While there are no corpus studies to date which examine the linguistic differences of the two primary populations of ESL learners, there have been extensive corpus studies which consider student writing and/or academic registers in English as an L1; there is also a
from learners of English (primarily international students who come mainly from countries with strong EFL programs) against native speaker data. By examining these existing studies, researchers can learn not only about what features to look for but also what kind of corpus design to follow.
Corpus analysis can essentially be divided up into two main kinds of research questions. According to Reppen, Fitzmaurice & Biber (2002: viii), studies can either focus on the use of a particular linguistic feature (a word set, a grammatical construction, etc.) or they can focus on characteristics of language varieties (e.g. dialects and registers). As early as 1991, Altenberg published a bibliography of over 600 studies done on English using corpora. Since then, researchers have increasing relied on corpora to study language use and features. Some of the most notable studies have given the field incredibly useful information in a variety of areas:
1. Describing grammatical elements and functions – e.g. Biber & Reppen (2002) on frequencies of certain structures; Clear (2000) on the interaction of grammar and lexis; Granger (1983) on passives; Hunston & Francis (1999) on transitivity of certain verbs; Hunston (2004) on modals; Kennedy (2002) on verb form choice in different registers.
2. Investigating and characterizing the use of certain fixed expressions – e.g. Cortes (2002) on lexical expressions which occur frequently in academic registers; Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) on fixed lexical expressions; Oakey (2002) on formulaic
expressions; Poos & Simpson (2002) on sort of and kind of as hedging devices. 3. Investigating the distribution and function of closely related or multifunctional words
– e.g. Altenberg (1994) on such; Biber, Conrad & Reppen (1994) on adjectives. 4. Describing register and/or dialect variation – e.g. Biber (1996) investigating linguistic
patterns across registers; Conrad (1996) comparing student writing with professional writing across two disciplines; Csomay (2002) describing the linguistic features of academic lectures; Hoey (2000) examining organization structures of texts; Rogers (2002) comparing written Indian English with British and American written syntax. While this represents only a minimum number of the studies done to date, the range and variety is represented as well as the kinds of information available from these studies. Knowledge of academic register, discourse elements in various registers and across genres,
and how speakers and writers actually use various linguistic elements and grammatical features has been greatly enhanced.
4.3.2 Corpus studies on L2 learners
Similarly, SLA and corpus linguistics seem to have come together to provide a wide array of studies examining the acquisition process and language use of L2 learners and are helping to shape and create useful pedagogical tools. In the vast majority of studies, researchers are comparing and contrasting L2 learners – who fall into the category of international students – with native speaker corpora. Using the above model, the kinds of studies done can be broken down into similar categories:
1. Describing use grammatical elements and functions – e.g. Aijmer (2002) on English modal use in French and German L2 English learners; Biber & Reppen (2002) and Meunier (2002) on frequency of specific grammatical structures in relation to grammar teaching; Housen (2002) on the acquisition of verbs in four different L2 groups; Ringbom (1998) on verb frequencies; Tono (2000) on morpheme acquisition. 2. Investigating and characterizing the use of fixed expressions – e.g. DeCock, Granger,
Leech & McEnery (1998) on prefabricated/patterned phrase use; Flowerdew (2000) on referential errors; Vertanen (1998) on wh-question formation.
3. Investigating the distribution and function of individual (multifunctional) words – e.g. Altenberg & Tapper (1998) on adverbial connectors; Flowerdew (1998a) on causative conjunctions and causative adverbs; Hasselgren (2002) on the use of small words like
well, sort of as a measure of fluency.
4. Describing register/dialect variation – e.g. Flowerdew (1998a) describing cause and effect devices as used by L2 learners versus use in NS professional science genre writing; Flowerdew (1998b) and Hyland (Matsuda et al 2003) investigating L2 learner use of elements like hedging devices as compared to native register use; Thompson (2000) reporting on citation practices of postgraduate L2 English learners as
compared to professional documents.
While a great deal about learner processes and interlanguage development can be learned from these studies, once again they all describe participants who are learners of English who have studied English formally for many years and who are studying in the U.S., Britain, or another English-speaking country for a limited time. There was only one study I could find which claimed to look at learner and bilingual evidence in learner corpus research. In his study, Altenberg (2002) looked at overuse of the causative make with adjective complements
in the native and learner texts of an aligned Swedish-English bilingual (ICLE) corpus. Looking at texts of (American) English speakers, advanced French and Swedish EFL L2 writing, Altenberg carries out comparisons of original version and translated written Swedish and English to conclude that the overuse is due to L1 transfer. Altenberg does identify the learners represented in the corpus as students studying English as internationals with extant formal training, rather than as immigrants with little or no formal training.
Overall then the extensive research done in corpus linguistic studies provides some unexpected conclusions and exciting possibilities. One of those possibilities of course is to design a study which would help distinguish the linguistic differences between international students and 1.5 generation students and therefore identify teaching needs of multilingual writing students.