Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Volumn 14, Issue , 2014, Pages 84-94

  Pérez Llantada, Carmen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZARAGOZA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Academic writing; English for academic purposes; Interlanguage development; Lexical bundles; Register analysis; Research article genre; Second language acquisition

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894160862     PISSN: 14751585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2014.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ädel A., Erman A. Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: a lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes 2012, 31:81-92.
2. Biber D. Acorpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English. Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2009, 14(3):275-311.
3. Biber D., Barbieri F. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 2007, 26(3):263-286.
4. Biber D., Conrad S., Cortes V. If you look at: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 2004, 25(3):371-403.
5. Biber D., Conrad S., Reppen R. Corpus linguistics. Investigating language structure and use 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
6. Biber D., Gray B. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2010, 9:2-20.
7. Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., Finegan E. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English 1999, Longman, London.
8. Chen Y.-H., Baker P. Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology 2010, 14(2):30-49.
9. Cortes V. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 2004, 23:397-423.
10. Cortes V. Acomparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish. Corpora 2008, 3:43-58.
11. Cortes V. The purpose of this study is to: connecting lexical bundles to moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2013, 12:33-43.
12. Cortes V., Hardy D. Analyzing the semantic prosody and semantic preference of lexical bundles. Critical and corpus-based approaches to IR 2013, 180-201. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. D. Belcher, G. Nelson (Eds.).
13. Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications 1998, Clarendon Press, Oxford. A.P. Cowie (Ed.).
14. Durrant P., Mathews-Aydinli J. Afunction-first approach to identifying formulaic language in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 2011, 30(1):58-72.
15. Ellis N.C. Phraseology. The periphery and the heart of language. Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching 2008, 1-13. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. F. Meunier, S. Granger (Eds.).
16. Ellis N.C., Simpson-Vlach R., Maynard C. Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 2008, 42(3):375-396.
17. Flowerdew J. Attitudes of journal editors to non-native-speaker contributions: an interview study. TESOL Quarterly 2001, 35:121-150.
18. Thematic development in English texts 1995, Pinter, London. M. Ghadessy (Ed.).
19. Gilquin G., Granger S., Paquot M. Learner corpora: the missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2007, 6(4):319-335.
20. Granger S. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing. Collocations and formulae. Phraseology. Theory analysis and applications 1998, 145-160. Oxford University Press, Oxford. A.P. Cowie (Ed.).
21. Phraseology. An interdisciplinary perspective 2008, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. S. Granger, F. Meunier (Eds.).
22. Granger S., Rayson P. Automatic lexical profiling of learner texts. Learner English on computer 1998, 119-131. Addison Wesley Longman, London. S. Granger (Ed.).
23. Hewings M., Hewings A. It is interesting to note that: a comparative study of anticipatory it in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes 2002, 21:367-383.
24. Howarth P. Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 1998, 19(1):24-44.
25. Hyland K. Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 1998, 30:437-455.
26. Hyland K. As can be seen: lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 2008, 27:4-21.
27. Hyland K. Academic clusters: text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2008, 18(1):41-62.
28. Kachru Y. Academic writing in World Englishes. The Asian context. Global Englishes in Asian contexts 2009, 111-130. Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke. K. Murata, J. Jenkins (Eds.).
29. Kim Y., McDonough K. Learners' production of passives during syntactic priming activities. Applied Linguistics 2008, 29(1):149-154.
30. Kouřilová M. Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulations 1998, 32:107-114.
31. Li J., Schmitt N. The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: a longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing 2009, 18(2):85-102.
32. Liu D. The most frequently-used multi-word constructions in academic written English: a multi-corpus study. English for Specific Purposes 2012, 31:25-35.
33. Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching 2008, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. F. Meunier, S. Granger (Eds.).
34. Navarro F.A., Hernández F., Rodríguez-Villanueva L. Uso y abuso de la voz pasiva en el lenguaje médico escrito. Medicina Clinica 1994, 103:461-464.
35. Neff van Aertselaer J. Contrasting English -Spanish interpersonal discourse phrases. A corpus study. Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching 2008, 85-100. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. F. Meunier, S. Granger (Eds.).
36. Pérez-Llantada C. Scientific discourse and the rhetoric of globalization. The impact of culture and language 2012, Continuum, London.
37. Pawley A., Syder F. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native-like selection and native-like fluency. Language and communication 1983, 191-226. Longman, London. J. Richards, R. Schmidt (Eds.).
38. Römer U. The inseparability of lexis and grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2009, 7:141-163.
39. Römer U. Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type: the construction of meaning in academic book reviews. English Text Construction 2010, 3(1):95-119.
40. Salazar D. Lexical bundles in Philippine and British scientific English. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 2010, 41:94-109.
41. Schmitt N. Formulaic sequences. Acquisition, processing and use 2004, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
42. Scott M. WordSmith Tools version 5 2008, Lexical Analysis Software, Liverpool.
43. Staples S., Egbert J., Biber D., McClair A. Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2013, 12:214-225.
44. Vázquez I. Acontrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in business management research articles in English and Spanish. Ibérica 2010, 19:77-96.
45. Warren B. Amodel of idiomaticity. Nordic Journal of English Studies 2005, 4(1):35-54.
46. Wray A. Formulaic language and the lexicon 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
47. Wray A. Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries 2008, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
48. Wray A., Perkins M.R. The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and Communication 2000, 20:1-28.