Cover not available

In:Word Order Change in Acquisition and Language Contact: Essays in honour of Ans van Kemenade
Edited by Bettelou Los and Pieter de Haan
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 243] 2017
► pp. 353–370

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

Chapter 16
Common framework, local context, local anchors

How information-structural transfer can help to distinguish within CEFR C2

 | Radboud University Nijmegen
 | University of Amsterdam
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.243.16vuu
Abstract
The differentiation between and within CEFR C1 and C2 is commonly determined by learners’ educational and cognitive development. Linguistic development  may, however,  also continue to play a subtle role in the shape of L1 information-structural transfer. Our Dutch EFL learner corpus was expected to reveal traces of V2 to SVO information-structural transfer through a higher frequency of pre-subject adverbials functioning as “local anchors”, in comparison with a native-speaker reference corpus. This is confirmed by our statistical analysis. After aligning our data with the CEFR through an Oxford Online Placement Test, we found students’ OOPT scores to be inversely correlated with their use of local anchors. Information-structural transfer is therefore a possible indicator of language development at higher levels of L2 acquisition.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR)
    • 1.2The CEFR in the Dutch educational system
    • 1.3L1 Transfer at higher levels of acquisition
  • 2.Materials and method
    • 2.1Corpus design
    • 2.2Procedure
    • 2.3Classification of adverbials
    • 2.4Normalisation
    • 2.5Statistical analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Native speakers and Dutch students of English compared
    • 3.2OOPT as a predictor of adverbial use
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (24)
References
Alderson, J. Charles. 2007. The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal 91(4): 659–663.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alderson, J. Charles, Figueras, Neus, Kuijper, Henk, Nold, Guenter, Takala, Sauli & Tardieu, Claire. 2006. Analysing tests of reading and listening in relation to the Common European Framework of Reference: The experience of the Dutch CEFR Construct Project. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal 3(1): 3–30.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finnegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 1992. Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe: Objectives, Evaluation, Certification. Report on the Rüschlikon Symposium. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assesment. <[URL]> (25 February 2015).
ERK. n.d. Streefniveaus HAVO/VWO. <[URL]> (1 July 2015).
Figueras, Neus. 2007. The CEFR, a lever for the improvement of language professionals in Europe. The Modern Language Journal 91(4): 673–675.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fulcher, Glenn. 2004. Deluded by artifices? The Common European Framework and harmonization. Language Assessment Quarterly 1(4): 253–266.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 1996. From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Languages in Contrast. Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 37–51. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Haan, Pieter & van der Haagen, Monique. 2012. Modification of adjectives in very advanced Dutch EFL writing: A development study. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL 1(1): 129–142.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, John & Filipovic, Luna. 2012. Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the Reference Levels of the Common European Framework. [English Profile Studies 1]. Cambridge: UCLES/CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hulstijn, Jan. 2007. The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 91(4): 663–667.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Dan & Manning, Cristopher D. 2003. Accurate unlexicalized parsing. Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 423–430.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komen, Erwin. 2011. Coreferenced corpora for information structure research. In Outposts of Historical Corpus Linguistics: From the Helsinki Corpus to a Proliferation of Resources [Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 10], Jukka Tyrkkö, Matti Kilpiö, Terttu Nevalainen & Matti Rissanen (eds). Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts, and Change in English. <[URL]> (20 March 2013).
. 2013. Finding Focus: A Study of the Historical Development of Focus in English. PhD dissertation, Radboud University. <[URL]> (19 March 2013).
Little, David. 2007. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Perspectives on the making of supranational language education policy. The Modern Language Journal 91(4): 645–655.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2012. The loss of verb-second and the switch from bounded to unbounded systems. In Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English [Oxford Studies in the History of English 2], Anneli Meurman-Solin, Maria Jose López-Couso & Bettelou Los (eds), 21–46. Oxford: OUP.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, Tim. 2007. Language assessment in foreign language education: The struggle over constructs. The Modern Language Journal 91(2): 280–282.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martyniuk, Waldemar & Noijons, José. 2007. The executive summary of results of a survey on the use of the CEFR at national level in the Council of Europe Member States. <[URL]> (16 February 2015).
Meunier, Fanny. 2015. Introduction to the LONGDALE project. In Studies in Learner Corpus Linguistics: Research and Applications for Foreign Language Teaching and Assessment, Erik Castello, Katherine Ackerley & Francesca Coccetta (eds), 123–126. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Springer, Philip. (2012). Advanced Learner Writing: A Corpus-Based Study of the Discourse Competence of Dutch Writers of English in the Light of the C1/C2 Levels of the CEFR. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Target Training. Business English Training and the CEFR. <[URL]> (25 February 2015).
Verheijen, Lieke, Los, Bettelou & de Haan, Pieter. 2013. Information structure: The final hurdle? The development of syntactic structures in (very) advanced Dutch EFL writing. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 2(1): 92–107.  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Vuuren, Sanne. 2013. Information structural transfer in advanced Dutch EFL writing: A cross-linguistic longitudinal study. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013 [AVT30], Suzanne Aalberse & Anita Auer (eds), 173–187. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

van Hilten, Myrte & Sanne van Vuuren
2017. Does it ‘feel’ non-native?. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 6:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
van Vuuren, Sanne & Lyuben Laskin
2017. Dutch learner English in close-up. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 3:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue