Cover not available
Part of
Speaking in a Second Language
Edited by Rosa Alonso Alonso
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 17] 2018
► pp. 127–152

Chapter 6
Exploring the spoken learner English constructicon

A corpus-driven approach

| Université catholique de Louvain

This study, which is set in the field of Applied Construction Grammar, seeks to identify the constructions that are typical of higher intermediate to advanced spoken learner English. It does so by relying on the recurrent sequences of part-of-speech (POS) tags extracted from the Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI) and its native counterpart. This corpus-driven approach reveals that learner speech mainly consists of basic constructions like [NP] or [Subj V], although longer and more complex constructions can be found among the less frequent sequences. The chapter also discusses methodological issues (such as the link between POS tag sequences and constructions), as well as theoretical matters (including the place of speech in Construction Grammar).

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Construction Grammar and learner speech
  • 2. Part-of-speech tagging to explore a constructicon
  • 3. Corpora and methodology
  • 4.A corpus-driven analysis of LINDSEI’s constructicon
    • 4.1Single POS tags
    • 4.2Top POS n-grams
  • 5.Methodological afterthoughts
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 12 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.17.06gil
References
Aarts, J., & Granger, S.
(1998) Tag sequences in learner corpora: A key to interlanguage grammar and discourse. In S. Granger (ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 132–141). London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Ädel, A.
(2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B.
(1991) Amplifier collocations in spoken English. In S. Johansson & A.-B. Stenström (Eds.), English computer corpora: Selected papers and research guide (pp. 127–147). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaman, K.
(1984) Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 45–80). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bel, N., Queralt, S., Spassova, M., & Turell, M. T.
(2012) The use of sequences of linguistic categories in forensic written text comparison revisited. In Proceedings of the International Association of Forensic Linguists’ Tenth Biennial Conference (pp. 192–209). Birmingham: Centre for Forensic Linguistics, Aston University.Google Scholar
Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4), 640–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(2010) Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 193–223). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Borin, L., & Prütz, K.
(2004) New wine in old skins? A corpus investigation of L1 syntactic transfer in learner language. In G. Aston, S. Bernardini, & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora and language learners (pp. 67–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouveret, M., & Legallois, D.
(Eds.) (2012) Constructions in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Thompson, S.
(1997) Three frequency effects in syntax. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure (pp. 378–388). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., & Grabar, N.
(2016) Towards an n-grammar of English. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 271–302). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P.
(2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E.
(2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. M., & Biber, D.
(2004) The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cock, S.
(2004) Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series, 2, 225–246.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G.
(Eds.) (2016) Applied construction grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F.
(2016) A construction-based analysis of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 53–87). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2009) Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 19(3): 221–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.
(2013) Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
(2009) Constructions and their acquisition. Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W.
(2014) What’s new? A usage-based classroom study of linguistic routines and creativity in L2 learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52(1), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning of English questions. Language Learning. 65(1): 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K.
(2010) Beyond the sentence. Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., & Alm, M.
(2013) A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In L. Degand, B. Cornillie, & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp. 47–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forsberg, M., Johansson, R., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., & Prentice, J.
(2014) From construction candidates to constructicon entries: An experiment using semi-automatic methods for identifying constructions in corpora. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 114–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(2005) Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., & Brezina, V.
(2015) Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015: Current approaches to discourse and translation studies, 117–136. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garside, R., & Smith, N.
(1997) A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In R. Garside, G. Leech, & A. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus annotation: Linguistic information from computer text corpora (pp. 102–121). London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G.
(2015) The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners. A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(1), 51–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) POS-tagging LINDSEI: An experiment. Presentation at the LINDSEI workshop on the POS-tagging of spoken interlanguage, Louvain-la-Neuve, 15 October.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., & De Cock, S.
(2011) Errors and disfluencies in spoken corpora: Setting the scene. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., De Cock, S., & Granger, S.
(2010) Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., & De Knop, S.
(2016) Exploring L2 constructionist approaches. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 3–17). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Golcher, F., & Reznicek, M.
(2011) Stylometry and the interplay of topic and L1 in the different annotation layers in the FALKO corpus. In Proceedings of Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics 4 (QITL-4) (pp. 29–34). Berlin.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F.
(2002) The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Petch-Tyson, S.
(1996) Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2008) Germanic future constructions. A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, G.
(1996) The corpus as a research domain. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English (pp. 217–226). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y.
(2006) Corpus-based language studies. An advanced resource book. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G.
(2015) A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31(1), 117–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, K.
(2014) Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning, 64(4), 771–808. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, G., & Gilquin, G.
(2016) Detecting innovations in a parsed corpus of learner English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 2(2), 177–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spassova, M., & Turell, M. T.
(2007) The use of morpho-syntactically annotated tag sequences as markers of authorship. In Proceedings of the Second European IAFL Conference on Forensic Linguistics, Language and the Law (pp. 229–237). Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Tizón-Couto, B.
(2014) Clausal complements in native and learner spoken English. A corpus-based study with LINDSEI and VICOLSE. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, E.
(2001) Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tono, Y.
(2000) A corpus-based analysis of interlanguage development: Analysing part-of-speech sequences of EFL learner corpora. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & P. J. Melia (Eds.), PALC’99: Practical Applications in Language Corpora. Papers from the International Conference at the University of Łódź, 15–18 April 1999, 323–340. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Valenzuela Manzanares, J., & Rojo López, A. M.
(2008) What can language learners tell us about constructions? In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 197–230). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wible, D., & Tsao, N.-L.
(2010) StringNet as a computational resource for discovering and investigating linguistic constructions. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT Workshop on Extracting and Using Constructions in Computational Linguistics (pp. 25–31). Los Angeles, CA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wood, D.
(2010) Formulaic language and second language speech fluency: Background, evidence and classroom applications. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2020. In search of constructions in writing process data. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Staples, Shelley & Karin Puga
2022. Integrating fluency and prosody into multidimensional analysis. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8:2 ► pp. 190 ff. DOI logo
Yilmaz, Selahattin & Ute Römer
2020. A corpus-based exploration of constructions in written academic English as a lingua franca. In Advances in Corpus-based Research on Academic Writing [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 95], ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.