This seems to keep getting delayed / postponed. Perhaps not enough submissions? Perhaps not enough appropriate submissions. I don’t know. But if you were thinking of writing something, but got too busy or didn’t finish in time, then Good News, the new deadline is September 3rd.
TESOL International Association is seeking submissions for a volume about classroom applications of corpora.
They are looking for straightforward, practical things that can be done with corpora.
I think the deadline was originally in the middle of May, but it seems to have been extended to July 15.
Check out the link above for more info about what kinds of submissions are appropriate and how to submit.
It is, I believe, generally accepted that who can be used to refer to animals (or at least some animals, or at least under certain conditions). Thus, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary has this entry (I’ve outlined the key part in red):
However, Merriam-Webster’s online learner’s dictionary has this entry:
No mentions that who can be used for animals. And it isn’t only MW. I checked six learner’s dictionaries and none of them said this was acceptable, or an option. This isn’t a huge deal, necessarily, but it can lead to confusion if, say, this has been taught as a ‘rule’ and then students read graded readers where the ‘rule’ is broken without any consequence (search for horse who, fish who, or monkey who in the Lextutor graded reader corpus, for example). Of course, there are tons of sources where students might encounter who being used for animals.
This came up because a student of mine had written “I don’t want a dog who is so big” and a peer suggested it should be which. And that’s FINE. It can be which :-). Or that :-). But it can also be who :-D.
For teachers who like to do consciousness raising or language awareness activities, this kind of situation provides opportunities for discussions of things like what if you read/hear some language in real life that doesn’t seem to match what the dictionary/grammar guide says, analyzing lines of ‘controversial’ lexicogrammar patterns, or formulating ideas about why people choose to use who, or which, or maybe that in different circumstances (does it seem ok for certain animals but not others? is it special for pets? does it change the meaning/tone/nuance?).
Of course, the underlying ideas could be applied to other language questions, too. So, in general, the ‘corpus lesson’ here is that corpora can be used to explore alternatives to more conventional patterns and aid in developing greater language awareness. Corpus-use can be applied to not just learning frequent or common patterns of expression, but to expanding the ways in which learners are able to express themselves.
While talking about this with another teacher, it was suggested that maybe the learner’s dictionaries (and perhaps some other learner-oriented materials) don’t acknowledge who for animals as acceptable because it’s new (recent) and thus ‘non-standard’. But I have trouble seeing which of these would be considered ‘non-standard’ (in fact, I doubt that in many cases fluent English users would even notice this usage unless it were pointed out or they were looking for it). And it’s not really a recent thing, is it?:
Against the Capitol I met a lion,
Who glared upon me, and went surly by
This corpus-based analysis (Gilquin & Jacobs, 2006) of who being used with animals may also be of interest.
SkELL has another new feature.
In the WordSketch function, there is now a button that provides more context for the words co-occuring with the target word/lemma.
Automatic PoS tagging in the corpus sometimes results in errors, and this feature is meant to help with this problem. It doesn’t really prevent the errors, but it should help users make correct identifications despite tagging errors.
I use SkELL quite often, so I was glad to read that there has been an update to the example sentences that get shown. This was an occasional, irritating issue because the kinds of SkELL-assisted activities I usually do with my students are hampered by spelling mistakes and such. For them, the learners, the cleaner data should be beneficial.
The update was announced by James Thomas on the CorpusCALL FB group, the text is reproduced in italics here:
“SKELL If you are a user of SKELL, you might have noticed a recent improvement in the quality of the example sentences. This is thanks to the deletion of sentences that contained spelling mistakes and hapax legomena. While both of these things can be of interest, it is better that the 40 example sentences of a word or phrase are as accurate as possible.
There are 10,370 instances of the word ‘dolphin’, for example, in the full corpus. The algorithm that chooses the best 40 for learners now works with cleaner data.
It’s a nice improvement. Thanks, Vit.”
**Link to SkELL**
**Earlier posts on using SkELL**
Well, that was a longer break from blogging than I expected. I’ve had a tremendously busy winter, but hopefully I can get back to updating more frequently.
It’s not a quick read, but the short version is that DDL works quite well in general; there are very encouraging results and several medium-to-large effect sizes were found. Going forward there needs to be more fine-grained research on for whom, for what, under what conditions, and for how long does DDL work well. They also make some important points about what information needs to be included in the future by researchers doing quantitative work on DDL.
@anthonyteacher has a great post at his site discussing the patterns “not to VERB” and “to not VERB”. He writes about his students’ reactions to the constructions, his own view, and some findings from Google N-grams and COCA. You should read his post in full.
I basically agree with everything he says, with one point he makes that I would like to extend a little bit. So I’d like to highlight this paragraph from his post, and especially the statement I put in red:
All of this data tells me several things. First, “to not” is on the rise, most likely due to the fact that the ability to separate an infinitive has become more accepted and “to not” has probably rolled in through a snowball effect. Second, the placement of “not” does not necessarily imply emphasis, as can be seen in the sentences above. Third, while my speech may make some of the older generations shake their first with anger, possibly telling me I am killing English, I can now reply confidently that my speech is the vanguard of an English where “not” is as placement-fluid as “they” is gender-fluid. My speech may be a speech that is likely to boldly go where few have gone before. Or to not boldly go, because language change is really unpredictable, and this is just a tiny thing.
I chose to highlight this section because I felt that sometimes my own choices regarding placement of “not” are definitely, if not necessarily, done for emphasis, but after thinking about it I don’t think it is a matter of placing emphasis per se. Rather, it is about restricting possible meanings/uses.
Let me explain. Here are two partial lines from COCA (query terms: not to mention):
1) … He would talk only if I promised not to mention he lived in …
2) … But tours and marketing materials, not to mention data on the average student, won’t tell you if that college will …
In the first line, I, personally, would probably phrase that as “to not mention”, though not necessarily. The point is that both constructions feel natural to me. However, I can’t imagine myself saying that about the second line. To me, and the way I’m processing these constructions, the first line’s meaning is straightforward, but the second line’s meaning is based on my understanding of “not to mention” as a fixed or partially fixed expression in this instance.
In this case, the construction is not simply negating the mentioning of something (in fact, the thing in question is explicitly and necessarily mentioned/understood). Indeed, the online Cambridge Dictionary, for example, defines “not to mention” as a phrase used when you want to emphasize something that you are adding to a list.
So, generally speaking, I process “to not VERB” as basically interchangeable with “not to VERB” (with a personal preference for “to not VERB”) when the meaning is straightforward (i.e. negating the verb). But “not to VERB”, perhaps because of it’s associations with certain fixed expressions, seems to me to have a broader range of usage. Something like this:
“not to VERB”: can negate the verb or have idiomatic/figurative meaning and usage
“to not VERB”: restricted to negating the verb
All the “to not VERB” uses here have meanings that can be understood as simply negating the verb. I suspect it would be this way throughout all the lines.
At least, until the language changes some more 😉
If I have said something glaringly, obviously wrong please tell me. Or if you have evidence of “to not VERB” used in an idiomatic/figurative way, please share it. Or if you have better choices for terminology etc. etc. etc. …