Exploring register variation in learner lexis

1. Exploring register variation in learner lexis The high-frequency verb make in native and learner speech and writing Claire Hugon CECL Louvain-la-Neuve 24. January 2008

2. Outline of the presentation • Background and aims of the study • Methodology • Setting the scene: make in the BNC • Make in native and French-speaking learner speech and writing • Methodological implications and avenues for future research

3. Background and aims of the study • Broader context: PhD research on the acquisition of high-frequency verbs • 3 preliminary remarks: • The influence of L1 as the « darling variable » of learner corpus linguists • Learner writing is frequently said to be speech-like • SLA variables are often studied in isolation

4. Background and aims of the study • Research questions: • Does register have an influence on the use of high-frequency verbs (HFVs) such as make in learner English? • Is the use of make in learner writing similar to native speech? • Can register differences be an alternative/ complementary explanation to features of non-nativeness attributed to L1?

5. Methodology

6. Methodology Confrontation of native and learner data to detect similarities and differences and try to explain them (to-ing and fro-ing between the two components)

7. Implementing the methodology: the example of make • native language: make (and other HFVs) in the BNC • see how HFVs behave in native language before looking for differences in learner language • BNC: wide-coverage corpus, much larger than LOCNESS • better suited for broad, quantitative analysis • quantitative and qualitative analysis: make in native and learner speech and writing • native: LOCNESS and LOCNEC • learner: ICLE-FR and LINDSEI-FR • Comparison of the results

8. Top HFVs in the BNC

9. Make in the BNC • Make is less frequent in speech than in writing • the difference is highly significant according to the chi-square test • atypical (most HFVs are more typical of speech)

10. Implementing the methodology: the exampe of make • native language: make (and other HFVs) in the BNC • see how HFVs behave in native language before looking for differences in learner language • BNC: wide-coverage corpus, much larger than LOCNESS • better suited for broad, quantitative analysis • quantitative and qualitative analysis: make in native and learner speech and writing • native: LOCNESS and LOCNEC • learner: ICLE-FR and LINDSEI-FR • Comparison of the results

11. Make in native and learner speech and writing: some findings Overall frequency (/100,000 words): Speech Writing Speech vs writing NS 146.8 350.6 146.8 < 350.6 NNS 126.6 245 126.6 < 245 NS vs NNS 146.8 ≥ 126.6 350.6 > 245 • make is significantly (***) less frequent in NS speech than in NS writing • make is significantly(***) less frequent in NNS speech than in NNS writing • slight underuse of make in NNS speech, but not significant • highly significant (***) underuse of make in NNS writing  brings frequency in NNS writing closer to NS speech Make is a polysemous verb  qualitative analysis to explain the results

12. 7 main semantic subdivisions • core meaning (produce, create) • delexical uses • ‘speech’ collocates • other collocates • causative uses • causative uses • make + adj • make + verb • make + noun • ‘money’ make • phrasal verbs • other uses • link verbs

13. Distribution of the occurrences of make in the four corpora, by semantic category

14. Delexical uses of make Overall frequency (/100,000 words): Speech Writing Speech vs writing 120.9 NS 28.7 28.7 < 120.9 42.9 NNS 80.9 42.9 < 80.9 NS vs NNS 28.7 < 42.9 120.9 > 80.9 • significantly (***) less frequent in NS speech than in NS writing • significantly(***) less frequent in NNS speech than in NNS writing • significant (*) overuse in NNS speech • highly significant (***) underuse of make in NNS writing

15. Delexical uses of make • NNS writing: underuse of EAP delexical structures (make a case, make a statement) • maybe register-related • NNS speech: overuse of delexical uses • probably communication strategy (pressure, online processing, make as default verb): • especially one course we have to make erm . a kind of work • when I go . eat em . with my master the: the cooking he made for us is just er . • about er .. an .. experience which I .. made when I was in first candi

16. Causative uses of make Overall frequency (/100,000 words): Speech Writing Speech vs writing 142.1 NS 64.9 64.9 < 142.1 24.2 NNS 102.6 24.2 < 102.6 NS vs NNS 64.9 > 24.2 142.1 > 102.6 • significantly (***) less frequent in NS speech than in NS writing • significantly(***) less frequent in NNS speech than in NNS writing • significant (***) underuse in NNS speech • significant (**) underusein NNS writing

17. Causative uses of make • underuse of causative structures as a whole in learner language (both in speech and in writing) • 3 causative structures: • make + adjective (make sth easier) • make + verb (make someone feel bad) • make + noun (make someone an outcast)

18. The proportion of each category is remarkably similar for NS and NNS registers

19. Some previous findings about make: • French-speaking and Swedish-speaking learners underuse make in delexical structures (Altenberg & Granger 2001, Altenberg 2001) • Swedish-speaking learners overuse causative make + adj and make + verb(Altenberg 2002a, 2002b) (Partially) L1-related explanations: • delexical structures: avoidance strategy due to arbitrary and L1-specific choice of the verb • causative structures: transfer of frequency from L1 + overgeneralisation

20. Plausible register-related explanation? • delexical combinations:yes. • Transfer and register have a similar impact. Underuse of delexical structures in NNS writing: much less frequent in NS speech than in NS writing: possible transfer of frequency from target language speech • causative structures: no (at least not for Swedish-speaking learners). • Transfer and register seem to pull in opposite directions: • L1 Swedish causes overuse of L2 English ADJ and VERB causative structures • English speech uses fewer causatives structures, so poor register awareness is not a valid explanation for the Swedish-speaking NNS’observed overuse of causative structures.

21. To sum up: Make is a multi-faceted verb with many meanings, functions, and patterns: a very interesting picture of scale of proficiency of advanced interlanguage emerges • from no knowledge at all (e.g. some phrasal verbs, link verb uses, ‘money’ make are nearly absent) • to near-perfect knowledge (e.g. proportions of 3 causative syntactic structures) • including various levels of partial knowledge (e.g. core uses, delexical uses, overall frequency of causative uses, etc.)  knowing a word is not an all-or-nothing matter

22. Methodological implications • The results can be partially skewed by one part of the interview: • e.g. for the core meaning of make (= produce, create), overuse in LINDSEI-FR due to picture description task • NS: do/draw a portrait, do/paint a picture • he paints the picture of a beautiful woman • NNS: make a portrait/a drawing/ a picture • there is a painter he’s making a portrait the portrait of a of a girl

23. Methodological implications • e.g. for the causative make + V structure, in LOCNEC 16 instances/42 involve look: • he’s now repainting it making her look . much more attractive • he makes her look . totally different makes her look very glamorous • clearly topic-induced by picture description which elicits predictable patterns • bears unduly on the overall results for that category • not mirrored in LINDSEI-FR (1/11)  probably more appropriate to study the picture description (elicited) separately from the more spontaneous tasks

24. Where to from here? Possible avenues for further research • Complement quantitative analysis of native English HFVs by carrying out a similar analysis on learner data (requires preparation of the data, e.g. tagging of LINDSEI) • Combine corpus data with other types of data (e.g. elicitation) • Complement qualitative analysis of make by carrying out similar analyses of other HFVs • reach better understanding of how these complex verbs are gradually acquired in the interlanguage system • Study other variables: • L1: Carry out transfer analysis on the same data + other learner populations • Proficiency: longitudinal approach (data from other proficiency levels)  also help to understand the gradual evolution of the interlanguage system in time

25. Thank you!