Skip to content
Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton August 14, 2021

„Ist es B2-Niveau genug?“

Der Gebrauch von es in den DaF-Lernerkorpora MERLIN und DISKO

The use of es in the MERLIN and DISKO learner corpora
Katrin Wisniewski

Abstract

This contribution focuses on the use of the multifunctional German word form es in the learner corpora MERLIN and DISKO (1,452 texts; 3,700 manually annotated occurrences of es). These corpora cover a wide proficiency range (A1-C1), and they include an L1 control group. Due to its multiple functions, using es is assumed to be challenging for learners. After laying out its main functional features, this paper first addresses the question of whether the frequency patterns of es actually differ between L1 und L2 texts, which is shown to be true only for beginning learners, and whether differences related to learners’ L1 can be observed, which seems to be the case. Secondly, the study links the emerging use of different es types and their relative frequencies to CEFR proficiency levels. A third focus regards the accuracy of es usage, which is generally high but differs among the various es functions, with anaphoric es presenting the greatest challenge for learners. A closer look at interlanguage structures reveals that learners often omit compulsory es and that they use redundant es in peculiar syntactic slots. Furthermore, the use of anaphoric es without clear textual reference regularly encumbers the reading process of the texts.

Literatur

Abel, Andrea, Katrin Wisniewski, Lionel Nicolas, Adriane Boyd & Jirka Hana. 2014. A Trilingual Learner Corpus illustrating European Reference Levels. Ricognizioni 2 (1). 111–126. (zuletzt aufgerufen am 16.06.2020).Search in Google Scholar

Alexopoulou, Theodora, Marije Michel, Akira Murakami & Detmar Meurers. 2017. Task Effects on Linguistic Complexity and Accuracy: A Large-Scale Learner Corpus Analysis Employing Natural Language Processing Techniques. [Special Issue]. Language Learning 67 (1). 180–208. Search in Google Scholar

Amoroso, Luke W. 2018. Analyzing Group Differences. In Aek Phakiti, Peter de Costa, Luke Plonsky & Sue Starfield (Hrsg.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology, 501–522. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Search in Google Scholar

Birkner, Karin. 2008. Relativ(satz)konstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch: Syntaktische, prosodische, semantische und pragmatische Aspekte. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Buscha, Joachim. 1988. Die Funktionen der Pronominalform es. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 25 (1). 27–33.Search in Google Scholar

Consten, Manfred. 2004. Anaphorisch oder deiktisch? Zu einem integrativen Modell domänengebundener Referenz. Tübingen: NiemeyerSearch in Google Scholar

Consten, Manfred & Monica Schwarz-Friesel. 2007. Anapher. In Ludger Hoffmann (Hrsg.), Deutsche Wortarten, 265–292. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Czicza, Dániel. 2014. Das es-Gesamtsystem im Neuhochdeutschen: Ein Beitrag zu Valenztheorie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

DUDEN = Wöllstein, Angelika & Dudenredaktion (Hrsg). 2016. Duden. Die Grammatik. 9. Auflage. Berlin: Dudenverlag. Search in Google Scholar

Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Band 2. Der Satz. Stuttgart: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2019. Essentials of a Theory of Language Cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103 (1). 39–60. Search in Google Scholar

Europarat (Hrsg). 2001. Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen. Lernen, Lehren, Beurteilen. Berlin u. a.: Langenscheidt.Search in Google Scholar

Fandrych, Christian & Maria Thurmair. 2018. Grammatik im Fach Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache: Grundlagen und Vermittlung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Fandrych, Christian & Ulrike Tallowitz. 2018. Klipp und Klar. Übungsgrammatik Grundstufe A1–B1. Stuttgart: Klett.Search in Google Scholar

Finkbeiner, Rita. 2018. Deixis und Anapher. In Frank Liedtke & Astrid Tuchen (Hrsg.), Handbuch Pragmatik, 186–197. Stuttgart: Metzler.Search in Google Scholar

Granger, Sylviane, Gaetanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (Hrsg.). 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Günthner, Susanne. 2009. Extrapositionen mit es im gesprochenen Deutsch. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 37 (1). 15–46.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. & Luna Filipovíc. 2012. Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the Reference Levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Helbig, Gerhard & Joachim Buscha. 2001. Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Stuttgart: Klett.Search in Google Scholar

Hering, Axel, Magdalena Matussek & Michaela Perlmann-Balme. 2008. em. Übungsgrammatik Deutsch als Fremdsprache. München: Hueber. Search in Google Scholar

Hulstijn, Jan H., J. Charles Alderson & Rob Schoonen. 2010. Developmental stages in second-language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them? In Ineke Vedder, Maisa Martin & Inge Bartning (Hrsg.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: intersections between SLA and language testing research, 11–20. EuroSLA.Search in Google Scholar

Kecker, Gabriele. 2011. Validierung von Sprachprüfungen. Die Zuordnung des TestDaF zum gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen für Sprachen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Kunkel, Melanie & Goranka Rocco. 2017. DUDEN Lern- und Übungsgrammatik Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Berlin: Dudenverlag.Search in Google Scholar

Larson‐Hall, Jenifer & Luke Plonsky. 2015. Reporting and Interpreting Quantitative Research Findings: What Gets Reported and Recommendations for the Field. [Special Issue] Language Learning 65 (1). 127–59. Search in Google Scholar

Lennon, Paul. 1991. Error: Some problems of definition, identification, and distinction. Applied Linguistics 12 (2). 180–96.Search in Google Scholar

McEnery, Tony, Vaclav Brezina, Dana Gablasova & Jayanti Banerjee. 2009. Corpus Linguistics, Learner Corpora, and SLA: Employing Technology to Analyze Language Use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 39. 74–92. Search in Google Scholar

Neary-Sundquist, Colleen A. 2016. Syntactic Complexity at Multiple Proficiency Levels of L2 German Speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 27 (1). 242–262. Search in Google Scholar

Noel Aziz, Hanna Patrizia. 2015. Wackernagels Gesetz im Deutschen: Zur Interaktion von Syntax, Phonologie und Informationsstruktur. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

North, Brian. 2000. The Development of a Common Framework Scale of Language Proficiency. New York: Lang. Search in Google Scholar

Pienemann, Manfred (Hrsg.). 2005. Cross-Linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Pienemann, Manfred. 1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development. Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Plonsky, Luke & Frederick L. Oswald. 2014. How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64. 878–912.Search in Google Scholar

Reznicek, Marc, Anke Lüdeling, Anke und Hagen Hirschmann. 2013. Competing Target Hypotheses in the Falko Corpus: A Flexible Multi-Layer Corpus Architecture. In Ana Díaz-Negrillo (Hrsg.), Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data, 101–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University PressSearch in Google Scholar

Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna & Ron Martinez. 2014. The Idiom Principle Revisited. Applied Linguistics 36 (5). 549–569.Search in Google Scholar

Tracy-Ventura, Nicole & Amanda Huensch. 2018. The Potential of Publicly Shared Longitudinal Learner Corpora in SLA Research. In Aarnes Gudmestad & Amanda Edmonds (Hrsg.), Critical Reflections on Data in Second Language Acquisition, 149–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Tracy-Ventura, Nicole & Florence Myles. 2015. The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1 (1). 58–95.Search in Google Scholar

VanPatten, Bill. 2020. Input Processing in Adult L2 Acquisition. In Bill Vanpatten, Gregory D. Keating & Stefanie Wulff (Hrsg.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 105–127. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Vyatkina, Nina, Hagen Hirschmann & Felix Golcher. 2015. Syntactic modification at early stages of L2 German writing development: A longitudinal learner corpus study. New developments in the study of L2 writing complexity 29. 28–50. Search in Google Scholar

Weinrich, Harald. 2005. Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3. Auflage. Hildesheim u. a.: Georg Olms-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Wisniewski, Katrin. 2017. Empirical Learner Language and the Levels of the Common European Framework of Reference. [Special Issue]. Language Learning 67 (1). 232–53.Search in Google Scholar

Wisniewski, Katrin. 2018. Sprache und Studienerfolg von Bildungsausländerinnen und -ausländern: Eine Längsschnittstudie an den Universitäten Leipzig und Würzburg. InfoDaF 45 (4). 573–597. Search in Google Scholar

Wisniewski, Katrin. 2020. SLA developmental stages in a CEFR-related learner corpus: Inversion and verb-end structures in German L2. International Journal of Learner Corpus Linguistics 6(1). 1–37.Search in Google Scholar

Wöllstein, Angelika. 2014. Topologisches Satzmodell. 2. Auflage. Heidelberg: Winter.Search in Google Scholar

Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann & Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Zifonun, Gisela. 1995. Minimalia grammaticalia: Das nicht-phorische es als Prüfstein grammatischer Theoriebildung. Deutsche Sprache 23 (1). 39–60. Search in Google Scholar

Online erschienen: 2021-08-14
Erschienen im Druck: 2021-09-30

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston