Epistemological relativity, for an ELT professional, means that one accepts that there are infinite ways of using language and that differences do not automatically call for judgmental evaluation. (Leung, 2005: p. 138)
Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 119-144.
[…] the very notion of “language” is a mere ideological invention. We agree that all adult linguistic categories are, ultimately, ideological constructs. However, we see inherent value in studying distinct languages and language varieties in bilingualism because of the fact that already in infancy, prior to any sociopolitical influences, both bilingually and monolingually raised children can perceive, distinguish, and harbor strong attitudes toward different accents, regional varieties, and languages. Houwer & Ortega (2018: 3).
Houwer, A., & Ortega, L. (2018). Introduction: Learning, Using, and Unlearning More than One Language. In A. De Houwer & L. Ortega (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 1-12). Cambridge University Press.
The second aspect is summarised in that phrase “potential patterns”. How so? The process operates in two stages. First, all the effort of a concordancer or a word-listing application goes into reducing a vast and complex object to a much simpler shape. That is, a set of 100 million words on a confusing wealth of topics in a variety of styles and produced by innumerable people for a lot of different reasons gets reduced to a mere list in alphabetical order. A rich chaos of language is reduced, it is “boiled down” to a simpler set. In the vapours that have steamed off are all the facts about who wrote the texts and what they meant.We have therefore lost a great deal in that process, and if it damaged the original texts we would never dare do it.
The advantage comes in the second stage where one examines the boiled down extract, the list of words, the concordance. It is here that something not far different from the sometimes-scorned “intuition” comes in. This is imagination. Insight. Human beings are unable to see shapes, lists, displays, or sets without insight, without seeing in them “patterns”. It seems to be a characteristic of the homo sapiens mind that it is often unable to see things “as they are” but imposes on them a tendency, a trend, a pattern. From the earliest times, the very stars in the sky have been perceived as belonging in “constellations”. This capability can come at a cost, of course: it may be easy to spot a pattern in a cloud or in a constellation and thereby build up a mistaken theory; but the point is that it is this ordinary imaginative capacity, that of seeing a pattern, which is there in all of us and which makes it possible for corpus-based methods to make a relatively large impact on language theory. For with these twin resources, namely the tools to manipulate a lot of data in many different ways and without wasting much time, combined with the power of imagination and pattern-recognition, it becomes possible to chase up patterns that seem to be there and come up with insights affecting linguistic theory itself. The tools we use generate patterns (lists, plots, colour arrangements) and it is when we see these that in some cases the pattern “jumps out” at us. In other cases we may need training to see the patterns but the endeavour is itself largely a search for pattern.
Scott, M. & Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns: keyword and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (pp. 5-6).
One of the most important goals of formal schooling is teaching text varieties that might not be acquired outside of school […] Early in school, children learn to read books of many different types, including fictional stories, historical accounts of past events, and descriptions of natural phenomena. These varieties rely on different linguistic structures and patterns, and students must learn how to recognize and interpret those differences. At the same time, students must learn how to produce some of these different varieties, for example writing a narrative essay on what they did during summer vacation versus a persuasive essay on whether the school cafeteria should sell candy. The amount of explicit instruction in different text varieties varies across teachers, schools, and countries, but even at a young age, students must somehow learn to control and interpret the language of different varieties, or they will not succeed at school.
Biber & Conrad (2009:3)
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics).
Q: How much should a discourse analyst know before he or she engages in corpus work?
A: I don’t agree with the presupposition. No discourse analyst needs to know anything doing Corpus Linguistics. What they need (for either) is an open mind, a willingness to learn, to take risks, to make mistakes, to ask for help or find it for themselves. There is not just one way of slicing bread, and the CL ways of slicing it are not necessarily superior to non-CL ways.
Mike Scott, Viana, Zyngier & Barnbrook (2011: 218)
Those who during the last decade tried to barricade the profession against the influence of corpora recycled the critical arguments of the theoreticians thirty years before, and we heard again that no corpus can be a totally accurate sample of a language, that occurrence in a corpus is no guarantee of correctness, that frequency is not a sound guide to importance, that there are inexplicable gaps in the coverage of any corpus, however large, etc.
That flurry of resistance is now largely behind us, and it is timely to consider the issue posed as the title of this book, how to use corpora in language teaching, since corpora are now part of the resources that more and more teachers expect to have access to.
Sinclair (2004: 2)
Sinclair, J. (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.