1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Register Studies
  4. Volume 3, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

To complement earlier studies of writing development in the BAWE corpus of successful student writing (Nesi & Gardner 2012Staples et al. 2016), we examine the Systemic Functional Linguistics notion of Theme as used by L2 writers across first- and third-year and in two distinctive discourse types: persuasive/argumentative Discursive writing of assignments in the soft disciplines and Experimental report writing of assignments in the hard sciences. Theme analysis reveals more substantial differences across the two discourse types than between first- and third-year L2 undergraduate writing. Textual Themes are consistently more frequent than interpersonal Themes, and some variance is found within subcategories of each. Significant differences in lexical density occur across third-year discourse types and between first- and third-year Experimental writing where a predominance of N+N topical Themes is also found. These findings are important as previous research has tended to focus on L1 Discursive writing.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20018.che
2021-11-30
2024-10-10

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.20018.che
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aull, L., & Lancaster, Z.
    (2014) Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2):151–183. 10.1177/0741088314527055
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055 [Google Scholar]
  2. Chang, P., & Lee, M.
    (2019) Exploring textual and interpersonal Themes in the expository essays of college students of different linguistic backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes, 54:75–90. 10.1016/j.esp.2019.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Dewaele, J. M.
    (2018) Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘native versus non-native speaker’. Applied Linguistics, 39(2):236–240.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Ebeling, S., & Wickens, P.
    (2012) Interpersonal Themes and author stance in student writing. Language and Computers, 74(1):23–40. 10.1163/9789401207478_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401207478_004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Gao, W.
    (2012) Nominalization in medical papers: A comparative study. Studies in Literature and Language, 4(1), 86–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Gardner, S.
    (2008) ‘Mapping Ideational Meaning in a Corpus of Student Writing’ inC. Jones & E. Ventola (eds) New Developments in the Study of Ideational Meaning. London: Equinox Publishing, 169–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D.
    (2019) Discipline, Level, Genre: Integrating Situational Perspectives in a New MD Analysis of University Student Writing, Applied Linguistics, 40(4):646–674. doi:  10.1093/applin/amy005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005 [Google Scholar]
  8. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    (2014) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th Edition. London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Han, C., & Gardner, S.
    (2021) However and other transitions in the Han CH-EN corpus. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 100984. 10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100984
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100984 [Google Scholar]
  11. Harwood, N.
    (2005) ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted … In this article I aim to do just that’ A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207–1231. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hasselgård, H.
    (2009) Thematic choice and expressions of stance in English argumentative texts by Norwegian learners. Corpora and language teaching, 33:121–139. 10.1075/scl.33.12has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.33.12has [Google Scholar]
  13. He, M.
    (2020) A review on studies of Theme in academic writing. Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 4(3). doi:  10.26689/jcer.v4i3.1116
     https://doi.org/10.26689/jcer.v4i3.1116 [Google Scholar]
  14. Herriman, J.
    (2011) Themes and Theme progression in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10(1):1–28. 10.35360/njes.240
     https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.240 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hewings, A. & North, S.
    (2006) Emergent disciplinarity: a comparative study of Theme in undergraduate essays in geography and history of science. InWhittacker, R., O’Donnell, M. & A. McCabe (eds) Language and Literacy: Functional Approaches. London: Continuum. 264–281.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Jing, W.
    (2014) Theme and thematic progression in learner English: A literature review. Columbian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(1):67–80. 10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2014.1.a06
     https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2014.1.a06 [Google Scholar]
  17. Leedham, M.
    (2015) Chinese Students’ Writing in English: Implications from a corpus-driven study. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Lu, X.
    (2017) Automated measurement of syntactic complexity in corpus-based L2 writing research and implications for writing assessment. Language Testing, 34(4):493–511. 10.1177/0265532217710675
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217710675 [Google Scholar]
  19. Martin, J. R.
    (1993) Life as a Noun: Arresting the Universe in Science and Humanities. InHalliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press, 221–267.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2002) Meaning beyond the clause: SFL perspectives. ARAL22:52–74. 10.1017/S026719050200003X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719050200003X [Google Scholar]
  21. Parkinson, J., & Musgrave, J.
    (2014) Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14:48–59. 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nesi, H. & Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in Higher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009030199
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030199 [Google Scholar]
  23. North, S.
    (2005) Disciplinary variation in the use of Theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 431–452. 10.1093/applin/ami023
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami023 [Google Scholar]
  24. O’Donnell, M.
    (2014) The UAM Corpus Tool 3.4.16www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2016) Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2):149–183. 10.1177/0741088316631527
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20018.che
Loading
L2 Theme development in Discursive and Experimental undergraduate student writing
Register Studies 3, 247 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20018.che
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20018.che
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20018.che
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic writing across disciplines; BAWE corpus; second language writing development; Theme

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