How can corpora help in
language pedagogy?
Richard.Xiao
@edgehill.ac.uk
Corpus revolution
• An increasing interest since the early 1990s in applying the
findings of corpus-based research to language pedagogy
– 8 well-received biennial international conferences Teaching and
Language Corpora (TaLC, 1994-2008)
– At least 25 authored or edited books, covering a wide range of
issues concerning the use of corpora in language pedagogy, e.g.
corpus-based language description, corpus analysis in
classroom, and learner corpus research
• Wichmann et al (1997), Partington (1998), Bernardini (2000), Burnard and McEnery
(2000), Kettemann and Marko (2002, 2006), Aston (2001), Ghadessy, Henry, and
Roseberry (2001), Hunston (2002), Granger et al (2002), Connor and Upton (2002),
Tan (2002), Sinclair (2003, 2004), Aston et al (2004), Mishan (2005), Nesselhauf
(2005), Römer (2005), Braun, Kohn and Mukherjee (2006), Gavioli (2006), Scott and
Tribble (2006), Hidalgo, Quereda and Santana (2007), O’Keeffe, McCarthy and
Carter (2007), Aijmer (2009), and Campoy, Gea-valor and Belles-Fortuno (2010)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
2
Teaching and corpora: A convergence
• Leech’s (1997) three focuses of the convergence
– Indirect use of corpora in teaching (e.g. reference
publishing, materials development, language testing,
and teacher training)
– Direct use of corpora in teaching (e.g. teaching about,
teaching to exploit, and exploiting to teach)
– Development of teaching-oriented corpora (e.g. LSP and
learner corpora)
• Corpus analysis can be illuminating ‘in virtually all branches
of linguistics or language learning’ (Leech 1997: 9)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
3
Direct vs. indirect uses
• Indirect uses
– Largely relating to what to teach
• Direct uses
– Primarily concerning how to teach
• Development of teaching oriented corpora
– Can relate to both
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
4
Reference publishing
• Corpus revolution (at least for English)
– Nearly unheard of for dictionaries and reference grammars
published since the 1990s not to claim to be based on
corpus data
– Even people who have never heard of a corpus are using
the product of corpus research
• Changes brought about by corpora to dictionaries and
other reference books - five “emphases” (Hunston 2002)
–
–
–
–
–
26/06/2009
an emphasis on frequency
an emphasis on collocation and phraseology
an emphasis on variation
an emphasis on lexis in grammar
an emphasis on authenticity
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
5
Corpus-based dictionaries
• Learner dictionaries (defining vocabulary, collocation,
frequency bands, authentic examples)
– Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (First fully corpus-based
dictionary)
– Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDOCE, 3rd
ed.)
– Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD, 5th ed.)
– Cambridge International Dictionary of English (CIDE, 1st ed.)
• Frequency dictionaries defining core vocabulary for
learners
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
6
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
7
Corpus-based reference grammars
• Increasing consensus that non-corpus-based grammars can
contain biases while corpora can help to improve grammatical
descriptions (cf. Mcenery and Xiao 2005)
• Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al
1999)
– A new milestone following Quirk et al’s (1985) A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language
– Based entirely on the 40M-word Longman Spoken and Written
English Corpus
– Illustrated throughout with real corpus examples
– Taking account of register variations
– Exploring the differences between spoken and written grammars
– Including lexical information as an integral part of grammatical
descriptions
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
8
Corpus-based grammars
• Collins COBUILD series: flatly rejecting the distinction
between lexis and grammar
•
•
•
•
Collins COBUILD English Grammar (Sinclair 1990)
Collins COBUILD English Usage (Sinclair 1992)
Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs (Francis et al 1996)
Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives (Francis et
al 1998)
• Pattern Grammar (Hunston and Francis 2000)
• Focusing on the connection between pattern and meaning
• Particularly useful in language learning because it provides ‘a resource
for vocabulary building in which the word is treated as part of a phrase
rather than in isolation’ (Hunston 2002: 106)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
9
Syllabus design and materials development
• Previous research has demonstrated that the use of
grammatical structures in TEFL textbooks differs
considerably from the use of these structures in native
English
– ‘a kind of school English which does not seem to exist
outside the foreign language classroom’ (Mindt 1996: 232)
• The order in which those items are taught in non-corpusbased syllabi ‘very often does not correspond to what
one might reasonably expect from corpus data of spoken
and written English’ (ibid: 245-6)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
10
Syllabus design and materials development
• Corpora can be useful in this area - a simple yet
important role of corpora in language teaching is to
provide more realistic examples of language usage
reflecting the nuances and complexities of natural
language
• Corpora can also provide data, especially frequency data,
which may further impact on what is taught, and in what
order
• Touchstone book series (McCarthy et al 2005-2006)
– Based on the Cambridge International Corpus
– Aiming at presenting the vocabulary, grammar, and language
functions that students encounter most often in real life
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
11
Syllabus design and materials development
• Hunston (2002: 189): ‘The experience of using corpora
should lead to rather different views of syllabus design.’
• The Lexical Syllabus (Willis 1990), as implemented in the
Collins COBUILD English Course (Willis, Willis and Davids
1988-1989)
– Three focuses of a lexical syllabus: ‘(a) the commonest word
forms in a language; (b) the central patterns of usage; (c) the
combinations which they usually form’ (Sinclair and Renouf
1988)
– Not a syllabus for vocabulary items only, but rather covering ‘all
aspects of language, differing from a conventional syllabus only
in that the central concept of organization is lexis’ (Hunston
2002: 189)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
12
Language testing
• An emerging area of language teaching which has started
to use the corpus-based approach
• Alderson (1996) envisaged the following possible uses of
corpora in language testing
– test construction, compilation and selection, test
presentation, response capture, test scoring, and
calculation and delivery of results
– ‘The potential advantages of basing our tests on real
language data, of making data-based judgments about
candidates’ abilities, knowledge and performance are clear
enough. A crucial question is whether the possible
advantages are born out in practice’ (Alderson 1996: 258259)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
13
Language testing
• The concern raised in Alderson’s conclusion appears to
have been addressed satisfactorily 10 years later
– Nowadays, computer-based tests are considered to be comparable to
paper-based tests (cf. Choi, Kim and Boo 2003), as exemplified by
computer-based versions of TOFEL tests
• Major test service providers like UCLES have recently used
corpora in testing (cf. Ball 2001; Hunston 2002: 205)
–
–
–
–
–
–
26/06/2009
As an archive of examination scripts
To develop test materials
To optimize test procedures
To improve the quality of test marking
To validate tests
To standardize tests
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
14
Teacher development
• Corpora have been used recently in language teacher
training to enhance teachers’ language awareness and
research skills
– Rationale: For students to benefit from the use of corpora,
teachers must first of all be equipped with a sound knowledge
of the corpus-based approach
• The integration of corpus studies in language teacher
training is only a quite recent phenomenon (cf. Chambers
2007)
– It may take more time, and ‘perhaps a new generation of
teachers, for corpora to find their way into the language
classroom’ in secondary education (Braun 2007: 308)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
15
Direct uses of corpora
• Leech’s (1997) three direct uses of corpora in teaching
– 1) Teaching about
• Teaching corpus linguistics as an academic subject
– Part of the curricula for linguistics and language related degree
programs at both postgraduate and undergraduate level
– 2) Teaching to exploit
• Providing students with ‘hands-on’ know-how so that they can
exploit corpora as student-centred learning activities
– 3) Exploiting to teach
• Using the corpus-based approach to teaching language and
linguistics courses, which would otherwise be taught using noncorpus-based methods
• (1) and (3) are mainly associated with language / linguistics
programmes
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
16
From three P’s to three I’s
• The traditional three-P approach
– Presentation – Practice – Production
• The exploratory three-I approach (cf. Carter
and McCarthy 1995)
– Illustration: looking at real data
– Interaction: discussing and sharing opinions and
observations
– Induction: making one’s own rule for a particular
feature, which ‘will be refined and honed as more
and more data is encountered’ (ibid 1995: 155)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
17
Data-driven learning (DDL)
• Direct use of corpora in pedagogy is essentially DDL
• Johns (1991): ‘research is too serious to be left to the
researchers’
– The language learner should be encouraged to become ‘a
research worker whose learning needs to be driven by access to
linguistic data’ (Johns 1991)
• Johns (1997: 101) compares the learner to a language
detective: ‘Every student a Sherlock Holmes!’
• His DDL website gives some very good examples of datadriven learning
– www.eisu2.bham.ac.uk/johnstf/timeap3.htm
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
18
Data-driven learning (DDL)
• The DDL approach involves three stages of inductive
reasoning with corpora (Johns 1991)
– Observation (of concordanced evidence)
– Classification (of salient features)
– Generalization (of rules)
• Roughly corresponding to Carter and McCarthy’s
(1995) three I’s in the exploratory corpus-based
approach, but fundamentally different from the
traditional three-P approach
– Three-P approach: top-down deduction
– Three-I / DDL approach: bottom-up induction
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
19
Data-driven learning (DDL)
• Can be either teacher-directed or learner-led (i.e. ‘discovery
learning’) to suit the needs of learners at different levels, but
basically learner-centred
• Leech (1997: 10): The autonomous learning process ‘gives the student
the realistic expectation of breaking new ground as a “researcher”,
doing something which is a unique and individual contribution’
• This is true of advanced learners only!
• The key to successful data-driven learning is the appropriate
level of pedagogical mediation depending on the learners’
age, experience, and proficiency level, etc
•
26/06/2009
A corpus is not a simple object, and it is just as easy to derive
nonsensical conclusions from the evidence as insightful ones’ (Sinclair
2004: 2)
‘
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
20
Direct uses: Current situation
• So far confined largely to learning at more advanced
levels, especially in tertiary education
• Almost absent in general ELT classroom, e.g.
secondary education (and in the teaching of other
foreign languages at all levels)
– Learners’ age, level and experience
– Time constraints and curricular requirements
– Knowledge and skills required of teachers for corpus analysis
and pedagogical mediation
– Access to appropriate resources such as corpora and tools
– …or indeed probably a combination of all of these factors
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
21
LSP corpora vs. professional communication
• Third focus of convergence: Development of teachingoriented corpora: LSP, parallel, and learner corpora
• Teaching of language for specific purposes and professional
communication can benefit greatly from domain- or genrespecific specialized corpora both directly and indirectly, e.g.
– Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL)
– Biber’s (2006) comprehensive analysis of university language based on
the TOEFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus
– McCarthy and Handford’s (2004) exploration of pedagogical
implications regarding spoken business English on the basis of the
Cambridge and Nottingham Spoken Business English Corpus (CANBEC)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
22
Parallel concordancing
• Multilingual parallel corpora and parallel
concordancing are useful in translation
teaching
• They can also aid the so-called ‘reciprocal
learning’ (Johns 1997)
– i.e. two language learners with different L1
backgrounds are paired to help each other learn
their language
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
23
Learner corpora
• Welcomed as one of the most exciting recent
developments in corpus-based language studies
• For indirect use, they have been explored to inform
curriculum design, materials development and
teaching methodology (cf. Keck 2004)
• For direct use, they provide a bottom-up approach to
language teaching - as opposed to the top-down
approach with native corpora of the target language
(Osborne 2002)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
24
Learner corpora
• Can also provide indirect, observable, and empirical
evidence for the invisible mental process of language
acquisition and serve as a test bed for hypotheses
generated using the psycholinguistic approach
• Provide an empirical basis enabling the findings previously
made on the basis of limited data of a small number of
informants to be generalized
• Have widened the scope of SLA research so that
interlanguage research nowadays treats learner
performance data in its own right rather than as
decontextualised errors in traditional error analysis (cf.
Granger 1998: 6)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
25
Using CCL to inform SLA
• Introducing Contrastive Corpus Linguistics (CCL)
• Presenting a brief summary of the relevant findings in
a corpus-based contrastive study of passives in English
and Chinese (Xiao, McEnery and Qian 2006)
• Exploring passives in the Chinese learner English
Corpus (CLEC) in comparison with a comparable native
English corpus
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
26
Contrastive corpus linguistics
• Contrastive analysis
– Recognised as an important part of foreign language teaching
methodology following WWII
– Dominant throughout the 1960s
– But soon lost ground to more learner-oriented approaches
such as error analysis, performance analysis and
interlanguage analysis
– Revived in the 1990s
• …largely thanks to the advances in the corpus methodology, which
is inherently comparative in nature
• Contrastive Corpus Linguistics brings together the
strengths of contrastive analysis and corpus analysis
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
27
Contrastive corpus linguistics
• Parallel vs. comparable corpora
– Parallel corpus: source texts plus translations
– Comparable corpus: different native languages
sampled with comparable sampling criteria and
similar balance
• Can parallel corpora be used in contrastive studies?
– ‘translation equivalence is the best available basis of
comparison’ (James 1980: 178)
– ‘studies based on real translations are the only sound
method for contrastive analysis’ (Santos 1996: i)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
28
Contrastive corpus linguistics
• Translated language is merely an unrepresentative
special variant of the target native language which is
perceptibly influenced by the source
language...unreliable for contrastive analysis if relied
upon alone
– Baker 1993, Gellerstam 1996, Teubert 1996, Laviosa 1997,
McEnery and Wilson 2001, McEnery and Xiao 2002,
McEnery and Xiao 2007, Xiao and Yue 2009
• In contrast, comparable corpora are well suited for
contrastive study as they are unaffected by
translationese
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
29
Contrastive corpus linguistics
cross-linguistic contrast of native languages
Cross-linguistic contrast
L1 transfer
Native language L1
Interlanguage 1
under- or overuse
Interlanguage
Interlanguage 2
Target language L2
Interlanguage 3
Interlanguage 4
common features of SLA process
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
30
Comparable corpora in this study
• Two English corpora
– Freiburg-LOB (FLOB)
– BNCdemo (4 M words of conversations)
• Two Chinese corpora
– Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese (LCMC)
– LDC CallHome Mandarin Transcripts: 300K words
• English and Chinese data are comparable in
compositions and sampling periods
– Providing a reliable basis for the cross-linguistic contrast of
passives in the two languages
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
31
English vs. Chinese passives (1)
• Ten times as frequent in
English as in Chinese
1200
– Dynamicity
– Pragmatic meaning
– Different habitual
tendency
– Unmarked notional
passives
1000
800
600
400
200
0
English
26/06/2009
Chinese
• Chinese learners of
English are very likely to
underuse passives in their
interlanguage
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
32
English vs. Chinese passives (2)
• Passive formation
– English passives
• Auxiliary be/get followed by a past participial verb
– Chinese passives
•
•
•
•
•
•
Passivised verbs do not inflect morphologically
Also the notion of auxiliary verbs is less salient in Chinese
Syntactic passives (e.g. bei, jiao, rang)
Lexical passives (e.g. ai, shou, zao)
Unmarked notional passive and topic sentences (topic + comment)
Special structures (e.g. disposal ba and predicative shi…de)
• Choice of correct auxiliaries and proper inflectional forms of
passivised verbs can constitute a difficult area for Chinese
learners to acquire English passives
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
33
English vs. Chinese passives (3)
• Long vs. short passives
• Short passives are predominant in English (over 90% in
speech and writing)
– Often used as a strategy that allows one to avoid mentioning
the agent when it cannot or must not be mentioned
• 3 out of 5 syntactic passive markers in Chinese (wei…suo,
jiao and rang) only occur in long passives
• For bei and gei passives, proportions of short forms
(60.7% and 57.5% respectively) are significantly lower
than in English
– The agent must normally be spelt out at early stages of
Chinese, though the constraints have become more relaxed
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
34
English vs. Chinese passives (4)
• Chinese passives are more
frequently used with an
inflictive meaning
100%
4.7%
10.7%
Percent
80%
60%
37.8%
80.3%
40%
51.5%
20%
0%
15.0%
English be passives
Chinese bei passives
Language
Negative
Neutral
Positive
– Chinese passives were used
at early stages primarily for
unpleasant or undesirable
events (bei, “suffer”)
• Marking negative pragmatic
meanings is not a basic feature
of the English passive norm
(be passives)
– Get-passives sometimes
(37.7% of the time) refer to
undesirable events
• Chinese learners are more
likely to use English passives
for undesirable situations
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
35
Interlanguage of Chinese learners
• CLEC (learn data): the Chinese Learner English Corpus
– One million words
– Essays
– Five proficiency levels (high school students and university
students)
– Fully annotated with learner errors using a tagset of 61 error types
clustered in 11 categories
• LOCNESS (control data): the Louvain Corpus of Native
English Essays
– ca. 300,000 words
– Essays
– British A-Level children and British and American university
students
• Roughly comparable in terms of task type, learner age
and sampling period
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
36
Underuse of passives
Corpus
CLEC
LOCNESS
26/06/2009
Words
Passives
Frequency
per 100K
words
1,070,602
9,711
907
324,304
5,465
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
1,685
LL score
p value
LL=1235.6
1.d.f.
p<0.001
37
Long vs. short passives
• As can be expected from the contrastive analysis, in
comparison with native English writing, long passives are
more frequent in Chinese learner English
– Long passives in CLEC
• 9.14%: 888 out of 9,711
– Long passives in LOCNESS
• 8.44%: 461 out of 5,465
• ...the difference is marginal and not statistically
significant
– LL=2.184, 1 d.f., p=0.139
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
38
Pragmatic meanings
100%
• Passives are more
frequently negative in
Chinese learner English
4.4%
5.9%
– CLEC
Percent
80%
60%
68.4%
78.8%
40%
20%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
25.7%
16.8%
CLEC
LOCNESS
0%
Corpus
• Negative: 25.7%
• Positive: 5.9%
• Neutral: 68.4%
– LOCNESS
• Negative: 16.8%
• Positive: 4.4%
• Neutral: 78.8%
– LL=7.4, 2 d.f., p=0.025
• Consistent wit h earlier
finding (50.5% vs. 15%)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
39
Frequency per 200,000 words
Passive errors vs. learner levels
250
200
Aux. errors
150
Misformation
Misuse
100
Underuse
All error types
50
0
ST2
ST3
ST4
ST5
ST6
Learner level
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
40
Error types vs. learner levels
• Error types are associated with learner levels when the dataset is taken as
a whole
– LL=51.774, 12 d.f., p<0.001
• But similar learner groups also show similar error types
– ST2 >> ST3: statistically significant (LL=27.303, 3 d.f., p<0.001)
– ST3 >> ST4: not significant (LL=6.955, 3 d.f., p=0.073)
– ST4 >> ST5: statistically significant (LL=18.563, 3 d.f., p<0.001)
– ST5 >> ST6: not significant (LL=6.987, 3 d.f., p=0.072)
ST2
ST3/ST4
(High
(Junior/Senior
school
students)
26/06/2009
non-English
major students)
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
ST5/ST6
(Junior/Senior
English major
students)
41
Underuse errors
• Likely to be a result of L1 transfer, as can be predicted from
results of cross-linguistic contrast and confirmed by the
learner-native corpus comparison
• Typically occur with verbs whose Chinese equivalents are not
normally used in passives, e.g.
– A birthday party will hold in Lily’s house. (ST2)
– The woman in white called Anne Catherick. (ST5)
• Also occur under the influence of the Chinese topic sentence
– The supper
had done.
(ST2)
wanfan
<*bei> zuo-hao
le
supper
<*PASS> cook-ready ASP
topic
comment
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
42
Misuse errors
• 1) Intransitive verbs used in passives, e.g.
– A very unhappy thing was happened in this week. (ST2)
– I was graduated from Zhongshan University (ST5)
• 2) Misuse of ergative verbs, e.g.
– …the secince <sic science> is developed quickly (ST4)
• 3) Training transfer (overdone passive training in classroom
instructions), e.g.
– …many machine <sic machines> and appliance <sic appliances> are
used electricity as power (ST5)
– Because they have been mastered everything of this job… (ST4)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
43
Misformation errors
• Possibly a result of L1 interference
• Related to morphological inflections
– Passivised verbs do not inflect in Chinese
• Chinese learners tend to use uninflected verbs or
misspelt past participles in passives, e.g.
– His relatives can not stop him, because his choice is
protect by the laws. (ST6)
– Since the People’s Republic of china <sic China> was found
on October 1, 1949… (ST2)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
44
Auxiliary errors
• Related to omission and misuse of auxiliaries
• A result of L1 interference
– Auxiliaries are not a salient linguistic feature in Chinese
• Chinese is not a morphologically inflectional language
• Chinese learners tend to omit or misuse auxiliaries in
passives, e.g.
– In China, since the new China <sic was> established,
people’s life has goten <sic gotten> better and better. (ST3)
– I am not a smoker, but why do <sic are> we forced to be a
second-hand smoker? (ST5)
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
45
Case study summary
• The learner’s performance in interlanguage can be
predicted and accounted for from the perspective of
Contrastive Corpus Linguistics
• The integrated approach that combines contrastive
analysis (CA) and contrastive interlanguage analysis
(CIA) is an indispensable tool in SLA research
– Granger (1998: 14): ‘if we want to be able to make firm
pronouncements about transfer-related phenomena, it is
essential to combine CA and CIA approaches.’
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
46
Corpus-based pedagogy: Today
• Currently, corpora appear to have played a
more important role in helping to decide what
to teach (i.e. indirect uses) than how to teach
(i.e. direct uses)
– Indirect uses of corpora seem to be well
established
– Direct uses of corpora in teaching are largely
confined to tertiary education and are nearly
absent in general language classroom
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
47
From today to tomorrow
• If corpora are to be further popularised to
more general language teaching context, there
are two priorities in near future
– Corpus linguists must create and facilitate access to
corpora that are pedagogically motivated, in both design
and content, to meet pedagogical needs and curricular
requirements so that corpus-based learning activities
become an integral part, rather than an additional option,
of the overall language curriculum
– Teachers should be provided, through pre-service training
or continued professional development, with the required
knowledge and skills for corpus analysis and pedagogical
mediation of corpus-based learning activities
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
48
Corpus-based pedagogy: Tomorrow
• If these two tasks are accomplished, it is my
view that corpora will not only ‘revolutionize
the teaching of grammar’ in the 21st century
as Conrad (2000: 549) has predicted, they will
also fundamentally change, with the aid of a
new generation of teachers, the ways we
approach language teaching, including both
what is taught and how it is taught
26/06/2009
PALCO, Nottingham Ningbo
49
Thank you!
Richard.Xiao@edgehill.ac.uk