【正文】 on equivalence is the best available basis of parison’ (James 1980: 178) – ‘studies based on real translations are the only sound method for contrastive analysis’ (Santos 1996: i) 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。rez (2020), Reppen (2020), Volodina (2020) Corpus revolution ? Books published in China –楊達復(fù) (2020), 濮建忠 (2020), 何安平 (2020a, 2020b), 華南師范大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院 (2020), 衛(wèi)乃興 , 李文中 , 濮建忠 (2020), 楊惠中 (2020), 王立非 , 梁茂成等 (2020) Teaching and corpora: A convergence ? Leech’s (1997) three focuses of the convergence – Indirect use of corpora in teaching (. reference publishing, materials development, language testing, and teacher training) – Direct use of corpora in teaching (. teaching about, teaching to exploit, and exploiting to teach) – Development of teachingoriented corpora (. LSP and learner corpora) ? Corpus analysis can be illuminating ‘in virtually all branches of linguistics or language learning’ (Leech 1997: 9) 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 Reference publishing ? Corpus revolution in reference books (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。n,Valverde and P233。 ‘the facts about language and language use which emerge from corpus analyses should never be allowed to bee a burden for pedagogy’ (Kennedy 1998: 290) – overall teaching objectives – learners’ concrete situations – cognitive salience – learnability – generative value – teachers’ intuitions Frequency ? It would be inappropriate for language teachers, syllabus designers, and materials writers to ignore ‘pelling frequency evidence already available’ (Leech 1997: 16) – ‘Whatever the imperfections of the simple equation “most frequent” = “most important to learn”, it is difficult to deny that frequency information being available from corpora has an important empirical input to language learning materials.’ – Lech, G. (2020) ‘Why frequency can no longer bw ignored in ELT’. 外語教學(xué)與研究 2020(1). ? Frequency can at least help syllabus designers, materials writers and teachers alike to make betterinformed and more carefully motivated decisions (cf. Gavioli and Aston 2020: 239) Authenticity ? Corpus data are authentic by definition ? Widdowson (1990, 2020) questions the use of authentic texts in language teaching – Authenticity of language in the classroom is ‘a(chǎn)n illusion’ (1990: 44) because even though corpus data may be authentic in one sense, its authenticity of purpose is destroyed by its use with an unintended audience of language learners Authenticity ? Widdowson’s (2020) distinction between genuineness (features of text as a product) vs. authenticity (features of discourse as a process) – Corpora are genuine in that they prise attested language use, but they are not authentic for language teaching because their contexts (as opposed to cotexts) have been deprived – Implication? ? Only language produced for imaginary situations in the classroom is ‘a(chǎn)uthentic’ Authenticity ? Product (text) vs. process (discourse) – Interesting but not always useful – Using product as evidence for process may not be less reliable。 Xiao and Yue 2020, Xiao 2020, 2020, 2020 ? In contrast, parable corpora are well suited for contrastive study as they are unaffected by translationese Contrastive corpus linguistics Comparable corpora in this study ? Two English corpora – FreiburgLOB (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 parable in positions and sampling periods – Providing a reliable basis for the crosslinguistic contrast of passives in the two languages English vs. Chinese passives (1) ? Ten times as frequent in English as in Chinese – Dynamicity – Pragmatic meaning – Different habitual tendency – Unmarked notional passives ? Chinese learners of English are very likely to underuse passives in their interlanguage 020040060080010001200En g l i s h C h i n e s eEnglish 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 (. 被 , 叫 , 讓 ) ? Lexical passives (. 挨 , 受（到） , 遭（到） ) ? Unmarked notional passive and topic sentences (topic + ment) ? Special structures (. disposal 把 and predicative 是 …的 ) ? Choice of correct auxiliaries and proper inflectional forms of passivised verbs can constitute a difficult area for Chinese learners to acquire English passives 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 (為 …所 , 叫 , 讓 ) only occur in long passives ? For 被 and 給 passives, proportions of short forms (% and % respectively) are significantly lower than in English – The agent must normally be spelt out at early stages of Chinese, though the constraints have bee more relaxed ? Chinese learners of English are expected to overuse long passives and underuse short passi