Computerized corpus as a tool for educational technology and learning in the analysis of four-word recurrent expressions

Abstract

The study aimed to investigate the disciplinary variations and the structural/functional features of recurrent expressions in the introduction and literature sections of the Master of Arts (MA) theses in two corpora. It is significant since the bundles fulfil specific functions in the form of formulaic language. The sampling of the study was Turkish and British academic writers. Their essays mainly based on academic argumentative topics were selected as analysis data. Data collection included compilation and categorization of the computerized corpora for possible differences and similarities. Sketch Engine, an online text analysis tool, was used for the analysis. Exploring the usage patterns of recurrent expressions among the native and non-native corpora, we also analysed the four-word recurrent expressions and featured the existing variations of functional and structural aspects. Cross-linguistic analysis revealed that Turkish writers distinguish some features of recurrent expressions more than others Structural expressions encompassed the verb-based, noun and propositional structures. The research, text, and participant oriented recurrent expressions built up the functional groups. The most frequently used functional categories were location and description in research-oriented recurrent expressions. The findings also indicated a positive role of recurrent expressions in the learning of the disciplinary features. Structural similarities were also found, indicating strong functional features for constructing discourse in research writing. The implication is that creating appropriate academic discursive practices with a focus on the properties of the recurrent expressions can be better analysed by employing several online corpus tools.

Keywords

• Recurrent expressions
• Computerized corpora
• Function
• Structure
• Native and non-native

References

1. Absalom, M. (2021). Digital corpora: Language teaching and learning in the age of big data. In T. Beaven & F. Rosell-Aguilar (Eds), Innovative language pedagogy report (pp. 97-101). Research-publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2021.50.1242
2. Adams, S. D. (1984). Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s comment. English for Specific Purposes,3(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-2380(84)90004-0
3. Adel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004
4. Aijmer, K. (Ed.). (2009). Corpora and language teaching. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
5. Akbulut, D., F. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of lexical expressions usage in native and non-native academic writing. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1146-1166. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803583
6. Alcaraz Varó, E. (2000). El inglés profesional y académico. El libro universitario. Serie filología y lingüística (pp. 317-319). Alianza.
7. Allison, D. (1995). Assertions and alternatives: Helping ESL undergraduates extend their choices in academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90020-9
8. Bensaid, M. (2015). Arab ESL students and modals. Arab World English Journal, 6(4), 90- 97. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2843929

9. Beute, O. (2020). How Norwegian students of English and English native speakers use the modal auxiliary must and the quasi-modal have to: A contrastive study [Master’s thesis, University of Oslo]. University of Oslo Library.
10. Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1991). Cultural expectations and socio-pragmatic failure m academic writing. In P. Adams, B. Heaton, & P. Howarth (Eds.), Socio-cultural issues in English for academic purposes (pp. 1-12). Modem English Publications/British Council.
11. Brandt, S. (1999). Modal verbs in Danish (Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague). C.A. Reitzel.
12. Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1– L2 encoding of manner
13. in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English. Studies in Second Language
14. Acquisition, 30(2). 225–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080327
16. Btoosh, M.A. (2019). Modals in Arab EFL students' composition: A corpus-based approach. College of Sciences and Humanities Linguistics and Literature Studies, 7(3), 100-109. https://doi.org/10.13189/lls.2019.070302
17. Bybee, J., & Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. Modality in grammar and discourse, 14, 503-517. https://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/downloads/BybeeFleischman1995Introduction.pdf
18. Byloo, P. (2009). Modality and negation: A corpus-based study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Antwerp.
19. Campoy, M. C., Bellés-Fortuno, B., & Gea-Valor, M. L. (Eds.). (2010). Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching. Continuum.
20. Chen, H. I. (2010). Contrastive learner corpus analysis of epistemic modality and interlanguage pragmatic competence in L2 writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 17, 27–51. https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jslat/article/245/galley/239/view/
21. Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of modal auxiliaries. Croom Helm. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700013980
22. Cook, W. A. (1978). Semantic structure of the English modals. TESOL Quarterly, 12(1), 5-16.
23. Cooper, T. (2013). Can IELTS writing scores predict university performance? Comparing the use of lexical bundles in IELTS writing tests and first-year academic writing. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 42, 63–79. https://doi.org/10.5842/42-0-155
24. Csomay, E. (2013). Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams045
25. DeCapua, A., & Dunham, J.F. (2007). The pragmatics of advice giving: Cross- cultural perspectives. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(3), 319–342. http://krpb.pbworks.com/f/advice+decapua.pdf
26. Depraetere, I., & Verhulst, A. (2008). Source of modality: A reassessment. English Language & Linguistics, 12(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002481
27. Deshors, S.C., & Gries, S.T. (2014). A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language: The uses of may and can in French-English interlanguage. In D. Glynn & J.A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 179–204). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.07des
28. Diewald, G. (2001). A basic semantic template for lexical and grammaticalized uses of the German modals. In J. van der Auwera & P. Dendale (Eds.), Modal verbs in Germanic and Romance languages (pp. 23-41). John Benjamins.
29. Dittmar, N., & Terborg, H. (1991). Modality and second language learning: A challenge for linguistic theory. In T. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 347–384). John Benjamins.
30. Dutra, D.P. (1998). The acquisition of English root modality by non-native speakers (Publication No. 9837383) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
31. Efstathiadi, L. (2011). Epistemic modality markers in L1 and L2 discourse of modern Greek: A corpus-based study. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 138-156).
32. Enriquez, M. A. T. (2012). Philippine English and Taglish from a language contact perspective [Doctoral dissertation, National University of Singapore]. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.
33. Erton, I. (2018). Difficulties in teaching English modal auxiliaries to Turkish students: A cognitive pragmatic approach. Arab World English Journal, 9 (4), 56- 68. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no4.4
34. Fanilevna Mukhamadiarova, A., Fidarisovna Caserta, L., Alexandrovna Kulkova, M., & Reuter, K. (2020). Use of corpus’ technologies for the development of lexical skills. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Applied Linguistics Issues, 449-456. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2020.16345
35. Flor, A. M. (2003). Non-native speakers’ production of advice acts: The effects of proficiency. Revista Espanola de Lingüistica Aplicada, 16(2), 139–153. https://rael.aesla.org.es/index.php/RAEL/article/view/92
36. Friginal, E., Dye, P., & Nolen, M. (2020). Corpus-based approaches in language teaching: Outcomes, observations, and teacher perspectives. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 37(1), 43-68. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/buje/issue/55539/760480
37. Giacalone Ramat, A. (1992). Grammaticalization processes in the area of temporal and modal relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(3). 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001113X
38. Gibbs, D. (1990). Second language acquisition of the English modal auxiliaries can, could, may and might. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 297-313.
39. Gilquin, G., & Paquot, M. (2008). Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 1(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil
40. Gong, W. (2019). An innovative English teaching system based on computer aided technology and corpus management. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(14), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i14.10817
41. Granger, S. (1998). The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.3-189). Addison Wesley Longman.
42. Granger, S. (2013). Learner English on computer. Routledge.
43. Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00089.x
44. Güngör, F. (2016). Crosslinguistic analysis of lexical bundles in l1 English, L2 English, and L1 Turkish research articles [Doctoral Dissertation, Gazi University].
45. Heine, B. (1993). Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: Some observations. In J. Bybee & S. Fleischmann (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp.17-53). John Benjamins.
46. Hinkel, E. (1995). The use of modal verbs as a reflection of cultural values. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 324-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587627
47. Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 13(2), 9-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202
48. Holmes, J. (1983). Speaking English with the appropriate degree of conviction. In C. Brumfit (Ed.), Learning and teaching languages for communication: Applied linguistics perspectives. CILT.
49. Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.1.21
50. Hong, J. Y. (2019). Structural use of lexical bundles in the rhetorical moves of L1 and L2 academic writing. English Teaching, 74(3), 29-54. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.74.3.201909.29
51. Hornby, A. S., Turnbull, J., Lea, D., Parkinson, D., & Phillips, P. (2010). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. Oxford University Press.
52. Hu, Z., Brown, D., & Brown, L. (1982). Some linguistic differences in the written English of Chinese and Australian students. Language Learning and Communication, 1(1), 39-49.
53. Huddleston, R. (2002). The verb. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.71-212). Cambridge University Press.
54. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
55. Hyland, K. (2008a). 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
56. Hyland, K. (2008b). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
57. Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 83-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
58. Imperial, R. A. (2014). Lexical variation in Philippine English: The case of deontic MUST and HAVE TO. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 45, 1-18.
59. Kiliç, V. (2013). A contrastive study of Turkish and English modality with reference to speech act theory. Dialectologia, 10, 1-22. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39122681.pdf
60. Kilgariff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1, 7-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9
61. Kilimci, A., & Can, C. (2008). TICLE: Uluslararası Türk Öğrenici İngilizcesi derlemi, TICLE: Turkish international corpus of learner English. 22nd Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı, 1-11.
62. Kızılay, Y. (2019). Semi-modal verb “Need to” and the modality of obligation “Must & Have to” in authentic corpus-based English. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 240-257. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.648857
63. Klecha, P. (2014). Bridging the divide: Scalarity and modality (Publication No. 3639345) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
64. Larreya, P., & Rivière, C. (2005). Grammaire explicative de l’Anglais. Pearson Education Limited.
65. Laso, N. J., & Giménez, E. (2007). Bridging the gap between corpus research and language teaching. In C. Periñán (Ed.), Revisiting language learning resources (pp. 49-64). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
66. Letica, S. (2009). Use of epistemic modality by non-native speakers of English. In R. Lugossy, J. Horváth & M. Nikolov (Eds.), UPRT 2008: Empirical studies in English applied linguistics (pp. 119-134). Lingua Franca Csoport.
67. Lewis, M. (2009). The idiom principle in L2 English: Assessing elusive formulaic sequences as indicators of idiomaticity, fluency, and proficiency. VDM Verlag.
68. Li, Q. (2017). A corpus-based study of modal verbs use in English: Writing by EFL students. Canadian Social Science, 13(11), 31-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/9975
69. Ma, Q., Chiu, M., Lin, S., & Mendoza, N. (2023). Teachers’ perceived corpus literacy and their intention to integrate corpora into classroom teaching: A survey study. ReCALL, 35(1), 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344022000180
70. Ma, Q., & Mei, F. (2021). Review of corpus tools for vocabulary teaching and learning. Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 1(1), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1515/jccall-2021-2008
71. Martin, N. J. L., Pujadas, E. C., Villanueva, M. L. C., & Guinjoan, M. F. (2017). Corpora and new technologies in the linguistics classroom: a pedagogical use of a clause pattern database. Revista de la Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 15(1), 150-165.
72. McEnery, T., & Kifle, A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 182-195). Pearson Education Limited.
73. Milton, J., & Hyland, K. (1999). Assertions in students’ academic essays: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. In R. Berry, B. Asker, K. Hyland, & M. Lam (Eds.), Language analysis, description and pedagogy (pp. 147-161). HKUST.
74. Muşlu, M. (2018). Use of stance lexical bundles by Turkish and Japanese EFL learners and native English speakers in academic writing. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(4), 1319-1336.
75. Myhill, J., & Laura, A. S. (1995). Discourse and interactive functions of obligation expressions. In J. Bybee & S. Fleischmann (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 239-292). John Benjamins.
76. Narrog, H. (1995). On defining modality again. Language Sciences, 2, 165-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2003.11.007
77. Ngula, R. S. (2017). Epistemic modal verbs in research articles written by Ghanaian and international scholars: A corpus-based study of three disciplines. Brno studies in English, 43(2), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2017-2-1
78. Nhat, T., & Minh, N. (2020). A study on modality in English-medium research articles. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 36(6), 74-92. https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4630
79. Osipova, E. (2020). Corpus linguistic technology as a digital tool in teaching idioms’ interpretation to EFL students. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 940(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/940/1/012135
80. Öztürk, Y., & Köse, G. D. (2016). Turkish and native English academic writers’ use of lexical bundles. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(1), 149-165. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jlls/issue/36116/405567
81. Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals (2nd ed.). Longman.
82. Palmer, F. R. (2013). Modality and the English modals (2nd ed.). Routledge.
83. Panocová, R. (2008). Expression of modality in biomedical texts. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 3(1), 82-90. http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTI03/pdf_doc/Panocova.pdf
84. Pearson, W. (2021). A comparative study of lexical bundles in IELTS Writing Task 1 and 2 simulation essays and tertiary academic writing. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 15(1), 27-52. Retrieved from https://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/717
85. Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 84- 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.01.002
86. Perkins, M. (1983). Modal expressions in English. Frances Pinter.
87. Reppen, R. (2009). English language teaching and corpus linguistics: Lessons from the American national corpus. In P. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary corpus linguistics (pp. 204- 213). Continuum.
88. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
89. Saeed, A. T. (2009). Arab EFL students' acquisition of modals. Research in Language, 7, 75-98. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-009-0006-5
90. Salazar, D., & Verdaguer, I. (2009). Polysemous verbs and modality in native and non-native argumentative writing: A corpus-based study. International Journal of English Studies, 9(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.1.1.99601
91. Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 1-22). John Benjamins.
92. Sinclair, J. M. (Ed.). (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. John Benjamins Publishing Company
93. Smith, N. (2003). Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In R. Facchinetti, F. Palmer & M. Krug (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 241-266). Mouton de Gruyter.
94. Soon, D., Seod, Y., & Choi, I. (2018). Interlanguage development of young Korean EFL students' modal usage: A learner corpus study. Linguistic Research ,35, 83-103. https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.35..201809.004
95. Stamatović, M. V. (2016). Scaling deontic modality in parliamentary discourse. Logos et Littera: Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches to Text, 2(3), 131-149.
96. Torabiardakani, N., Khojasteh, L., & Shokrpour, N. (2015). Modal auxiliaries and their semantic functions used by advanced EFL students. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 8(2), 51–60. http://padi.psiedu.ubbcluj.ro/adn/article_8_2_6.pdf
97. Urzua, A. (2015). Corpora, context, and language teachers. In V. Cortes & E. Csomay (Eds.), Corpus-based research in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of Doug Biber (pp. 99-122). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
98. Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00029-0
99. Verhulst, A., Depraetere, I., & Heyvaert, L. (2013). Source and strength of modality: An empirical study of root should, ought to and be supposed to in present-day British English. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 210-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.010
100. Viana, V. (2006). Modals in Brazilian advanced EFL students' compositions: A corpus-based investigation. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 7(1), 77-86. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1692/169213802006.pdf
101. Woodford, K. (2003). Cambridge advanced learner's dictionary. Cambridge University Press.
102. Yang, X. (2018). A corpus-based study of modal verbs in Chinese students’ academic writing. English Language Teaching, 11(2), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n2p122