Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Corpus-based Research on Academic Writing: Effects of discipline, register, and writer expertise
Edited by Ute Römer-Barron, Viviana Cortes and Eric Friginal
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 95] 2020
► pp. 33–58

Give constructions in Korean EFL learner writing

| Georgia State University
This study aims to investigate constructions of the verb give used by Korean EFL learners, along with an in-depth analysis of ditransitive use and L1 influences. The use of give in a Korean EFL learner corpus and a reference native speaker corpus is analyzed in terms of different construction types and their frequencies. In-depth analysis of ditransitive use of give was conducted using three factors: pronominality, weight, and semantic classes. L1 influence was discussed and a Korean language corpus was used to provide evidence to strengthen the arguments. This study concludes with the discussion of limitations, and future directions for understanding Korean EFL learners’ developmental trajectory of construction acquisition within the usage-based framework.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Constructions of the verb give
    • 2.2Contrastive corpus studies and L1 influence in corpus studies
    • 2.3The current study
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Corpora
    • 3.2Data extraction
    • 3.3Data analysis
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Constructions and frequencies
    • 4.2In-depth analysis of ditransitive constructions
      • 4.2.1Pronominality
      • 4.2.2Weight
      • 4.2.3Semantic classes
    • 4.3L1 influence found in collocations and idiosyncratic usage
      • 4.3.1Syntactic errors in ditransitive/to-dative constructions: Word order
      • 4.3.2Overuse of the causation sense
      • 4.3.3Idiosyncratic use: Collocational transfer
  • 5.Conclusions
    • 5.1Limitations
    • 5.2Future directions
  • References
Published online: 20 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.95.02nam
References (59)
References
Ädel, Annelie & Römer, Ute. 2012. Research on advanced student writing across disciplines and student levels: Introducing the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(1): 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt & Granger, Sylviane. 2001. The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2): 173–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2018. AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. <[URL]> (15 October 2019).
Arnold, Jennifer E., Losongco, Anthony, Wasow, Thomas & Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76(1): 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benor, Sarah Bunin & Levy, Roger. 2006. The chicken of the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82(2): 233–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Cognition and the Development of Language, John R. Hayes (ed.), 279–362. New York NY: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1): 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: KNAW.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 49–69. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Callies, Marcus & Szczesniak, Konrad. 2008. Argument realisation, information status and syntactic weight: A learner-corpus study of the dative alternation. In Corpus Linguistics and Research into Second Language Acquisition, Maik Walter & Patrick Grommes (eds), 165–187. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Childers, Jane B. & Tomasello, Michael. 2001. The role of pronouns in young children’s acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology 37(6): 739–748. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. A Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa & Lieven, Elena. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(4): 437–474.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Ferreira-Junior, Fernando. 2009. Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3): 370–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., O’Donnell, Matthew B. & Römer, Ute. 2013. Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning 63(1): 25–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The processing of verb–argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Cognitive Linguistics 25(1): 55–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Søren W. 2015. What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning of English questions. Language Learning 65(1): 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Construction at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Meunier, Fanny (eds). 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Wulff, Stefanie. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3(1): 82–200.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, Angela. 1994. Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 237–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical Priming. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huang, James C. T. 1984. On the typology of zero anaphora. Language Research 20(2): 85–105.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Graeme. 2008. Phraseology and language pedagogy: Semantic preference associated with English verbs in the British National Corpus. Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching 32(3): 21–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Myung-Hee. 2002. Uses of Make in Korean EFL learner writing: A corpus-based study. English Education 57(4): 297–314.Google Scholar
Kim, Hansaem. 2006. Korean National Corpus in the 21st Century Sejong Project. Proceedings of the 13th NIJL International Symposium, 49–54. Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Kim, Hyunwoo, Choi, Heyeon & Yang, Hyun-Kwon. 2013. Developmental patterns of Korean EFL learners’ English argument structure constructions. Social and Behavioral Sciences 97: 397–404.Google Scholar
Kim, Su Jeong. 2015. The effect of learner proficiency and L1transfer on the use of Make by Korean EFL learners of English. Language Research 51(1): 139–166.Google Scholar
Laufer, Batia & Waldman, Tina. 2011. Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus-analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning 61(2): 647–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Choonhee. 2015. Corpus-based analysis of ditransitive construction by Korean university students. Studies in English Language & Literature 41(4): 167–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hee-Kyung. 2011. Investigating the applicability of the CEFR to a placement test for an English language program in Korea. English Language and Linguistics 17(3): 29–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, In. 2016. Young Korean learners’ usage of the verb give: Evidence from their narratives. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 24(1): 21–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Yun Jeong. 2016. An Analysis of the Authenticity of the Words in Scholastic Proficiency Tests and High School English Texts. MA thesis, The Graduate School of Changwon National University, Korea.Google Scholar
Manzanares, Javier Valenzuela & Lopez, Ana María Rojo. 2008. What can language learners tell us about constructions? In Cognitive Approaches to Pedagogical Grammar, Sabine De Knop & Teun De Rycker (eds), 197–230. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2003. The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching, Applied Linguistics 24(2): 223–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, John. 2015. -Transfer and learner corpus research. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds), 333–356. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Arum, Lim, Seunghee & Hong, Munpyo. 2015. Zero object resolution in Korean. In Proceedings of the 29th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computing, Shanghai 30 October–1 November, 439–448. Shanghai: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (15 October 2019).
Rah, Yangon, & Kim, Hyunwoo. 2018. Construction-based approach to teaching the English resultative construction to Korean EFL learners. System 72(1): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhee, Seok-Chae & Jung, Chae Kwan. 2014. Compilation of the Yonsei English Learner Corpus (YELC) 2011 and its use for understanding current usage of English by Korean pre-university Students. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 14(11): 1019–1029. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, Karen. 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
Römer, Ute. 2004a. A corpus-driven approach to modal auxiliaries and their didactics. In How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 12], John Sinclair (ed.), 185–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. Comparing real and ideal language learner input: The use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. In Studies in Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 17], Guy Aston, Silvia Bernardini & Dominic Stewart (eds), 151–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2011. Corpus research application in second language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31: 205–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, Ute & O’Donnell, Matthew B. 2011. From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student. Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 6(2): 159–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryu, Seung Yeon. 2017. A Corpus-based Analysis of English Phrasal Verbs in Elementary/Middle/High School Textbooks. MA thesis, The Graduate School of Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Sung, Min-chang & Yang, Hyun-Kwon. 2016. Effects of construction-centered instruction on Korean students’ learning of English transitive resultative constructions. In Applied Construction Grammar, Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds), 89–114. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1990. Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In Development and Diversity: Variation across Time and Space, Jerold Edmondson, Crawford Feagin & Peter Mühlhäusler (eds), 239–253. Dallas, TX: SIL.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Arnold, Jennifer. 2003. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 119–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Qi. 2015. Lexical priming effects of textbooks on EFL Learners’ use of give. English Language Teaching 8(10): 123–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Item-based foreign language learning of give ditransitive constructions: Evidence from corpus research. System 63: 65–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Year, Jungeun & Gordon, Peter. 2009. Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. The Modern Language Journal 93(3): 399–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar