Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 8:2 (2022) ► pp.157–189
Research articles

Strategies of clausal postmodification in learner English

L1 effects and L2 proficiency

| Radboud Universiteit
| Radboud Universiteit
| Independent scholar

The difficulty of automatically extracting syntactic structures from authentic learner data has previously limited the kinds of questions addressed by means of Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (CIA; Granger, 2015), or has forced researchers to resort to manual analysis of smaller corpora. This study responds to the call for greater use of parsed corpora by using automated parsing and refined corpus analysis software to investigate advanced EFL learners’ use of relative and participial clauses for nominal postmodification. The use of clausal postmodifiers inside the noun phrase may be seen as a marker of proficiency and syntactic maturity in academic writing, but the proportional use of relative and participial clauses for nominal postmodification may also be subject to L1 transfer. To investigate the role of transfer and syntactic maturity in the use of nominal postmodification, we compare texts written by Dutch EFL learners with those produced by learners from typologically distinct L1s, i.e. Czech and French, and by native speakers of English. Use of participial clauses and relative clauses in Dutch learners’ EFL texts is then compared with their use in L1 Dutch. The high degree of L1-interlanguage congruity suggests that transfer plays an important role in the Dutch learners’ strong preference for relative clauses for nominal postmodification. Based on the comparison with both other learner groups, we hypothesize that such transfer effects in the use of clausal postmodification can only emerge once the learner has reached a sufficient level of syntactic maturity in the target language.

Keywords: nominal postmodification, relative clauses, participial clauses, EFL writing, Dutch, French, Czech
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research on relative clauses and participial clauses in EFL writing
    • 2.1Underrepresentation of participial clauses in EFL writing
    • 2.2The role of transfer
    • 2.3Syntactic complexity and syntactic maturity
  • 3.Contrastive overview of clausal postmodification patterns
    • 3.1English
    • 3.2Dutch
    • 3.2French
    • 3.3Czech
    • 3.4Expectations based on the L1 patterns
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Corpus material and analysis
    • 4.2Syntactic complexity of the texts in our sample
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Overall use of clausal postmodification
    • 5.3Participial clauses
    • 5.4Relative clauses
    • 5.5Dutch L1 and Dutch EFL writing
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
    • 6.1Preferences for postmodification patterns
    • 6.2Automated extraction of learner corpus data for syntactic analysis
    • 6.3Future research and implications for the EFL classroom
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.21013.vuu
References
Aarts, F., & Wekker, H.
(1993) A contrastive grammar of English and Dutch/Contrastieve grammatica Engels/Nederlands (2nd ed.). Springer.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
(2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 5–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
(2020) Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46 1, 100869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022) The register-functional approach to grammatical complexity: Theoretical foundation, descriptive research findings, application. Routledge.Google Scholar
Cooper, T. C.
(1976) Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. The Journal of Educational Research, 69 (5), 176–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Čechová, M. et al.
(1996) Čeština: řeč a jazyk, ISV.Google Scholar
Cosme, C.
(2008) Participle clauses in learner English: the role of transfer. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & M. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp. 177–198). Brill-Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe
(2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. [URL]
(2018) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. [URL]
De Haan, P.
(1989) Postmodifying Clauses in the English Noun Phrase. Rodopi.Google Scholar
De Moor, W., & Copriau, E.
(1998) A Contrastive Reference Grammar. Pelkmans.Google Scholar
Faigley, L.
(1979) The influence of generative rhetoric on the syntactic maturity and writing effectiveness of college freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 13 (3), 197–206.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L.
(1998) Integrating expert and interlanguage computer corpora findings on causality: discoveries for teachers and students. English for Specific Purposes, 17 (4), 329–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S.
(1997) On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: native and non-native writers compared. In J. Aarts, I. de Mönnink, & H. Wekker (Eds.), Studies in English language and teaching: In honor of Flor Aarts (pp. 185–198). Rodopi.Google Scholar
(1998) The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp. 3–18). Longman.Google Scholar
(2015) Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1 (1), 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E. & Meunier, F.
(2002) The International Corpus of Learner English. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M.
(2009) The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM (Version 2). Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dupont, M., Meunier, F., Naets, H., & Paquot, M.
(2020) The International Corpus of Learner English (Version 3). Presses universitaires de Louvain. [URL]
Hinkel, E.
(Ed.) (2002) Second Language Writers’ Text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Townsend, Ch. E.
(2000) Czech. Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S.
(2000) Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50 (2), 245–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kameen, Patrick
1983 Syntactic skills and ESL writing quality. In A. Freedman, I. Pringle and J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language (pp. 162-170). Longman.Google Scholar
Klein, D., & Manning, C. D.
(2003) Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In E. Hinrichs & D. Roth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics-Volume 1 (pp. 423–430). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komen, E. R.
(2017) Beyond Counting Syntactic Hits. In J. Odijk & A. van Hessen (Eds.), CLARIN in the Low Countries (pp. 259–268). Ubiquity Press. DOI logo. License: CC-BY 4.0.Google Scholar
Kyle, K.
(2021) Natural language processing for learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 7 (1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, X.
(2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15 (4), 474–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malá, M., & Šaldová, P.
(2015) English non-finite participial clauses as seen through their Czech counterparts. Nordic Journal of English Studies 14 (1), 232–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F.
(2016) Introduction to the LONGDALE project. In E. Castello, K. Ackerley, & F. Coccetta (Eds.), Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics: Research and applications for foreign language teaching and assessment (pp. 123–126). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Morenberg, M.
(1979, April). The Elusive Nature of the Relationship between Syntactic Maturity and Writing Quality. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication 1979, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
O’Donnell, R. C.
(1976) A critique of some indices of syntactic maturity. Research in the Teaching of English, 10 (1), 31–38.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M., Murcia, S., García, R., Molina, C., Rollinson, P., MacDonald, P., & Boquera, M.
(2009) Exploring the proficiency of English learners: The TREACLE project. Proceedings of the Fifth Corpus Linguistics Conference 2009, University of Liverpool. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed: October 06, 2022).
Parkinson, J., & Musgrave, J.
(2014) Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14 1, 48–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poldauf, I.
(1955) "Vztaţné věty v angličtině a češtině‟, Sborník Vysoké školy pedagogické Olomouci, Jazyk a literatura II1, 159-194.Google Scholar
Parrot, M.
(Ed.) (2000) Grammar for English language teachers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J.
(1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. F.
(1978) Syntactic maturity from high school to university: A first look. Research in the Teaching of English, 12 (1), 37–46.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. F., & Grobe, C. H.
(1979) Syntactic maturity, mechanics of writing, and teachers’ quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 13 (3), 207–215.Google Scholar
Švecová, M.
(2010) Czech relative clauses in translation to English. BA Thesis, Univerzita Karlova V Praze.Google Scholar
Van Noord, G.
(2006) At last parsing is now operational. Actes de la 13ème conférence sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles. Conférences invitees, 20–42.Google Scholar
Xinhua, Z.
(2008) Is Syntactic Maturity a Reliable Measurement to Investigate the Relationship Between English Speaking and Writing?. The Asian EFL Journal, 10 (1), 133–154.Google Scholar