Google-Informed Patter-Hunting and Pattern-Defining: Implication for Language Pedagogy

The use of the Web as a corpus and Google as a concordancer, has been regarded as one of the promising areas that has a potential for revolutionizing language pedagogy in general, and second language (L2) writing, in particular. More specifically, it is believed that the functions of Google-Informed Pattern-Hunting (GIPH) and Google-Informed Pattern-Defining (GIPD) can promote natural L2 writing through Discovery Learning (DL) and Data Driven Learning (DDL), however, these advantages have mostly been given lip services than tested with first hand empirical studies, and only more recently some studies have been undertaken in this vein. Focusing on L2, this article explored how and to what extent this great potential of GIPH and GIPD has been recognized by reviewing the related studies, thereby some factors and themes (such as Learning Style, Training, Naturalness, Tidiness, Speed, Number of Retrieval, and Proficiency) have been extracted and elaborated on. However, due to the novelty of the area, the themes are mostly the outcome of researchers’ descriptions and interpretations than empirical studies. The inclusion criteria for the present review were studies that focus on the application of the Web as a corpus and Google as a concordance for language learning and L2 writing based on researchers’ and learners’ evaluation of it. Seven studies included in the present review show that learners’ use of GIPH and GIPD champions the promotion of their language learning and L2 writing, providing that proper training and scaffolding are provided. Future studies are also recommended based on the gaps and deficiencies identified in the reviewed researches.

[1]  Anne Wichmann,et al.  Teaching and Language Corpora , 1997 .

[2]  Chris Shei Discovering the hidden treasure on the Internet: using Google to uncover the veil of phraseology , 2008 .

[3]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Refining the use of the web (and web search) as a language teaching and learning resource , 2009 .

[4]  Fiona Farr,et al.  Language teachers with corpora in mind: from starting steps to walking tall , 2011 .

[5]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  From Usage to Grammar: The Mind's Response to Repetition , 2007 .

[6]  Mary McGee Wood A definition of idiom , 1986 .

[7]  A. Wierzbicka Exploring English Phraseology with Two Tools , 2009 .

[8]  Kwanghyun Park,et al.  Writing/Thinking in Real Time: Digital Video and Corpus Query Analysis. , 2010 .

[9]  Diana Inkpen,et al.  Real-Word Spelling Correction using Google Web 1T 3-grams , 2009, EMNLP.

[10]  Claire Fiona Kennedy,et al.  Corpus-Assisted Creative Writing: Introducing Intermediate Italian Learners to a Corpus as a Reference Resource , 2010 .

[11]  B. Erman,et al.  The idiom principle and the open choice principle , 2000 .

[12]  G. Leech Teaching and Language Corpora: a Convergence , 2014 .

[13]  Dilin Liu,et al.  Using a Corpus-Based Lexicogrammatical Approach to Grammar Instruction in EFL and ESL Contexts. , 2009 .

[14]  W. R. Lee,et al.  English Language Teaching , 1964 .

[15]  Peichin Chang,et al.  Taking an Effective Authorial Stance in Academic Writing: Inductive Learning for Second Language Writers using a Stance Corpus. , 2010 .

[16]  Joe Geluso,et al.  Phraseology and frequency of occurrence on the web: native speakers’ perceptions of Google-informed second language writing , 2013 .

[17]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Utilizing lexical data from a Web-derived corpus to expand productive collocation knowledge , 2010, ReCALL.

[18]  A. Gilmore Using online corpora to develop students' writing skills , 2009 .

[19]  Guoquan Sha,et al.  Using Google as a super corpus to drive written language learning: a comparison with the British National Corpus , 2010 .

[20]  J. Mukundan,et al.  An Overview of Corpus Linguistics Studies on Prepositions , 2011 .

[21]  Carol A. Chapelle,et al.  The encyclopedia of applied linguistics , 2013 .

[22]  Mark A. Conroy Internet tools for language learning: University students taking control of their writing , 2010 .

[23]  Paul Stapleton,et al.  Tech-era L2 writing: towards a new kind of process , 2010 .

[24]  Shaoqun Wu,et al.  Supporting Collocation Learning , 2010 .

[25]  Asad Mohsin,et al.  Hamilton, New Zealand , 2008 .

[26]  Pascual Pérez-Paredes,et al.  Tracking learners' actual uses of corpora: guided vs non-guided corpus consultation , 2011 .

[27]  Hajar Abdul Rahim,et al.  Collocations in Malaysian English learners’ writing: A corpus-based error analysis , 2011 .

[28]  Choongil Yoon Concordancing in L2 writing class: An overview of research and issues , 2011 .

[29]  Andy Cresswell Getting to ‘know’ connectors? Evaluating data-driven learningin a writing skills course , 2007 .

[30]  George M. Chinnery ON THE NET You've Got some GALL: Google-Assisted Language Learning , 2008 .

[31]  William H. Fletcher,et al.  Corpus Analysis of the World Wide Web , 2012 .

[32]  U. Römer Corpus Research Applications in Second Language Teaching , 2011, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.

[33]  Elisabet Comelles,et al.  Using online databases in the linguistics classroom: dealing with clause patterns , 2013 .

[34]  M. Hoey Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language , 2005 .

[35]  Yvonne A. Breyer Learning and teaching with corpora: reflections by student teachers , 2009 .

[36]  John Sinclair,et al.  WORDS AND PHRASES , 2013 .

[37]  Simon Smith,et al.  Learner construction of corpora for general English in Taiwan , 2011 .

[38]  Mohamed Amin Embi,et al.  Web Technologies for Language Learning: Enhancing the Course Management System , 2009 .

[39]  Íde O'Sullivan,et al.  Enhancing a process-oriented approach to literacy and language learning: The role of corpus consultation literacy , 2007, ReCALL.