Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 44:1 (2021) ► pp.82–108

Repetitive bundles in Malaysian learner writing

ORCID logo | Universiti Teknologi MARA

One way to investigate learner writing is by analyzing the most frequently recurring sequences of words, that is, lexical bundles. This paper presents results for lexical bundles analyses of a Malaysian corpus (MCSAW) against its reference language variety, LOCNESS (Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays). Key 4-word lexical bundles are firstly investigated in terms of their frequencies as well as distribution in both corpora. Following this, key lexical bundles are further categorized and analyzed according to their functions, including qualitative analysis of the most recurrent bundles by examination of concordance lines. Results show that learners use simple types of lexical bundles repeatedly compared to their native speaker counterparts. Evidence of tautology can also be found in learner writing. The findings highlight that using lexical bundles appropriately is important to achieve native-like fluency, while the absence of more varied lexical bundles in learners’ discourse may result in unidiomatic-sounding writing style.

Keywords: lexical bundles, Malaysian learner corpus, LOCNESS, corpus-driven approach, corpus linguistics, learner corpus research
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus linguistics and second language research
    • 2.1Corpus linguistic research on learner language: A focus in Malaysia
    • 2.2Functional categorization of lexical bundles
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Corpora as data
    • 3.2Procedures
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Key bundles and their functions
    • 4.2Key bundle in context: Viewing concordances for qualitative reasoning
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.19028.joh
References
Ädel, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, M.
(2008) “An increasingly familiar tragedy”: Evaluative collocation and conflation. Functions of Language, 15(1), 7–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beng, C. O. S., & Keong, Y. C.
(2015) Functional types of lexical bundles in reading texts of Malaysian University English Test: A corpus study. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 15(1), 77–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S.
(2014) Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 261, 28–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F.
(2007) Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
(2003) Lexial bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In A. Wilson, P. Rayson & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune (pp. 71–93). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2004) If you look at ...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botley, S. P.
(2010, December). A corpus-based comparison of idiom use by Malaysian, British and American students. Paper presented at the International Conference on Science and Social Research (CSSR 2010). DOI logo
Brookes, G., & Harvey, K.
(2016) Examining the discourse of mental illness in a corpus of online advice-seeking messages. In L. Pickering, E. Friginal & S. Staples (Eds.), Talking at work: Corpus-based explorations of workplace discourse (pp. 209–234). London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P.
(2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.Google Scholar
(2014) Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37(6), 1–33.Google Scholar
Ebeling, S. O.
(2011) Recurrent word-combinations in English student essays. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 49–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, S. O., & Hasselgård, H.
(2015) Learners’ and native speakers’ use of recurrent word combinations across disciplines. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies (BeLLS), 61, 87–106.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P.
(2005) Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R.
(1994) Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(1), 45–65.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T.
(2017) Exploring learner language through corpora: Comparing and interpreting corpus frequency information. Language Learning, 67(S1), 130–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., & Granger, S.
(2015) Learner language. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 418–435). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, S., & Schilk, M.
(2011) Formulaic sequences in spoken ENL, ESL and EFL: Focus on British English, Indian English and learner English of advanced German learners. In J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (Eds.), Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: Bridging a paradigm gap (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hajar, A. R.
(2014) Corpora in language research in Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia, 321, 1–16.Google Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 271, 4–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imm, T. S.
(2009) Lexical borrowing from Chinese languages in Malaysian English. World Englishes, 28(4), 451–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, S.
(2014) Design of the ICNALE-spoken: A new database for multi-modal interlanguage analysis. In S. Ishikawa (Ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world (Vol. 21, pp. 63–76). Kobe, Japan: Kobe University.Google Scholar
Jaworska, S.
(2017) Corpora and corpus linguistic approaches to studying business language. In G. Mautner & F. Rainer (Eds.), Handbook of business communication: Linguistic approaches (pp. 583–606). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamariah, Y., & Su’ad, A.
(2011) Collocational competence among Malaysian undergraduate law students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 7(1), 151–202.Google Scholar
Kashiha, H., & Heng, C. S.
(2014) Discourse functions of formulaic sequences in academic speech across two disciplines. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 12(2), 15–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. Y. W., & Chen, S. X.
(2009) Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(3), 149–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A.
(2012) Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S.
(2016) Impact of source texts and prompts on students’ genre uptake. Journal of Second Language Writing, 311, 11–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohamed Ismail, A. K., Begi, N., & Vaseghi, R.
(2013) A corpus-based study of Malaysian ESL learners’ use of modals in argumentative compositions. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 146–157.Google Scholar
Mukundan, J., & Kalajahi, S. A. R.
(2013) Malaysian corpus of students’ argumentative writing (MCSAW). Victoria, Australia: Lulu Press Inc.Google Scholar
Mukundan, J., Khairil Anuar, S., Razalina, I., & Nur Hairunnisa, J. Z.
(2013) Malaysian ESL students’ syntactic accuracy in the usage of English modal verbs in argumentative writing. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 98–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M., Römer, U., & Ellis, N.
(2013) The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 181, 83–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peromingo, J. R.
(2012) Corpus analysis and phraseology: Transfer of multi-word units. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 6(1–3), 321–343.Google Scholar
Sardinha, T. B., & Pinto, M. V.
(2017) American television and off-screen registers: A corpus-based comparison. Corpora, 12(1), 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M.
(2012) WordSmith Tools. (Version 6.0). [Computer Software]. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software. Retrieved from [URL]
(2015) WordSmith Tools help. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Scott, M., & Tribble, C.
(2006) Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R.
(2004) Stylistic features of academic speech: The role of formulaic expressions. In T. Upton & U. Connor (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 37–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., & Fernández, J.
(2019) Corpus linguistics approaches to L2 pragmatics research. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 241–254). Abingdon/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., Egber, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A.
(2013) Formulaic sequences and EAP development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. English for Specific Purposes, 121, 214–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thewissen, J.
(2013) Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error tagged EFL learner corpus. Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
(1999) Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 321, 213–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar