1887
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Subject extraposition (e.g. ) is generally considered to be a formal construction that learners, whose writing is often said to be overly informal, have been found to struggle with. This study investigates to what extent register and text type can be used to explore learners’ reportedly “informal” use of this construction. Learner writing is compared to expert writing from several different registers and to native-speaker student writing. The results show that there are important differences across both registers and text types. Furthermore, while the learners’ use is most like that of the experts’ academic writing, certain similarities to the non-academic registers were also noted. The results additionally suggest that earlier claims about the informal status of learner writing seem mainly to have been influenced by the text types included in the corpora previously investigated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.17014.lar
2019-03-13
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ädel, A.
    (2006) Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.24
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2008) Involvement features in writing: Do time and interaction trump register awareness?InG. Gilquin, S. Papp & M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp.35–53). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401206204_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204_003 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2014) Selecting quantitative data for qualitative analysis: A case study connecting a lexicogrammatical pattern to rhetorical moves. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 68–80. 10.1016/j.jeap.2014.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M.
    (1998) The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. InS. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.80–93). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BNC-15
    BNC-15. Subset of the British National Corpus (BNC) sampled by Henrik KaatariatUppsala Universityin 2012.
  8. Burnard, L.
    (2007) Reference guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). Available at: www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG/ (accessedJune 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Callies, M.
    (2009) Information highlighting in advanced learner English. The syntax-pragmatics interface in second language acquisition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2013) Agentivity as a determinant of lexico-grammatical variation in L2 academic writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(3), 357–390. 10.1075/ijcl.18.3.05cal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.05cal [Google Scholar]
  11. Chafe, W.
    (1986) Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. InW. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp.261–272). Norwood: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davies, M.
    (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 Million Words 1990-present Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coca/ (accessedJune 2017).
  13. Evert, S.
    (2006) How random is a corpus? The library metaphor. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 54(2), 177–190. 10.1515/zaa‑2006‑0208
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2006-0208 [Google Scholar]
  14. Glynn, D.
    (2014) Correspondence analysis: An exploratory technique for identifying usage patterns. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods in cognitive semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.443–485). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
  15. Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M.
    (2009) International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2. Handbook + CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
  16. Granger, S., & Petch-Tyson, S.
    (1996) Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes: Journal of English as an International and Intranational Language, 15(1), 17–27. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1996.tb00089.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00089.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Gries, S. Th.
    (2007) Coll.analysis 3.2a. A Program for R for Windows 2.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Groom, N.
    (2005) Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–277. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hasselgren, A.
    (1994) Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237–260. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1994.tb00065.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00065.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Hasselgård, H.
    (2009) Thematic choice and expressions of stance in English argumentative texts by Norwegian learners. InK. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and Language Teaching (pp.121–139). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.33.12has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.33.12has [Google Scholar]
  21. Herriman, J., & Boström Aronsson, M.
    (2009) Themes in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. InK. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and Language Teaching (pp.101–120). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.33.11her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.33.11her [Google Scholar]
  22. Hewings, M., & Hewings, A.
    (2002) ‘It is interesting to note that…’: A comparative study of anticipatory it in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367–383. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(01)00016‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoey, M.
    (2005) Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaatari, H.
    (2016) Variation across two dimensions: Testing the Complexity Principle and the Uniform Information Density principle on adjectival data. English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 533–558. 10.1017/S1360674316000344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000344 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2017) Adjectives complemented by that- and to-clauses: Exploring semantico-syntactic relationships and genre variation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
  26. Kaltenböck, G.
    (2005) It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 119–159. 10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal [Google Scholar]
  27. Kassambara, A., & Mundt, F.
    (2017) factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.4. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra (accessedJune 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Larsson, T.
    (2014) Introducing the Advanced Learner English Corpus (ALEC): A new learner corpus. Poster presented atVU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20 January, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2016a) The introductory it pattern: Variability explored in learner and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 64–79. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2016b) The introductory it pattern in academic writing by non-native-speakers students, native-speaker students and published writers: A corpus-based study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
  31. (2017) The importance of, it is important that or importantly? The use of morphologically related stance markers in learner and expert writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(1), 57–85. 10.1075/ijcl.22.1.03lar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.03lar [Google Scholar]
  32. (2018) Is there a correlation between form and function? A syntactic and functional investigation of the introductory it pattern in student writing. ICAME journal, 42(1), 13–40. 10.1515/icame‑2018‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2018-0003 [Google Scholar]
  33. (Forthcoming). A syntactic analysis of the introductory it pattern in non-native-speaker and native-speaker student writing. InM. Mahlberg & V. Wiegand Eds. Corpus Linguistics, Context and Culture. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F.
    (2008) FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18. 10.18637/jss.v025.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee, D.
    (2001) Genres, registers, text-types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5(3), 37–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS)
    Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). Corpus compiled at the Centre for English Corpus Linguistics atUniversité catholique de Louvain in Belgium.
  37. Paquot, M., Hasselgård, H., & Oksefjell Ebeling, S.
    (2013) Writer/reader visibility in learner writing across genres: A comparison of the French and Norwegian components of the ICLE and VESPA learner corpora. InS. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking Back, Moving Ahead (pp.277–288). [Corpora and language in use – Proceedings 1]. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Petch-Tyson, S.
    (1998) Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. InS. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.107–118). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessedApril 2017).
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ramhöj, R.
    (2016) On clausal subjects and extraposition in the history of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  42. Römer, U.
    (2009) The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 140–162. 10.1075/arcl.7.06rom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.06rom [Google Scholar]
  43. Smith, E. L.
    (1986) Achieving impact through the interpersonal component. InB. Couture (Ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing (pp.108–119). London: Frances Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2005) Co-varying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tapper, M.
    (2005) Connectives in advanced Swedish EFL learners’ written English – preliminary results. Working Papers in English Linguistics, 5, 116–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhang, G.
    (2015) It is suggested that or it is better to? Forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 1–13. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.004 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.17014.lar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.17014.lar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): expert writing , extraposition , informality , learner writing and register
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