of 419 0.2956% had
3330 2.3489% in 416 0.2934% but

3014 2.1260% a 397 0.2800% one

2026 1.4291 % that 393 0.2772% these
1455 1.0263% for 390 0.2751% will

1391 0.9812% language 378 0.2666% also
1384 0.9762% is 378 0.2666% she

1217 0.8584% students 369 0.2603% can

1201 0.8472% on 353 0.2490% learners
1087 0.7667% this 351 0.2476% grammar
1057 0.7456% as 348 0.2455% age

1023 0.7216% they 346 0.2441 % may

101 1 0.7131% i 346 0.2441 % reading
1006 0.7096% it 344 0.2426% use

1003 0.7075% be 330 0.2328% vocabulary
1002 0.7068% with 327 0.2307% teacher
959 0.6765% their 298 0.2102% time

8 15 0.5749% are 294 0.2074% some
801 0.5650% not 292 0.2060% acquisition
782 0.5516% or 290 0.2046% how

772 0.5445% have 286 0.2017% other
729 0.5142% was 274 0.1933% if

596 0.4204% an 272 0.1919% when
568 0.4007% more 268 0. 1 890% words
543 0.3830% writing 265 0.1869% each

498 0.3513% at 260 0.1834% 12

492 0.3470% by 257 0. 1813% who

474 0.3343% would 251 0. 1770% her

473 0.3336% learning 25 1 0.1770% there
466 0.3287% were 250 0.1763% do

453 0.3195% english 250 0.1763% so

450 0.3174% class 248 0. 1749% could
443 0.3 125% them 248 0.1749% first

442 0.31 18% from 240 0.1693% he

440 0.3 104% about 236 0. 1665% questions

70

 

nun. 1.3- ,.

’wv-u

235

226 '

224
2 12
209
208
205
204
204
203
201
200
199
198
198
195
l 94
1 93
l 93
192

192.

192
191
190
189
189
188
186
185
184
184
184
182
182
181
177
175
174
174
173
173
172
172
172
168
166

0.1658%
0.1594%
0.1580%
0.1495%
0.1474%
0.1467%
0.1446%
0.1439%
0.1439%
0.1432%
0.1418%
0.1411%
0.1404%
0.1397%
0.1397%
0.1375%
0.1368%
0.1361%
0.1361%
0.1354%
0.1354%
0.1354%
0.1347%
0.1340%
0.1333%
0.1333%
0.1326%
0.1312%
0.1305%
0.1298%
0.1298%
0.1298%
0.1284%
0.1284%
0.1277%
0.1249%
0.1234%
0.1227%
0.1227%
0.1220%
0.1220%
0.1213%
0.1213%
0.1213%
0.1185%
0.1 171%

then
than
used
however
might
study
only
speakers
student
motivation
all

new
because
different
has

did
activity
between
proficiency
information
my

such
after
many
exercises
native
listening
well

we

been
example
into
form

P

very
while
using
most
teaching
foreign
research
activities
learner
two

his

out

71

165
163
161
160
157
156
154
153
153
153
152
152
147
147
147
145
144
144
140
139
136
136
133
132
132
130
130
129
127
127
127
126
126
126
125
124
124
123
123
122
122
122
121
121
120
119

0.1 164%
0. l 150%
0. l 136%
0. 1 129%
0. l 107%
0. 1 100%
0. 1086%
0. 1079%
0. 1079%
0. 1079%
0. 1072%
0. 1072%
0. 1037%
0. 1037%
0. 1037%
0. 1023%
0. 1016%
0. 1016%
0.0988%
0.0980%
0.0959%
0.0959%
0.0938%
0.0931%
0.0931%
0.0917%
0.0917%
0.0910%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0889%
0.0889%
0.0889%
0.0882%
0.0875%
0.0875%
0.0868%
0.0868%
0.0861 %
0.0861 %
0.0861 %
0.0854%
0.0854%
0.0846%
0.0839%

focus
level
should
since
lesson
skills
students'
factors
need
order
feedback
important
able
input
make
period
learn
teachers
children
much
speech
write
read
unit

you
asked
book
textbook
even
test
through
1

part

uP

work
program
word
accent
like
does
found
same
both

8

think
before

119
119
118
118
117
116
116
116
115
115
114

112‘

112
112
111
110
110
109
109
108
107
107
106
106
105
104
104
103
103
103

102.

102
101
101
100
100
99
99
99
99
98
97
96
95
95
94

0.0839%
0.0839%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0825 %
0.0818%
0.0818%
0.0818%
0.081 1 %
0.08 l 1%
0.0804%
0.0790%
0.0790%
0.0790%
0.0783%
0.0776%
0.0776%
0.0769%
0.0769%
0.0762%
0.0755%
0.0755%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0741 %
0.0734%
0.0734%
0.0727%
0.0727%
0.0727%
0.0719%
0.0719%
0.0712%
0.0712%
0.0705%
0.0705%
0.0698%
0.0698%
0.0698%
0.0698%
0.0691 %
0.0684%
0.0677%
0.0670%
0.0670%
0.0663%

classroom
ideas
group
own
topic
2001

fact
meaning
studies
those
instruction
2

over

text
sentences
content
just
practice
speaking
pronunciation
often
target
better
point
give
dufing
rodri go
possible
process
take
materials
section
based
help
being
older
another
correct
school
way
know

no

past
answer
esl
academic

72

93
93
93
93
91
91
90
89
89
88
88
87
86
85
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
83
82
82
81
81
81
80
80
80
80
79
79
79
78
78
78
78
77
77
77
77
77
76
76

0.0656%
0.0656%
0.0656%
0.0656%
0.0642%
0.0642%
0.0635%
0.0628%
0.0628%
0.0621 %
0.0621 %
0.0614%
0.0607%
0.0600%
0.0593%
0.0593%
0.0593%
0.0593%
0.0593%
0.0593%
0.0593%
0.0593%
0.0585%
0.0578%
0.0578%
0.0571 %
0.0571 %
0.0571%
0.0564%
0.0564%
0.0564%
0.0564%
0.0557%
0.0557%
0.0557%
0.0550%
0.0550%
0.0550%
0.0550%
0.0543%
0.0543%
0.0543%
0.0543%
0.0543%
0.0536%
0.0536%

any
comprehension
people
where
context
given
researchers
ability
made
although
therefore
good

sla
authentic
according
course
difficult
errors

few

its

related
sounds
exercise
enor
must

1997

3

results
correction
culture
knowledge
type .
approprrate
critical
groups
factor
points
pragmatic
see
answers
chapter
differences
done

task

long
social

0.0536%
0.0529%
0.0529%
0.0529%
0.0522%
0.0522%
0.0522%
0.0515%
0.05 15%
0.05 15%
0.0515%
0.0508%
0.0508%
0.0508%
0.0501 %
0.0501 %
0.0501 %
0.0501 %
0.0501 %
0.0494%
0.0494%
0.0494%
0.0494%
0.0487%
0.0487%
0.0480%
0.0480%
0.0480%
0.0480%
0.0480%
0.0473%
0.0473%
0.0473%
0.0466%
0.0466%
0.0458%
0.0458%
0.0458%
0.0458%
0.0458%
0.045 1 %
0.0451 %
0.045 1 %
0.045 1%
0.045 1 %
0.045 1 %

three
article
sentence

1
communicative
hypothesis
structure
adults

e

journal
understand
development
high

still
complete
less
presented
university
whether
community
material
teach
usually
classes
particular
case

find
readings
review
variables
american
provide
topics

data
present
languages
minutes
next
states
want
camila
examples
influence
interaction
question
tasks

73

63
63
63
63
63
62
62
62
62
62
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
59
59
59
59
59
59
59
58
58
58
58
58
57
57

0.0444%
0.0444%
0.0444%
0.0444%
0.0444%
0.0437%
0.0437%
0.0437%
0.0437%
0.0437%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0430%
0.0423%
0.0423%
0.0423%
0.0423%
0.0423%
0.0423%
0.0423%
0.0423%
0.0423%
0.0416%
0.0416%
0.0416%
0.0416%
0.0416%
0.0416%
0.0416%
0.0409%
0.0409%
0.0409%
0.0409%
0.0409%
0.0402%
0.0402%

certain
explicit
identity

j e

mam
especially
me
northstar
opportunities
without
1994
believe
effect
further
grammatical
instead
interesting

1 1

rather

short
situation
within
working
amount
approach
become
conversation
environment
higher
learner's
native-like
spent

1995

affect
discussion
essay
noticing
several
Show

4
assignment
attention
having
series
competence
down

57
57
57
57
56
56
56
56
56
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
53
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52

0.0402%
0.0402%
0.0402%
0.0402%
0.0395%
0.0395%
0.0395%
0.0395%
0.0395%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.0388%
0.038 1 %
0.0381%
0.0381%
0.038 1 %
0.0381 %
0.0381 %
0.0381 %
0.0381%
0.0381 %
0.0381 %
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0367%
0.0367%
0.0367%
0.0367%
0.0367%
0.0367%
0.0367%
0.0367%

goals
probably
specific
taught

feel
general
others
something
written

1 998
accelerated
ask

either
furthermore
include

m

produce
structures
times

too

1 99 1
aspects

d

johnson
lecture
really

said

state

why

years
already
awareness
communication
learned
levels

life
problem
simply
business
chart
developing
enough
helpful
instructor
participants

74

52
5 l
51
51
51
51
51
5 1
5 1
5 1
5 l
5 l
5 1
50
50
50
50
50
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
46

0.0367%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0360%
0.0353%
0.0353%
0.0353%
0.0353%
0.0353%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0332%
0.0324%

younger
am

best

due

get
japanese
making
maturational
PP

seem

style
themselves
types
analysis
develop
terms
understanding
various
evidence
focused
gave
involved
likely
problems
strategies
together
acquire
experience
future

last
puberty
success
united
1993
actually
anxiety
degree
experiences
forms
meaningful
necessary

r

role

say
sections
cited

0.0324%
0.0324%
0.0324%
0.0324%
0.0324%
0.0324%
0.0324%
0.0324%
0.0324%
0.03 17%
0.03 17%
0.03 17%
0.03 17%
0.03 17%
0.03 17%
0.03 17%
0.03 17%
0.03 17%
0.03 10%
0.03 10%
0.03 10%
0.03 10%
0.03 10%
0.0310%
0.03 10%
0.03 10%
0.03 10%
0.03 10%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0303%
0.0296%
0.0296%
0.0296%
0.0296%
0.0296%

doing
essays
five

him
objective
paper
tesol
towards
useful
attitudes
effects
following
linguistic
looking
person
relationship
theme
wrote
adult
come
complex
effort
end
going
idioms
items
organization
someone
authors
clear

g
homework
listen
objectives
once
picture
showed
similar
teacher's
thought
ways
1996
explicitly
hand
number
place

75

42
42
42
42
42
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
40
40
40
4O
4O
40
40
40
4O
40
40
40
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
38
38
38
38
38

0.0296%
0.0296%
0.0296%
0.0296%
0.0296%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0289%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0282%
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0275 %
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0275%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%

speak
speaker
true
variety
wanted

b
believes
consider
every
heinle
identify
later
output
overall
situations
subjects
again
back
french

lot
natural
pictures
previous
provides
quality
result
seems
took
beginning
brain
comprehensible
cultural
difference
exposure
giving
goal

little
notes
regarding
tests
your
2000

al

basic
board

ct

38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
35
35

0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0268%
0.0261 %
0.0261 %
0.0261 %
0.0261 %
0.0261%
0.0261 %
0.0261 %
0.026 1 %
0.0261 %
0.0261 %
0.0261 %
0.0261 %
0.0261%
0.0261 %
0.0261%
0.0261%
0.0261 %
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0254%
0.0247%
0.0247%

final

go
intermediate
methods
negotiation
opportunity
outside
paragraph
partner
personal
pragmatics
provided
reason
worked
achieve
always
claims
details
domyei
effective
etc

flege
immersion
lack
model
passive
peer
production
spanish
strong
studying
1999

5
advanced
change
home
improve
krashen
least
makes
reasons
sensitive
simple
story
affective
asking

76

35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33

0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0247%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0240%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%
0.0233%

begin

day
discussed
four
gardner
interest
interested
introduction
medical
never
phonology
quarterly
response
support
abilities
around
articles
aware
control
discuss
easy
friends
importance
mind

now

our
oxford
taking
video
voice
advantage
changes
discourse
early
integrative
italian
keep

low
mistakes
non-native
notice
purpose
rules
small
taken
went

33
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

0.0233%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0226%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%

whole
1989
achievement
describe
earlier
kind
korean
look
needed
needs
neWport
note
perhaps
phonological
providing
sure
themes
trying
units

1985
accuracy
arrival
assignments
began
clearly
cognitive
expressions
features
felt

idea
included
including
individual
issues
responses
right
setting

try

u

allow

c

charts
choice
follow
83p

hear

77

30
30
3O
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28

0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0212%
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0205 %
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0205%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%
0.0198%

list
longer
lyster
matter
means
passage
require
seemed
self-confidence
significant
specifically
talking
though
uses
affects
background
cannot
ed

fill
lower
phrases
positive
quickly
student's
texts
things
truscott
available
create
direct
don't
draft
lead
letter
mean
multiple
notion
raters
required
rest
status
stevens
suggests
tense
testing
thus

 

27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27

27’

27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26

0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0190%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0183%

ages
areas
classrooms
contains
entire
focuses
formal

half

initial
interactions
interlanguage
interview
mentioned
metalinguistic
negative
primary

put

qi

says

seen

skill

snow
successful
tend
acquired
audience
bardovi-harli g
comments
constraints
edition
express
family
itself
lapkin
lessons
major
method
michigan
one's
producing
sometimes
suggestions
talk
textbooks
told
understood

78

26
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24

0.0183%
0.0183%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0176%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%

v
young
addition
among
becomes
chapters
child
closely
considered
confinuous
discussions
divided
encouraged
explain
great
increase
intended
nature
pairs
papers
patterns
reformulation
set

stated
studied
system
third

unfil

upon
affected
argues
away
check
college
comfortable
country
determine
easily
findings
haejung
includes
job

pages
potential
practical
rate

24
24
24
24
24
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23

23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22

23

0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0169%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0162%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%

recast
relevant
scoring
subject

us

10
assume
bongaerts
books
cafled
compare
confinue
developed
directly
efl
explained
key

1

led

length
living

pair
parents
particularly
performance
processing
recasts
remote
started
syntax
talked
ultimate
varied
active
almost
area

argue
associated
benefit
came
comes
common
comparing
contexts
days
desire

79

22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21

0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0155%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%

didn't
difficulty
dutch
examined
exposed
far
impossible
move

it

ohp

plan
preparing
progress
quite
range
references
researcher
scores
sense
shows

six

sound
tanaka
turn
unable
york

1 2

1 5

1986

20

above
acquiring
along
assessment
build
categories
computer
conversational
corrections
deal
decline
familiar
greater
immediate
introduce
involving

 

21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
20

20,

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

20‘

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0148%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141%

kinds
large
limited
majority
offer
page
possibly
press
received
start

techniques

toward
0

6

basis
beheved
benefits
building
chile
choose

compared
concerned

creating

curriculum
depending

duquette
easier
eds
education
essential

explanation

follows
guess

instrumental
interviews

issue
learners'

motivated

noticed
opinion

presentation
proficient

receive
stress
suggest
today

80

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
l9
l9
l9
19
19
19
19
l9
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
l9
l9
19
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
18

0.0141%
0.0141 %
0.0141%
0.0141 %
0.0141%
0.0141%
0.0141 %
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0134%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%

tried

verb
verbs
week
world
year

yet

1990

7

access
account
accurately
advertisement
applied
biological
chaflenge
consideration
encourage
field
function
getting
hour

k

lectures
manual
meanings
months
observation
off
optimal
programs
real
rhetorical
showing
stage
statements
styles
suggested
thinking
training
view
accents
additional
affecting
apply
argument

 

l8
18
18
18
18
l8
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
l8
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
17
17
17

0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0127%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%

assumptions
beyond
bfing

cahs
cambridge
chinese
claim
completed
consists
contrast
describing
directions
draw
elicited
everything
examine
false

fluent
helped
intensive
interact
involvement
john
larsen-freeman
lenneberg
lexical
modern
observed
occur
organize
outline
prepare
problematic
regards
relationships
room

sheet
stages

ten
worksheet
wrong
analyze
assess
atmosphere
attached
average

81

17
l7
l7
17
17
17
17
l7
17
17
17
17
l7
l7
l7
17
17
17
17
17
l7
17
17
17
17
l7
17
17
17
17
l7
l7
17
17
l7
17
17
l7
17
17
l7
l7
l6
l6
l6
16

0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.01 13%
0.01 13%
0.01 13%
0.01 13%

became
begins
camila’s
cases
cause
celce-murcia
clement
closing
comparison
conclusion
corpus
correlation
countries
daily
definition
elicit
encourages
everyone
expression
games
gass
global

h

house
increased
looked
markers
murder
newspaper
pick

play

plus
project
qualitative
rated
remember
rich
shown
swain
tested
utterance
wu
address
ahead
allows

appears

 

16
16
16
l6
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
l6
l6
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.01 13%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.01 13%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%
0.0113%

arrived
asher
beneficial
bit

call
clarification
compositions
correcting
corrective
created
description
designed
encounter
feels
fluency
garcia
helps

here

ideal
implications
improved
indicate
international
introduced
involve
late

laufer
mistake
mostly

msu

oyama
peers
progressive
promote
prompt
protocols
proved
real-life
recall
repeat
requires
retain
samples
semester
settings
sources

82

16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

0.01 13%
0.01 13%
0.01 13%
0.01 13%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%

spend
stoller
ultimately
variable

25

8

against
agree
americans
analyzing
attainment
attempt
brainstorming
challenging
concerns
conversations
correctly
courses
cover

cues
determines
emphasis
encountered
evaluate
exploring
extra
extremely
face
frequency
functions
grabe
highly
idiomatic
immigration
individually
involves

it's

leads
limitations
linguistics
lives
original
passages
primarily
ranta
respond

 

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
l4
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
l4
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0106%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%

responded
retention
rule

saying
scale

share
somewhat
spoken
step
takahashi
technique
term
theories
thing
utterances
version
writers

1 6

1 984

24

30

acts

aloud
approaches
asks
association
beebe
center
certainly
children's
chose
clues
coady
communicate
completing
concluded
corrected
eisenstein
emphasized
examining
explore
followed
format
genie

goes

got

83

14
14
14
14
14
14
14
l4
14
14
l4
14
14
l4
14
14
l4
l4
l4
14
14
14
14
l4
14
14
14
l4
14
14
14
14
l4
l4
l4
l4
14
14
13
l3
l3
l3
13
13
l3
13

0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0099%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%

guidelines
immediately
immigrants
incorrect
influences
instructions
instructors
interactive
jobs

letters
meant

meet
morphology
noels

old
participant
participate
pica

piece
principles
prior

quiz

realize
slavoff
spelling
statement
stories
sub-section
sufficient
supplement
supports
takes
theoretical
think-aloud
throughout
travel

turns

visual

17

19

198 1

ad
addressed
advance
alone
answered

 

13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
l3
13
13
13
l3

13

13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13

0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%

answering
appear
approaching
chance
classmates
component
debate
dimensions
discussing
english-only
established
evaluated
evaluation
events
expected
feelings
finally
finished
free
frequently
full

fully

fun
generally
hulstijn
identification
ii
improving
instances
integrativeness
intonation
kasper

let

lines

listed
literacy
longman
naturally
necessarily
night

obtain
obvious
onto
orientation
perform
perspectives

84

13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
l3
l3
13
13
l3
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%

0.0092%

0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0092%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%

purple
purposes
quantity
raise
recastin g
recognize
relatively
report
resources
reviewing
roles
schmidt
search
shearin
spada
successfully
suited
summary
superior
supplemented
supported
today's
top

trait

usage

1 976

1 980

9

act

arm
assigned
attitude
behind
bibliography
bodman
break
brought
category
challenges
cohesion
constraint
contain
continued
deeper
design
determining

 

 

12
12
12
12
l2

12.

12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%

difficulties
doctor
enhanced
enjoyed
eventually
exceptions
explains
explanations
expressing
extensive
fll

front
german
implicit
influenced
initially
instructed
instructional
investment
knew
leading
leave

lost
measure
measures
models
motivational
moved
neufeld
noted

0

online
opinions
oral
organized
outlining
paragraphs
paraphrasing
plans
plays
population
practicum
principle
professor
recent
refer

85

12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
l2
12
12
12
12
12
12
ll
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
11
11
11
ll
11
11
11
11
11
11

0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085 %
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0085%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%

regardless
repairs
requests
revise

robb

ross
segment
shortreed
stronger

su
technology
tell

theory
varonis

vi

vot

w

whereas
willing
works

197 7
achieved
advantages
aid
anything
body
bottom
checking
cities
classic
clauses
comic
connection
consequently
construct
creative
current
dealing
depends
describes
descriptive
devices
distinguish
drawing
educational

 

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

11 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 1 ' 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

I I 0.0078%

1 1 0.0078%

1 I 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%
1 1 0.0078%

f
failure
fieldwork
figure
finding
floor
focusing
frequent
gain
gender
gratitude
holistic
imitate
incorporate
indirect
intemet
kept
larger
maintain
manner
maps
maybe
moving
negotiate
news
normal
normally
north
notetakin g
offers
participants'
partners
parts
pedagogical
perfect
physical
planned
possibility
practiced
prediction
presents
pre-writing
processes
produced
productive
promotes

86

ll
11
11
11
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
11
11
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0078%
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %

proper
psychological
ready
reminded
repair
repetition
requirements
reviewed
rodrigo's
sample
saw

scene
schools
schumann
self-study
society
ssla
standard 9'“
student-centered

surface

syllabus

thoughts

tl

total

transition

uptake

variations

V317

weeks

writes

1969

45

accurate

actual

addresses

afterwards

aim

analytical

arrivals

aspect

associations

boston

built

canada

canadian

cats

 

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%

10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%
10 0.0071%

caused
chances
clarify
closer
collected
communities
completely
composition
considering
crime
culturally
dealt

decide
demonstrate
detail
doughty
dynamic
editor
effectively
elc
elements
else
emotional
enhance
entitled
evident
expect
experiment
facilitate
forrnin g
genuine
gets

grade

guide
history
hoefnagel-hohle
hope

hours
identifying
incidental
integrate
intellectual
interpretation
investigate
lists

master

87

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0000000

0.007 1 %
0.0071 %
0.0071%
0.0071 %
0.0071%
0.007 1 %
0.0071%
0.007 1 %
0.0071 %
0.007 1 %
0.007 1 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.007 1 %
0.0071%
0.0071 %
0.0071%
0.0071%
0.0071 %
0.007 1%
0.0071 %
0.007 1 %
0.0071 %
0.0071%
0.0071%
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.007 1 %
0.0071 %
0.007 1 %
0.007 1 %
0.007 1 %
0.0071%
0.0071%
0.0071%
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.0071 %
0.007 1 %
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%

members
met
morley
numerous
person's
planning
practicing
predicting
prompted
proposed
questionnaire
radio
reach
reality
reference
relative
reveal
risks
rose
run
scanning
schema
segments
slightly
sorts
store
subsequent
survey
taker
tape
tapes
thinks
tool
varying
whose
wishes
women
yes
zamel
1 3
1 992
28
abstract
acceptable
accepted
across

 

 

an. EA- 9 . "lh

 

9 0.0063% addison 9 0.0063% intend
9 0.0063% additionally 9 0.0063% interference
9 0.0063% analyzed 9 0.0063% introduces
9 0.0063% aptitude 9 0.0063% introducing
9 0.0063% assuming 9 0.0063% item
9 0.0063% assumption 9 0.0063% knowing
9 0.0063% becoming 9 0.0063% lansing
9 0.0063% brainstorm 9 0.0063% largely
9 0.0063% broken 9 0.0063% lee
9 0.0063% capacity 9 0.0063% links
9 0.0063% coding 9 0.0063% literature '1‘
9 0.0063% collect 9 0.0063% man .
9 0.0063% components 9 0.0063% maturation i
9 0.0063% compound 9 0.0063% media 3‘
9 0.0063% concepts 9 0.0063% meetings
9 0.0063% conclude 9 0.0063% mode
9 0.0063% connected 9 0.0063% mystery
9 0.0063% contrasting 9 0.0063% name h
9 0.0063% corpora 9 0.0063% near
9 0.0063% currently 9 0.0063% neither
9 0.0063% decarrico 9 0.0063% neurobiological
9 0.0063% defined 9 0.0063% neurological
9 0.0063% definitions 9 0.0063% newspapers
9 0.0063% demonstrated 9 0.0063% non-academic
9 0.0063% distinction 9 0.0063% obviously
9 0.0063% drafts 9 0.0063% ones
9 0.0063% dunkel 9 0.0063% organizers
9 0.0063% cap 9 0.0063% oteiza
9 0.0063% ego 9 0.0063% outcome
9 0.0063% exactly 9 0.0063% pay
9 0.0063% excellent 9 0.0063% peirce
9 0.0063% exist 9 0.0063% perceived
9 0.0063% follow-up 9 0.0063% personality
9 0.0063% formation 9 0.0063% personally
9 0.0063% gives 9 0.0063% phrase
9 0.0063% gradual 9 0.0063% played
9 0.0063% grasp 9 0.0063% pointed
9 0.0063% iep 9 0.0063% position
9 0.0063% iii 9 0.0063% preparation
9 0.0063% i'm 9 0.0063% prepositions
9 0.0063% impression 9 0.0063% presenting
9 0.0063% improvement 9 0.0063% psychology
9 0.0063% indeed 9 0.0063% public
9 0.0063% individuals 9 0.0063% putting
9 0.0063% infer 9 0.0063% quizzes
9 0.0063% inference 9 0.0063% quotes

88

 

" -. s 'NYY-va-wv

oooooooooooooooooo\oxoxoxoxoxooo\oxocxowccooooccoocoocooooocwooo

0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0063%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%

readers
realistic
record
regular
repeated
representative
represented
residence
schils
scored
significantly
single
solely
songs
space
spoke

star
starting
stopped
strategy
stressed
targeted
teacher-centered
tenses
thematic
transfer
under

users

value
versus
walk

wants
wasn't
wesley
white
williams
wish

1 978

l 988

84
acceptance
accompany
addressing
adjectives
adjustment
adulthood

89

OOOOOOOOOOWOOOOWOOOOOOOOOOWOOOOOOOOWOOOOOOMWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%

allowed

amsterdam

apart

apartments

apparently

appendix

arguments

assessing

audio

backgrounds

brings a
close
cloze
coming
comment
commonly
complexity
comprehend IL
concept

concerning

conditions

consistent

contained

content-based

contrasts

covered

crucial

cultures

davis

decision

despite

disagree

doesn't

editing

editors

encouraging

engage

english-speaking

enjoy

entirely

exists

expand

experienced

fairly

faster

finish

 

0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%

fl
fourth

framework

game
gardner's
gone
guesses
guides
handed
helping
hill
hopefully
identified
illustrate

immigrant

111C

intellectually

interpret
intuitions

investigated

journals

lenneberg's

line
logical
magazine
mainly
male
member
memory

methodology

monitor
motivate
myself
noun

“Y
nyikos
occurred
offered
orally
otherwise
outlines
pace
pain

paraphrase

partner's
peace

90

\l\I\l\lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0056%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%

per
performed
phonefic
poem
porter
portion
predictor
printed
procedure
quick
recently
recognition
reinforce
relevance
reported
represent
requiring
revising
revision
rewritten
score

seek
self-consciousness
semantic
shorter
smaller
sophisticated
speaker's
stand
sub-sections
susan
syllable
thematically
traditional
trilingual
truly
unfortunately
valuable
visuals

vs

waste

worth

1 975

1982

1983

29

 

 

 

\l\1\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l

0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%

300

34

47
accepting
accomplish
acculturation
achieving
actions
advertising
advocates
amounts
anyway
apartment
appeared
appropriately
approximately
arise

arises
assessed
assist
assistant
assumes
attempted
author
avoid

bad

besides
bilingual
brief
califomia
calt

can't
capable
catch
changed
characteristics
chfldhood
choosing
chosen
columns
competency
composing
conducive
conference
conferences
confidence

91

\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\I\I\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\I\I\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l

0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%

considerable
consistently
contribute
count
couple
cross-cultural
deep

depend
described
desired
detailed
detectives
diagnostic
dictionary
dinner
discovered
discriminate
distracters
effectiveness
eighteen
ellis
enjoyable
ensure
entails

enter
environments
essentially
evaluating
examination
expectations
fall

fear

fewer
flawed
flexibility
flexible
flow

force
formed
formulate
gradually
graduate
harder
heard
himself
hold

 

\IQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ\1\1\l\l\1\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\IQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%

human
idiom
imitating
immigrated
incorporated
inhibit
insight
integrated
isn't

layout

left

limit

linked
listeners
looks
magazines
majors

map
marianne
mark

mental
merely
metalanguage
modified
necessity
negatively
nine
norton-pierce
nouns
occasionally
ok

onset
opposite
overhead
partially
participation
pass
patients
perception
perspective
phenomenon
philosophy
photos
placed
places
planken

92

\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l

0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%

plasticity
plenty
pragmatically
prepared
presence
prove
punctuation
questionable
raising
rarely
reader
realized
reliability
reluctant
rely
requirement
responding
responsible
russian
second—language
seeing
sequence
sequences
sharing
side
signaling
soon

source
specialized
speculate
stating
steps
strongest
strongly
structured
subjects'
subtle
summarize
superiority
suspects
systems
technical
translation
typical
unfamiliar
unknown

 

J
l -1. .7 -r...h.q. nz. .. .u
'1

0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0049%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%

JQQNVVVVVVV
O
()0

@900

0‘01

0‘
moo
ng‘
axoo‘
oooo‘o‘o‘o‘a‘o‘
O‘O‘

variation
verbal
via
videos
virtually
volunteer
warm-up
web
weekly
workbook
worthwhile
1 1
l4
1 8
1973
1989a
21
22
23
80
accented
accept
accounting
accustomed
adequately
administered
aids
alcohol
algebra
allowing
alternatives
anxious
anymore
anyone
assisted
attain
attending
audiocassettes
authority
basically
begun
bilingualism
bill
biology
blank
bottom-up

93

O50OGGOO‘O‘QO‘O‘GQGQQQO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\©O\

0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%

boxes
capacities
capitalize
career
carefully
cars
cd-rom
challenged
changing
checked
code
cohen
collection
color
combination
combine
combined
communicatively
comparative
comparisons
computerized
concentrate
concern
conclusions
conducted
confident
connect
conscious
conservation
considerations
contact
conventions
copying
core
corps
counterparts
creates
criticism
croatian
cycle
david
decided
declined
define
degrees
dependent

 

 

v 11“.. 6 I”.

‘0 Il..v Ln .

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\GOOGOQQGGGQQGQQGQGGQGOO

0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%

dialogues
dictation
disadvantage
disagreement
discriminating
drawbacks
earliest
east

eight

elt
emerged
enable
ended
equally
exact
examines
existing
expanding
expert
explaining
explores
extend
extent
families
famous
fashion
fathman
fifteen
figures
filling
finds

fits

food
foreign-bom
fragments
fulfill
gained
gathered
georges
grace
graded
halloween
happened
hard

henry
highlighted

94

OO\O\0\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\"O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\GGOGOGGQOGO‘QQGQGO‘GGG

CS

0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%

earchers

0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%

homosexual
hoping
housework
ibid

ignore
imagine
imitation
imposed
increases
increasingly
indicates
indistinguishable
influencing
institutions
instrumentality
intentions
interactional
interestingly
intriguing
i've

james
keeping
knows
korea
krashen‘s
kroll

lacks
learners-as-

liked
limitation
limits

linking

live
longitudinal
loss

mackay
marinova-todd
medicine
memorization
memorize
middle

minor

missed
missing
modals

 

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\OQO\0\00\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\OO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%

modify
moreover
mother
motivations
motives
names
natives
nearly
nevertheless
newbury
none

nor
noticeable
one—word
ongoing
opening
party .
perceive
peterson
please
polio
power
preferring
proactive
professors
prompts
protocol
published
purely
quantitative
questionnaires
rating
react
readily
recipe
recognized
reflect
regard
relations
remembers
revealed
reveals
rude
safient
savignon
schedule

95

$000000QGQGO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%
0.0042%

secondary
september
serious
serve
service
seven
significance
solution
solving
sparked

speed 1
spending Q .

sports
stimulation
strip

structural 5
stylistic J
substantial _ '_

summarized
supplemental
surveys
teachers'
tended
thorough
thousands
three-stage
time-consumin g
top-down
totally

trends
trouble
turned

twice
ukraine
universal
unless

van

varies
verrnicompostin g
walks

watch
wesche
whom

wide

worry

x

 

6 0.0042%
5 0.0035 %
5 0.0035 %
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035 %
5 0.0035 %
5 0.0035 %
S 0-0035 %
5 0.003570
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%

5 0.003570

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

Z

00

1 00

1 967

1 972

1 987

2002

75

82

9-3 1
activate
adapted
added
adjective
advice
agreed
alike
altogether
america
ample
analyses
ann
application
applying
approached
approximate
assign
assimilation
attachment
attempts
attended
automatically
auxiliary
awkward
bear
belief
below
benj amins
bibliographies
big
black
blanks
bored
boys
businessmen

96

MMMMMMUIMLIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%

buy

car

cards

care

chased
chaudron
Chilean
chronological
circumstances
cite
college-level
communicated
competent
completion
comprehensive
conduct
confusion
coniarn
consisted
containing
contextual
controversial
copies
correlated
criteria
critically
davenport
day's
designing
determined
developmental
develops
dialogue
diane
differently
disasters
dishes
distribution
drawer

dream
dynamics
ease
efforts
elaborate
eliciting
embarrassing

 

___--=
-

m VI VI VI VI VII vr V: VI

uni/1mm”

utUI

0.0035 %
0.0035 %
0.0035 %
0.0035 %
0.0035 %
0.0035 %
0.0035 %
0.0035 %
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%

5 0.0035%
’5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%
5 0.0035%

5 ’ 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

5 0.0035%

embedded
emphasizes
empirical
ends

eric
erlbaum
establish
evaluators
except
exchange
existence
extended
facts

favor
femando
ferris

filter

fine

forced
formally
formats
form-focused
formulated
foundations
friend
genre

gist

gotten
grades
grammaticality
green
grouped
hall
handout
happen
harley

hart
hartford
head
hearing
hinder
hoffman
homes
housing
identifies

il

97

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMLIILIIU’IMMLIILIILIIMMLIILIIU’IU’ILII'JIMLII‘JILIIU’IMMMM

0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%

independent
inferences
influential
insects
inside
integral
integration
intention
interests
interviewed
introspective
intuitively
isbn
isolated
isolation
italics
justice
lambert
latent

latvia
leaming's
lies

light
likewise
link

listener
lived
london

low-frequency

macintyre

mahan-taylor

mahwah
makino
marriage
mastery
matching

meaningfully

mechanics
medium
meets
men
mention
mentor
meunier
miami
mice

 

I: .o

UIUILAUIMUIUILAUIUIUIUIUIUIMUIUIUIUIMUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUI'JIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUI

0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%

million
misuse
modes
money
monolingual
morgan
nakajima
negotiations
"j
non-evident
non-interactive
northern
numbers
observe

oh

olds
one-on-one
Open
out-of—class
overview
paribakht
pause
periods
perseverance
philadelphia
phonemes
phrasal
pieces
placement
pleasure
portuguese
potentially
practices
prefer
preliminary
previously
product
progression
purse
puzzles
reached
reactions
reactive
real-world
regional
relation

98

UILI’ILJIMUILIILIILIIU‘ILI’ILIILIILJILIILIILIILIIIJIMLIIMMMMLJILIILJILIIM'JIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%

remaining

remains

repeating

request

resolved

resource

retrospection

rewards

reynolds

richards .
role-plays .1
salience
secondly
seeking
self-efficacy
separate
serves

sets

sexual

shelly
short-term
siblings

site

skilled
skimming
slowly
sociocultural
socio-economic
softeners
sort
speakers'
spellings
standards
stimulating
stop

street
struggle
succeed
supporting
suprasegmental
synonym
synonyms
table

taped

targets
task-based

 

LIIUIUILIIUIUIUIUIMMUIUIUIMUIUIMUILAUIUIMMUIUIUIUIUIUI

0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%
0.0035%

teaches
tendency
terminology
theme-based
thesis
time-management
timing

toefl

tone
transparency
tv
twenty-four
typically
unclear
universities
unlike

vague
vanpatten
vansummeren
viewed
viewpoint
weekend
wh-
whatever
window
worthless
wray

writer

xi

99

.un— a?

 

461 Corpus

21 files; 50, 132 words

2566 5.1 185% the

1715 3.4210% of

1460 2.9123% and
1434 2.8604% to

1369 2.7308% in

1111 2.2161% a

944 1.8830% language
874 1 .7434% that

572 1.1410% is

438 0.8737% for

393 0.7839% it

378 0.7540% as

361 0.7201 % be

357 0.7121% not

356 0.7101 % learning
356 0.7101% on

348 0.6942% age

336 0.6702% have
323 0.6443% this

315 0.6283% with
297 0.5924% their
294 0.5865% second
276 0.5505% or

255 0.5087% they
240 0.4787% english
236 0.4708% are

229 0.4568% acquisition
223 0.4448% learners
216 0.4309% an

207 0.4129% more
204 0.4069% may
186 0.3710% motivation
183 0.3650% at

175 0.3491% was

171 0.3411% by

164 0.3271 % 12

160 0.3192% from
157 0.3132% would
156 0.31 12% which
156 0.31 12% who
154 0.3072% can

149 0.2972% study
148 0.2952% also

100

148
142
140
139
137
134
134
128
126
123
121
121
121
120
119
118
115
114
114
113
111
109
105
104
98
98
97
97
95
92
91
86
86
85
85
84
84
83
83
80
79
78
78

0.2952%
0.2833%
0.2793%
0.2773%
0.2733%
0.2673%
0.2673%
0.2553%
0.2513%
0.2454%
0.2414%
0.2414%
0.2414%
0.2394%
0.2374%
0.2354%
0.2294%
0.2274%
0.2274%
0.2254%
0.2214%
0.2174%
0.2094%
0.2075%
0.1955%
0.1955%
0.1935%
0.1935%
0.1895%
0.1835%
0.1815%
0.1715%
0.1715%
0.1696%
0.1696%
0.1676%
0.1676%
0.1656%
0.1656%
0.1596%
0.1576%
0.1556%
0.1556%

factors
speakers
will
foreign
but
children
these

i

one
learner
accent
might
native
had
proficiency
period
were

he

his
other
time
some
input
rodri go
between
older
how
studies
than
first
what
has

sla

learn
when
been
however
different
program
only
pronunciation
because
new

 

 

0.1556%
0.1556%
0.1536%
0.1536%
0.1516%
0.1516%
0.1496%
0.1476%
0.1476%
0.1436%
0.1416%
0.1396%
0.1376%
0.1376%
0.1376%
0.1376%
0.1336%
0.1317%
0.1317%
0.1317%
0.1297%
0.1297%
0.1297%
0.1297%
0.1277%
0.1277%
0.1277%
0.1277%
0.1257%
0.1237%
0.1237%
0.1237%
0.1237%
0.1217%
0.1217%
0.1217%
0.1217%
0.1217%
0.1197%
0.1197%
0.1177%
0.1177%
0.1157%
0.1157%
0.1157%
0.1137%

sounds
there

if

level
research
while
important
factor
her

could
critical
social
about
adults
most
such

all

do
hypothesis
those
found
since

so
speech
after
camila
many

P

use

fact
researchers
school
target
ability
both
community
did
example
identity
variables
influence
she

order

5
students
even

101

57
56
56
55
55
55
54
54
53
53
53
52
52
52
5 l
51
50
49
48
48
48
47
47
47
47
47
46
46
45
45
45

43
43
43
42
42
42
42
42
41
41
41
41
41

0.1 137%
0.1 1 17%
0.1 l 17%
0.1097%
0.1097%
0.1097%
0.1077%
0.1077%
0.1057%
0.1057%
0.1057%
0.1037%
0.1037%
0.1037%
0.1017%
0.1017%
0.0997%
0.0977%
0.0957%
0.0957%
0.0957%
0.0938%
0.0938%
0.0938%
0.0938%
0.0938%
0.0918%
0.0918%
0.0898%
0.0898%
0.0898%
0.0878%
0.0878%
0.0858%
0.0858%
0.0858%
0.0838%
0.0838%
0.0838%
0.0838%
0.0838%
0.08 l 8%
0.0818%
0.0818%
0.0818%
0.0818%

languages
culture
form
accelerated
used

well
native-like
them
according
johnson
over
learner's
possible
younger
maturational
much

its
feedback
although
content
puberty
environment
interaction
out
process
results
affect

uP

amount
does
through
just

take
anxiety
effect

type
before
degree
into

then

two

adult
attitudes
better
data
difficult

 

 

41
41
41

40
40
40
40
40
39
39
39
39
39
39
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
35
35
35
35
35
35
35

0.0818%
0.08 l 8%
0.0818%
0.0798%
0.0798%
0.0798%
0.0798%
0.0798%
0.0798%
0.0778%
0.0778%
0.0778%
0.0778%
0.0778%
0.0778%
0.0758%
0.0758%
0.0758%
0.0758%
0.0758%
0.0758%
0.0758%
0.0738%
0.0738%
0.0738%
0.0738%
0.0738%
0.0738%
0.0738%
0.0738%
0.0738%
0.0718%
0.0718%
0.0718%
0.0718%
0.0718%
0.0718%
0.07 18%
0.07 18%
0.0698%
0.0698%
0.0698%
0.0698%
0.0698%
0.0698%
0.0698%

1 1

my

words
become
case
development
c

like

very
acquire
brain

no

series
teacher
years

able

each
french
make
produce
teachers
way

any
domyei
effects
flege

part
people
related
student
writing
certain
experiences
exposure
group
information
r

states
therefore
1997
based
gardner

j
phonology
relationship
situation

102

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
31
31
31
31
31
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29

0.0678%
0.0678%
0.0678%
0.0678%
0.0678%
0.0678%
0.0678%
0.0658%
0.0658%
0.0658%
0.0658%
0.0658%
0.0658%
0.0658%
0.0658%
0.0638%
0.0638%
0.0638%
0.0638%
0.0638%
0.0638%
0.0638%
0.0638%
0.0638%
0.0638%
0.0618%
0.0618%
0.0618%
0.0618%
0.0618%
0.0618%
0.0598%
0.0598%
0.0598%
0.0598%
0.0598%
0.0598%
0.0598%
0.0598%
0.0598%
0.0578%
0.0578%
0.0578%
0.0578%
0.0578%
0.0578%

1994
evidence
probably
success
united

we
whether
claims
error
integrative
italian
long
opportunities
same
without
differences
immersion
life

need
newport
oxford
sensitive
spanish
towards
vocabulary
arrival
being
complex
less
negotiation
skills

2001
achieve
achievement
high
linguistic
lyster
point
should

still

1995

1996
aspects
effort
general
often

29
29
29
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
28

28.

28
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26

26‘

26
26
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24

0.0578%
0.0578%
0.0578%
0.0578%
0.0559%
0.0559%
0.0559%
0.0559%
0.0559%
0.0559%
0.0559%
0.0559%
0.0559%
0.0539%
0.0539%
0.0539%
0.0539%
0.0539%
0.0539%
0.0539%
0.0539%
0.0539%
0.0519%
0,0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.05 19%
0.05 19%
0.05 19%
0.0519%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0479%
0.0479%

output
participants
show

want

1

consider
know

likely

others
phonological
raters
self-confidence
stevens

1993
advantage
ages

errors

own

result

strong

three

types

1999
affective
affects
another
attention
experience
friends

him
particular
simply
subjects
terms

child
communication
comprehensible
context
correct

d

early
knowledge
learned

role
classroom
constraints

103

24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
2 l
2 l
21
21
21
21

0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0479%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0459%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0439%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%

focus
furthermore
japanese
levels
must
scoring
seems
speaking
test
within
young
actually
al
bongaerts
et
8
instead
involved
place
questions
remote
speak
u
using
1989
2
american
befieve
cognitive
difference
done
dutch
family
give
given
higher
made
one's
significant
ultimate
1 998
becomes
changes
decline
develop
due

 

 

 

 

21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

2o

20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
l9
19
19
19
19
19
19

0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0399%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%

dunng
especially
find
journal
natural
opportunity
rather

see

support
syntax
unable
affected
chile

cited
competence
control
correction
further
initial
instrumental
lack

m

number
person
pragmatic
primary
producing
rate
understanding
abilities
course
earlier

feel

five

groups
importance
instruction
interactions
krashen
low

past

several
situations
speaker
state
students'

104

19
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
l7
17
17
l7
l7
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17

0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0379%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0359%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%

task

toward

true

work

199 1

4

acquiring

affecting

analysis

argues

believed F"
biological .. i"
change '
comes
examined
goal .
goals '9 I
help 11;"
identify

lenneberg

parents

performance

provide

quality

question

six

word

accents

acquired

already

argue

associated

camila's

claim

clement

desire

enough

findings

model

motivated

negative

practice

production

rated

similar

something

 

17
17
17
17
17
l6
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
l6
16
16
16
16
l6
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

16’

16
16
16
l6
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0339%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.03 19%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.03 19%
0.0319%
0.03 19%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.03 19%
0.03 19%
0.03 19%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.03 19%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.03 19%
0.03 19%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0319%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%

strategies
studying

understand

why
you

2000
accuracy
approach

appropriate

arrived
asher
away
basic

categories

clear

depending

forms
games
garcia
late
making
months
nature
optimal
oyama
PP
quarterly
recast
regarding
showed
specific

specifically

spent
teaching
tesol

themselves
ultimately

1985

attainment

cannot

communicative
conversational
developed

every
examine

105

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
l4
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
l4
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0299%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%

exposed
features
global
hand
having
impossible
length
means
mind

ranta

say

seem
setting
someone
thus

upon

uses
account
among
areas
association
awareness
b

closely
complete
concluded
considered
days
determines
examining
fluent
genie
grammar
grammatical
influences
keep

least
meaning
methods
morphology
noels
positive
proficient
relationships
seen

sense

 

14
14

l4_

14
14
14
14
l4
l3
13
13
13
13
13
l3
13
13
13
13
l3
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13

0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0279%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%

short
slavoff
snow
successful
system
taking
tested
whole

1 990

3
accurately
around
available
begin

0

chaflenge
children's
chinese
english-only
explicit
few
function
greater

h
immigrants
include
integrativeness
interesting
interlanguage
involvement
1

lead

little

major
matter
move
non-native
occur
orientation
overall
phrases
points
programs
rules
shearin
shown

106

l3
l3
13
12
12
12
12
l2
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
l2
12
12
12
12
12
l2
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11

0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0259%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0239%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%

think

trait
utterance

24

access
beginning
class

come
consideration
constraint

correlation q
direct '.
far

fll
focused ,
gass :1
highly ; _’
individual Li
investment

kasper

later

living

looked

makes

modem

11

neufeld

off

pragmatics

repairs

samples

scale

shows

sound

1

vot

wanted

addition

allow

area

assume

aware

began

best

called

choice

 

11
ll
11
11
11
11
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0219%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%

clearly
cohesion

compared

debate

developing

either
essential

established
extremely

going
helpful
ideas
imitate

immediate

including
indicate
interact
interest
involving
issues
me
nofion
patterns
personal
present
provided

qualitative

reasons
repair
rodrigo's

schumann

scores
stages
suggests
though

university

various
varonis
where
1969
1976
1977
1981
20

6

7

107

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%

above

activities

arrivals

ask

assessment

attitude

became

chances

classic

communities

eds :71
end
exceptions
field
focuses .
gender I
hear
hoefnagel-hohle
holistic

idea
implications
improve
increased
influenced
initially
intended
intensive

itself

kind

limited
meaningful
measures
mentioned
necessary

note

once

paper

peers

presented
processing
psychological
quantity
quickly

reading

real

recasts

 

1F~ _.

i—sp—e—u—eu—Ai—tu—t—u—n—nu—tu—tu—eu—Au—t
OOOOOOCOOOOOOOO

00000900\D\D\O\D\O\O\O\O\O\O\D\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O

0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0199%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%

researcher
reveal

rose
schmidt
showing
ssla

start
suggest
supports
tasks

things
training
uptake
video

view

12
additional
advertisement
average
basis
component
consequently
contexts
conversations
corrective
determine
determining
difficulty
dynamic
effective
ego

essays

face
fluency
follow
following
formal
german
home
interested
involves

k
larsen-freeman
leave

led

lexical

108

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\D\D\D\O\D\O\D\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\D\O\O\O\O\O\O\O

0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0180%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%

limitations

look

materials
maturation
mean
motivational
multiple
neurobiological
neurological
oter’za

outside
particularly
peirce

physical

plays

practical . ,
regardless i: a
relative is
risks
schils
settings
society
somewhat
stronger
studied
supported
tend

tests
theories
thought
times

too

travel
users
variable
variety
york

1 9

5
achieved
adulthood
analytical
aptitude
article
asked
assuming

 

 

 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%

beyond
bfing
canadian
capacity
category
concerned
contrast
conversation
daily

day
despite
directly
easier
emotional
emphasis
entirely
esl

failure
familiar
felt

fl
frequent
fully
gardner's
get
gradual
half

hill
immediately
instructed
instructional
intonation
john
kinds
learners'
lenneberg's
lost
mistakes
moved
notice
nyikos
old
perceived
person's
phonefic
pick

109

\I\J\J\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\IQQQWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOmmmOOOOOOWOOOOOOWOOOOOOOOOOWOOOOOOOO

0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0160%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%

possibly
predictor
problem
progress
raise
receive
references
regards
relatively
relevant
repetition
require
requires
residence
response
right
segments

self-consciousness

sentences
set

simple
small
spoke
superior
taken

tapes
theory
trilingual
turn

ways

yet

1 975

1 984
acculturation
achieving
adjustment
against
always
business
cases
cause
center
challenges
childhood
comfortable
common

 

\l\l\l\l\l\)\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l

0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%

comprehension
conditions
connection
contains
country
depends
distinguish
easily

easy
eighteen
encourages
english-speakin g
enhanced
entails

etc

explains
extra

fear

feelings

go

good
gradually
imitating
immigrated
immigration
inhibit
intellectual
interference
intermediate
investigate
job

last

looking
lower

maps
master
members
negatively
never
norton-pierce
noticing
numerous
obvious
onset

our
perception

110

GOGGOGGGGQO‘O‘GO‘IQGQQ\l\l\l\l\l\l\1\1\l\l\l\l\1\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l

0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0140%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%

planken
plasticity
play
primarily
problematic
psychology
public
reach
received
requests
responses
retain
russian
says
scored
seemed
significantly
single ..
student's

subsequent

sufficient

suggested

suited

topic

trying

v

videos

women

world

year

1 3

1 978

1 980

1982

accounting

act

actual

ad

additionally

address

alcohol

alternatives

analyzed

answer

assess

assessed

 

OOQQQGGOOQGQGQQGOGQQQOO‘GOOONGO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%

assessing
associations
atmosphere
attain
audiocassettes
authentic
bilingual
bilingualism
bodman
break

bfings
califomia
capacities
classrooms
collect
coHege
combined
conclude
conclusion
connected
considerable
contact
counterparts
croatian
cultures
declined
desired
distinction
earliest
eisenstein
emerged
entitled
evaluate
evaluated
evaluation
eventually
everything
examines
exist

faster
fathman
flexible
foreign-bom
formation
frequently
full

111

OOQGOGQOOOOGO‘QO\O\O\OQQQGQOGGO‘NQO‘NQO‘O\O\O\O\OO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\OO\

0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%

functions
generally
giving
harder

ibid
identification
immigrant
imposed
impression
included

includes i- '
indistinguishable . .1 _

instrumentality
international
intriguing
leads ,
let ‘ F;
limitation ...:
longitudinal

mackay

marinova-todd

measure

merely

metalinguistic

motives

name

necessarily

neither

nine

noticeable

organization

otherwise

participants'

perceive

perhaps

personality

piece

polio

possibility

press

prior

produced

provides

put

quantitative

raising

 

MMUILIIUIUIUIUILIIUIUIUI(lit/IONO\O\O\O\O\QQQO‘OGOGQO‘O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\QO\O\O\O\O\O\C\

0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0120%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%

rating
read
recastin g
recent
recognize
reluctant
responded
reveals
roles

said

score
seek
significance
solely
spoken
started
strongest
strongly
subtle
teach
thousands
together
told
universal
us

value
varying
waste
whereas
willing
write

z

1 5

1967
1986
1992
2002

2 1

25

28

29

9—3 1
accented
accomplish
advanced
advantages

112

MMMMLIILIILIILIIMMMl]!MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%

again

agreed

along

altogether

appear

appears

apply

approaches

approximate

assimilation

attempted F]
audio I
bardovi-harli g
basically
becoming
benefit

boys t:
canada it:
cards

certainly

Chilean

circumstances

classmates

close

closer

comparison

conscious

contain

continue

contribute

corrections

cover

create

crucial

cultural

cycle

davis

disadvantage

discourse

discuss

discussion

doing

ed

education

educational

eight

 

MMM'J’IL’IMMMMMMLIILIILIILIIIJILIIUILIILIIUIMMLIILIIMLIIMLIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%

emphasized
enter
environments
essay
evaluators
exact
exactly
existence
expect
expert
explicitly
explore
expressing
force
formulated
foundations
fourth
frequency
fun

83p

gets
getting
grammaticality
gratitude
harley

hart
hoffman
house
human
imitation
improved
increase
influencing
influential
institutions
interpret
interview
interviews
items

jobs
korean
lambert
latent
leading
leaming's
limits

113

MLIILIILIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMLIILIIUILIIMLIILIILII'JILIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%

lived

longer

loss
macintyre
method
motivations
needed
negotiate
northern
noted

0

objective
organize
outcome
partially
participation
pass
perform
perseverance
perspectives
phenomenon
picture
placed
power
preferring
problems
prompt
proposed
purposes
range
realistic
reality
record

refer
represented
responsible
rewards
schools
second-language
self-efficacy
semantic
short-term
siblings
sometimes
sorts
sources

:7
I-.._.n
_.

1' HIT

 

1.3.4.-

1"

MMMUIMMMMMUIMMMMMMUIMMMMMMM

0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%
0.0100%

speaker's
starting
stated
stimulation
styles
subjects'
sure

talk
techniques
total
totally
transfer
tried
under
until
useful
usually
valuable
van
vansummeren
whose
wishes
working
worthless

114

 

807 Corpus

21 files; 28, 912 words

2165 7.4882% the

949 3.2824% and

916 3. 1682% to

717 2.4799% of

628 2. 1721 % in

585 2.0234% a

433 l .4976% students
369 1 .2763% for

328 1.1345% that

290 l .0030% be

289 0.9996% is

247 0.8543% are

246 ‘ 0.8509% on

242 0.8370% as

224 0.7748% this

220 0.7609% with

219 0.7575% they

207 0.7 160% or

185 0.6399% their

168 0.581 1% it

156 0.5396% vocabulary
152 0.5257% grammar
148 0.51 19% would
147 0.5084% i

145 0.5015% reading
144 0.4981% language
139 0.4808% was

1 33 0.4600% which

1 32 0.4566% an

128 0.4427% listening
126 0.4358% class

1 22 0.4220% exercises
121 0.4185% will
120 0.415 1% have

1 10 0.3805% teacher
109 0.3770% from
106 0.3666% these
105 0.3632% not

105 0.3632% use

104 0.3597% about
101 0.3493% were

97 0.3355% by

94 0.3251% writing

115

93
91
87
86
85
84
84
83
80
76
72
71
70
68
68
63
63
61
60
60
60
59
59
58
57
55
55
53
53
52
52
52
52
52
51
51
50
50
50
50
49
49
48

0.3217%
0.3147%
0.3009%
0.2975%
0.2940%
0.2905%
0.2905 %
0.2871 %
0.2767%
0.2629%
0.2490%
0.2456%
0.2421 %
0.2352%
0.2352%
0.2179%
0.2179%
0.21 10%
0.2075%
0.2075%
0.2075%
0.2041 %
0.2041 %
0.2006%
0.1971 %
0.1902%
0.1902%
0.1833%
0.1833%
0.1799%
0.1799%
0.1799%
0.1799%
0.1799%
0.1764%
0.1764%
0.1729%
0.1729%
0.1729%
0.1729%
0.1695%
0.1695%
0.1660%

textbook
more
words
information
what

at

each
also

one

unit
them
focus
but
activities
section
activity
questions
may
book
example
lesson
can
form
skills

if

she
students'
lecture
topic

do
english
such
there
when
could

so

how
text
then
used
new
some
into

 

0.1660%
0.1660%
0.1626%
0.1626%
0.1626%
0.1626%
0.1591%
0.1591%
0.1556%
0.1556%
0.1556%
0.1556%
0.1522%
0.1522%
0.1522%
0.1522%
0.1522%
0.1487%
0.1487%
0.1487%
0.1487%
0.1453%
0.1418%
0.1418%
0.1418%
0. 1418%
0.1384%
0.1384%
0.1384%
0.1349%
0.1349%
0.1314%
0.1314%
0.1314%
0.1245%
0.1245%
0.1245%
0.1245%
0.1245%
0.1211%
0.1211%
0.1211%
0.1211%
0.1176%
0.1176%
0.1176%

other
using
learners
1’.

time

two
authentic
you
instruction
need
student
word
answer
answers
first
instructor
than
meaning
second
teaching
usually
topics
however
learning
material
very
after
chapter
dufing
materials
should
academic
read
research
200 I
able

all
practice
where
given
part

past
speaking
esl
exercise
has

116

34
33
33
33
33
33
33
32
32
31
31
31
3 l
31
31
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
27
27
27
27
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
25
25
25

0.1 176%
0.1 141%
0.1 141%
0.1 141%
0.1 141%
0.1 141%
0.1 141%
0.1 107%
0.1 107%
0.1072%
0.1072%
0.1072%
0.1072%
0.1072%
0.1072%
0.1038%
0.1038%
0.1038%
0.1003%
0.1003%
0.1003%
0.1003%
0.1003%
0.1003%
0.0968%
0.0968%
0.0968%
0.0968%
0.0968%
0.0968%
0.0968%
0.0968%
0.0934%
0.0934%
0.0934%
0.0934%
0.0899%
0.0899%
0.0899%
0.0899%
0.0899%
0.0899%
0.0899%
0.0865%
0.0865%
0.0865%

level
both
comprehension
different
northstar
only

well
classroom
through
context
listen
medical
since
think
while
authors
main
sentences
between
had

ideas
order

out

work

2

correct
important
partner
readings
same
sections
structures
complete
course
down
help
discussion
give
make
must
point
structure
theme
appropriate
classes
examples

 

25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24

24.

24
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22

22'

22
21
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
20

0.0865%
0.0865%
0.0865%
0.0865%
0.0865%
0.0865%
0.0865%
0.0830%
0.0830%
0.0830%
0.0830%
0.0830%
0.0830%
0.0830%
0.0830%
0.0830%
0.0830%
0.0796%
0.0796%
0.0796%
0.0796%
0.0796%
0.0796%
0.0796%
0.0796%
0.0796%
0.0761 %
0.0761 %
0.0761 %
0.0761%
0.0761 %
0.0761%
0.0761 %
0.0761%
0.0761%
0.0761%
0.0761%
0.0726%
0.0726%
0.0726%
0.0726%
0.0726%
0.0726%
0.0692%
0.0692%
0.0692%

group
many

meaningful

often
teach
teacher's
working
asked
being

communication
differences

does
good
native
notes
own
PP

1

ask

communicative

minutes
most

objectives

provide
within
your
another
because
did
explicitly
passage
picture
style
take
tasks
taught
teachers
any
based
heinle
might
outside
write
beheve
edition

interesting

117

20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
l9
19
19
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
18
l8
l8
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
17
l7
l7
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
16

0.0692%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0657%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0588%
0.0588%
0.0588%
0.0588%
0.0588%
0.0588%
0.0588%
0.0588%
0.0588%
0.0588%
0.0553%
0.0553%
0.0553%
0.0553%

units
acquisition
believes
chapters
chart
details
discourse
further
goals
lectures
much
next

see

states
therefore
university
who

3
although
content
having
include
knowledge
passive
presented
related
speech
spent
task

uP

voice

we

done

gap
intermediate
key
learner
sentence
study
three
whether
worked

1 998
before
charts
culture

16
16
16
16
16
16
l6
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
l4
14
14
14
l4
l4
14
14
14
14
l4
l4
14
14
l4
14
14
14
14
13
13
l3
l3
l3
l3
13

0.0553%
0.0553%
0.0553%
0.0553%
0.0553%
0.0553%
0.0553%
0.0553%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0519%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0484%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%

discuss
focused
four

high
introduction
observation
speakers
times
american
back

error

every

few

five

future
grammatical
like

review
short
worksheet
active
asking
been
confinuous
doing

e

etc

fill
giving
groups
know
necessary
points
previous
proved
sub-section
texts

type
useful

4

best
better
consists
cultural
either
explicit

118

13
13
13
13
l3
l3
13
13
13
13
13
13
l3
13
13
l3
13
13
l3
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0450%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%
0.0415%

find
foreign
found
gave
homework
made
majority
making
markers
needed
opportunities
pages
pairs
period
present
purpose
rather
results
several
types
understand
variety
already
approach
arm
background
draw
essays
hand

learn
murder
needs
over
people
problem
program
providing
question
recall

3

school
series

1

themes
themselves
third

 

12
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
ll
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
ll
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0.0415%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0380%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%

way
5

attention
come
contains
cues
describe
determine
difficult
discussions
due

ed

end
feedback
follow
long
notetakin g
opinion
opportunity
overall
paragraph
particular
provides
rest
situation
target

ten

those

us

varied
advanced
attached
beginning
choose
correction
directions
doughty
effect
encouraged
especially
even
explained
false
fieldwork
follows
instructions

119

oooooSooSoE-SESS535355555555555555

00000000000000

0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.0346%
0.03 1 1%
0.03 1 1%
0.03 l 1%
0.03 1 1%
0.03 1 1%
0.03 1 l %
0.031 1%
0.03 1 1 %
0.03 1 1 %
0.03 1 1 %
0.03 l 1 %
0.03 l 1 %
0.03 1 1%
0.03 l 1%

interaction
interested
introduce
involved
items
manual
morley
multiple
my

north
objective
personal
potential
principle
progress
pronunciation
put

real-life
rhetorical
similar
situations
state

stated
strategies
student-centered
studying
tests
thought
verb

vi

want
written
analysis
aware
books
choice
competence
conversation
divided
easy

elicit

floor
following
forms
furthermore

8

 

 

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxosaxoxoxoxoxoesoxooxoooxosoxoooooxoxo

0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.03 l 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.03 1 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.03 l 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.031 1%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%

goal
intended
interviews
its

just

last

never
non-academic
observed
outline
pictures
plus
prepositions
process
require
required
seemed
showed
small
student's
subject
suggestions
supplement
supplemented
test
together
took

true
understanding
united

uses
williams
without

1 994
always
apartments
assignment
celce-murcia
check

clear
curriculum
definition
describing
earlier
elicited
entire

120

quqqqoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0277%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%

environment
essential
express
focuses
format

get

he

identify
input
interactive
jobs ‘
lessons .
m .
matter
note
now __
number 3
offer 1'."-
once

organization

plan

portion

preparing

principles

progressive

relevant

reviewing

scene

snow

speaker

specific

star

subjects

sub-sections

sure

teacher-centered

tense

thus

top

various

ways

199 l

1995

accuracy

addison

aid

 

 

 

w “'v'v '7

\1\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\)\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\1\l\1\l\l\1\l\l\l

0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%

allow
answering
apartment
assumptions
available
begin
begins
board
certain
comprehensible
create
current
developing
effective
encountered
everyone
explain
follow-up
going

hear
helpful
home

ii

implicit
includes
individual
inference
instead
interest
krashen

l 1
larsen-freeman
later

led

life

lines

list

listed
listeners
living
marianne
mistake
msu
organized
pica
possible

121

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\G\I\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\1\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l

0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0242%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%

0.0208%

0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%

predicting
prediction
prepare
presentation
problems
prompt
rule

seem
setting
share
sharing
show
signaling
skill
successfully
swain
talking
tenses
term
terms
textbooks
thematic
thematically
v

vary
visual
wesley
why

0

1 5

1985
abilities
addressed
affective
again
algebra

approximately

assess
attempt
audience
authority
bit

bottom
bottom-up
broken

c

 

 

 

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\QC‘QO‘O‘GO‘GONGQOONOIO‘ONO‘QONOQO‘QONONOONO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%

called
clues
communicate
community
completed
creating
crime
demonstrated
effort
encounter
enough
explanation
expression
extra
features
focusing
followed
functions
genuine
halloween
her
homosexual
housework
idea
identifying
included
involving
job

kinds
learned
lives
longman
male
media
mentioned
mostly
non-native
o

ohp

page

pair

paper

party
passages
patterns
perhaps

122

UIIJIKJIUILIIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIQGQGGONGONQONQOONO‘ONGOGGGO‘IGONQQO‘lON

0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0208%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%

peterson
practiced
proactive
production
purple
quality
quotes
real
recastin g
recipe
regarding
regards
reminded
repeat
retain
savignon
self-study
speak
stress
studies
suggested
superiority
until
walk
walks
wrote
year

10

25

8

ability
above
across
addition
affect

aim

allows
along
answered
approaching
appropriately
build
carefully
cases

cause

LIILIILIILIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%

challenging
change
chaudron
checking
classmates
clearly
closely
cloze
completing
confinued
contrasts
corpus
countries
country
dealt
development
difference
dimensions
easily
education
efl
encourage
evidence
experiment
fact

fairly

field
friends

go

increase
instances
introduced
introduces
introducing
isbn

issue
issues

john
journal
latvia

lead

length
levels

little
low-frequency
man

123

MLIIKJILIIMMMMLIILIILIILIIMMMLIILIILIILIIMMMMUIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%

meanings
medicine
mentor
method
modals
motivate
mystery
negotiation
no
non-evident
non-interactive
occasionally
our
out-of-class
particularly
patients
probably
produce
protocols
quite
reactive
really
reinforce
requirements
retrospection
richards
role

rules

shows
simple
simply
something
space
stories
studied
taken

talk

talked
technique
tell

tend

tool
top-down
trends

tum

turns

 

LIILJILIILIILIIUILIILIIM

0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%
0.0173%

understood
verbs
wanted
warm-up
went
whereas
white
willing
york

124

.r-g—WW.

 

808 Corpus
12 files; 16, 045 words

743 _

557
473
438
374
282
257
176
169
148
136
124
123
120
1 19
1 10
1 10
98

93

84

75‘

73
73
71
71
65
62
59
58
58
57
55
55
51
50
50
49
48
46
43
42
41
41

4.6307%
3.4715%
2.9480%
2.7298%
2.3309%
1 .7576%
1 .6017%
1 .0969%
l .0533%
0.9224%
0.8476%
0.7728%
0.7666%
0.7479%
0.7417%
0.6856%
0.6856%
0.6108%
0.5796%
0.5235%
0.4674%
0.4550%
0.4550%
0.4425%
0.4425%
0.4051 %
0.3864%
0.3677%
0.3615%
0.3615%
0.3553%
0.3428%
0.3428%
0.3 179%
0.3 1 16%
0.31 16%
0.3054%
0.2992%
0.2867%
0.2680%
0.261 8%
0.2555%
0.2555%

the

of

to

and

in

a

that
language
is

for

on

their

be

as
students
are

with
this

not

or

test
more
vocabulary
enghsh
they

by
teachers
an

it
pragmatic
have

12
learners
teaching
at

can
these
writing
words
which
will
feedback
1

125

40
39
39
38
38
37
37
37
37
36
36
36
36
36
35
35
35
35
35
34
34
34
33
32
32
32
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
27

0.2493%
0.2431 %
0.2431%
0.2368%
0.2368%
0.2306%
0.2306%
0.2306%
0.2306%
0.2244%
0.2244%
0.2244%
0.2244%
0.2244%
0.2181%
0.2181%
0.218 1%
0.2181%
0.2181%
0.21 19%
0.21 19%
0.21 19%
0.2057%
0.1994%
0.1994%
0.1994%
0.1870%
0.1870%
0.1870%
0.1870%
0.1807%
0.1807%
0.1807%
0.1807%
0.1807%
0.1807%
0.1745%
0.1745%
0.1745%
0.1745%
0.1745%
0.1745%
0.1683%

business
idioms
there
from
speech
acquisition
also

but
correction
learning
one

P

research
second
may

need
reading
were
what

esl
speakers
use

some

1 997
conversation
errors

1

all
awareness
than
classroom
developing
students'
truscott
used
using
grammar
input
many
native
order
time
competence

27
27
27
26
26
26
26
26
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
22
22

22.

22
22
22
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
20

0.1683%
0.1683%
0.1683%
0.1620%
0.1620%
0.1620%
0.1620%
0.1620%
0.1558%
0.1558%
0.1558%
0.1558%
0.1558%
0.1496%
0.1496%
0.1496%
0.1496%
0.1496%
0.1496%
0.1496%
0.1496%
0.1433%
0.1433%
0.1433%
0.1433%
0.1433%
0.1433%
0.1433%
0.1433%
0.1433%
0.1433%
0. 1371 %
0.1371 %
0.1371 %
0. 1371 %
0.1371%
0.1371%
0.1309%
0.1309%
0.1309%
0.1309%
0.1309%
0.1309%
0.1309%
0.1309%
0.1246%

if

such
would
because
make
proficiency
should
student

2

do

my
pragmatics
them
about
article
expressions
instruction
journal
materials
most
while

199 1
communicative
how
however
japanese
often

only

3

status
target
between

d

1

tanaka
well

who

1995
bardovi-harli g
into

must

other

she

so

teach
duquette

126

20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
l9
19
18
l8
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
l7
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15

0. 1246%
0. 1246%
0. 1246%
0. 1246%
0. l 184%
0. 1 184%
0. l 184%
0. 1 184%
0. l 184%
0.1 184%
0. l 184%
0. l 184%
0. 1 184%
0. 1 122%
0. l 122%
0. l 122%
0. 1 122%
0.1 122%
0. l 122%
0.1 122%
0. 1 122%
0. 1060%
0. 1060%
0. 1060%
0.1060%
0. 1060%
0. 1060%
0. 1060%
0.1060%
0. 1060%
0.1060%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0997%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%

error
his

we

when
based
development
different
her

less
listening
someone
therefore
university
activities
calts
context
explicit
focus
higher
possible
testing
1993
classrooms
does

even
important
knowledge
might

out

own
textbooks
2000
approach
being

best

form

has

help
meaning
notion
tesol
through
word

1998

al
appropriate

 

15
15
15
15

15'

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
l4
l4
l4
l4
l4
14
14
14
14

l4~

14
14
l4
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
l3
l3
13
13
13
13
13
l3
13
13
l3
13

0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0935%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0873%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%
0.0810%

correct

et
example
grammatical
lower

m

no
reformulation
speaking
specific
strategies
takahashi
very

was

200 1
academic
advanced
beebe
coady
could

fact

learn
level
methods
provide
researchers
study
taught
tests
ability

b

closing
comprehension
course
give

he

items
new
problems
project
providing
questions
same
various
way
where

127

13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0.08 10%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0748%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0686%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%

written

3
argument
case
computer
corpus
data
especially
had
idiomatic
increase
noticing
paper
question
since

text

then

4

able
according
been
concerns
efl
experience
found
know
learner
linguistic
made
people

r

rather
results
suggests

I
understand
0

1 986

1 994

1 996

acts
american
another
background
become

 

oooooooSSSSSSSESEESSSS

000000000000000000000000

0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0623%
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561%
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561%
0.0561%
0.0561%
0.0561 %
0.0561%
0.0561%
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561 %

classes
evidence
great
group
groups
information
krashen
levels
likely
offer
process
professor
robb

role

ross
shortreed
show
skills

still

take
taker
ways

1 989
analysis
apphed
aspects
compositions
corpora

e

enough
helpful
interlanguage
issue

just
linguistics
meetings
much
natural
our
positive
read
reason
sections
several
situations
speaker

128

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooxooooo

0.0561%
0.0561%
0.0561 %
0.0561 %
0.0561%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0499%

studies
task

two

type

write
again
americans
any

aware
cambridge
cited
cultural
curriculum
develop
did
eisenstein
elements
exercises
feel

first

four
furthermore
8

good

large
laufer
long
meanings
michigan
necessary
non-native
over
person
point
points
practice
range
reasons
response
scores

see
situation
suggestions
tend

texts
theoretical

\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\I\l\l\l\l\l\lxl\1\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\Iflflmoo

0.0499%
0.0499%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0436%

uP

zamel
advocates
against
ahhough
authentic
begins
benefits
both

build

c

calt
certain
content
contexts
corrections
create
differences
distracters
each

ed

few
foreign
high
improve
item

k

like
meaningful
needs
negafive
notice
overall
part

past

plus

PP
practical
pragmatically
press
quarterly
rules
seem
setting
textbook
three

129

@QOGOONQ050\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\GOQGQGQQ

0.0436%
0.0436%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%

useful
you

1 989a
1999
45
agree
allow
answer
argues
articles
assumption r1
attention
basic _
basis
believe
better - -
bodman 1: I
cannot Li
clear
comments
computerized
corps
decarrico
difficult
difficulty
done

dunkel

eds

effective
either

elt

evaluated
evaluation
frequency
general
georges
given
gratitude
guidelines
hand

heinle

him
hypothesis
ideal

ideas

idiom

 

0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
searchers
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.0374%
0.03 12%
0.03 12%
0.0312%

UIUIUIGGO‘OOIONOQONONGO‘GO‘OQO‘QOGO‘GGCIO‘QGQQQQO‘QRO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

incidental
include
intuitions
its

lack

lapkin
learned
learners'
learners-as-

main
making
mean
means
method
mind
needed
obtain
others
papers
particular
peace
position
program
quality
questionnaire
received
references
regarding
requires
rude

said
similar
simple
states
student's
system
themselves
towards
try
ukraine
w

work

17

1980
1985

130

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMML’IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMML’ILIILIILIILIIMLIIUIUILIILII

0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.03 12%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.03 12%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%

6

abilities
acceptable
acquire
acquired
alone
among
amount
amsterdam
assignments
beginning
behind
beneficial
benefit
building
cats

cohen
common
coniam
correlation
creating
dictionary
direct
directly
discourse
distribution
effectiveness
embarrassing
evaluate
exercise
extensive
femando
forms
further
giving
grace
hartford
hulstijn
impossible
including
indirect
individual
instead
interaction
interest
issues

 

 

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMLII'JILII

0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%

john

1

l 1

least

low
mahan-taylor
makes
makino
meunier
model
morgan
nakajima
number
once
opportunities
particularly
phrase
pleasure
present
presented
promote
provided
purpose

qi
reported
responding
result
retention
rewritten
reynolds
search

set
significant
softeners
speak
spend
state
strategy
structure
sufficient
suggest
taken
tasks
teacher
technique

vague

131

LII'JILIIUIUILII

0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%
0.0312%

video
why
within
working
wray
yet

 

 

 

841 Corpus

9 files; 15, 622 words

953
503
437
405
369
366
247
237
227
161
158
155
142
133
130
122
l 18
1 13
104
103
96
82
80
77
76
71
68
66
66
66
61
60
59
58
57
55
54
53
53
52
51
49
47

6,1004%
3.2198%
2.7973%
2.5925%
2.3621%
2.3428%
1.581 1%
1.5 171%
1.453 1 %
1.0306%
1.01 14%
0.9922%
0.9090%
0.8514%
0.8322%
0.7809%
0.7553%
0.7233%
0.6657%
0.6593%
0.6145%
0.5249%
0.5 121%
0.4929%
0.4865%
0.4545%
0.4353%
0.4225%
0.4225%
0.4225%
0.3905%
0.3841%
0.3777%
0.3713%
0.3649%
0.3521%
0.3457%
0.3393%
0.3393%
0.3329%
0.3265%
0.3137%
0.3009%

the

to

and

of

a

in
writing
that
she

for

is
students
her

on

it

they
their
this
was
with

as

not

be
teacher
what
are

had

i

or
them
by

an

at

were
more
but
class
grammar
have
language
about
write
could

132

47
46
46
43
42
41
41
40
40
40
39
39
39
38
36
36
36
35
35
35
34
34
34
33
33
32
32
32
30
29
29
29
28
28
28
27
27
27
26
26
26
26
25

0.3009%
0.2945%
0.2945%
0.2753%
0.2689%
0.2625%
0.2625%
0.2560%
0.2560%
0.2560%
0.2496%
0.2496%
0.2496%
0.2432%
0.2304%
0.2304%
0.2304%
0.2240%
0.2240%
0.2240%
0.2176%
0.2176%
0.2176%
0.21 12%
0.21 12%
0.2048%
0.2048%
0.2048%
0.1920%
0.1856%
0.1856%
0.1856%
0.1792%
0.1792%
0.1792%
0.1728%
0.1728%
0.1728%
0.1664%
0.1664%
0.1664%
0.1664%
0.1600%

one
english
how
student
would
from
has

if
proficiency
reading
assignment
each
other
then

also
noticing
when

12

these

will
asked
process
use
feedback
two

can
chapter
which
essay
may

only

text
academic
questions
read

first
ideas
peer
content
into
second
there
been

 

25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
23
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
l9
l9
19
19
18
18
18
18
18

18~

0.1600%
0.1600%
0.1536%
0.1536%
0.1536%
0.1536%
0.1536%
0.1536%
0.1536%
0.1472%
0.1472%
0.1472%
0.1472%
0.1472%
0.1408%
0.1408%
0.1408%
0.1408%
0.1408%
0.1408%
0.1408%
0.1408%
0.1408%
0.1344%
0.1344%
0.1344%
0.1344%
0.1344%
0.1280%
0.1280%
0.1280%
0.1280%
0.1280%
0.1280%
0.1280%
0.1216%
0.1216%
0.1216%
0.1216%
0.1216%
0.1 152%
0.1 152%
0.1 152%
0.1 152%
0.1 152%
0.1 152%

did

draft

do
haejun g
he
learners
review
should
study
korean
my
skills
students'
well

1
assignments
different

p.

qr

same

so

some
used
better
between
information
own
using
after
because
before
lapkin
learner
many
school
classes
final
give
says
teaching
does
help
however
looking
make
no

133

18
18
18
18
l8
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
l6
l6
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

0. 1 152%
0. l 152%
0.1 152%
0.1 152%
0. l 152%
0. 1 152%
0.1088%
0.1088%
0. 1088%
0.1088%
0. 1088%
0.1088%
0.1088%
0.1088%
0.1024%
0.1024%
0.1024%
0.1024%
0.1024%
0.1024%
0.1024%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0960%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%

out
reason
said
sentence
since
who
good
instruction
like
participants
research
those
way

wu
examples
made
might
most

task

time
work
able
activities
done
example
interview
learning
much
notice
objective
order
response
stage
teachers
ahead
another
book
comments
errors
fact
given

his

new

over
paper
particular

14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
l3
l3
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
ll
11

0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0896%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0832%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0768%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%

people
present
tasks
tense

than
vocabulary
words
written

2

analysis
essays
even
gave

just

level

need

past
provides
say

short
something
structure
word

3

am

based
beheves
enor
participant
practice
researcher
su

three
through
times
university
very

you
actually
all
ahhough
data
develop
explained
feels
form

11
ll
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
11
ll
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

00000

134

0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0704%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0640%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%

know
native

next
papers
point
researchers
sheet

think

topic

while

why
it
according '< L—

activity
appropriate
both

correct g "
discussion i

doing
during

esl

higher
include

last

less
literacy
mistakes
organization
presented
problems
program
protocols
readings
reformulation
related
several
such
teacher's
test
think-aloud
uP
analyzing
authentic
being

came
discussed

 

 

 

 

OOOOOOOOmOOOOOOWWWWOOOOWOOOO@0000@0000OOOOW00000000000000000000

0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0576%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%

exercises
focus
formal
later
learn

lot
michigan
noticed
possible
previous
problem
provided
quality
question
speakers
speaking
state
things
true
writers
ability
approach
began
coUege
difficult
due
education
express
follow
free
giving
going
having
improve
introduction
me
model
now
organize
part
perhaps
rhetorical
see
structures
take

type

135

O\\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\lOOOOOO

0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0512%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0448%
0.0384%

understand
version
where
2001

4
accepting
ad

believe
case
change
classroom
coding
composition
compositions
conclusion
considered
features
felt

find
further
group
including
its

itself

look
materials
mean
needs
never
original
preparing
reasons
receive
required
revise
showed
simple
specifically
thoughts

t1

variable
variety

we

year

years

 

GOGOOQGGO‘OOGOQOQOOGOO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%

1 2

199 1
accuracy
aloud
answer
appendix
audience
authors
basic
benefits
changes
come
confinuous
course
courses
day
discussions
either

end
focuses
following
foreign
four
heinle
helpful
helps

iep
importance
includes
incorporated
instead
interested
letters
levels
lower
makes
meet
non-native
note

often

ohp

others
page
period
personal
place

136

UIUIUILIIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIMGOQQONGOQQO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\OO\O\QO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0384%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%

points
prepare
problematic
pronunciation
protocol

put

quarterly
relationship
require

seem

sentences I .
series

still
studied
style
taking _.
tesol E
therefore L5
together

told

took

topics

trying
understanding
until

various
without

writes

yes

york

30

already

arise

articles
awareness

b

begin

best

body

books

clear

columns
comprehension
corrected
davenport
describing

 

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMUIMMMML’IL’IMMML’IMU‘IL’IMMM

0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%

designed
directly
discuss
drawer
early
experiences
explain
explanation
few
focused
formed

get

goals
grammatical
guide

hand

home
immediate
important
incorrect
involved
journal
knowledge
korea

l 1

lead

leads
learned
learners'
least

lesson
letter

little
logical
main

metal an guage
method
minutes
mode
naturally
night
objectives
opportunities
oral
paragraph
participate

137

UntilLIILIILIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%
0.0320%

peers
person

population
practical
pre-writing
purpose
really
remembers
rest

8

section
seems
similar
skill

spent
stopped
teach

texts

third
though
throughout

try
types
usually
verbal
went
wishes
within

 

-‘::.hj

 

896 Corpus

36 files; 31, 058 words

2017 6.4943% the
1095 3.5257% to

956 3.0781 % and
765 2.4631% of

667 2.1476% a

629 2.0252% i

593 1.9093% in

452 1 .4553% students
356 1.1462% they
339 1.0915% for

330 1.0625% on

330 l .0625% that
329 1.0593% this
296 0.9531% was
257 0.8275% it

255 0.8210% class
254 0.8178% with
235 0.7566% their
226 0.7277% them
221 0.71 16% as

206 0.6633% have
196 0.631 1% is

192 0.6182% about
190 0.61 18% had
164 0.5280% not

157 0.5055% were
151 0.4862% are

149 0.4797% be

149 0.4797% or

140 0.4508% more
136 0.4379% what
129 0.4154% an

122 0.3928% at

l 19 0.3832% activity
1 17 0.3767% but

1 17 0.3767% writing
1 16 0.3735% reading
109 0.3510% questions
108 0.3477% one
108 0.3477% use

106 0.3413% we

104 0.3349% grammar
100 0.3220% would

138

98
97
96
96
94
93
93
91
88
83
8 1
8 1
80
79
79
77
75
74
74
74
74
73
73
69
68
65
65

63
63
63
61
57
56
55
55
55
54
53
53
53
53
53

0.3155%
0.3123%
0.3091 %
0.3091 %
0.3027%
0.2994%
0.2994%
0.2930%
0.2833%
0.2672%
0.2608%
0.2608%
0.2576%
0.2544%
0.2544%
0.2479%
0.2415%
0.2383%
0.2383%
0.2383%
0.2383%
0.2350%
0.2350%
0.2222%
0.2189%
0.2093%
0.2093%
0.2061%
0.2028%
0.2028%
0.2028%
0.1964%
0.1835%
0.1803%
0.1771%
0.1771%
0.1771 %
0.1739%
0.1706%
0.1706%
0.1706%
0.1706%
0.1706%

by

each

teacher

time

from

my

then

so F
lesson
do
he
some
words
did
when -
first

language

also

can

how

which

if

very

these

used

other

sentences

could

after

asked

think

activities

all

there

out

vocabulary

work

using

because

book

many

student

well

 

0.1674%
0.1674%
0.1674%
0.1642%
0.1610%
0.1610%
0.1578%
0.1513%
0.1513%
0.1481%
0.1481%
0.1481%
0.1449%
0.1449%
0.1417%
0.1417%
0.1417%
0.1417%
0.1417%
0.1385%
0.1385%
0.1352%
0.1352%
0.1352%
0.1320%
0.1320%
0.1320%
0.1320%
0.1288%
0.1288%
0.1288%
0.1288%
0.1288%
0.1256%
0.1256%
0.1256%
0.1256%
0.1191%
0.1 191%
0.1191%
0.1159%
0.1159%
0.1127%
0.1127%
0.1127%
0.1127%

read
unit

will
write
been
you
exercises
able

into
however
ideas
new
much
teaching
english
few

like
topic

uP

focus
than
most
should
who
different
me
really
two
form
group
meaning
only

1
exercise
information
make
part
before
minutes
points
practice
too
article
comprehension
just
listening

139

35
34
34
34
34
34
34
33
33
33
32
32
32
3 1
3 l
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
27
27
27
27
26
26
26
26
26
26
25
25
25
25

0. 1 127%
0.1095%
0. 1095%
0. 1095%
0.1095%
0.1095%
0.1095%
0. 1063%
0. 1063%
0.1063%
0.1030%
0. 1030%
0. 1030%
0.0998%
0.0998%
0.0966%
0.0966%
0.0934%
0.0934%
0.0934%
0.0934%
0.0934%
0.0934%
0.0934%
0.0902%
0.0902%
0.0902%
0.0902%
0.0902%
0.0902%
0.0902%
0.0902%
0.0869%
0.0869%
0.0869%
0.0869%
0.0837%
0.0837%
0.0837%
0.0837%
0.0837%
0.0837%
0.0805%
0.0805%
0.0805%
0.0805%

while
know
might
second
since
skills
such
answer
example
sentence
groups
next
word
good
point
board
even
200 1
chart
during
found
northstar
own
readings
am

get

need
presented
structure
students'
textbook
wrote
another
classroom
important
made

3
answers
interesting
same
section
speaking
better
feel
future
give

25

25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
21
2 l
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
20
20
20

0.0805%
0.0805%
0.0805 %
0.0805 %
0.0805%
0.0805%
0.0773%
0.0773%
0.0773%
0.0773 %
0.0773 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.074 1 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0741 %
0.0708%
0.0708%
0.0708%
0.0708%
0.0708%
0.0708%
0.0708%
0.0676%
0.0676%
0.0676%
0.0676%
0.0676%
0.0676%
0.0676%
0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0644%

learning
level
over
story
together
where

2

go

learn
often
understand
1

any
between
complete
down
find
homework
lot
materials
order
pictures
present
review

8

took
working
gave
help
material
past

see

still
through
again
correct
fact

has
paragraph
said
went
being
don't
instead
last

long

140

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
l9
19
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
l7
l7
l7
17

0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0644%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0612%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0580%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0547%

no
problem
spent
style
themes
thought
want
wanted
course
day

didn't
discussed
either
essay
helpful
his

main
once
organization
people
take

way
difficult
discussion
does
enough
feedback
going
journal
letter
passive
something
useful
always
articles
authentic
done
especially
examples
following
may

pair
possible
simply
talked
text

 

 

17
17
16
16
16
16
16
l6
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
l4
l4
14
14
14
14
14
14
l4
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14

0.0547%
0.0547%
0.0515%
0.0515%
0.0515%
0.05 15%
0.0515%
0.0515%
0.0515%
0.0515%
0.0515%
0.0515%
0.05 15%
0.0515%
0.05 15%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0483%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451 %
0.0451%
0.0451 %
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451 %
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%

those
worked
already
american
ask

back
explicit
hour
longer
objective
related
seem

she

short
talking
asking
effective
entire
forms
general
high
home
knowledge
talk

task
times
ways
written

around
based
charts
check
context
describe
doing
easy

end

felt

given
goals
little
newspaper
now
problems
responses

141

l4
l4
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
l3
13
13
13
l3
l3
l3
13
13
13
13
13
l3
l3
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

0.0451 %
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451 %
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0451%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0419%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%

right
specific
speech
started
stoller
taught
theme
topics

try

why
appropriate
focused
grabe
guess
having
hear

items
lessons
looking
making

p .

picture
previous
probably
program
pronunciation
question
say

sure

tasks

teach
themselves
three
trying
usually
verbs
video
without

5

almost
attention
audience
brainstorming
classes
communicative
compare

 

 

12'

12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
ll
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
11
11
11

0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0386%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%

correction
cultural
details
grammatical
included
interest

its

list
metalinguistic
necessary
others
particular
practicum
rather
sometimes
taken
terms
various
whether
whole
your

10

1 997
certain
cited
come
content
etc

fill

half

idea
identify
kind

later
learned
look
mistakes
objectives
online

our
paraphrasing
presentation
quickly
recasts
room

142

ll
11
11
ll
11
11
11
ll
11
11
ll
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0354%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%

seemed
showed
state
structures
though
today
understanding
understood
variety
voice
week
academic
actually
began

both
building
comfortable
completed
correcting
countries
differences
due

easily
enjoyed
finished
further
furthermore
helped

her

here

house
individually
interested
it's

keep

life
motivation
never
news

ohp
planned
production
quiz
simple
skill
spelling

 

 

Becca-35

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0322%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%

told
transition
tried

units
university
utterances
4

aspects
assignment
beginning
bibliography
cities
clearly
comic
comparing
country
doctor

esl

essays
everyone
familiar
final
getting
instruction
intermediate
introduce
involved
makes
mind

onto

page
pages
paragraphs
person
personal
plans
provide
provided
rest
semester
show
small
spada
stress
successful
taking

143

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooxoxosoc

0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0290%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%

test

thinking

today's

verb

adjectives

along

approach

atmosphere

bit

brought

call T
came

chance
clarification
clear
continue
control
conversation r
create

created

difference

e

elc

encourage

errors

everything

explain

explicitly

five

foreign

fun

got

handed

heinle

improve

include

intemet

least

letters

levels

listen

m

must

overall

pain

pairs

 

\l\l\I\l\l\l\l\l\l\1\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\I\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\J\IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0258%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225 %
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225 %
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%

perhaps
phrases
plan
progressive
quite
regarding
saying
scanning
sections
segment
several
spend
subject
therefore
things
thinks

v

1994

30

analyze
assigned
assume
basic
books

case
challenging
choice
chose
clauses
completing
complex
compound
concerned
creating
creative
develop
development
discussing
discussions
encouraged
game
introduced
introduction
issues

kept

led

144

QOOOQQOQO‘GGQQQQQQQQQ\l\l\l\l\1\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l

0.0225%
0.0225 %
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225 %
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225 %
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225 %
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225 %
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0225%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%

less

move
multiple
natural
newspapers
notes

ok
opinions
outside
partner
period
place
played
practicing
purple
quizzes
radio
reasons
required
sample
share
start
stressed
suggestions
summary
survey
target
teachers
teacher's
thing
until
varied
wasn't
weekly
wrong

8
according
advertisement
amount
anymore
apply

asks
assumptions
begin
believe
best

 

 

 

O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\QQQGOQGGOQGQGO‘QOOO‘OGGGO

0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%

boston
build
change
checking
comparative
consider
corrective
days

deal
description
descriptive
detectives
discuss
divided
edition
expected
express

far

finish
giving
great
higher
him
hulstijn
i'm

job

laufer
likely
listed
lives
majority
maybe
msu
noticed
number
one-word
opportunities
partners
peer
poem
potential
pre-writing
printed
produce
provides

purpose

145

LIILIIUIUIUIUIUILIIIJIUILIIUIlJIMUIUIUILIIUIUIUIGO\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\

0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0193%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%

range
realize
reason
require
research
result
results
rich

rules

seen

set

speak
stated
statements
studying
styles
success

support

suspects
techniques

tense
third

type
it

worry
1985
active
allows
answered
answering
author
authors
auxiliary
available
away

b

bad
bibliographies
brainstorm
cars

catch

cats
chased
choose
choosing
college

 

MMMLIILIILIIlJIL/ItllLIILIILIILII'JILIILIILIILIILIILIILIILIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0,0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%

computer
contains
continued
contrasting
couple
decide
deeper
detail
detailed
directions
dream
easier
editors
elicit
elicited
else
encountered
ended
events
exceHent
experiences
explanation
expression
facilitate
fashion
finally

flow

food
format
form-focused
forming
fragments
hope
improved
insects
interactions
involve
itself

knew

let

matter
meaningful
meanings
mentioned
method
mice

146

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMLJILIILIILI’I'JIIJILIIIJILIILIIKIILIILIILIILIILIILIILIIMLIIMLIILIIMLII

0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%

michigan

model

mostly

murder

native

needed

negotiate

normally

note

noun

nouns -
obvious E
off a
old
outline
outlines
parts
pause
perfect
photos
pica

pick
planning
possibly
preliminary
promote
purse

put
received
regular
remember
report
request
requests
reviewing
search
seems
self-study
shelly
similar
situation
skimming
snow
sound
spellings
stories

 

I?”

MMLIIMLI’IM

0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%

strip

technology
testing
time-management
timing

turned

147

LIILIIMUIMLII

0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%
0.0161%

weekend
weeks
wish
workbook
x

years

 

’!.ul=_ 0-! ' 5
l

REFERENCES

148

 

 

REFERENCES

Aston, G. (1997). Involving learners in developing learning methods: exploiting text
corpora in self-access. In P. Benson and P. Voller (eds.), Autonomy and the
Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. Hartford, B.A.S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M.J., & Reynolds,

D.W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT
Journal 45, 5-15.

Barlow, M. (1996). Corpora for theory and practice. International Journal of
Corpus Linguistics 1/ l, l —37.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics:

Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

COBUILD Direct, Bank of English. http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/ldc/online/index/html

Duquette, G. (1995). Developing comprehension and interaction skills with
idiomatic expressions. Second Language Practice: Classroom Strategies for

Developing Communicative Competence. Ed. Georges Duquette. Cromwell Press:

Great Britain.

Johns, T. (1991a). Should you be persuaded: two examples of data-driven learning. In
T. Johns and P. Kind (eds.), Classroom Concordancing, ELR Journal Vol. 4.
Birmingham: Birmingham University Press, 1 - l6.

---------- (1991b). From printout to handout: grammar and vocabulary teaching in the
context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns and P. Kind (eds.), Classroom
Concordancing, ELR Journal Vol. 4. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press,
27 — 46.

Kennedy, G. (1998). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman
Publishing.

Kirk, J. M., ed. (1998). Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing
English. Papers from the Nineteenth International Conference on English
Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 1998). Amsterdam —
Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, The Queens University of Belfast.

Liu, J ., and Nesi, H. (1999). Are we teaching the right words? A study of

149

 

 

 

students’ receptive knowledge of two types of vocabulary: ‘subtechnical’ and
‘technical’. In H. Book and P. Luford (eds.), Academic Standards and
Expectations: The role of EAP. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.

Madden, C. G., and Rohlck, T. N. (2000). Discussion & Interaction in the
Academic Community. Michigan Series in English for Academic Purposes &

Professional Purposes. Madden, Carolyn G., and Swales, John M., ed. Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Makkai, A. (2001). A Dictionary of American Idioms. Third Edition. Barron’s

 

 

Educational Series, Incorporated. v.1:
McEnery, T., and Wilson, A. (1996). Corpus Linguistics. Manchester: 1 L
Edinburgh University Press.
MICASE Online. htLr)://www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase
Owen, C. (1993). Corpus-based grammar and the Heineken effect: Lexico-grammatical L1,

description for language learners. Applied Linguistics 14: 167-187.

Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language
Research and Teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.

Porter, D. and Roberts, J. (1987). Authentic listening activities. In Methodology in
TESOL, edited by M. Long and J. Richards. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

R.C. Simpson, S.L. Briggs, J. Ovens, and J .M. Swales. (1999). The Michigan Corpus of
Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of
Michigan.

Rogers, C.V., and Medley, F.W. (1998). Language with a purpose: Using authentic
materials in the foreign language classroom”. Foreign Language Annals 21, 467 —
478.

Simpson, R., and Swales, J. (2001). Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections
from the 1999 Symposium. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Simpson, R., Mendis, D., and Komsic, A. (2002). Corpus-based study of
idioms in academic speech. Conference paper given at AAAL, Salt Lake City,
UT.

Sutarsyah, C., Nation, I.S.P., and Kennedy, G. (1994). How useful is EAP vocabulary for
ESP? — A corpus-based case study. RELC Journal 25/ 2, 34 - SO.

Swales, J., and Feak, C. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Ann

150

Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Tanaka, K. (1997) Developing pragmatic competence: A leamers-as-researchers
approach. TESOL Journal 6, l4 —l8.

Tribble, C. and Jones, G. (1990). Concordances in the Classroom. London: Longman.

 

 

151

 

   

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

llllflllllljllllslllWillilllllllllllllll