汉译英下：Problems of taking a lexical approach

汉译英下：Problems of taking a lexical approach
原文：Some additional limitations of corpora
Although corpora are no pedagogical panacea (e.g.Cook 1998; Widdowson 2000),I do not believe that corpora in themselves necessarily make the implementation of a lexical approach problematic.The key issue is rather how corpus data is selected and manipulated.To take one example of the potential misuse of data,there is a popular but mistaken belief that the frequency with which lexis occurs in a corpus will determine its priority in our syllabus.In fact,I would suggest that the more advanced the learners’ level,the more apparent it becomes that something more than frequency counts is required.Although much has been made of Willis’ (1990) assertion that the most frequent 700 words of English constitute 70% of text,the problem of what one should teach subsequently remains.As Willis’ figures show,this is much less easily prescribable:
The 700 most frequent words cover 70% of text,but coverage begins to drop rapidly thereafter.The next 800 words cover a further 6% of text and the next 1000 words cover 4%…It is true that general frequency is not the sole criterion [for identifying the appropriate lexis for a syllabus].(Willis 1990:47)
Hence,while the frequency factor should not be ignored in our attempts to mirror real English in the classroom,it is clear that frequency should not be the only,or even the principal,factor in determining the lexis to teach.Relevant also is work on text type (e.g.Biber et al.1994) and genre analysis (e.g.Bhatia 1993; Swales 1990),showing that a research article,for instance,will feature different types of structures and phrases when compared with a business letter; and that to a certain extent such features are predictable.So we would do well to bear in mind learners’ wants and needs (cf.Biber et al.1994):it is evident that the materials designer will have to consult very different corpora when designing materials for pre-sessional postgraduate learners enrolled in English-medium universities who need to develop their academic writing skills,for instance,compared to an intermediate-level general English group who wish to explore some of the most common ways native speakers open a conversation with their peers.
In summary,corpora in no way constitute a pedagogical “quick fix”:while corpora should undoubtedly stand at the centre of a lexical approach,the teacher and materials designer will need to be aware of the many variables which will influence corpus selection and data manipulation.
翻译无需太精确,但软件翻译就免了,另,corpora在这里可译为“组块”
可能比较多，能翻多少尽量翻一下，剩下我来翻译好了，

组块的某些额外局限性
尽管组块不是教育学的万能药（eg.cook,widdonwson）,我并不认为组块本身造成了词汇学方法(lexical approach)的应用问题.其中的主要问题是组块数据是如何被选择和处理的.举一个数据可能被错误使用的例子：这是一个很流行但却是错误的认识,词汇在组块中出现的频率将决定它在我们课程提纲中的优先地位.事实上,我认为学习者的水平越高,也越明显需要除计算出现频率以外更多的东西.尽管willis(1990)地研究证明英语中出现频率最频繁的700个单词构成70%的英语文章,到底应该教些什么所产生的问题也因此产生.根据willis的数据,这是很难处理（or 预测,i am not sure here）的：
700个出现最频繁的词汇覆盖了70%的文章,但是之后覆盖率下降的非常快.接下来的800个词覆盖了6%的文章,再接下来的1000个词则覆盖了4%.所以普通意义的出现频率不是唯一的标准[来确定在教学提纲适合出现的词汇](willis 1990.47)
因此,虽然在我们尝试在课堂上重现真实的英语的努力中不应该忽略出现频率这一因素,很明显在决定教学词汇时,出现频率不应该是唯一的,甚至是原则性的因素.相关的研究包括文本类型（eg,biber etal 1994）以及类型分析（eg bhatia 1993 wwales 1990）,研究表明：举例说一个研究类的文章和一封商业文函所具有的文章结构和词汇表达,两者之间的不同在某种程度上是可以被预测的.因此我们需要时刻牢记学习者到底想要什么和需要什么（cf biber et at1994）:两种情况,一种,在为以英语为教学语言的学校,研究生学前课程学习者需要提高他们的学术写作技巧,另一种,期望了解英语母语的人和他们同事/朋友谈话方法的一个中等普通英语水平的群体；很显然,两种情况下,教学材料的设计者需要考虑到不同的组块.
总的来说,组块不会是教育学问题的“速成解决办法”,但是组块一定毫无疑问的是处于词汇方法的中心地位,教师和教材设计人员需要考虑很多影响组块选择和数据处理的变量.
供参考,frank