Frequency and Functions of Non-Finite Clauses in Native and Non-Native Academic Texts

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3, 957 - 970, 30.11.2023

Samet Taşçı

https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1319337

Öz

Non-finite clauses are one of the elements considered as an index of syntactic complexity, which is a distinguishing feature of academic register. In this sense, the current study aims to reveal the frequency and syntactic functions of non-finite clauses in the academic writings of non-native and native English students. In order to reach this aim, a specialized corpus with two sub-corpora consisting of the MA and PhD theses of natives and non-natives was compiled. The native and non-native corpora were similar in terms of size and the topics of the texts. The data were analyzed using the Antconc concordancing tool, and the log-likelihood tool was used to calculate the significance of the findings. The result of the study showed that non-natives significantly underused the non-finite clauses in their academic texts compared to their native counterparts. Although there is a statistically significant difference in terms of the overall frequency of non-finite clauses, the distribution of the forms of the non-finite clauses was found to be balanced in NS and NNS texts. That is, both NSs and NNSs used bare infinitives less frequently and to infinitival most frequently in academic papers. In terms of the syntactic functions of the non-finite clauses, adjectival (adnominal) was used more frequently and nominals were used less frequently in both corpora. The findings of this study were compared with the previous findings, and educational implications were presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Functions, non-finite, academic register, non-natives, corpus.

Destekleyen Kurum

yok

Proje Numarası

proje değildir.

Teşekkür

I would like to thank to anonymous reviewer who contributed to this study.

Anadil ve Yabancı Dil konuşuru Akademik İngilizcesinde Yüklemi Çekimsiz Yan Cümlelerin Sıklığı ve İşlevleri

Öz

Yüklemi çekimsiz yan cümleler, akademik söylemin ayırt edici özelliklerinden biri olan sözdizimsel karmaşıklığın bir belirleyicisi olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu bağlamda bu çalışma, anadili İngilizce olan ve anadili İngilizce olmayan öğrencilerin akademik yazınlarında yüklemi çekimsiz yan cümlelerin sıklık ve sözdizimsel işlevlerini ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda anadil ve yabancı dil konuşuru yazarların lisansüstü tezlerinden oluşan aynı büyüklükte ve benzer konuları içeren özelleştirilmiş derlemler oluşturulmuştur. Veriler Antconc yazılımı ile analiz edilmiş ve bulguların arasında farklılık olup olmadığı log-likelihood yazılımı ile belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucu anadili İngilizce olmayan yazarların yüklemi çekimsiz yan cümleleri anadili İngilizce olan yazarlara kıyasla önemli ölçüde daha az kullandıklarını göstermiştir. Yüklemi çekimsiz yan cümlelerin genel sıklığı açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olmasına rağmen, türlerinin dağılımının her iki derlemde de dengeli olduğu görülmüştür. Yani, anadili İngilizce olan ve olmayan yazarlar akademik yazınlarında en az yalın eylemliliği kullanırken en sık mastarları kullanmıştır. Yüklemi çekimsiz yan cümlelerin sözdizimsel işlevleri açısından her iki derlemde de niteleyici yan cümlelerin daha sık ad yan cümleleri daha az kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışmada elde edilen bulgular daha önceki bulgularla karşılaştırılmış ve eğitsel çıkarımlar sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sözdizimsel işlev, yüklemi çekimsiz yan cümle, akademik söylem, derlem.

Proje Numarası

proje değildir.

Kaynakça

• Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
• Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
• Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol. 2). MIT Press.
• Brinton, J. L. (2000). The structure of modern English: A linguistic introduction. John Benjamin Publishing Company.
• Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide; spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge University Press.
• Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language (Technical Report no. 5), National Center for The Study of Writing. New York.
• Chang, C. F., & Kuo, C. H. (2011). A corpus-based approach to online materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.001
• Cosme, C. (2008). Participle clauses in learner English: The role of transfer. In G. Gilquin, S. Papp, & M. B. Diez Bedmar (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp. 177–200). Rodopi.
• Eastwood, J. (1994). Oxford Guide to English grammar. Oxford University Press.
• Flowerdew, L. (2002). The exploitation of small learner corpora in EAP materials. In M. Ghandessy, A. Henry and R. L. Roseberry (Eds.) Small Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and Practice. John Benjamins.
• Gelderen, E. V. (2010). An introduction to the grammar of English. Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
• Granger, S. (1997). On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: native and non-native writers compared. In: Aarts, J., I. de Mönnink, E., & Wekker, H. (Eds.), Studies in English language research and teaching (pp. 185–198). Rodopi.
• Greenbaum, S. (1988). Syntactic devices for compression in English. Essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th Birthday. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag, 3-10.
• Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (2002). An introduction to English grammar. Pearson Education.
• Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. Tesol Quarterly, 37(2), 275-301. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588505
• Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x
• Jeffies, L., (2006). Discovering language: The structure of modern English. Palgrave Macmillan
• Kasparė, L., & Danilevičienė, L. (2014). Some cases of syntactic compression in English and their translation into Lithuanian. Language in Different Contexts/Kalba ir Kontekstai, 267-280.
• Koester, A. (2010). Building small specialised corpora. In McCarthy, M. and O’Keeffe, A. (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Routledge.
• Koyalan, A., & Mumford, S. (2011, April). Changes to English as an Additional Language writers’ research articles: From spoken to written register. English for Specific Purposes, 30(2), 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.10.001
• Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (2002) A Communicative Grammar of English. Longman: Pearson Education.
• Malá, M. (2013). Notes on norms and usage of finite/ non-finite predication in written English. Brno Studies in English, 39(1), 27-40.
• O'Donnell, R. C. (1974). Syntactic differences between speech and writing. American Speech, 102-110.
• Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied linguistics, 24(4), 492- 518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
• Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A grammar of contemporary English. Longman.
• Rafajlovičová, R. (2008). The distribution of finite and non-finite subordinate clauses according to text type. Linguistics Journal: Discourse and Interaction, 1(2), 64-72.
• Rafajlovičová, R. (2013). Subordinate clauses- their forms and functions in different text types. In: A. Kačmárová (ed), English Matters IV: A collection of papers by the Institute of British and American Studies, (pp. 42-48). Prešov.
• Schleppegrell, M. J. (2002). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and education, 12(4), 431- 459. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0898-5898(01)00073-0
• Schwartz, M., & Causarano, P. N. L. (2007). The role of frequency in SLA: an analysis of gerunds and infinitives in ESL written discourse. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 14, 43-57.
• Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. Tesol Quarterly, 657-677. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587400
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
• Verspoor, M., & Sauter, K. (2000). English sentence analysis: An introductory course. John Benjamin Publishing Company.
• Yang, B. (2014). Using non-finite in English academic writing by Chinese EFL students. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p42