Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:07:53.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Using Syntactic Co-occurrences to Trace Phraseological Complexity Development in Learner Writing: Verb + Object Structures in LONGDALE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

By
Magali Paquot ,
Hubert Naets  and
Stefan Th. Gries
Edited by
Bert Le Bruyn  and
Magali Paquot
Bert Le Bruyn
Affiliation:
UIL-OTS, Utrecht University
Magali Paquot
Affiliation:
FNRS – Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, UCLouvain
Get access

Summary

This study investigates phraseological complexity development in the writing of French learners of English as a Foreign Language from the Longitudinal Database of Learner English (LONGDALE). More particularly, it examines the effects of proficiency and time spent learning English on the phraseological sophistication of verb + object relations, which is measured with mutual information at three data collection points. Results of a mixed-effects model in which we control for potential effects of topic/prompt show that learner proficiency, as assessed by a standardized test, is a better predictor of phraseological complexity in each learner writing sample than the actual data collection point at which the essay was written, thus suggesting that the time dimension does not add anything to, or modify what we already know about, EFL learners’ use of statistical co-occurrences as represented in this longitudinal corpus.

Keywords

phraseologystatistical co-occurrencescollocationsdependency relationslongitudinal learner corpusproficiencyprompt
Type
Chapter
Information
Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition , pp. 122 - 147
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Abel, A., Nicolas, L., Wisniewski, K., Boyd, A., & Hana, J. (2014). A trilingual learner corpus illustrating European reference levels. Ricognizioni. Rivista di Lingue e Letterature e Culture Moderne 2(1), 111–126, https://doi.org/10.13135/2384-8987/702Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3), 255–278.Google Scholar
Bestgen, Y. (2017). Beyond single-word measures: L2 writing assessment, lexical richness and formulaic competence. System 69, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Y. & Granger, S. (2014). Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing 26, 28–41.Google Scholar
Bestgen, Y. & Granger, S. (2018). Tracking L2 writers’ phraseological development using collgrams: Evidence from a longitudinal EFL corpus. In Hoffmann, S., Sand, A., Arndt-Lappe, S., & Dillman, L. M. (eds). Corpora and Lexis, 277–301. Leiden & Boston: Brill Rodopi.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. & Gablasova, D. (2015). Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the New General Service List. Applied Linguistics 36(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Carlsen, C. (2012). Proficiency level – a fuzzy variable in computer learner corpora. Applied Linguistics 33(2), 161–183.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cunnings, I. & Finlayson, I. (2015). Mixed effects modelling and longitudinal data analysis. In Plonsky, L. (ed.) Advancing Quantitative Methods in Second Language Research, 159–181. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23(4), 397–423.Google Scholar
De Marneffe, M.-C. & Manning, C. (2013). Stanford Typed Dependencies Manual, retrieved from http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/dependencies_manual.pdf (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Durrant, P. & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47(2), 157–177.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O'Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Language Learning Monograph Series. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Evert, S. (2005). The Statistics of Word Cooccurrences: Word Pairs and Collocations. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart, retrieved from www.collocations.de/phd.html (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Evert, S. (2008). Corpora and collocations. In Lüdeling, A. & Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, 1212–1248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering Statistics with R. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning 67(S1), 155–179.Google Scholar
Gentil, G. & Meunier, F. (2018). A systemic functional linguistic approach to usage-based research and instruction. The case of nominalization in L2 academic writing. In Tyler, A. E., Ortega, L., Uno, M., & Park, H. I. (eds.), Usage-Inspired L2 Instruction. Researched Pedagogy, 267–289. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Bestgen, Y. (2014). The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 52(3), 229–252.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). The International Corpus of Learner English, Version 2. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Paquot, M. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In Granger, S. & Meunier, F. (eds), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 27–49. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015). The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1), 95–125.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2018). On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies 1(2), 277–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. 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.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (2013). Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R., Althobaiti, M., & Ma, Y. (2012). Eliminating grammatical function assignment from hierarchical models of speech production: Evidence from the conceptual accessibility of referents. Applied Psycholinguistics 35(4), 1–31.Google Scholar
Housen, A. & Kuiken, F. (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4), 461–73.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012) (eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S. & Sinclair, J. McH. (1974). English lexical collocations. Cahiers De Lexicologie 24, 15–61.Google Scholar
Kyle, K. & Crossley, S. A. (2017). Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing 34(4), 513–535.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb–noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning 61(2), 647–672.Google Scholar
Meunier, F. (2016). Introduction to the LONGDALE project. In Castello, E., Ackerley, K., & Coccetta, F. (eds.), Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics: Research and Applications for Foreign Language Teaching and Assessment, 123–126. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Meunier, F. & Littré, D. (2013). Tracking learners’ progress. Adopting a dual ‘corpus cum experimental data’ approach. The Modern Language Journal 97(1), 61–76.Google Scholar
Meurant, R. (2009). Computer-based Internet-hosted assessment of L2 literacy: Computerizing and administering of the Oxford Quick Placement Test in ExamView and Moodle. In Ślęzak, D., Grosky, W. I., Pissinou, N., Shih, T. K., Kim, T., & Kang, B. H. (eds.), Multimedia, Computer Graphics and Broadcasting. MulGraB 2009. Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 60, 84–91. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nivre, J., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., Chanev, A., Eryigit, G., Kübler, S., Marinov, S., & Marsi, E. (2007). MaltParser: A language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering 13(2), 95–135.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4), 555–578.Google Scholar
Ohlrogge, A. (2009). Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing assessment. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (eds.), Formulaic Language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations, 387–404. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24(4), 492–518.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Interlanguage complexity: A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In Kortmann, B. & Szmrecsanyi, B. (eds.), Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact, 127–155. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2014). Cross-linguistic influence and formulaic language: Recurrent word sequences in French learner writing. In Roberts, L., Vedder, I., & Hulstijn, J. (eds.), EuroSLA Yearbook, 216–237. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2017). L1 frequency in foreign language acquisition: Recurrent word combinations in French and Spanish EFL learner writing. Second Language Research 33(1), 13–32.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2018). Phraseological competence: A useful toolbox to delimitate CEFR levels in higher education? Insights from a study of EFL learners’ use of statistical collocations. Language Assessment Quarterly 15(1), 29–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1405421 10.1080/15434303.2017.1405421Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2019). The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research. Second Language Research 35(1), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317694221Google Scholar
Paquot, M., Hasselgård, H., & Oksefjell Ebeling, S. (2013). Writer/reader visibility in learner writing across genres: A comparison of the French and Norwegian components of the ICLE and VESPA learner corpora. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking Back, Moving Ahead. Corpora and Language in Use – Proceedings 1, 377–387. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. & Naets, H. (2015a). Adopting a relational model of co-occurrences to trace phraseological development. Paper presented at the 3rd Learner Corpus Research Conference. Netherlands, September 11–13 2015.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. & Naets, H. (2015b). Using relational co-occurrences to trace phraseological development in a longitudinal corpus. Paper presented at the 25th EuroSLA conference. Aix-en-Provence, August 27–29, 2015.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. & Naets, H. (2017). The role of the reference corpus in studies of EFL learners’ use of statistical collocations. Paper presented at ICAME38. Prague, May 24–28, 2017.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, retrieved from www.R-project.org (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Schäfer, R. (2015). Processing and querying large Web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In Bański, P., Biber, H., Breiteneder, E., Kupietz, M., Lüngen, H., & Andreas, W. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3), 28–34. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. Paper presented at the International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing. Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. (2013). Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 77–101.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2006). Research synthesis and historiography: The case of assessment of second language proficiency. In Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tono, Y. (2003). Learner corpora: Design, development and applications. In Rayson, P., Wilson, A., McEnery, T., Hardie, A., & Khoja, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference. UCREL Technical Paper Number 13, 800–809. Lancaster, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, K. (2017). Empirical learner language and the levels of the Common European Framework of Reference. Language Learning 67(S1), 232–253.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy, and Complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×