Cover not available
Part of
Learner Corpora in Language Testing and Assessment
Edited by Marcus Callies and Sandra Götz
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 70] 2015
► pp. 191–216

Tense and aspect errors in spoken learner English

Implications for language testing and assessment

Language testing guidelines like the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) have been very influential for language testing and assessment, yet the way they define proficiency levels using ‘can-do-statements’ has often been criticized as being too vague. In the present chapter, I will take a corpus-based approach towards spoken accuracy in advanced German learner English and report on the findings of an error analysis of the most error-prone category in the German component of the Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI). Focusing on verb-tense related errors, the present study not only reveals what is especially error-prone in the case of advanced German learners of English in this category (e.g. reported speech, conditionals), but it also shows that even at an advanced level, learners appear to form a fairly heterogeneous group with regard to the number of errors. However, the types of errors committed at this proficiency level are quite systematic, and this allows for a thorough description of advanced learners’ error profiles. In the final section of this chapter, I will take these findings to suggest a text-centred description of different proficiency levels in advanced German learners’ speech at the university level and sketch out some avenues for future research.
Published online: 9 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.70.08got
References (55)
References
Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brand, C. & Götz, S. 2011. Fluency versus accuracy in advanced spoken learner language: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2): 255–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brand, C. & Kämmerer, S. 2006. The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI): Compiling the German component. In Corpus Technology and Language Pedagogy: New Resources, New Tools, New Methods, S. Braun, K. Kohn & J. Mukherjee (eds), 127–140. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Burt, M.K. & Kiparsky, C. 1974. Global and local mistakes. In New Frontiers in Second Language Learning, J.H. Schumann & N. Stenson (eds), 71–80. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Callies, M. 2009. Information Highlighting in Advanced Learner English. The Syntax-Pragmatics Interface in Second Language Acquisition [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 186]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Agentivity as a determinant of lexico-grammatical variation in L2 academic writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(3): 357–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castello, E. 2013. Integrating learner corpus data into the assessment of spoken interaction in English in an Italian university context. In Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead, S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (eds), 61–74. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. 2003. Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review 59(3): 393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corder, S.P. 1967. The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5(4): 161–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1971. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9(2): 147–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. The significance of learners’ errors. In Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, J.C. Richards (ed.), 19–27. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Council of Europe 2009. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S. & Granger, S. 1998. Computer-aided error analysis. System 26(2): 163–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., Granger, S., Meunier, F., Neff, J. & Thewissen, J. 2005. UCL Error-Tagging Manual, Version 1.2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Dagut, M.B. & Laufer, B. 1985. Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(1): 73–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo A. & Fernández-Domínguez, J. 2006. Error tagging systems for learner corpora. RESLA 19: 83–102.Google Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, M.B. & Papp, S. 2008. The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. In Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, G. Gilquin, S. Papp & M.B. Díez-Bedmar (eds), 147–175. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Dose, S. & Götz, S. 2012. The progressive in advanced spoken learner English: Frequency and accuracy. Paper presented at the 34th annual conference of the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME 34), 22–26 May 2013, University of Santiago de Compostela.
Dulay, H.C. & Burt, M.K. 1974. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24(1): 37–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
English Profile. 2011. English Profile. Introducing the CEF for English, Version 1.1. [URL] (19 June 2014).
Gilquin, G., De Cock, S. & Granger, S. 2010. The Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. & De Cock, S. 2011. Errors and dysfluencies in spoken corpora: Setting the scene. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2): 141–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, S. 2013. Fluency in Native and Nonnative English Speech [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 53]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2003. Error-tagged learner corpora and CALL: A promising synergy. CALICO Journal 20(3): 465–480.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Tyson, S. (eds). 1996. Extending the Scope of Corpus-Based Research: New Applications, New Challenges. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., Paquot, M. 2009. The International Corpus of Learner English, Version 2. Handbook and CD-Rom. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. Forthcoming. Statistical methods in learner corpus research. In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, G. Gilquin, S. Granger & F. Meunier (eds). Cambridge: CUP.
Gries, S.T. & Deshors, S.C. 2014. Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora 9(1): 109–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. & Buttery, P. 2010. Criterial features in learner corpora: Theory and illustrations. English Profile Journal 1(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. & Filipović, L. 2012. Criterial Features in L2 English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. & Lascaratou, C. 1982. Competing criteria for error gravity. ELT Journal 36(3): 175–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, E., Uchimoto, K. & Isahara, H. 2004. SST speech corpus of Japanese learners’ English and automatic detection of learners’ errors. ICAME Journal 28: 31–48.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. (eds). 1999. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kämmerer, S. 2009. Error-tagging spoken features of (learner) language: The UCL error editor ‘revised’. Paper presented at the 30th annual conference of the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME 30), 27–31 May 2009, Lancaster University.
. 2012. Interference in advanced English interlanguage: Scope, detectability and dependency. In Input, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora, J. Thomas & A. Boulton (eds), 284–297. Brno: Masaryk University Press.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. 1991. Error: Some problems of definition, identification and distinction. Applied Linguistics 12(2): 180–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. The lexical element in spoken second language fluency. In Perspectives on Fluency, H. Riggenbach (ed.), 25–42. Ann Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 2013. Putting the CEFR to good use: Designing grammars based on learner-corpus evidence. Language Teaching, FirstView Article. (26 July 2014).
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Rohrbach, J.-M. 2006. Rethinking applied corpus linguistics from a language-pedagogical perspective: New departures in learner corpus research. In Planning, Gluing and Painting Corpora: Inside the Applied Corpus Linguist’s Workshop, B. Kettemann & G. Marko (eds), 205–232. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native English Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 138]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murcia-Bielsa, S. & MacDonald, P. 2013. The TREACLE project: Profiling learner proficiency using error and syntactic analysis. In Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking Back, Moving Ahead, S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (eds), 335–344. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
North, B. 2014. Putting the Common European Framework of Reference to good use. Language Teaching 47(2): 228–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, J. 2007. Why do they keep making the same mistakes? Evidence for error motivation in a learner corpus. In Corpora and ICT in Language Studies, PALC 5, J. Waliński, K. Kredens & S. Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds), 343–355. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2008. Adverb placement in post-intermediate learner English: A contrastive study of learner corpora. In Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, G. Gilquin, S. Papp & M.B. Díez-Bedmar (eds), 127–146. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Park, K. 2014. Corpora and language assessment: The state of the art. Language Assessment Quarterly 11(1): 27–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringbom, H. 1999. High frequency verbs in the ICLE corpus. Explorations in Corpus Linguistics , A. Renouf (ed.), 191–200. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Rogatcheva, S.I. 2012. Measuring learner (mis)use: Tense and aspect errors in the Bulgarian and German components of ICLE. In Input, Process and Product. Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora, J. Thomas & A. Boulton (eds), 258–272. Brno: Masaryk University Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. 1974. An error in error analysis. Language Learning 24(2): 205–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thewissen J. 2008. The phraseological errors of French-, German-, and Spanish speaking EFL learners: Evidence from an error-tagged learner corpus. In Proceedings from the 8th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference (TaLC8) , Lisbon, 3–6 July 2008, Associação de Estudos e de Investigação Científica do ISLA-Lisboa (eds), 300–306.
Thewissen, J. 2013. Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. The Modern Language Journal 97(S1): 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Twardo, S. 2012. Selected errors in the use of verbs by adult learners of English at B1, B2 and C1 levels. In Input, Process and Product. Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora, J. Thomas & A. Boulton (eds), 273–282. Brno: Masaryk University Press.Google Scholar
Zydatiß, W. 1976. Learning problem expanded form: A performance analysis. IRAL 14(4): 351–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Götz, Sandra & Sylviane Granger
2024. Learner corpus research for pedagogical purposes. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 10:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gráf, Tomáš & Lan-Lanfen Huang
2022. Persistent errors in spoken English among Taiwanese and Czech learners at CEFR B2 and C1. In Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Learner Corpus Research [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 104], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Weisser, Martin
2021. Chapter 6. Profiling learners through pragmatically and error annotated corpora. In Beyond Concordance Lines [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 102], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Abe, Mariko
2019. Comparing errors across an L2 spoken and written error-tagged Japanese EFL learner corpus. In Learner Corpora and Language Teaching [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 92], ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
Pandarova, Irina, Torben Schmidt, Johannes Hartig, Ahcène Boubekki, Roger Dale Jones & Ulf Brefeld
2019. Predicting the Difficulty of Exercise Items for Dynamic Difficulty Adaptation in Adaptive Language Tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 29:3 ► pp. 342 ff. DOI logo
Gráf, Tomáš
2017. Verb Errors in Advanced Spoken English. AUC PHILOLOGICA 2017:1 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Pan, Mingwei & David D. Qian
2017. Embedding Corpora into the Content Validation of the Grammar Test of the National Matriculation English Test (NMET) in China. Language Assessment Quarterly 14:2 ► pp. 120 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.