Cover not available

Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Function word frames in English argumentative writing by Thai students

 | Universiti Malaya
ORCiD logo with link | Universiti Malaya
Published online: 1 September 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.25015.wan
Abstract
Lexical bundles and lexical phrases (p-frames) are multi-word sequences that have been widely researched. However, function word frames (FWFs) — p-frames with fixed function words and variable content words — remain underexplored in argumentative writing. Thai students struggle with function words because their first language (L1) lacks grammatical equivalents for these frames. Based on Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar function word list, the p-frame classification by Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2013). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, the discourse function taxonomy by Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, and the semantic taxonomy used by Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, the analysis showed that L1 English speakers (L1 group) use 88 FWF types (59 unique) and Thai students (L2 group) use 82 (53 unique), with 29 common to both. Thai students commonly used the * in the (which is an indication of a directive style), and L1 group preferred I * that it (which is a personal statement). Both groups primarily used research-oriented FWFs, with Thai students favouring text-oriented types and L1 group preferring participant-oriented and multifunctional ones. Both groups frequently used nouns in FWFs, especially abstract/process ones; L1 group also preferred quantity nouns. L1 group employed verbs more, especially mental and relational ones; Thai students used more mixed-category constructions, especially intra-noun and noun-adjective. Conversely, Thai students favoured activity verbs for experiential expression. Adjectives and adverbs are limited. The resulting issues (e.g., word-class confusion) appear in the fillers — noun-adjective or noun-verb combinations. Overall, variations in FWF discourse functions and filler semantics reveal distinct functional constraints and developmental semantic gaps in Thai learners’ phraseological competence compared to L1 group.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Identifying and exploring FWFs
    • 3.3Analysing FWF discourse functions
    • 3.4Analysing FWF filler semantics
    • 3.5Coding reliability and consistency
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1FWFs: Thai students vs. L1 English speakers
      • 4.1.1FWF frequency distribution
      • 4.1.2Top 20 FWFs
      • 4.1.3Shared FWFs
      • 4.1.4Distinct FWF
    • 4.2FWF discourse functions
      • 4.2.1Research-oriented
      • 4.2.2Text-oriented
      • 4.2.3Participant-oriented
      • 4.2.4Multifunctionality
    • 4.3FWF filler semantics
      • 4.3.1Semantic categories for nouns
      • 4.3.2Semantic categories for verbs
      • 4.3.3Semantic categories for adjectives
      • 4.3.4Semantic and functional categories for adverbs and adverbials
      • 4.3.5Multifunctional categories
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Declaration of contributions from Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
  • References
References (36)
References
Appel, R., & Murray, L. (2023). A contrastive interlanguage analysis of lexical bundles in English as a foreign language writing: L1 Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. JALT Journal, 45(1), 35–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at ...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(2), 104–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casal, J. E., & Kessler, M. (2020). Form and rhetorical function of phrase-frames in promotional writing: A corpus- and genre-based analysis. System, 951, 102370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S. (2020). Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 415–443. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cunningham, K. J. (2017). A phraseological exploration of recent mathematics research articles through key phrase frames. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 251, 71–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garner, J., Crossley, S., & Kyle, K. (2020). Beginning and intermediate L2 writer’s use of N-grams: An association measures study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 58(1), 51–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geluso, J. (2022). Grammatical and functional characteristics of preposition-based phrase frames in English argumentative essays by L1 English and Spanish speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 551, 101072. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grabowski, L. (2015). Phrase frames in English pharmaceutical discourse: A corpus-driven study of intradisciplinary register variation. Research in Language, 13(3), 266–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2013). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishikawa, S. (2023). The ICNALE guide: An introduction to a learner corpus study on Asian learners’ L2 English (1st Ed.). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Juknevičiene, R., & Grabowski, Ł. (2018). Comparing formulaicity of learner writing through phrase-frames: A corpus-driven study of Lithuanian and Polish EFL student writing. Research in Language, 16(3), 303–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Q. (2023). Phrase-frames in low- and intermediate- level EFL learners’ essays: Variability, structures, and functions. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 61–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, C., & Chen, H.-J. H. (2022). A phraseological exploration of university lectures through phrase frames. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 581, 110135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, X., Yoon, J., & Kisselev, O. (2018). A phrase-frame list for social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 361, 76–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Namkung, Y., & Römer, U. (2023). Formulaic language development in Asian learners of English: A comparative study of phrase-frames in written and oral production. Asia Pacific Journal of Corpus Research, 4(2), 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nekrasova-Beker, T., & Becker, A. (2020). The use of lexical patterns in engineering: A corpus-based investigation of five sub-disciplines. In U. Römer, V. Cortes, & E. Friginal (Eds), Advances in Corpus-based Research on Academic Writing: Effects of discipline, register, and writer expertise (pp. 227–254). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nekrasova-Beker, T. M. (2019). Discipline-specific use of language patterns in engineering: A comparison of published pedagogical materials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 411, 100774. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuttall, C. (2021). Profiling lexical frame use in NSF grant proposal abstracts. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 1(3), 100009. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pecorari, D. (2009). Formulaic language in Biology: A topic-specific investigation. In M. Charles, P. Diane, & H. Susan (Eds), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and disclosure. Continuum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ren, J. (2022). A comparative study of the phrase frames used in the essays of native and nonnative English students. Lingua, 2741, 103376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Renouf, A., & Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Collocational frameworks in English. English Corpus Linguistics, 128–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (Eds). (2018). Understanding Formulaic Language: A Second Language Acquisition Perspective (1st edn). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Song, Y., & Sun, T. (2024). Phrase-frame use in EFL learners’ argumentative essays: A corpus-based comparative study. European Conference on E-Learning, 23(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suntara, W. (2021). Thai EFL senior high school students’ errors in paragraph writing. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 211, 1145–1161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suraprajit, P. (2021). An analysis of errors in English essays written by Thai non-English major students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 11(1), 12–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tan, Y., & Römer, U. (2022). Using phrase-frames to trace the language development of L1 Chinese learners of English. System, 1081, 102844. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32(4), 213–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xia, D., Sulzer, M. A., & Pae, H. K. (2023). Phrase-frames in business emails: A contrast between learners of business English and working professionals. Text & Talk, 44(5), 693–714. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yan, J., Li, Q., & Jiang, J. (2024). The development of phrase-frames in EFL learners’ essays: Variability, structures, and functions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 341, 1689–1708. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhou, H., & Li, T. (2024). “In the present study”: An exploration of prepositional phrase-frames in Chinese EFL learners’ theses and dissertations of applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 701, 101400.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue