1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
  4. Volume 9, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the possible benefits of integrating an L1 novice corpus into the study of learner writing, through a study on hedging adverbials and complement clauses. A more traditional tripartite comparison is first drawn between French EFL learner writing, L1 English novice writing, and English expert writing. Then, a comparison is made between L1 French novice writing and French EFL learner writing. The study uses data from the following corpora: the (VESPA; Paquot et al., 2022) (French EFL learner writing), the (BAWE; Heuboeck et al., 2008) corpus and the (MICUSP; Ädel & Römer, 2012) (both L1 English novice writing), the (KIAP‑EN; Fløttum et al., 2006) corpus (English expert writing), and the The (FAR) corpus (L1 French novice writing). The results speak to the importance of including a L1 novice component to the current methodologies employed in Learner Corpus Research (LCR), since such inclusion helps to provide a better and more nuanced interpretation of the findings obtained by means of a more traditional tripartite approach.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.00033.jad
2024-02-08
2024-10-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.00033.jad
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ädel, A.
    (2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.24
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Ädel, A., & Römer, U.
    (2012) Research on advanced student writing across disciplines and levels. Introducing the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 3–34. 10.1075/ijcl.17.1.01ade
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.1.01ade [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (2006a) Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2006b) University language. A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Zhang, M.
    (2018) Lexis and grammar as complementary discourse systems for expressing stance and evaluation. InM. Gómez González & J. L. Mackenzie (Eds.), The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction (pp.201–226). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.296.08bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.08bib [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (1989) Styles of stance in English: lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D., Reppen, R., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
    (2020) Exploring the longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disciplinary writing of L2-English university students. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(1), 38–71. 10.1075/ijlcr.18007.bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.18007.bib [Google Scholar]
  10. Blanche-Benveniste, C.
    (2002) Phrase et construction verbale. VERBUM, XXIV(1), 7–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Boone, A.
    (1996) Les complétives et la modalisation. InC. Muller (Ed.), Dépendance et intégration syntaxique: Subordination, coordination, connexion (pp.45–51). Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110955286.45
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110955286.45 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brezina, V.
    (2020) Classical monofactorial (parametric and non-parametric) tests. InM. Paquot & S. Th. Gries (Eds.). A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp.473–503). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑46216‑1_20
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_20 [Google Scholar]
  13. Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Martı, L.
    (2015) Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 201, 192–202. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, H.-I.
    (2010) Contrastive learner corpus analysis of epistemic modality and interlanguage pragmatic competence in L2 writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 171, 27–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P.
    (2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen, Z.
    (2012) Expression of epistemic stance in EFL Chinese university students’ writing. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 173–179. 10.5539/elt.v5n10p173
     https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n10p173 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chevalier, G., & Léard, J.-M.
    (1996) La subordination nominale: classes, sous-classes et types sémantiques. InC. Muller (Ed.), Dépendance et intégration syntaxique: Subordination, coordination, connexion (pp.52–65). Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110955286.53
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110955286.53 [Google Scholar]
  18. Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, K.
    (2017) Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 461, 107–123. 10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dirdal, H.
    (2022) Cross-linguistic influence in the acquisition of relative clauses by Norwegian learners of English. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 327–351. 10.46364/njltl.v10i2.1079
     https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v10i2.1079 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dupont, M.
    (2019) Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French. From Syntax to Lexis and Discourse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université catholique de Louvain.
  21. Ebeling, S. O., & Hasselgård, H.
    (2015) Learners’ and native speakers’ use of recurrent word-combinations across disciplines. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies (BeLLS), 61, 87–106. 10.15845/bells.v6i0.810
     https://doi.org/10.15845/bells.v6i0.810 [Google Scholar]
  22. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z.
    (2012) Discovering Statistics Using R. SAGE.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T.
    (2006) Academic Voices. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.148
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.148 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilquin, G.
    (2008) Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: Detection, explanation, evaluation. InG. Gilquin, S. Papp, & M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research (pp.3–33). Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401206204_002
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204_002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
    (2007) Learner corpora: the missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 319–335. 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
    (2010) The Louvain EAP Dictionary (LEAD). InA. Dykstra & T. Schoonheim (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIV EURALEX International Congress (pp.321–326). Fryske Akademy.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gray, B., & Biber, D.
    (2014) Stance markers. InK. Ajimer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp.219–248). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gries, S. Th.
    (2013) Statistics for Linguistics with R. A practical introduction (2nd edition). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110307474
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307474 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hall, E. T., & Hall, R. H.
    (1990) Understanding cultural differences. Germans, French and Americans. Intercultural Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Heuboeck, A., Holmes, J., & Nesi, H.
    (2008) The BAWE corpus manual. www.reading.ac.uk/internal/appling/bawe/BAWE.documentation.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hinkel, E.
    (2005) Hedging, inflating and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1&2), 29–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hyland, K.
    (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hyland, K., & Milton, J.
    (1997) Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(97)90033‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hyland, K., & Sancho Guinda, C.
    (Eds.) (2012) Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgarve Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137030825
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hyland, K., & Tse, P.
    (2005) Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139. 10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jarvis, S.
    (2000) Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245–309. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00118
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00118 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jiang, F.
    (2015) Nominal stance construction in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 201, 90–102. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.07.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kanté, I.
    (2010) Mood and modality in finite noun complement clauses. A French-English contrastive study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(2), 267–290. 10.1075/ijcl.15.2.06kan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.2.06kan [Google Scholar]
  39. (2016) Contraintes syntaxiques et modales des noms recteurs dans la complétive finie en français. InF. Neveu, G. Bergounioux, M. H. Côté, J.-M. Fournier, L. Hriba, & S. Prévost (Eds.), Actes du CMLF 2016 – 5e Congrès mondial de Linguistique française. SHS Web of Conferences. 10.1051/shsconf/20162714007
     https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162714007 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2019) Le nom recteur et l’expression de la modalité en anglais et en français. Épilogos, 61, 243–164.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
    (2014) The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  42. Larsson, T.
    (2016) The introductory it pattern in academic writing by non-native-speaker students, native-speaker students and published writers: A corpus-based study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Uppsala University.
  43. (2017) A functional classification of the introductory-it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native speaker and native speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 481, 57–70. 10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2019) Grammatical stance marking across registers: Revisiting the formal-informal dichotomy. Register Studies, 1(2), 243–268.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Larsson, T., Reppen, R., & Dixon, T.
    (2022) A phraseological study of highlighting strategies in novice and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 601, 1–10. 10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101179
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101179 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee, J. J., Bychkovska, T., & Maxwell, J. D.
    (2019) Breaking the rules? A corpus-based comparison of informal features in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing. System, 801, 143–153. 10.1016/j.system.2018.11.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.010 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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, 331, 21–34. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  48. Leech, G.
    (1998) Preface. InS. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp.xiv–xx). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lorenz, G.
    (1999) Adjective intensification – Learners versus native speakers. A corpus study of argumentative writing. Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Molinier, C., & Levrier, F.
    (2000) Grammaire des adverbes. Description des formes en –ment. Droz.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Neff, J., Dafouz, E., Díez, M., Martínez, M., Prieto, R., & Rica-Peromingo, J.-P.
    (2003) Evidentiality and the construction of writer stance in native and non-native texts. InJ. Hladký (Ed.), Language and Function: To the Memory of Jan Fibras (pp.223–235). John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.49.16nef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.49.16nef [Google Scholar]
  52. Nesi, H.
    (2008) BAWE: An Introduction to a New Resource. InA. Frankenberg-Garcia, R. Tawfiq, M. do Rosiario Braga da Cruz, R. Carvvalho, C. Direito, & D. Santos-Rosa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Teaching and Language Conference (pp.239–246). Instituto Superior de Linguas e Administracao.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U.
    (2012) From student hard drive to web corpus (part 2): the annotation and online distribution of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 7(1), 1–18. 10.3366/cor.2012.0015
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2012.0015 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pan, F., Reppen, R., & Biber, D.
    (2016) Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 211, 60–71. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Paquot, M.
    (2010) Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (2017) L1 frequency in foreign language acquisition: Recurrent word combinations in French and Spanish EFL learner writing. Second Language Research, 33(1), 13–32. 10.1177/0267658315620265
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315620265 [Google Scholar]
  57. Paquot, M., Larsson, T., Hasselgård, H., Ebeling, S. O., De Meyere, D., Valentin, L., Laso, N. J., Verdaguer, I., & van Vuuren, S.
    (2022) The Varieties of English for Specific Purposes dAtabase (VESPA): Towards a multi-L1 and multi-register learner corpus of disciplinary writing. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 1–15. 10.32714/ricl.10.02.02
     https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.10.02.02 [Google Scholar]
  58. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
    (2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. 10.1111/lang.12079
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  59. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Römer, U.
    (2009) English in academia: Does nativeness matter?Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 20(2), 89–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 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. 10.3366/cor.2011.0011
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2011.0011 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rørvik, S.
    (2021) Cross-disciplinary and cross-linguistic uses of tensed verb phrases in the methods sections of master’s theses. InA. Čermáková, T. Egan, H. Hasselgård, & S. Rørvik (Eds.), Times in Languages, Languages in Time. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.101.11ror
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.101.11ror [Google Scholar]
  63. Salazar, D.
    (2014) Lexical Bundles in Native and Non-native Scientific Writing: Applying a corpus-based study to language teaching. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.65
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.65 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schweinberger, M.
    (2020) A corpus-based analysis of differences in the use of very for adjective amplification among native speakers and learners of English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(2), 163–192. 10.1075/ijlcr.20011.sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20011.sch [Google Scholar]
  65. Scott, M., & Tribble, C.
    (2006) Textual patterns. Key words and corpus analysis in language education. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.22
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.22 [Google Scholar]
  66. Shin, Y. K.
    (2019) Do native writers always have a head start over nonnative writers? The use of lexical bundle in college students’ essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 401, 1–14. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.04.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sian, A., & Nesi, H.
    (2009) Issues in the development of the British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus. Corpora, 4(1), 71–83. 10.3366/E1749503209000227
     https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503209000227 [Google Scholar]
  68. Staples, S., & Reppen, R.
    (2016) Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 321, 17–35. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  69. Ströbel, M., Kerz, E., & Wiechmann, D.
    (2020) The relationship between first and second language writing: Investigating the effects of first language complexity on second language complexity in advanced stages of learning. Language Learning, 70(3), 732–767. 10.1111/lang.12394
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12394 [Google Scholar]
  70. Su, H., Zhang, Y., & Chau, M. H.
    (2022) Exemplification in Chinese English-major MA students’ and expert writers’ academic writing: A local grammar based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 581, 1–12. 10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101120
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101120 [Google Scholar]
  71. Taqvist, M. K.
    (2018) “A wise decision”: Pre-modification of discourse-organizing nouns in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 411, 14–26. 10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  72. Vold, E. T.
    (2008) Modalité épistémique et discours scientifique. Une étude contrastive des modalisateurs épistémiques dans des articles de recherche français, norvégiens et anglais, en linguistique et médecine (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bergen.
  73. Wang, J., & Jiang, F.
    (2018) Epistemic stance and authorial presence in scientific research writing. Hedges, boosters and self-mentions across disciplines and writer groups. InP. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on Research Writing (pp.195–216). John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.18.09wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.09wan [Google Scholar]
  74. Wei, Y., & Lei, L.
    (2011) Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC, 42(2), 155–166. 10.1177/0033688211407295
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688211407295 [Google Scholar]
  75. Wulff, S., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2021) Exploring individual variation in learner corpus research: Methodological suggestions. InB. S. W. Le Bruyn & M. Paquot (Eds.), Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition (pp.191–213). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Yang, Y.
    (2013) Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50 (1), 23–36. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.00033.jad
Loading
L1 novice writing as a missing piece in the Learner Corpus Research puzzle
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9, 180 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.00033.jad
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.00033.jad
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.00033.jad
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): hedging; L1 novice writing; learner corpus research; learner writing

Most Cited

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