Review of Kinne (2020): Particle Placement in English L1 and L2 Academic Writing: A Triangulated Learner-Corpus and Experimental Study of Weight Effects

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Kessler
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Learner Corpus ◽  
L1 And L2

Register variation in L1 and L2 student writing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Goulart
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Linguistic Variation ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
First Year ◽  
Five Dimensions ◽  
Register Variation ◽  
Linguistic Resources ◽  
Brazilian Students ◽  
The Uk ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract While there have been many studies describing L2 academic writing, most of these studies have used corpora of first year or assessment writing (Crosthwaite 2016; Weigle & Friginal 2014). The present study seeks to describe linguistic variation in L2 writing for content classes and to compare these linguistic patterns to those found in L1 writing. A multi-dimensional (MD) analysis was conducted in two corpora, BAWE and BrAWE, extracting five dimensions. The L2 corpus contained 379 texts written by Brazilian students doing part of their undergrad in the UK and the L1 corpus contained 395 texts from BAWE. The results of this study indicate that L1 and L2 writers use similar linguistic resources to convey the purpose of university registers, with the exception of case studies, designs, exercises and research reports. This linguistic variation between L1 and L2 writers might be explained by students’ interpretation of these registers’ communicative purposes.

Becoming a proficient academic writer: shifting lexical preferences in the use of the progressive

Corpora ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie Wulff ◽  
Ute Römer
Keyword(s):  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Text Type ◽  
Learner Corpus ◽  
Verb Aspect ◽  
Academic Writer ◽  
Upper Level ◽  
The One

Recent corpus studies have shown that learners of English are aware of systematic associations between verbs and their preferred argument structures to an extent that is similar to that of a native speaker of English (e.g., Gries and Wulff, 2005 ). Given evidence for similarly systematic associations in native speaker data at the lexis–morphology interface (e.g., Römer, 2005a ), the question arises whether, and to what extent, learners of English are also sensitive to lexical dependencies at the level of morphology, and how their verb-aspect associations compare with those of native speakers. In order to address this question, this study focusses on the potential associations between verbs and progressive aspect in German learners' academic writing. On the basis of the German component of the International Corpus of Learner English and the Cologne–Hanover Advanced Learner Corpus, learners' significantly preferred verb-aspect pairs are identified using an adaptation of collostructional analysis ( Stefanowitsch and Gries, 2003 ). The results are complemented with corresponding analyses of a subset of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers on the one hand and published research articles from the Hyland Corpus on the other hand. The findings indicate that upper-intermediate and advanced German learners of English exhibit clear lexical preferences in the use of progressives. Furthermore, comparative analyses suggest that verb-aspect preferences shift as a function of writers' mastery of text type-specific conventions rather than language proficiency at large.

Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing

1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli Hinkel
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
L1 And L2

How Learner Corpus Research can inform language learning and teaching

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-218
Author(s):  
Martin Schweinberger
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Teaching ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Learning And Teaching ◽  
Learner Corpus ◽  
Informal Conversation ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract This study aims to exemplify how language teaching can benefit from learner corpus research (LCR). To this end, this study determines how L1 and L2 English speakers with diverse L1 backgrounds differ with respect to adjective amplification, based on the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) and the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). The study confirms trends reported in previous research, in that L1 speakers amplify adjectives more frequently than L2 English speakers. In addition, the analysis shows that L1 and L2 English speakers differ substantially with respect to the collocational profiles of specific amplifier types and with respect to awareness of genre-specific constraints on amplifier use, and that even advanced L2 speakers tend to be unaware of stylistic constraints on adjective amplification because they model their academic output based on patterns generalized from informal conversation. These findings are useful for language teaching in that the data can be used to target L1-specific difficulties experienced by L2 English speakers.

Linking or delinking of ideas?

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noelia Navarro Gil ◽  
Helena Roquet Pugès
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Initial Position ◽  
American University ◽  
Efl Learners ◽  
Learner Corpus ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Argumentative Texts ◽  
Linguistic Backgrounds

Abstract This paper explores the use of adversative Linking Adverbials (LAs) in the academic writing of advanced English Foreign Language (EFL) learners with different linguistic backgrounds. The learner corpus used in this study consists of 50 argumentative texts, which are contrasted with a native corpus: the American university students’ corpus (LOCNESS). Liu’s (2008) comprehensive list of adversative LAs has been used for the analysis. Findings reveal that both non-native (NNS) and native speakers of English (NS) use similar types of adversative LAs, but NNS place them regularly in sentence- and sometimes in paragraph- initial position, which often results in punctuation issues and misuse. A total of 9 LAs were found to be overused (e.g., nevertheless) and underused (e.g., actually) by NNS. The analysis performed according to L1 has yielded unexpected results in terms of preference, frequency, and placement of adversative LAs. The so-called ‘teaching effect’ is considered one of the main factors influencing the learners’ choices.

Personal and Social Voices in Written Discourse Revisited1

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-364
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Bagheri ◽  
Liming Deng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Previous Literature ◽  
Written Discourse ◽  
Dominant Dimension ◽  
Five Dimensions ◽  
Integrated Framework ◽  
Social Perspectives ◽  
Good Writing ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract For years, personal and social voices have been the issue of discussion on voice construction in written discourse (e.g., Elbow, 1999; Flowerdew, 2011; Hyland, 2002, 2010a, 2012b; Mauranen, 2013; Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999; Tardy, 2005). However, there is a lack of an integrated examination of the dimensions which determine voice construction in writing from personal and social perspectives. This article re-examines the issue of voice construction through a critical review of previous literature on identity in written discourse. It is argued that there are five major dimensions for the construction of voice in written discourse. How writers appropriate their voice according to such five dimensions as genre, transition, culture, discipline and audience will be discussed. This paper lends further support to the view that voice in written discourse is both personal and social. As it is known, good writing expresses both personal and social voices. However, based on the dominant dimension(s), voice construction should be adjusted. Sometimes personal voice is boldly expressed; sometimes social voice is; and some other times the boundary between the two is unnoticeable. The study provides an integrated framework as well as pedagogical implications for the teaching of academic writing within L1 and L2 contexts.

scholarly journals The Reference to L1 and L2 in SFL: Proposals Based on the Aprescrilov Learner Corpus

2015 ◽  
Vol 173 ◽  
pp. 274-278
Author(s):  
Kris Buyse ◽  
Lydia Fernández Pereda ◽  
Katrien Verveckken
Keyword(s):  
Learner Corpus ◽  
L1 And L2

Understanding L1 and L2 interaction in collaborative writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis

2019 ◽  
pp. 136216881985991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meixiu Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
First Language ◽  
Task Management ◽  
Grammatical Analysis ◽  
L1 Use ◽  
L1 And L2 ◽  
And Task

Despite previous research suggesting that first language (L1) use fulfills important functions in collaborative writing (CW) tasks, research has yet to examine whether L1 or second language (L2) use may lead to variation in the lexico-grammatical aspects of learners’ collaborative texts and the pair talk. Using a corpus-based approach, this study examined how interacting in the L1 or the L2 during CW tasks influenced the use of lexico-grammatical features in learners’ co-constructed texts and the focus areas of their pair talk. The results suggest that L1 interaction significantly facilitates the production of lexico-grammatical features typical of academic writing in learners’ co-constructed texts. Additionally, compared with L2 interaction, L1 interaction allows learners to focus more on language and task management in pair talk. Methodological and pedagogical implications are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document