Page 61 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 8(2) (2020)
P. 61
ia universitatisPovzetek Instruction 6, no. 2: 79–87. doi: 10.7820/vli.
kor pusni pr istop kot metoda r aziskovanja in učenja tujega strokov nega jezik a 61 v06.2.Anthony
Prispevek utemeljuje rabo korpusne metode kot peda- Bhatia, V. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A
goškodidaktičnega pristopa k uvajanju besedilnih zna- Genre - Based View . London: Continuum.
čilnosti strokovnih jezikov na več jezikovnih ravneh in Bhatia, V. K. 1993. Analysing genre: language use
sicer predvsem pri ugotavljanju semantičnoleksikalnih in professional settings. London: Longman.
značilnosti, pa tudi za analizo skladenjskih, stilističnih, Biber , D. 2006. University Language.
pragmatičnih in žanrskih posebnosti. Teoretske uvide Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
in predloge korpusnih jezikoslovcev poskuša predsta- Biber, D., S. Conrad in R. Reppen. 1998.
viti s primerom večplastne analize in primerjave dveh Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language
strokovnih korpusov z avtentičnimi besedili v anglešči- Structure and Use. Cambridge: CUP.
ni, natančneje korpusa humanističnih ved (kulturologi- Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation
je) in korpusa naravoslovno-tehničnih ved (prometnih – A Cross-Linguistic Comparison.
ved). Članek predstavi uporabo različnih računalniških Cambridge: CUP.
orodij, ki so dostopna na spletu brezplačno, zato lahko Biber, D. in E. Finnegan. 1989. “Style of Stance
služijo učitelju tujega strokovnega jezika za uvajanje no- in English: Lexical and Grammatical
vih pedagoškodidaktičnih pristopov, torej za neposred- Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text
no ali posredno vključevanje korpusnih podatkov o de- 9: 93‒124.
janski avtentični rabi tujega jezika znotraj posamezne Bowker, L. in J. Pearson. 2002. Working with
stroke, s tem pa tudi za ozaveščanje razlik med mater- Specialised Language. A practical guide
nim in tujim jezikom pri ubesedovanju strokovnih vse- to using corpora. London in New York:
bin. Routledge.
Burnard, L. in T. McEnery. 2000. Rethinking
Summary Language Pedagogy from a Corpus
Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
The paper presents a corpus-based approach to dealing Lang.
with LSP at different levels of language analysis, name- Carter, R. in M. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge
ly, in introducing typical lexicosemantic features and Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.
grammatical structures, as well as in discussing style, Carter, R. 1998. Vocabulary. London in New
genre and register variation. The theoretical insights ad- York: Routledge.
vanced by a number of corpus linguists are described as Charles, M. 2007. “Reconciling top-down
a multi-dimensional analysis by means of a comparison and bottom-up approaches to graduate
of two specialist corpora of authentic texts in English, writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical
i.e., a corpus of humanities (cultural studies) and a cor- functions.” Journal of English for Academic
pus of natural sciences and technology (transport and Purposes, 6(4): 289–302.
logistics). The study suggests a number of corpus-re- Conrad, S. 2000. “Will corpus linguistics
search tools, which are freely available on the Internet, revolutionize grammar teaching in 21st
and can help LSP teachers introduce direct or indirect century?” V S. Hunston in G. Thompson.
corpus-based learning methods by researching authen- (ur.), 2nd North American Symposium
tic language use of various scientific domains. Such a on Corpora and Language Teaching, 43–
teaching approach can help raise awareness with regard 57. North Carolina: North Carolina
to the differences in wording of specialist topics be- University Press.
tween mother tongue and a foreign language. Coxhead, A. 2011. “The Academic Word List
Ten Years on: Research and Teaching.”
Viri in literatura Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2): 355–
362.
Anthony, L. 2017. “Corpus Linguistics and
Vocabulary: A Commentary on Four
Studies.” Vocabulary Learning and
kor pusni pr istop kot metoda r aziskovanja in učenja tujega strokov nega jezik a 61 v06.2.Anthony
Prispevek utemeljuje rabo korpusne metode kot peda- Bhatia, V. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A
goškodidaktičnega pristopa k uvajanju besedilnih zna- Genre - Based View . London: Continuum.
čilnosti strokovnih jezikov na več jezikovnih ravneh in Bhatia, V. K. 1993. Analysing genre: language use
sicer predvsem pri ugotavljanju semantičnoleksikalnih in professional settings. London: Longman.
značilnosti, pa tudi za analizo skladenjskih, stilističnih, Biber , D. 2006. University Language.
pragmatičnih in žanrskih posebnosti. Teoretske uvide Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
in predloge korpusnih jezikoslovcev poskuša predsta- Biber, D., S. Conrad in R. Reppen. 1998.
viti s primerom večplastne analize in primerjave dveh Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language
strokovnih korpusov z avtentičnimi besedili v anglešči- Structure and Use. Cambridge: CUP.
ni, natančneje korpusa humanističnih ved (kulturologi- Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation
je) in korpusa naravoslovno-tehničnih ved (prometnih – A Cross-Linguistic Comparison.
ved). Članek predstavi uporabo različnih računalniških Cambridge: CUP.
orodij, ki so dostopna na spletu brezplačno, zato lahko Biber, D. in E. Finnegan. 1989. “Style of Stance
služijo učitelju tujega strokovnega jezika za uvajanje no- in English: Lexical and Grammatical
vih pedagoškodidaktičnih pristopov, torej za neposred- Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text
no ali posredno vključevanje korpusnih podatkov o de- 9: 93‒124.
janski avtentični rabi tujega jezika znotraj posamezne Bowker, L. in J. Pearson. 2002. Working with
stroke, s tem pa tudi za ozaveščanje razlik med mater- Specialised Language. A practical guide
nim in tujim jezikom pri ubesedovanju strokovnih vse- to using corpora. London in New York:
bin. Routledge.
Burnard, L. in T. McEnery. 2000. Rethinking
Summary Language Pedagogy from a Corpus
Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
The paper presents a corpus-based approach to dealing Lang.
with LSP at different levels of language analysis, name- Carter, R. in M. McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge
ly, in introducing typical lexicosemantic features and Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.
grammatical structures, as well as in discussing style, Carter, R. 1998. Vocabulary. London in New
genre and register variation. The theoretical insights ad- York: Routledge.
vanced by a number of corpus linguists are described as Charles, M. 2007. “Reconciling top-down
a multi-dimensional analysis by means of a comparison and bottom-up approaches to graduate
of two specialist corpora of authentic texts in English, writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical
i.e., a corpus of humanities (cultural studies) and a cor- functions.” Journal of English for Academic
pus of natural sciences and technology (transport and Purposes, 6(4): 289–302.
logistics). The study suggests a number of corpus-re- Conrad, S. 2000. “Will corpus linguistics
search tools, which are freely available on the Internet, revolutionize grammar teaching in 21st
and can help LSP teachers introduce direct or indirect century?” V S. Hunston in G. Thompson.
corpus-based learning methods by researching authen- (ur.), 2nd North American Symposium
tic language use of various scientific domains. Such a on Corpora and Language Teaching, 43–
teaching approach can help raise awareness with regard 57. North Carolina: North Carolina
to the differences in wording of specialist topics be- University Press.
tween mother tongue and a foreign language. Coxhead, A. 2011. “The Academic Word List
Ten Years on: Research and Teaching.”
Viri in literatura Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2): 355–
362.
Anthony, L. 2017. “Corpus Linguistics and
Vocabulary: A Commentary on Four
Studies.” Vocabulary Learning and
