Article published in:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 6:2 (2020) ► pp. 163–192

A corpus-based analysis of differences in the use of very for adjective amplification among native speakers and learners of English

| University of Queensland
This paper analyzes the use of very as an adjective amplifier by native speakers and advanced learners of English with diverse language backgrounds based on the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) and the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). The study applies Multifactorial Prediction and Deviation Analysis Using Regression/Random Forests (MuPDARF) to find differences between native speakers and advanced learners and evaluates which factors contribute to learners’ non-target-like use of very. The analysis finds language background and adjective-specific differences in the use of very between learners and native speakers. It shows that collocational preferences of specific adjective types are the most important factor, which is interpreted to show that differences between native speakers and learners are predominantly dependent upon the collocational profiles of individual adjective types. This finding supports approaches that focus on teaching collocations and contextualizing word use.
Keywords: adjective amplification, L1 background, collocation, MuPDARF
Published online: 10 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20011.sch
References

References

Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing inguistic Ddata. A ractical Iintroduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D.
(2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(2007) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1972) Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boucher, J., & Osgood, C. E.
(1969) The Pollyanna Hypothesis. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 8, 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
(2007) Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved from http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk/ (accessed May 2020).
Bybee, J.
(2003) Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, A. F.
(2015) Stability, stasis and change – the longue durée of intensification. Diachronica, 32(4), 449–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
(1977) Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language, 1, 19–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Adjective classes in typological perspective. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Adjective classes. A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Edmonds, A., & Gudmestad, A.
(2014) Your participation Is greatly/highly appreciated: Amplifier collocations in L2 English. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 70(1), 76–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fallas Escobar, C., & Chaves Fernández, L.
(2017) EFL learners’ development of voice in academic writing: Lexical bundles, boosters/hedges and stance-taking strategies. Education and Learning Research Journal, 15, 96–124.Google Scholar
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z.
(2012) Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Forsberg, F.
(2010) Using conventional sequences in L2 French. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(1), 25–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A.
(2002) Frequency effects and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 249–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S.
(1993) The International Corpus of Learner English. In J. Aarts, P. de Haan, & N. Oostdijk (Eds.), English language corpora: Design, analysis and exploitation (pp. 57–69). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
(1998a) Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar
(1998b) The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In S. Granger, (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 3–18). London: Addison Wesley LongmanGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F.
(2002) The International Corpus of Learner English [Handbook + CD]. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
(2018) On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies, 1(2), 277–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Adelman, A. S.
(2014) Subject realization in Japanese conversation by native and non-native speakers: exemplifying a new paradigm for learner corpus research. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2014: New empirical and theoretical paradigms (pp. 35–54). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Deshors, S. C.
(2014) Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions. Corpora, 9(1), 109–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heller, B., Bernaisch, T., & Gries, S. Th.
(2017) Empirical perspectives on two potential epicenters: The genitive alternation in Asian Englishes. ICAME Journal, 41, 111–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., & Wulff, S.
(2019) Intensifying constructions in French speaking L2 learners of English and Dutch. Cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5(1), 63–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E.
(2003) Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1049–1068. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornik, K.
(2016) openNLP: Apache OpenNLP Tools Interface (Version 0.2-6). Retrieved from https://​cran​.r​-project​.org​/web​/packages​/openNLP​/openNLP​.pdf (accessed January 2020).
Hyland, K.
(2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ito, R., & Tagliamonte, S.
(2003) Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society, 32, 257–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jockers, M.
(2017) syuzhet: Extracts Sentiment and Sentiment-Derived Plot Arcs from Text. (Version 1.0.1). Retrieved from https://​github​.com​/mjockers​/syuzhet (accessed January 2020).
Kennedy, G.
(2003) Amplifier collocations in the British National Corpus: Implications for English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 467–487. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1985) Intensity. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 43–70). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenz, G. R.
(1998) Overstatement in advanced learners’ writing: Stylistic aspects of adjective intensification. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 53–66). London: Longman.Google Scholar
(1999) Adjective intensification – Learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
(2002) Really worthwhile or not really significant: A corpus-based approach to the delexicalisation and grammaticalisation of dverbial intensifiers in Modern English. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 143–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohammad, S. M., & Turney, P. D.
(2013) Crowd sourcing a word-emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence, 29(3), 436–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2003) The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C.
(1997) Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 47–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A.
(1993) Corpus evidence of language change: The case of intensifiers. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 177–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, P., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B.
(2012) The use of intensifying adverbs in learner writing. In Y. Tono, Y. Kawaguchi, & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Developmental and crossslinguistic erspectives in learner corpus research (pp. 105–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peters, H.
(1992) English boosters: Some synchronic and diachronic aspects. In G. Kellermann & M. D. Morrissey (Eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition (pp. 529–545). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Philip, G.
(2008) Adverb use in EFL student writing: From learner dictionary to text production. In E. Bernal & J. DeCesaris (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress (Barcelona, 15–19 July 2008) (pp. 1301–1310). Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística aplicada Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team
(2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://​www​.R​-project​.org (accessed January 2019).
Saffran, J. R.
(2003) Statistical language learning: mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 110–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., Aslin, R. N., Tunick, R. A., & Barrueco, S.
(1997) Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear. Psychological Science, 8(2), 101–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2005) Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S.
(2008) So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 361–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., & Roberts, C.
(2005) So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2009) The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In E. L. Bavin (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language (pp. 69–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. L.
(1990) Priming and human memory systems. Science 247(4940), 301–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, S.
(2017)  Totally new and pretty awesome: Amplifier-adjective bigrams in GloWbE. Lingua, 200, 63–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., & Gries, S. Th.
(2019a) Exploring individual variation in learner corpus research: Some methodological suggestions. In B. S. W. LeBruyn & M. Paquot (Eds.), Learner corpus research and second language acquisition (pp. 191–213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2019b) Particle placement in learner language. Language Learning, 69(4), 873–910. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., & Elphick, C. S.
(2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1(1), 3–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar