Phraseology in academic L2 discourse: the use of multi-words units in a CMC university context. Presentation at the conference "Compiling and using learner corpora to teach and assess productive and interactive skills in foreign languages at university level" (Università di Padova, maggio 2013)

1. Phraseology
in
academic
L2
discourse:
the
use
of
mul7-­‐words
units
in
a
CMC
university
context
Stefania
Spina
Learner
Corpora
2013,
May
16-­‐17,
2013,
Università
di
Padova

2. Introduc7on:
mul7-­‐words
units
• A
“na7ve-­‐like
selec7on”
(Pawley
&
Syder,
1983)
of
MWU
– is
essen7al
for
learners’
successful
language
processing,
comprehension,
use
and
for
a
growth
in
fluency
– overlap
with
other
units
of
analysis
(Cogni7ve
Grammar,
Construc7on
Grammar,
Corpus
Linguis7cs):
“phraseologism”,
“construc7on”,
“paVern”,
“n-­‐gram”,
“colloca7on)

3. Defini7on
• the
co-­‐occurrence
of
a
form
or
a
lemma
of
a
lexical
item
and
one
or
more
addi2onal
linguis2c
elements
of
various
kinds
which
func2ons
as
one
seman2c
unit
in
a
clause
or
sentence
and
whose
frequency
of
co-­‐
occurrence
is
larger
than
expected
on
the
basis
of
chance
(Gries
2008:
3)

4. Background
• prerequisite
for
proficient
language
use
(Cowie
1998;
Sinclair
1991;
Wray
2002)
• Non-­‐na7ve
speakers
experience
problems
with
WMU
(Howarth
1998;
Nesselhauf
2005;
Wray
2002,
SchmiV
2004;
Granger
&
Meunier
2008)

5. Agreement
on
key
aspects
• na7ve-­‐like
competence
only
at
advanced
levels
(Granger
1998)
– learners
first
acquire
simple
lexical
units
and
few
formulaic
sequences
with
pragma7c
value
(Wray
2002)
• Come
va?
//
How
are
you?
• Learners
underuse
MWU;
instead,
they
rely
on
(Howarth
1998):
– avoidance
– transfer
– transla7ons
from
L1
– experimenta7on:
sequences
generated
by
rules
rather
than
lexical
rou7nes
(Foster
2001)
• key
role
of
frequency
(Ellis
2002):
– processed
holis7cally
– automa7c
access
– absence
of
analysis
of
internal
structure
– processing
advantages
(Millar
2011)

6. Academic
vocabulary
• Na7on
2001:
1. High
frequency
vocabulary
2. Academic
vocabulary:
used
across
all
academic
disciplines
3. Technical
vocabulary:
occurs
in
specific
subject
areas
4. Low
fequency
vocabulary

7. Academic
phraseology
• Biber
2004;
Cowie
1997;
Oakey,
2002;
Hyland
2012,
Simpson-­‐Vlach,
Ellis
2010
• academic
wri7ng:
larger
stock
of
prefabricated
phrases
than
news
or
fic7on
(Hyland
2008)
• discursive
and
textual
func7ons
ojen
used
in
academic
contexts
– exemplifying
– formula7ng
hypothesis
– linking
ideas
– drawing
conclusions
– …

8. Research
ques7ons
• How
do
advanced
learners
of
Italian
as
a
second
language
compare
against
na7ve
speakers
in
the
use
of
general
MWU?
• To
what
extent
and
in
which
ways
do
both
na7ve
speakers
and
advanced
learners
of
Italian
as
a
second
language
use
academic
MWU?

9. Data
• Interac7ons
in
online
forums
• five
edi7ons
(2004-­‐2009)
of
a
postgraduate
Master
programme
in
“The
teaching
of
Italian
as
a
Second
Language”
• 3
academic
forums
(the
same
for
NS
and
NNS):
– Sociolinguis7cs
– Classroom
interac7on
– Conversa7on
analisys

10. Learner
corpus
• 1.432.923
tokens
– 1.116.994
(88
NS
)
– 315.929
(56
NNS
)
• 23
different
L1:
– Spanish,
Greek,
Portuguese,
Chinese,
Persian,
French,
Swedish,
Korean,
Polish,
Armenian,
Albanian,
Arabic,
Vietnamese,
Kazakh,
Filipino,
Ukrainian,
Serbian,
English,
Romanian,
Hebrew,
Russian,
Indonesian
and
Flemish
– Xml
annotated,
pos-­‐tagged
and
lemma7zed

11. Analysis:
two
perspec7ves
• general
phraseology
– VERB-­‐NOUN
combina7ons
(op7onal
slots)
• avere
bisogno
[need
/have
need]
• avere
molto
bisogno
[have
great
need]
• avere
veramente
un
gran
bisogno
[really
have
great
need]
– NOUN-­‐ADJECTIVE
combina7ons
• tempo
libero
[free
7me],
crisi
economica
[economic
crisis]
• academic
phraseology
– use
of
MWU
included
in
the
AIWL:
Academic
Italian
Word
List
(Spina
2010)

12. General
MWU
≥
2
per
million
words
not
significantly
different

13. “Robust”
general
MWU
“Robust”
(Li
and
SchmiV
2010)
combina7ons:
frequency
>
20
per
million
words
(p
value
<
0,0001)

14. Robust
MWU:
examples
VN
NS
NNS
NADJ
NS
NNS
Avere
paura
(be
afraid)
158,2
37,6
scuola
elementare
(elementary
school)
136,1
64,4
Fare
una
domanda
(ask
a
ques2on)
151,9
65,3
essere
umano
(human
being)
47,4
16,1
Avere
bisogno
(need)
148,7
89,5
vita
quo7diana
(everyday
life)
37,7
29,5
Fare
parte
(be
part
of)
142,4
89,5
esempio
concreto
(concrete
example)
37,7
8
Frequency
(per
million
words)
of
robust
MWU
with
higher
frequencies
in
NNS

15. Lexical
diversity
of
general
MWU
Type/token
ra7o
(Guiraud
index)
of
VN
and
NADJ
combina7ons
(p
value
<
0,0001)

16. Academic
MWU
(per
million
words)
p
value
=
0.0001
149
types
77
types

17. Discussion:
general
MWU
1. Evidence
against
previous
literature:
advanced
learners
do
not
undersuse
MWU
in
terms
of
overall
frequency
(Siyanova,
SchmiV
2008)
2. common
MWU
(highest
frequency
ranks):
more
occurrences
in
NNS.
– "LiBle
wonder
then
that,
stripped
of
the
confidence
and
ease
we
take
for
granted
in
our
first
language
flow,
we
regularly
clutch
for
the
words
we
feel
safe
with:
our
‘lexical
teddy
bears’”.
(Hasselgren,
1994:
237)
3. NNS
show
a
limited
capability
of
using
diversified
VN
and
NOUN-­‐ADJ
combina7ons

18. Medium
or
low-­‐frequency
MWU
never
used
by
learners
• avere
luogo
(17,9;
take
place:
accadere)
• fare
leva
(17;
leverage)
• avere
7more
(14,3;
be
afraid:
avere
paura)
• sorgere
un
dubbio
(14,3;
raise
a
doubt:
avere,
venire
un
dubbio)
• soVolineare
la
differenza
(8,05;
underline
the
difference:
notare
la
differenza)
• dare
rilievo
(7,1;
highlight:
dare
importanza)
• situazione
imbarazzante
(13,4;
embarrassing
situa2on)
• livello
culturale
(12,5:
cultural
level)
• differenza
sostanziale
(11,6;
substan2al
difference)
• considerazione
personale
(11,6;
personal
considera2on)
• apertura
mentale
(10,7;
open-­‐
mindedness)
• conoscenza
reciproca
(8,9;
mutual
knowledge)

19. NNS:
repe77on
of
paVerns
• different
word
forms
• (for
VN
combina7ons):
other
elements
inserted
within
the
combina7ons
• avere
bisogno
(need):
NS
NNS
rank
4
6
frequency
per
million
words
89,5
148,7

20. Avere
bisogno:
NNS
paVerns
present
indica7ve
ho/hai/ha…
present
condi7onal
avrei/avrebbe…
op7onal
adverb
(più/davvero)
bisogno
di
gli
alunni
hanno
bisogno
di
ordinare
e
struBurare
alcune
regole
[students
need
to
order
and
structure
some
rules]
avrei
bisogno
di
avere
le
vostre
considerazioni
in
merito
[I
would
need
to
have
your
considera7ons
about
that]

21. Avere
bisogno:
NNS
paVerns
• inser7on
of
op7onal
elements
within
the
VN
combina7on:
– is
very
rare
(6%
of
the
total)
– involves
only
two
dis7nct
adverbs:
più
(more)
and
davvero
(really)
• gli
alunni
piccoli
hanno
più
bisogno
della
cura
dell’insegnante
[young
pupils
need
more
the
care
of
the
teacher]
– never
involves
adjec7ves

22. Avere
bisogno:
NS
paVerns
non
credo
abbiano
bisogno
di
una
spiegazione
[I
don’t
think
they
need
an
explana7on]
se
l'
insegnante
avesse
bisogno
di
scrivere
qualcosa
alla
lavagna
[if
the
teacher
would
need
to
write
something
on
the
blackboard]
indica7ve
ho/hai/ha…
subjunc7ve
abbia/avesse…
op7onal
adverb
(più/davvero/
proprio/ancora/
meno/soltanto…)
op7onal
adjec7ve
assoluto/
immediato/
urgente/gran
bisogno
di
present
condi7onal
avrei/avrebbe…
Infini7ve
avere/averne

23. Avere
bisogno:
NS
paVerns
• inser7on
of
op7onal
elements
within
the
combina7on:
– is
more
common
(21%
of
the
total)
– involves
several
dis7nct
adverbs:
più
(more),
davvero
(really),
in
realtà
(actually),
addiriBura
(even),
soltanto
(only)…
– involves
several
dis7nct
adjec7ves:
assoluto
(absolute),
grande
(great),
immediato
(immediate),
urgente
(urgent)
• Spesso
gli
studen2
hanno
un
immediato
bisogno
di
apprendere
l’italiano
[Ojen
students
have
an
immediate
need
to
learn
Italian]

24. General
MWU:
summary
• the
use
of
MWU
in
na7ve
and
non
na7ve
speakers
does
not
differ
in
quan7ty,
but
in
distribu7on
and
in
quality:
– NNS
tend
to
use
very
frequently
a
restricted
set
of
combina7ons
(Lorenz
1999)
and,
within
this
set,
to
repeat
few
similar
paVerns
– NS
tend
to
diversify
the
selec7on
of
lexical
elements

25. Academic
MWU
• AIWL:
from
academic
wriVen
corpus
(Spina
2010)
– 403
lemmas
– 200
MWU
(4
most
produc7ve
POS
sequences
in
Italian):
• adjec7ve-­‐noun
(neBa
dis2nzione
/
clear
dis2nc2on);
• noun-­‐adjec7ve
(prospeSva
teorica
/
theore2cal
perspec2ve);
• noun
preposi7on
noun
(ambito
di
studio
/
field
of
study);
• verb-­‐noun
(affrontare
un
tema
/
address
an
issue)

26. Academic
MWU
in
NS
and
NNS
• 75
are
exclusively
used
by
NS
• connected
with
discursive
and
textual
func7ons
ojen
needed
in
academic
contexts:
– presen7ng
arguments
(affrontare
un
tema,
porre/affrontare
un
problema,
introdurre
un
conceBo,
porre
le
premesse)
– focusing
(porre
l'accento,
fondamentale
importanza,
grande
rilievo)
– defining
(dare
una
definizione)
– adop7ng
a
point
of
view/posi7on
(chiave
di
leBura,
prendere
aBo,
avere
una
valenza/un
valore,
assumere
una
posizione)
– categorizing
and
including
(neBa
dis2nzione/separazione,
tracciare
una
linea,
stabilire
un
criterio)
– drawing
conclusions
(ulteriore
approfondimento)

27. Incomplete
knowledge
of
academic
MWU
• stylis7cally
inaccurate
sentences
– La
domanda
numero
1
ci
porge
(pone)
un
bel
problema
[Ques2on
1
poses
a
big
problem]
• grama7cally
or
morphosintac7cally
incorrect
sentences
– Cerchiamo
di
fare
dis2nzione
tre
le
forme
(una)
[let's
try
to
make
a
dis7nc7on
between
the
forms]
– È
importante
adesso
fare
la
dis2nzione
chiara
(una)
[it's
important
now
to
make
a
clear
dis7nc7on]
• NNS
construct
a
relevant
propor7on
of
their
academic
language
from
rules
rather
than
from
lexicalized
rou7nes

28. Conclusions/1
• Advanced
learners
make
an
extensive
use
of
general
MWU
• they
produce
a
restricted
set
of
general
VN
and
NADJ
combina7on
with
a
higher
frequency
compared
to
NS;
• within
this
restricted
set,
they
tend
to
repeat
many
7mes
the
same
few
paVerns
• what
most
dis7nguishes
the
NS
and
NNS
combina7ons
is
their
degree
of
differen7a7on:
the
frequency
of
types.

29. Conclusions/2
• recent
achievements
in
SLA:
high
token
frequency
– important
role
in
the
entrenchment
of
MWU
within
a
linguis7c
system,
which
underlies
their
acquisi7on
(Ellis
2002)
– affects
the
degree
to
which
MWU
are
processed
holis7cally;
• high
type
frequency
– is
the
evidence
that
MWU
are
used
frequently
with
diversified
elements
(verbs
and
nouns);
– reinforces
their
representa7onal
schema
• MWU
produced
by
advanced
NNS:
lower
type
frequency
– type
frequency:
one
of
the
criteria
for
instruc7ng
learners
on
a
scale
of
difficulty
of
produc7on.
– “high
type
frequency
prac7ce
may
be
necessary
for
learners
to
achieve
produc7ve
use
of
the
construc7on.”
(Ellis
and
Collins
2009:332)

30. Academic
phraseology
• gap
between
NS/NNS
phraseological
competence
• NNS
tend
to
rely
on
crea7vity
rather
than
make
an
extensive
use
of
prefabricated
chunks.
• strong
need
for
specific
and
explicit
instruc7on
on
academic
MWU
• "This
'phraseological
competence'
makes
a
significant
contribu7on
to
the
language
proficiency
which
foreign
students
need
to
develop
to
communicate
effec7vely
in
an
academic
se|ng".
(Cowie
1997:43)

31. Thank
you
for
your
aVen7on!
stefania.spina@unistrapg.it

32. References
• Biber
D.
(2004).
“Lexical
bundles
in
academic
speech
and
wri7ng”.
In
Lewandowska
-­‐
Tomaszczyk,
B.
(Ed.).
Prac2cal
Applica2ons
in
Language
and
Computers
(Proceedings
of
PALC
2003).
Peter
Lang:
165–178.
• Cowie
A.
P.
(1997).
“Phraseology
in
formal
academic
prose”.
In
Aarts,
J.,
de
Mönnink,
I.
and
Wekker
H.
(Ed.).
Studies
in
English
Language
and
Teaching
In
Honour
of
Flor
Aarts.
Rodopi:
43–56.
• Ellis,
N.
C.
(2002a).
Frequency
Effects
in
Language
Processing
and
Acquisi7on.
Studies
in
Second
Language
Acquisi2on,
24,
143-­‐188.
• Ellis,
N.
C.,
&
Collins,
L.
(2009).
Input
and
Second
Language
Acquisi7on:
The
roles
of
frequency,
form
and
func7on.
Introduc7on
to
the
special
issue.
Modern
Language
Journal,
93,
329-­‐335.
• Foster,
P.
(2001).
Rules
and
rou7nes:
A
considera7on
of
their
role
in
task-­‐based
language
produc7on
of
na7ve
and
non-­‐na7ve
speakers.
In
M.
Bygate,
P.
Skehan,
&
M.
Swain
(Eds.),
Researching
pedagogic
tasks:
Second
language
learning,
teaching,
and
tes2ng
(pp.
75-­‐97).
London:
Pearson.
• Granger,
S.
(1998).
Prefabricated
paVerns
in
advanced
EFL
wri7ng:
colloca7ons
and
formulae.
In
A.
Cowie
(Ed.),
Phraseology:
theory,
analysis
and
applica2ons
(pp.
145-­‐160).
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press.
• Granger,
S.,
&
Meunier,
F.
(Eds.).
(2008).
Phraseology.
An
interdisciplinary
perspec2ve.
Amsterdam:
John
Benjamins.
• Gries,
S.
Th.
(2008).
Phraseology
and
linguis7c
theory:
a
brief
survey.
In
S.
Granger,
&
F.
Meunier
(Eds.),
Phraseology:
an
interdisciplinary
perspec2ve
(pp.
3-­‐25).
Amsterdam:
John
Benjamins.
• Hasselgren,
A.
(1994).
Lexical
Teddy
Bears
and
Advanced
Learners:
A
Study
into
the
Ways
Norwegian
Students
Cope
with
English
Vocabulary.
Interna2onal
Journal
of
Applied
Linguis2cs,
4(2),
237-­‐258.
• Howarth,
P.
(1998).
Phraseology
and
second
language
proficiency.
Applied
Linguis2cs,
19(1),
24-­‐44.
• Hyland,
K.
(2008a).
Academic
clusters:
Text
paVerning
in
published
and
postgraduate
wri7ng.
Interna7onal
Journal
of
Applied
Linguis7cs,
18,
41–62.
• Li,
J.,
&
SchmiV,
N.
(2010).
"The
development
of
colloca7on
use
in
academic
texts
by
advanced
L2
learners:
A
mul7ple
case-­‐study
approach".
In
D.
Wood
(Ed.),
Perspec2ves
on
Formulaic
Language:
Acquisi2on
and
Communica2on.
London:
Con7nuum.
• Lorenz
G.R.
(1999).
Adjec2ve
Intensifica2on
-­‐
Learner's
versus
Na2ve
Speakers.
A
Corpus
Study
of
Argumenta2ve
Wri2ng.
Amsterdam/Atlanta:
Rodopi.
• Millar,
N.
(2011).
The
Processing
of
Malformed
Formulaic
Language.
Applied
Linguis2cs,
32(2),
129-­‐148.
• Na7on
I.
S.
P.
(2001).
Learning
vocabulary
in
another
language.
Cambridge
University
Press.
• Nesselhauf,
N.
(2005).
Colloca2ons
in
a
learner
corpus.
Amsterdam:
John
Benjamins.
• Oakey
D.
(2002).
“Formulaic
language
in
English
academic
wri7ng:
A
corpus-­‐based
study
of
the
formal
and
func7onal
varia7on
of
a
lexical
phrase
in
different
academic
disciplines”.
In
Reppen,
R.,
Fitzmaurice,
S.M.
and
Biber,
D.
(Eds.),
Using
Corpora
to
Explore
Linguis2c
Varia2on,
London:
Longman,
pp.
111-­‐129.
• Pawley,
A.,
&
Syder,
F.
H.
(1983).
Two
puzzles
for
linguis7c
theory:
na7ve-­‐like
selec7on
and
na7ve-­‐like
fluency.
In
J.
C.
Richards
&
R.
W.
Schmidt
(Eds.),
Language
and
communica2on
(pp.
191-­‐226).
New
York:
Longman.
• SchmiV,
N.
(Ed.).
(2004).
Formulaic
Sequences.
Acquisi2on,
processing
and
use.
Amsterdam:
John
Benjamins.
• Simpson-­‐Vlach,
R.,
&
Ellis,
N.
(2010).
“An
academic
formulas
list:
New
methods
in
phrase-­‐ology
research”.
Applied
Linguis2cs,
31,
487–512.
• Sinclair,
J.
(1991).
Corpus,
Concordance,
Colloca2on.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press.
• Siyanova,
A.
and
SchmiV,
N.
(2008).
“L2
learner
produc7on
and
processing
of
colloca7on:
A
mul7-­‐study
perspec7ve”.
Modern
Language
Review,
64
(3):
429-­‐458.
• Spina
S.
(2010).
“AIWL:
una
lista
di
frequenza
dell’italiano
accademico”.
in
Bolasco
S.,
Chiari
I.,
Giuliano
L.
(Eds.).
Sta2s2cal
Analysis
of
Textual
Data.
Proceedings
of
the
10th
Conference
JADT
(Rome,
9-­‐11
june
2010).
Editrice
universitaria
LED:
1317-­‐1325.
• Wray,
A.
(2002).
Formulaic
language
and
the
lexicon.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.