Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T12:03:21.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Interplay between Universal Processes and Cross-Linguistic Influence in the Light of Learner Corpus Data: Examining Shared Features of Non-native Englishes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

By
Lea Meriläinen
Edited by
Bert Le Bruyn  and
Magali Paquot
Bert Le Bruyn
Affiliation:
UIL-OTS, Utrecht University
Magali Paquot
Affiliation:
FNRS – Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, UCLouvain
Get access

Summary

This chapter examines corpus data from learners of English as a Foreign Language in order to test if there is evidence for (1) cross-linguistic influence, (2) universal processes of Second Language Acquisition (i.e. simplification or overgeneralization) and (3) interaction between the two. SLA research has long approached cross-linguistic influence and universal processes as distinct and mutually exclusive phenomena. More recent work has begun to acknowledge the interaction between them, but this has not been examined through more extensive corpus evidence. This study probes the notion of universal processes of SLA through the examination of L1-induced quantitative and qualitative differences behind features that appear similar on the surface. The focus is on two morphosyntactic features, embedded inversion and omission of prepositions, which have been identified as commonly occurring features in non-native Englishes. While the results show joint tendencies between different L1 populations, we find no evidence for invariant universal features; the higher frequency and distinctive nature of these features amongst learner groups with a trigger in the L1 point to strong L1 effects. The discussion highlights issues of definition and the benefits of bringing together SLA theory, learner corpus evidence, and findings and insights from research into L2 varieties of English.

Keywords

cross-linguistic influenceuniversal processes of second language acquisitionembedded inversionomission of prepositionslearner Englishworld Englishes
Type
Chapter
Information
Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition , pp. 67 - 95
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, J. & Granger, S. (1998). Tag sequences in learner corpora: A key to interlanguage grammar and discourse. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on Computer, 132–141. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. & Shirai, Y. (1996). The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The pidgin-creole connection. In Ritchie, W. C & Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 527–570. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (eds.) (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biewer, C. (2011). Modal auxiliaries in second language varieties of English: A learner’s perspective. In Mukherjee, J. & Hundt, M. (eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap, 7–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Braidi, S. (1999). The Acquisition of Second Language Syntax. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Callies, M. (2016). Towards a process-oriented approach to comparing EFL and ESL varieties: A corpus-study of lexical innovations. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2), 229–251.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J., Edwards, V., & Whittle, P. (1989). Urban British dialect grammar: The question of dialect levelling. English World-Wide 10(2), 185–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners with networks and prototypes. In De Knop, S., Boers, F., & De Rycker, A. (eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics, 259–275. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Collins, L. (2002). The roles of L1 influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning 52(1), 43–94.Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P. (2016). L2 English article use by L1 speakers of article-less languages: A learner corpus study. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(1), 68–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davydova, J., Hilbert, M., Pietsch, L., & Siemund, P. (2011). Comparing varieties of English: Problems and perspectives. In Siemund, P. (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, 291–323. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, M. B. & Papp, S. (2008). The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, 147–175. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M.K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24(1), 37–53.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, overshadowing, blocking and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics 27(2), 164–194.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 2nd Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fuchs, R. & Werner, V. (2018). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition and learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 4(2), 143–163.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2008). Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: Detection, explanation, evaluation. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, 3–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2015). At the interface of contact linguistics and second language acquisition research: New Englishes and learner Englishes compared. English World-Wide 36(1), 91–124.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4), 319–335.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. & Meriläinen, L. (2012). Combining learner English and World Englishes perspectives: The case of embedded inversion. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association (EuroSLA). Poznan, Poland September 6–8, 2012.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated contrastive approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B., & Johansson, M. (eds.), Languages in Contrast: Text-Based Cross-Linguistic Studies, 37–51. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). The International Corpus of Learner English, Version 2. Handbook and CD-Rom. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Deshors, S. (2015). EFL and/vs. ESL? A multi-level regression modeling perspective on bridging the paradigm gap. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1), 130–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H. & Johansson, S. (2011). Learner corpora and contrastive interlanguage analysis. In Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (eds.), A Taste for Corpora: In Honour of Sylviane Granger, 33–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hilbert, M. (2011). Interrogative inversion as a learner phenomenon in English contact varieties: A case of angloversals? In Mukherjee, J. & Hundt, M. (eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap, 125–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, L-S. (2010). The potential influence of L1 (Chinese) on L2 (English) communication. ELT Journal 64(2), 155–164.Google Scholar
Jantunen, J. (2008). Haasteita oppijankielen korpusanalyysille: Oppijankielen universaalit [Challenges for learner corpus research: Universals of learner language]. In Eslon, P. (ed.), Õppijakeele analüüs: võimalused, probleemid, vajadused, 67–92. Tallinna ülikooli eesti filoloogia osakonna edetised 10. Tallinn: TLÜ Kirjastus.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning 50(2), 245–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Odlin, T. (2000). Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(4), 535–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., O'Malley, M., Jing, L., Zhang, J., Hill, J., Chan, C., & Sevostyanova, N. (2013). Cognitive foundations of crosslinguistic influence. In Schwieter, J. W. (ed.), Innovative Research and Practices in Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism, 287–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaneko, T. (2008). Use of English prepositions by Japanese university students. Gakuen 810, 1–12.Google Scholar
Kao, R.-R. (2001). Where have the prepositions gone? A study of English prepositional verbs and input enhancement in instructed SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 39(3), 195–215.Google Scholar
Kolbe, D. & Sand, A. (2010). Embedded inversion worldwide. Linguaculture 2(1), 25–42.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B., Lunkenheimer, K. & Ehret, K. (eds.) (2020). The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Zenodo, retrieved from http://ewave-atlas.org (accessed August 20, 2020).Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2004). Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English. In Kortmann, B., Schneider, E. W., Burridge, K., Mesthrie, R., & Upton, C. (eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English. Volume 2: Morphology and Syntax, 1142–1202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (1998). Preface. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on Computer, xiv–xx. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2015). How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luk, Z. P-S. & Shirai, Y (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles, and possessive’s. Language Learning 59(4), 721–754.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meriläinen, L. (2010). Language Transfer in the Written English of Finnish Students. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in Education, Humanities, and Theology, no 9. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.Google Scholar
Meriläinen, L. & Paulasto, H. (2015). Preposition omission as an angloversal across Englishes? Paper presented at Changing English: Integrating cognitive, social and typological perspectives. Helsinki, June 8–10, 2015.Google Scholar
Meriläinen, L. & Paulasto, H. (2017). Embedded inversion as an angloversal: Evidence from Inner, Outer and Expanding Circle Englishes. In Filppula, M., Klemola, J., & Sharma, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes, 676–696. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. & Bhatt, R. (2008). World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Hundt, M. (eds.). (2011). Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Murakami, A. & Alexopoulou, T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes: A learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(3), 365–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F. (2015). Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, 309–332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2009). Co-selection phenomena across New Englishes: Parallels and differences to foreign (learner) varieties. English World-Wide 30(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, J. (2008). Adverb placement in post-intermediate learner English: A contrastive study of learner corpora. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, 127–146. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Osborne, J. (2015). Transfer and learner corpus research. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, 333–356. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2010). Academic Vocabulary in Learner Writing: From Extraction to Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2013). Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 18(3), 391–417.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. & Granger, S. (2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32, 130–149.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (ed.) (2005). Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ranta, E. (2013). Universals in a Universal Language? Exploring Verb-Syntactic Features in English as a Lingua Franca. Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 1366, retrieved from https://tampub.uta.fi/handle/10024/94555 (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Rayson, P. (2003). Matrix: A Statistical Method and Software Tool for Linguistic Analysis through Corpus Comparison. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (1998). Vocabulary frequencies in advanced learner English: A cross-linguistic approach. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on Computer, 41–52. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rogatcheva, S. (2014). Aspect in Learner Writing: A Corpus-Based Comparison of Advanced Bulgarian and German Learners’ Written English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Giessen.Google Scholar
Sand, A. (2008). Angloversals? Concord and interrogatives in contact varieties of English. In Nevalainen, T., Taavitsainen, I., Pahta, P., & Korhonen, M. (eds.), The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation, 183–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharma, D. (2009). Typological diversity in New Englishes. English World-Wide 30(2), 170–195.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. (2012). Exploring the interface between World Englishes and second language acquisition – and implications for English as a lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1), 57–91.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. & Gilquin, G. (2016). Detecting innovations in a parsed corpus of learner English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2), 177–204.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1986). Locative and directional expressions in basilang speech. Language Learning 36(3), 277–294.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10(1–4), 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirai, Y. & Ozeki, H. (2007). Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29(2), 155–167.Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N. & Cunningham, J. (2015). Learner corpora and pragmatics. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, 346–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×