The classification of English as a native (ENL), second (ESL) and foreign (EFL) language is traditionally mapped onto Kachru’s (1985) Inner, Outer and Expanding circles, respectively. This paper addresses the divide upheld between these different varietal types. We explore the prepositionintousing comparable corpora for all three varietal types: the International Corpus of English (ICE) for Inner and Outer Circle varieties, and a comparable Corpus of Dutch English to represent the Expanding Circle. Our results show that the least institutionalised varieties (Hong Kong and Dutch English) are the most dissimilar to the ENL varieties, and the most institutionalised variety (Singapore English) is the most similar. We also compare our results for the Corpus of Dutch English to the Dutch component of the International Corpus of Learner English. While the latter patterns with other learner varieties, the Dutch English corpus patterns with ESL varieties, suggesting that “Expanding Circle” and “EFL” are not synonymous.

A paradigm gap has long separated the fields of World Englishes and Learner Englishes: they have mainly been dealt with separately and very little consideration has been given to the features that they might share. Recently, however, Nesselhauf (2009) has highlighted that some features thought to be variety-specific are in fact shared by World and Learner varieties. This paper examines their use of the high-frequency verb make in samples of corpora of student writing of four World Englishes, four Learner Englishes and a control corpus of English as a Native Language (ENL). This case study shows that, quantitatively, the World and Learner varieties are mainly characterized by heterogeneity, while qualitatively, a number of similarities distinguish them from ENL.

No abstract

This paper examines the use of online writing tools by French-speaking learners of English based on the analysis of screen recordings of a free composition task that come from the Process Corpus of English in Education, a process corpus of learner writing. The study charts learners’ use of online resources by investigating how often learners resort to tools, which tools they use, and what effect the use of tools has on their texts. Results show considerable individual variation in the extent to which learners use online tools and a general propensity to rely on a limited range of tool types, most often bilingual tools. Overall, the use of tools helps learners improve their texts, but a close examination of their consultation behaviour also reveals shortcomings in learners’ strategies, such as a tendency to carry out single-word searches or a lack of critical thinking about the information that tools provide.

No abstract