Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing

Cock, Sylvie De

doi:10.1163/9789004490758_006

Cited by 62 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there are also contrary findings in a number of studies. De Cock (2000) failed to confirm the hypothesis of "learner individual bricks and NS prefabricated sections" and reported higher frequencies of lexical bundle use by learners than NS speakers in interview speech. In writing, Hyland (2008a) concluded that less proficient writers tend to make greater use of lexical bundles in text construction.…”

Section: Proficiency Levelsmentioning

confidence: 87%

I Think We Should…

Yan

2022

International Journal of Translation, Interpretation, and Applied Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-frequency recurrent word combinations known as lexical bundles are an essential component in the second language development. However, existing research on second language lexical bundle use has focused on writing proficiency, while oral proficiency has not received adequate attention. This study adopts a corpus-driven approach to the investigation of the speech of second language learners, comparing lexical bundle use across proficiency levels in several areas of interest including frequency, functional distribution and bundle fixedness. Results show that low-proficiency students tend to use significantly more context-dependent bundles than high-proficiency students, but do not differ in overall lexical bundle use. The patterning of lexical bundle use in non-native speech exhibits features that are typical in the register of classroom teaching. Additionally, the frequency and functional distributions of non-native speech share many similarities with those of non-native writing. Implications of the author's findings are discussed in relation to previous studies.

show abstract

Section: Proficiency Levelsmentioning

confidence: 87%

I Think We Should…

Yan

2022

International Journal of Translation, Interpretation, and Applied Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, to date, no study has examined learners’ errors with non-formulaic vs. formulaic forms to compare with the findings of this study. However, learner corpora contain a plethora of ‘learner idiosyncratic combinations’ and ‘sequences that are used by learners only’ (De Cock, 2000, p. 58). In line with the findings of studies analysing learner corpora (Granger, 2019; Howarth, 1996; Laufer & Waldman, 2011; Nesselhauf, 2005), this study’s findings showed that learners make numerous errors with FSs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Granger, 2019), and erroneous use of FSs (e.g. De Cock, 2000; Howarth, 1996; Nesselhauf, 2005). For instance, Nesselhauf (2005) examined advanced L2 learners’ written errors with collocations and reported that almost half of the collocations written by learners were erroneous.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic vs. formulaic errors

Gholami

2021

Language Teaching Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive number of corrective feedback (CF) studies have examined learners’ errors with grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and spelling (non-formulaic forms) and established an association between learners’ uptake of CF and their second language development. However, learners’ errors with formulaic sequences (FSs) comprising idioms, collocations, lexical bundles, and compounds (formulaic forms) have received scant attention in CF research. This study investigated any associations among formulaic vs. non-formulaic errors, CF types, uptake, and successful uptake rate by drawing on the audio-recordings of 36 hours of primarily meaning-oriented teacher–learner interactions in three advanced English as a foreign language classes. The findings demonstrated that learners made more errors with FSs, whereas CF was provided significantly more often for their non-formulaic errors. Learners’ non-formulaic and formulaic errors were treated significantly more frequently through recasts and elicitations, respectively. Uptake and successful uptake rate was significantly higher when CF was provided for learners’ formulaic errors than non-formulaic ones, which could be explained by relatively greater saliency, significance, and noticeability of FSs. The findings of log-linear analyses indicated that uptake and successful uptake rate varied depending on formulaic vs. non-formulaic foci of errors and CF types.

show abstract

“…A large number of studies on traditional academic genres have dealt with lexical bundles related to discourse style and register variation. Some have compared the characteristics of different registers, such as textbooks and classroom discourse (Biber et al, 2004;Biber & Barbieri, 2007), or the behaviour of native and non-native English speakers (De Cock, 2000;Chen & Baker, 2010;Ädel & Erman, 2012;Pérez-Llantada, 2014) and student vs. expert academic writers (Cortes, 2004;Hyland, 2008;Chen & Baker, 2010).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A lexical bundle analysis of art-related crowdfunding projects

Vela-Rodrigo

2023

Ibérica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of Open Science, crowdfunding projects are gaining increasing attention. They are becoming an alternative way of funding research and an opportunity for researchers across the disciplines to share and disseminate their work widely while engaging their potential backers. The aim of this paper is to analyze crowdfunding projects online by examining language-in-use at the level of phraseology, understanding the latter from a lexical bundle approach. Using corpus analytical approaches, the study findings show that there is a recurrence of lexical bundles conveying deontic meanings used to persuade the potential backers that the project and the research methods proposed for carrying it out are reliable and therefore trustable. Lexical bundles expressing gratitude and politeness are also recurrent, not unexpected considering that crowdfunding proposals aim to prompt the audience’s participation through donation. The findings further reveal how distinct discourse style and language features especially frequent in the conversational register realise the main communicative purpose of the genre, namely, to build credibility and trust in research with a view to persuasively enticing the backers’ audiences to donate money.

show abstract

Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing

Cited by 62 publications

References 0 publications

I Think We Should…

I Think We Should…

Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic vs. formulaic errors

A lexical bundle analysis of art-related crowdfunding projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About