Content uploaded by Sylviane Granger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sylviane Granger on Aug 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
PREFABRICATED PATTERNS IN ADVANCED EFL WRITING:
COLLOCATIONS AND LEXICAL PHRASES
Sylviane Granger
in: A.P. Cowie (ed.) (1998) Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications.
Clarendon Press: Oxford, 145-160.
0. Introduction
Over the last decade, the use of prefabs has become a major focus of interest
in EFL, arguably for three main reasons. Firstly, the emergence of the concept of
lexico-grammar, inspired by Halliday and Sinclair, has promoted the syntagmatic
investigation of lexis. The traditional association between syntagmatics and grammar,
on the one hand, and paradigmatics and lexis, on the other, is a thing of the past.
Secondly, corpus linguistics has played an important role, giving linguists the
computational means to uncover and analyse lexical patterns. Rich information about
word combinations can now be obtained with ease using text retrieval software.
Finally, pragmatics has become a major field of study in its own right, in
linguistics and now in EFL. Pragmatic competence has come to be viewed as an
essential part of learners' competence. The formulaic nature of many pragmalinguistic
rules has necessarily contributed to bringing the study of prefabs to the fore.
1. Prefabs in learner writing
Work at Louvain on word combinations was inspired by the International
Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) project, a project whose aim was to gather and
computerize a corpus of EFL writing from learners of various mother tongue
backgrounds (see S. GRANGER (1993). Although the corpus is not yet complete,
research already undertaken in the fields of lexis and discourse has demonstrated its
potential to uncover factors of non-nativeness in advanced learners' writing.
The methodology employed for most of this research I have termed Contrastive
Interlanguage Analysis (CIA), (see S. GRANGER 1996). CIA may involve two types of
comparison: a comparison of native and non-native varieties of one and the same
language: L1 vs L2, or a comparison of several non-native varieties: L2 vs L2.
The investigations presented in this paper are based on the former type of
comparison. The initial hypothesis was that learners would make less use of prefabs,
or conventionalised language, in their writing than their native speaker counterparts,
given that the use of such language is universally presented as typically native-like. I
hypothesised that learners would make much greater use of what J. SINCLAIR (1987,
319) calls the open choice principle than native speakers, who have been found to
operate primarily according to the idiom principle. To use G. KJELLMER's (1991,
124) metaphor, I expected the learners' building material to be individual bricks rather
than prefabricated sections. The data compared came from a corpus of native English
writing and a similar corpus of writing by advanced French-speaking learners of
2
English. The learner corpus is a subcorpus of the ICLE database. The native speaker
corpus is made up of three main parts: the Louvain essay corpus, the student essay
component of the International Corpus of English (ICE) and the Belles Lettres
category of the LOB corpus
1
.
2. Two types of prefabs: collocations and lexical phrases
For the purposes of the investigation, a distinction is made between
collocations and lexical phrases. The term collocation is used to refer to "the linguistic
phenomenon whereby a given vocabulary item prefers the company of another item
rather than its 'synonyms' because of constraints which are not on the level of syntax
or conceptual meaning but on that of usage" (J. VAN ROEY, 1990, 46). This
phenomenon is illustrated in combinations such as commit suicide, sound asleep or
pitched battle, which M. BENSON et al (1986) call 'lexical collocations' and E.
AISENSTADT (1979) 'restricted collocations'. Following NATTINGER & DECARRICO
(1992) I oppose this type of string to lexical phrases, such as be that as it may or it
seems (to me) (that) X, which have pragmatic functions.
2.1 Collocations
2.1.1. Collocational study of amplifiers
For the collocational study, one category of intensifying adverbs was selected:
amplifiers ending in -ly and functioning as modifiers, such as those in examples 1-3
below:
(1) ...although this feeling is perfectly natural.
(2) ...themes in Les Mouches which are very closely linked with
(3) ...a young man who is deeply in love.
They constitute a particularly rich category of collocation, involving as they do a
complex interplay of semantic, lexical and stylistic restrictions and covering the whole
collocational spectrum, ranging from restricted collocability - as in bitterly cold - to
wide collocability - as in completely different/new/free/etc. In including adverbs such
as bitterly in bitterly cold or unbearably in unbearably ugly, I have adopted a much
wider notion of amplifier than other linguists such as U. BACKLUND (1973), who
rejects adverbs such as these which express both degree and manner.
Using the text retrieval software TACT, all the words ending in -ly were
automatically retrieved from the native and non-native corpora and then manually
sorted according to the predefined semantic and syntactic criteria.
As a first step, the number of tokens and types in the two corpora were
compared, revealing a statistically very significant underuse of amplifiers in the learner
corpus, both in the number of tokens and types (see Table 1).
3
Table 1: Raw frequencies of amplifiers based on a NS corpus of 234,514
words and a NNS corpus of 251,318 words
NS NNS
Types 75 41
-**
Tokens 313 230
-**
The next step was to establish whether this underuse was general or due to
underuse of particular amplifiers or categories of amplifiers.
Of the individual amplifiers, only three demonstrated statistically significant
differences, as shown in Table 2: completely and totally were overused by the
learners and highly was underused. On the whole, however, the frequencies of the
individual amplifiers were often too low to draw meaningful conclusions.
Table 2: Raw frequencies of completely, totally and highly in the NS and
NNS corpus
NS NNS
completely 15 42
+**
totally 18 46
+**
highly 31 11
-**
The wide variety of words with which the learners combined completely and
totally - 36 different collocates for completely, 34 for totally - suggested that they are
used as 'all-round amplifiers' or safe bets. Indeed, practically none of the combinations
produced were felt to be unacceptable or even awkward by native speakers. One
possible explanation for their overuse may well be that they have direct translational
equivalents which are very frequent in French, complètement and totalement, and
which display similarly few collocational restrictions.
There may be an equally feasible interlingual explanation for learners' underuse
of highly, whose literal equivalent, hautement, is only used in formal language and is
relatively much less frequent. It is striking to note that the few combinations that the
learners actually used - such as highly developed / civilized / specialized /
probable - translate very nicely into French.
When it came to examining the amplifiers by category, I chose to apply R.
QUIRK et al's (1985, 590) categorisation of amplifiers into maximizers and boosters.
Maximizers are amplifiers such as absolutely, entirely, totally, which express the
highest degree, while boosters, such as deeply, strongly, highly, merely express a
high degree.
4
Table 3: Raw frequencies of maximizers and boosters in the NS and NNS
corpus
Types Tokens
NS NNS NS NNS
Maximizers 10 10 106 150
Boosters 65 31
-**
207 80
-**
Total 75 41
-**
313 230
-**
As shown in Table 3, learners used the same number of types and a slightly
higher number of tokens (mainly due to overuse of completely and totally) in the
maximiser category, but the overall figures are not statistically significant. However,
the categorisation revealed an underuse of boosters by the learners significant enough
to explain the general underuse of amplifiers attested to earlier.
The category of boosters represents 66% of the amplifiers in the NS corpus vs
only 35% in the learner corpus and the number of types is much higher than in the
category of maximizers, understandably, given that boosters represent an open-ended
set. Quoting examples such as admirably fair or dazzlingly clear, BOLINGER
(1972,25) has pointed out that "virtually any adverb modifying an adjective tends to
have or to develop an intensifying meaning".
Further subdividing the boosters into three categories -those that are
exclusively used by the natives, those that are exclusively used by the learners and
those that occur in the two corpora (see Table 4) - revealed further insights into the
difference in the use of boosters between natives and learners.
Table 4: Boosters: types exclusive to natives or learners and types common
to both.
NS-only NS/NNS NNS-only
Learner corpus 24 (77.5%) 7 (22.5%)
Native corpus 41 (63%) 24 (37%)
The majority of the NNS boosters (77.5%) were used by native speakers too,
while the majority of the NS boosters (63%) were used exclusively by natives.
Broadly speaking, the native-exclusive combinations
2
fell into two categories:
stereotyped combinations such as acutely aware, keenly felt, painfully clear,
5
readily available, vitally important and creative combinations such as ludicrously
ineffective, monotonously uneventful, ruthlessly callous, astonishingly short.
Both types of combination were significantly underused by the learners. The
learner corpus contained some rare examples of creative combinations, such as
ferociously menacing, shamelessly exploited, but these were not always very
successful: dangerously threatened and irretrievably different might seem odd to a
native speaker.
Interestingly, the few stereotyped combinations used by the learners typically
have a direct translational equivalent in French, or are 'lexically congruent' to use J.
BAHNS's (1993) terminology. For example, closely and its French equivalent
étroitement have very similar collocational ranges, as do deeply and profondément.
Several of the combinations used by the learners are typical combinations both in
English and in French: closely linked, closely related, deeply moved, deeply
convinced, deeply rooted, deeply hurt (see Table 5). The collocation deeply
rooted, for instance, which occurs 8 times in the learner corpus, corresponds to
profondément enraciné, which is mentioned as a typical combination in most French
dictionaries.
Table 5: NS and NNS collocations with closely, deeply and severely
NS NNS
closely linked (4)
integrated
attached
linked (3)
involved
related
deeply moved
convinced
affected
moved
convinced
rooted (8)
hurt
in loved
changed
divided
severely punished
restricted
shaken
attacked
depleted
complicated
felt
flogged
punished
For severely, the case is particularly striking: of all the combinations used by
the natives, the only one that translates into French is precisely that used by the
learners: severely punished which corresponds to sévèrement puni. All the other
combinations used by the natives would be impossible in French: sévèrement
6
restreint/ébranlé/attaqué/diminué/etc.
There is also evidence that learners use non-congruent combinations, albeit
comparatively few of them. In fact, there are only three obvious ones, and these are
badly injured, finely detailed, and widely held.
At this stage then, the investigation supports the initial hypothesis that learners
use fewer prefabs than their native speaker counterparts. Further, there is evidence
that the collocations used by the learners are for the most part congruent and may
thus result from transfer from L1.
But the general picture is one of learners who seem to use amplifiers more as
building bricks than as prefabricated sections. They tend to use some amplifiers as
'all-rounders', a tendency confirmed by their use of the amplifier very which although
not part of the present investigation was analysed independently. The analysis
showed a highly significant overuse of very, the all-round amplifier par excellence
3.
From the figures in Table 6 one could postulate that the learners' underuse of -ly
amplifiers is compensated for by their overuse of very.
Table 6: Relative frequencies of -ly amplifiers and very
based on 200,000 words per variety
NS NNS
-ly amplifiers 267 183
-**
very 190 329
+**
2.1.2. Significant collocation
It has been established above that learners are using collocations, but that they
underuse native-like collocations and use atypical word combinations. The results of
an independent study we carried out suggest that this is probably due to an
underdeveloped sense of salience and of what constitutes a significant collocation.
The aim of this study was to extract introspective data on collocations and
involved submitting a word combination test to 112 informants, 56 French learners and
56 native speakers
4
. Informants were asked to choose the acceptable collocates of 11
amplifiers, from a list of 15 adjectives, by circling all the adjectives which in their
opinion collocated with the amplifier. If they were unsure about a particular adjective,
they were instructed to underline it and if they felt that one adjective was more
frequently associated with the amplifier than all the others, they were requested to
mark it with an asterisk.
It was the comparison of the forms marked with an asterisk by the learners and
the natives, and which therefore indicated those combinations which were particularly
salient in the subjects' minds, that yielded particularly interesting results.
7
All in all the learners marked with an asterisk over 100 fewer combinations than
the natives (280 vs 384). Table 7 gives clear evidence of the learners' weak sense of
salience. Readily available, for instance, was asterisked by 43 native speakers but
by a mere 8 learners. Bitterly cold was selected by 40 native speakers and only 7
learners. For blissfully, the native speaker selections were evenly distributed between
blissfully happy and blissfully ignorant, asterisked by 19 and 20 informants
respectively, while not one single learner marked the latter combination and only 4
selected the former.
Table 7: Native speaker and learner responses to word-combining test
NS NNS
readily available (43) readily available (8)
bitterly cold (40) bitterly cold (7)
bitterly aware (3)
bitterly miserable (2)
blissfully happy (19)
blissfully ignorant (20)
blissfully happy (4)
fully aware (33)
fully reliable (3)
fully aware (21)
fully reliable (15)
fully different (6)
fully significant (5)
fully impossible (3)
fully available (2)
highly significant (33)
highly reliable (3)
highly important (2)
highly aware (3)
highly significant (15)
highly reliable (7)
highly important (6)
highly impossible (6)
highly difficult (5)
highly essential (4)
highly different (2)
On balance, the learners marked a greater number of types of combinations
than the natives, indicating that the learners' sense of salience is not only weak, but
also partly misguided. Although there was evidence of a good sense of salience
among a significant number of learners for some combinations, such as fully aware,
and fully reliable, the learners also considered 4 other combinations to be significant
collocations, none of which were selected by the native speakers: fully different /
significant / impossible / available. Besides selecting highly significant, learners
also marked six other combinations with highly, four of which were not marked by
native speakers. In fact, highly impossible / difficult / essential / different were
together selected more often than highly significant. This is somewhat paradoxical
8
when considered in light of the fact that learners underuse highly in their writing, but
this could perhaps be put down to the production/reception distinction.
Aside from demonstrating that introspective data can play a role in revealing
features of learner language, the study also suggests that this type of test could be
valuable in providing a clearer notion of what constitutes a significant collocation.
Certainly, there is a problem with using corpus data. As J. CLEAR (1993, 274) says:
"By far the majority of lexical items have a relative frequency in current English of less
than 20 per million. The chance probability of such items occurring adjacent to each
other diminishes to less than 1 in 2,500,000,000! Reliable evidence of patterning
between such items can be obtained only from very substantial text corpora .." (my
italics). This is supported by the fact that G. KJELLMER's (1994) dictionary of
collocations, based on the one million word Brown corpus, does not contain some
common combinations, such as blissfully happy, highly significant or seriously ill.
2.2 Lexical phrases: sentence builders
J. NATTINGER & J. DECARRICO (1992, 1) define lexical phrases as "multi-
word lexical phenomena that exist somewhere between the traditional poles of lexicon
and syntax, conventionalized form/function composites that occur more frequently and
have more idiomatically determined meaning than language that is put together each
time". Such phrases are, in their opinion, a pervasive phenomenon in both speech and
writing. As research at Louvain focuses on learner writing, I chose to investigate
lexical phrases in writing, examining in particular the category of sentence builders,
phrases which function as macro-organizers in the text, a study which fits in well with
wider research being conducted at Louvain into coherence in learners' writing.
The study is based on two discourse frames - one passive, the other active -
which are used to state the discourse purpose. Both frames are instances of what A.
PAWLEY (this volume) calls productive speech formulas, i.e. constructions whose
lexical content is only partly specified. A precise description of these two frames is
given below:
Passive frame
it + (modal) + passive verb (of saying/thinking) + that-clause
Examples: it is said/thought that..; it can be claimed/assumed that...
Active frame
I or we/one/you (generalized pronoun) + (modal) + active verb (of saying/thinking) +
that-clause.
Examples: I maintain/claim that...; we can see/one could say that...
Every instance of the pronouns it/ I/we/you/one followed by that within a span
9
of 1 to 5 words was taken from the two corpora used in the collocational study and the
relevant active and passive structures selected. The results are presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Relative frequencies of the passive and the active frame based on
200,000 words per variety
NS NNS
Passive frame 77 52
Active frame
we/you/one
I
Total
56
53
109
269
+**
130
+**
399
+**
The results were most striking. While the learners made a similar use of the
passive structure - both quantitatively and qualitatively -, they massively overused the
active structure (c. 400 vs c. 100). Some of the frequently recurring chunks in the
learner corpus are listed below. Two of the most striking examples of overuse were
chunks with say - used 75 times by the learners but only 4 times by the native
speakers and chunks with think - 72 in the learner corpus compared with only 3 in the
native speaker corpus
5
. Notice and not forget were not used at all by the native
speakers. Here again the reason for the overuse may be partly interlingual. French
uses many more phatic introductory phrases than English. Phrases such as we can
say that fill exactly the same function as actually or as a matter of fact, which have
also been found to be overused by French learners in a study of connector usage in
native and nonnative writing (cf. S. GRANGER & S. TYSON 1996).
Active frame: some recurring phrases in the learner corpus
- we/one/you can/cannot/may/could/might say that: 75 occurrences (vs 4 in
NS corpus)
- I think that: 72 occurrences (vs 3 in NS corpus)
- we/one can/could/should/may/must notice that: 16 occurrences (vs no
occurrences in NS corpus)
- we/one may/should/must not forget that: 13 occurrences (vs no occurrences
in NS corpus)
Clearly then, while the foreign-soundingness of learners' productions has
generally been related to the lack of prefabs, it can also be due to an excessive use of
them. Examples (1) to (3) below give evidence of the kind of verbosity this causes. In
10
the three examples, two other lexical phrases, the fact that
6
and as far as X is
concerned, are also underlined: these have also been found to be overused by
learners and increase the impression of verbosity.
(1) Opinions are divided on this question, but as far as I am concerned I truly
believe that this task can only be performed by each student individually.
(2) I said unfortunately because I think that the fact that TV has too much
importance for some has many bad consequences.
(3) As a conclusion, I would say that we cannot deny the fact that university
degrees are more theoretical than practical but I think that it is too easy to
deduce that degrees are of little value.
The use of all these phrases and frames could be viewed in terms of what H.
DECHERT (1984, 227) calls "islands of reliability" or "fixed anchorage points i.e.
prefabricated formulaic stretches of verbal behaviour whose linguistic and
paralinguistic form and function need not be 'worked upon'". In other words, learners'
repertoires for introducing arguments and points of view are very restricted and they
therefore "cling on" to certain fixed phrases and expressions which they feel confident
using.
3. Pedagogical implications
Conscious of the importance of prefabricated patterns in language, several EFL
specialists have advocated a teaching method based on the pattern of L1 acquisition,
which J. NATTINGER & J. DECARRICO (1992, 12) represent by the diagram below:
Fig. 7.I. First-language acquisition
In L1 acquisition the child first acquires chunks and then progressively analyses the
underlying patterns and generalizes them into regular syntactic rules. D. WILLIS
(1990, iii) suggests following the same pattern in SLA, i.e. exposing learners to the
11
commonest patterns and then relying on "the innate ability of learners to recreate for
themselves the grammar on the basis of the language to which they are exposed".
A word of caution is necessary here. It is undoubtedly important to lay greater
emphasis on prefabs in ELT, especially in the case of EFL learners who have very
little exposure to L1, but it seems dangerous to overemphasize the role of prefabs in
SLA as research in this field is very much in its infancy. S. KRASHEN & R.
SCARCELLA (1978) have surveyed several investigations into the part played by
routine patterns in the development of syntactic structures both in first and second
language acquisition and it is quite clear from this survey that the results are very
inconclusive. If anything, the studies seem to indicate that the two strategies - routines
and creative constructions - develop independently of each other and this view is
supported by neurolinguistic evidence: automatic speech has been proved to be
neurologically different from creative language. Within the context of L1 acquisition, A.
PETERS (1977) demonstrates that children use two learning strategies: 'analytic'
("from the parts to the whole") and 'gestalt' ("from the whole to the parts") and
suggests that domination of one strategy or the other will depend on individual
personality and context of use.
There is very little data for adult L2 acquisition. The only investigation reported
by S. KRASHEN & R. SCARCELLA (1978, 295), namely HANANIA & GRADMAN
(1977), shows that the routines used by adult L2 learners resist segmentation. In other
words, gestalt language fails to develop into analytic language. A more recent study by
C. YORIO (1989, 68) points in the same direction: " Unlike children, they {adult L2
learners} do not appear to make extensive early use of prefabricated, formulaic
language, and when they do, they do not appear to be able to use it to further their
grammatical development". In other words, there does not seem to be a direct line
from prefabs to creative language or to use J. SINCLAIR's (1987) terms from the idiom
principle to the open choice principle. It would thus be a dangerous gamble to believe
that it is enough to expose L2 learners to prefabs and grammar will take care of itself
7
.
While research into the role of prefabs in L2 acquisition remains inconclusive, it
seems wise to advise course designers not to overstress phraseological skills at the
expense of creative skills.
Nevertheless, prefabs certainly need to play a greater role in EFL than they
have in the past. The investigations presented in this paper demonstrate that learners'
phraseological skills are severely limited: they use too few native-like prefabs and too
many foreign-sounding ones. But if we are to devise the "ideal" pedagogical tools, a
great deal more empirical data on prefabs is required. J. RICHARDS (1983, 115)
considers that "many of the conventionalized aspects of language are amenable to
teaching" but he adds that "applied linguistic effort is needed to gather fuller data on
such forms (through discourse analysis and frequency counts, for example) with a
view to obtaining useful information for teachers, textbook writers, and syllabus
designers".
I suggest we need the following three types of data:
1) Detailed descriptions of English prefabricated language. The existence of
12
computer corpora makes the compilation of collocation dictionaries possible. G.
KJELLMER's (1994) 3-volume work is the first major dictionary of this kind and makes
a valuable contribution to the description of English prefabs. However, more work of
this type using the new gigantic corpora is essential, if we wish to draw up lists of
statistically significant collocations. As for lexical phrases, J. NATTINGER & J.
DECARRICO (1992, 174) stress the need for additional empirical fieldwork and M.
LEWIS (1993, 132) is equally adamant that "A resource book of lexical phrases,
including sentence heads and institutionalised utterances, should be an important
priority for one of the major publishing houses".
However, this type of data alone does not suffice. Learners clearly cannot be
regarded as 'phraseologically virgin territory': they have a whole stock of prefabs in
their mother tongue which will inevitably play a role - both positive and negative - in the
acquisition of prefabs in L2. The influence of L1 routines has been brought out by
psycholinguistically-oriented investigations of L2 speech production. In his description
of learners' communication strategies, M. RAUPACH (1983, 208) notes that "many
factors that constitute a learner's fluency in his L1 are liable to occur, in one form or
another, in the learner's L2 performance" while D. MOHLE & M. RAUPACH (1989,
213) stress the complexity of L2 processing "where the learner's L2 procedural
knowledge is activated in combination with parts of transferred L1 procedural
knowledge".
It is thus necessary to have access to two other types of data: contrastive data
and learner data, which will allow us to select the most useful prefabs for teaching pur-
poses.
2) Good descriptions of prefabricated language in the learners' mother
tongues. These are necessary to assess the potential influence of the mother tongue
and consequently to produce the appropriate pedagogical aids for specific mother
tongue groups. Comparisons between the different mother tongues and English will be
made easier thanks to the bilingual computer corpora which are being collected today.
3) Good descriptions of learner use of prefabs. We need these descriptions as well
as contrastive descriptions because not all learner problems are transfer-related.
Computer learner corpora such as ICLE which cover different language backgrounds
will make it possible to distinguish the phraseological features common to several
categories of learners from the L1-dependent features.
4. Conclusion
Prefab-oriented approaches to teaching are currently in vogue, with EFL
specialists suggesting that teaching procedures be based solidly on them. Yet when
we consider how little we know about them, how they are acquired, what production
difficulties they cause and how L1 and L2 prefabs interact, this is quite alarming. We
possess insufficient knowledge to decide what role they should play in L2 teaching: we
do not know what to teach, how much to teach and least of all how to teach, hence the
urgent need for empirical work. This should be greatly facilitated by the wide variety of
large computer corpora currently being assembled. The value of introspective tests in
13
this field should also not be underestimated.
My own results indicate that the L1 plays an important role in the acquisition
and use of prefabs in the L2. For obvious commercial reasons, most EFL material is
aimed at all learners, irrespective of their mother tongue. Given the essentially
language-specific nature of prefabs, this is a major issue that must be addressed if we
are serious about giving learners the most efficient learning aids. Developing EFL
materials from the types of data outlined above would go a long way towards solving
this problem.
I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Belgian National Scientific Research
Council and the University of Louvain Research Fund who helped to fund this
research.
I wish to thank Carol Edgington for assisting me in collecting and analysing the data
and Stephanie Tyson for helping me to clarify my vision of the final shape of the
article.
Notes
1. The breakdown of the two corpora and their total number of words are given
below:
Learner Corpus
ICLE subcorpus: French-speaking learners
164,190 words: untimed argumentative essays
24,174 words: timed argumentative essays
62,954 words: timed literature exam papers
TOTAL: 251,318 words
Native speaker corpus
1) Louvain essay corpus:
16,686 words: untimed argumentative essays
72,839 words: timed literature exam papers
2) International Corpus of English (ICE): (timed and untimed) student essays
50,202 words
3) LOB: Belles Lettres and essays (categories G36 - G77)
94,787 words
TOTAL: 234,514 words
Clearly, the size of the corpora used raises some questions for the study of
prefabs. However, my research so far has demonstrated that, to quote S.
JOHANSSON (1991), "there is still something to be said for the small, carefully-
14
constructed corpus" and this is, in my view, especially true for learner language, which
is an extremely heterogeneous variety of English.
2. The following list is a selection of the booster combinations used exclusively by
native speakers.
acutely aware, astonishingly short, bitterly disillusioned, blatantly clear,
blindingly obvious, brilliantly clever, devastatingly shocking, extensively
excavated, extraordinarily painful, gravely disorganised, horribly disfigured,
intensely aware, intimately bound up, irredeemably tied, irrevocably affected,
keenly felt, ludicrously ineffective, mercilessly hard, monotonously uneventful,
painfully clear, powerfully represented, profoundly shocked, readily available,
ruthlessly callous, singularly stupid, steeply dipping, unbearably ugly, unusually
small, vitally important.
3. In saying this, we do not disagree with I. MELCUK who pointed out at the
symposium at which this paper was first presented that the use of very is not totally
unrestricted and compared very tired and *very rested to demonstrate this.
Nevertheless, very combines with more adjectives than any other amplifier and can, I
think, therefore still correctly be termed the "all-round amplifier par excellence".
4. The 11 amplifiers presented were: highly, seriously, readily, blissfully, vitally,
fully, perfectly, heavily, bitterly, absolutely, utterly. The format of the test was as
follows:
readily significant reliable ill different essential aware
miserable available clear happy difficult ignorant
impossible cold important
------------------------------------------------------------
bitterly significant reliable ill different essential aware
miserable available clear happy difficult ignorant
impossible cold important
5. B. ALTENBERG (this volume) refers to the high frequency of the epistemic
stem I think that in spoken English. Arguably then, learners' overuse of this phrase
may be a register-related problem.
6. C. LINDNER (1994) in his investigation of the German subcorpus of ICLE finds
a similar overuse of the fact that in the English of advanced German EFL learners.
His explanation for this is that "Apart from interference of German die Tatsache, daß,
a missing flexibility on the part of the learners may also play a role. Their
syntactic/phrasal repertoire when giving evidence for an observation is limited. Also,
they may feel that expository-argumentative texts need a high degree of verbal
15
factualness to be convincing".
This suggests that the overuse of this phrase and others may be partly due to
transfer but also partly a common feature of learner writing.
7. There may well be individual differences here too. A. PETERS (1977, 571)
suggests that there may be two types of adult L2 learner: the gestalt type, who prefers
to learn a second language by feel, and the analytic type, who prefers to learn
language 'by the book'.
Bibliography
AISENSTADT A. (1979). Collocability restrictions in dictionaries, in: R.R.K.
HARTMANN (ed.) Dictionaries and their Users, Exeter Linguistic Studies, 71-74.
BAHNS J. (1993). Lexical collocations: a contrastive view. ELTJournal. Volume 47/1:
56-63.
BACKLUND U. (1973) The Collocations of Adverbs of Degree in English. Studia
Anglistica Upsaliensia 13. Uppsala.
BENSON M., E. BENSON & R. ILSON (1986) The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of
English. John Benjamins: Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
BOLINGER D.(1972) Degree Words. Mouton: The Hague & Paris.
CLEAR J.(1993) From Firth Principles. Computational Tools for the Study of
Collocation, in: M. BAKER, G. FRANCIS & E. TOGNINI-BONELLI (eds.) Text and
Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair. John Benjamins. Philadelphia &
Amsterdam: 271-292.
DECHERT H.(1984) Second Language Production: Six Hypotheses, in:
H.DECHERT, D. MOHLE & M. RAUPACH (eds.) Second Language Productions.
Gunter Narr Verlag. Tübingen: 211-230.
GRANGER S.(1993). The International Corpus of Learner English, in: J. AARTS, P.
DE HAAN & N. OOSTDIJK (eds.) English Language Corpora: Design, Analysis and
Exploitation. Rodopi. Amsterdam & Atlanta: 57-71.
GRANGER S.(1994). The Learner Corpus: a Revolution in Applied Linguistics.
English Today 10/3: 25-9.
GRANGER S.(1996) From CA to CIA and back: an integrated contrastive approach
to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg & M.
Johansson (eds.) Languages in Contrast. Text-based cross-linguistic studies, Lund
Studies in English 88. Lund University Press: Lund, 1996, 37-51.
GRANGER S.& S. TYSON (1996). Connector Usage in Native and Non-native
English Essay Writing. World Englishes 15/1: 17-27.
HANANIA E. & H. GRADMAN (1977). Acquisition of English structures: a case study
of an adult native speaker of Arabic in an English-speaking environment. Language
Learning. Volume 27/1: 75-91.
JOHANSSON S.(1991). Times change, and so do corpora, in: K. AIJMER & B.
ALTENBERG (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics, Longman. London & New York:
305-314.
KJELLMER G.(1991). A Mint of Phrases, in: K. AIJMER & B. ALTENBERG (eds.)
English Corpus Linguistics. Longman. London & New York: 111-127.
KJELLMER G.(1994). A Dictionary of English Collocations: based on the Brown
16
Corpus. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
KRASHEN S.& R. SCARCELLA (1978). On Routines and Patterns in Language
Acquisition and Performance. Language Learning. Volume 28/2: 283-300.
LEWIS M.(1993). The Lexical Approach. The State of ELT and a Way Forward.
Language Teaching Publications.
LINDNER C.(1994). Unnaturalness in Advanced Learners' English: A Corpus-Based
Feasibility Study. Unpublished MA Dissertation. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.
MOHLE D.& M. RAUPACH (1989). Language Transfer of Procedural Knowledge, in:
H. DECHERT & M. RAUPACH (eds.) Transfer in Language Production. Ablex
Publishing Corporation. Norwood, New Jersey: 195-216.
NATTINGER J.& J. DECARRICO (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching.
Oxford University Press.
PETERS A.(1977). Language learning strategies: does the whole equal the sum of
the parts?. Language. Volume 53/3: 560-573.
QUIRK R., S. GREENBAUM, G. LEECH & J. SVARTVIK (1985). A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. Longman. London & New York.
RAUPACH M.(1983). Analysis and evaluation of communication strategies, in:
C.FAERCH & G. KASPER (eds.) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication.
Longman. London & New York: 199-209.
RICHARDS J.(1983). Communicative needs in foreign language learning, ELT
Journal. Volume 37/2: 111-120.
SINCLAIR J.(1987). Collocation: a progress report, in: R. STEELE & T.
THREADGOLD (eds.) Language Topics. Essays in honour of Michael Halliday.
Volume II. John Benjamins. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: 319-331.
VAN ROEY J.(1990) French-English Contrastive Lexicology. An Introduction.
Louvain-la-Neuve. Peeters.
WILLIS D.(1990). The Lexical Syllabus. A new approach to language teaching.
Collins ELT. London & Glasgow.
YORIO C.(1989) Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency, in: K.
HYLTENSTAM & L.K. OBLER (eds.) Bilingualism across the Lifespan. Cambridge
University Press: 55-72.