{"title":"“你要去吗?”将教学语法规则置于语料库聚光灯下","authors":"G. Burton","doi":"10.14746/gl.2021.48.1.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A rule stating that we tend to avoid using go and come after the future marker going to appears again and again in many coursebooks and grammars used in English Language Teaching, and has done for decades. This article attempts to show, using empirical evidence from corpora, why the rule is inaccurate, and different ways that this might be established. As the rule under consideration is typically framed as a tendency (like many other pedagogical grammar rules), an additional aim of the work is to outline the kinds of corpus analyses researchers and materials designers can potentially use in order to investigate the question of (claimed) linguistic tendencies. The article concludes by discussing why a rule that is apparently inaccurate nevertheless appears again and again in print, arguing that the existence of a well-established and widely-accepted ‘canon’ of ELT grammar means that such inaccuracies in descriptions of grammar can be easily perpetuated","PeriodicalId":212023,"journal":{"name":"Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Are you going to go?’ Putting a pedagogical grammar rule under the corpus spotlight\",\"authors\":\"G. Burton\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/gl.2021.48.1.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A rule stating that we tend to avoid using go and come after the future marker going to appears again and again in many coursebooks and grammars used in English Language Teaching, and has done for decades. This article attempts to show, using empirical evidence from corpora, why the rule is inaccurate, and different ways that this might be established. As the rule under consideration is typically framed as a tendency (like many other pedagogical grammar rules), an additional aim of the work is to outline the kinds of corpus analyses researchers and materials designers can potentially use in order to investigate the question of (claimed) linguistic tendencies. The article concludes by discussing why a rule that is apparently inaccurate nevertheless appears again and again in print, arguing that the existence of a well-established and widely-accepted ‘canon’ of ELT grammar means that such inaccuracies in descriptions of grammar can be easily perpetuated\",\"PeriodicalId\":212023,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2021.48.1.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2021.48.1.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
我们倾向于避免在将来标记going to之后使用go and come,这一规则在英语语言教学的许多教科书和语法中一再出现,并且已经存在了几十年。本文试图使用语料库中的经验证据来说明为什么该规则是不准确的,以及建立这一规则的不同方法。由于所考虑的规则通常被定义为一种趋势(就像许多其他教学语法规则一样),因此这项工作的另一个目的是概述研究人员和材料设计者可能使用的语料库分析类型,以调查(声称的)语言趋势问题。文章最后讨论了为什么一个明显不准确的规则一次又一次地出现在印刷品中,认为存在一个完善且被广泛接受的英语教学语法“佳能”意味着语法描述中的这种不准确很容易延续下去
‘Are you going to go?’ Putting a pedagogical grammar rule under the corpus spotlight
A rule stating that we tend to avoid using go and come after the future marker going to appears again and again in many coursebooks and grammars used in English Language Teaching, and has done for decades. This article attempts to show, using empirical evidence from corpora, why the rule is inaccurate, and different ways that this might be established. As the rule under consideration is typically framed as a tendency (like many other pedagogical grammar rules), an additional aim of the work is to outline the kinds of corpus analyses researchers and materials designers can potentially use in order to investigate the question of (claimed) linguistic tendencies. The article concludes by discussing why a rule that is apparently inaccurate nevertheless appears again and again in print, arguing that the existence of a well-established and widely-accepted ‘canon’ of ELT grammar means that such inaccuracies in descriptions of grammar can be easily perpetuated