Current perspectives on Learner Corpus Research Marcus Callies 1. Introduction Learner Corpus Research (LCR) is a relative newcomer to the scene of research paradigms and methodologies within applied linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA) research. In addition to other types of data that have traditionally been used in SLA research, learner corpora provide large-scale principled collections of authentic, continuous and contextualized language use by foreign/ second language (L2) learners that are stored in electronic format. They enable the systematic and (semi-)automatic extraction, visualization and analysis of large amounts of learner data in a way that was not possible before. Access to and analysis of learner corpus data is greatly facilitated by the digital medium, and the sheer quantity of data can help to explore SLA phenomena from non-experimental perspectives (Callies 2015). Although the majority of learner corpora may appear relatively small in size when compared to large reference corpora of several major European languages that comprise billions of words of text, they contain datasets for general use that are still many times larger than the oftentimes narrow(er) datasets collected in SLA research through more strictly controlled elicitation techniques. LCR as a field only emerged and became visible at the turn of the 1990s in the context of the popularization of corpus linguistics at large, but has rapidly evolved and grown in scope and sophistication over the past three to four decades. It now bears all signs of an established discipline: it has an academic journal, the International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, that has been publishing studies in LCR since 2013; two handbooks that survey the field and its links to the major neighbouring disciplines of corpus linguistics, SLA and language teaching (Granger, Gilquin and Meunier, eds., 2015; Tracy-Ventura and Paquot, eds., 2021); and a biennial, international conference that has been organised since 2011 under the aegis of AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Agenda: Advancing Anglophone Studies Band 48 · Heft 1 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.24053/ AAA-2023-0002 Marcus Callies 38 the field’s own professional organisation, the Learner Corpus Association, officially founded in 2013. Because of its origin, LCR has initially been a relatively European-centred research field but has in the meantime made significant inroads into North America, South Africa (van Rooy 2019) and the Asia-Pacific region (Jung 2022). It is by now a vibrant and growing international community. This paper provides some perspectives on recent and current achievements and developments in the field, highlights several new trends and initiatives, but also discusses some challenges. The focus will be on LCR and the study of learner English. 2. LCR: Where are we now? As is not uncommon for a comparatively young and interdisciplinary academic discipline, the field is currently undertaking efforts to resolve several issues that concern key concepts, terminology and long-standing methodological practices. These efforts are increasingly informed by first assessments of the achievements and practices of LCR as well as an evaluation of its position within applied linguistics at large, and importantly, its role and impact vis-à-vis SLA. Paquot & Plonsky (2017) provide the first synthesis and empirical assessment of quantitative research methods and study quality in LCR, based on a systematic review of quantitative primary studies (N = 378) referenced in the Learner Corpus Bibliography 1 that included over 1,200 entries at the time of analysis. The study finds that the large majority of studies in LCR have been corpus-based (in contrast to more explorative, corpusdriven studies), quantitative, cross-sectional and comparative, i.e. comparing learner language either to some native-language (L1) yardstick and/ or to other kinds of learner varieties in a framework referred to as Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis (CIA; Granger 1996, 2015). This usually implies a focus on the learners’ L1 as a variable, comparing quantitative findings from learner corpora to those obtained from L1 control corpora of different kinds. Paquot & Plonsky (2017) note an oversampling of written data in LCR in that available corpora mostly include texts vaguely classified as ‘essays’ of various kinds (usually of an argumentative nature) that have been produced in instructed settings of higher education by young adult learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) rather than English as a second language (ESL). These learners have achieved a relatively advanced level of proficiency according to their institutional status, being assessed in terms 1 https: / / uclouvain.be/ en/ research-institutes/ ilc/ cecl/ learner-corpus-bibliography. html Current perspectives on Learner Corpus Research 39 of number of years of English-language instruction and years spent at university studying English. Much in line with the preference and predominance of quantitative approaches in corpus linguistics at large, learner corpora (or components of them) are still (too) often taken as being representative of a certain language variety at large and are used as aggregate data sets to abstract away from individual language users without reflecting on or controlling for the influence of other variables (e.g. proficiency or study-abroad) and task conditions (e.g. timing, access to reference works) despite the fact that learner data are subject to a significant degree of interbut also intra-learner variability. As a newcomer to the repertoire of research methodologies for the study of learner language, LCR has, despite high expectations within the community itself, not yet impacted SLA research to the degree that it would like to and potentially could. 2 The reasons for that have been widely discussed in numerous recent publications many of which are summarised in Le Bruyn and Paquot (2021) and Tracy-Ventura and Paquot (2021). Some of the major reasons for the apparent disconnect between LCR and SLA that have been identified are: a lack of theoretical grounding of much of the purely descriptivelyoriented early research in LCR, also reflected in an overemphasis of the (potential) effects of the learners’ L1 on the L2 in terms of transfer / cross-linguistic influence that is too often readily taken as the most obvious explanation for observed differences in the data; the field’s preoccupation with errors and deviations from a suggested native-speaker norm that has resulted in a discourse of deficit (i.e. highlighting what L2 learners can not do when compared to native speakers) while SLA research has arguably advanced beyond the comparative fallacy. Several of the abovementioned publications invited a mutual reflection on the apparent disconnect and called for concerted efforts to bring the two fields closer together. These efforts are most visible in the two recent collections referenced above. In particular, Tracy-Ventura and Paquot (2021) give a comprehensive and up-to-date overview and assessment of how SLA and LCR have come closer together in recent years. In their opening chapter they argue that LCR suffered from various teething problems, but the field has evolved tremendously since its beginning, and it is important for the field of SLA to recognize these recent developments. [...] The field has also matured in how it analyses learner corpora: more attention is devoted to individual differences and individual contributions by different learners, with more studies focusing on a wider 2 But for a recent comprehensive overview of SLA research using corpus methods and tool see Lu (2023). Marcus Callies 40 range of explanatory variables than only the learners’ first language and adopting multifactorial designs (Tracy-Ventura & Paquot 2021: 4). Similarly, Myles (2021) concludes that it is nonetheless evident that much progress has been made, with LCR research generally better theoretically framed, and with many of its powerful tools now being used more systematically to address complex SLA agendas. [...] Overall, the gap between the two fields has definitely narrowed, and respective needs, strengths and weaknesses are now better understood (Myles 2021: 270). Tracy-Ventura, Paquot and Myles (2021) in their concluding handbook chapter provide suggestions for future research in three main categories: (1) corpus design and preparation, (2) corpus analysis, and (3) Open Science and methodological expertise. In the following sections I will discuss some recent research developments and initiatives within LCR in light of some long-standing conceptual issues and methodological practices in LCR with a focus on the English language. 3. Reform and innovation: Recent initiatives 3.1. Reform: Research methodology and metadata The abovementioned research synthesis by Paquot and Plonsky (2017), in addition to taking stock of the research output of LCR in terms of learner demographics, data sampling and research topics, also explicitly set out to “systematically describe and evaluate quantitative research and reporting practices in LCR both cumulatively and over time” in order to “inform future LCR research practices and contribute to their improvement” (Paquot and Plonsky 2017: 62). As for study quality in LCR at large, they summarise that “improvements over time, however, are clearly noted and there are signs that, like other related disciplines, learner corpus research is slowly undergoing methodological reform” (Paquot and Plonsky 2017: 61). Calls for methodological reform often address and sometimes arguably overemphasize ‘shortcomings’ to do with quantitative approaches and advanced statistical modelling which have been and are being discussed in corpus linguistics at large (see Paquot and Plonsky 2017: 63f). While this is certainly desirable for purely quantitative approaches, there are many different ways to analyse learner language data and the increased quantitative and statistical sophistication apparently has come at a price. For instance, Larson et al (2022) find “a diminished focus on linguistic description, evident, for example, through fewer text excerpts and linguistic examples, which appears to be symptomatic of increasing distance from the language Current perspectives on Learner Corpus Research 41 that is the object of study” (2022: 137). The authors discuss these shifts and suggest some ways of employing sophisticated statistical techniques without sacrificing a focus on language. Nevertheless, conceptual and methodological reform and innovation remain a strong desideratum in a young discipline like LCR. To provide a certain incentive for researchers to document and share their methodological practices and tools, and to give researchers engaged in advancing the methodological expertise of the field the recognition they deserve, the International Journal of Learner Corpus Research decided to introduce new publication formats (see Paquot and Callies 2020). This can be seen as another initiative in line with a “growing trend towards methodological awareness and reflection” in LCR (Paquot and Callies 2020: 122). The journal thus now invites and publishes corpus reports, materials and methods reports and software reports, and, to answer calls for reflection and assessment of methodological practices, also review articles, position papers and replication studies (which receive growing importance in SLA) to reproduce findings of previous LCR studies. Another initiative concerns the collection and documentation of metadata in LCR. In view of the many variables that affect SLA, rich metadata are crucial (Myles 2021: 260f.). In LCR, however, research data management seems to have attracted less attention. A recent initiative (König et al. 2022) is aimed at the standardization of corpus description including metadata at the level of the corpus as a whole, but also metadata used to describe the individual learners and task types/ registers that the corpus represents. This would enhance corpus findability, usability and comparability. König et al. (2022) propose a metadata schema that features a set of core metadata fields considered necessary to describe learner corpora consistently and informatively. 3.2. Innovation: Towards exploring the writing process in LCR The focus on written data and the fact that learner corpora of written language typically contain only the final product of the writing process entails that the data are of limited explanatory power when it comes to studying the actual process. While corpus data allow for a detailed analysis, quantification and cross-textual comparison of the linguistic features of texts, the data are static and researchers can only make assumptions as to the processes that led to the final product and the reasons behind the choice of certain linguistic features. Recently, however, the field has seen some initiatives and some innovative research that seeks to address this gap. One possibility to come closer to examining the writing process, or rather changes between different versions of a text that are the result of this process, is the compilation and analysis of corpora that include several drafts of the same text or corpora that represent handwritten texts with Marcus Callies 42 traces of alterations (Gilquin 2021: 77). For example, Kreyer (2015) suggests to include text-internal mark-up to account for alterations and revisions in the writing process in “a quasi-facsimile fashion trying to give an idea of what the hand-written text looked like” because such revisions “provide valuable information about various interlanguage phenomena that are at play in the writing process” (Kreyer 2015: 24). More recently, technological advances have allowed the relatively easy and inexpensive collection of data gathered by means of keystroke logging (e.g. through the software Inputlog, Leijten and Van Waes 2013) or screen recordings during the writing process. These offer insights into the evolution of the text, and especially into textual revisions being made in the course of writing (Gilquin 2022b), the use of electronic writing tools (Gilquin and Laporte 2021) and intertextual resources and text structuring (Wiemeyer 2022). One of the first initiatives into that direction was taken in the compilation of the Corpus of English as a Foreign Language (COREFL; see Lozano, Díaz-Negrillo and Callies 2021). A subcomponent of that corpus consists of 100 written narratives elicited through a picture-story from advanced L1- German EFL learners. These narratives were directly typed on a laptop by the participants with Inputlog running in the background. The data, the full potential of which has yet to be explored (see Ballier et al. 2019 for a first study using the data) enable researchers to undertake process-oriented studies of narrative writing such as revision analysis. Wiemeyer’s (2022) dissertation project used a mixed-methods design to investigate intertextuality in L1-German university students’ academic writing in English, combining a corpus and a process study of writing assignments (reading reports) based on a single source text. For the process study, students wrote reading reports in an experimental setting. The writing process was recorded using screen recording software and subsequently, the students were asked to comment on their writing processes in a stimulated recall procedure for which the recording of the writing process served as a stimulus. The screen recordings were segmented so that each segment contained the writing process of an individual sentence. Microlevel processes were recorded for each segment in chronological order of occurrence. These were then analysed to identify the L2 writers’ strategies of source use and acknowledgement. By combining evidence from multiple sources, the study thus sheds light on how intertextuality is realised both in the writing process and the product. The most recent initiative into that exciting but also very challenging new research field is Gilquin’s (2022b) Process Corpus of English in Education, a learner corpus of English produced by L1-French writers which, in addition to the actual texts, consists of data that make the writing process visible in the form of keystroke log files and screencast videos, including an extra component made up of similar data produced by the learners in their L1. Current perspectives on Learner Corpus Research 43 4. LCR and EFL: Changing contexts, changing input, changing norms? The forces of colonization and decolonization, as well as the ongoing globalization and technologisation of the early 21 st century, have brought about a unique historical expansion, global spread and diversification of the English language. English today is recognised as a pluricentric language that has developed several supra-regional standards. L2-learners of English are exposed to a large amount and extent of variation in Englishes around the world almost on a daily basis, be it through varied forms of extramural input by means of streaming-services offering English-language TV shows and movies, English used on various social media platforms, music, computer games, or through contact with speakers of different Englishes though international mobility 3 . These developments have major implications for the inclusion of language variation in the English-language teacher education curriculum and the teaching of English around the world in the 21 st century, but also for empirical research interested in the study of EFL, for example in the field of LCR as I will discuss further below. The diversity of global Englishes challenges several long-standing principles of English language teaching (ELT), such as the adherence to idealized ‘standard varieties’ and their associated cultural conventions as the only target varieties in teacher education and the language classroom. Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT; Rose et al. 2019) and the closely related approach of (Teaching) English as an International Language (TEIL; Callies et al., eds., 2022) are the most visible manifestations of a current trend towards a paradigm shift. Additionally, there is increasing evidence of the global influence of American English on all other Englishes (aka ‘Americanisation’, see Mair 2013, Goncalves et al. 2018, Schneider 2020) and the assumption that EFL learners increasingly use and are exposed to hybrid varieties. ‘Mid Atlantic English’ (MAE) as discussed for instance by Modiano (1996) is a hybrid variety consisting of features of British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) used among EFL learners, but also teachers. On the one hand, MAE is influenced by the strict exonormative orientation towards BrE and AmE varieties in ELT, but on the other by the highly variable input that EFL learners receive and their mixed language-learning biographies (with extended stays in different English-speaking countries). The result is a hybrid language use of secondary-school and university students as well as English language teachers on all linguistic levels, ranging from spelling, pronunciation to lexico-grammar (see Mering 2022). 3 See Mering (2022: 105-108 and 154-158) for results of a recent survey among secondary-school and university students in Germany and Switzerland Marcus Callies 44 As for the choice of reference language variety, Modiano argued that MAE should replace BrE as the educational standard in Europe and predicted that the development of MAE would most likely continue, in time establish its own frame of reference, and as such be less dependent on American and British standards. This prediction has turned out to be too optimistic in hindsight because in many (western) educational contexts around the world, ELT and teacher education are still characterised by an almost exclusive exonormative orientation towards either ‘standard’ BrE and AmE and their corresponding socio-cultural norms. However, as discussed above, the formation and hence orientation towards a hybrid reference norm has advanced considerably. For ELT in Germany, Hutz (2023: 26-31) describes the evolution from a period characterized by a strong monocentric approach (BrE being the unchallenged and most prestigious reference variety), to a bicentric period which is characterized by the coexistence of two reference norms, and - potentially - a new stage characterized by a pluricentric approach. The bicentric approach is characterised by a gradual process of Americanization that has taken place in the ELT context leading to a de facto coexistence of the two reference norms of BrE and AmE which, Hutz argues, needs to be acknowledged by teachers, curriculum developers, and textbook publishers. Hutz concludes that “hybrid language use has become the norm rather than the exception which is a clear indication that the monocentric era de facto has ended” (Hutz 2023: 31). The shift towards MAE is apparently largely student-driven (Hutz 2023: 31) with curricula and textbooks being, unsurprisingly, relatively resistant to change (see e.g. Meer 2022). What then are the implications of these developments for the study of EFL in the framework of LCR? Recently, it has been suggested to introduce a new parameter of analysis to LCR: diachronic change or the short-term evolution of learner language on the basis of corpus data to “investigate the evolution of learner language (as produced by different generations of learners from the same proficiency level) over the course of time, to determine whether this variety of language is different now from what it was twenty or thirty years ago” (Gilquin 2022c: 42; see also Gilquin 2021). This approach called “diachronic learner corpus research” is explicitly distinguished from longitudinal studies in LCR that make use of corpora featuring data collected from individuals or small groups of informants at periodic intervals over a prolonged period of time in order to obtain information about language development. The rationale for introducing this diachronic parameter is that like ENL and ESL varieties used in institutionalised contexts, EFL varieties could equally be subject to diachronic change that can be traced in relatively short time intervals. Gilquin’s (2022c) findings, drawn from two small but reasonably comparable learner corpora representing written learner English produced by advanced L1- French students at a university in French-speaking Belgium, largely confirm the findings reported by Mering (2022) for German learner English: Current perspectives on Learner Corpus Research 45 EFL learners, at least in the two contexts examined, are increasingly influenced by the changing informal and extramural input coming from American English sources and the manifold extramural contexts of learning which leads to an increased use of informal and US-American, mostly lexico-grammatical features in a mixed repertoire. But are EFL varieties subject to diachronic change that can be traced in relatively short time intervals? Are we dealing with a diachronic change of learner English in terms of the fundamental patterns of language acquisition, development and use which are at the core of interest in both SLA and LCR? Diachronic change in institutionalised ESL varieties can be conceived of as an often contact-induced development of a linguistic system away from a historical input variety in terms of nativization and endonormative stabilization as described in Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model. There are several recent initiatives to compile corpora of World Englishes to examine such diachronic change (see e.g. Brato 2019 and Unuabonah et al. 2022). By contrast, EFL varieties are much less susceptible to internal diachronic change. EFL varieties are less discernible, stable sociolinguistic communities like ENL and ESL. They remain exonormatively-oriented as they are subject to the strong forces that are at play in instructed educational settings: the curricula, including the hidden ones manifest in teaching material, as well as teaching and assessment practices in which learner English is being evaluated and corrected by teachers on the basis of an external reference norm. In contrast to ESL varieties, for which we are witnessing an increasing degree of codification of their lexico-grammar (see e.g. Lambert 2020 and Salazar 2021), EFL varieties are not codified in reference materials or textbooks. Moreover, in contrast to ESL-settings where the social context of language use provides ample opportunities for innovation and change to spread, catch on and eventually become conventionalised, for EFL learners the opportunities for communicative situations between speakers to arise are still limited outside of educational settings. It rather seems that what we may be observing is a changing normorientation along the lines of a convergence of BrE and AmE norms that results from the global dynamics of using and learning English in the digital era: increasingly informal, variable and hybrid input through the use of English online, changing input through the increasing Americanisation and globalisation of English (as Gilquin 2022c: 45f. notes herself). These are coupled with changes in linguistic and socio-cultural role models and contexts of learning in which learning English exclusively in an instructional context without access to other input has become rare and will further affect the external reference norms of ELT. In sum, it can be argued that EFL varieties are subject to linguistic and social change in terms of an Americanisation and liberalisation/ colloquialisation manifest as changes in the reference norm, but not the system of learner English per se. Whether “diachronic learner corpus research” will establish itself as a new field of research as Gilquin (2022c: 66) suggests, remains to be seen. Marcus Callies 46 However, the emerging changes in the reference variety of English in educational contexts has implications for the use of a methodological reference frame that has frequently been used in LCR to analyse learner data. A (still) widely-debated but yet unresolved issue in LCR is the question of corpus comparability, in particular as to the appropriate basis of comparison for learner corpus data, i.e. if, and if so, against which yardstick learner data should be compared and evaluated (see Gilquin 2022a for a recent comprehensive discussion). Should this be only corpora representing the language of (often monolingual) native speakers? And if so, what variety should serve as the comparative basis? Granger (2015) proposed a revised model (CIA²) that explicitly acknowledges the central role played by variation in interlanguage studies and is thought to be more in line with the current state of foreign language theory and practice. Most importantly, Granger introduces the concepts of ‘reference language varieties’ and ‘interlanguage varieties’. The term ‘reference language varieties’ replaces the native-speaker target (NL) in ‘traditional’ CIA, indicating that there is a large number of different reference points against which learner data can be compared (traditional inner-circle varieties, outer-circle varieties, as well as corpora of competent L2 users, e.g. a corpus of texts produced by expert language users, for example academic writers, who may or may not be native speakers). Granger stresses that the word ‘reference’ in particular makes it clear that the corpus does not necessarily need to represent a norm. The term ‘interlanguage varieties’ is introduced to acknowledge the inherent variability of learner language and to draw attention to the large number of variables whose effect on L2 use should be investigated more in LCR. Gilquin (2022a) concludes her survey of norms used in LCR by summarising that “LCR need not restrict itself to one single norm, and not even a native one” and that it “has the capacity to liberate itself from the shackles of the norm, either by not relying on any comparison with native language or by considering the norm as purely indicative of differences, rather than deficiencies” (Gilquin 2022a: 96). It is indeed liberating to note, as Paquot and Plonsky (2017) do, a “steadily decreasing number of studies using one or more reference corpora” with LCR possibly “moving away from looking at L1-L2 differences and more towards describing L2 production data as a worthwhile endeavour in and of itself” (Paquot and Plonsky 2017: 75). However, both in SLA and LCR some form of comparison to a nativespeaker norm is still commonplace. To add to this, the persistent use of evaluative terminology like ‘non-native’, ‘overuse’, ‘underuse’, and ‘misuse’ clearly evokes associations to (often monolingual) English native speakers as the (sole) source of ‘correct’ language use which perpetuates the deficit view towards language varieties that are supposedly not ‘native’, a view that has plagued LCR for long (see also Callies 2015: 49-50). Gilquin argues that in “the same way as native norms are still relevant in LCR, they arguably still have a key role to play in the foreign language classroom, Current perspectives on Learner Corpus Research 47 not only because many learners have native language as their target, as we saw earlier, but also because, in real life, learners are likely to be judged according to native standards” (Gilquin 2022a: 95). We have seen earlier in this section that the native-language target that learners may aim at (if they do so 4 ) is in flux and changing. And it is precisely the pervasive judgment of multilingual learners against a monolingual “native standard” that constitutes the major obstacle to break free from the norm. Who else but not we as linguists with a strong interest in applied linguistics, language learning and teaching should take initiative and transfer our research findings and its pedagogical implications to the classroom? Do “research norms” and “pedagogical norms”, as Gilquin (2022a: 94) argues, always have to be separated? Elsewhere, I have emphasised the need for greater curricular coherence in language teacher education by crossing disciplinary boundaries to enable future teachers perceive linguistic knowledge as linked to and relevant for pedagogical reasoning and teaching practice that can at the same time inform their feedback and assessment practices (Callies & Hehner 2023). For example, large electronic corpora of World Englishes and electronic dictionaries can be used as resources for teacher trainees to explore the spread and extent of use of innovative and variable linguistic structures in Englishes around the world and to help them make research-informed decisions about the source and gravity of their students’ potential errors (Callies, submitted). Feedback and assessment practices in teacher education and ELT should also be informed by linguistic research on EFL and ESL varieties which have found manifold similarities between the two types of varieties, identifying some underlying cognitive mechanisms that lead to the creation of potential innovations (see Callies 2016 and 2023 for further discussion). Based on such research findings, the conflicting views on the origin and status of linguistic features can be put into perspective. In view of evidence from actual language usage we should abandon the fuzzy and often overprescriptive, evaluative categorization of surface forms according to the assumed institutional status of language users (ESL vs. EFL) which is based on an idealised, monolingual native-speaker norm. The use of a native-speaker yardstick fails to recognize ESL and EFL as varieties in their own right. It is based on an underlying pedagogical perspective that considers native speakers’ language as a gold standard against which differences and features of learner language are evaluated and characterised as native-like, or rather, as non-native-like. This perspective has certain advantages in that it facilitates empirical work because it provides a norm against which data can be measured and evaluated, but it centres around a target-deviation perspective in which interlanguages are merely seen as 4 See again the recent study by Mering (2022) for findings that partially challenge this view. Marcus Callies 48 more or less successful attempts to reproduce an implicit target-language norm. 5. Conclusion This contribution has provided some perspectives on recent and current achievements and developments in LCR, highlighted new trends and initiatives, but also pointed towards some challenges, focusing on the study of learner English by means of learner corpus data. Being a relatively recent research paradigm within applied linguistics, it is remarkable that after some 30+ years LCR already bears all signs of an established discipline. It is currently also concerned with a critical self-evaluation of its role and impact vis-à-vis SLA. This seems to have acted as a catalyst for the field to discuss several issues that concern key concepts, terminology and research methodology. Some of these discussions are clearly visible in a growing trend towards reflection and assessment of some long-standing methodological practices and their potential pitfalls. Recent publications suggest that LCR and SLA have come closer together during the last decade. I have argued that we are observing a change in the norm-orientation in ELT, evident in an emerging paradigm shift towards GELT which seems to be fuelled by classroom realities: EFL learners and teachers increasingly use a hybrid repertoire that is heavily influenced by the informal and extramural input coming from American English sources and the manifold extramural contexts of learning. EFL varieties thus appear to be subject to linguistic and social change in terms of an Americanisation and liberalisation/ colloquialisation manifest as changes in the reference norm. LCR should respond to these emerging changes in educational contexts and adapt its methodological reference frame to analyse learner English data. Although there a signs of a higher and more critical awareness towards this challenging issue (Gilquin 2022a), and even signs of a decrease of native vs. non-native comparisons (Paquot & Plonsky (2017: 75), the discourse of deficit including the use of evaluative terminology is still commonplace. References Ballier, Nicolas, Erin Pacquetet & Taylor Arnold (2019). Investigating keylogs as time-stamped graphemics. In: Yannis Haralambous (ed.). Proceedings of Graphemics in the 21 st Century. Brest: Fluxus Editions. 353-365. Brato, Thorsten (2019). The Historical Corpus of English in Ghana (HiCE Ghana): Motivation, compilation, opportunities. In: Alexandra U. Esimaje, Ulrike Gut & Bassey E. Antia (eds.). Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 120-141. Callies, Marcus (2015). Learner corpus methodology. In: Sylviane Granger, Fanny Meunier & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 35-55. Current perspectives on Learner Corpus Research 49 Callies, Marcus (2016). Towards a process-oriented approach to comparing EFL and ESL varieties: A corpus-study of lexical innovations. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2 (2): 229-250. Callies, Marcus (2023). Errors and innovations in L2 varieties of English: Towards resolving a contradictory practice. In: Gisela Febel, Kerstin Knopf & Martin Nonhoff (eds.). Contradiction Studies - Exploring the Field. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 199-212. Callies, Marcus (submitted). Corpora and Global Englishes in language teacher education: Identifying features of World Englishes between prescription and innovation. In: Vander Viana (ed.). International Perspectives on Corpus Approaches in ELT. Palgrave MacMillan. Callies, Marcus & Stephanie Hehner (2023). Pluricentric languages in university teacher education: Towards increased curricular coherence. In: Marcus Callies & Stephanie Hehner (eds.). Pluricentric Languages and Language Education. Pedagogical Implications and Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching (Routledge Research in Language Education). London/ New York: Routledge. 202-216. Callies, Marcus, Stephanie Hehner, Philipp Meer & Michael Westphal (eds.) (2022). Glocalising Teaching English as an International Language: New Perspectives for Teaching and Teacher Education in Germany. London: Routledge. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle (2021). Hic sunt dracones: Exploring some terra incognita in learner corpus research. In: Anna Čermáková & Markéta Malá (eds.). Variation in Time and Space: Observing the World through Corpora. Berlin: De Gruyter. 65- 86. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle (2022a). One norm to rule them all? Corpus-derived norms in learner corpus research and foreign language teaching. Language Teaching 55 (1): 87-99. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle (2022b). The Process Corpus of English in Education: Going beyond the written text. Research in Corpus Linguistics 10 (1): 31-44. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle (2022c). Diachronic Learner Corpus Research: Examining learner language through the lens of time. In: Susanne Flach & Martin Hilpert (eds.). Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics: New Approaches to Variability and Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 40-67. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Samantha Laporte (2021). The use of online writing tools by learners of English: Evidence from a process corpus. International Journal of Lexicography 34 (4): 472-492. Gonçalves, Bruno, Lucía Loureiro-Porto, José J. Ramasco & David Sánchez (2018). Mapping the Americanization of English in space and time. PloS One 13 (5): e01 97741. Granger, Sylviane (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In: Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds.). Languages in Contrast. Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies. Lund: Lund UP. 37-51. Granger, Sylviane (2015). Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis: A reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1 (1): 7-24. Granger, Sylviane, Fanny Meunier & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.) (2015). Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge: CUP. Hutz, Matthias (2023). Integrating linguistic diversity into English Language Teaching. Challenges in implementing a pluricentric approach. In: Marcus Callies & Stephanie Hehner (eds.). Pluricentric Languages and Language Education. London/ New York: Routledge. 25-40. Marcus Callies 50 Jung, Chae Kwan (ed.) (2022). Learner Corpora Research in the Asia Pacific Region. Special issue of Corpora 17, issue supplement. König, Alexander, Jennifer C. Frey, Egon W. Stemle, Aivars Glaznieks & Magali Paquot (2022). Towards standardizing LCR metadata. Paper presented at the 6 th International Conference for Learner Corpus Research (LCR 2022), Padova, 22.-24.9.2022. Kreyer, Rolf (2015). The Marburg Corpus of Intermediate Learner English (MILE). In: Marcus Callies & Sandra Götz (eds.). Learner Corpora in Language Testing and Assessment. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 13-34. Lambert, James (2020). Lexicography and World Englishes. In: Daniel Schreier, Marianne Hundt & Edgar W. Schneider (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes. Cambridge: CUP. 409-435. Larsson, Tove, Jesse Egbert & Douglas Biber (2022). On the status of statistical reporting versus linguistic description in corpus linguistics: A ten-year perspective. Corpora 17 (1): 137-157. Le Bruyn, Bert & Magali Paquot (eds.) (2021). Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. Leijten, Mariëlle & Luuk Van Waes (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication 30 (3): 358-392. Lozano, Cristobal, Ana Díaz-Negrillo & Marcus Callies (2021). Designing and compiling a learner corpus of written and spoken narratives: The Corpus of English as a Foreign Language (COREFL). In: Christiane Bongartz & Jacopo Torregrossa (eds.). What's in a Narrative? Variation in Story-Telling at the Interface Between Language and Literacy. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. 21-45. Lu, Xiaofei (2023). Corpus Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. Mair, Christian (2013). The World System of Englishes: Accounting for the transnational importance of mobile and mediated vernaculars. English World-Wide 34 (3): 253-278. Meer, Philipp. (2022). The role of Global Englishes in the curriculum in Germany: A comparative analysis of secondary school English language curricula of all federal states. In: Marcus Callies, Stephanie Hehner, Philipp Meer & Michael Westphal (eds.). Glocalising Teaching English as an International Language: New perspectives for teaching and teacher education in Germany. London/ New York: Routledge. 85-103. Mering, Andy (2022). Mid-Atlantic English in the EFL context: A large-scale sociolinguistic study. Baden-Baden: Tectum. Modiano, Marko (1996). The Americanization of Euro-English. World Englishes 15 (2): 207-215. Myles, Florence (2021). Commentary: An SLA Perspective on Learner Corpus Research. In: Bert Le Bruyn & Magali Paquot (eds). Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. 258-273. Paquot, Magali & Luke Plonsky (2017). Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 3 (1): 61-94. Paquot, Magali & Marcus Callies (2020). Promoting methodological expertise, transparency, replication, and cumulative learning: Introducing new manuscript types in the International Journal of Learner Corpus Research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 6 (2): 121-124. Current perspectives on Learner Corpus Research 51 Rose, Heath, Mona Syrbe, Anuchaya Montakantiwong & Natsuno Funada (2020). Global TESOL for the 21 st Century: Teaching English in a Changing World. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Salazar, Danica (2021). Documenting World Englishes in the Oxford English Dictionary: Past perspectives, present developments, and future directions. In: Alexander Onysko (ed.). Research Developments in World Englishes. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 271-294. Schneider, Edgar W. (2007). Postcolonial English. Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: CUP. Schneider, Edgar W. (2020). English in the United States. In: Cecil L. Nelson, Zoya G. Proshina & Daniel R. Davis (eds.). The Handbook of World Englishes. 2 nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell. 37-51. Tracy-Ventura, Nicole & Magali Paquot (eds.) (2021). The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Corpora. New York/ London: Routledge. Tracy-Ventura, Nicole, Magali Paquot & Florence Myles (eds.) (2021). The future of corporra in SLA. In: Nicole Tracy-Ventura & Magali Paquot (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Corpora. New York/ London: Routledge. 409-424. Unuabonah, Foluke O., Adebola Adebileje, Rotimi Olanrele Oladipupo, Bernard Fyanka, Mba Odim & Oluwateniola Kupolati (2022). Introducing the Historical Corpus of English in Nigeria (HiCE-Nig). A database for investigating diachronic linguistic changes in Nigerian English. English Today 38 (3): 178-184. van Rooy, Bertus (2019). Learner Corpus Research in South Africa (1989-2019). Language Matters 50 (3): 70-89. Wiemeyer, Leonie (2022). Intertextuality in foreign-language academic writing in English. A mixed-methods study of university students’ writing products and processes in source-based disciplinary assignments. PhD dissertation, University of Bremen, Germany. https: / / media.suub.uni-bremen.de/ handle/ elib/ 5756 Marcus Callies Universität Bremen