[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-600775-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-600775-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","an-individual-subjectivist-critique-of-the-use-of-corpus-linguistics","An individual subjectivist critique of the use of corpus linguistics","","Corpus linguistics—collecting language into a body for analysis and material development—is often presented as an established, reliable method for informing pedagogy, yet its underlying foundations are rarely examined. This empirical paper critiques corpus linguistics through an individual subjectivist view of language, contrasting it with abstract objectivist assumptions described via Voloshinov. Using interviews and focus groups with lecturers and students across Business, Nursing, Design, and Computing, the study challenges the premise that what is counted is truly countable, arguing for dialogic teaching anchored in learners’ subjective context.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/an-individual-subjectivist-critique-of-the-use-of-corpus-linguistics/600775/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/an-individual-subjectivist-critique-of-the-use-of-corpus-linguistics/600775.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"dhado","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the paper critique about corpus linguistics?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It critiques corpus linguistics’ foundations, arguing they rely on an abstract objectivist view of language that treats counted items as inherently countable.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which theoretical perspectives are used to frame the critique?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The paper contrasts abstract objectivist and individual subjectivist views of language, drawing on Voloshinov’s description of both approaches.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How is the argument supported empirically?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It uses data from interviews and focus groups with content material lecturers and students in Business, Nursing, Design, and Computing, showing that seemingly similar words are understood differently across psychological and contextual grounds.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},600775,1792167768,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":117,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":103},5909893218464,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","ISSN: 2325-3290 (online)  \nAn individual subjectivist critique of the use of corpus linguistics to inform pedagogical materials  \nKendall Richards1  \nEdinburgh Napier University, UK  \nNick Pilcher  \nEdinburgh Napier University, UK  \nAbstract  \nCorpus linguistics, or the gathering together of language into a body for analysis and development of materials, is claimed to be an assured, established method (or field) that valuably informs pedagogical materials and knowledge of language (e.g. Ädel 2010; Gardner & Nesi, 2013). The fundamental validity of corpus linguistics is rarely, if ever, critiqued. In this empirical paper we critically consider the foundations of corpus linguistics as being based on an abstract objectivist view of language. We critique this foundation through the lens of an individual subjectivist view of language. Our introduction outlines abstract objectivist and individual subjectivist views of language described by Voloshinov (1973). We then present what is claimed regarding corpus linguistics, and consider contemporary critiques of these claims . We then critique the foundations of corpus linguistics from an individual subjectivist view of language. We illustrate this critique by drawing on data from interviews and focus groups with content material lecturers and students in the subject areas of ‘Business’; ‘Nursing’; ‘Design’ and ‘Computing’. These data question the fundamental assumption about how corpus linguistics operates: that what is counted is indeed countable. The data show how ostensibly similar words are understood in very different ways with very different underpinning psychological elements. We argue that corpus linguistics thus informs pedagogical materials with a merely passive understanding of the language. This view can only gain access to the inert crust of previous language, because it removes language from its individual subjective context. This context is fundamental to giving language the conscious and psychological elements that underpin its use. We argue the language should be taught through dialogue in this subject context and not removed from it.  \nKeywords: Corpus linguistics; Critique; Individual subjectivism.  \nKendall Richards is a lecturer in the School of Computing at Edinburgh Napier University (UK) with a focus on addressing academic support, retention, progression and widening access. He works with a significant proportion of non-traditional, international, mature and direct entrants and his research interests are in education as social justice and language. He has presented globally and is published in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Higher Education Research and  \n1 Correspondence:  \nKendall Richards, School of Computing, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, UK. , Tel: (00)44 131 455 2659 email:  \n[K.Richards@napier.ac.uk](K.Richards@napier.ac.uk)  \nNick Pilcher, The Business School, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, EH14 1DJ UK. , Tel: (00)44 131 455 4731 email:  \n[N.Pilcher@napier.ac.uk](N.Pilcher@napier.ac.uk)  \nDialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal | [http://dpj.pitt.edu](http://dpj.pitt.edu)  \n[DOI: 10.5195/dpj](DOI: 10.5195/dpj).2016.163 | Vol. 4 (2016)  \nA122  \nAn individual subjectivist critique of the use of corpus linguistics  \nKendall Richards and Nick Pilcher  \nDevelopment, Dialogic Pedagogy, and elsewhere such as in the book Researching Intercultural Learning (edited by Lixian Jin and Martin Cortazzi) .  \nNick Pilcher is a lecturer in the Business School at Edinburgh Napier University (UK) . He is the programme leader for the MSc in Intercultural Business Communication and also helps students with writing in academic subjects. His research interests centre around education, language and qualitative research methods. He has published and contributed to work published in journals such as Qualitative Research, Psychology of Music, The Qualitative Report, Research in Transportation Business and Manag","cbCaienWnpapSzXG","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaienWnpapSzXG","pdf",393365,"English","# Abstract\n# Keywords\n# Introduction\n## Language views and theoretical contrast (Voloshinov)\n## Implications for corpus-based pedagogy","[{\"question\":\"What does the paper critique about corpus linguistics?\",\"answer\":\"It critiques corpus linguistics’ foundations, arguing they rely on an abstract objectivist view of language that treats counted items as inherently countable.\"},{\"question\":\"Which theoretical perspectives are used to frame the critique?\",\"answer\":\"The paper contrasts abstract objectivist and individual subjectivist views of language, drawing on Voloshinov’s description of both approaches.\"},{\"question\":\"How is the argument supported empirically?\",\"answer\":\"It uses data from interviews and focus groups with content material lecturers and students in Business, Nursing, Design, and Computing, showing that seemingly similar words are understood differently across psychological and contextual grounds.\"}]","An individual subjectivist critique of the use of corpus linguistics | PDF",1792091357]