아시아태평양코퍼스연구 (Asia Pacific Journal of Corpus Research)

국립인천대학교 코퍼스연구소 (Institute for Corpus Research)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Formulaic Language Development in Asian Learners of English: A Comparative Study of Phrase-frames in Written and Oral Production

  • 투고 : 2023.10.15
  • 심사 : 2023.12.08
  • 발행 : 2023.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Recent research in usage-based Second Language Acquisition has provided new insights into second language (L2) learners' development of formulaic language (Wulff, 2019). The current study examines the use of phrase-frames, which are recurring sequences of words including one or more variable slots (e.g., it is * that), in written and oral production data from Asian learners of English across four proficiency levels (beginner, low-intermediate, high-intermediate, advanced) and native English speakers. The variability, predictability, and discourse functions of the most frequent 4-word phrase-frames from the written essay and spoken dialogue sub-corpora of the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE) were analyzed and then compared across groups and modes. The results revealed that while learners' phrase-frames in writing became more variable and unpredictable as proficiency increased, no clear developmental patterns were found in speaking, although all groups used more fixed and predictable phrase-frames than the reference group. Further, no developmental trajectories in the functions of the most frequent phrase-frames were found in both modes. Additionally, lower-level learners and the reference group used more variable phrase-frames in speaking, whereas advanced-level learners showed more variability in writing. This study contributes to a better understanding of the development of L2 phraseological competence.

키워드

과제정보

This study was first presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL) 2023 Conference in Portland, OR. We express our gratitude to audience members who provided invaluable comments on our work.

참고문헌

  1. Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.0.5). [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
  2. Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275-311. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib
  3. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
  4. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371
  5. Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa
  6. Chan, H., Verspoor, M., & Vahtrick, L. (2015). Dynamic development in speaking versus writing in identical twins. Language Learning, 65(2), 298-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12107
  7. Chen, Y. H., & Baker, P. (2016). Investigating critical discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2, and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 849-880.
  8. Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3), 417-446. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00095
  9. Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17-44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000025
  10. Garner, J. R. (2016). A phrase-frame approach to investigating phraseology in learner writing across proficiency levels. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 2(1), 31-68. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.02gar
  11. Gilquin, G. (2015). The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners: A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11, 51-88. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0005
  12. Goldberg, A. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2013). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109-136. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.08gra
  14. Gries, S. T., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning 65(S1), 228-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119
  15. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
  16. Hwang, H., Jung, H., & Kim, H. (2020). Effects of written versus spoken production modalities on syntactic complexity measures in beginning-level child EFL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 267-283.
  17. Ishikawa, S. (2013). The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. Learner Corpus Studies in Asia and the World, 1, 91-118.
  18. Ishikawa, S. (2019). The ICNALE spoken dialogue: A new dataset for the study of Asian learners' performance in L2 English interviews. English Teaching (The Korea Association of Teachers of English), 74(4), 153-177. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.74.4.201912.153
  19. Ishikawa, S. (2023). The ICNALE Guide: An Introduction to a Learner Corpus Study on Asian Learners' L2 English. New York, NY: Routledge.
  20. Jukneviciene, R., & Grabowski, L. (2018). Comparing formulaicity of learner writing through phrase-frames: A corpus-driven study of Lithuanian and Polish EFL student writing. Research in Language, 16(3), 303-323.
  21. Kassambara, A. (n.d.). Kruskal-Wallis effect size. Retrieved April 26, 2022, from https://rpkgs.datanovia.com/rstatix/reference/kruskal_effsize.html
  22. Kumar, U., Kumar, V., & Kapur, J. N. (1986). Normalized measures of entropy. International Journal of General Systems, 12(1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081078608934927
  23. Larsson, T., Reppen, R., & Dixon, T. (2022). A phraseological study of highlighting strategies in novice and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60, 101179.
  24. Liu, L., Jiang, F., Du, Z. (2023). Figure legends of scientific research articles: Rhetorical moves and phrase frames. English for Specific Purposes, 70, 86-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.11.005
  25. Lu, X., Yoon, J., & Kisselev, O. (2018). A phrase-frame list for social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.004
  26. Mizumoto, A. (2023). Data-driven learning meets generative AI: Introducing the framework of metacognitive resource use. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 3, 100074.
  27. Nekrasova-Beker, T. (2009). English L1 and L2 speakers' knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning, 59(3), 647-686.
  28. Nekrasova-Beker, T. (2021). Use of phrase-frames in L2 students' oral production across proficiency sub-levels. Crawford, W. J. (Ed.), Multiple Perspectives on Learner Interaction: The Corpus of Collaborative Oral Tasks (pp. 41-68). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  29. Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  30. O'Donnell. M. B., Romer, U., & Ellis, N. (2013). The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83-108. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.07odo
  31. Paquot, M. (2013). Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(3). 391-417. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.3.06paq
  32. Paquot, M. (2014). Cross-linguistic influence and formulaic language: Recurrent word sequences in French learner writing. EUROSLA Yearbook, 14, 240-261. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.14.10paq
  33. Phuoc. V. D., & Barrot, J. S. (2022). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 writing across proficiency levels: A matter of L1 background? Assessing Writing, 54, 100673.
  34. Romer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 140-162. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.06rom
  35. Romer, U. (2010). Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type: The construction of meaning in academic book reviews. English Text Construction, 3(1), 95-119. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.3.1.06rom
  36. Romer, U., & Banerjee, J. (2017). Validating the MET speaking test through phraseological analysis: A corpus approach to language assessment. CaMLA Working Papers, 2017-01, 1-26.
  37. Romer, U., & Garner, J. R. (2019). The development of verb constructions in spoken learner English: Tracking effects of usage and proficiency. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5(2), 207-230. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17015.rom
  38. Tan, Y., & Romer, U. (2022). Using phrase-frames to trace the language development of L1 Chinese learners of English. System, 108, 1-10.
  39. Wulff, S. (2019). Acquisition of formulaic language from a usage-based perspective. In Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Pellicer-Sanchez, A. (Eds.), Understanding Formulaic Language: A Second Language Acquisition Perspective (pp. 19-37). New York, NY: Routledge.
  40. Xia, D., Sulzer, M. A., & Pae, H. K. (2023). Phrase-frames in business emails: A contrast between learners of business English and working professionals. Text & Talk, 1-22.