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-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T14:44:10.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Exploring Individual Variation in Learner Corpus Research: Methodological Suggestions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2020

By
Stefanie Wulff  and
Stefan Th. Gries
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

Second Language Acquisition is a complex process, and Learner Corpus Research is increasingly turning to complex statistical methods. While traditional approaches mostly relied on simple frequency counts and monofactorial analyses, some recent studies employ more sophisticated statistics that permit the inclusion of more than one predictor variable as well as more varied kinds of probabilistic/distributional information such as association strengths and dispersion values. One such recent approach is called MuPDAR (Multifactorial Prediction and Deviation Analysis Using Regression; Gries & Adelman 2014, Gries & Deshors 2014). One intriguing aspect of MuPDAR is its extensibility: in its current form, the exploration of the learner data can be L1-specific, but in the present paper we extend this approach towards also including speaker-specific effects. As such, this method should appeal to the growing number of researchers who are interested in investigating individual variation. We present a case study of genitive alternation in the Chinese and German sections of the International Corpus of Learner English alongside English native speaker data obtained from the International Corpus of English, and we illustrate different ways in which the MuPDAR approach could be extended to obtain models that license deeper interpretation at the individual speaker level.

Keywords

Chinese learner Englishgenitive alternationGerman learner Englishindividual variationInternational Corpus of Learner English (ICLE)MuPDAR
Type
Chapter
Information
Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition , pp. 191 - 213
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

Carroll, J. & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT). New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Chondrogianni, V. & Marinis, T. (2011). Differential effects of internal and external factors on the development of vocabulary, tense morphology and morpho-syntax in successive bilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(3), 318–342.Google Scholar
Collentine, J. & Freed, B. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtney, L., Graham, S., Tonkyn, A., & Marinis, T. (2017). Individual differences in early language learning: A study of English learners of French. Applied Linguistics 6(1), 824–847.Google Scholar
Deshors, S. & Gries, S. Th. (2016). Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: A two-step random forests analysis to ing vs. to complements. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21(2), 192–218.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning 63(4), 665–703.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2016). Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study. Applied Psycholinguistics 37(3), 577–600.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). International Corpus of Learner English v. 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Grey, S., Williams, J., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Individual differences in incidental language learning: Phonological working memory, learning styles, and personality. Learning and Individual Differences 38, 44–53.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2018). On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies 1(2), 277–309.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Adelman, A. (2014). Subject realization in Japanese conversation by native and non-native speakers: Exemplifying a new paradigm for learner corpus research. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms, 35–54. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Deshors, S. (2014). Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora 9(1), 109–136.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S. (2013). The genitive alternation in Chinese and German ESL learners: Towards a multifactorial notion of context in learner corpus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(3), 327–356.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P. (2015). Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in incidental language learning. Learning and Individual Differences 44, 9–15.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua 120(4), 901–931.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Kormos, J., & Minn, D. (2017). Task repetition and second language speech processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(1), 167–196.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal 97(3), 634–654.Google Scholar
Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. (2015). Breiman and Cutler’s Random Forests for Classification and Regression. R Package 4.6-12, retrieved from cran.r-project.org/web/packages/randomForest/ (accessed June 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Möller, V. (2017). A statistical analysis of learner corpus data, experimental data and individual differences: Monofactorial vs. multifactorial approaches. In de Haan, P., van Vuuren, S., & de Vries, R. (eds.), Language, Learners and Levels: Progression and Variation, 409–439. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill-Schuetz, K., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. (2014). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(1), 56–72.Google Scholar
Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task condition affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing 23, 17–30.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2013). Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(3), 391–417.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. (2014). Cross-linguistic influence and formulaic language: Recurrent word sequences in French learner writing. In Roberts, L., Vedder, I., & Hulstijn, J. (eds.), EuroSLA Yearbook, 216–237. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Prat, C., Yamasaki, B., Kluenda, R., & Stocco, A. (2016). Resting-state qEEG predicts rate of second language learning in adults. Brain and Language 157–158, 44–50.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (ed.). (2011). Second Language Task Complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of Language Learning and Performance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2010). Input quality matters: Some comments on input type and age-effects in adult SLA. Applied Linguistics 31(2), 301–306.Google Scholar
Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication 21(2), 171–200.Google Scholar
Singleton, D. (2017). Language aptitude: Desirable trait or acquirable attribute? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 7(1), 89–103.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1986). Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. New York, NY and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sun, H., Steinkrauss, R., Tendeiro, J., & de Bot, K. (2016). Individual differences in very young children’s English acquisition in China: Internal and external factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19(3), 550–566.Google Scholar
Street, J. (2017). This is the native speaker that the non-native speaker outperformed: Individual, education-related differences in the processing and interpretation of object relative clauses by native and non-native speakers of English. Language Sciences 59, 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2016). Early child L2 acquisition: Age or input effects? Neither, or both? Journal of Child Language 43(3), 608–634.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.) (2015). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wen, Z., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (eds.) (2015). Working Memory in Second Language Acquisition and Processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Woodrow, L. (2016). Motivation in language learning. In Breeze, R. & Sancho Guinda, C. (eds.), Essential Competencies for English-Medium University Teaching, 235–248. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Wulff, S. & Gries, S. Th. (2015). Prenominal adjective order preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A multifactorial corpus study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(1), 122–150.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
×