The Trinity Lancaster Corpus

This study aims to exemplify how language teaching can benefit from learner corpus research (LCR). To this end, this study determines how L1 and L2 English speakers with diverse L1 backgrounds differ with respect to adjective amplification, based on theInternational Corpus of Learner English(ICLE) and theLouvain Corpus of Native English Essays(LOCNESS). The study confirms trends reported in previous research, in that L1 speakers amplify adjectives more frequently than L2 English speakers. In addition, the analysis shows that L1 and L2 English speakers differ substantially with respect to the collocational profiles of specific amplifier types and with respect to awareness of genre-specific constraints on amplifier use, and that even advanced L2 speakers tend to be unaware of stylistic constraints on adjective amplification because they model their academic output based on patterns generalized from informal conversation. These findings are useful for language teaching in that the data can be used to target L1-specific difficulties experienced by L2 English speakers.

Phonological research has demonstrated that English intonation, variably referred to as prosody, is a multidimensional and multilayered system situated at the interface of information structure, morphosyntactic structure, phonological phenomena, and pragmatic functions. The structural and functional complexity of the intonational system, however, is largely under-addressed in L2 pronunciation teaching, leading to a lack of spontaneous use of intonation despite successful imitation in classrooms. Focusing on contrastive and implicational sentence stress, this study explored the complexity of the English intonation system by investigating how L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers use multiple acoustic features (i.e., pitch range, pitch level, duration, and intensity) in signaling contrastive and implicational information and how one acoustic feature (maximum pitch level) is affected by information structure (contrast), morphosyntactic structure (phrasal boundary), and a phonological phenomenon (declination) in L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' speech. Using eye-tracking technology, we also investigated (1) L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' real-time processing of lexical items that carry information structure (i.e., contrast) and typically receive stress in L1 speakers' speech; (2) the influence of visual enhancement (italics and bold) on L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' processing of contrastive information; and (3) L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' processing of pictures with contrastive information. Statistical analysis using linear mixed-effects models showed that L1 English speakers and Mandarin-English L2 speakers differed in their use of acoustic cues in signaling contrastive and implicational information. They also differed in the use of maximum pitch level in signaling sentence stress influenced by contrast, phrasal boundary, and declination. We did not find differences in L1 English and Mandarin-English L2 speakers' processing of contrastive and implicational information at the sentence level, but the two groups of participants differ in their processing of contrastive information in passages and pictures. These results suggest that processing limitations may be the reason why L2 speakers did not use English intonation spontaneously. The findings of this study also suggest that Complexity Theory (CT), which emphasizes the complex and dynamic nature of intonation, is a theoretical framework that has the potential of bridging the gap between L2 phonology and L2 pronunciation teaching.

Gender and gender agreement in bilingual native and non-native grammars: A view from child and adult functional–lexical mixings

Most research on metaphor comprehension in second language (L2) speakers focuses on conventionalised expressions (e.g., Littlemore et al. 2011; Mashal et al. 2015), whereas L2 comprehension of novel metaphorical expressions has not been given much attention (Jankowiak et al., 2017). Th is paper investigates the extent to which L2 speakers at different levels of proficiency differentiate between creative metaphors classified as easy and hard to comprehend. A self–paced reading task combined with sensicality judgements was used to test two groups of participants: L2 speakers of English with low/intermediate and advanced proficiency. The study examined reading times and answers to the sensicality judgements which inquired about whether the metaphors make sense. The results show that the advanced group of speakers more often judges that creative metaphors make sense, but in the case of reading time, proficiency has no significant effect on the understanding of different types of metaphors. Based on the absence of interaction between the groups and the type of metaphor, it can be concluded that the skills needed to understand the metaphor are partially transferred from the first language, however, the results of the sensicality judgments show that the advanced group judges significantly more that creative metaphors (regardless of difficulty) are meaningful. Th is indicates that with advanced knowledge of the language comes richer semantic representations, so advanced speakers more easily activate features of concepts that are otherwise more difficult to activate

This dissertation investigates three utterance fluency features and two vocabulary features of 409 speech samples from advanced intermediate and advanced L2 English speakers, who participated in the Oral English Proficiency Test (OEPT) between the year of 2009 and 2015. Among the 409 L2 English speakers, there are 80 L1 Hindi speakers rated as advanced intermediate, 32 L1 Hindi speakers rated as advanced, 286 L1 Mandarin speakers rated as advanced intermediate, and 11 L1 Mandarin speakers rated as advanced.<br>Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) was conducted and presented four different clusters among all the L2 English speakers. The four different clusters are: (1) Low Mean Syllables per Run (MSR), low Speech Rate (SR), very high Pause Rate (PR), medium Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD), and medium percentage of words on the Academic Word List (AWL); (2) Medium Mean Syllables per Run (MSR), medium Speech Rate (SR), high Pause Rate (PR), low Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD), and low percentage of words on the Academic Word List (AWL); (3) High Mean Syllables per Run (MSR), high Speech Rate (SR), low Pause Rate (PR), medium Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD), and medium percentage of words on the Academic Word List (AWL); (4) Medium Mean Syllables per Run (MSR), medium Speech Rate (SR), low Pause Rate (PR), very high Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity, and very high percentage level of words on the Academic Word List (AWL).Chi-square results show that L2 English speakers’ cluster membership is strongly associated with both their L1 background and level of L2 oral English proficiency. While most of the advanced intermediate L1 Mandarin speakers are in Cluster 1 and Cluster 2, the majority of the advanced intermediate L1 Hindi speakers concentrate in Cluster 3. A large number of advanced L1 Mandarin speakers and L1 Hindi speakers are also located in Cluster 3.<br>Twelve raters were invited to evaluate speech samples representative of the four clusters in terms of accent difference and listener effort. Twelve speakers were selected from the four clusters, whose speech samples have values of the five linguistic features closest to the cluster mean.<br>Multi-facet Rasch Measurement (MFRM) results show that L1 Mandarin speakers generally received lower ratings in accent difference and listener effort. The connection among fluency, vocabulary, and accentedness/listener effort, however, functions differently for L1 Mandarin speakers and L1 Hindi speakers. For advanced intermediate L1 Mandarin speakers, those who speak slower and use more diverse vocabulary and more academic words were evaluated to be less accented, meanwhile costing less listener effort. However, advanced intermediate L1 Hindi speakers were rated as less accented and cost less listener effort when they demonstrate higher fluency measures and lower vocabulary measures.<br>Advanced L2 English speakers, in contrary, received reverse rating results. The advanced L1 Mandarin speaker, who speaks faster and uses less diverse vocabulary and fewer academic words, was evaluated to be less accented and cost less listener effort. However, the advanced L1 Hindi speaker, who speaks slower and uses more diverse vocabulary and more academic words, was rated as less accented and cost less listener effort.<br>This dissertation reemphasizes that holistic rating rubric does not deny the existence of multiple linguistic profiles. Raters are sensitive to different combinations of fluency and vocabulary features even if they have been asked to use a holistic scale. In addition, L2 English speakers may adopt individual strategies to accommodate while delivering, which calls for further pedagogical attention.<br><br>

First (L1) and second (L2) language speakers process information differently. The current study explores whether L1 and L2 English language speakers process the emotional connotations of high and low-frequency words using the emotional Stroop task. With this task, we measure the reaction time required to name the color of words with positive, neutral, and negative valence. The sample was 100 participants, 50 L1 English speakers and 50 L2 English speakers. Our results show that L2 English speakers process words slower than L1 English speakers do. L1 English speakers processed positive words faster than negative words, but L2 English speakers displayed a reversed pattern, which indicates L2 emotional attenuation for negative words.

Corpus Linguistics for Writing Development provides a practical introduction to using corpora in the study of first and second language learners’ written language over time and across different levels of proficiency. Focusing on development in the use of vocabulary, formulaic language, and grammar, this book • discusses how corpus research can contribute to our understanding of writing development and to pedagogical practice; • reviews a range of corpus techniques for studying writing development from the perspectives of vocabulary, grammar, and formulaic language and interrogates the methodological bases of those techniques; and • guides readers to perform practical analyses of learner writing using the R open-source programming language. Aimed at the novice researcher, this book will be key reading for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students in the fields of education, language, and linguistics. It will be of particular interest to those interested in first or second language writing, language assessment, and learner corpus research.

This exploratory study examined the intonational patterns and corresponding speech act strategies in L1 and L2 English speakers’ production of high imposition requests and refusals that were elicited using video-based multiple turn discourse completion tasks (DCTs). The participants, 34 L1 American English speakers and 14 high-proficiency L2 English speakers, recorded their oral responses to 10 multiple-turn video-based DCTs. Using Brazil’s (1997) framework, the collected speech samples were analyzed for tone choices in each tone unit. Pragmatic strategies in the produced speech acts were analyzed by adapting the existing coding frameworks (Beebe et al., 1990; Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). The extracted tone choices and lexico-mathematical strategies were compared between the two language groups. The results preliminarily revealed differences in the use of tones by L1 and L2 English speakers in performing requests and refusals. Moreover, while the employed speech act strategies were largely similar between the two speaker groups, the associated tone choices showed contrasting usage patterns.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me--or so the old saying goes. And yet, throughout history particular words and labels have been linked to manifestations of power and domination. Some labels may be highly charged, controversial, or derogatory, such as slut, Octaroon, or illegal immigrant. Others may be more mundane, but still associated with material consequences, such as sir, ma'am, boy, criminal, or blue collar. The mere categorization of words as politically correct or incorrect is an indication of their social power. In the realm of education, references to culturally and linguistically students are now in vogue. In recent years this phrase has been the label of choice to describe the growing diversity in the U.S student population, often used to refer to students who are immigrants, who are not White or who speak languages other than, standardized English. A basic database search on JSTOR for material related to culturally and linguistically students alone yielded 3,788 papers. It is noteworthy that educational scholars, practitioners, and policymakers are taking students from marginalized cultural and linguistic backgrounds into greater consideration, because historically, the U.S. educational system has not been sensitive to the needs of these students (Crawford, 2004; Flores, 2005; Santa Ana, 2004). According to many states' current professional standards, teachers are expected to examine how students' cultural backgrounds are involved in teaching and learning (Gay, 2000). So, in many ways, greater attention given to culturally and linguistically students is a step towards greater inclusion and equity for all students. Ironically though, the effect of this language, purportedly intended to be inclusive, is to reinforce the position of White, monolingual, English-speaking students as the norm. Again cultural and linguistic diversity in classrooms is used to indicate students who are not White or who are not native monolingual speakers of English. This stance equates whiteness with a lack of diversity, a generalization which masks the diversity among White students and which critical race and whiteness scholars have already identified as problematic (Giroux, 1997; Hytten & Warren, 2003). The term diverse should not be used as a euphemism for immigrants, students of color, or students who speak languages other than English. If a classroom contains students who are all Spanish speakers, this does not automatically qualify it as culturally and linguistically diverse, in the same way that a class of monolingual English speakers is not linguistically (unless perhaps a variety of English dialects are spoken). Nevertheless, a variety of cultural backgrounds may exist in a classroom of White students. For instance, there may be students from rural, urban, and suburban neighborhoods as well as both native-born and immigrant White students. A classroom or school can only be said to be culturally and linguistically if students represent a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Students in the United States today certainly represent a wealth of cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Gay, 2000; Sleeter & Milner, 2011). White students and monolingual English speakers contribute to, and are a part of, the diversity in schools. Because of the increasing diversity in the student population, today's educators must be prepared to teach, and interact with students from a range of backgrounds. Culturally and linguistically is an entirely appropriate label when used to refer collectively to groups of students who vary from one another in their linguistic and cultural backgrounds. However, it is highly misleading to refer to a single student as culturally and linguistically diverse. At one extreme, the search for more appropriate terminology could be dismissed as a futile or overzealous quest for political correctness and a superficial acknowledgment for individuals and their backgrounds. …

To respond to recent calls for examining oral fluency from a broader social and communicative perspective, the current study aimed at investigating the effects of task communicative function on second language (L2) and first language (L1) speakers’ fluency. Designing tasks that represent three different communicative functions (congratulations, bad news, and complaint), we collected data from 40 Spanish L2 learners of English, 20 L1 English speakers, and 20 L1 Spanish speakers. The data were analysed for a range of measures of speed, composite, breakdown, and repair fluency. Results of the statistical analyses (descriptive, Multivariance Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), and two‐way mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs)) suggested that task communicative function had an impact on the speakers’ performance, with bad news eliciting the slowest speech and most mid‐clause pauses, and complaint the fastest with fewest end‐clause pauses. Significant differences were observed across the tasks for speech rate and end‐clause pauses in the L1 English group, but the results were nonsignificant for task effects in the L1 Spanish and L2 English groups. The three language groups’ fluency was statistically different, highlighting (a) cross‐linguistic differences between L1 Spanish and L1 English speakers and (b) differences between L1 and L2 English speakers.

This study examined L1 and L2 English speakers’ sensitivity to constructional meaning by investigating their categorization of Noun1 of Noun2 constructions (e.g., results of studies) and argument structure constructions (e.g., Tom cut the bread). Participants were 40 L1 English speakers and 44 intermediate proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of L2 English, who completed two online sorting experiments. In each experiment, participants were instructed to (i) sort the stimuli according to their overall meaning and (ii) provide explanations for their sorting decisions. Results showed that EFL users preferred construction-based sorting for the argument structure stimuli but not the Noun1 of Noun2 stimuli. However, L1 English speakers showed a preference toward word-based sorting for both construction types. Participants’ self-reported explanations for their sorts nonetheless indicated sensitivity to the constructional meanings of argument structure constructions and Noun1 of Noun2 constructions. Additionally, language users were found more likely to produce construction-based sorts with more time spent on the task.

Investigating First Year Undergraduate EAL Students' Academic Literacy Experiences.

Speech production in a non-native language is often influenced by their first language’s (L1) phonology. One factor that might affect their production prosodically is typological differences in event construal, specifically motion events. Building on this concept, prior studies on gestures and spontaneous speech show that how speakers frame motion events in their L1 can transfer to their second language (L2) through grammatical patterns. However, no study has looked at how L1-L2 differences in framing motion events may affect speakers’ L2 production prosodically. To explore whether those differences affect how L2 speakers prosodically produce motion events, this study collected read speech from two spoken corpora of L2 English learners. We chose L2 learners from different L1 backgrounds that differ in the way they grammatically construct motion events. English production from Korean and Turkish L1 speakers (which are typologically similar) were compared to that of L1 German speakers (which is typologically similar to English), along with productions by L1 English speakers. Duration and various acoustic measurements of pitch and intensity were extracted and analyzed. Results indicated some similarities among learners of the same typology along with differences between the L1 and L2 English speakers. Implications on conceptual transfer will be discussed.

L1 English and two varieties of L1 Mandarin English speech data were extracted from the Taiwan AESOP corpus (Asian English Speech cOrpus Project) for the purpose of investigating differences in the realization of English narrow focus by L1 speakers of North American English, Taiwan Mandarin and Beijing Mandarin. Results show the combined effect of two patterns of L2 focus production: general underdifferentiation of on-focus and post-focus contrasts, which was exhibited by both L2 speaker groups, and transfer of L1-specific prosodic features, which can be argued to represent the source of difference between the two L2 groups. Overall, on-focus/post-focus contrasts in mean F0, amplitude and pitch range were realized most robustly by L1 English speakers. L1 Taiwan Mandarin speakers produced a smaller increase in mean F0 and amplitude for on-focus constituents and much smaller decrease in mean F0 and amplitude on post-focus constituents than L1 English speakers did, whereas Beijing Mandarin speakers produced no increase in mean F0 in on-focus constituents, and the smallest decrease in mean F0 on post-focus constituents, but a 35% higher post-focus compression of intensity than Taiwan Mandarin speakers did. Notably, both L2 speaker groups failed to produce post-focus compression of pitch range, which has been shown to be a highly salient cue to the presence of focus in English.

Expressive behavior linked to paralinguistic meanings finds grounds in codes proposed as universals, as well as in culture- specific conventions. This study observes performances in such kinds of attitudinal prosody for USA English, produced by L1 and L2 speakers. The results show that the observed variance is linked to individual competence, to the linguistic context, and to the cultural background of the speakers. They also show that the code used to express a given speech act, code learned in the L1 language by L2 speakers of English, may be used in their L2 language. For some of these expressions, L2 speakers received higher scores than L1 speakers, suggesting that expressions conventionalized in a foreign language, are adequately fulfilling not- conventionalized expressions in the L1 culture.