24.10.02/31.10.02 Session 1




I. Specialist Text

We will examine an academic review article (European Management Journal, Volume 20, Issue 1, p. 107), addressing the following questions: ‘What are the distinctive features of special(ist)/special-purpose language as represented in this text?’ and ‘What makes this a specialist text?’

We will find that specialist text contains both general-language and specialist lexemes, collocations and phraseology. We may also discover syntactic and textual patterns peculiar to the text type under discussion. Our findings will enable us to give a (preliminary) definition of special(ist)/special-purpose language (Fachsprache). 

A more detailed discussion is to be found in the minutes. We will be examining a number of specialist texts, and eventually, applying our method to texts you choose from a particular field.


II. Group Formation and Class Procedure

I will ask you to form groups, each of which will be expected to organize one class session (for topics, see Course Plan). Classes should be geared towards as much participation as possible; the focus should be on group work and discussion rather than presentations. Presentations should take no more than 25 minutes. Each group will be responsible for meeting or corresponding with me in advance to discuss class procedure and assignments.

I will also ask one or two students to minute proceedings in English (guidance on minute writing). The final version of the minutes should be completed by Sunday and e-mailed to me; it will then be published on my website.


III. Corpus Linguistics (-> Handout)

I will give a presentation on a corpus-based approach to the study of (specialist) language. To get us started, I will ask you to note down all you know about the German word ‘Blick’ and the English word ‘information’; we will then compare your intuitions about these words with evidence from a large corpus (a machine-held collection of texts). The point I’ll be trying to make is that intuition is prone to error and imprecision when it comes to describing the realities of language use. Many pre-electronic descriptions of language testify to this, either in making gross misjudgements about the behaviour of a language item, or in presenting examples which have the unmistakeable ring of artificiality.

I will then proceed to discuss the methodology and software used in corpus linguistics, answering the following questions:


How do you build a corpus?

How do you analyse a corpus?


We will then discuss some of the implications and applications of corpus-based analysis:


How can corpus analysis help us to describe special(ist) language?

How can corpus analysis help us to teach special language?


More detailed introductions to corpus linguistics are Catherine Ball, Concordances and Corpora, Tony McEnery/Andrew Wilson, Corpus Linguistics and Graeme Kennedy, Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman 1998; I have published a French-language article on a corpus-driven approach to grammar. Those of you who are interested in using concordancing software can download a free DOS-based concordancer called Microconcord at http://www.liv.ac.uk/~ms2928/homepage.html (click on Other software). Corpora of specialist texts can be constructed from texts freely available on the World Wide Web using off-line browsers or Corpus Web (the advantage of the latter being that it automatically converts html format into txt format).


Assignment for Session 1 / Part II: Read articles 2 (Fachsprachenforschung) and 3 (Equipment and methodology in corpus linguistics) in your reader in order to refine your understanding of the issues raised in today’s session. Then try to identify some typical instances of the following lexical categories in the review article reproduced below: general-language lexemes, general-language collocations, general-language phraseology, technical terms, specialist collocations, specialist phraseology.


The British Journal of Psychiatry (2000) 176: 302


Cognitive Vulnerability to Depression

By Rick E. Ingram, Jeanne Miranda, & Zindel V. Segal.

Gordon Parker, Professor of Psychiatry

University of New South Wales, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick 2031, Sydney,



New York: Guilford. 1998. 300 pp. £26.50 (hb). ISBN 1-57230-304-2

The authors overview existing theories and research addressing cognitive vulnerabilities to depression. Models include Bowlby's development of Adler's hypothesis that anomalies in early attachment (especially uncaring and/or overprotective parents) generate internal working models or cognitive ‘schema’ that negatively shape processing and interpretation of interpersonal interactions, so inducing and/or maintaining depression. To most clinical psychiatrists, schema models are intuitively appealing, both seemingly confirmed by many patients' reports of their core beliefs as well as allowing common sense therapeutic application. As a consequence, many psychologists and psychiatrists run the theory up the clinical flag pole every day of their professional lives — and despite increasing questioning about the efficacy of cognitive—behavioural therapy (King, 1998).

There is, however, a problem. The theory, not for the first time in the history of psychiatry, resists empirical confirmation. If, as many cognitive therapists have claimed, negative schema are latent constructs intrinsic to those who develop depression and activated by key life events (particularly ones that mirror early adverse events), certain consequences should follow. Some can be noted.

First, prospective studies of those with or without negative cognitive schema should predict onset of depression in the former group when mirroring life event stressors are experienced — a specificity model. Such studies do not appear to have been conducted.

Second, patients with depression in remission should, when ‘mood-primed’, differ from subjects who are not depressed by the evidence of dysfunctional cognitive patterns. While generally confirmed, such findings do not establish the existence of cognitive schema — as such patterns could equally be a consequence of the state mood disturbance. Third, any such mood-priming should induce consistent schema, an issue apparently not pursued by researchers. Fourth, returning to the Bowlby hypothesis, if certain parenting behaviours dispose to depression, recall of those behaviours might be expected to identify cognitive vulnerabilities, and the authors note an interesting priming strategy (use of the Parental Bonding Instrument) offering some preliminary support. Most importantly, patients with depression should, when euthymic, be more likely than subjects who have never suffered from depression to show evidence of ongoing cognitive vulnerabilities. The authors consider the now very large bank of such studies which, almost without exception, fail to reveal such differences. This could reflect over-reliance on two measures which may or may not measure core beliefs and schemas — the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale and the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire. If not reflecting methodological limitations, and such schema are only evident when an individual is depressed, it is hard to argue for their status as vulnerability factors. The rule of parsimony might then argue for ‘schema’ as more reflecting state nuances of a depressed mood, a possibility conceded by the authors but rather unconvincingly rejected. Thus, they dismiss a significant challenge to the cognitive Zeitgeist with the ex cathedra statement that there exists "compelling theory and research suggesting that there are important cognitive factors at work in the onset and maintenance of depression" (p. 66). This trifecta of faith, hope and charity is akin to arguing that the Emperor cannot be regarded as naked as he has a large wardrobe at home. Thus, cognitive schema currently appear to have a ‘ghost in the machine’ status. Schemas, formulated as being ‘dormant’ or ‘latent’, thus occupy a position which allows a range of explanations for their ‘now you see them, now you don’t' status, and which risks being all explanatory. Is it not time for definitive proof of their status or conceptual repositioning — at least as vulnerability factors to depression? Perhaps they have greater relevance to the anxiety and personality disorders rather than to the depressive disorders. If not, why not?

The authors assume that their readers have no knowledge base — at least about depression, cognitive schema, model-testing paradigms or the applied studies. Therefore, this is an excellent reference for students seeking such a primer and a review of the field, but somewhat frustrating to those who have followed the field and who will be impatient for the authors to cut to the chase. The authors impress as ‘true believers’; somewhat mystified by the lack of confirmatory research. Rightly so. While this book seeks to inform, its careful preparation raises more questions than answers. That is a noble outcome for an academic product, and worthy of being applauded.


King, R. (1998) Evidence-based practice: where is the evidence? The case of cognitive behaviour therapy and depression. Australian Psychologist, 33, 83-88.