아시아태평양코퍼스연구 (Asia Pacific Journal of Corpus Research)

국립인천대학교 코퍼스연구소 (Institute for Corpus Research)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Using Small Corpora of Critiques to Set Pedagogical Goals in First Year ESP Business English

  • 투고 : 2021.06.14
  • 심사 : 2021.12.06
  • 발행 : 2021.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The current study explores small corpora of critiques written by Chinese and non-Chinese university students and how strategies used by these writers compare with high-rated L1 students. Data collection includes three small corpora of student writing; 20 student critiques in 2017, 23 student critiques from 2018, and 23 critiques from the online Michigan MICUSP collection at the University of Michigan. The researchers employ Text Inspector and Lexical Complexity to identify university students' vocabulary knowledge and awareness of syntactic complexity. In addition, WMatrix4® is used to identify and support the comparison of lexical and semantic differences among the three corpora. The findings indicate that gaps between Chinese and non-Chinese writers in the same university classes exist in students' knowledge of grammatical features and interactional metadiscourse. In addition, critiques by Chinese writers are more likely to produce shorter clauses and sentences. In addition, the mean value of complex nominal and coordinate phrases is smaller for Chinese students than for non-Chinese and MICUSP writers. Finally, in terms of lexical bundles, Chinese student writers prefer clausal bundles instead of phrasal bundles, which, according to previous studies, are more often found in texts of skilled writers. The current study's findings suggest incorporating implicit and explicit instruction through the implementation of corpora in language classrooms to advance skills and strategies of all, but particularly of Chinese writers of English.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Ai, H., & Lu, H. (2013). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students' writing In Diaz-Negrillo, A., Baillier, B., & Thompson, P. (Eds.), Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data (pp. 249-264). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  2. Aull, L. (2019). Linguistic markers of stance and genre in upper-level student writing. Written Communication, 36, 267-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318819472
  3. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Business English. In Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.), The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes (pp. 193-211). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
  4. Bax, S., Nataksuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers' use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010
  5. Biber, D., Anthony, M., & Gladkov, K. (2007). Rhetorical appeals in fundraising. In Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. (Eds.), Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure (pp. 121-151). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  6. Biber, D. (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2013). Pay attention to the phrasal structures: going beyond T-unitsa response to WeiWei Yang. TESOL Quarterly, 47 (1), 192-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.84
  8. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
  9. Bychkovska, T., & Lee, J. (2017). At the same time: Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 university student argumentative writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 38-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.008
  10. Carlsen, C. (2018). The adequacy of the B2 Level as university entrance requirement. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15, 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1405962
  11. Chan, C. (2019). Long-term workplace communication needs of business professionals: Stories from Hong Kong senior executives and their implications for ESP and higher education. English for Specific Purposes, 56, 68-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.07.003
  12. Chan, C. (2018). Proposing and illustrating a research-informed approach to curriculum development for specific topics in business. English for Specific Purposes, 52, 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.07.001
  13. Cheng, W., Lam, P., & Kong, K. (2018). Learning English through workplace communication: Linguistic devices for interpersonal meaning in textbooks in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 55, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.03.004
  14. Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D. (2019). Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 40, 646-674. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005
  15. Gherdan, M. (2019). Hedging in academic discourse. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 16, 123-126. https://doi.org/10.1515/rjes-2019-0015
  16. Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2016). Focus on texts and readers: Linguistic and rhetorical features. In Manchen, R., & Matsuda, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 245-266). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  17. Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students' timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
  18. Jitpraneechai, N. (2019). Noun phrase complexity in academic writing: A comparison of argumentative English essays written by Thai and native English university students. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network Journal, 12, 71-88.
  19. Kim, J., & Nam, H. (2019). How do textual features of L2 argumentative essays differ across proficiency levels? A multidimensional cross-sectional study. Reading and Writing, 32, 2251-2279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09947-6
  20. Kirkpatrick, A., & Xu, Z. (2012). Chinese Rhetoric and Writing: An Introduction for Language Teachers. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearing House.
  21. Lee, J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
  22. Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL Learners' oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x
  23. Miller, J. (2020). The bottom line: Are idioms used in English academic speech and writing? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 43, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100810
  24. Nacey, S. (2013). Metaphors in Learner English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  25. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2018). The BAWE corpus and genre families classification of assessed student writing. Assessing Writing, 38, 51-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.005
  26. Nesselhauf, N. (2004). Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching, 12, 125-156. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.12.11nes
  27. Qian, D., & Pan, M. (2019). Politeness in business communication: Investigating English modal sequences in Chinese Learners' letter writing. RELC Journal, 50, 20-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688217730142
  28. Ruan, Z. (2016). Lexical bundles in Chinese undergraduate academic writing at an English medium university, RELC Journal, 48, 327-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631218
  29. Schieber, D., & Robles, V. (2019). Using reflections to gauge audience awareness in business and professional communication courses. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 82, 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490619851120
  30. Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527