1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
  4. Volume 8, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The difficulty of automatically extracting syntactic structures from authentic learner data has previously limited the kinds of questions addressed by means (CIA; Granger, 2015), or has forced researchers to resort to manual analysis of smaller corpora. This study responds to the call for greater use of parsed corpora by using automated parsing and refined corpus analysis software to investigate advanced EFL learners’ use of relative and participial clauses for nominal postmodification. The use of clausal postmodifiers inside the noun phrase may be seen as a marker of proficiency and syntactic maturity in academic writing, but the proportional use of relative and participial clauses for nominal postmodification may also be subject to L1 transfer. To investigate the role of transfer and syntactic maturity in the use of nominal postmodification, we compare texts written by Dutch EFL learners with those produced by learners from typologically distinct L1s, i.e. Czech and French, and by native speakers of English. Use of participial clauses and relative clauses in Dutch learners’ EFL texts is then compared with their use in L1 Dutch. The high degree of L1-interlanguage congruity suggests that transfer plays an important role in the Dutch learners’ strong preference for relative clauses for nominal postmodification. Based on the comparison with both other learner groups, we hypothesize that such transfer effects in the use of clausal postmodification can only emerge once the learner has reached a sufficient level of syntactic maturity in the target language.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21013.vuu
2023-01-26
2024-12-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21013.vuu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aarts, F., & Wekker, H.
    (1993) A contrastive grammar of English and Dutch/Contrastieve grammatica Engels/Nederlands (2nd ed.). Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
    (2020) Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 461, 100869. 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100869
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100869 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2022) The register-functional approach to grammatical complexity: Theoretical foundation, descriptive research findings, application. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cooper, T. C.
    (1976) Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. The Journal of Educational Research, 69(5), 176–183. 10.1080/00220671.1976.10884868
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1976.10884868 [Google Scholar]
  7. Čechová, M.
    (1996) Čeština: řeč a jazyk, ISV.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cosme, C.
    (2008) Participle clauses in learner English: the role of transfer. InG. Gilquin, S. Papp, & M. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp.177–198). Brill-Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401206204_008
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204_008 [Google Scholar]
  9. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2018) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
     [Google Scholar]
  11. De Haan, P.
    (1989) Postmodifying Clauses in the English Noun Phrase. Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. De Moor, W., & Copriau, E.
    (1998) A Contrastive Reference Grammar. Pelkmans.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Faigley, L.
    (1979) The influence of generative rhetoric on the syntactic maturity and writing effectiveness of college freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(3), 197–206.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Flowerdew, L.
    (1998) Integrating expert and interlanguage computer corpora findings on causality: discoveries for teachers and students. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 329–345. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00014‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00014-8 [Google Scholar]
  15. Granger, S.
    (1997) On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: native and non-native writers compared. InJ. Aarts, I. de Mönnink, & H. Wekker (Eds.), Studies in English language and teaching: In honor of Flor Aarts (pp.185–198). Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (1998) The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. InS. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp.3–18). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015) Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra [Google Scholar]
  18. Granger, S., Dagneaux, E. & Meunier, F.
    (2002) The International Corpus of Learner English. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M.
    (2009) The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM (Version 2). Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Granger, S., Dupont, M., Meunier, F., Naets, H., & Paquot, M.
    (2020) The International Corpus of Learner English (Version 3). Presses universitaires de Louvain. https://dial.uclouvain.be/pr/boreal/object/boreal:229877
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hinkel, E.
    (Ed.) (2002) Second Language Writers’ Text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410602848
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602848 [Google Scholar]
  22. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Janda, L. A., & Townsend, Ch. E.
    (2000) Czech. Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Jarvis, S.
    (2000) Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245–309. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00118
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00118 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kameen, Patrick
    1983 Syntactic skills and ESL writing quality. InA. Freedman, I. Pringle and J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language (pp.162-170). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Klein, D., & Manning, C. D.
    (2003) Accurate unlexicalized parsing. InE. Hinrichs & D. Roth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics-Volume 1 (pp.423–430). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/1075096.1075150
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1075096.1075150 [Google Scholar]
  27. Komen, E. R.
    (2017) Beyond Counting Syntactic Hits. InJ. Odijk & A. van Hessen (Eds.), CLARIN in the Low Countries (pp.259–268). Ubiquity Press. 10.5334/bbi.21. License: CC-BY 4.0.
     https://doi.org/10.5334/bbi.21 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kyle, K.
    (2021) Natural language processing for learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 7(1), 1–16. 10.1075/ijlcr.00019.int
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.00019.int [Google Scholar]
  29. Lu, X.
    (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu [Google Scholar]
  30. Malá, M., & Šaldová, P.
    (2015) English non-finite participial clauses as seen through their Czech counterparts. Nordic Journal of English Studies14(1), 232–257. 10.35360/njes.346
     https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.346 [Google Scholar]
  31. Meunier, F.
    (2016) Introduction to the LONGDALE project. InE. Castello, K. Ackerley, & F. Coccetta (Eds.), Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics: Research and applications for foreign language teaching and assessment (pp.123–126). Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Morenberg, M.
    (1979, April). The Elusive Nature of the Relationship between Syntactic Maturity and Writing Quality. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication 1979, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Donnell, R. C.
    (1976) A critique of some indices of syntactic maturity. Research in the Teaching of English, 10(1), 31–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. O’Donnell, M., Murcia, S., García, R., Molina, C., Rollinson, P., MacDonald, P., & Boquera, M.
    (2009) Exploring the proficiency of English learners: The TREACLE project. Proceedings of the Fifth Corpus Linguistics Conference 2009, University of Liverpool. Retrieved fromucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009/371_FullPaper.doc (last accessed: October 06, 2022).
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Parkinson, J., & Musgrave, J.
    (2014) Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 141, 48–59. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Poldauf, I.
    (1955) "Vztaţné věty v angličtině a češtině‟, Sborník Vysoké školy pedagogické Olomouci, Jazyk a literaturaII1, 159-194.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Parrot, M.
    (Ed.) (2000) Grammar for English language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J.
    (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Stewart, M. F.
    (1978) Syntactic maturity from high school to university: A first look. Research in the Teaching of English, 12(1), 37–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Stewart, M. F., & Grobe, C. H.
    (1979) Syntactic maturity, mechanics of writing, and teachers’ quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(3), 207–215.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Švecová, M.
    (2010) Czech relative clauses in translation to English. BA Thesis, Univerzita Karlova V Praze.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Van Noord, G.
    (2006) At last parsing is now operational. Actes de la 13ème conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles. Conférences invitees, 20–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Xinhua, Z.
    (2008) Is Syntactic Maturity a Reliable Measurement to Investigate the Relationship Between English Speaking and Writing?. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 133–154.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21013.vuu
Loading
Strategies of clausal postmodification in learner English
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8, 157 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.21013.vuu
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21013.vuu
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.21013.vuu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Czech; Dutch; EFL writing; French; nominal postmodification; participial clauses; relative clauses

Most Cited

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