Causative constructions in process: How do they come into existence in learner writing?

Gaëtanelle Gilquin

doi:10.1515/gcla-2023-0006

Article

Causative constructions in process: How do they come into existence in learner writing?

Gaëtanelle Gilquin

Published/Copyright: February 19, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association Volume 11 Issue 1

Abstract

This article examines the processes through which English causative constructions with MAKE are produced by French-speaking learners. It relies on data from the Process Corpus of English in Education (PROCEED), in which every text is accompanied by a keylog file and a screencast video. These data make it possible to observe the process paths of constructions as they unfold, from their appearance in the text to their evolution (and possible disappearance) through revision. The analysis shows that almost 20% of the causative constructions do not make it to the final version of the text, either because the idea of causation disappears altogether or because it is expressed in a different way. Among the causative constructions that are kept in the finished text, most still undergo some changes, which range from the simple correction of a typo to the transformation of the complement type (e.g. a verbal complement becoming an adjectival complement). Some of these changes are the result of dictionary consultation, also visible in the process data. In addition, the keylog files reveal the presence of pauses during writing, whose investigation can improve our understanding of the mental processing of causative constructions. It thus turns out that in almost 40% of the cases, the causative constructions are immediately preceded and followed by a pause, which could indicate that they are stored holistically in learners’ minds. Besides providing insights into the processes through which causative constructions come into existence in learner writing, this study also illustrates how writing process data can bring us closer to what the reality of writing looks like for language learners.

Keywords: writing processes; keylogging; screencasting; causative constructions; learner corpus

References

Altenberg, Bengt & Sylviane Granger. 2001. The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2). 173–195.10.1093/applin/22.2.173Search in Google Scholar

Anthony, Laurence. 2017. VariAnt (Version 1.1.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software (accessed 11 September 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Anthony, Laurence. 2022. AntConc (Version 4.1.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software (accessed 11 September 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Bailey, Lain & OBS Studio contributors. 2012. OBS Studio [Computer Software]. https://obsproject.com (accessed 11 September 2023).Search in Google Scholar

Chenoweth, N. Ann & John R. Hayes. 2001. Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18(1). 80–98.10.1177/0741088301018001004Search in Google Scholar

Cislaru, Georgeta & Thierry Olive. 2017. Segments répétés, jets textuels et autres routines. Quel niveau de pré-construction? Corpus 17. http://journals.openedition.org/corpus/2846 (accessed 11 September 2023).10.4000/corpus.2846Search in Google Scholar

Dahlmann, Irina & Svenja Adolphs. 2007. Pauses as an indicator of psycholinguistically valid multi-word expressions (MWEs)? In Proceedings of the workshop on a broader perspective on multiword expressions, 49–56. Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1613704.1613711Search in Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2001. The Integrated Contrastive Model: Spicing up your data. Languages in Contrast 3(1). 95–123.10.1075/lic.3.1.05gilSearch in Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.39Search in Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2012. Lexical infelicity in English causative constructions. Comparing native and learner collostructions. In Jaakko Leino & Ruprecht von Waldenfels (eds.), Analytical causatives: From ‘give’ and ‘come’ to ‘let’ and ‘make’, 41–63. Munich: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2016. Input-dependent L2 acquisition: Causative constructions in English as a foreign and second language. In Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.), Applied construction grammar, 115–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110458268-006Search in Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2022. The Process Corpus of English in Education: Going beyond the written text. Research in Corpus Linguistics 10(1). 31–44.10.32714/ricl.10.01.02Search in Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. Forthcoming. The processing of multiword units by learners of English: Evidence from writing process data. Languages.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3. 182–200.10.1075/arcl.3.10griSearch in Google Scholar

Laporte, Samantha. 2012. Mind the gap! Bridge between World Englishes and Learner Englishes in the making. English Text Construction 5(2). 264–291.10.1075/etc.5.2.05lapSearch in Google Scholar

Leijten, Mariëlle & Luuk Van Waes. 2013. Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication 30(3). 358–392.10.1177/0741088313491692Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2024-02-19

Published in Print: 2023-12-15

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2023-0006

Keywords for this article

writing processes; keylogging; screencasting; causative constructions; learner corpus