Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Shell noun (SN) use in learner writing has been studied in terms of SN choices and SN pattern choices, but less so in terms of SN-pattern co-selection (i.e. patterns are used with SNs). This study examined English SN choices and their preferred lexicogrammatical patterns in argumentative essays by speakers of Turkish and Japanese in order to find SN-pattern attraction in learner writing, compared to SN use in writing of native English speakers. Results indicate that learners understand SN functions, given pattern frequencies comparable to those of native speakers. However, there were differences among groups in which SNs were most strongly attracted to or repelled by the SN patterns. This prompted a qualitative investigation. Findings of non-native SN use are discussed with respect to word-sense categories and clause marking. Suggestions are made for further research.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aktas, R. & Cortes, V.
    2008 “Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing”, Journal of English for Specific Purposes7, 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Benitez-Castro, M. A.
    2015 “Coming to grips with shell-nounhood: A critical review of insights into the meaning, function and form of shell-noun phrases”, Australian Journal of Linguistics35(2), 168–194. doi: 10.1080/07268602.2015.1005001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2015.1005001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benitez-Castro, M. A. & Thompson, P.
    2015 “Shell-nounhood in academic discourse: A critical state-of-the-art review”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics20(3), 378–404. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.20.3.05ben
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.3.05ben [Google Scholar]
  4. Centre for English Corpus Linguistics
    Centre for English Corpus Linguistics 2016: online. The Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). Available at: https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ilc/cecl/locness.html (accessedJune 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cromwell, B.
    2016: online. Word order in Turkish sentences. Available at: cromwell-intl.com/turkish/word-order.html (accessedMarch 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Davies, M.
    2008: online. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 Million Words, 1990-Present. Available at: corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ellis, N.
    2006 “Language acquisition as rational contingency learning”, Applied Linguistics27(1), 1–24. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami038
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038 [Google Scholar]
  8. Flowerdew, J.
    2006 “Use of signaling nouns in a learner corpus”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics11(3), 345–362. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.11.3.07flo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.3.07flo [Google Scholar]
  9. 2010 “Use of signaling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15(1), 36–55. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.02flo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.02flo [Google Scholar]
  10. Flowerdew, J. & Forest, R. W.
    2015Signalling Nouns in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139135405
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139135405 [Google Scholar]
  11. Garside, R.
    1987: online. “Using CLAWS to annotate the British National Corpus”. Available at: www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/garside_allc.html (accessedOctober 2013).
  12. Gilquin, G.
    2010Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.39
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.39 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldberg, A. E.
    2003 “Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language”, Trends in Cognitive Science7(5), 219–224. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Granger, S.
    1996 “From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora”. In K. Aijmer , B. Altenberg , & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in Contrast: Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies. Lund: University of Lund, 37–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Granger, S. & Tyson, S.
    1996 “Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English”, World Englishes15(1), 17–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1996.tb00089.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00089.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Granger, S. , Dagneaux, E. , Meunier, F. , & Paquot, M.
    (Eds.) 2009The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2 (Handbook + CD-ROM). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gries, S. Th.
    2007Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x. Retrieved from www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/teaching/groningen/coll.analysis.r.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gries, S. Th. , Hampe, B. , & Schӧnefeld, D.
    2005 “Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions”, Cognitive Linguistics16(4), 635–676. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gries, S. Th. , & Stefanowitsch, A.
    2004 “Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9(1), 97–129. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S.
    2009 “Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting and corpora”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics3, 182–200. doi: 10.1075/arcl.3.10gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri [Google Scholar]
  22. Hasselgård, H.
    2012 “ Facts, ideas, questions, problems, and issues in advanced learners’ English”, Nordic Journal of English Studies11(1), 22–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hilpert, M.
    2014 Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.43.15hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.15hil [Google Scholar]
  24. Hinkel, E.
    2001 “Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts”, Applied Language Learning12(2), 111–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoey, M.
    2004 “Textual colligation: A special kind of lexical priming”, Language and Computers49(1), 171–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2005Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203327630
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203327630 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ivanić, R.
    1991 “Nouns in search of a context”, International Review of Applied Linguistics29(2), 93–114. doi: 10.1515/iral.1991.29.2.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1991.29.2.93 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuno, S.
    1973The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mahlberg, M.
    2005English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.20 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2006 “Corpus linguistic theory and its application in ELT”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics11(3), 363–383. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.11.3.08mah
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.3.08mah [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R.
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  32. Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Paper (MICUSP)
    Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Paper (MICUSP) 2009 The Regents of the University of Michigan. Available at: micusp.elicorpora.info/.
  33. Nesi, H. & Moreton, E.
    2012 “EFL/ESL writers and the use of shell nouns”. In R. Tang (Ed.), Academic Writing in a Second or Foreign Language: Issues and Challenges facing ESL/EFL Academic Writers in Higher Education Contexts. London: Continuum, 126–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ōno, S.
    1970The Origin of the Japanese Language. Tokyo: Kokusai Bunka Shinkokai [Japan Cultural Society].
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Pakenham, K. J. , McEntire, J. , & Williams, J.
    2013Making Connections: Skills and Strategies for Academic Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Paquot, M.
    2013 “Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(3), 391–417. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.18.3.06paq
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.06paq [Google Scholar]
  37. Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L.
    2014 “How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research”, Language Learning64(4), 878–912. doi: 10.1111/lang.12079
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schmid, H. J.
    2000English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110808704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2010a “Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment?” In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 101–133. doi: 10.1515/9783110226423.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.101 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2010b “Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels”. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Scott, M.
    2008WordSmith Tools. Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Stefanowitsch, A.
    2013 “Collostructional analysis”. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 290–306.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Vinka, M.
    (1993) The syntax of three Japanese postpositions. Working Papers 40 , University of Lund Department of Linguistics , 229–250.
  44. Wulff, S. & Römer, U.
    2009 “Becoming a proficient academic writer: Shifting lexical preferences in the use of the progressive”, Corpora4(2), 115–133. doi: 10.3366/E1749503209000276
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503209000276 [Google Scholar]

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