I agree with everyone, but maybe I'm just that kind of guy!
Firstly, I'm sure there is more out there which we (or at least I) simply don't know about - hence my initial mail. On the other hand I don't think there's anything like as much as one might have expected 20-odd years down the road. (Unfortunately I'm a late-comer to the scene, otherwise I might be quoting Wordsworth: "Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive...")
I certainly agree with Martin that there's likely to be a single explanation for the (relative) lack of (public) uptake; a number of interesting reasons have been given in these exchanges as well as in response to my first mail, & others still in various research articles. A common reaction seems to be that DDL as currently advocated depends on a lot of factors that can't reasonably be expected in "normal" working conditions - of regular teachers and learners, not to mention common resources & environments. My feeling is that "off-the-peg" materials may go some way towards making DDL more accessible, though given the small quantities I (you!) have unearthed I'll have to think about it some more, but will hopefully work this into a proper paper some time.
Martin Wynne a écrit :
> I very much agree with Gill's observations. Looking what is freely
> available on the web is not a good way to judge the uptake or range of
> DDL materials. As Gill points out, most DDL resources and courses are
> only deployed locally.
> To get something useful out on the web, you need to sort out the
> following (to name but a few):
> - getting it on a web server
> - basing it on web technologies
> - get it to work with the available back end technologies on your server
> - make sure that it is accessible and works with a variety of browsers
> - make sure it is robust and bug-free
> - support by the web server's sysadmin
> - the exercises need to be suitable for unsupervised work (which
> requires a lot more documentation, explanation, hand-holding, controlled
> revealing of results, tips and hints, etc)
> - be prepared to support users, or leave them in the lurch if they hit snags
> - ensure that you are not getting into any legal or ethical difficulties
> if you publish any of the the materials (in short, you're not likely to
> be allowed to put that corpus online...)
> So getting your course materials to work on your students' PCs is one
> thing, putting them on the web may involve a lot of additional challenges.
> Obviously there are huge potential advantages to putting materials on
> the web, but we shouldn't be surprised that not everyone does it.
> Gill Philip wrote:
>> dear all,
>> I think Adam is partially right, but, as someone who does engage in DDL, I'd
>> like to point out another couple of reasons why there is so little "out
>> (i) many materials are created for individuals or small groups and therefore
>> not put online/published as 'general' language notes; and
>> (ii) others are created on the fly in real time, and so never even make it
>> into a paper format, i.e. the concordances are put up on screen in class and
>> the teacher (me, but I'm sure others do the same) leads students through the
>> analysis. Once I get the interactive whiteboard up and running, such ad-hoc
>> exercises may well become more amenable to digital archiving, but for now
>> they remain ephemeral.
>> On 16/04/2008, Adam Kilgarriff <adam at lexmasterclass.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Alex,
>>> you say
>>>> Is there really so little out there? Why?
>>> I think the reason is simple: Concordances are too tough for learners.
>>> So DDL has not taken off. After 20 years, it remains a tiny minority
>>> Our response is to select corpus sentences according to readability.
>>> The beta version of the Sketch Engine now has an option to sort
>>> "best first", from a learner's point of view, and we are working on other
>>> ways of
>>> using corpora in language learning in which we only show
>>> users sentences which they are likely to be able to read and understand.
>>> 2008/4/15 Alex Boulton <Alex.Boulton at univ-nancy2.fr>:
>>>> Dear all
>>>> I recently requested information on any *published materials* or *on-line
>>> adopting a data-driven learning approach. My thanks to the following for
>>>> their replies:
>>>> - Adam Turner
>>>> - Chris Tribble
>>>> - Mike Barlow
>>>> - Brett Reynolds
>>>> - Stéphanie O'Riordan
>>>> - Antoinette Renouf
>>>> - James Thomas
>>>> - Linda Bawcom
>>>> - Marcia Veirano Pinto
>>>> - Przemek Kaszubski
>>>> - Simon Smith
>>>> - John Milton
>>>> Unfortunately (if unsurprisingly), there were no real additions to the
>>> I listed in the original mail. Is there really so little out there? Why?
>>> Adam Kilgarriff http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk
>>> Lexical Computing Ltd http://www.sketchengine.co.uk
>>> Lexicography MasterClass Ltd http://www.lexmasterclass.com
>>> Universities of Leeds and Sussex adam at lexmasterclass.com
>>> Corpora mailing list
>>> Corpora at uib.no
>> Corpora mailing list
>> Corpora at uib.no
* Alex Boulton*
boulton at univ-nancy2.fr <mailto:boulton at univ-nancy2.fr>
Tél : 03.83.96.71.30 Tél : 03.83.96.84.44
Fax : 03.83.96.71.32 Fax : 03.83.96.84.49
* Tous les articles des /Mélanges CRAPEL/ sont disponibles
gratuitement en ligne sous format pdf :*
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.uib.no/mailman/public/corpora/attachments/20080417/350dec3b/attachment.html