Refine
Year of publication
- 2023 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Preprint (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Computerlinguistik (1)
- Deutsch (1)
- Fremdsprachenlernen (1)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (1)
- Lehrmittel (1)
- Metadaten (1)
- Non-native speaker (1)
- NottDeuYTSch corpus (1)
- Sprachentwicklung (1)
- Statistische Analyse (1)
Publicationstate
Publisher
Developments within the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) have meant that scholars are increasingly engaging with corpora and corpus-based resources, providing a source of “‘authentic’ language” to learners and educators (Mitchell 2020: 254), and contributing to “state-of-the-art research methodologies” (Deshors and Gries 2023: 164). However, there are areas in which progress can still be made, particularly in the area of metadata, such as information about the speaker and contexts of the language use, as well as increased variety in the text types and genres of corpora used to develop SLA materials (Paquot 2022: 36). This post discusses one such possibility for increasing the variety of text types and providing a rich source of authentic language that can be used to create engaging SLA materials, particularly for young people learning German, namely the use of the NottDeuYTSch corpus (to download the corpus in a variety of formats, see Cotgrove 2018).
In a recent paper published in the Journal of Language Evolution, Kauhanen, Einhaus & Walkden (KEW) challenge the results presented in one of my papers (Koplenig, Royal Society Open Science, 6, 181274 (2019)), in which I tried to show through a series of statistical analyses that large numbers of L2 (second language) speakers do not seem to affect the (grammatical or statistical) complexity of a language. To this end, I focus on the way in which the Ethnologue assesses language status: a language is characterised as vehicular if, in addition to being used by L1 (first language) speakers, it should also have a significant number of L2 users. KEW criticise both the use of vehicularity as a (binary) indicator of whether a language has a significant number of L2 users and the idea of imputing a zero proportion of L2 speakers to non-vehicular languages whenever a direct estimate of that proportion is unavailable. While I recognise the importance of post-publication commentary on published research, I show in this rejoinder that both points of criticism are explicitly mentioned and analysed in my paper. In addition, I also comment on other points raised by KEW and demonstrate that both alternative analyses offered by KEW do not stand up to closer scrutiny.