The present paper investigates the use of two high–frequency verbs: make and take. These verbs are particularly interesting since they express basic meaning (the meaning of the verb is mostly determined by its combinations). Therefore, they do not constitute a problem in learners’ comprehension. However, because they have little semantic content, learning how to use them appropriately has proved to be tricky even for advanced learners (Howarth, 1998; Altenberg & Granger, 2001; Nesselhauf, 2003; Futgi et al. 2008). The aim of this study is to analyse learners’ ability to produce the two high-frequency verbs to uncover features of non–nativeness of learner language in relation to the use of these verbs, such as overuse/underuse of certain verbs, nouns, collocations or structures, focusing on Spanish and Italian learners of English. Corpus Linguistics (CL) is particularly useful for looking for this type of non–native usage patterns. Learner Corpora will be studied using CIA, Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (Granger, 1998) as a method, more specifically NL/IL comparison (native language vs interlanguage) to be able to compare native and non–native speakers’ performances in comparable situations. A second type of comparison will be made between two interlanguages (Spanish and Italian). Including a second L2 variety allows to distinguish general L2 features from characteristics that are exclusive to one particular language. Authentic learner data has been retrieved from the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE). ICLE contains argumentative essays produced by advanced second language learners of English from different mother–tongue backgrounds. The Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS) is used as a control corpus to compare it with the learner corpora. Results bring further evidence that high-frequency verbs are difficult items even for advanced English learners. In addition, the two learner groups share some of the problems, while others, despite the similarities between the two languages, are related to the L1 of the learners. These results have pedagogical implications: teachers should aim to improve learners’ productive capacities of those items that have not been fully mastered yet, such as high-frequency verbs.

Abstract The partitive (one of the fifteen Finnish cases and a typical case characterizing Finnic languages) developed from the Uralic separative locative into a grammatical case. In modern Finnish, it is one of the object, existential subject and predicative cases, representing that side of the case alternations that expresses unboundedness and negative polarity. Probably because the three case alternations differ in certain respects and clear-cut grammar rules cannot always be formulated, the use of the partitive remains a constant struggle for learners of Finnish. This study investigates the use of partitive objects, subjects and predicatives in Estonian, German and Dutch learners of Finnish as a foreign language. By comparing groups of learners from L1 backgrounds closely related and non-related to the target language (TL), it is aimed to explore the role of presence versus lack of relevant prior linguistic knowledge. The use of the partitive is namely largely similar in the closely related Estonian language. However, the purpose of the study is not only to gain valuable insights into the phenomena of L1 influence and intralingual influence but also to identify (common and L1 background-specific) stumbling blocks in the use of the partitive case, and to draw pedagogical implications based upon the findings. Research materials were selected from the Estonian, German and Dutch subcorpora of the International Corpus of Learner Finnish (ICLFI), aligned to the CEFR proficiency levels, and analyzed based on combined error-frequency analyses, involving partitive over- and underuse errors and partitive-requiring contexts (PRCs). As will be shown, the study reveals conspicuous differences between the learner corpora. In general, the Estonian learner corpus not only shows significantly fewer partitive errors than the other corpora, but also some specific error patterns attributable to subtle L1-L2 differences and, unlike the remaining corpora, a lack of overgeneralization of L2 grammar rules. The findings do not only indicate that -and how- prior linguistic knowledge matters, but also suggest that stumbling blocks could potentially be turned into stepping stones by emphasizing L1-L2 differences in the case of Estonian learners of Finnish, and by highlighting similarities and differences from within the TL in cases of learners from non-related L1 backgrounds. / Tiivistelmä Itämerensuomalaisille kielille tyypillinen partitiivi on aikaa myöten kehittynyt separatiivi-nimisestä uralilaisen kantakielen paikallissijasta syntaktisia funktioita ilmaisevaksi sijamuodoksi. Nykysuomessa partitiivi on yksi objektin, eksistentiaali-subjektin ja predikaativin sijoista, jolla ilmaistaan rajaamattomuutta ja kielteisyyttä. Partitiivin käyttö aiheuttaa suomen kielen oppijoille usein ongelmia, luultavasti koska objektin, subjektin ja predikatiivin sijanvalinnassa on vaihtelua ja ratkaisevien kieliopillisten sääntöjen muodostus on toisinaan erittäin vaikeaa. Tässä tutkimuksessa tarkastelen virolaisten, saksalaisten ja hollantilaisten suomea vieraana kielenä opiskelevien partitiiviobjektin, -subjektin ja -predikatiivin käyttöä lähde- ja kohdekielen samanlaisuuden ja erilaisuuden näkökulmasta. Lähde- ja kohdekielen roolin selvittämisen lisäksi tutkimuksen tavoitteina on identifioida partitiivin (yleiset ja lähdekielikohtaiset) ongelmakohdat ja yhdistää tutkimustulokset vieraan kielen oppimiseen ja -opetukseen. Tutkimusaineistoina on virolaisten, saksalaisten ja hollantilaisten opiskelijoiden kirjoittamia tekstejä, jotka on poimittu Kansainvälisestä oppijansuomen korpuksesta (ICLFI) ja arvioitu Eurooppalaisen viitekehyksen (CEFR) kielitaitotasojen mukaan. Virhe- ja frekvenssianalyyseissä aineistoista analysoidaan muun muassa partitiivin yli- ja alikäyttövirheet ja partitiivin vaatimat kontekstit. Tutkimuksesta käy ilmi, että virolaisten oppijoiden ja ei-sukukieliä puhuvien oppijoiden tuotoksissa on silmiinpistäviä eroja. Virolaisten aineistosta löytyy yleisesti tilastollisesti vähemmän partitiivivirheitä kuin kahdesta muusta osakorpuksesta ja lisäksi myös virhekategorioita ja -rakenteita, jotka johtunevat lähdekielen vaikutuksesta. Tämän lisäksi saksalaisten ja hollantilaisten tuotoksissa on selvästi enemmän kohdekielen sääntöjen yliyleistämistä kuin virolaisten osakorpuksessa. Tutkimustulokset siis osoittavat, että lähdekieli vaikuttaa kohdekielen oppimiseen, ja sen, miten se vaikuttaa. Lisäksi tutkimustulosten avulla on mahdollista kehittää sellaisia opetuksen apuvälineitä, joilla voidaan selventää virolaisille suomenoppijoille L1:n ja L2:n partitiivin käytön eroja ja yhtäläisyyksiä ja tehostaa oppimista; ei-sukukielisten oppijoiden opetuksessa ovat puolestaan kohdekielen ja sijanvaihteluiden sisäiset tunnusmerkit tärkeitä.

This study examines the use of discourse-organising nouns (DONs), such as fact, issue, and problem, in Swedish advanced students’ academic writing in second language (L2) English, and in what ways texts produced by the L2 students resemble or differ from those produced by advanced native-speaker (L1) students and from expert writing in this respect. The study uses corpus linguistic methodology and is set within the frameworks of Halliday’s systemic-functional linguistics and Granger’s Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis. Results show both similarities and differences across the writer groups. Noteworthy similarities include overall frequencies of DONs and their modifiers. Differences include variety of usage and register appropriacy. These differences were often the largest between the L2 student writing and the expert writing, though findings suggest that both student groups can usefully be thought of as learners of academic writing in English in this respect. Specifically, the students’ usage was found to be less varied than the expert writing, and to be characterised by more frequent use of semantically vague nouns (e.g., thing and fact) and nouns marking attitude and involvement (e.g., opinion and question). Other central findings include the tendency, on the part of the students, to use DONs less frequently in syntactic structures prototypical of formal academic prose, and to use them more frequently in structures with the potential to express stance, compared to the expert writing. The study also found more frequent use of evaluative modifiers of DONs in the student writing. In sum, the L2 student writing and, to a lesser extent, the L1 student writing, was found to approximate the corpus of expert writing in many respects, but with less variety, fewer markers of formality, and more frequent occurrences of interpersonal features in their use of DONs. The result is discourse that can in part be characterised as vague and subjective, as well as involved and informal. / This study examines the use of discourse-organising nouns (DONs), such as fact, issue, and problem, in Swedish advanced students’ academic writing in second language (L2) English, and in what ways texts produced by the L2 students resemble or differ from those produced by advanced native-speaker students and from expert writing in this respect. Results show both similarities and differences across the writer groups. Noteworthy similarities include overall frequencies of DONs and their modifiers. Differences include variety of usage and register appropriacy. In short, the L2 student writing and, to a lesser extent, the L1 student writing, was found to approximate the corpus of expert writing in many respects, but with less variety, fewer markers of formality, and more frequent occurrences of interpersonal features in their use of DONs. The result is discourse that can in part be characterised as vague and subjective, as well as involved and informal. These differences were often the largest between the L2 student writing and the expert writing, though findings suggest that both student groups can usefully be thought of as learners of academic writing in English in this respect.

Negli ultimi 70 anni, c'è stato un incremento degli studi e ricerche inglesi sulle collocazioni (Firth 1957; Hoey, 2005; Moon, 1998b; Sinclair 1991; 2004; Stubbs, 1996; 2001), i quali hanno evidenziato che la fraseologia è pervasiva alla lingua (Altenberg, 1998; Biber et al., 1999; Cowie, 1991; 1992; Howarth; 1998). Questo indica anche che una buona padronanza delle collocazioni è necessaria se i discenti mirano a raggiungere una fluidità simile a quella di un nativo nella L2. Infatti, la ricerca sulla produzione di linguaggio formulaico da parte degli apprendenti ha dimostrato che le collocazioni sono essenziali nell'acquisizione della lingua seconda (Cowie, 1998; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Peters, 1983) e sono una componente chiave per lo sviluppo della "fluency" (Ellis, 2002; 2003; Ellis et al., 2015; Howarth, 1998). Nonostante il maggior numero di studi sulle collocazioni, la maggior parte degli studiosi si è concentrata su dati scritti e su un insieme ristretto di combinazioni, come le collocazioni verbo + sostantivo. La scarsa disponibilità di corpora orali di discenti e la maggiore attenzione per le sequenze formulaiche più soggette a errori hanno portato i ricercatori a trascurare collocazioni come avverbio + aggettivo. L'intensificazione è una parte intricata dell'apprendimento delle lingue straniere (Lorenz, 1999) e merita ulteriore attenzione, soprattutto per quanto riguarda i dati parlati, che riflettono meglio il linguaggio dei discenti (Myles, 2015). Il presente lavoro indaga le collocazioni di avverbi + aggettivi in un corpus parlato di recente compilazione di studenti italiani avanzati di inglese L2. La tesi adotta un approccio di Analisi Interlinguistica Contrastiva (Granger, 1998) per verificare se: a) ci sono differenze tra la produzione di collocazioni degli studenti italiani di inglese rispetto ai coetanei madrelingua; b) ci sono differenze tra le collocazioni prodotti dagli studenti italiani e quelle dei madrelingua in termini di modelli sintattici e significato lessicale; c) la congruenza della L1 ha un effetto di trasferimento sulla produzione da parte dei discenti di collocazioni poco frequenti e/o non attestate. Per rispondere alle tre domande di ricerca, sono state condotte analisi quantitative e qualitative sull'Italian Spoken Learner Corpus (ISLC) e sul corpus gemello di LINDSEI, LOCNEC. LOCNEC è stato utilizzato come corpus di riferimento di madrelingua per il suo alto livello di comparabilità con ISLC. Per le analisi quantitative, è stato seguito l'approccio di Durrant e Schmitt (2009) per il calcolo dei punteggi delle misure di associazione delle collocazioni (t-score e MI) sulla base del corpus di riferimento BNC e le collocazioni sono state poi divise in tre categorie in base al loro punteggio: collocazioni (t-score e MI maggiore o uguale a 2 e 3 rispettivamente), collocazioni infrequenti/non attestate (t-score e MI non disponibili a causa dell'infrequenza), collocazioni in area grigia (t-score e MI inferiore a 2 e 3 rispettivamente). I test T-test e Wilcoxon rank sum test sono stati utilizzati sulle collocazioni estratte da ISLC e LOCNEC e sono state calcolate le dimensioni degli effetti. Inoltre, i test sono stati impiegati per valutare i valori medi individuali di t-score e MI degli studenti e dei madrelingua. Per quanto riguarda le analisi qualitative, è stato impiegato uno schema a tre livelli per analizzare due serie di collocazioni: la prima serie comprende 11 collocazioni con t-score e MI maggiore uguale a 2 e 3 rispettivamente e una frequenza di 5 nell'ISLC; la seconda serie comprende 9 collocazioni infrequenti/non attestate con una frequenza maggiore o uguale a 2 nell'ISLC. Seguendo lo schema, i due set di collocazioni estratti sia dall'ISLC sia dal LOCNEC sono stati analizzati tenendo conto del loro background collocativo (etimologia, livello CEFR, congruenza L1), delle variabili del discente (sesso, esperienza di soggiorno all'estero, corso universitario, altre lingue), e delle variabili testuali (funzione attributiva vs predicativa dell'aggettivo, pronomi vs it-sentences, tempo verbale, affermativo vs negativo, connotazione positiva vs negativa). I risultati dei test statistici sono stati tutti significativi con effect size medio-grandi e, insieme alle analisi qualitative, hanno indicato che: gli studenti italiani di inglese producono un minor numero di collocazioni; un maggior numero di non-collocazioni; le loro combinazioni sono meno collocative di quelle dei madrelingua (ovvero, i loro punteggi di misura delle associazioni sono in media più bassi di quelli dei nativi); non ci sono differenze marcate in termini di modelli lessico-grammaticali tra le collocazioni degli studenti e quelle dei madrelingua, ma gli studenti tendono ad assegnare alle loro collocazioni funzioni più creative dal punto di vista pragmatico; non è stata trovata alcuna prova di trasferimento L1 (negativo) in relazione alla produzione da parte dei discenti di collocazioni infrequenti/non attestate, sostenendo così ulteriormente la conclusione precedente. I risultati corroborano ulteriormente la letteratura sulle collocazioni prodotte dai discenti e aggiungono un altro tassello al puzzle della lingua parlata: il ritardo collocazionale, cioè lo sviluppo più lento delle prestazioni di produzione di collocazioni, può essere trovato anche nei dati parlati e i discenti sembrano anche produrre meno collocazioni identificate da punteggio t-score. Questo ha due importanti, anche se semplici, implicazioni: che gli studenti dovrebbero probabilmente essere esposti a più input di lingua parlata, e che le teorie di acquisizione della lingua seconda potrebbero utilmente rivedere i processi di acquisizione fraseologica degli studenti nel contesto EFL. Un'altra scoperta è relativa ai modelli lessico-grammaticali delle collocazioni degli studenti non erano marcatamente diversi da quelli dei madrelingua, ma erano meno vari e mostravano una creatività pragmatica. Questo potrebbe informare gli studiosi sui potenziali processi di fossilizzazione (Selinker, 1972) nella fraseologia e/o sulle strategie di semplificazione o di evitamento (Farghal & Obiedat, 1995). Infine, anche se gli studi tradizionali hanno trovato che la congruenza L1 gioca un ruolo chiave nella produzione di collocazioni (cfr. Bahns, 1993; Granger, 1998b; Nesselhauf, 2005; Wang, 2016), nessuna prova di congruenza L1 è stata trovata per quanto riguarda i dati parlati, il che è un'interessante controprova. Nel complesso, questa tesi ha sottolineato che la produzione di collocazioni, sia quantitativamente sia pragmaticamente, è in ritardo rispetto alla competenza collocazionale e, sebbene questa linea possa essere molto sottile e non significativa nei testi scritti, il divario si allarga nella lingua parlata. / In the last 70 years, there has been an increase in English studies on collocations (Firth 1957; Hoey, 2005; Moon, 1998; Sinclair 1991; 2004; Stubbs, 1996; 2001) and research which have documented that phraseology is pervasive to language (Altenberg, 1998; Biber et al., 1999; Cowie, 1991; 1992; Howarth; 1998). This also indicates that a good command of collocations is needed if learners aim to achieve native-like fluency in the L2. Indeed, research on learner production of formulaic language has shown that collocations are essential in the acquisition of second language (Cowie, 1998; Pawley & Syder, 1983; Peters, 1983) and are a key component for the development of fluency (Ellis, 2002; 2003; Ellis et al., 2015; Howarth, 1998). Despite the surge in studies on collocations, the majority of scholars have focused on written data and on a restricted set of combinations, such as verb + noun collocations. The poor availability of spoken learner corpora and the more error-prone formulaic sequences have led researchers to neglect collocations such as adverb + adjective. Intensification is an intricate part of foreign language learning (Lorenz, 1999) and deserves further attention, especially as regards spoken data, which is a better reflection of learner language (Myles, 2015). The present work investigates adverb + adjective collocations in a newly compiled spoken learner corpus of advanced Italian learners of English L2. The thesis adopts a Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (Granger, 1998) approach to verify whether: a) there are any differences between the collocation production of Italian learners of English compared to native-speaker peers; b) there are any differences between the Italian learners’ collocations and the native speakers’ in terms of syntactic patterns and lexical meaning; c) L1 congruency has a transfer effect on the learner production of infrequent and/or unattested collocations. In order to address the three overarching research questions, quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out on the Italian Spoken Learner Corpus (ISLC) and the sister corpus of LINDSEI, LOCNEC. LOCNEC was used as the native-speaker reference corpus for its high level of comparability to ISLC. For the quantitative analyses, Durrant and Schmitt’s (2009) approach was followed for the calculation of the collocation’s association measure scores (t-score and MI) based on the large reference corpus BNC and the collocations were then divided into three categories based on their score: collocations (t-score and MI equal or greater than 2 and 3 respectively), infrequent/unattested collocations (t-score and MI scores unavailable due to infrequency), grey area collocations (t-score and MI lower than 2 and 3 respectively). T-tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were computed on the collocations extracted from ISLC and LOCNEC and effect sizes were calculated. In addition, the tests were employed to assess the average individual t-score and MI values of learners and native speakers. As regards the qualitative analyses, a three-fold scheme was employed to analyse two sets of collocations: the first set comprises 11 collocations with t-score and MI equal or greater than 2 and 3 respectively and a frequency of equal or greater than 5 in the ISLC; the second set includes 9 infrequent/unattested collocations with a frequency equal or greater than 2 in ISLC. Following the scheme, the two sets of collocations extracted from both ISLC and LOCNEC were analysed by taking into account their collocational background (etymology, CEFR level, L1 congruence), the learner variables (gender, stay-abroad experience, university course, other languages), and the text variables (attributive vs predicative function of the adjective, pronouns vs it-sentences, tense, affirmative vs negative, positive vs negative connotation). The results of the statistical tests were all significant with medium to large effect sizes and, together with the qualitative analyses, indicated that: Italian learners of English produce a fewer number of collocations; a higher number of non-collocations; their combinations are less collocational than native speakers’ (i.e., their association measure scores as on average lower than the natives’); there are no marked differences in terms of lexico-grammatical patterns between the learners’ collocations and the native speakers’, but the learners tend to assign more pragmatically creative functions to their collocations; no evidence of L1 (negative) transfer was found in relation to the learners’ production of infrequent/unattested collocations, thus further supporting the previous finding. The findings further corroborate the literature on learners’ collocations and add another piece to the puzzle of spoken language: collocational lag, that is the slower development of collocation performance, can also be found in spoken data and learners also seem to produce fewer t-score collocations. This has two important, though simple, implications: that learners should probably be exposed to more spoken language input, and that second language acquisition theories might usefully review phraseological acquisition processes of EFL learners. Another finding is that the lexico-grammatical patterns of learners’ collocations were not markedly different from native speakers’, but they were less varied and displayed pragmatic creativity. This could inform scholars about potential fossilisation processes (Selinker, 1972) in phraseology and/or simplification or avoidance strategies (Farghal & Obiedat, 1995). Lastly, although mainstream studies have found that L1 congruency plays a role in the production of collocations (cf. Bahns, 1993; Granger, 1998b; Nesselhauf, 2005; Wang, 2016), no evidence of L1 congruency was found as regards spoken data, which is an interesting counter-finding. Overall, this thesis has underlined that collocation production, both quantitatively and pragmatically, lags behind collocation competence and, although this line may be very thin and not significant in written texts, the gap widens in spoken language.

Extramural English (EE) activities are activities in English that students spend time on outside of school. Previous studies have often concluded that EE activities have a positive effect on students’ English proficiency. The phrasal verb is a language feature which often causes problems for learners of English as a second language. Phrasal verbs are multi-word phrases whose meaning cannot be guessed by the learner, often causing them to avoid using them. This study investigates the phrasal verb usage among Swedish secondary school students and if it is possible to link the usage to level of engagement in popular EE activities. The source of data for this study is the Swedish Learners English Corpus (SLEC), which contains texts written by Swedish secondary school students. An important feature that makes this corpus suitable for this study is that the metadata contains information about time spent on EE activities among the students. The analysis of the phrasal verb usage is structured around a three-level analysis of phrasal verb constructions. Although some differences in the use were noted, the study shows that phrasal verbs are a language feature which is not affected by amount of time spent on EE activities to a significant extent. / Extramural engelska (EE)-aktiviteter är aktiviteter på engelska som elever spenderar tid på utanför skolan. Tidigare studier har ofta kommit fram till att EE-aktiviteter har en positiv effekt på elevernas engelska kunskaper. Frasverb är en språkfunktion som ofta orsakar problem för elever som studerar engelska som andraspråk. Frasverb är fraser som består av flera ord och vars betydelse inte kan gissas av eleven, vilket ofta får dem att undvika att använda dem. Denna studie undersöker användningen av frasverb bland svenska högstadieoch gymnasieelever och om det är möjligt att koppla användningen till hur mycket tid de spenderar på populära EE-aktiviteter. Datakällan för denna studie är ’Swedish Learners English Corpus’ (SLEC), som innehåller texter skrivna av svenska högstadie- och gymnasieelever. En viktig del som gör denna korpus lämplig för studien är attkorpusens metadata innehåller information om hur mycket tid som läggs på EE-aktiviteter bland studenterna. Analysen av användningen av frasverb-konstruktioner är uppbyggd kring en analys i tre nivåer. Även om vissa skillnader i användningen noterades, visar studien att frasverb är en språkfunktion som inte påverkas av mängden tid som spenderas på EE-aktiviteter i betydande utsträckning.