Exploring Learner Language Through Corpora: Comparing and Interpreting Corpus Frequency Information

Abstract

This article contributes to the debate about the appropriate use of corpus data in language learning research. It focuses on frequencies of linguistic features in language use and their comparison across corpora. The majority of corpus-based second language acquisition studies employ a comparative design in which either one or more second language (L2) corpora are compared to a first language (L1) production corpus or two or more L2 corpora are compared to each other. This article critically examines some of the central tenets of the comparative method related to the interspeaker variation in L1 and L2 use, the representativeness and comparability of corpus data, the interpretation of difference found between corpora and the appropriate use of statistics. Using and discussing a set of five L1 spoken English corpora and three L2 English corpora (two spoken and one written), we approach these areas empirically exploring different sources of variations and methodological options that corpus-based SLA studies offer.

The English Grammar Profile of learner competence

“…Corpora and corpus linguistics, as Gablasova et al (2017: 2) note, are becoming increasingly more central to the investigation of second language acquisition (SLA). In its early stages, learner corpus research was mostly concerned with describing learner language rather than interpreting it within the context of SLA theory (Myles 2015).…”

“…From the early 1990s, the scale and impact of the pioneering International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) project (Granger 1994) facilitated comparative observations of interlanguage, learner variation and levels of proficiency. A growing body of learner corpora has added much to our ongoing quest to understand and describe the factors at play in learning language (Gablasova et al 2017, Ädel 2015, Callies 2015, Granger 2012. In recent years, with a greater SLA focus, learner corpus research has enhanced our understanding of the language learning process and has changed some long-held paradigms (e.g.…”

“…Despite the obvious value of frequency analysis, many of these researchers have critically evaluated contrastive approaches, pointing to an inability to control variables. Gablasova et al (2017) encourage critical interpretation of comparisons of frequency, particularly in the context of representativeness and comparability, and variation between language users and proficiency levels. They point out that most LCR studies link patterns in L2 production to the effects of L1 transfer, and emphasize the need to explore other effects such as task effect and L2 proficiency.…”

“…Issues of representativeness and comparability go hand in hand. As Gablasova et al (2017) emphasize, if two corpora differ in too many respects, it may be difficult to ascertain the source of any difference observed. They argue that hitherto corpus-based SLA studies have largely ignored representativeness and comparability despite their major implications for the validity of corpus findings.…”

“…task, education history) variables. Gablasova et al (2017) note that there has been a recent gradual shift towards consideration of speaker-external related variables (Ädel, 2008, Gablasova et al 2015, Tracy-Ventura & Myles 2015 but there is a dearth of corpus-based studies on speaker-internal variables, such as L2 proficiency, despite its use as a control and outcome variable in SLA studies not using corpora. Despite its significance, standards for establishing and reporting learner proficiency in L2 corpora lack uniformity, making comparability of results difficult.…”