1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The relative complexity of alternation phenomena in spoken English as a Foreign Language
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

While the assumption within theoretical linguistics is that alternation phenomena (e.g., “everyone” vs. “everybody”) lead to redundant complexity because they introduce multiple ways of saying the same thing, this assumption has not yet been tested empirically for EFL learners. To fill this gap, we collected thousands of spoken utterances from low-intermediate to advanced learners of English with either Spanish, Chinese or Italian as their L1 background from the . Using mixed-effects Poisson regression, we analyzed whether the number of alternation phenomena correlates with the relative complexity of utterances, operationalized as being proportional to the number of disfluencies produced. Results indicate that, even for low-intermediate learners of English, alternation contexts do not induce more disfluencies, contrary to commonly held assumptions in theoretical linguistics and in line with similar research on L1 English speakers.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.25036.dub
2026-05-22
2026-06-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.25036.dub
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Behaghel, O.
    (1909) Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bresnan, J.
    (2007) Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. InS. Featherston & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Linguistics in search of its evidential base (pp.–). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198621.75
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198621.75 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bresnan, J., & Ford, M.
    (2010) Predicting syntax : Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.0.0189
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brooks, M. E., Kristensen, K., van Benthem, K. J., Magnusson, A., Berg, C. W., Nielsen, A., Skaug, H. J., Mächler, M., & Bolker, B. M.
    (2017) glmmTMB Balances Speed and Flexibility Among Packages for Zero-inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling. The R Journal, (), –. 10.32614/RJ‑2017‑066
     https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
    (2012) Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. InA. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency : Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA (pp.–). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.32.02bul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul [Google Scholar]
  6. De Smet, H., D’Hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., & Goethem, K. V.
    (2018) The Changing Functions of Competing Forms: Attraction and Differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025 [Google Scholar]
  7. De Troij, R., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D.
    (2023) Natiolectal Variation in Dutch Morphosyntax: A Large-Scale, Data-Driven Perspective. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S1470542722000071
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542722000071 [Google Scholar]
  8. Denis, D., & Tagliamonte, S. A.
    (2018) The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S1360674316000551
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000551 [Google Scholar]
  9. Deshors, S. C., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2014) A Case for the Multifactorial Assessment of Learner Language: The Uses of May and Can in French-English Interlanguage. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy (pp. 179–204). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.07des
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.07des [Google Scholar]
  10. Dubois, T., Paquot, M., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2023) Alternation phenomena and language proficiency: The genitive alternation in the spoken language of EFL learners. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/cllt‑2021‑0078
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2021-0078 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2024) Future-time reference in spoken EFL: More complex than in ENL?Journal of Second Language Studies, (), –. 10.1075/jsls.00030.dub
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00030.dub [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006) Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review, , –. 10.1075/aila.19.08ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.08ell [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S.
    (2019) Cognitive approaches to Second Language Acquisition. InJ. W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning (pp.–). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108333603.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferreira, V. S.
    (1996) Is It Better to Give Than to Donate? Syntactic Flexibility in Language Production. Journal of Memory and Language, (), –. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0038
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0038 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fischer, O., & van der Wurff, W.
    (2006) Syntax. InR. Hogg & D. Denison (Eds.), A History of the English Language (pp.–). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791154.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791154.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fox, J.
    (2003) Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software, (), –. 10.18637/jss.v008.i15
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v008.i15 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T.
    (2019) The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Development, description and application. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Boyd, E.
    (2017) Epistemic Stance in Spoken L2 English: The Effect of Task and Speaker Style. Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/amv055
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv055 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gardner, M. H., Uffing, E., Vaeck, N. V., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2021) Variation isn’t that hard: Morphosyntactic choice does not predict production difficulty. PLOS ONE, (), . 10.1371/journal.pone.0252602
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252602 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Götz, S.
    (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, (), –. 10.1075/ijlcr.17018.got
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17018.got [Google Scholar]
  22. Götz, S., Wolk, C., & Jäschke, K.
    (2022) A contrastive interlanguage analysis across L1s, task types and learning context variables: Contextualizing fluency in advanced spoken learner language. InA. Leńko-Szymańska & S. Götz (Eds.), Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Learner Corpus Research (pp.–). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/scl.104.11got
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.104.11got [Google Scholar]
  23. Gries, S. Th.
    (2017) Syntactic alternation research: Taking stock and some suggestions for the future. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/bjl.00001.gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00001.gri [Google Scholar]
  24. Gries, S. Th.
    (2015) The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, (), –. 10.3366/cor.2015.0068
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2021) (Generalized Linear) Mixed-Effects Modeling: A Learner Corpus Example. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/lang.12448
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12448 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gries, S. 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, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.18.3.04gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.04gri [Google Scholar]
  27. Haiman, J.
    (1980) The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation. Language, (), –. 10.2307/414448
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414448 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1999) Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language, (), –. 10.2307/417261
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417261 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2004) Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heller, B., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Grafmiller, J.
    (2017) Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics, (), –. 10.1177/0075424216685405
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424216685405 [Google Scholar]
  31. Housen, A.
    (2014) Difficulty and Complexity of Language Features and Second Language Instruction. InC. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp.–). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1443
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1443 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Philippov, V.
    (2009) Acquisition of article semantics by child and adult L2-English learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/S1366728909990149
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990149 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jäschke, K., & Plag, I.
    (2016) The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, (), –. 10.1017/S0272263115000261
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000261 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kusters, W.
    (2003) Linguistic complexity [Utrecht: LOT]. https://www.lotpublications.nl/linguistic-complexity-linguistic-complexity
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Lenth, R., & Piaskowski, J.
    (2026) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. (R package version 2.0.2).
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ma, R., Van Hoey, T., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2026) Isomorphism-inspired theorising about optionality and variation: No empirical support from English grammar. English Language & Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S1360674325000097
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674325000097 [Google Scholar]
  38. MacDonald, M. C.
    (2013) How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, (Article 226), –. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mallart, C., Simpkin, A., Ballier, N., Lissón, P., Venant, R., Stearns, B., Li, J.-Y., & Gaillat, T.
    (2025) Assessing the validity of syntactic alternations as criterial features of proficiency in L2 writings in English. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, (), . 10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100238
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100238 [Google Scholar]
  40. McGillycuddy, M., Popovic, G., Bolker, B. M., & Warton, D. I.
    (2025) Parsimoniously Fitting Large Multivariate Random Effects in glmmTMB. Journal of Statistical Software, , –. 10.18637/jss.v112.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v112.i01 [Google Scholar]
  41. Miestamo, M.
    (2008) Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. InM. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change (pp.–). Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.94.04mie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94.04mie [Google Scholar]
  42. Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H.
    (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, (), –. 10.1111/j.2041‑210x.2012.00261.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Pijpops, D., Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S., & Van De Velde, F.
    (2018) Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle: Evidence from argument realization. Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/langcog.2018.13
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2018.13 [Google Scholar]
  44. Poplack, S., & Dion, N.
    (2009) Prescription vs. Praxis: The Evolution of Future Temporal Reference in French. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.0.0149
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0149 [Google Scholar]
  45. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2025) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Rohdenburg, G.
    (1996) Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149 [Google Scholar]
  47. Segalowitz, N.
    (2003) Automaticity and Second Languages. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.–). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch13
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  48. Szmrecsanyi, B., Gardner, M. H., Ma, R., & Van Hoey, T.
    (forthcoming). Empirical accountability meets theorizing about language variation. InP. Cukor-Avila, S. A. Tagliamonte, & G. Bailey Eds. Empirical Accountability in Variationist Linguistics: Taking the Next Step. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Tree, J. E. F.
    (1995) The Effects of False Starts and Repetitions on the Processing of Subsequent Words in Spontaneous Speech. Journal of Memory and Language, (), –. 10.1006/jmla.1995.1032
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1032 [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Hoey, T., Gardner, M. H., Ma, R., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2026) Unpredictable grammatical choices are not harder than predictable ones. Language Variation and Change, –. 10.1017/S0954394526100660
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394526100660 [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Hoey, T., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Gardner, M. H.
    (2025) Choice and complexity: In naturally occurring data, absolute complexity does not necessarily trigger relative complexity. Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Wulff, S., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2019) Particle Placement in Learner Language. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/lang.12354
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12354 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wulff, S., Gries, S. Th., & Lester, N.
    (2018) Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. InA. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110572186‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572186-004 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.25036.dub
Loading
The relative complexity of alternation phenomena in spoken English as a Foreign Language
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.25036.dub
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.25036.dub
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.25036.dub
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: complexity ; EFL ; proficiency ; alternations ; SLA

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