Alternation phenomena and language proficiency: the genitive alternation in the spoken language of EFL learners

References

Baayen, Rolf Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar

Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 110–142.Search in Google Scholar

Bentz, Christian & Bodo Winter. 2013. Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-13030105.Search in Google Scholar

Biewer, Carolin. 2011. Modal auxiliaries in second language varieties of English: A learner’s perspective. In Joybrato Mukherjee & Marianne Hundt (eds.), Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: Bridging a paradigm gap, 7–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://www-jbe-platform-com.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/content/books/9789027287144-scl.44.02bie (accessed 25 April 2022).10.1075/scl.44.02bieSearch in Google Scholar

Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89(1). 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.89.1.1.Search in Google Scholar

Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering & Mikihiro Tanaka. 2008. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 118(2). 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Sam Featherston & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Linguistics in search of its evidential base (Studies in Generative Grammar), 75–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198621.75Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 86(1). 168–213.10.1353/lan.0.0189Search in Google Scholar

Council of Europe (ed.). 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Deshors, Sandra C. 2014. A case for a unified treatment of EFL and ESL: A multifactorial approach. English World-Wide 35(3). 277–305. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.35.3.02des.Search in Google Scholar

Deshors, Sandra C. & Stefan Th. Gries. 2014. A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language: The uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.07desSearch in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2006. Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review 19. 100–121. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.08ell.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2017. Cognition, corpora, and computing: Triangulating research in usage-based language learning. Language Learning 67(S1). 40–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12215.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. & Stefanie Wulff. 2019. Cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In John W. Schwieter & Alessandro Benati (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning, 1st edn., 41–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108333603.003Search in Google Scholar

Gablasova, Dana, Vaclav Brezina & Tony McEnery. 2019. The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Development, description and application. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5(2). 126–158.10.1075/ijlcr.19001.gabSearch in Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew. 2008. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine 27(15). 2865–2873. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3107.Search in Google Scholar

Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language & Linguistics 18(3). 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674314000136.Search in Google Scholar

Granger, Sylviane, Estelle Dagneaux, Fanny Meunier & Magali Paquot. 2009. International Corpus of Learner English v2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1). 95–125.10.3366/cor.2015.0068Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Nick C. Ellis. 2015. Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning 65(S1). 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff. 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. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.04gri.Search in Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.17.16gunSearch in Google Scholar

Heller, Daniel-Benedikt. 2018. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Leuven: University of Leuven.10.1177/0075424216685405Search in Google Scholar

Hinrichs, Lars & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language & Linguistics 11(3). 437–474. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674307002341.Search in Google Scholar

Hosmer, David W. & Stanley Lemeshow. 2000. Applied logistic regression (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics), 2nd edn. New York (N.Y.): Wiley.10.1002/0471722146Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney D. & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian & Neal E. Snider. 2013. Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127(1). 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.013.Search in Google Scholar

Jäschke, Katja & Ingo Plag. 2016. The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(3). 485–521.10.1017/S0272263115000261Search in Google Scholar

Kail, Michele. 1989. Cue validity, cue cost, and processing types in sentence comprehension in French and Spanish. In Brian MacWhinney & Elizabeth Bates (eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, 77–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kemmerer, David. 2015. The cognitive neuroscience of language. New York, NY: Psychology Press.10.4324/9781315764061Search in Google Scholar

Kinne, Alexandra. 2020. Particle placement in English L1 and L2 academic writing. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Search in Google Scholar

Kreyer, Rolf. 2003. Genitive and of-construction in modern written English. Processability and human involvement. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 169–207. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.02kre.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Search in Google Scholar

Landis, J. Richard & Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1). 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.Search in Google Scholar

Lenzo, Kevin. 2014. The CMU pronouncing dictionary. Available at: https://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict.Search in Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.195Search in Google Scholar

MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4(Article 226). 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226.Search in Google Scholar

Misyak, Jennifer B. & Morten H. Christiansen. 2012. Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning 62(1). 302–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00626.x.Search in Google Scholar

Morett, Laura M. & Brian MacWhinney. 2013. Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(1). 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728912000107.Search in Google Scholar

Myles, Florence & Rosamond Mitchell. 2014. Second language learning theories. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203770658Search in Google Scholar

O’Shannessy, Carmel & Felicity Meakins. 2012. Comprehension of competing argument marking systems in two Australian mixed languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(2). 378–396.10.1017/S1366728911000307Search in Google Scholar

Osselton, Noel E. 1988. Thematic genitives. In Graham Nixon & John Honey (eds.), An historic tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang, 138–145. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781003074687-12Search in Google Scholar

Paquot, Magali, Jason Grafmiller & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2019. Particle placement alternation in EFL learner versus L1 speech: Assessing the similarity of probabilistic grammars. In Andrea Abel, Aivars Glaznieks, Verena Lyding & Lionel Nicolas (eds.), Widening the scope of learner corpus research. Selected papers from the fourth learner corpus research conference, 71–92. Louvan-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Search in Google Scholar

Parodi, Teresa, Bonnie D. Schwartz & Harald Clahsen. 2004. On the L2 acquisition of the morphosyntax of German nominals. Linguistics 42(3). 669–705. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2004.022.Search in Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Search in Google Scholar

Rautionaho, Paula, Sandra C. Deshors & Lea Meriläinen. 2018. Revisiting the ENL-ESL-EFL continuum: A multifactorial approach to grammatical aspect in spoken Englishes. ICAME Journal 42(1). 41–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2018-0004.Search in Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2). 149–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149.Search in Google Scholar

Romberg, Alexa R. & Jenny R. Saffran. 2010. Statistical learning and language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science 1(6). 906–914. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.78.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English. Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies (Topics in English Linguistics 42). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110899818Search in Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2014. English genitive variation – The state of the art. English Language and Linguistics 18(2). 215–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674314000021.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2017. Constraints in contact: Animacy in English and Afrikaans genitive variation – A cross-linguistic perspective. Glossa 2(1:72). 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.292.Search in Google Scholar

Röthlisberger, Melanie, Jason Grafmiller & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2017. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4). 673–710.10.1515/cog-2016-0051Search in Google Scholar

Shih, Stephanie, Jason Grafmiller, Richard Futrell & Joan Bresnan. 2015. 8 Rhythm’s role in genitive construction choice in spoken English. In Ralf Vogel & Ruben Vijver (eds.), Rhythm in cognition and grammar, 207–234. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110378092.207Search in Google Scholar

Song, Sooho. 2018. Second language acquisition theories. In Sooho Song (ed.), Second language acquisition as a mode-switching process: An empirical analysis of Korean learners of English, 9–36. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.10.1057/978-1-137-52436-2_2Search in Google Scholar

Stanley, Phiona & Marie Stevenson. 2017. Making sense of not making sense: Novice English language teacher talk. Linguistics and Education 38. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.01.001.Search in Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197808Search in Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Lars Hinrichs. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Terttu Nevalainene, Irma Taavitsainen, Päiva Pahta & Minna Korhonen (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 291–309. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/silv.2.22szmSearch in Google Scholar

Ünel, Arzu & Meryem Mirioğlu. 2015. Syntactical modifications in teacher talk of native and non-native speakers in EFL classrooms. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition 1. 125–141.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Jia & Caihua Xu. 2015. Cue competition between animacy and word order: Acquisition of Chinese notional passives by L2 learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 05. 213–224. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2015.52017.Search in Google Scholar

Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica: International Journal for Historical Linguistics/Revue Internationale pour la Linguistique Historique/Internationale Zeitschrift für Historische Linguistik 30(3). 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol.Search in Google Scholar

Wulff, Stefanie. 2016. A friendly conspiracy of input, L1, and processing demands: That-variation in the language of German and Spanish learners of English. In Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics, 115–136, 280. Washington, United States: Georgetown University Press. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2350381746/abstract/BD0186C7FC3642F6PQ/1 (accessed 3 February 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Wulff, Stefanie, Nicholas Lester & Maria T. Martinez-Garcia. 2014. That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition 6(02). 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.5.Search in Google Scholar

Wulff, Stefanie & Nick C. Ellis. 2018. Usage-based approaches to SLA. In David Miller, Fatih Bayram, Jason Rotham & Ludovica Serratrice (eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields, 37–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Wulff, Stefanie & Stefan Th. Gries. 2019. Particle placement in learner language. Language Learning 69(4). 873–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12354.Search in Google Scholar

Wulff, Stefanie, Stefan Th. Gries & Nicholas Lester. 2018. Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. In Andrea Tyler, Lihong Huang & Hana Jan (eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research, 99–120. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110572186-004Search in Google Scholar

Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.46Search in Google Scholar

Yoshimura, Yuki & Brian MacWhinney. 2010. Honorifics: A sociocultural verb agreement cue in Japanese sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 31(3). 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716410000111.Search in Google Scholar

Zaenen, Annie, Jean Carletta, Gregory Garretson, Joan Bresnan, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Tatiana Nikitina, M. Catherine O’Connor & Tom Wasow. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Proceedings of the workshop on discourse annotation, 118–125. Barcelona, Spain: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1608938.1608954Search in Google Scholar

Zuur, Alain F., Elena N. Ieno, Neil J. Walker, Anatoly A. Saveliev & Graham M. Smith. 2009. Mixed effects modelling for nested data. In Alain F. Zuur, Elena N. Ieno, Neil Walker, Anatoly A. Saveliev & Graham M. Smith (eds.), Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R (Statistics for Biology and Health), 101–142. New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6_5Search in Google Scholar