1887
image of Repetitive bundles in Malaysian learner writing
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

One way to investigate learner writing is by analyzing the most frequently recurring sequences of words, that is, lexical bundles. This paper presents results for lexical bundles analyses of a Malaysian corpus (MCSAW) against its reference language variety, LOCNESS (Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays). Key 4-word lexical bundles are firstly investigated in terms of their frequencies as well as distribution in both corpora. Following this, key lexical bundles are further categorized and analyzed according to their functions, including qualitative analysis of the most recurrent bundles by examination of concordance lines. Results show that learners use simple types of lexical bundles repeatedly compared to their native speaker counterparts. Evidence of tautology can also be found in learner writing. The findings highlight that using lexical bundles appropriately is important to achieve native-like fluency, while the absence of more varied lexical bundles in learners’ discourse may result in unidiomatic-sounding writing style.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.19028.joh
2020-08-06
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ädel, A., & Erman, B.
    (2012) Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81–92. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bednarek, M.
    (2008) “An increasingly familiar tragedy”: Evaluative collocation and conflation. Functions of Language, 15(1), 7–34. 10.1075/fol.15.1.03bed
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15.1.03bed [Google Scholar]
  3. Beng, C. O. S., & Keong, Y. C.
    (2015) Functional types of lexical bundles in reading texts of Malaysian University English Test: A corpus study. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 15(1), 77–90. 10.17576/GEMA‑2015‑1501‑05
    https://doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2015-1501-05 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S.
    (2014) Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 28–41. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F.
    (2007) Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286. 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
    (2003) Lexial bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. InA. Wilson, P. Rayson & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune (pp.71–93). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2004) If you look at ...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. 10.1093/applin/25.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  8. Botley, S. P.
    (2010, December). A corpus-based comparison of idiom use by Malaysian, British and American students. Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Science and Social Research (CSSR 2010). doi:  10.1109/CSSR.2010.5773752
    https://doi.org/10.1109/CSSR.2010.5773752 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brookes, G., & Harvey, K.
    (2016) Examining the discourse of mental illness in a corpus of online advice-seeking messages. InL. Pickering, E. Friginal & S. Staples (Eds.), Talking at work: Corpus-based explorations of workplace discourse (pp.209–234). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑49616‑4_9
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49616-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P.
    (2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2014) Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 1–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ebeling, S. O.
    (2011) Recurrent word-combinations in English student essays. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 49–76. 10.35360/njes.242
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.242 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ebeling, S. O., & Hasselgård, H.
    (2015) Learners’ and native speakers’ use of recurrent word combinations across disciplines. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies (BeLLS), 6, 87–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P.
    (2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferris, D. R.
    (1994) Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(1), 45–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T.
    (2017) Exploring learner language through corpora: Comparing and interpreting corpus frequency information. Language Learning, 67(S1), 130–154. 10.1111/lang.12226
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12226 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilquin, G., & Granger, S.
    (2015) Learner language. InD. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp.418–435). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.024 [Google Scholar]
  18. Götz, S., & Schilk, M.
    (2011) Formulaic sequences in spoken ENL, ESL and EFL: Focus on British English, Indian English and learner English of advanced German learners. InJ. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (Eds.), Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: Bridging a paradigm gap (pp.79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.44.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.44.05sch [Google Scholar]
  19. Hajar, A. R.
    (2014) Corpora in language research in Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia, 32, 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hyland, K.
    (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21. 10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Imm, T. S.
    (2009) Lexical borrowing from Chinese languages in Malaysian English. World Englishes, 28(4), 451–484. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2009.01607.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01607.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Ishikawa, S.
    (2014) Design of the ICNALE-spoken: A new database for multi-modal interlanguage analysis. InS. Ishikawa (Ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world (Vol.2, pp.63–76). Kobe, Japan: Kobe University.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jaworska, S.
    (2017) Corpora and corpus linguistic approaches to studying business language. InG. Mautner & F. Rainer (Eds.), Handbook of business communication: Linguistic approaches (pp.583–606). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614514862‑024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514862-024 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kamariah, Y., & Su’ad, A.
    (2011) Collocational competence among Malaysian undergraduate law students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 7(1), 151–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kashiha, H., & Heng, C. S.
    (2014) Discourse functions of formulaic sequences in academic speech across two disciplines. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(2), 15–27. 10.17576/GEMA‑2014‑1402‑02
    https://doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1402-02 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, D. Y. W., & Chen, S. X.
    (2009) Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 149–165. 10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  28. McEnery, T., & Hardie, A.
    (2012) Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S.
    (2016) Impact of source texts and prompts on students’ genre uptake. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 11–24. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mohamed Ismail, A. K., Begi, N., & Vaseghi, R.
    (2013) A corpus-based study of Malaysian ESL learners’ use of modals in argumentative compositions. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 146–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mukundan, J., & Kalajahi, S. A. R.
    (2013) Malaysian corpus of students’ argumentative writing (MCSAW). Victoria, Australia: Lulu Press Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mukundan, J., Khairil Anuar, S., Razalina, I., & Nur Hairunnisa, J. Z.
    (2013) Malaysian ESL students’ syntactic accuracy in the usage of English modal verbs in argumentative writing. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 98–105. 10.5539/elt.v6n12p98
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n12p98 [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Donnell, M., Römer, U., & Ellis, N.
    (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, 83–108. 10.1075/ijcl.18.1.07odo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.07odo [Google Scholar]
  34. Peromingo, J. R.
    (2012) Corpus analysis and phraseology: Transfer of multi-word units. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 6(1–3), 321–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sardinha, T. B., & Pinto, M. V.
    (2017) American television and off-screen registers: A corpus-based comparison. Corpora, 12(1), 85–114. 10.3366/cor.2017.0110
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2017.0110 [Google Scholar]
  36. Scott, M.
    (2012) WordSmith Tools. (Version 6.0). [Computer Software]. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software. Retrieved fromlexically.net/wordsmith/downloads/
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2015) WordSmith Tools help. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Scott, M., & Tribble, C.
    (2006) Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/scl.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.22 [Google Scholar]
  39. Simpson, R.
    (2004) Stylistic features of academic speech: The role of formulaic expressions. InT. Upton & U. Connor (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp.37–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.16.03sim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16.03sim [Google Scholar]
  40. Staples, S., & Fernández, J.
    (2019) Corpus linguistics approaches to L2 pragmatics research. InN. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp.241–254). Abingdon/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351164085‑16
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-16 [Google Scholar]
  41. Staples, S., Egber, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A.
    (2013) Formulaic sequences and EAP development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 214–225. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  42. Thewissen, J.
    (2013) Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error tagged EFL learner corpus. Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 77–101. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01422.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01422.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Wray, A.
    (1999) Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32, 213–231. 10.1017/S0261444800014154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800014154 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.19028.joh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/aral.19028.joh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error