This multifactorial corpus-based study focuses on dative alternation constructions (Mark gave his daughter a gift versus Mark gave a gift to his daughter) and contrasts 1,313 give occurrences in ditransitive and prepositional dative constructions across native, learner (EFL) and world (ESL) Englishes. Using cluster analysis and regression modeling, I analyze how grammatical contexts constrain syntactic choices in EFL and ESL and how speakers with different instructional backgrounds develop different variation patterns in their own English variety. The regression model reveals that the English variety factor accounts significantly for syntactic variation. In addition, the study identifies a prototypical prepositional dative construction in non-native English, which serves as a default construction for learners in more complex grammatical contexts. This study stresses the importance of reaching beyond structural linguistic differences by investigating processing (dis)similarities between EFL and ESL and shows the usefulness of a cognitive theoretical framework as a unified approach to cross-varietal variation.
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and R. Harald Baayen
2007“Predicting the Dative Alternation”. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer, and Joost Zwarts, eds. Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.
Bresnan, Joan, and Jennifer Hay
2008“Gradient Grammar: An Effect of Animacy on the Syntax of Give in New Zeland and American English”. Lingua 1181: 245–259.
Collins, Peter
1995“The Indirect Object Construction in English: An Informational Approach”. Linguistics 331: 35–49.
Cutler, Richard
2010Tree-based Methods for Classification and Regression. NESCent Workshop on Tree-based methods for Classification and regression. [URL] (accessed June 13, 2013)
Deshors, Sandra C., and Stefan Th. Gries
2014 “A Case for the Multifactorial Assessment of Learner Language: The Uses of ‘May’ and ‘Can’ in French-English Interlanguage”. In Dylan Glynn and Justyna Robinson eds. Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy Amsterdam John Benjamins 179 204
Divjak, Dagmar S., and Stefan Th. Gries
2006“Ways of Trying in Russian: Clustering Behavioral Profiles”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21: 23–60.
Divjak, Dagmar S., and Stefan Th. Gries
2009“Corpus-Based Cognitive Semantics: A Contrastive Study of Phasal Verbs in English and Russian”. In Katarzyna Dziwirek and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, eds. Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 273–296.
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2011“Corpus Linguistics to Bridge the Gap between World Englishes and Learner Englishes”. In L. Ruiz Miyares and M.R. Álvarez Silva, eds. Comunicación social en el siglo XXI, Vol. II1. Santiago de Cuba: Centro de Lingüística Aplicada, 638–642.
2009BehavioralProfiles 1.01. A program for R 2.7.1 and higher.
Gries, Stefan Th, and Allison S. Adelman
2014. “Subject Realization in Japanese Conversation by Native and Non-Native Speakers: Exemplifying a New Paradigm for Learner Corpus Research”. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Methodological Paradigms. Cham: Springer, 35–54.
Gries, Stefan Th, and Sandra C. Deshors
2014. “Using Regressions to Explore Deviations between Corpus Data and a Standard/Target: Two Suggestions”. Corpora 91: 109–136.
2013Differences in Prenominal Adjective Order by Native Speakers and Learners: A Two-Step Regression-Analytic Procedure. Paper presented at the 2013 conference of the American Association for Corpus Linguistics, California State University, San Diego, January 18, 2013.
Gries, Stefan Th, and Stefanie Wulff
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.
Groves, Julie
2010“Error or Feature? The Issue of Interlanguage Deviations in Non-Native Varieties of English”. Hong Kong Baptist University Papers in Applied Language Studies 141: 108–129.
2011b“Introduction: Bridging a Paradigm Gap”. In Joybrato Mukherjee and Marianne Hundt, eds. Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging the Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–7.
Kachru, Braj B
ed1982The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, Braj B
1991“Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern”. English Today 251: 3–13.
2023. Alternation phenomena and language proficiency: the genitive alternation in the spoken language of EFL learners. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:3 ► pp. 427 ff.
Edwards, Alison & Rutger-Jan Lange
2016. In case ofinnovation. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2:2 ► pp. 252 ff.
Flowerdew, John
2022. Models of English for research publication purposes. World Englishes 41:4 ► pp. 571 ff.
Gries, Stefan Th., Santa Barbara, Justus Liebig & Sandra C. Deshors
2020. There’s more to alternations than the main diagonal of a 2×2 confusion matrix: Improvements of MuPDAR and other classificatory alternation studies. ICAME Journal 44:1 ► pp. 69 ff.
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra C. Deshors
2015. EFL and/vs. ESL?. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1:1 ► pp. 130 ff.
Hall, Christopher J., Jack Joyce & Chris Robson
2017. Investigating the lexico-grammatical resources of a non-native user of English: The case of can and could in email requests
. Applied Linguistics Review 8:1 ► pp. 35 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.