To what extent do L2 learners produce genre-appropriate language? A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in argumentative essays and speeches

IF 3.1 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Yu Kyoung Shin , Dong-Ok Won
{"title":"To what extent do L2 learners produce genre-appropriate language? A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in argumentative essays and speeches","authors":"Yu Kyoung Shin ,&nbsp;Dong-Ok Won","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>L2 English learners are often reported to incorporate features of spoken language into their academic writing, blurring the lines between written and spoken genres. However, previous corpus-based studies have predominantly focused on L2 writing, leaving L2 speaking relatively unexplored. It is thus unclear whether learners lack genre awareness – as previously claimed – or if they indeed attempt to differentiate their language across genres, but lack ability to do so. This study explores lexical bundles in academic L2 English in parallel corpora of written and spoken data produced by the <em>same</em> learners, with the <em>same</em> prompts pertaining to argumentation. The findings show that learners employ phrasal/referential bundles, typical of academic prose, significantly more in their essays than in their speeches, where clausal and stance-expressing bundles are more prevalent. Notably, the students were found to employ identical bundles differently in argumentative essays and argumentative speeches produced in response to the same prompts. This finding implies that learners may have a better understanding of how to use formulaic language in both spoken and written genres than previously believed, suggesting that they are aware of genre distinctions, although other factors related to mode (e.g., the cognitive demands of speaking vs. writing) are likely to be involved as well. Furthermore, in comparison with previous findings on L1 bundles, these findings hint at the possibility of argumentative genre conventions unique to L2 learners, in which, broadly, L2 argumentative speech resembles an L1 conversational genre, while L2 argumentative essays seem to navigate a middle path between conversational and academic prose conventions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000572","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

L2 English learners are often reported to incorporate features of spoken language into their academic writing, blurring the lines between written and spoken genres. However, previous corpus-based studies have predominantly focused on L2 writing, leaving L2 speaking relatively unexplored. It is thus unclear whether learners lack genre awareness – as previously claimed – or if they indeed attempt to differentiate their language across genres, but lack ability to do so. This study explores lexical bundles in academic L2 English in parallel corpora of written and spoken data produced by the same learners, with the same prompts pertaining to argumentation. The findings show that learners employ phrasal/referential bundles, typical of academic prose, significantly more in their essays than in their speeches, where clausal and stance-expressing bundles are more prevalent. Notably, the students were found to employ identical bundles differently in argumentative essays and argumentative speeches produced in response to the same prompts. This finding implies that learners may have a better understanding of how to use formulaic language in both spoken and written genres than previously believed, suggesting that they are aware of genre distinctions, although other factors related to mode (e.g., the cognitive demands of speaking vs. writing) are likely to be involved as well. Furthermore, in comparison with previous findings on L1 bundles, these findings hint at the possibility of argumentative genre conventions unique to L2 learners, in which, broadly, L2 argumentative speech resembles an L1 conversational genre, while L2 argumentative essays seem to navigate a middle path between conversational and academic prose conventions.

中级语言学习者能在多大程度上使用适合体裁的语言?对议论文和演讲中词组的比较分析
据报道,L2 英语学习者经常在学术写作中融入口语的特点,从而模糊了书面体裁和口语体裁之间的界限。然而,以前基于语料库的研究主要集中于 L2 写作,对 L2 口语的研究相对较少。因此,尚不清楚学习者是否像以前所说的那样缺乏体裁意识,或者他们是否确实试图区分不同体裁的语言,但却缺乏这样做的能力。本研究在由同一学习者制作的书面和口语数据的平行语料库中,以同样的论证提示探讨了学术二级英语中的词组。研究结果表明,学习者在论文中使用学术散文中典型的短语/指称词组的情况明显多于演讲,而演讲中则更多地使用分句和表达立场的词组。值得注意的是,学生们在根据相同的提示撰写的议论文和议论性演讲中使用的相同语束是不同的。这一发现意味着,学习者对如何在口语和书面体裁中使用公式化语言的理解可能比以前认为的要好,这表明他们意识到了体裁的区别,尽管其他与模式有关的因素(如口语与写作的认知要求)也可能参与其中。此外,与之前关于 L1 语束的研究结果相比,这些研究结果表明,L2 学习者可能有自己独特的论证体裁习惯,其中,L2 论证性演讲大致类似于 L1 会话体裁,而 L2 论证性散文似乎在会话和学术散文习惯之间走了一条中间道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of English for Academic Purposes provides a forum for the dissemination of information and views which enables practitioners of and researchers in EAP to keep current with developments in their field and to contribute to its continued updating. JEAP publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges in the linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic description of English as it occurs in the contexts of academic study and scholarly exchange itself.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信