Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Learner Corpus Research: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

The influence of L1 Dutch on connective use in L2 German academic writing

A contrastive corpus-based analysis

ORCiD logo with link | University of Antwerp
ORCiD logo with link | University of Antwerp
ORCiD logo with link | University of Antwerp
ORCiD logo with link | University of Antwerp
 | Ruhr University Bochum
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Antwerp.

Published online: 4 November 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.24028.wed
Abstract
The present study provides a comparative corpus-based analysis of summaries written by three groups: first-language (L1) German writers, second-language (L2) German writers with L1 Dutch, and L2 German writers with other L1s. The aim is to determine whether there are differences in connective use between L1 and L2 writers in summary writing and whether there are L1 Dutch-specific differences. The results show that L2 German writers with non-Dutch L1s use fewer connectives than L1 German writers, whereas L2 German writers with L1 Dutch use more connectives, especially expansion and contingency connectives. In addition, L2 German writers prefer certain connectives (e.g., und (and), weil (because)) and L2 German writers with L1 Dutch aber (but). Overall, this study highlights the importance of (contrastively) analysing summary writing as well as considering under-researched language pairs such as German and Dutch.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Crosslinguistic influence on connective use in L2 German
    • 2.1Effects of L1 on the total amount of connectives
    • 2.2Effects of L1 on the distribution of semantic categories
    • 2.3Effects of L1 on the use of specific connectives
    • 2.4Effects of L1 on the distribution of syntactic categories
    • 2.5Conclusions from the literature review & research questions
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1The German Summary Corpus (GerSumCo)
    • 3.2The Belgisches Deutschkorpus (BELDEKO)
    • 3.3Annotation of connectives in the corpora
    • 3.4Statistical tests
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Model 1: The effect of L1 on the (logged) relative frequencies of connectives
    • 4.2Model 2: The effect of L1 on the (logged) relative frequencies of connectives grouped by semantic categories
    • 4.3Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests: L1 group differences found in logged relative frequencies of the ten most frequently used connective types
    • 4.4Model 3: The effect of L1 on the (logged) relative frequencies of connectives grouped by syntactic categories
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The effect of L1 on the total number of connectives
    • 5.2The effect of L1 on the distribution of semantic categories
    • 5.3The effect of L1 on connective choice
    • 5.4The effect of L1 on the distribution of syntactic categories
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Open data badge
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • Appendices
    • Appendix 1.Model 1 — m.01=lmer(RELLOG ~ 1 + L1 + (1|SPEAKER))
    • Appendix 2.Model 2 — m.02=lmer(RELLOG ~ 1 + L1*SEMCAT + (1|SPEAKER)
    • Appendix 3.Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests of the 10 most common token types
    • Appendix 4.Model 3 — m.03=lmer(RELLOG ~ 1 + L1*SYNCAT + (1|SPEAKER)
  • References
References (49)
References
Ackerley, K. (2017). Effects of corpus-based instruction on phraseology in learner English. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 195–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Appel, R., & Szeib, A. (2018). Linking adverbials in L2 English academic writing: L1-related differences. System, 781, 115–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Battefeld, M., Leuschner, T., & Rawoens, G. (2018). Evaluative morphology in German, Dutch and Swedish: Constructional networks and the loci of change. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 229–262). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breindl, E. (2016). Konnexion in argumentativen Texten: Gebrauchsunterschiede in Deutsch als L2 vs. Deutsch als L1. In F. D’Avis & H. Lohnstein (Eds.), Linguistische Berichte — Sonderhefte (Vol. 221, pp. 37–64). Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breindl, E., Volodina, A., & Waßner, U. H. (2015). Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren 2. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bossuyt, T. (2020). Lice in the fur of our language? German irrelevance particles between Dutch and English. In G. Vogelaer, D. Koster, & T. Leuschner (Eds.), German and Dutch in contrast: Synchronic, diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 77–108). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Groodt, S., & Leuschner, T. (2004). Kausal-konditional-konzessive Subjunktoren im Westgermanischen: Theodistik als Sprachsystemgeschichte aus funktional-typologischer Sicht. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 591, 51–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Vogelaer, G., Koster, D., & Leuschner, T. (Eds.) (2020). German and Dutch in contrast: synchronic, diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuchs, R., Götz, S., & Werner, V. (2016). 10. The present perfect in learner Englishes: A corpus-based case study on L1 German intermediate and advanced speech and writing. In V. Werner, E. Seoane, & C. Suárez-Gómez (Eds.), Re-assessing the present perfect (pp. 297–338). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Languages in contrast: Text-based cross-linguistic studies (pp. 37–51). Lund University Press. [URL]
(2015). Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 7–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Commentary: Have learner corpus research and second language acquisition finally met? In B. Le Bruyn & M. Paquot (Eds.), Learner corpus research meets second language acquisition (pp. 243–257). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2021). Statistics for linguistics with R. De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(2), 111–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hüning, M., Vogl, U., van der Wouden, T. & Verhagen, A. (Eds.) (2006). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop op 30–9 en 1-10-2005 aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: SNL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in them Interlanguage Lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karlak, M., & Šarić Šokčević, I. (2024). Additive and causal connectives in GFL argumentative writing. Jezikoslovlje, 25(1), 97–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecker, G., & Eckes, T. (2022). Der digitale TestDaF: Aufbruch in neue Dimensionen des Sprachtestens. Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 49(4), 289–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konjevod, A. (2012). Connectives in student writing: A learner corpus study. Strani Jezici, 41(1), 47–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kunz, K., Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., Martínez, J. M. M., Menzel, K., & Steiner, E. (2021). GECCo — German-English contrasts in cohesion. De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lei, L. (2012). Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics by Chinese doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 267–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 291, 16–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ma, Y., & Wang, B. (2016). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: A comparison between a native speaker (NS) corpus and a non-native speaker (NNS) learner corpus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 113–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matte, M. L. M., & Sarmento, S. (2018). A corpus-based study of connectors in student academic writing. English for Specific Purposes World, 201, 1–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Medve, V. B., & Karlak, M. (2023). Transition Marker in argumentativen Texten von Muttersprachlern und Fremdsprachenlernern: Vergleich von Kroatisch als L1 und Deutsch als L2. Slavia Centralis, 16(1), 66–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mortelmans, T. & Smirnova, E. (2020). Analogues of the way-construction in German and Dutch: Another Germanic sandwich? In G. Vogelaer, D. Koster, & T. Leuschner (Eds.), German and Dutch in contrast: Synchronic, diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 47–76). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pasch, R., Brauße, U., Breindl, E., & Waßner, U. H. (2003). Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren 1. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pon, L., & Kramarić, M. (2017). Zum Gebrauch der Konjunktion ‚und’ in schriftlichen Produktionen kroatischer DaF-Lernender. Strani jezici: Časopis za primijenjenu lingvistiku, 46(1–2), 41–63.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reid, J. (1992). A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in english discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 79–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheffler, T., & Stede, M. (2016). Adding semantic relations to a large-coverage connective lexicon of German. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, M. Grobelnik, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (pp. 1008–1013). ELRA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smessaert, H., van der Horst, J., & Van de Velde, F. (Eds.) (2017). Another look at the Germanic Sandwich. Dutch between German and English. Leuvense Bijdragen 1011.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Staples, S., & Reppen, R. (2016). Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 321, 17–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stede, M., Scheffler, T., & Mendes, A. (2019). Connective-Lex: A web-based multilingual lexical resource for connectives. Discours, 241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strobl, C. & Wedig, H. (2023). Beldeko Summary Corpus v1.1.0. Eurac Research CLARIN Centre. [URL]
Tapper, M. (2005). Connectives in advanced Swedish EFL learners’ written English: Preliminary results. In F. Heinat & E. Klingvall (Eds.), Working papers in linguistics (pp. 115–144). The Department of English, Lund University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vaakanainen, V., & Maijala, M. (2022). Das mehrsprachige Bedeutungspotenzial der finnischen Lernenden–die Verwendung der Konnektoren in L3-Deutsch und Schwedisch: Die Verwendung der Konnektoren in L3-Deutsch und-Schwedisch. Finnish Journal of Linguistics, 351, 129–167. [URL]
Van Haeringen, C. B. (1956). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Servire.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webber, B., Prasad, R., Lee, A., & Joshi, A. (2019). The Penn Discourse Treebank 3.0 Annotation Manual. University of Pennsylvania. [URL]
Wedig, H., Strobl, C., Ureel, J. J. J., & Mortelmans, T. (2025a). The use of connectives in L2 German writing by L1 Dutch students: A learner corpus study. In Katherine Ackerley & Erik Castello (Eds.), Continuing Learner Corpus Research: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 213–243). Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025b). The Beldeko corpus as a resource to investigate cohesion in German learner language: A preliminary analysis of corpus homogeneity. In T. Leuschner, J. Barðal, G. Delaby & A. Vajnovszki (Eds.), How to Do Things with Corpora — Methodological Issues and Case Studies. Empirical and Theoretical Linguistics. J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wedig, H., & Strobl, C. (2024). German summary corpus. Eurac Research CLARIN Centre. [URL]
Wedig, H., Amet, B., Goschler, J. & Strobl, C. (2024). Aufgabentyp-spezifischer Konnektivgebrauch in schriftlichen Texten von DaF-Lernenden. Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung. Korpora Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 4(2), 126–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, Z., & Li, Y. (2022). Der Gebrauch von Konnektoren bei chinesischen DaF-LernerInnen: Eine korpuslinguistische Untersuchung argumentativer Lernertexte. Alman Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi / Studien zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 111–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoon, J., & Wonho, Y. (2011). An error analysis of English conjunctive adjuncts in Korean college students’ writing. English Teaching, 661, 225–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, G. (2013). The use of summarization tasks: Some lexical and conceptual analyses. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 109–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue