Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:32:49.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining individual variation in learner production data: A few programmatic pointers for corpus-based analyses using the example of adverbial clause ordering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2020

Stefan Th. Gries Open the ORCID record for Stefan Th. Gries [Opens in a new window]  and
Stefanie Wulff
Stefan Th. Gries*
Affiliation:
UC Santa Barbara/JLU Giessen
Stefanie Wulff
Affiliation:
University of Florida/UiT The Arctic University of Norway
*
*Corresponding author. Stefan Thomas Gries, Department of Linguistics, 3506 South Hall, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA93106-3100. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the variable positioning of a finite adverbial subordinate clause and its main clause with the subordinate clause either preceding or following the main clause in native versus nonnative English. Specifically, we contrast causal, concessive, conditional, and temporal adverbial clauses produced by German and Chinese learners of English with those produced by native speakers. We examined 2,362 attestations from the Chinese and German subsections of the International Corpus of Learner English (Granger, Dagneaux, Meunier, & Paquot, 2009) and from the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (Granger, 1998). All instances were annotated for the ordering, the subordinate clause type, the lengths of the main and subordinate clauses, the first language of the speakers, the conjunction used, and the file it originated from (as a proxy for the speaker producing the sentence so as to be able to study individual and lexical variation). The results of a two-step regression modeling protocol suggest that learners behave most nativelike with causal clauses and struggle most with conditional and concessive clauses; in addition, learners make more non-nativelike choices when the main and subordinate clause are of about equal length.

Keywords

Chinese learnersEnglish adverbial clausesGerman learnerslearner corporaregression modeling
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 42 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue: Individual Differences in Bilingualism , March 2021 , pp. 279 - 299
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altenberg, B. (1984). Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica, 38, 20–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.1984.tb00734.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K., Watanabe, K., Wang, H., Nulty, P., Obeng, A., Müller, S., & Matsuo, A. (2018). quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 774. doi: 10.21105/joss.00774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (Eds.) (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chondrogianni, V., & Marinis, T. (2011). Differential effects of internal and external factors on the development of vocabulary, tense morphology and morpho-syntax in successive bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 318–342. doi: 10.1075/lab.1.3.05cho CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collentine, J., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 153–171. doi: 10.1017/s0272263104262015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29, 243–263. doi: 10.1177/0265532211419331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtney, L., Graham, S., Tonkyn, A., & Marinis, T. (2017). Individual differences in early language learning: A study of English learners of French. Applied Linguistics, 6, 824–847. doi: 10.1093/applin/amv071 Google Scholar
Dewaele, J. M., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and speech production: A pilot study of second language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 355–365. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00106-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (1996). Processing factors of pre- and postposed adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 22, 71–82. doi: 10.3765/bls.v22i1.1344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2001). The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: A typological study. Language, 77, 343–365. doi: 10.1353/lan.2001.0152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2005). Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 43, 449–470. doi: 10.1515/ling.2005.43.3.449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2008). Iconicity of sequence. A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 457–482. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2008.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2013). Adverbial subordination. In Luraghi, S. & Parodi, C. (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to syntax (pp. 341–354). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Diessel, H., & Hetterle, K. (2011). Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning, and use. In Siemund, P. (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation (pp. 21–52). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction. Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1986). Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English. In Traugott, E. C., ter Meulen, A., Snitzer Reilly, J., & Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 353–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703. doi: 10.1111/lang.12018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granena, G. (2016). Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 577–600. doi: 10.1017/s0142716415000120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (1998). The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In Granger, S. (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 3–18). London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). International corpus of learner English (Vol. 2). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Grey, S., Williams, J. N., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Individual differences in incidental language learning: Phonological working memory, learning styles, and personality. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 44–53. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Deshors, S. C. (2014). Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora, 9, 109–136. doi: 10.3366/cor.2014.0053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Deshors, S. C. (2020). There’s more to alternations than the main diagonal of a 2×2 confusion matrix: Improvements of MuPDAR and other classificatory alternation studies. ICAME Journal, 44, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200. doi: 10.1075/arcl.3.10gri CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 164–187. doi: 10.1075/arcl.7.07gri CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Wulff, S. (2013). The genitive alternation in Chinese and German ESL learners: Towards a multifactorial notion of context in learner corpus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18, 327–356. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.18.3.04gri CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2015). Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in incidental language learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerz, E. (2013). Concessive adverbial clauses in L2 academic writing. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G. & Meunier, F. (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp. 263–276). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Kerz, E., & Wiechmann, D. (in press). Individual differences. In Tracy-Ventura, N. & Paquot, M. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of SLA and corpora. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2012). The role of task complexity, modality and aptitude in narrative task performance. Language Learning, 62, 439–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97, 634–654. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Garcia, M. T., & Wulff, S. (2012). Not wrong, yet not quite right: Spanish ESL students’ use of gerundial and infinitival complementation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 225–244. doi: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2012.00310.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miglio, V. G., Gries, St. Th., Harris, M. J., Wheeler, E. M., & Santana-Paixão, T. (2013). Spanish lo(s)-le(s) clitic alternations in psych verbs: A multifactorial corpus-based analysis. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Lord, G., de Prada Pérez, A., & Aaron, J. E. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 15th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 268–278). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Möller, V. (2017). A statistical analysis of learner corpus data, experimental data and individual differences: Monofactorial vs. multifactorial approaches. In de Haan, P., van Vuuren, S., & de Vries, R. (Eds.), Language, learners and levels: Progression and variation (pp. 409–439). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K. A., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. C. M. (2014). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 56–72. doi: 10.1017/s1366728912000715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M. (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Prat, C. S., Yamasaki, B. L., Kluenda, R. A., & Stocco, A. (2016). Resting-state qEEG predicts rate of second language learning in adults. Brain and Language, 157–158, 44–50, doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.04.007 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (Eds.) (1985). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramsay, V. (1987). The functional distribution of preposed and postposed “if” and “when” clauses in written discourse. In Tomlin, R. (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 383–408). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2010). Input quality matters: Some comments on input type and age-effects in adult SLA. Applied Linguistics, 31, 301–306. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, H., Streinkrauss, R., Tendeiro, J., & de Boot, K. (2016). Individual differences in very young children’s English acquisition in China: Internal and external factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19, 550–566. doi: 10.1017/s1366728915000243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2016). Early child L2 acquisition: Age or input effects? Neither, or both? Journal of Child Language, 43, 608–634. doi: 10.1017/s030500091500080x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Vuuren, S. (2013). Information structural transfer in advanced Dutch EFL writing: A cross-linguistic longitudinal study. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 30, 173–187. doi: 10.1075/avt.30.13van CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Vuuren, S., & Laskin, L. (2017). Dutch learner English in close-up: A Bayesian corpus analysis of pre-subject adverbials in advanced Dutch EFL writing. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3, 1–35. doi: 10.1075/ijlcr.3.1.01van CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, Z., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.). (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., & Gries, St. Th. (2015). Prenominal adjective order preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A multifactorial corpus study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 120–148. doi: 10.1075/lab.5.1.05wul CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., & Gries, St. Th. (2019). Particle placement in learner language. Language Learning, 19, 873–910. doi: 10.1111/lang.12354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., & Gries, St. Th. (to appear). Exploring individual variation in learner corpus research: Some methodological suggestions. In Le Bruyn, B. S. W. & Paquot, M. (Eds.), Learner corpus research and second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Gries, St. Th., & Lester, N. A. (2018). Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. In Tyler, A., Huang, L., & Jan, H. (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp. 99–120). New York: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Lester, N. A., & Martinez-Garcia, M. T. (2014). That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition, 6, 271–299. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2014.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., & Saveliev, A. A. (2009). Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar