Informing Academic Writing Pedagogy through the Study of Phrase-frames
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1201.17Keywords:
second language development, phrase-frames, syntactic complexity, MICUSP, EAPAbstract
Second Language Development (SLD) research has investigated aspects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) to understand how English language learners (ELLs) develop linguistic faculties related to language production, especially in academic writing (Biber & Gray, 2010; Biber, Gray & Ponpoon, 2011; Kyle & Crossley, 2018; Lu & Ai, 2015). Contributing to the current body of SLD research, this study addresses complexity in expert academic argumentative essays by investigating language at the phrasal level through phrase-frames (PFs). Phrase-frames are fixed or semi-fixed syntactic structures with a variable slot that might be considered another measure of syntactic complexity. This study aimed to identify if native and non-native expert writers in the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP) displayed significant differences in their use of these frames concerning their predictability, variability, and function. Results of the study indicated expert academic writers in this corpus use highly variable, highly unpredictable structures which confirm the complexity, elaboration, and explicitness unique to the academic register. Understanding of these register features through the identified PFs was used to develop sample pedagogical materials to promote more complex writing in academic genres.
References
Anthony, L. (2017). Antconc (Version 3.5.8) [computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software (accessed 01/09/2019).
Araghi, S.M., Oskuee, M.Y., & Salehpour, S. (2014). The Effect of Pre-teaching Extended Prefabricated Lexical Bundles on the Writing Development of Advanced EFL Learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3.1, 214-219.
Bahrami, L., Dowlatabadi, H. R., Yazdani, H., & Amerian, M. (2018). Authorial Stance in Academic Writing: Issues and Implications for Research in English Language Teaching. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 6.2, 69-80.
Barabadi, E., Robatjazi, M. A., & Bayat, M. (2020). A phraseological examination of research Articles in the field of environment using key phrase frame. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6.1, 81-100.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25.3, 371-405.
Biber, D. & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, Elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 2-20.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Ponpoon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5-35.
Bychkovska, T. & Lee, J.J. (2017). At the same time: Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 university Student argumentative writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 38-52.
Candarli, D., Bayyurt, Y. & Marti, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202.
Chen, Y.-H. & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical Bundles in L1 and L2 Academic Writing. Language Learning and Technology, 14.2, 30-49.
Crosthwaite, P. & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 69, 92-107.
Cunningham, K.J. (2017). A phraseological exploration of recent mathematics research articles through key phrase frames. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 71-83.
Escobar, C. F. & Fernandez, L. C. (2017). EFL Learners’ Development of Voice In Academic Writing: Lexical bundles, Boosters/Hedges and Stance-taking Strategies. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 15, 96-124.
Fletcher, W. (2002-2012). KfNgram. A free software program. Available at: http://www.kwicfinder.com/kfNgram/kfNgramHelp.html (accessed 01/09/2019).
Flowerdew, J. (2017). Corpus-based approaches to language description for specialized academic writing. Language Teaching, 50.1, 90-106.
Garner, J.R. (2016). A phrase-frame approach to investigating phraseology in learner writing across proficiency levels. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 2.1, 31-68.
Golparvar, S. E. & Barabadi, E. (2020). Key phrase frames in the discussion section of research articles of higher education. Lingua, 236, 1-15.
Grabowski, L. (2015). Phrase frames in English pharmaceutical discourse: A corpus-driven study of intra-disciplinary register variation. Research in Language, 13.3, 266-291.
Gray, B. & Biber, D. (2013). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18.1, 109-135.
Hardy, J.A., Römer, U. & Roberson, A. (2015). The power of relevant models: Using a corpus of student writing to introduce disciplinary practices in a first year composition course. Across the Disciplines, 12.1, 1-20.
Hong, A.L. & Hua, T.K. (2018). Specificity in English for Academic Purposes (EAP): A Corpus Analysis of Lexical Bundles in Academic Writing. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24.2, 82-94.
Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in Academic Discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 150-169.
Jomaa, N. J. & Alia, M. M. (2019). Functional Analyses of Metadiscourse Markers in L2 Students’ Academic Writing. Arab World English Journal, 10.1, 361-381.
Jukneviciene, R. and Grabowski, L. (2018). Comparing formulaicity of learner writing through phrase-frames: A corpus-driven study of Lithuanian and Polish EFL student writing. Research in Language, 16.3, 303-323.
Kaewpet, C. (2018). Quality of argumentation models. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8.9, 1105-1113.
Kazemi, M., Katiraei, S. & Rasekh, A. E. (2014). The Impact of Teaching Lexical Bundles on Improving Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 864-869.
Kyle, K. & Crossley, S.A. (2018). Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 333-349.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30.4, 579-589.
Lee, J.J. & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34.
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36-62.
Lu, X. & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16-27.
Lu, X., Yoon, J., and Kisselev, O. (2018). A phrase-frame list for social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 76-85.
MacArthur, C. A., Jennings, A., & Philippakos, Z. A. (2019). Which linguistic features predict quality of argumentative writing for college basic writers, and how do those features change with instruction? Reading and Writing, 32.6, 1553–1574.
Manan, N. A. A. & Raslee, N. N. (2018). Explicit Discourse Marker Instruction to Improve Coherence and Cohesion in Academic Writing. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 8.1, 465-483.
Martinez, A. C. L. (2017). Syntactic complexity in secondary-level English writing: Differences among writers enrolled on bilingual and non-bilingual programmes. Porta Linguarum, 28, 67-80.
Martinez, A.C.L. (2018). Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education: EFL writers at different proficiency levels. Assessing Writing, 35, 1-11.
Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers. (2009). Distribution Across Disciplines [Data file]. Retrieved from: http://elicorpora.info/ (accessed 01/09/2019).
Nekrasova-Beker, T.M. (2019). Discipline-specific use of language patterns in engineering: A comparison of published pedagogical materials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41, 1-12.
O’Donnell, M. B., Römer, U. and Ellis, N.C. (2013). The Development of Formulaic Sequences in First and Second Language Writing. Investigating Effects of Frequency, Association, and Native Norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18.1, 83–108.
Povolna, R. (2012). Causal and Contrastive Discourse Markers in Novice Academic Writing. Brno Studies in English, 38.2, 131-148.
Römer, U. (2010). Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type: The construction of meaning in academic book reviews. English Text Constructions, 3.1, 95-119.
Römer, U. & Arbor, A. (2009). English in Academia: Does Nativeness Matter? Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 20.2, 89-100.
Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M.B. (2009). Positional variation of phrase frames in a new corpus of proficient student writing. [Online] Paper presented at AACL conference. Edmonton, Canada, 9 Oct 2009.
Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2011). From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): the design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 6.2, 159–177.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487-512.
Vercellotti, M. L. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics, 38, (1), 90-111.
Yang, W. & Sun, Y. (2015). Dynamic development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in multilingual learners’ L1, L2, and L3 writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5.2, 298-308.
Yoon, H.-J. (2017). Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System, 66, 130-141.
