Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Investigation of the characteristics of spoken learner language has increased in recent years but has been primarily limited to the investigation of one linguistic level (e.g., lexico-grammar), which gives a limited picture of learners’ overall linguistic competence (e.g., Skarnitzl & Rumlová, 2019). In this study, we investigate lexico-grammar, fluency, and prosody in LINDSEI (German, Czech, and Spanish) alongside British and American English comparable corpora, using multidimensional analysis, a statistical procedure that identifies co-occurring linguistic features and leads to functional interpretation of the discourse. Results show significant differences between L1 and L2 groups on four of six dimensions and reveal novel patterns of co-occurrence. Dimension 1, for example, identifies correlates of informationally driven discourse on all three linguistic levels under investigation. These findings show the importance of including multiple linguistic levels in the analysis of learner discourse and have implications for a more holistic and functionally based approach to language instruction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aguado-Jiménez, P., Pérez-Paredes, P., & Sánchez, P.
    (2012) Exploring the use of multidimensional analysis of learner language to promote register awareness. System, 40(1), 90–103. 10.1016/j.system.2012.01.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.01.008 [Google Scholar]
  2. Algeo, J.
    (2010) The origins and development of the English language. Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckman, M. E., & Pierrehumbert, J.
    (1986) Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 31, 255–309. 10.1017/S095267570000066X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267570000066X [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2006) University Language. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D. & Gray, B.
    (2013) Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 19). Educational Testing Service.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D., & Staples, S.
    (2014) Exploring the prosody of stance. InT. Raso & H. Mello (Eds.), Spoken corpora and linguistic studies (pp.271–294). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.61.10bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.61.10bib [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S.
    (2016) Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. 10.1093/applin/amu059
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, & Finegan, E.
    (2021) Grammar of Spoken and Written English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.232
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.232 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bigi, B.
    (2015) SPPAS - Multilingual Approaches to the Automatic Annotation of Speech. The Phonetician, 111-1121: 55-69.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D.
    (2019) Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.43) [Computer software]. www.praat.org/
  13. Brazil, D.
    (1997) The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chamonikolasová, J.
    (2017) Intonation in English and Czech dialogues. Masarykova univerzita.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Clopper, C. G., & Pisoni, D. B.
    (2006) The Nationwide Speech Project: A new corpus of American English dialects. Speech Communication, 481, 633–644. 10.1016/j.specom.2005.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2005.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dallaston, K. & Docherty, G.
    (2020) The quantitative prevalence of creaky voice (vocal fry) in varieties of English: A systematic review of the literature. PLoS ONE, 15(3), e0229960. 10.1371/journal.pone.0229960
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229960 [Google Scholar]
  17. De Cock, S.
    (2004) Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series21, 225–246.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. De Jong, N.H., Pacilly, J., & Heeren, W.
    (2021) PRAAT scripts to measure speed fluency and breakdown fluency in speech automatically. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(4), 456-476. 10.1080/0969594X.2021.1951162
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1951162 [Google Scholar]
  19. Egbert, J. & Staples, S.
    (2019) Doing multi-dimensional analysis in SPSS, SAS, and R. InT. Berber-Sardinha & M. Veirano-Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis research methods and current issues (pp.124–144). Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350023857.0015
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0015 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, N.
    (2008) The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 921, 232–249. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00716.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00716.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Fuchs, R., Götz, S., & Werner, V.
    (2016) The present perfect in learner Englishes: A corpus-based case study on L1 German intermediate and advanced speech and writing. InV. Werner, E. Seoane, & C. Suárez-Gómez (Eds.), Re-Assessing the present perfect (pp.297–338). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110443530‑013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110443530-013 [Google Scholar]
  22. García Lecumberri, M. L., Cooke, M., & Wester, M.
    (2017) A bi-directional task-based corpus of learners’ conversational speech. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 4(2), 175–195. 10.1075/ijlcr.3.2.04gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.3.2.04gar [Google Scholar]
  23. Gilquin, G.
    (2018) Exploring the spoken learner English construction: A corpus-driven approach. InR. Alonso (Ed.), Speaking in a Second Language (pp.127–152). John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.17.06gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.17.06gil [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilquin, G., De Cock, S., & Granger, S.
    (Eds.) (2010) Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI). Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldman, J.-P.
    (2011) EasyAlign: an automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat. InP. Cosi, R. De Mori, G. Di Fabbrizio, & R. Pieraccini (Eds.). Proceedings of 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 3233-3236. Firenze, Italy.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Götz, S.
    (2013) Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.53 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2019) Filled pauses across proficiency levels, L1s and learning context variables – A multivariate exploration of the Trinity Lancaster Corpus sample. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5(2): 159–180. 10.1075/ijlcr.17018.got
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17018.got [Google Scholar]
  28. Goulart, L.
    (2021) Register variation in L1 and L2 student writing: A multidimensional analysis. Register Studies, 3(1), 115–143. 10.1075/rs.20012.gou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20012.gou [Google Scholar]
  29. Gráf, T.
    (2015) Accuracy and fluency in the speech of the advanced learner of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Charles University.
  30. Gut, U.
    (2009) Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑01155‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-01155-5 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gutiérrez Díez, F.
    (2012) Trouble spots in the learning of English intonation by Spanish speakers: Tonality and tonicity. InJ. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Pragmatics and prosody in English language teaching (pp.219–230). Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑3883‑6_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3883-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  32. Heldner, M., Włodarczak, M., Beňuš, Š., & Gravano, A.
    (2019, September). Voice quality as a turn-taking cue. Paper presented at theInterspeech 2019, Graz, Austria. 10.21437/Interspeech.2019‑1592
    https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2019-1592 [Google Scholar]
  33. Huang, L.-F., Kubelec, S., Keng, N., & Hsu, L.-H.
    (2018) Evaluating CEFR rater performance through the analysis of spoken learner corpora. Language Testing in Asia, 8 (14). 1–17. 10.1186/s40468‑018‑0069‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-018-0069-0 [Google Scholar]
  34. J. Murrey Atkins Library
    J. Murrey Atkins Library (2019) New South Voices Collection [Online repository]. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kang, O.
    (2013) Linguistic analysis of speaking features distinguishing general English exams at CEFR levels B1 to C2 and examinee L1 backgrounds. Research Notes, 521, 40–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kang, O., & Yan, X.
    (2018) Linguistic features distinguishing examinees’ speaking performances at different proficiency levels. Journal of Language Testing and Assessment, 11, 24–39. 10.23977/langta.2018.11003
    https://doi.org/10.23977/langta.2018.11003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Klein, W., & Perdue, C.
    (1997) The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 131, 301–347. 10.1191/026765897666879396
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897666879396 [Google Scholar]
  38. LaFlair, G., & Staples, S.
    (2017) Using corpus linguistics to examine the extrapolation inference in the validity argument for a high-stakes speaking assessment. Language Testing34(4): 451–475. 10.1177/0265532217713951
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217713951 [Google Scholar]
  39. LaFlair, G., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
    (2015) Variability in the MELAB speaking task: Investigating linguistic characteristics of test-taker performances in relation to rater severity and score (CaMLA Working Papers 2015–04). https://michiganassessment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/20.02.pdf.Res_.VariabilityintheMELABSpeakingTask-InvestigatingLinguisticCharacteristicsofTestTakerPerformancesinRelationtoRaterSeverityandScore.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  40. LaFlair, G., Staples, S., & Yan, X.
    (2019) Triangulating corpus linguistics and language assessment: Using corpus linguistics to enhance validity arguments. InP. Baker & J. Egbert (Eds.), Using corpus methods to triangulate linguistic analysis (pp.109–140). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315112466‑5
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315112466-5 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lin, P.
    (2018) The prosody of formulaic sequences: A corpus and discourse approach. Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Munro, M., & Derwing, T.
    (2001) Modelling perceptions of the accentedness and comprehensibility of L2 speech: The role of speaking rate. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 451–468. 10.1017/S0272263101004016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101004016 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pérez-Paredes, P., & Sánchez Tornel, M.
    (2015) A multidimensional analysis of learner language during story reconstruction in interviews. InM. Callies & S. Götz (Eds.), Learner Corpora in Language Testing and Assessment (pp.141–162). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.70.06per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.70.06per [Google Scholar]
  44. Picoral, A., Staples, S., & Reppen, R.
    (2021) Automated annotation of learner English: An evaluation of software tools. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 7(1), 17–52. 10.1075/ijlcr.20003.pic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20003.pic [Google Scholar]
  45. Puga, K.
    (2021) English intonation of advanced learners: A contrastive interlanguage analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Justus Liebig University Gießen.
  46. Ramírez-Verdugo, M. D.
    (2022) Intonation in L2 discourse: Research insights. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Redi, L. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S.
    (2001) Variation in the realization of glottalization in normal speakers. Journal of Phonetics, 29(4), 407–429. 10.1006/jpho.2001.0145
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0145 [Google Scholar]
  48. Romero-Trillo, J.
    (2019) Prosodic pragmatics and feedback in intercultural communication. S. Götz & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Learner Corpora and Language Teaching (pp.191–217). John Benjamins. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.02.018 [Google Scholar]
  49. Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J.
    (1992) ToBI: A standard scheme for labeling prosody. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 1992, 867–870.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Skarnitzl, R., & Rumlová, J.
    (2019) Phonetic aspects of strongly-accented Czech speakers of English. Acta Universitatis Carolinae: Philologica / Phonetica Pragensia, 21, 109–128. 10.14712/24646830.2019.21
    https://doi.org/10.14712/24646830.2019.21 [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Rooy, B., & Terblanche, L.
    (2009) A multi-dimensional analysis of a learner corpus. InA. Renouf & A. Kehoe (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics (pp.239–254). Brill Rodopi. 10.1163/9789042025981_014
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042025981_014 [Google Scholar]
  52. Volín, J., Poesová, K., & Weingartová, L.
    (2015) Speech melody properties in English, Czech and Czech English: Reference and interference. Research in Language, 13(1), 107–123. 10.1515/rela‑2015‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0018 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wennerstrom, A., & Siegel, A. F.
    (2003) Keeping the floor in multiparty conversations: Intonation, syntax, and pause. Discourse Processes, 361, 77–107. 10.1207/S15326950DP3602_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3602_1 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wolk, C., Götz, S., & Jäschke, K.
    (2020) Possibilities and drawbacks of using an online application for semi-automatic corpus analysis to investigate discourse markers and alternative fluency variables. Corpus Pragmatics, 51, 7–36. 10.1007/s41701‑019‑00072‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00072-x [Google Scholar]
  55. Yan, X., Kim, H., & Kim, J.
    (2020) Dimensionality of speech fluency: Examining the relationships among complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) features of speaking performances on the Aptis test. Language Testing, 38(4), 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Zimmerer, F., Jügler, J., Andreeva, B., Möbius, B., & Trouvain, J.
    (2014) Too cautious to vary more? A comparison of pitch variation in native and non-native productions of French and German speakers. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 71, 1037–1041. 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2014‑197
    https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2014-197 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): fluency; LINDSEI; multidimensional analysis; prosody; spoken corpora
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error