ArticlePDF Available

The linguistic dimension of L2 interviews: A multidimensional analysis of native speaker language


Abstract and Figures

This research profiles L2 interviews from a variationist perspective by using native speaker data in order to gain insight into the characteristics of three different speaking tasks in the framework of the LINDSEI learner language corpus tradition: Personal Narrative Component, an Interaction Component and a Picture Description. This way, we set out to research one area of the assessment of proficiency that is usually neglected: that of the linguistic nature of the tasks used to assess general “proficiency” in a given language. Our corpus was part-of-speech (POS) tagged and analysed using Multidimensional Analysis (MDA). We found that the different speaking tasks determine the range of linguistic features that are more likely to be generated by the communicative potential of the task itself. This profiling is of interest in areas such as language assessment, where the interview is widely used to evaluate the speakers’ communicative competence, but also in the field of learner language research.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Despite the current importance of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in the learning, teaching, and assessment of languages, limitations arise in the use of the CEFR descriptors, which are also present in the European Language Portfolio (ELP). This article highlights the main challenges posed to CEFR and ELP users by the linguistic competence descriptors-with a particular focus on the grammatical accuracy descriptors, and strategy descriptors for monitoring and repair at B1 level-when they try to self-assess their written production activities. In order to address these limitations, a Computer-aided Error Analysis (CEA) was performed on a learner corpus comprising B1-level texts produced by Spanish learners of English. The results obtained enabled the reformulation of the descriptors for written production activities at CEFR B1 level aimed at L1 Spanish learners of English, by complementing the existing descriptors with further linguistic information on the most frequent errors at that level.
Full-text available
This article focuses on the proficiency level of texts in Computer Learner Corpora (CLCs). A claim is made that proficiency levels are often poorly defined in CLC design, and that the methods used for level assignment of corpus texts are not always adequate. Proficiency level can therefore, best be described as a fuzzy variable in CLCs, representing a potential source of error in CLC-based research. The article starts with a review of some of the most commonly used methods of proficiency-level assignment of texts in CLCs and a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the different methods. A pioneer project to link a learner corpus of Norwegian (ASK) to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is presented to illustrate that a reliable assignment of corpus texts is viable by applying insights and practice from the professional field of language testing and assessment. Finally, some advantages of a learner corpus reliably linked to the CEFR are discussed in relation to SLA research, to language test development, and to a validation of the CEFR-level descriptions.
This paper introduces a new corpus resource for language learning research, the Trinity Lancaster Corpus (TLC), which contains 4.2 million words of interaction between L1 and L2 speakers of English. The corpus includes spoken production from over 2,000 L2 speakers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds at different levels of proficiency engaged in two to four tasks. The paper provides a description of the TLC and places it in the context of current learner corpus development and research. The discussion of practical decisions taken in the construction of the TLC also enables a critical reflection on current methodological issues in corpus construction.
Abstract This paper examines the most frequent certainty adverbs in the extended LOCNEC (Aguado et al. 2012) and their frequency and use in three datasets of the LINDSEI (Chinese, German and Spanish LINDSEI components). Our analysis of certainty adverbs yields a complex picture. Obviously was fundamentally used by English speakers while really was used significantly more frequently by German speakers. The frequency of actually was not significantly different between the English native speakers and two of the learner language datasets, but Germans also showed significant differences with the English and the other two non-native groups. NSs and Chinese frequencies of use for actually and really were not significantly different, which reinforces the notion that, quantitatively, these two groups of speakers approached the picture task in ways that diverged from the German and Spanish speakers. An examination of the pragmatic contexts of use of the certainty adverbs revealed that both NSs and NNSs restricted their semantic choice to classic epistemic meanings with few instances of more complex pragmatic meanings. However, the position of those adverbs was different in the English data. Key words: spoken English; native speaker;, non-native-speakers; certainty adverbs; pragmatic meanings
This volume represents one of the first full-length studies carried out on material from the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE), supplemented by data from younger learners and native speakers. It addresses three main goals: a) the implementation of a developmental corpus methodology. The study explores four corpora of argumentative writing, two sampled from advanced learners of different ages and two from corresponding native speakers of English. This way, the respective linguistic maturation in native and non-native writing can be traced with more explanatory power than could be yielded by a mere learner / native speaker contrast. b) a functional account of adjective intensification in present-day written English. Intensification is a singularly dynamic and innovative lexico-grammatical class. Despite their obvious limitations, small, text-type controlled corpora, such as the ones used here, make it feasible to examine this whole functional paradigm and identify the conceptual mechanisms of its continual innovation and semantic change. c) the exploration of native vs. non-native usage and the notion of idiomaticity. The main differences between native English usage and that of advanced learners rest not so much on grammatical structure, but on the rather elusive quality of 'idiomaticity'. In the limited domain of intensification, this notion is explored both qualitatively and arithmetically, with the aim of learning more about what it takes to use English idiomatically. Reviews: ”In sum, the study impresses by its wealth of descriptive detail and analytical insight … Since the study is not only well argued but also well written, it can be recommended without reservation. A rewarding read.” in: Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 2004, 1 “The book has no fewer than eleven appendixes …which means that all his findings are verifiable … [Lorenz] provides sound explanations … argues his points convincingly … the book is well written, with a dose of humour, which makes it a pleasure to read … meticulously edited …In short, this is an excellent book. It is a solid account of a solid research project well carried out.” in: English Studies, Vol. 83, No. 1, February 2002 “…highly recommended to readers interested in functional grammar, corpus linguistics, and TEFL [Teaching English as a Foreign Language].” – Georg Marko, in: Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 26:2 (2001), pp 224-29 “The study is particularly interesting with regard to pedagogy and corpus methodology, but it has also descriptive implications, which should be of great heuristic value. … the topic under investigation is not only original and well researched, the findings are also well presented … reader-friendly and clear. The book is a good read. I sincerely recommend it” in: Applied Linguistics 21:4 (Dec 2000), pp. 581-85 Another review, by Manfred Krug, appeared in English Language and Linguistics 5:1 (May 2001), pp. 188-93