<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# MAKING tea and mistakes: The functions of MAKE in conversational English and textbook dialogues

Elen Le Foll

► To cite this version:

Elen Le Foll. MAKING tea and mistakes: The functions of MAKE in conversational English and textbook dialogues. Multifunctionality in English: Corpora, Language and Academic Literacy Pedagogy, Routledge, pp.157-178, 2022, 978-0-367-72509-9. 10.4324/9781003155072-12. hal-04070931

HAL Id: hal-04070931

https://hal.science/hal-04070931

Submitted on 16 Apr 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of a paper published as:

Le Foll, Elen. 2022. *Making tea and mistakes: The Functions of *make* in Spoken English and Textbook Dialogues*. In Zihan Yin & Elaine Vine (eds.), *Multifunctionality in English: Corpora, Language and Academic Literacy Pedagogy*, 157–178. Oxon; New York: Routledge.

# MAKING tea and mistakes: The Functions of MAKE in Conversational English and Textbook Dialogues

Elen Le Foll

Osnabrück University

## Abstract

English L2 speakers' frequently unidiomatic usage of the high-frequency verb MAKE is often traced back to negative L1 transfer. "Inadequate teaching", however, has also been identified as a potential factor. Accordingly, this study investigates the representations of MAKE in a crucial source of (mis)information in instructed English language learning settings: textbooks. To this end, all occurrences of the verb MAKE found in the dialogues and audio/video transcripts of 43 textbooks used at secondary school level were extracted and manually annotated. These are compared to the use of MAKE in transcripts of natural conversation. Causative uses, delexical collocations pertaining to the semantic field of speech/communication, and phrasal verbs involving MAKE are found to be more frequent in natural than in textbook conversation. Potential topic and task effects are discussed. The conclusion points to textbooks' lack of systematicity in their selection of phraseological units involving MAKE, in particular, of restricted collocations such as delexical uses, and phrasal verbs. It briefly exemplifies how corpus data can be used to improve pedagogical materials by featuring relevant communicative patterns frequently observed in spontaneous conversation.

## 1 Introduction and rationale

MAKE is typically one of the first verbs to be taught in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) lexical syllabi. Its monosyllabic form and (often mistakenly) assumed equivalence with equally frequent verbs in other Indo-European languages such as *faire*, *machen* and *hacer*, has contributed to MAKE being commonly perceived as an “easy verb” for English learners to
master (Gouverneur, 2008, p. 223; cf. Lennon, 1996; Liu and Shaw, 2001, p. 188). However, as is well known, with high frequency comes polysemy and, in the case of MAKE, this involves delexical, phrasal, prepositional, and other idiomatic uses. In addition, just like faire, machen and hacer, MAKE enters into many restricted collocations (Cowie, 1998) that often cannot be translated using simple one-to-one equivalents (e.g., Dirven and Radden, 1977), hence generating a high potential for L1 interference in L2 learners' production, as illustrated in (1)–(3) with examples from the French and Spanish L1 subcorpora of the Open Cambridge Learner Corpus (OCLC; Cambridge University Press, 2017).

(1) It has become impossible nowadays to make some research [→ faire des recherches] without the Internet.<OCLP: FR, C2>

(2) Step by step, you decide to work all of the night, and at the end you forget your body and begin to die. It has no sense [→ avoir du sens]; you must respect your own life.<OCLC: FR, B1>

(3) It was dark, the weather was quite bad, the wind was hitting the windows and I was thinking on what day I had choosen to make a party [→ hacer una fiesta]. <OCLC: ES, B1>

In addition, MAKE is often perceived as the most prototypical causative verb (cf. Altenberg, 2002, p. 99). Bearing this in mind, Gilquin (2016, p. 236) argues that MAKE may “serve as a pathbreaking verb in instruction, that is, a verb that is used to introduce the general characteristics of the construction, before the construction is extended to other verbs”. Indeed, causative constructions are both highly frequent and of high communicative value; however, they also form complex syntactic patterns which often prove problematic for learners of English (e.g., Wong, 1983; Altenberg and Granger, 2001; Liu and Shaw, 2001; Gilquin, 2012, 2016). Such syntactic errors have long been recognised in the mainstream English Language Teaching (ELT) literature (e.g., error note on MAKE in the *Longman Dictionary of Common Errors*, Turton and Heaton, 1997, pp. 208–209).

**1.1 Outline and research aims**

Together, these potential pitfalls have inspired a plethora of corpus-based studies on English learners' (unidiomatic) use of MAKE. A selection of these studies exploring the use of MAKE in learner Englishes is surveyed in 2.1. In contrast to this wealth of learner English studies, only one study (Gouverneur, 2008) has, to the present author's best knowledge, thus far, delved into the representation of MAKE in what is arguably EFL learners' first and main source of language input: their textbooks. Key findings of this precursor to the present study are summarised in 2.2. In light of those conclusions (cf. 2.2), as well as of the findings of past learner English studies (cf. 2.1), the present chapter seeks to explore the following research questions:
1. Does the verb MAKE occur significantly more or less frequently in the dialogues of school EFL textbooks as compared to the transcripts of the natural conversations captured in the Spoken BNC2014?

2. Which semantic functions does MAKE in textbook dialogues typically fulfil? Are these functions representative of the most common meanings of MAKE in naturally-occurring speech?

3. Which collocates and semantic fields are typically associated with MAKE in textbook dialogues? How does this compare to the kind of spoken English that learners are likely to encounter outside the EFL classroom?

The methodology to do so is presented in Section 3. In the interest of clarity, the results of this comparative, textbook vs. naturally-occurring conversation, analysis and discussion thereof are subdivided according to the broad semantic categories identified and compared in Section 4.2: MAKE in its prototypical ‘produce’ sense (4.3), as a delexical verb (4.4), in causative constructions (4.6), and as part of phrasal verbs (4.5). To conclude, limitations and potential pedagogical implications of this study are outlined.

# 2 MAKE in Learner and Textbook English

## 2.1 MAKE in Learner English

Altenberg and Granger (2001, pp. 176–178) report that, in terms of frequency of use, French learners of English underuse MAKE in their essay writing and, in particular, significantly underuse delexical and causative uses of the verb as compared to English L1 (ENL) students. Further, both French and Swedish learners appear to underuse MAKE collocations with ‘speech’ or ‘verbal communication’ noun objects (e.g., argument, claim, point, statement).

Nesselhauf (2004) focused on German L1 speakers’ use of light verb constructions with the verbs HAVE, TAKE, GIVE and MAKE. Since these results are based on a relatively small learner corpus (a preliminary version of ICLE-German subcorpus with some 150,000 words), they must be interpreted with some caution; however, they nevertheless suggest that, out of these four high frequency verbs, German learners are most liable to make errors in support verb constructions featuring MAKE.
In addition, a number of studies (e.g., Wong, 1983; Altenberg and Granger, 2001; Liu and Shaw, 2001; Gilquin, 2012, 2016) have pointed to English learners' tendency to frequently make infelicitous syntactic and lexical choices when producing causative constructions with MAKE. Gilquin (2016) compared the lexical choices of English Native (ENL), English as a Second (ESL) and English as a Foreign (EFL) language writers for the non-finite verb slot of [X MAKE Y V<sub>inf</sub>] constructions. Interestingly, whilst both types of learners were observed to overuse a small number of verbs (foremost, the statives BE and BECOME) and underuse others (in particular, SEEM and APPEAR), EFL learners also overused a number of additional verbs, including BELIEVE, GO AROUND and FEEL (Gilquin, 2016, p. 243). Gilquin (2016, 2012) identifies three possible causes for learners' unidiomatic use of periphrastic causative constructions: a) a lack of register awareness, b) negative L1 transfer, and c) the inadequacy of teaching materials. This final potential factor, also identified by Altenberg & Granger (2001, p. 184) in the context of causative constructions with MAKE, will be at the heart of this case study on the representations of MAKE in the dialogues of school EFL textbooks.

## 2.2 MAKE in Textbook English

Gouverneur (2008) investigated the selection and presentation of the phraseological patterns of MAKE (and TAKE) in Textbook English. The analysis was based on a subset of the TeMa corpus (Meunier and Gouverneur, 2009), consisting of six intermediate and advanced English for general purposes textbooks. It focused exclusively on the vocabulary exercises included in these textbooks and their accompanying workbooks. The detailed pedagogical annotation of the vocabulary exercises in the TeMa corpus singles it out from other textbook corpora: over 80 tags were manually applied to the exercises to encode the type of learning activity the learners engage in (e.g., match words and definitions, complete sentences) and the way each target lexical item is to be completed within the exercises (e.g., select from a word box, cross out incorrect answers) (Meunier and Gouverneur, 2009, pp. 189–195).

Gouverneur (2008, p. 233) reports that textbook exercises largely focus on restricted collocations of MAKE, which, in her study, include delexical uses and the senses 'do/perform' and 'earn'. At first, this finding seems promising, given that such collocations are known to be considerably more problematic for learners of English than the prototypical 'produce' sense of MAKE (e.g., Altenberg and Granger, 2001, p. 189). However, whilst intermediate textbooks often place direct emphasis on these phraseological patterns, such explicit treatment of these collocations is much rarer in the advanced textbooks of the TeMa corpus (2008, pp. 234–235).
Furthermore, intermediate-level exercises more frequently focus on the verb slot in these constructions than the tasks from the advanced textbooks, which tend to focus on the collocate object slot. Learner corpus studies, however, have shown that even advanced L2 users more often struggle with the choice of verb (e.g., Nesselhauf, 2004, p. 71) than with the choice of object noun. Finally, very few of the phraseological patterns with MAKE observed in the TeMa subcorpus were common to all textbooks of the same level (15% across the three intermediate textbooks and 7% across the advanced textbooks), pointing to a lack of systematicity in materials authors' choices.

## 3 Methodology

The following section details the methodology of the present paper, which attempts to shed light on the treatment of MAKE in the dialogues of contemporary beginner to intermediate EFL textbooks used at lower secondary school level. To this end, two corpora, the conversation subcorpus of the Textbook English Corpus (TEC-Conv) and the Spoken BNC2014, are compared following a method inspired by Granger’s (2015) Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (CIA) approach.

### 3.1 Corpus data

The textbook data explored in this paper is part of the Textbook English Corpus (TEC) (Le Foll, forthcoming). The TEC comprises all the texts printed in nine series (corresponding to 43 volumes) of EFL textbooks published between 2006 and 2018 by seven different publishers and used in schools in France, Germany and Spain. Each textbook series corresponds to the first four or five years of English instruction at secondary school level. The textbooks were converted to raw text and manually subdivided into text units, where one exercise, reading passage, dialogue or transcript corresponds to one text unit. As part of this process, the texts were also coded for eight major textbook registers: Conversation, Informative, Fiction, Personal Correspondence, Instructional, Poetry, Other (e.g., timetables, shopping lists) and Words & Phrases (e.g., exercises).

The following analyses focus on the Conversation subcorpus of the TEC (hereafter: TEC-Conv), which totals some 400,000 words. As well as all the dialogues and speech bubbles printed in the 43 coursebook volumes, the TEC-Conv also includes the scripts and/or transcripts of most of the textbooks’ accompanying audio and video materials.
The TEC-Conv is compared to the Spoken BNC2014, an 11.4-million-word corpus of 1,251 orthographically transcribed conversations among L1 speakers in the UK (Love et al., 2017). It is currently the largest publicly accessible corpus of contemporary spoken English and one of the very few to reflect entirely unscripted, informal conversation. Given the European context of this study, the choice of British English as a reference variety seemed natural. Although official curricula no longer explicitly refer to any normative standard, British English has been, and continues to be, the most commonly used target English variety in France, Germany and, to a slightly lesser extent, Spain.

## 3.2 Methods

First, all 673 occurrences of MAKE as a verb were retrieved from the TEC-Conv. Next, the same number of occurrences were randomly sampled from the Spoken BNC2014. Then, all 1,346 concordance lines featuring the verb MAKE were coded for:

a. meaning

b. main collocate, and

c. semantic field of the collocation.

The meaning categories for the first variable were adapted from the Valency Dictionary of English (hereafter VDE; Herbst et al., 2013, pp. 513–517) (cf. Table 1). In many cases, disambiguating the first two categories proved problematic. Thus, the operationalisation of the delexical category followed the definition and examples of the *Collins Cobuild English Grammar* (Sinclair et al., 1990, pp. 147–151):

[Delexical verbs are] very common verbs which are used with nouns as their object to indicate simply that someone performs an action, not that someone affects or creates something. These words have very little meaning when they are used in this way. [...] In many cases, there is a verb which has a similar meaning to the meaning of the delexical structure.

<table><thead><tr><td>Semantic category</td><td>Meaning</td><td>Example sentence</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ai: Produce</td><td>Construct or create</td><td>I want to <b>make a carrot cake</b>. &lt;TEC-Conv: Solutions Elementary&gt;</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 1: Semantic categories of MAKE according to the VDE (Herbst et al., 2013) with example sentences from the TEC-Conv.</caption><tr><td>Aii: Delexical produce</td><td>Performing an action</td><td>People always <strong>make the mistake</strong> of thinking that [...] <TEC-Conv: New Missions 2<sup>e</sup>></td></tr><tr><td>B: Earn</td><td>Money</td><td>But I've <strong>made</strong> enough <strong>money</strong> to buy them a house [...]. <TEC-Conv: Green Line 2></td></tr><tr><td>C: Achieve</td><td>Typically used with destinations or targets to be reached</td><td>There's a lot of pressure and stress, but I've <strong>made it</strong> [...] <TEC-Conv: New Green Line 5></td></tr><tr><td>D: Be/become</td><td>Particularly suited for a role or function</td><td>I think women <strong>make better poets</strong> than men. <TEC-Conv: Solutions Intermediate></td></tr><tr><td>E: Cause</td><td>Cause</td><td>[T]hey don't <strong>make me wear</strong> things that I don't like. <TEC-Conv: Join the Team 3<sup>e</sup>></td></tr><tr><td>F: Ensure</td><td>MAKE sure/certain</td><td>So the teacher can <strong>make sure</strong> the student really understands. <TEC-Conv: Solutions Intermediate></td></tr><tr><td>I: Idioms</td><td>Other idiomatic phrases</td><td>Maybe I can <strong>make new friends</strong> there. <TEC-Conv: Access 1></td></tr><tr><td>P: Phrasal verbs</td><td>MAKE followed by one or more prepositions/particles</td><td>[...] I always thought they <strong>made that up</strong> to scare us. <TEC-Conv: Green Line 5></td></tr></table>

For each MAKE occurrence, the main object collocate was retrieved. The semantic fields attributed to the collocates of the first meaning category (Ai Produce, cf. Table 1) were initially automatically coded using the USAS Wmatrix3 English web tagger (Rayson, 2018). To begin with, only the 21 upper-level major discourse fields of the tagset (Archer et al., 2002) were considered. These category codes were manually verified, corrected and refined. To better capture the full variance of the data, minor adjustments to the original Xmatrix classification scheme were made: some rare or overlapping categories were collapsed and two frequent categories were subdivided (Le Foll, forthcoming). Causative MAKES were also manually coded for both construction type and main collexeme (cf. Table 3).

Attempts to analyse the data using mixed generalised linear models, which would have made it possible to account for the random effects of textbook series (a proxy for textbook authors) and speaker and/or text file (for the Spoken BNC2014 data), failed to converge due to the large number of categories and authors/speakers. Thus, Pearson's chi-squared test or, where smaller counts were involved, Fisher's exact test for count data were computed to test the null of independence of the rows and columns of the contingency tables reported in this paper. All p-values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the method proposed by Benjamini & Yekutieli (2001), as implemented in the base R {stats} package (R Core Team, 2020). This
package was also used to calculate odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), whilst effect sizes in the form of phi coefficients were computed using the {vcd} package (Meyer et al., 2020). On all the figures visualising these tables, the corrected *p*-values are plotted using the following key: *** = < .001, ** = .001-.01, * = .01-.05, ~ = 0.05-0.1.

# 4 Results and discussion

## 4.1 Frequency of MAKE

In answer to the first research question, MAKE does not appear to be over- or underrepresented in the dialogues of school EFL textbooks as compared to the transcripts of the conversations captured in the Spoken BNC2014. Per million words, MAKE is less frequent in the TEC-Conv than in the Spoken BNC2014 ($\chi^2(1) = 18.77, p < 0.001, \phi = 0.001$). This finding is due to the more information-dense, nominal style of the pedagogical dialogues, which tend to feature considerably fewer verbs than naturally-occurring conversation: in fact, when normalised per 10,000 verbs, the relative frequency of MAKE is marginally higher in the TEC-Conv than across the full Spoken BNC2014 ($\chi^2(1) = 20.22, p < 0.001, \phi = 0.003$). Note too, that, in both cases, the effect sizes are extremely small.

## 4.2 Semantics of MAKE in Textbook Conversation

The second research question is concerned with the most frequent semantic functions of MAKE in textbook dialogues as compared to naturally-occurring conversations. The dumbbell plot in Fig. 1 visualises the different proportions of meanings of MAKE in the TEC-Conv (dark grey) and the Spoken BNC2014 sample (light grey). It shows that, in the TEC-Conv, the prototypical ‘produce’ meaning of MAKE is the most frequent use of the verb, accounting for 29% of MAKE occurrences in the textbook conversation corpus. In the Spoken BNC2014 sample, by contrast, it is causative uses of MAKE that constitute the most frequent semantic category, accounting for nearly a third of MAKE occurrences. The length of each dumbbell represents the difference in proportional usage. Thus, the plot makes clear that the proportion of causative MAKE occurrences in the TEC-Conv is considerably lower than in the Spoken BNC2014 sample. The symbol above the dumbbell indicates that this difference is only marginally significant (OR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.07–1.74, *p* = 0.097). Fig. 1 also shows that the next two most frequent categories, the ‘produce’ sense and delexical uses, are similarly distributed across the two datasets. The lack of symbol above these dumbbells signals that the differences in proportional
usage are not statistically significant (i.e. *p* > 0.1 post correction for multiple comparisons, cf. 3.2).

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1: Comparison of the distribution of MAKE meanings in the TEC-Conv (dark grey) and the Spoken BNC2014 sample (light grey)</figcaption></figure>

The notably higher proportion of idioms featuring MAKE in Textbook Conversation (OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.28–0.81, *p* = 0.046) is primarily due to the very high frequency of the idiomatic phrase to MAKE *friends* (cf. Table 2).

<table><caption>Table 2: Distribution of the most frequent idioms featuring MAKE in the TEC-Conv and Spoken BNC2014 sample</caption><thead><tr><td>Idiomatic phrase</td><td>TEC-Conv</td><td>Spoken BNC2014 sample</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>MAKE friends</td><td>25</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE the best/most of sth.</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE faces</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE fun of sth./sb.</td><td>3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Practice makes perfect</td><td>3</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE up * mind</td><td>5</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

MAKE *friends* is clearly a strong topical focus in many of the teenage dialogues written for school textbooks, e.g.:

(4) Finally, although school trips are fun and help students to relax and **make friends**, sport is even better for doing these things. <TEC-Conv: Solutions Pre-intermediate>

Finally, Fig. 1 shows that textbook dialogues feature considerably fewer phrasal verbs with MAKE than the Spoken BNC2014 (OR = 3.33, 95% CI 1.45–8.58, *p* = 0.046). Note that, in line with the terminology most commonly used in English language teaching, the term ‘phrasal
verbs' is used throughout this paper to refer to both phrasal and prepositional verbs. In other words, the term encompasses *verb + adverb* (e.g., *make off*), *verb + preposition* (e.g., *make for*), and *verb + adverb and preposition* (e.g., *make away with*) constructions. Since multi-word verbs are known to represent a stumbling block for many learners of English, this pedagogically relevant finding will be further elaborated on in 4.6.

## 4.3 MAKE in the prototypical ‘produce’ sense

Since the prototypical ‘produce’ sense of MAKE accounts for a considerable proportion of the occurrences of MAKE in Textbook English, Fig. 2 compares the distributions of the semantic fields attributed to the noun collocates of MAKE in this primary sense. The semantic categories are ordered from least to most similarly distributed. Thus, Fig. 2 immediately makes apparent that MAKE collocations pertaining to Sports, Entertainment and Travel are far more frequent in textbook dialogues than in the Spoken BNC2014 sample (OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.14–0.58, *p* = 0.004).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Distribution of the semantic fields attributed to the noun collocates of MAKE in the ‘produce’ sense in the TEC-Conv (dark grey) and the Spoken BNC2014 sample (light grey)</figcaption></figure>

The Sports, Entertainment and Travel semantic category is dominated in the TEC-Conv by MAKING *films, records, movies* and *videos*. These activities are frequently discussed by the teenage characters featured in the textbook dialogues, e.g.:

<footnote>(5) Sam: Well, do you have any other ideas? Justin: Sorry, but I want to **make a video** about Plymouth for my dad. <TEC-Conv: Access 1></footnote>
In addition, several textbook series encourage learners to produce short videos as part of their English lessons and some of the dialogues featuring these collocations aim to model the discussions that students could have when working on these video-making activities, e.g.:

(6) Hey! **I'm making a little film** to introduce our school to new students. Can I ask you some questions?
<TEC-Conv: New Green Line 4>

By contrast, the most common semantic field associated with ‘produce’ MAKE collocations in the reference Spoken BNC2014 sample is Food. The informal context in which the vast majority of the conversations were recorded for the Spoken BNC2014 is likely to be a major factor contributing to the high proportion of MAKE collocates relating to Food and Drink. Indeed, it was recommended that contributors to the Spoken BNC2014 record their conversations in quiet locations, such as at home or in cafés (Love et al., 2018, p. 4). Foodstuffs that are frequently featured in such collocations include *chips, soups, bread, curries, mince pies, gravy, cake and sandwiches*, e.g. (7)–(8). The latter two are also frequently represented in the TEC-Conv.

(7) well we were gonna get a takeaway but then we just got **I made a curry** and stuff
oh nice
yeah
I love a good curry
it was good actually didn't eat for ages though **it** took for ages to **make** <BNC2014: SLDD>

The food collocates found in the Spoken BNC2014 provide a fascinating window into the multicultural nature of British culinary habits; thus, the sample of 673 MAKE occurrences examined in this study includes MAKE collocations with foods as varied as *bacon baps, burgers, bhajis, chutneys, curries, fudge, mash, matzah, mince pies, toad-in-the-hole* and *Yorkshire puddings*!

Confirming the British stereotype, the most frequent drink collocate is *tea*. However, it should be noted that not all MAKE + *tea* collocations refer to the brewing of Brits' favourite hot drink: in many cases, MAKE *tea* refers to preparing an (early) evening meal, e.g. (8).

(8) I don't feel like cooking is my job and I have to do it
I know occasionally **make sandwiches** for me but I couldn't stand it if I was like **made sandwiches** I just think that would be horrible I just don't know it's weird or like where's my tea
yeah I've got your dinner on the table for when you come in be awful wouldn't it what I don't know I like you like **making tea** and tidying up and stuff but I think I feel guilty <BNC2014: S5YQ>
This common, regional use of the collocation (Smith, 2018) is not featured in any of the textbook dialogues of the TEC-Conv. Conversely, **MAKE + dinner** is proportionally more frequent in the TEC-Conv than in the Spoken BNC2014, e.g.:

(9) I do my best to help with the housework, but it's difficult to find the time. I tidy my bedroom once a week and I sometimes take the rubbish out or help mum to **make the dinner**.

<TEC-Conv: Solutions intermediate>

Note that the use of the definite article in example (9) is unusual for habitual actions: this phraseological pattern is found just once out of 38 occurrences of **MAKE + dinner** across the full Spoken BNC2014.

The most frequent food-related collocation in the TEC-Conv is **MAKE breakfast**, e.g.:

(10) Boy 1: Yeah, good idea: I can **make breakfast** for her! I never do that, ever. But now we've got a new problem: How do you **make breakfast**? <TEC-Conv: New Green Line 1>

For this phraseological pattern, the absence of a definite article is idiomatically represented in the pedagogical dialogues. However, whilst also observed in the Spoken BNC2014, by far the most frequent verb collocate for *breakfast* in natural conversation is *HAVE* rather than *MAKE*, e.g.:

(11) well we could do that tomorrow if you want for lunch  
er I was planning on **having breakfast** for lunch tomorrow  
Fair enough we could buy some brunch stuff if you want or just **have breakfast**  
just **have breakfast** really I like brunch occasionally but not as a regular thing <BNC2014: SCNN>

Although the difference is not statistically significant post-adjustment for multiple comparisons, Fig. 2 also shows that MAKE collocations from the realm of Clothing & Accessories are somewhat more frequent in textbook dialogues than in the reference conversational data. This is likely a topic effect: items of clothing are usually taught early on in EFL syllabi and this vocabulary is frequently recycled in textbook dialogues, e.g.:

(12) Your clothes look cool too. Did you use to spend a lot of money on them? I didn't use to have much money.
**My mother made some of them.** And I used to share clothes with my brother.
<TEC-Conv: Solutions intermediate>

Many of these collocations are in the passive form, where either the person who designed or produced the items are the focus on the utterances, e.g.:

(13) MEGAN: Did you watch the royal wedding? Wow, what a ceremony!
ALEX: Uhuh. I watched it for a while. Kate was beautiful, wasn't she?
MEGAN: Yes, she was. **Her dress** was just gorgeous. **It was made** by Sarah Burton, an English designer.

Kate is such a fashion icon! <TEC-Conv: Piece of cake 4e>

or the material out of which they are made, e.g.:

(14) Do you like my **T-shirt**? **It was made** from recycled plastic. <TEC-Conv: Achievers B1>

As the interlocutors of the Spoken BNC2014 share knowledge and a spatial environment that also allows them to communicate non-verbally, the corpus features many ‘produce’ MAKE collocations where the collocate is not explicitly mentioned, e.g.:

(15) D’you wanna eat this?
yep yep uh thanks for **making it**
no probs
d’you wanna?
alright okay
should I get the biscuits? <BNC2014: SQ2D>

In addition, vague language is much more frequent in natural conversation, e.g.

(16) or if you want them to **make something** with onion in and you just like shove them in like frozen
<BNC2014: STXT>

than in the textbook dialogues which, on the contrary, are frequently very precise in their
descriptions, e.g.:

(17) So today **we’re making a lovely tomato and yoghurt sauce**. Of course tomatoes are full of vitamins, so this is a really healthy option. <TEC-Conv: Solutions Intermediate>

As a result, textbook dialogues are characterised by high type/token ratios and many more
attributive adjectives than the transcripts of authentic conversations.

4.4 MAKE as a delexical verb

Quantitatively, Fig. 1 showed that the proportion of MAKE occurrences entering delexical
collocations in the TEC-Conv is not significantly different from that observed in the Spoken
BNC2014 sample. However, a closer comparison of the specific collocates of delexical
occurrences of MAKE in the dialogues and audio/video transcripts of the TEC with those found
in the Spoken BNC2014 reveals some noteworthy patterns. Fig. 3 displays the relative
frequencies of the noun object collocates as a percentage of all the delexical MAKE occurrences
within each sample. As the frequencies of the collocates follow a Zipfian distribution, these
relative frequencies are displayed on log-scales for better readability. Thus, the collocates on
or close to the diagonal line are more or less equally represented in the two sets of delexical
MAKES. Collocates in the upper segment are more strongly represented in the Spoken BNC2014 sample than in the TEC-Conv, and the opposite is true of collocates displayed in the lower segment of the plot.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3: Most frequent collocates of delexical MAKE in the TEC-Conv and the Spoken BNC2014</figcaption></figure>

Though also a frequent collocate in the Spoken BNC2014 sample, MAKE + *mistake* stands out as the most frequent delexical collocation in the pedagogical materials, whereas MAKE + *effort* is considerably less frequent in the TEC-Conv than in the reference corpus. In contrast, the most frequent delexical collocation in the reference data is MAKE + *sense*, which, although also featured, is much less frequent in the textbook data. In addition, MAKE + *difference* appears to be slightly less represented in the TEC-Conv. The fact that MAKE + *call* is considerably more frequent in the TEC-Conv is likely an artefact of the Spoken BNC2014, which does not include any telephone conversations, whereas a sizeable proportion of textbook dialogues consists of fictitious telephone conversations.
MAKE enters into many delexical structures typically used to report speech (Sinclair et al., 1990, pp. 150–151). These include MAKE + *arrangement, claim, comment, decision, promise, protest, remark, signal* and *suggestion*. In addition, MAKE is also associated with many other speech actions, e.g. *appeal, enquiry, point* and *speech* (Sinclair et al., 1990, pp. 150–151). In their comparison of the use of MAKE in L2 learner and L1 student argumentative writing, Altenberg & Granger (2001, pp. 179–180) reported that such ‘speech’ collocates of delexical MAKE are significantly underrepresented in L2 student writing; in fact, L1 students employed these collocations more than twice as frequently as L2 students. In light of these findings in learner corpora, it is interesting to note that a number of ‘speech/communication’ delexical MAKE constructions observed in the Spoken BNC2014 are entirely absent from the TEC-Conv. These include: *argument, assumption, comment, complaint, conversation, point* and *row*. Though the raw frequencies within the two samples examined are very low, it is interesting to note that three of these (*argument, assumption* and *point*, cf. examples (18)–(20)) were among those identified as very frequent in ENL essays and underrepresented, or not featured at all, in EFL essays (Altenberg and Granger, 2001, pp. 179–180).

(18) yes but it's difficult isn't it? it's like the whale hunting
mm

I suppose whale hunting it's easier to **make an argument** to ban it because they're endangered species
oh right yeah

whereas bulls aren't endangered <BNC2014: SPG4>

(19) and I and when you meet new people they normally make an **make an assumption** about you
about straightaway it's human nature you **make a judgement** about someone <BNC2014: S52C>

(20) **I make a valid point** you know I do just <BNC2014: SHXJ>

It might be that materials writers perceive these delexical constructions as less worthy of
teaching or more error-prone than lexical verbs such as *argue, assume and complain*, e.g. (21)–
(23).

(21) You **argued** that we should sign a petition, but I think a flashmob would be more effective.
<TEC-Conv: Access 5>

(22) Just because I'm an American teenager, people **assume** I want to wear the same brands as JLo or Sarah Jessica Parker! That's a cliché! <TEC-Conv: New Bridges 2e>

(23) I was paying by card and I didn't check the amount before I entered my PIN. Anyway, I'm sure the price ticket on the shelf was £10, but she charged me £15. I **complained** and tried to get my money back.
<TEC-Conv: Solutions pre-intermediate>
## 4.5 Causative MAKE

Fig. 1 showed that causative constructions represent the most frequent use of MAKE in the Spoken BNC2014 sample, but only the second most frequent in the TEC-Conv. Table 3 displays the raw and relative frequencies (out of all causative MAKE constructions) of the four types of causative MAKE constructions observed in the two samples. These are featured in very similar proportions and none of the differences are statistically significant.

<table><caption>Table 3: Causative MAKE constructions in the TEC-Conv and Spoken BNC2014 sample</caption><thead><tr><th>Construction</th><th>Example</th><th>Freq in TEC-Conv</th><th>Freq in Spoken BNC2014</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>[X MAKE Y AdjP]</td><td>The atmosphere is so oppressive and the characters are so insane, it just <strong>made me really uncomfortable</strong>. &lt;TEC-Conv: New Bridges 3e&gt;</td><td>41.28 % (71)</td><td>36.06 % (75)</td></tr><tr><td>[X MAKE (Y) NP]</td><td>So friendly, and they don't make you feel like you're just another tourist. They <strong>made it a fantastic experience</strong> for me. &lt;TEC-Conv: New Green Line 3&gt;</td><td>8.14 % (14)</td><td>9.62 % (20)</td></tr><tr><td>[X MAKE Y V<sub>inf</sub>]</td><td>I didn't actually steal any money. I wanted to <strong>make people understand</strong> the dangers of cybercrime. &lt;TEC-Conv: Solutions intermediate plus&gt;</td><td>50.58 % (87)</td><td>53.85 % (112)</td></tr><tr><td>[X MAKE Y V<sub>pp</sub>]</td><td>I can't remember exactly what it was that he said or what would be said but he would <strong>make it known</strong> that he was disappointed in the fact that I wasn't sticking up &lt;BNC2014: SKPP&gt;</td><td>0 % (0)</td><td>0.48 % (1)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Fig. 4 displays the most frequent collexemes associated with these causative MAKE constructions: for [X MAKE Y V<sub>inf</sub>] constructions, this means the non-finite verb, e.g. in the example from Table 3, *understand*; for [X MAKE Y AdjP] constructions, the adjective, e.g. *uncomfortable*; and for the rarer nominal constructions, the lemma of the head of the nominal phrase, e.g. *experience*. Since there are considerably more causative MAKE occurrences in the Spoken BNC2014 sample than in the TEC-Conv, Fig. 4 displays the relative frequencies of the collexemes as a percentage of all the causative MAKE occurrences within each sample. The plot can be interpreted similarly to Fig. 3. The only difference is that the shading of the words corresponds to the type of causative construction associated with that collexeme.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4: The most frequent collexemes of the causative MAKE construction of the TEC-Conv and the Spoken BNC2014 sample</figcaption></figure>

Fig. 4 shows that, in both samples, *feel* is by far the collexeme most strongly associated with MAKE causative constructions. However, it is more frequently observed in the natural conversation sample (n=22; 10.57% of all causative MAKE occurrences in the sample) than in the textbook dialogues (n=15; 8.72%). Strikingly, both Liu & Shaw (2001) and Gilquin (2016, 2012) report that FEEL is used significantly more frequently by EFL than ENL users in essay writing. The present results suggest that this effect may be indicative of EFL learners' limited awareness of lexical differences between different modalities and registers, rather than an overrepresentation of [X MAKE Y *feel*] in pedagogical materials.
Whilst also frequent in both datasets, *look* is more frequent in the Spoken BNC2014 sample than in the TEC-Conv. *Do*, *go* and *happen* also appear to be more frequent in naturally-occurring conversation than in the conversation-like texts featured in the textbooks of the TEC. A qualitative examination of [X MAKE Y go] concordances from the Spoken BNC2014 suggests that, in many cases, *go* in the non-finite verb slot is used as a quotative verb, e.g.:

(24) I know it's very difficult but I just don't know if like mum said more violence or retaliation against them doesn't **make them go** alright we'll stop then it makes them worse <BNC2014: SAVN>

Quotatives are very frequent in natural conversation. By contrast, EFL textbooks traditionally neglect direct speech, usually focusing exclusively on the prescriptive rules of reported speech with person- and tense-shifting (cf. Barbieri and Eckhardt, 2007). Indeed, Fig. 4 also shows that *say*, just like *go*, was also not observed in causative MAKE constructions in the TEC-Conv; it, too, frequently functions in this quotative sense in MAKE causatives in the Spoken BNC2014, e.g.:

(25) well I think it's only fair that you pick something I don't wanna do but actually it will benefit my life massively and **make me say** oh I'm so glad you did that cos that's what's gonna happen when you watch Game of Thrones you're gonna say oh thank you for making me watch that this is amazing
<BNC2014: SAG4>

However, reading examples (24) and (25) also makes clear that intonation is crucial to making these quotatives intelligible. It could therefore be argued that this makes quotatives inherently unsuitable for printed dialogues; however, direct speech is not found in any of the audio and video materials of the textbooks included in the TEC either. Instead, reported speech, as it is taught in the textbooks' grammar sections is regularly modelled, even when the result is clearly not register-appropriate, e.g.:

(26) PROF: When Ruby went to school for the first time, in New Orleans, **she said that she heard** people shouting abuse. **She added that she saw** them throwing things.
TOMMY: How did the other kids react?
PROF: Not so well. She received instruction in isolation. US Marshalls had to escort her to the toilet. **She reported that she had** to eat lunch all alone in the classroom! <TEC-Conv: Piece of Cake 3e>

The results displayed in Fig. 4 also hint at some potential topic effects. As school EFL textbooks tend to avoid controversy, the vast majority of pedagogical dialogues depict positive situations. Correspondingly, many of the adjective collexemes featured in the lower segment of Fig. 4 belong to the “safe, clean, harmonious, benevolent, undisturbed, and PG-rated” (Wajnryb, 1996) world depicted in textbooks. Thus, we find that *happy*, *famous*, *special*,
stronger, attractive, clear and better are more frequently observed in [X MAKE Y AdjP] constructions in the TEC-Conv than in the Spoken BNC2014 sample. By contrast, almost all the frequent adjective collexemes observed in the natural conversation sample have a negative semantic prosody, e.g., difficult, worse, angry, redundant, ill and poorly – the exception being easy and easier.

## 4.6 Phrasal verbs with MAKE

Though here, too, the absolute figures are low, it was noted in 4.2 that phrasal verbs appear to be underrepresented in textbook dialogues (p = 0.003, OR = 3.33, 95% CI 1.45–8.58). Indeed, out of the 673 occurrences of the verb MAKE in the TEC-Conv, just eight formed phrasal verbs (thus less than one occurrence per textbook series!) – as opposed to 26 in the randomly collected 673 concordance lines from the Spoken BNC2014. Phrasal verbs with MAKE are usually not introduced until the third or fourth year of English instruction. Indeed, no phrasal verb featuring MAKE was found in any of the beginner textbooks. The majority are found in the textbooks corresponding to the fourth and fifth year of EFL instructions at secondary school.

Five different phrasal verbs types are represented in the Textbook Conversation subcorpus (cf. Table 4). However, no single phrasal verb appears more than once in the dialogues of any textbook series, let alone textbook volume. Strikingly, one French textbook series, *Piece of Cake*, does not feature any phrasal verbs involving MAKE in its dialogues or in the transcripts of its accompanying audio and video materials.

<table><thead><tr><th>Phrasal verb</th><th>TEC-Conv</th><th>Spoken BNC2014 sample</th><th>Example</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>BE made of<br>(=capable)</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>[...] it makes you stretch your abilities and see what <strong>you're</strong> really <strong>made of</strong><br>&lt;TEC-Conv: Access 3&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE out<br>(=perceive)</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>I think the Irish ones are the worst I don't mean that horribly but you they<br>you get er an Irish announcer or something on television and and you it's a<br>foreign language honestly to <strong>make out</strong> what he's saying<br>&lt;BNC2014: SBZ7&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE out (=pet)</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>no but it makes you go crazy like in a sexual way so you just start <strong>making out</strong> with whoever's around &lt;BNC2014: SFYP&gt;</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 4: Absolute frequencies of phrasal verbs with MAKE (out of 673 MAKE occurrences for each corpus)</caption><tr><td>MAKE out to be (=pretend)</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>She's some princess [...] but I think they're <b>making her out to be</b> far worse than what she probably is &lt;BNC2014: SAR5&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE up for sth. (=compensate)</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>are you the oldest? youngest oh got to <b>make up for</b> the age &lt;BNC2014: SV49&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE up (of) (=comprise)</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>Its collection's <b>made up of</b> over million objects - so we won't be seeing them all today! &lt;TEC-Conv: Achievers B1+&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE up (=face paint)</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>her fear was clowns so they got John to get <b>made up</b> and dressed as a clown &lt;BNC2014: S57J&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE sth. up (=invent)</td><td>2</td><td>17</td><td>I always thought they <b>made</b> that <b>up</b> to scare us &lt;TEC-Conv: Green Line 5&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE sth. up (=prepare)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>I had asked him to <b>make up</b> a fire in my office &lt;TEC-Conv: New Bridges 2c&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE up (=reconcile)</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>we had a bit of a bond over that [...] yeah I think you two'll <b>make it up</b> &lt;BNC2014: SEPP&gt;</td></tr><tr><td>MAKE with (=content)</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>Oh, I'm sure we can <b>make with</b> what we've got &lt;TEC-Conv: Green Line 2&gt;</td></tr></table>

## 5 Discussion and pedagogical implications

Although undoubtedly a worthwhile endeavour in attempting to uncover the potential impact of textbook-based language input on EFL students' learning processes, this study has demonstrated that textbook vs. reference language comparisons are not without pitfalls. First, register must be considered. Thus, in this study, only the passages in the textbooks representing spontaneous spoken language were examined and these were compared to a random sample of the Spoken BNC2014, a corpus of informal conversations among British L1 speakers. Second, even seemingly simple frequency comparisons must be carefully operationalised: hence, in attempting to answer the first research question, it transpired that MAKE is both (marginally) less *and* more frequent in textbook dialogues than in natural conversations, depending on whether the denominator for the relative frequencies is the total number of words or verbs. Moreover, with relatively small samples and many different categories, *p*-values must be approached with great caution (cf. 3.2). As shown by the reported effect sizes, whilst the differences in the frequencies of MAKE in the two corpora examined *are* statistically significant, they are practically too small ($\phi$ = 0.001 and 0.003) to be in any way likely to make a difference to students' learning processes. Third, even with a comparatively large textbook corpus, when
examining individual lexico-grammatical features such as delexical uses of MAKE, the absolute numbers are resolutely too small for any inferential statistics. Thus, whilst it is striking that ‘speech/communication’ delexical MAKE collocations are seemingly underrepresented in EFL textbooks and that, at the same time, EFL learners have been observed to underuse these phraseological items, no conclusions can be drawn from this parallel observation alone. Finally, even when considerable efforts are made to match the textbook and reference corpora, corpus artefacts will, nevertheless, inevitably impact the results. Critical qualitative analyses are therefore needed to identify these effects as such. For example, we saw how the present results are likely to have been influenced by the Spoken BNC2014’s strong focus on conversations over meals and drinks and its lack of telephone conversations. Further, topic and task effects were also observed in the textbook data; thus, some dialogues appear to have been designed to model future group tasks featured in those same textbooks.

Nonetheless, this case study has shown that corpus-based textbook language evaluations can help to identify potential issues with textbook-based language input. Whilst some differences between textbook and natural language may be pedagogically well-founded, e.g., textbooks covering topics of particular interest to teenagers or serving as linguistic models for future tasks, others may be susceptible to depriving learners of valuable exposure to frequent forms. The present paper argues that this is the case for a number of phraseological patterns involving MAKE, which fulfil highly frequent communicative functions. The case of phrasal verbs is particularly striking: the extreme sparsity and high type/token ratio of MAKE phrasal verbs in the TEC-Conv (four types for eight tokens) suggest that EFL materials writers and textbook editors do not have a dedicated strategy for exposing learners to the most frequent, useful, easily acquired, or frequently misused multi-word verbs. Indeed, there is seemingly no agreement as to which MAKE collocations are likely to be most relevant, or prove difficult to teenage EFL learners. This finding echoes that of Koprowski (2005, p. 330) and Gouverneur (2008, p. 240), both of whom concluded that EFL textbook authors did not seem to adopt any coherent criteria for selecting the phraseological items featured in the textbooks they analysed.

Whilst the present paper cannot pretend to provide a comprehensive overview of the most frequent phrasal verbs involving MAKE in natural conversation, the results show that even the basic criterion of frequency of occurrence in a small sample of a publicly available corpus, such as the Spoken BNC2014, can already provide textbook editors and materials writers with valuable information as to which phraseological items may be particularly useful in authentic
communicative situations and thus warrant particular attention. For instance, within the 673 randomly collected concordance lines featuring the verb MAKE in the Spoken BNC2014, one phrasal verb clearly emerges as particularly frequent in everyday conversation: MAKE sth. up in the sense of fabricating a story (cf. Table 4), e.g.:

(27) he told loads of fibs in well it's not fibs at that age but yeah **he made a lot of stuff up** <BNC2014: S57G>

(28) **you've made that up** that's a load of old twaddle that never happened <BNC2014: SYX3>

Typical collocates include vague nouns such as *stuff*, *something*, which were also found to be notoriously infrequent in textbook dialogues, yet could also be argued to fulfil an important communicative function that ought to be introduced to learners early on.

Similarly, no clear systematic approach to introducing the most frequent and communicatively meaningful delexical *make* collocations could be identified, even though such structures are known to be “particularly treacherous” for learners of English (Altenberg and Granger, 2001, p. 189; see also Nesselhauf, 2004). Thus, although the absolute number of delexical *make* concordance lines examined here was relatively low, the comparative analysis (cf. 4.4) suggested that by far the most frequent delexical *make* collocation in Spoken English, *make sense*, is vastly underrepresented in Textbook Conversation, whilst the collocation *make + mistake* is considerably more frequent in Textbook English than in the reference corpus queried. Whilst it is to be expected that school-related and textbook task-relevant collocations, e.g., *make + dialogue/film/list/sentence* etc., appear more frequently in the textbooks than in the ENL reference corpora, textbooks' strong focus – in pedagogical dialogues – on making *mistakes*, rather than, say, on *making an effort, decisions* or *sense*, seems somewhat at odds with modern language teaching principles anchored in communicative approaches.

On a more positive note, it is worth highlighting that many uses of *make* were found to be similar across the textbook dialogues of the TEC and the conversations of the Spoken BNC2014. To start off with, we saw that this is true of the overall frequency of occurrence of the verb *make*. It was also found to be largely the case for the semantic fields of *make* collocations in *make's* prototypical ‘produce’ sense, e.g., food, drink, clothing, arts and craft, as well as with some of the most frequent delexical collocations such as *make + choice*, *make + noise*. The results also suggested that the main types of causative *make* constructions are similarly distributed across the two datasets examined in this study. However, the more detailed collexeme analysis in 4.5 revealed that frequent quotative uses of causative *make* constructions,
[X MAKE Y *say*] and [X MAKE Y *go*], are conspicuously absent from textbook dialogues (on causative constructions across all textbook registers, cf. Le Foll, under review). Thus, we may conclude that, in addition to a systematic, data-driven, approach to introducing phrasal verbs, future ELT materials could also do with more explicit focus on frequent causative and delexical *make* constructions associated with the semantic field of speech and communication.

## References

Altenberg, B., 2002. Causative constructions in English and Swedish: A corpus-based contrastive study, in: Altenberg, B., Granger, S. (Eds.), Lexis in Contrast: Corpus-Based Approaches, Studies in Corpus Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 97–116.
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.7.08alt

Altenberg, B., Granger, S., 2001. The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Appl. Linguist. 22, 173–195.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.173

Archer, D., Wilson, A., Rayson, P., 2002. Introduction to the USAS category system [WWW Document]. URL http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/usas/usas_guide.pdf (accessed 2.1.19).

Barbieri, F., Eckhardt, S.E., 2007. Applying Corpus-Based Findings to Form-Focused Instruction: The Case of Reported Speech. Lang. Teach. Res. 11, 319–346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168807077563

Cambridge University Press, 2017. Open Cambridge Learner English Corpus, available on Sketch Engine [WWW Document]. URL https://www.sketchengine.eu/cambridge-learner-corpus/ (accessed 11.29.19).

Cowie, A.P. (Ed.), 1998. Phraseology: theory, analysis, and applications, Oxford studies in lexicography and lexicology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dirven, R., Radden, G., 1977. Semantische Syntax des Englischen. Athenaion, Wies.

Gilquin, G., 2016. Input-dependent L2 acquisition: Causative constructions in English as a foreign and second language, in: De Knop, S., Gilquin, G. (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar. pp. 198–259. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-006

Gilquin, G., 2012. Lexical infelicity in causative constructions. Comparing native and learner collostructions, in: Leino, J., Waldenfels, von, R. (Eds.), Analytical Causatives: From ‘Give’ and ‘Come’ to ‘Let’ and ‘Make.’ Lincom Europa, München, pp. 41–64.
https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0022

Gouverneur, C., 2008. The phraseological patterns of high-frequency verbs in advanced English for general purposes: A corpus-driven approach to EFL textbook analysis, in: Meunier, F., Granger, S. (Eds.), Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. pp. 223–243.

Granger, S., 2015. Contrastive interlanguage analysis: A reappraisal. Int. J. Learn. Corpus Res. 1, 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.01gra

Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I.F., 2013. Valency Dictionary of English: a Corpus-Based Analysis of the Complementation Patterns of English Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. De Gruyter Mouton, Tubingen. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892581

Koprowski, M., 2005. Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks. ELT J. 59, 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci061
Le Foll, E., forthcoming. Textbook English: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Language of EFL textbooks used in Secondary Schools in France, Germany and Spain. (Diss.). Osnabrück University, Osnabrück.

Le Foll, E., under review. Causative Constructions in School EFL Textbooks.

Lennon, P., 1996. Getting ‘easy’ verbs wrong at the advanced level. IRAL - Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Teach. 34, 23–36.

Liu, E.T.K., Shaw, P.M., 2001. Investigating learner vocabulary: A possible approach to looking at EFL/ESL learners’ qualitative knowledge of the word. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Teach. 39, 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2001.001

Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., 2017. The Spoken BNC2014. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 22, 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov

Love, R., Hawtin, A., Hardie, A., 2018. The British National Corpus 2014: User manual and reference guide.

Meunier, F., Gouverneur, C., 2009. New types of corpora for new educational challenges: Collecting, annotating and exploiting a corpus of textbook material, in: Aijmer, K. (Ed.), Studies in Corpus Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.33.16meu

Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., Hornik, K., 2020. vcd: Visualizing categorical data.

Nesselhauf, N., 2004. How learner corpus analysis can contribute to language teaching: A study of support verb constructions, in: Aston, G., Bernardini, S., Stewart, D. (Eds.), Corpora and Language Learners, Studies in Corpus Linguistics. pp. 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.17.08nes

R Core Team, 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (manual). Vienna, Austria.

Rayson, P., 2018. USAS English Wmatrix3 web tagger [WWW Document]. URL http://ucrel-api.lancaster.ac.uk/usas/tagger.html (accessed 12.7.19).

Sinclair, J., Fox, G., Bullon, S., Krishnamurthy, R., Manning, E., Todd, J. (Eds.), 1990. Collins Cobuild English grammar: Helping learners with real English. Harper Collins, Glasgow.

Smith, M., 2018. Dinner time or tea time? It depends on where you live [WWW Document]. YouGov. URL https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/22/dinner-time-or-tea-time-it-dependsto-where-you-live (accessed 9.29.20).

Turton, N.D., Heaton, J.B., 1997. Longman dictionary of common errors, 3. impr. ed. Longman, Harlow.

Wajnryb, R., 1996. Death, taxes and jeopardy: Systematic omissions in EFL texts, or life was never meant to be an adjacency pair. Presented at the 9th educational conference, Sydney.

Wong, S.C., 1983. Overproduction & Unidiomatic Usage in the Make Causatives of Chinese Speakers: A Cause for Flexibility in Interlanguage analysis. Lang. Learn. Commun. 2, 151–165.

Yekutieli, D., Benjamini, Y., 2001. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann. Stat. 29, 1165–1188. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013699998