Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 5:1 (2019) ► pp.1–32

That’s hard

Relativizer use in spontaneous L2 speech

 | University of California, Santa Barbara
Language learners are highly sensitive to statistical patterns in the input. When a target language provides the option to include or omit a grammatical form, learners have been shown to make decisions quite similar to native speakers. For example, learners opt to include or omit the complementizer that (as in I know (that) Steffi likes hot tea). This phenomenon has been explained in terms of a universal suite of cognitive mechanisms which support native and learner performance alike. Both learners and native speakers choose to include the complementizer when they are producing more complex or unexpected structures. The present study attempts to generalize these findings to another domain of “optional” grammatical markers, namely, relativizers (as in the hot tea (that) Steffi likes). I analyze all instances of optional relativizer use in a corpus of spontaneous learner speech produced by Spanish and German learners of English. Both of these languages have obligatory relativizers. A two-step generalized additive regression modeling technique (MuPDAR) that predicts learner choices based on native-speaker choices demonstrates that native speakers use greater shares of the relativizer in complex and disfluent environments, while learners show the exact opposite tendency: they prefer to drop the relativizer in complex and disfluent environments. These findings are discussed based on differences between complementizers and relativizers, and in terms of the limited universality of optional grammatical marking in learner speech.
Keywords: L2 speech, optional grammatical markers, relativizers, MuPDAR, disfluency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Restrictive relative clauses in English, German, and Spanish
    • 1.2Variable relativizer use in English
      • 1.2.1Native speakers
      • 1.2.2Adult learners
  • 2.Data and methods
    • 2.1Data extraction and annotation
    • 2.2Multifactorial prediction and deviation analysis with regressions (MuPDAR)
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1R1: Modeling native-speaker behavior
    • 3.2Applying the native model to the learner data
    • 3.3R2
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17013.les
References (59)
References
Aarts, B. (2011). Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2013). “Well I’m not sure I think… The use of well by non-native speakers”. In G. Gilquin & S. De Cock (Eds.), Errors and Disfluencies in Spoken Corpora. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, R. E., & Ángel San José, M. (2010). A Reference Grammar of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (1998). “Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: A study of complement clauses”. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer. London: Longman, 145–158.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). “Syntactic persistence in language production”. Cognitive Psychology 181, 355–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (2004). “Pragmatics of language performance”. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 365–382.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). “Using ‘uh’ and ‘um’ in spontaneous speaking”. Cognition 841, 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, A., & Tagliamonte, S. A. (2010). “Prestige, accommodation, and the legacy of relative ‘who’”. Language in Society 391, 383–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cock, S. (2004). “Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech”. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL) 21, 225–246.Google Scholar
Deshors, S. C., & Gries, S. Th. (2016). “Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: A two-step random forests analysis of ing vs. to complements. International Journal of Corpus Lingusitics 211, 192–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). “The Architecture of the Bilingual Word Recognition System: From Identification to Decision”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 51, 175–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dodd, B., Eckhard-Black, C., Klapper, J., & Whittle, R. (2003). Modern German Grammar: A Practical Guide, Second Edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Durham, M. (2011). “I think (that) something’s missing: Complementizer deletion in non-native emails”. Studies in Second Lanuage Learning and Teaching 11, 421–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008). “Usage-based and form-focused SLA: The implicit and explicit learning of constructions”. In A. Tyler, K. Yiyoung & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the Context of Use: Cognitive and Discourse Approaches to Language and Language Learning. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 93–121.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). “Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 331, 589–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). “Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production”. Cognitive Psychology 401, 296–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flanigan, B. O., & Inal, E. (1996). “Object relative pronoun use in native and non-native English: A variable rule analysis”. Language Variation and Change 81, 203–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2007). “Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency, and the notion of construction”. Studies in Language 311, 293–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1979). “Language transfer and universal grammatical relations”. Language Learning 291, 327–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). “Input and interaction”. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 224–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., De Cock, S., & Granger, S. (2010). The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. CD-ROM and Handbook. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F. (2002). International Corpus of Learner English, Louvain: UCL.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Adelman, A. S. (2014). “Subject realization in Japanese conversation by native and non-native speakers: Exemplifying a new paradigm for learner corpus research”. In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms. Cham: Springer, 35–54.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Bernaisch, T. (2016). “Exploring epicentres empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes”. English World-Wide 371, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Deshors, S. C. (2014). “Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions”. Corpora 91, 109–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Notebaert, L. (2009). “Lexical access problems lead to disfluencies in speech”. Experimental Psychology 571, 169–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, B., Bernaisch, T., & Gries, S. Th. (2017). “Empirical perspectives on two potential epicenters: The genitive alternation in Asian Englishes”. ICAME Journal 411, 111–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, L., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Bohmann, A. (2015). “ Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause”. Language 911, 806–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ioup, G., & Kruse, A. (1977). “Interference versus structural complexity as a predictor of second language relative clause acquisition”. In. C. Henning (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Language Research Forum. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, 22–35.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2005). “Optional that indicates production difficulty: Evidence from disfluencies”. Proceedings of DiSS ’05: The Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop. France: Aix-en-Provence, 103–109.Google Scholar
(2010). “Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density”. Cognitive Psychology 611, 23–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. E. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 1271, 57–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., & Wasow, T. (2005). “Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation”. In R. T. Hart & Y. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Ann Arbor: Sheridan, 169–180.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). “Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry 81, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bogulski, C. A., & Valdes-Kroff, J. (2012). Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. In B. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Volume 561. San Diego: Academic Press, 229–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1988). “’There was a farmer had a dog’: Syntactic Amalgams revisited”. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: UC Berkeley, 319–339.Google Scholar
Lee, O. (2013). “Experience and the processing of relative clauses by Korean learners of English”. In J. C. Amaro, T. Judy & D. Pascual y Cabo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 100–105.Google Scholar
Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). “Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction”. In B. Schlökopf, J. Platt & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press, 849–856.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). “How language production shapes language form and comprehension”. Frontiers in Psychology 41, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K. (2006). “Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 281, 179–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2011). The logic of the Unified Model. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge, 211–227.Google Scholar
Myhill, J. (1982). “The acquisition of complex sentences: A cross-linguistic study”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41, 193–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olofsson, A. (2009). “The gift of the gap: A study of Dutch and Swedish learners’ use of the English zero relativizer”. English Studies 901, 333–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pampel, F. C. (2000). Logistic Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Race, D. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). “The use of ‘that’ in the production and comprehension of object relative clauses”. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston: Cognitive Science Society, 946–951.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. (1996). “Syntactic complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English”. Cognitive Linguistics 71, 149–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ryan, J. (2015). “Overexplicit referent tracking in L2 English: Strategy, avoidance, or myth? Language Learning 651, 824–859. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. (1974). “An error in error analysis”. Language Learning 241, 205–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simas, A. B., Barreto-Souza, W., & Rocha, A. V. (2010). “Improved Estimators for a General Class of Beta Regression Models”. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 541, 348–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2006). Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English. A Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Discourse Analysis. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarallo, F., & Myhill, J. (2006). “Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition”. Language Learning 331, 55–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temperley, D. (2003). “Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses”. Language 791, 464–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G. (1995). “The man Ø I love: An analysis of factors favouring zero relatives in written British and American English”. In G. Melchers & B. Warren (Eds.), Studies in Anglistics. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 201–215.Google Scholar
Wasow, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Orr, D. M. (2011). “Lexical variation in relativizer frequency”. In H. J. Simon & H. Wiese (Eds.), Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar. New York: de Gruyter, 175–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, S. (2006). Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. New York: Chapman & Hall CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. (2016). “A friendly conspiracy of input, L1, and processing demands: that – variation in German and Spanish learner language”. In L. Ortega, A. E. Tyler, H. I. Park & M. Uno (Eds.), The Usage-based Study of Language Learning and Multilingualism ( Proceedings of GURT 2014 ). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 115–136.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Gries, S. Th. & Lester, N. A. in press. “Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners: Where and how German and Spanish learners differ from native speakers”. In A. Tyler & C. Moder (Eds.), What Does Applied Cognitive Linguistics Look Like? Answers from the L2 Classroom and SLA Studies. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Wulff, S., Lester, N., & Martinez-Garcia, M. T. (2014). “That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English”. Language and Cognition 61, 271–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Paquot, Magali
2024. Learner corpus research: a critical appraisal and roadmap for contributing (more) to SLA research agendas. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 20:3 ► pp. 567 ff. DOI logo
GRIES, STEFAN T.
2023. New Technologies and Advances in Statistical Analysis in Recent Decades. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 561 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th.
2022. MuPDAR for corpus-based learner and variety studies. In Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 105], ► pp. 256 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th.
2024. Against level-3-only analyses in corpus linguistics. ICAME Journal 48:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Wulff, Stefanie & Stefan Th. Gries
2019. Particle Placement in Learner Language. Language Learning 69:4 ► pp. 873 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 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.