Tag Archives: Collins COBUILD

COBUILD: The Evolving Corpus – How corpus use has changed over the years

Size matters when it comes to corpora. At 220 million words of text, the corpus used to create the second edition of the COBUILD dictionary in 1995 was over ten times the size of the one used for the first edition, and 220 times bigger than the first electronic corpora developed in the 1960s and early 1970s. Yet it was tiny compared to those we use today, some of which amount to billions, not millions of words.

To give an idea of the amount of information involved: suppose you are compiling a medium-frequency verb like proclaim. In the British National Corpus (BNC), which was fixed in 1993 at around 100 million words and has not been expanded since, there are just over 1,000 results (known as ‘citations’) for proclaim. It is possible, given time and the necessary expertise, to look at every one of these citations and give a good account of the word’s meanings and behaviour in a dictionary entry (or elsewhere).

But what about a high-frequency word like take (174,000 citations in the BNC) or hand (just under 50,000)? In today’s huge corpora the numbers are far greater: the most frequent words have tens of millions of citations, while some (and, the, he, have and so on) number in the hundreds of millions. Even relatively uncommon words can have tens of thousands of citations.

Concordance lines for chair, generated by the corpus

Concordance lines for chair, generated by the corpus

Fortunately there are software tools and other methods for efficiently extracting the information that corpora hold. Modern corpus search software gives an overall picture of a word by displaying it on the screen in a way that shows how it combines with other words. It shows the search word together with its collocates – the words it combines with most frequently – and tells you how significant these combinations are. Each collocational or grammatical chunk displayed can be expanded, allowing you to examine it in more detail if necessary.

The other essential tool in a lexicographer’s armoury is sampling. It was one of the insights of COBUILD’s founder, Professor John Sinclair, that you can tell a great deal about a word’s meanings and behaviour from a small representative sample of corpus citations: in many cases a screenful or two is enough. So, a combination of the overview of a word’s collocational and grammatical behaviour, together with a more detailed look at a small sample of lines, generally provides sufficient information to compile a new entry or revise an existing one.

It is worth remembering that corpora could not have expanded to their current enormous size without fast computer connections. In my early days as a freelancer, when dial-up was the only type of connection widely available, you could literally start a corpus search for a frequent word, go away and make a cup of tea, and come back to find the search was still running. Today with high-speed broadband a search even for a very frequent word returns a result within a few seconds.

Corpora are used today in many different ways for different purposes on different dictionary projects. At its most basic, a corpus can provide authentic examples of how a word is used. At the other end of the scale, detailed corpus analysis continues to reveal new and surprising information about the collocational and grammatical behaviour of even the most familiar words. As new ways of using language come into being, a regularly updated corpus allows us to keep track of them. While the ways in which corpora are built and used have changed greatly over the past thirty years, it has become more or less unthinkable to compile or revise a dictionary without reference to the evidence provided by a corpus.


This blogpost has been written by Liz Potter, who is a freelance lexicographer, editor and translator.

Find out more about our new editions of the Collins COBUILD dictionaries and other COBUILD materials here.

COBUILD: Shifting senses – How the meanings of words change

In the 30 years since the publication of the first COBUILD dictionary, a whole flurry of new words has come into the language and as they’ve caught on and become part of everyday usage, they’ve been added to the dictionary.

I’m not just talking about the trendy new coinages that occasionally hit the headlines; think omnishambles, binge-watch or post-truth. Most of these never become used widely or frequently enough to make it into a learner’s dictionary like COBUILD. The occasional exception is words like selfie, which appeared and became ubiquitous with surprising speed. More interesting, perhaps, are new uses of existing words which sneak into our vocabularies almost unnoticed.

In 1987, the meanings of post were all about mail, sticks in the ground, and jobs, no mention back then of the kind of post many of us put on social media daily now. Clicking was still just about making a noise, not something you do to a link, which itself was still a generic connection rather than a way of switching between webpages. And a thread was a piece of cotton or the flow of your argument, rather than a series of online comments.

The entry for click from the first edition (1987)

The entry for click from the first edition (1987)

The entry for click from the ninth edition (2018)

The entry for click from the ninth edition (2018)

Not all these shifts have been in the online world either, other technological developments have also generated new usages. Back in the 80s, wireless was just an old-fashioned word for radio. Nowadays, you might have wireless headphones, speakers, microphones, or keyboards. If you talk about a hybrid now, you’re more likely to be referring to a type of semi-electric car than a plant or animal bred from two different species.

The entry for wireless from the first edition (1987)

The entry for wireless from the first edition (1987)

The entry for wireless from the ninth edition

The entry for wireless from the ninth edition

With each new edition of a dictionary, lexicographers are keeping an eye on corpus data to see what new words are coming into use, and also to pick up on new senses of familiar words. Like new coinages, new uses need to reach a certain frequency and distribution threshold for inclusion, first in larger native-speaker dictionaries, then, as they become more common-place into learner’s dictionaries too. Which words do you think might take on new meanings in the coming years?

Photographs taken from shutterstock.com


This blog post has been written by Julie Moore, who is an ELT lexicographer and materials writer.

Find out more about our new editions of the Collins COBUILD dictionaries and other COBUILD materials here.

COBUILD: The early years. Part 2 – A dictionary from a corpus

By the time I arrived at COBUILD as part of the 1993 intake recruited to work on the second edition of the dictionary, the whole project had been fully computerised for several years. This meant working on screen at terminals linked to mainframe computers that hummed away in a separate room, still with the green text on a black background, as described by Andrew Delahunty in Part 1. The mainframe computers were named after Shakespeare characters –Titania was one – and would occasionally overheat and need time to recover, giving us the afternoon off.

A mainframe computer, similar to those used at the University of Birmingham in the 1990s

A mainframe computer, similar to those used at the University of Birmingham in the 1990s

There was a pleasing contrast between the high-tech, cutting-edge nature of the project and the elegant Victorian building where we worked, with its large sash windows overlooking a beautiful garden where we would sometimes eat our lunch in the summer. It was also a great place for seminars and parties, both of which would bring in members of the English department of the University of Birmingham to which COBUILD was attached and the wider university.

Compiling on screen using a purpose-built text editor required the acquisition of a whole new set of skills, since I had only ever worked on paper; but what really blew my mind was the corpus. Previously I had only seen concordances – the output of a corpus – on paper, since on my previous project we were able to request a printed sample of lines for particularly tricky entries. Engaging at close quarters with the corpus was a revelation. I was almost paralysed for several weeks, overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of the data I was expected to process. This corpus – soon to be rebranded as The Bank of English – was tiny by today’s standards, but the insights it provided into the behaviour of English were like nothing I had ever come across before.

Concordance lines for chair, generated by the corpus

Concordance lines for chair, generated by the corpus

At COBUILD we worked with the corpus differently from the way I have ever known it to be used anywhere else. Using specially developed software, we lexicographers (and grammarians) would analyse the evidence for the word we were compiling. We would then base our revisions of existing entries from the first edition, as well as all the new entries and senses we were adding, on that evidence. We were a large team and there was always a colleague available to discuss problematic entries or tricky decisions on how to divide up senses, but the evidence provided by the corpus was the basis of everything we did. I don’t think we ever looked at another learner’s dictionary. It sounds horribly arrogant, but we had no need to; we had all the material we needed right there in front of us.

I have worked on many corpus-based dictionaries and other projects since, and I rarely work on a dictionary that does not use corpus evidence to some degree. A corpus is always my first port of call when I encounter a new word or meaning. However, I think the COBUILD dictionary remains unique in being based so directly and completely on what only a corpus can give, which is evidence of how the language actually works.


This blog post has been written by Liz Potter, who is a freelance lexicographer, editor and translator.

Find out more about our new editions of the Collins COBUILD dictionaries and other COBUILD materials here.

COBUILD: Design and Layout – Changes over the last 30 years

Where were you 30 years ago? I was in the middle of my university studies, still to embark on my ELT career, and as such, a smidgin too late to be part of the intrepid and free-spirited COBUILD dictionary team. Led by the late John Sinclair, this large young team was involved in bringing to life his vision: to create a dictionary for learners that was based on a large digital language database – or a corpus. The corpus would be used for analysing word frequencies, for identifying new uses, collocations, colligation, connotation, and typical contexts for words and phrases. Definitions would be written in full sentences in the type of everyday English a teacher might use to explain a word to a learner, with the added advantage that users would see how the word would work in a sentence.

Looking back at the pages of that first edition, you might be struck by the density of the page design. It seems that we now need our text to be broken up with white space, boxes and varying fonts and colours: our modern brains seem to need a bit of a break between lines and entries. Was my intrepid and free-spirited self really so much better at reading tiny words all squished together on a page? Well, the answer is probably yes, as I remember my first encounters with COBUILD dictionaries were ones of delight; I don’t recall thinking ‘What? How do you expect me to wade through all of that?’

A page from the first edition of COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

A page from the first edition of COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

The other feature that jumps out at us from the pages of the first edition is the ‘extra column’. This was a narrow column down the right-hand side of each main column of dictionary text. It provided information on parts of speech and typical syntactical patterns, such as ‘V + O’ (= verb plus object) for transitive verbs, so that students didn’t have to search through the denser dictionary text for this type of information. Parts of speech were very specific; for example, adjectives might be ADJ CLASSIF: ATTRIB (a classifying adjective that occurs in attributive position) or ADJ QUALIT (a qualitative adjective), and verbs could be V ERG (ergative verb), v-link (linking verb) or V + O (transitive verb). The user can see the examples of use in the main dictionary text next to this information.

See the ‘extra column’ information for accusation below:

An extract from the entry accusation from the first edition

An extract from the entry accusation from the first edition

The ‘extra column’ information here means:

Accusation is a countable noun. If it’s followed by a preposition, then that preposition is of or against (e.g. accusations of cheating). It can also be followed by a reporting clause, as in The accusation against us was that we were biased.

COBUILD’s ‘extra column’ was something of a showcase for the incredible amount of hard work that lexicographers and grammarians put into analysing the newly-built corpus. It told us all sorts of previously undocumented facts about how the English language works.

Sadly, though, the extra column was not to survive. Market research told us that most learners did not read or even understand the vast majority of information in the extra column and in 2008 it was quietly put out to grass. The information in the extra column was re-worked with the modern learner in mind. The reintegration of much of the material into the main text meant that the main columns could be widened and more words and meanings could be covered in the same number of pages.

So, what does our mature 30-year-old dictionary look like now? Well, it has grown into an incredibly user-friendly go-to treasure trove of the English language, thanks to its sophisticated font design, useful information boxes, colourful images, and plenty of restful white space. It has a hugely popular online sibling, available at www.collinsdictionaries.com, and has inspired learners and lexicographers alike to use corpora to continue to learn ever-more fascinating facts about our language. Happy 30th birthday, COBUILD!

A page from the ninth edition, published in 2018

A page from the ninth edition, published in 2018


This blog post has been written by Penny Hands, who is an ELT lexicographer and materials editor.

Find out more about our new editions of the Collins COBUILD dictionaries and other COBUILD materials here.

COBUILD: The early years. Part 1 – Where it all began

I have always counted myself as incredibly fortunate to have worked as part of the COBUILD team at the time that I did, between October 1983 and the end of 1986. I was not quite 24 when I arrived in Birmingham, not knowing one end of a dictionary definition from another. By the time I left I was pretty sure lexicography was going to be my career and, over 30 years later, I’m still doing it.

My three years at COBUILD spanned the move in compiling practice from paper to computer. For the first year or so we were writing out individual dictionary entries on slips of paper, in much the same way that Samuel Johnson, James Murray, and all our other illustrious predecessors had done before us.

Pink slips were for each sense of a headword, on which we’d write the definition together with accompanying syntactic (and other) information. White slips were for individual example sentences selected from the corpus, all 7.3 million words of it, together with any example-specific information that needed recording. I can remember laying out on the floor a mosaic of hundreds of slips for a long, complicated word like live or way, shuffling all these meanings around into various groupings in an effort to settle on the best arrangement. An academic paper could be written on the role of the floor in lexicography. Once compiled, entries were then typed up into the dictionary database.

The slip of paper used for compiling the entry veritable

The slip of paper used for compiling the entry veritable

The equivalent entry for veritable once typed up into the dictionary database

The equivalent entry for veritable once typed up into the dictionary database

The corpus, the primary evidence for all our observations about the language, may have been created computationally, but initially we consulted that on paper too, in the form of printed-out concordances. In the early days of compiling we’d often highlight with coloured felt-tip pens individual concordance lines that illustrated different meanings of a word.

Concordances for veritable from the 7.3 million word corpus

Concordances for veritable from the 7.3 million word corpus

Within a year or so, lexicographers were compiling and editing text directly into the dictionary database on newly-installed computer terminals, displaying green text on a black background. Compiling a dictionary on a computer was hugely innovative at the time but within a few years this would become the norm. So, I have a real sense of having been present at a moment of transition as one great lexicographical tradition was coming to an end and another was taking its first steps.

We were a fairly young team and for many of us this was our first experience of lexicography. So, I didn’t then have much to compare it with, in terms of methods and approach. But there was certainly a palpable buzz about the place. We knew we were doing something new. In some ways, it was only once the dictionary was published that I began to appreciate quite how radical and groundbreaking the COBUILD project was.

Look out for Part 2 coming soon…


This blogpost has been written by Andrew Delahunty, who is a freelance lexicographer, dictionary editor and reference book author with almost 35 years’ experience.

Find out more about our new editions of the Collins COBUILD dictionaries and other COBUILD materials here.

New editions of Collins COBUILD Dictionaries – Out now!

In celebration of COBUILD’s 30th anniversary, Collins is proud to launch new editions of its three most popular Collins COBUILD dictionaries, out today:

  • Primary Learner’s Dictionary
  • Intermediate Learner’s Dictionary
  • Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

To find out more about these dictionaries, take a look at our new COBUILD Dictionaries leaflet.

So what’s new?

  • Up-to-date coverage of today’s English – based on the constantly updated 4.5-billion-word database of today’s English language, the Collins Corpus
  • Authentic examples – real-life examples of English from the Collins Corpus show how words are used in everyday language
  • Vocabulary-building features – brand-new features on collocation, word history, usage and synonyms to help learners use English with accuracy and confidence
  • New supplements – offer guidance on effective communication in English
  • Full sentence definitions – all words and phrases are covered in depth and explained in full sentences to show words in context
  • Frequency – the most important words are clearly highlighted to indicate which to learn first.

Authentic English at your fingertips

www.collinselt.com/cobuild 

Exploring language change

collins cobuild grammarThis article has been written by Penny Hands, who is one of the contributors to the Collins COBUILD English Grammar

When a new edition of a grammar is launched, teachers and students may well wonder what can be new about a grammar. We all know about new words, which grab the headlines at every new edition of a big dictionary, but what does an editor do when she is asked to update a pedagogical grammar, taking account of developments that have occurred in the language over the past 20-or-so years?

First, let’s look at why grammar changes and where, in the case of English at least, changes might come from.

Swan (2016) identifies eight reasons why the grammar of a language can change:

  1. Communicative need: despite modern English having only one form of the pronoun you for both singular and plural use, people still feel the need to distinguish between singular and plural. More about this later.
  2. Influence from other varieties: modern British English is constantly being influenced by American English, as well as the dialects of immigrants who settle in the UK, as can be seen in the rise of all-purpose question tags such as right? and innit.
  3. Languages simplify themselves: an example of this is the move away from the use of the past perfect, e.g. When I read over my essay again, I realized I made a mistake.
  4. Small distinctions are confused or disappear, as in those between less and fewer (e.g. There were less people there than last year) and who and whom (e.g. Who do you work for?).
  5. New forms and uses spread, as in what has become known as ‘quotative like’ (I was like, ‘What?’).
  6. ‘Outlawed’ forms become respectable again: people seem to be becoming more tolerant of uses that were, until recently, considered grammatically wrong. Examples of this type of thing are splitting infinitives, starting a sentence with a conjunction, and ending one with a preposition.
  7. ‘Mistakes’ become part of the language: in an earlier blogpost, we examined the grey area between mistakes and nonstandard English. Utterances such as Me and Amy went to the park, which might have been considered as mistakes until only recently, are now being gradually (and often grudgingly) accepted into the spoken language as they are used by increasing numbers of younger people.
  8. Phonetically weak forms disappear: particularly in spoken English, unstressed words and syllables gradually disappear over time, giving utterances like You gonna be long in there? or Gotta go now.

A ninth reason that I would add to Swan’s list is sociocultural change. This can be demonstrated by the fact that for many years, it was perfectly acceptable to refer back to an indefinite pronoun such as someone with a masculine pronoun (he, him) or a possessive determiner (his), as in Everyone should do his best. However, many people are no longer comfortable using a masculine form to refer to people in general – they feel that language should be less male-biased – and this has led to a sharp increase in the use of generic they/their.

As a first step then, when we were planning the latest edition of Collins COBUILD English Grammar, we identified several areas of the language where we had observed that things seemed to have changed. A team of researchers then used the Collins Corpus to trace their development over the past 20 years, with some interesting results.

We wanted to choose areas where we felt there had been a recent change, or where traditional explanations didn’t seem to tell the whole story. Here are the topics we selected:

1.   generic pronouns and determiners
2.   stative verbs used with progressive aspect
3.   unmodified much in affirmative statements
4.   be like as a reporting structure
5.   plural forms of you
6.   all-purpose question tags

For each area of grammar that we selected, we searched for examples of that grammar point in the Collins Corpus. We compared UK and US English and spoken and written English, and we also looked at how English has changed over the period in question. Paragraphs in bold below denote extracts from the latest edition of Collins COBUILD English Grammar.

The results were fascinating:

1. Generic pronouns and determiners: we found that generic they (or them, their, themselves) is much more frequent than either the masculine form he (or him, his, himself), or a gender-neutral alternative such as he or she. Generic they is becoming more frequent, and is found in both spoken and written English.

Generic they is also used in formal language, and it is even sometimes used when the gender is known (‘Ask the young mothers and no one will say they regret having their baby.’)

2. Stative verbs used with progressive aspect: despite the accepted ‘rule’ that stative verbs do not appear in progressive forms, we found lots of examples in the Collins Corpus where they occurred quite frequently and naturally in the progressive, and we’re not just talking about the famous I’m lovin’ it slogan. For example, we found verbs like want (as in I’ve been wanting to talk to you about this for a while) and forgetting (as in Oops, I’m forgetting my manners!), rolling naturally off people’s tongues.

          You can use the present perfect progressive or past perfect progressive with                         some stative verbs in both formal and informal contexts.

          I’ve been wanting to speak to you about this for some time.
          John has been keeping birds for about three years now.
          Then she heard it. The sound she had been hearing in her head for weeks.

3. Unmodified much in affirmative statements: the usual rule given in pedagogical grammars is that you use much with uncountable nouns and many with countable nouns. Some grammars also point out that they are not usually used in positive sentences (*We have many biscuits. *We have much time.)

We were interested in much because, to an even greater extent than many, it seems to be restricted mainly to questions and negatives, and to cases where it is modified by an adverb, e.g. too much, so much. Unmodified statements such as *We have much time and *I have much work to do seem incorrect, and we wanted to find out how frequent they are. We found that this usage had indeed fallen out of use over the last 20 years, but we also found that assertive, unmodified much does occur, naturally and abundantly, with certain nouns in a restricted set of semantic fields:

  • discussion (much talk/discussion/debate/argument)
  • thought (much speculation/deliberation/doubt)
  • study (much research/study)
  • attention (much attention/interest)
  • excitement (much excitement/laughter/fun/fanfare).

          In more formal English, much can be used in affirmative statements without
          an adverb. This usage is most common with abstract nouns, particularly those 
          relating to discussion, debate and research.

          The subject of company and annual accounts is generating much debate among
          accountants and analysts.
          The team’s findings have caused much excitement among medical experts.
          After much speculation, intelligence agencies now believe that he survived.

4. be like as a reporting verb: we were interested in this fairly new use, as in At first, I was like,no, what are you talking about? Our corpus research showed us that be like has become a lot more frequent over the past 20 years, especially in American English. The most common usage is in the first person (I was like … or We were like …), but we also found that the second most frequent usage is with it. It was like … or It’s like … is often used to sum up a general feeling or situation, for example, When I was a teenager, that song came on the radio and it was like, Oh, my God!

          Another reporting structure that is used in informal spoken English is be like. Be
          
like can represent either speech or thought. In writing, be like is usually followed
          by a comma. The quote is sometimes in quotation marks, and sometimes not.

          He got a call from Oprah, and he was like, ‘Of course I’ll go on your show.’
          He‘s like, ‘It’s boring! I hate chess!’ And I‘m like, ‘Please teach me!’
          The minute I met him, I was like, he’s perfect. 

          As with other reporting verbs, you can use be like with a noun or a person pronoun:
          for example, you can say She was like, …, The doctor was like, … or Jane was like, …,
          followed by the thing that she/the doctor/Jane said or thought.

          Unlike other reporting verbs, you can also use be like after the pronoun it. This
          structure is often used to present a mixture of speech and thought, or a general
          situation. For example, if you say It was like, Oh wow! it is possible that nobody
          actually said or thought Oh wow! Rather, the sentence gives us an idea of the
          situation and means something like It was amazing/surprising.

          So I get back in the bus, quarter of an hour passes and it’s like, Where’s Graham?
          When that happened it was like, Oh, no, not again.
          Be like always comes before the reported clause.

5. Plural forms of you: as mentioned earlier, you doubles up as both singular and plural second person pronoun in modern English, and mostly, it does quite a good job. However, people do sometimes need to make the distinction, and we were keen to find out more about how they do this. We looked at both lexicalized forms: you guys, you two, you both and you all, and more synthesized forms: yous, youse, youz, ye, yinz, y’all, and found that all types were alive and kicking, particularly on social media sites. The only form that had taken a downturn in UK English was you all, counterbalanced by a steep rise in the use of you guys.

          Some varieties and dialects of English have developed particular forms of
          plural you. In American English, particularly Southern American English, y’all is                     sometimes used, especially in speech.

          What did y’all eat for breakfast?
          I want to thank y’all.

          In some dialects of British and American English, yous and youse are used as plural               forms: I know what some of yous might be thinking. 

6. All-purpose question tags: this is one of the developments we’ve looked at for the latest edition, in particular question tags associated with other varieties of English (US, and increasingly UK, English, … right? and multicultural British English innit). We found a huge rise in the use of innit in British English, and these findings, alongside other emerging forms, have been translated into the new edition of Collins COBUILD English Grammar.

          In informal spoken English, you can use a one-word all-purpose question tag such               as right? or eh?

          You’re American, right?
          He’s a lawyer, right?
          Let’s talk about something else, eh?
          Not good, eh?

          In some varieties of English, particularly those spoken in India, Singapore and                       Malaysia, isn’t it? is used as an all-purpose question tag.

          We’ve seen that film already, isn’t it? 
          They’re arriving tomorrow, isn’t it?

          Informal multicultural British English uses the common all-purpose question tag                 innit (a shortened form of isn’t it), both with and without a rising question mark.

          It makes you think though, innit?
          It’s all just a bit of fun, innit?
          So eventually he gave me the sack, innit.

Have you noticed any developments in the grammar of English since you started learning or teaching it? To what extent do you think these new forms should be taught?

 

Explore this topic in greater detail with our free guided worksheet.

 

——————————–

References:

Swan, M. (2016) Practical English Usage Oxford University Press

Futurity

collins cobuild grammar

 

This article has been written by Damian Williams, who is an ELT author and teacher trainer.

 

Very early on in my teaching career, I remember addressing a class of Russian teenagers with the statement, ‘Will is the future tense in English.’ It was only later as I started developing as a teacher and gaining greater insight into the grammatical system of English that I started to see that there’s much more to will than meets the eye. Consider the following examples:

               A: Where’s Ben?
               B: Oh, it’s 4 p.m., he’ll be in the pub.

Or:

               I sent her the documents two weeks ago, so she’ll have received them by last Friday.

In the examples above we can see that will refers to the present (first example), and the past (second example). So what’s going on here? Collins COBUILD English Grammar (2017) has this to say on futurity in English:

                It is not possible to talk with as much certainty about the future as it is about the                           present or past. Any reference you make to future events is therefore usually an                             expression of what you think might happen or what you intend to happen.

In fact there is no future tense in English, per se. What we have instead is a myriad of different ways of describing the future, depending on how we view the events. In our earlier post on modality and conditionals, we described all modals as allowing us to add our attitude to what we’re saying. Will is a modal, and when we add it to a sentence, what we’re saying is that from everything we know about the situation, we see the event as inevitable. In this sense, it’s a way of making predictions about inevitable outcomes, and that’s exactly what’s happening in the two examples above. But this doesn’t make it a future tense.

This perception of will as a future tense often gets carried over into what are described as the future progressive and the future perfect ‘tenses’. But as we saw in an earlier post, what we’re really describing here is aspect rather than tense. Consider this example:

               This time next year I’ll be studying for my finals.

Here, we’re using will as a modal to show what we think of as the inevitable outcome of being in our penultimate year of university, coupled with the progressive aspect to show this will be in progress at a particular point in the future.

Now consider this example:

               By the time she’s 40 she’ll have been a teacher for 15 years.

Here, we’re again using the modal will, but this time along with the perfect aspect to show an action that’s true now and will continue up to that point.

There are various other ways of talking about the future in English, such as using the present simple to describe events we have no control over (e.g. I’m 27 next year). We also use be going to to describe plans/intentions (e.g. I’m going to start a band this summer), the present progressive to describe arrangements (e.g. I’m having dinner with an old friend tomorrow), be to for formal arrangements and instructions (e.g. The President is to announce a new tax on property), and be due to and be about to for events we expect to happen soon (e.g. The train’s about to leave).

And those are just the grammatical ways of expressing future time. We can also express future events lexically; certain verbs, for example, have a future meaning (e.g. promise, expect, hope, etc.). These verbs are usually followed by an infinitive. Collins COBUILD English Grammar also gives us ways of making our references to the future more vague (e.g. by adding an adverbial phrase such as one of these days, sometime, sooner or later).

The way in which we talk about the future does not depend only on how we perceive the event, but also on how we want it to be perceived. For example, if I’m at my in-laws and I want to watch the football, I could say, ‘I’m going to watch the football’. However, I don’t want it to be seen as a plan or intention, so I might instead go for something like, ‘I’ll just see what’s on TV … Oh look, it’s the football!’

Consider the following exchanges, too:

1
A:          Hi Damian, would you like to come to my English grammar party on Saturday night?
B:          Oh, I’m sorry, I’m going to watch a movie that night.

2
A:          Hi Damian, would you like to come to my English grammar party on Saturday night?
B:          Oh, I’m sorry, I’m watching a movie that night.

Consider which is likely to get a response of Don’t do that. Come to the party instead! and which is likely to elicit Oh, OK then. Have fun!. Most likely, conversation 1 will get the first response and conversation 2 will get the second, as the response in conversation 2 sounds like a firmer arrangement.

Learners looking for a quick and easy-to-learn ‘future tense’ in English may initially be disappointed. But once they have an understanding of the ways the language can be manipulated, they will have at their disposal a wealth of ways to express themselves. Being in possession of all the available options also gives them access to a much more expressive and malleable area of language than they would get with a hard-and-fast tense with strict rules. After all, why have water when you can have fresh juice?

Explore this topic in greater detail with our free guided worksheet.

Nonstandard usage or error: where should we draw the line?

collins cobuild grammar

 

 

 

 

This article has been written by Penny Hands, who is one of the contributors to the Collins COBUILD English Grammar.

If we’re going to talk about nonstandard English, it’s a good idea to start by asking what Standard English (SE) is.

As David Crystal (1994) states in his article ‘What is Standard English?’:

          [It is] the variety of English which carries most prestige.

He goes on to quote US linguist James Sledd as observing that SE is:

          the English used by the powerful.

But where did this variety of English come from? Well, as with many of these things, it happened through pure accident, thanks to a victory by King Alfred over forces in the north of England in 878 AD. Because of this, the government became established in London, and so the type of English spoken in southern England became the British English standard, and has remained so throughout the centuries, even though it has changed dramatically over that time.

Standard English is only one of the many varieties of English used in the UK and the world today. What distinguishes it from other varieties is the fact that it is not locally based. Indeed, British SE can be spoken in a wide variety of accents including Scottish and Welsh, as well as the prestigious ‘Received Pronunciation’ of the influential classes (also controversially known as ‘Oxford English’, ‘the Queen’s English’, or ‘BBC English’).

Many people are surprised to find out that British SE is actually a minority variety, that is, it is spoken by very few people. Since these are generally people who are in a position of power and usually highly educated, SE is the desirable form that is often aspired to.

There are plenty of good reasons for establishing a standard form of a language; for example, it enables the media to reach as many people as possible, and children can be taught homogeneously so that they are not at a disadvantage if they move to another part of the country. The downside is that the existence of a standard leads many people to regard local varieties as ‘substandard’ or as an indication of ignorance.

Let us now turn to nonstandard English. As will have become clear from the discussion above, nonstandard English is any variety (or dialect) that does not conform to the nominated norm. While nonstandard grammar may be regarded by some as ‘incorrect’, it is actually just the grammar of a particular variety. What people really mean is that certain forms are not appropriate in more formal situations. Most people would avoid using their local dialect in a job application, for example.

A nonstandard variety might be geographically based, or it might be typical of a certain group in society, such as the young or people of certain ethnic backgrounds. Here are some examples:

Geographically based varieties:

The car needs washed. (instead of … needs to be washed: Scottish)

Your man’s after buying another drink. (instead of … has just bought …: Irish)

I were right proud of you, son. (instead of I was …: Yorkshire)

Are yous all coming to the party? (instead of Are you all …: Scottish, Geordie, Northern Irish)

Varieties used by particular groups in society:

I got fired, innit. (instead of ... didn’t I? British multicultural English)

She was like, ‘What are you on about?’ (instead of She said …: mainly young people)

I’m liking the new lipstick. (instead of I like …: social media users, journalists, advertisers)

While many of us get a lot of pleasure from the various regionalisms we hear as we travel around the country, there are plenty more who rail against the use of nonstandard grammar, particularly when it comes from their children or their students.

A 2014 worksheet provided by BBC Voices (a series of lesson plans for use when teaching pupils about accent and dialect) tries to put things into perspective. The teacher’s notes exhort educators to help students to ‘recognise how the grammar of their native dialect differs from that of Standard English’. The sub-text here seems to be that young people should not be pilloried for speaking a dialect; instead, they should simply be made aware of which variety to use when.

While many educators are coming to understand this need to respect local varieties, and starting to simply point out the differences between these and Standard English, there are many more who are far less willing to accept varieties such as those listed in the second section above – varieties that are used by particular groups in society. These are often forms that have made their way into the language more recently, leading those who prefer the status quo to berate younger people for their ‘slovenly’ ways.

An article on the BBC website back in September 2010 reported on how Emma Thompson, the much-loved British actor of Nanny McPhee and Love Actually, fumes at the sound of those ‘sloppy’ teenage words such as the filler like and the all-purpose question tag innit. Interviewed by the journalist, the then editor of the Collins English Dictionary explained that like is simply a filler, just like um. He went on to note that:

          When words break out of a specific use and become commonly used in a different way,                         people come down on them. […] Using um may seem more correct to Emma Thompson                         because using like as a filler is not a feature of the language she uses. The more                                     disassociated you are from the group that uses the word in a different way, the more that                     use stands out. It will be invisible to teenagers.

As a descriptive grammar, Collins COBUILD English Grammar records a wide variety of examples of this type. Careful analysis of the Collins Corpus has enabled us to identify typical contexts for such new forms as the all-purpose question tag innit, quotative like, and the use of stative verbs with progressive aspect, always with a usage note explaining that these forms are nonstandard, or appropriate only in spoken, informal situations.

Other examples of language change that are gradually coming to be accepted as standard rather than errors are:

Me and Amy went to the park. (instead of Amy and I …)

If I was better at cooking, I’d have a dinner party. (instead of If I were …)

Who did you want to speak to? (instead of Whom did you want …)

There were less than 20 people in the audience. (instead of … fewer than 20 people …)

So, if all of these various nonstandard examples are not errors, what does count as an error?

Michael Swan (2016) identifies four types of ‘true’ error:

  1.  slips of the tongue
  2.  using a word wrongly because you are confusing it with another word, or you are not sure of its meaning
  3.  errors of spelling or punctuation
  4.  foreign learner mistakes

Language teachers need to be aware of the latter in particular, but even then, things are not cut and dried. Since English is used globally as a lingua franca, often between non-native speakers, it can be heavily influenced by speakers’ first languages. Linguists have identified certain common features of ‘ELF’ (English as a lingua franca), questioning whether these should be regarded as errors at all in global communications, particularly since they do not impede communication. Examples of ‘ELF’ grammar include dropping the 3rd person s in the present simple, leaving out articles, and using all-purpose questions tags such as isn’t it. The ELF discussion raises a whole new set of questions for both learners and teachers, but as Scott Thornbury concludes in his 2011 ‘E is for ELF’ article:

          It is the learner, in the end, who must decide what code best serves his or her needs, and what             is achievable in the available time and with the available resources.

Explore this topic in greater detail with our free guided worksheet .

——————————

References:

Crystal, D. (1994) ‘What is Standard English?’ Concorde, English-Speaking Union, 24–26

Swan, M. (2016) Practical English Usage, Oxford University Press

Thornbury, S. (2011) https://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/e-is-for-elf/

BBC news website (2010) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11426737

BBC Voices (2014) http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/schools/worksheets/pdf/weather_teachers.pdf

Modality and conditionals

collins cobuild grammarThis article has been written by Damian Williams, who is an ELT author and teacher trainer.

Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?

Sun Tzu

 The quote above, attributed to an ancient Chinese military strategist, is often used in leadership training to encourage people to act on their ideas and see them through to completion. But we’re interested in it for another reason: the language it contains, namely modals and a conditional sentence. In this blogpost we’re going to discuss each of these areas of language in turn.

Modality

Consider the following statements:

1  Mr Wilkins is the oldest person in the village.

2  Mr Wilkins must be the oldest person in the village.

How many people are referred to (either explicitly or implicitly) in each statement? The correct answer is one person in statement 1, and two people in statement 2. If we rephrase statement 2, it reads something like:

From everything I know about the people in the village, I’m certain Mr Wilkins is the oldest person in the village.

Or even just:

I’m certain Mr Wilkins is the oldest person in the village.

As you can see, there are now two people explicitly referred to in the statement: ‘I’ and ‘Mr Wilkins’. This example is taken from Collins COBUILD English Grammar (2017), which states that:

Modals are mainly used when you want to show your attitude towards what you
are saying, or when you are concerned about the effect of what you are saying on                       the person to whom you are speaking or writing.

This is what all modals share – the fact that they allow us to express our attitude to the facts. Each modal does this in a different way, but in effect every time we use a modal it’s the same as saying I think it’s that … . For example:

It might rain later. = I think it’s possible that it will rain later.

You should eat fewer carbs. = I think it’s a good idea that you eat fewer carbs.

England will win the World Cup. = I think it’s inevitable that England is going to win.

This allows us to understand why some modals and ‘semi-modals’ behave the way they do. For example, must is a modal, i.e. it allows us to say I think it’s obligatory that … . Have to, on the other hand, is not a modal. If we use this to talk about an obligation, it’s seen as more of a fact. Compare these examples:

Helmets must be worn at all times.

You have to eat or you die.

The first statement describes an obligation created and enforced by people – if you don’t, then they will punish you. The second statement describes an obligation created and enforced by nobody, it’s just a fact of life.

In their positive forms, they have fairly similar meanings. But when we look at the negatives, the difference becomes clearer.

You mustn’t use your mobile in the library.

You don’t have to wear smart clothes if you don’t want to.

In the first statement, there is a negative obligation, created by people. In the second statement, there is no obligation. This is why have to is not a modal – its negative form subtracts its meaning rather than negating it.

Another ‘semi modal’ is need, which works both as a modal and as a verb. We can see the difference in the same way when we look at its negative form:

There’s nobody here – we needn’t have arrived so early!

We didn’t need to arrive early so we got there at 9.

In the first statement, need is acting like a modal: we’re saying that we only realized the lack of necessity when we said this sentence (or From everything I now know about the situation, I think it’s unnecessary…). In the second statement, need acts like an ordinary verb, and so, as was the case with don’t have to, the negative form subtracts its meaning rather than negating it.

Another important aspect of modals is how they refer to time, which we discussed in our previous post: tense and aspect. According to Lewis (1986:52):

… modality allows the speaker to introduce a personal interpretation of the non-factual and non-temporal elements of the event.

In other words, modals allow us to express our attitude at the time of speaking. This is important as it helps us understand why modals don’t have past forms. Of course could and would are often used as the ‘past’ forms of can and should, but in fact these behave more like remote forms (see our previous post).

When we use modals to refer to past events, we use the perfect aspect to show that we are expressing our opinion now, referring to a past event. The perfect aspect allows us to link these times:

You could have told me you weren’t coming! = I think (now) it was possible for you to have told me in the past (and it’s annoying me now!)

We should’ve brought more money. = I think now that it would have been a good idea to bring more money.

Another area in which time plays an important role is exemplified by the original quote from Sun Tzu: conditional clauses.

Conditionals

Conditionals are often taught as one of four forms:

Zero conditional: present condition, present result; the situation is certain.

If you heat ice, it melts.

First conditional: present/future condition, future result; the situation is likely.

If she gets here on time, we’ll start as planned.

Second conditional: present/future condition, present/future result; the situation is hypothetical.

If Jack did more exercise, he’d lose weight.

Third conditional: past condition, past result; the situation is hypothetical.

If my parents hadn’t met, I wouldn’t have been born.

With this in mind, consider which type of conditionals these are:

If Sally would make more of an effort, she’d have more friends.

If he’s arrived, I’ll speak to him.

If you were going to speak to me like that, I’d tell you to stop.

If Tony hadn’t asked for a place, he wasn’t going to get one at all.

While they don’t fit the ‘rules’ above very nicely, these are all perfectly acceptable sentences. Perhaps more useful is to look at the function of conditional clauses in general terms. Collins COBUILD English Grammar states:

When you want to talk about a possible situation and its consequences, you use a conditional clause.

It then goes on to make the distinction between situations that sometimes exist or existed, situations that you know do not exist and situations that may exist in the future.

This is a useful distinction to make in terms of how we teach conditional clauses – those which talk about real possibilities and those which discuss hypothetical reasons. This then allows us to open up even more language, such as:

A:         I wish it was Saturday.

B:         Why?

A:         Because if it was Saturday, I’d be lying on the beach right now.

The forms I wish + past tense and If + past tense are often taught separately, but in real life they often co-occur in this way, with the latter clause providing further details, and extending the discourse.

Of course, if we have also introduced the idea of remote forms to our students (see our previous post), then we are already halfway there in understanding how these hypothetical clauses are used.

Both modals and conditionals are rather grey areas which can be difficult to fully understand. However, by keeping in mind that all modals have a common function, and by not getting too dragged down with questions of form when we look at conditionals, we can begin to shed more light on these areas of language.

 

Explore this topic in greater detail with our free guided worksheet.

 

——————————–

References:

Lewis, M. 1986 The English Verb: An Exploration of Structure and Meaning LTP

 

Further reading:

Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Quirk, R. and Svartvik, J. 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language Longman