国?清华大学硕士?文探讨应用语言学期刊?文中学术字汇之使用 Exploring the Use of Vocabulary from Academic Word List in Applied Linguistics Journal Articles 所别:外国语文学系硕士班外语教学组 学号:g935255 姓名:黄茹玉 Ju-Yu Huang 指导教授:张宝玉 博士 Dr. Viphavee Vongpumivitch 中华民国九十???月i中文摘要 本研究旨在探讨应用语言学期刊中学术字汇表(Academic Word List, AWL, Coxhead, 2000) 中字汇之应用.藉由从五个应用语言学期刊—英语教学季刊(TESOL Quarterly),现代语言期 刊(The Modern Language Journal),应用语言学期刊(Applied Linguistics),语言学习期刊 (Language Learning)和第二语言研究期刊(Second Language Research)—所蒐集的?百篇? 文,我们建??一个约一百五十万字的应用语言学资?库. 以此资?库为基础,本?文探讨以下主题:一、学术字汇(AWL word-forms)在应用语言 期刊?文中之使用频?;二、研究应用语言学资?库高频?学术字汇的动名词搭配(V-N collocation)和四字字汇词组(four-word lexical bundle);三、分析其中字汇词组在期刊?文四个 章节(Introduction-Method-Result-Discussion)之修辞功能;四、分析出高频?的非学术内容字 汇(non-AWL content word-forms);五、调查英语系新生和第二外语教学的研究生对於?在前 一百非学术字汇之熟悉?.本研究中选择学术字汇、动名词搭配、字汇词组和非学术字汇的 标准有以下三项.一、每个学术字汇或非学术字汇在资?库的出现频?必须高於五十遍,并 且在五个期刊?文中的每一期刊出现五次以上;二、动名词搭配和四字字汇词组至少含有一 个学术字汇(AWL word-form);三、动名词搭配在资?库中必须至少出现十次以上,字汇词组 则须出现十五次以上. 本研究结果显示学术字汇(AWL word-forms)於应用语言学资?库中所占比?达 11.3% , 意 指学术字汇在应用语言学?域占很高的比?.这些学术字汇当中符合本研究选字标准的 477 个字已占?整个资?库的 8.8%,证明?这些高频字汇有?於应用语言学?域的学生.此外, 在前 100 学术字汇中含有 41 个动名词搭配和 26 个四字字汇词组;一个学术字汇可形成?同 的动名词搭配或字汇词组,但我们发现同一个学术字汇所产生的?同动名词搭配,最常使用 在?文的?同章节(IMRD),然而同一个学术字汇所产生的?同字汇辞组却最常用於同一个章 节中,这是因为动词和名词的意思可决定该动名词所出现的章节,所以动名词搭配中有动词 和名词,较容?出现在?同章节.接著,就字汇词组的修辞功能而言,同一个学术字汇所产 生的字汇词组通常表现同一个修辞功能,然而?同字汇所产生的字汇词组也可表现相同的修 辞功能,这意味著字汇的本质可以影响字汇词组所展现的修辞功能.另外,本研究也分析出 ii 128 个非学术字汇,当中包含很多应用语言学之专用字汇,如semantics, pragmatics, syntax 等. 最后,有关学生对非学术字汇中的高频字汇熟悉?,我们发现第二外语教学的研究生的熟悉 ?高於英语系新生,这是因为研究生比起新生具有?多应用语言学的背景知?. 本?文的结果提供学生、?师和课程规划者珍贵的资?.在专业英语(English for Specific Purposes, ESP)的课程中,477 个学术字汇和 128 个非学术字汇的高频字可以当作字汇学习的 目标;教师可以将动名词搭配、字汇词组以及它的修辞功能等资?融入学生的写作?习,以 期让学生明瞭如何在他们的写作中应用这些搭配词或词组.未?的研究则可以进一步探讨将 这些资?应用在教室教学之成效,并且检验这些资?对应用语言学?域学生的实用性. iii ABSTRACT This study aims to address the use of academic vocabulary from the Academic Word List (AWL) (Coxhead, 2000) by compiling an "Applied Linguistics Corpus (ALC)" which consists of approximately 200 research papers published in five international journals in the field of applied linguistics: (1) TESOL Quarterly, (2) The Modern Language Journal, (3) Applied Linguistics, (4) Language Learning, and (5) Second Language Research. The ALC contains around 1.5 million running words. The goals of this study are, first, to explore the frequency of the AWL vocabulary used in the applied linguistics journal articles; second, to investigate the verb-noun collocations and lexical bundles of the high frequency AWL vocabulary in the ALC; third, to analyze the rhetorical functions for the high frequency lexical bundles in Swales' (1990) IMRD sections (Introduction- Method – Result – Discussion); fourth, to identify the non-AWL content vocabulary that occurs frequently in the ALC; and finally, to examine to what extent English-major freshmen and TEFL-program graduate students are familiar with the top 100 non-AWL vocabulary. Some criteria for selecting the AWL vocabulary, V-N collocations, four-word lexical bundles, the non-AWL content vocabulary in the ALC are as follows. First, each AWL or non-AWL word-form has to occur at least 50 times in the entire ALC and five times in each of the five journals. Second, the V-N collocations and four-word lexical bundles should include one of the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of their word families. Third, the V-N collocations should occur at least 10 times in the entire corpus and once in each of the five journals while the four-word lexical bundles should occur at least 15 times in the ALC and once in each of the five journals. The findings show that the AWL word-forms account for 11.3% in the entire ALC, which implies the AWL word-forms account for high percentage in the field of applied linguistics. The 477 AWL word-forms make up 8.8% in the whole corpus, suggesting that the 477 word-forms are useful for learners in the field of applied linguistics due to their high frequency. Moreover, 41 V-N collocations and 26 four-word lexical bundles are identified among the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of their word families in the ALC. Different V-N collocations derived from the same iv AWL word-form occur most frequently in different sections in research articles (RAs) but different bundles derived from the same AWL word-form most frequently occur in the same sections. This suggests that the verb and noun in the V-N collocations decide which RA section they most frequently occur in because the meanings of verb and noun would influence this decision. In terms of rhetorical functions of lexical bundles, almost all of the bundles with the same AWL word-form perform the same function in one RA section. Some AWL word-forms generate different bundles but all of the bundles perform common functions. The findings imply that the nature of a word would influence how their bundles perform the rhetorical functions. Furthermore, 128 non-AWL content word-forms are identified in the ALC and they include some specialized terms such as semantics, pragmatics, syntax in the applied linguistics field. Finally, the TEFL-program graduate students are more familiar with the top 100 non-AWL content word-forms than English-major freshmen because graduate students understand more background knowledge of applied linguistics field than freshmen. The contribution of the present study is to provide valuable data for learners, teachers and course designers in the field of applied linguistics. In ESP courses, the 477 AWL word-forms and 128 non-AWL content word-forms can be the goal for vocabulary learning. Moreover, teachers can incorporate the V-N collocations and lexical bundles with its rhetorical functions into writing exercises for students to practice. In this way, students can become aware of how to use collocations and bundles in their writing. Future research can investigate the effectiveness of the application of the vocabulary, collocations or bundles in classroom teaching and examine their usefulness for students in the field of applied linguistics. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is not possible to complete this thesis without the assistance and support from numerous individuals. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Viphavee Vongpumivitch for her concern, training, and encouragement. Without her endless support and invaluable guidance, I could not have accomplished what I have. She is always insightful and provides concrete suggestions for me. I appreciate her assistance and instruction very much. I am also extremely grateful to my committee members, Dr. John Truscott and Dr. Chih-Hua Kuo. Dr. Truscott always tries to relieve my pressure and gives me different ideas on my thesis. From his consideration, I've regained energy to keep doing my research. Dr. Kuo is an expert in the field of corpus linguistics. With her profound knowledge, beneficial guidance, and spiritual support, I've gained constructive advice, warm encouragement, and inspiring thinking. Million thanks go to my dear committee members. I would like to extend my thanks to the publishers and editors from the five journals, Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, the Modern Language Journal, Second Language Research, and TESOL Quarterly. They permit me to collect the research articles from their journals for academic purpose (see Appendix A). Without their support and wishes, I could not have successfully finished my thesis. Special thanks go to my programmer, Yu-Chia Chang, for his timely assistance, professional cooperation, and warm friendship. He is patient to respond to my request and provides immediate help. Were it not for his support in corpus analysis, I could not have completed my thesis. I also extend my thanks to Dr. Hsien-Chin Liou and Dr. Jason S. Chang from NSC CANDLE Project II for offering their insights on my research. Moreover, many thanks go to my participants in this study. I could not have conducted my research without their kind help. I would like to thank Dr. I-Ru Su and Dr. Yi-Ping Hsu for their care during my graduate life. What's more, I would like to thank my classmates, Anne, Angel, Ally, Grace, Judy, Yvette, Tim, and Roman. With their company and encouragement, I am cheered up when I get depressed in course of vi research. I also want to specially thank Anne, Angel and Grace for giving me happiness and good memories, and thank Judy and Tim for their kindness and generosity. Moreover, I would like to thank my first-year classmates, Lily, Joyce, Lilian, Danny, Debby, Janice and Winnie for their help on my thesis, and my friends in National Chiao Tung University, Louis, Jenny, Livia, Joanne, and Clarence for their kindness and assistance. I also thank my family for their love and care. Special thanks are certainly owed to my boyfriend, Hsin-Yeh Huang. With his constant support, solid advice, endless patience, and selfless contribution, any challenging mission becomes possible. Because of him, I have courage and determination to go forward and embrace future challenges. Finally, thank my cute pet, Biby, for his warm company in my graduate life. This thesis is dedicated to all of my dear professors, friends, and family. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT (Chinese)i ABSTRACT (English)iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.v TABLE OF CONTENTS.vii LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.1 1.1 Background of the Present Study.1 1.2 The Rationale of the Present Study.2 1.3 The Purpose of the Present Study and Research Questions.3 1.4 Definitions of Terms 4 1.5 Importance of the Present Study.5 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.6 2.1 Corpus Linguistics 6 2.1.1 The Definition of Corpus Linguistics and the Corpus.6 2.1.2 The Characteristics of Corpus-based Analysis 7 2.1.3 Analysis of Language Features Based on Corpus Linguistics.7 2.1.4 The Corpus for English for Specific Purposes (ESP)11 2.1.5 Summary.11 2.2. Vocabulary in Language Teaching and Learning.12 2.2.1 Four Kinds of Vocabulary.12 2.2.2 The General Service List (GSL)13 2.2.3 The Academic Word List (AWL)14 2.2.4 The Importance of Academic Vocabulary.15 2.2.5 Technical Vocabulary.16 2.2.6 The Low Frequency Words.17 2.2.7 Summary.18 2.3 Word Frequency Lists 18 2.3.1 The Insights of Word Frequency Lists.19 2.3.2 The Rationale of Using Word Frequency Lists as Vocabulary Learning and Teaching Tools 21 2.3.3 The Criteria of a Good Word Frequency List 22 2.3.4 Summary.25 2.4 The Study of Word Combination 25 2.4.1 Verb-Noun Collocations.25 viii 2.4.2 Lexical bundles.27 2.4.3 Summary.39 2.5 Rhetorical Functions for AIMRD Sections in Research Articles.40 2.5.1 Rhetorical Structures of RAAbstracts –Santos (1996)41 2.5.2 Rhetorical Structures of RA Introductions – Swales (1990)43 2.5.3 Rhetorical Structures of RA Method.45 2.5.4 Rhetorical Structures of RA Results and Discussions– Yang & Allison (2003)47 2.5.5 Summary.49 2.6 The AWL-related Research.52 2.6.1 The AWL in ESP.52 2.6.2 Various Perspectives of the AWL.53 2.6.3 Summary.56 2.7 Summary of Chapter Two.57 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY.58 3.1 Compilation of Applied Linguistics Corpus (ALC)58 3.2 Data Analysis Procedures 61 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS.67 4.1 Frequency Analysis of AWL Vocabulary in the ALC 67 4.2 V-N Collocations and Lexical Bundles for High Frequency AWL Vocabulary 74 4.2.1 V-N Collocations.74 4.2.2 Four-word Lexical Bundles 84 4.3 Rhetorical Functions for Lexical Bundles in IMRD Sections 94 4.4 Non-AWL Content Word-forms in the ALC.101 4.5 Students' Familiarity With Top 100 Non-AWL Content Word-forms 103 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 105 5.1 Summary of the Whole Study.105 5.2 Discussion of the Results.109 5.2.1 Distribution of High Frequency AWL Word-forms in Coxhead's Sublists.109 5.2.2 Comparison and Contrast Between V-N Collocations and Four-Word Lexical Bundles 111 5.2.3 Rhetorical Functions of Four-word Lexical Bundles in the ALC.....116 5.2.4 Non-AWL Content Word-forms in the ALC.117 5.2.5 Comparison and Contrast of Students' Familiarity With Top 100 Non-AWL Word-forms Between Freshmen and Graduate Students 118 ix 5.3 Pedagogical Implications.119 5.4 Contribution of the Study.121 5.5 Limitation and Future Research.122 References.123 Appendix A Permission Letters From Five Journals 128 Appendix B Headwords of the Academic Word List.136 Appendix C Rating Instructions for Rhetorical Functions 138 Appendix D References for ALC.142 Appendix E Top 101-477 Word-forms in the ALC.165 Appendix F Word Families of the 477 Word-forms in the ALC 173 Appendix G Specific Rhetorical Functions for Four-word Lexical Bundles 187 x LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 The Most Common Right Collocates of big, large, and great in Two Registers From Longman-Lancaster Corpus.9 Table 2.2 Overall Distribution of that-clause and to-clause in Conversation and Academic Prose (each * represent 500 occurrence per million words).......10 Table 2.3 Sample Word Families From the Academic Word List.15 Table 2.4 Four Categories of Technical Vocabulary 16 Table 2.5 The Most Frequent General, Spoken, and Automotive Words.20 Table 2.6 Summary of Six Levels for Grouping Words under Word Families.23 Table 2.7 Structural Types of Lexical Bundles in the Study of Biber et al. (1999, p. 1001~1024)29 Table 2.8 Structural Types of Lexical Bundles in the Study of Biber et al. (2004)32 Table 2.9 Functional Types of Lexical Bundles in Three Studies.33 Table 2.10 Structural Types of Lexical Bundles in the Study of Cortes (2004)36 Table 2.11 Selection Rules for Distribution of Lexical Bundle Across Different Texts. 37 Table 2.12 Summary of the Selected Literature in Lexical bundles.38 Table 2.13 A Proposed Rhetorical Patterns for RAAbstracts in the Field of Applied Linguistics by Santos.42 Table 2.14 A CARS Model for RA Introductions.44 Table 2.15 An Overview of Moves and Steps Identified in the Method Sections of Management RAs.46 Table 2.16 Information Elements Included in the Method Section 47 Table 2.17 Rhetorical Structure in RA Results and Discussion in the Field of Applied Linguistics.48 Table 2.18 Rhetorical Functions in the AIMRD Sections in One RA.50 Table 3.1 Scope of RAs Selected from Each Journal 59 Table 3.2 Criteria for Classifying One RA into AIMRD Sections.61 Table 3.3 Rhetorical Functions in Five RA Sections.64 Table 3.4 Data Analysis Procedures.66 Table 4.1 Coverage of AWL Word-forms in Each Journal and the ALC.67 Table 4.2 Coverage of Top 477 AWL Word-forms in the ALC 67 Table 4.3 Coverage of Top 477 AWL Word-forms that Occurred in the ALC in Each xi of Coxhead's Sublists.69 Table 4.4 Top 100 AWL Word-forms in the ALC.71 Table 4.5 41 V-N Collocations of 24 AWL Word-forms.76 Table 4.6 V-N Collocations in IMRD 81 Table 4.7 26 Four-word Lexical Bundles of 12 AWL Word-forms 86 Table 4.8 Four-word Lexical Bundles in IMRD.90 Table 4.9 The Common Word-forms Found in Both Collocation and Bundle Groups 92 Table 4.10 Structural Types of Four-word Lexical Bundles.94 Table 4.11 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Acquisition Lexical Bundles.......97 Table 4.12 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Target Lexical Bundles.97 Table 4.13 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Role Lexical Bundles.97 Table 4.14 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Significant Lexical Bundles........99 Table 4.15 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Found Lexical Bundles.99 Table 4.16 The Non-AWL Content Word-forms in the ALC.102 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Coverage of Top 477 Word-forms in the ALC.68 Figure 4.2 Percentage of Top 477 AWL Word-forms in Coxhead's Each Sublist .......70 Figure 4.3 Percentage of Top 100 AWL Word-forms that Occurred in the ALC in Coxhead's Each Sublist 73 Figure 4.4 Number of Different V-N Collocations Across Four RA Sections.80 Figure 4.5 Number of Different Four-word Lexical Bundles Across Four RA Sections. 90 Figure 4.6 Proportion of "Introduction" Rhetorical Functions in Three AWL Word-forms Lexical Bundles 98 Figure 4.7 Proportion of "Result" Rhetorical Functions in Two AWL Word-forms Lexical Bundles 100 Figure 4.8 Percentage of High Frequency AWL and Non-AWL word-forms in the ALC.101 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Present Study Recently, corpus linguistics has greatly influenced language teaching and learning because abundant and authentic data in a corpus can present real language use. With the aid of computers, corpus collection and creation have become simpler, and the size of a corpus has grown larger and larger, which improves the validity of the analysis of language use. The contribution of a corpus is that it can provide authentic language use and abundant examples for teachers or learners so they can abandon "made-up" language and turn to more authentic language. In this way, teachers can reduce their burden of material development; in the meantime, learners can have more access to the authentic language and become more native-like language users. Based on various language teaching or learning purposes, teachers and learners can collect the texts they need and analyze the linguistic features such as parts of speech, vocabulary use, relative clauses or discourse features such as cohesive markers. Many word lists based on corpus analysis have been created for teachers and students to learn essential and important words. West (1953) created a widely used 2,000 word list, the General Service List (GSL), developed from a corpus of five million words. The GSL contains the basic words that ESL or EFL students need to learn because its corpus includes a wide range of texts. Additionally, the high percentage of overlap of the GSL with other lists of high frequency words such as the Brown corpus (Francis and Kucera, 1982) and the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen corpus (LOB, Hofland & Johansson, 1982) supported the importance of the GSL. Afterwards Xue and Nation (1984, as cited in Nation, 1990) followed up by creating the University Word List (UWL). Coxhead (2000) reported that Xue and Nation developed the UWL by editing and combining four lists, which were created respectively by Campion and Elley (1971), Praninskas (1972), Lynn (1973), and Ghadessy (1979). However, the selection principles of words on the four lists were different, and the corpora were small and did not contain a wide range of topics (Coxhead, 2000). To resolve the problems of the UWL, Coxhead (2000) developed an Academic Word List (AWL) by compiling the 2 Academic Corpus, which comprises four disciplines, law, art, commerce, and science. The AWL was created from this bigger corpus (3.5 million running words) with more strict and consistent selection principles including representativeness of the texts, the organization of the corpus, its size, and the criteria for word selection. In recent years, researchers have used the AWL more often so that it is replacing the UWL. The AWL has been considered important in academic context. Coxhead and Nation (2001) reported that the AWL covered around 8.5% to 10% of the running words in an academic text. Further, the AWL vocabulary was considered necessary in understanding an English academic text besides the GSL (Cobb and Horst, 2004). Since the AWL seems promising in enhancing learners' understanding of academic texts, some studies have explored its usefulness for English for specific purpose (ESP) (Chung & Nation, 2003; Mudraya, 2006), and the results showed that the AWL vocabulary is important in comprehending academic texts of specific fields. To extend the research of AWL vocabulary in ESP, the present study explores the use of the AWL vocabulary in applied linguistics journal articles so as to provide teachers and learners with more information about how the AWL vocabulary is used in the field of applied linguistics. 1.2 The Rationale of the Present Study The present study focuses on applied linguistics because it is a discipline that has not been extensively studied. Previous studies have explored Engineering English (Mudraya, 2006), and compared anatomy and applied linguistics English (Chung & Nation, 2003). Mudraya (2006) used a corpus-based approach to organize a word frequency list for engineering English, and found some verbs occurred with high frequency in the AWL. Chung and Nation (2003) examined the technical vocabulary respectively in an anatomy book containing 450,000 tokens (Moore and Dalley, 1999) and an applied linguistics book consisting of 93,445 tokens (Ellis, 1999). They found that most of the technical words were from the GSL and the AWL, and that the applied linguistics text had fewer technical words (16.3%) than the anatomy text (37.6%) but more AWL words (17.4%) than the anatomy one (8.6%). It seems that the AWL words play an important role in such specialized texts, 3 especially in the field of applied linguistics. Although Chung and Nation's study explored AWL words in the field of applied linguistics, its limitation is that it only developed a small corpus — one applied linguistics book (93,445 running words). Consequently, the present study created a larger corpus to enable better generalization of the results. The present study is specifically designed to investigate the use of the AWL vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics because it is an aspect of AWL that has not been well explored. Previous studies have analyzed the stress patterns of the words in the AWL (Murphy and Kandil, 2004), recognized homographs (the unrelated meanings of the same word form) of the AWL's words (Wang and Nation, 2004), probed into whether there was a need for an academic word list in French (Cobb and Horst, 2004), compared the three word lists from British National Corpus (BNC) with the GSL and the AWL to determine which word list represented better coverage (Nation, 2004), and examined the effectiveness of an interactive online database which was designed for students to expand their academic vocabulary from the AWL (Horst, Cobb, and Nicolae, 2005). None of these studies looked at the use of the AWL vocabulary in a specific field. Thus, this present study specifically looks at the use of the AWL vocabulary in the applied linguistics journal articles. 1.3 The Purpose of the Present Study and Research Questions Few studies have paid attention to the use of the AWL vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics. To bridge this gap, the purpose of the present study was to explore the frequency and the use of the AWL vocabulary in applied linguistics journal articles. Moreover, this study probed into the frequency of the non-AWL content word-forms in these journal articles and students' familiarity with these word-forms. To guide the present study, an Applied Linguistics Corpus, a collection of journal articles in the field of applied linguistics, was developed to address the following research questions. 1. How frequently are the AWL word-forms used in the applied linguistics journal articles that are collected in this study? 2. What are the verb-noun collocations and lexical bundles of the high frequency AWL word-forms 4 that are recognized in the first research question? 3. What are the rhetorical functions for the high frequency lexical bundles which are identified in the second research question in Swales' (1990) IMRD sections (Introduction- Method – Result – Discussion)? 4. What non-AWL content word-forms occur with high frequency in the applied linguistics journal articles? 5. To what extent are English-major freshmen and TEFL-program graduate students familiar with the top 100 non-AWL content word-forms listed in the fourth question? 1.4 Definitions of Terms Some terms will be used in the present study. They are defined as follows: 1. Corpus: A corpus is commonly defined as a collection of texts that can represent the state or variety of language and are stored in the computer (Mudraya, 2006). 2. Applied Linguistics Corpus (ALC) refers to a collection of 200 research articles from five international journals in the field of applied linguistics in this study. The five journals are (1) Applied Linguistics (AL), (2) Language Learning (LL), (3) The Modern Language Journal (MLJ), (4) Second Language Research (SLR), and (5) TESOL Quarterly (TESOL). There are approximately 1.5 million running words in the ALC. 3. Word families are defined as a group of words including a base word and all its derived and inflected forms (Bauer & Nation, 1993). 4. Headwords stand for stem noun or verb forms (Coxhead, 2000). In the present study, the word families will listed by headwords. 5. The AWL word frequency list in this study is created according to the following criteria: the frequency and range of each word, and word families. 6. Running words (tokens) refer to the total number of word-forms regardless of whether they are repeated in a text, and are usually used to measure the length of a text. For instance, the phrase "The book on the table" contains five running words. 5 7. Types are defined as the number of different word-forms not including repetition of the same word. Thus, the phrase "The book on the table" contains four types. 8. Word-form is described as any string of letters, bounded by space (Sinclair, 1991). For example, give, giving, gave, given are all separate word-forms. The word and word-form in the present study are the same meaning. 9. Lexical bundles: a sequence of three or more words that co-occur frequently in a particular register (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999) 1.5 Importance of the Present Study The results of the present study would provide teachers and learners in the field of applied linguistics with new and in-depth insights into the use of the AWL vocabulary. Further, the present study would contribute to establish which non-AWL vocabulary occurs with high frequency in the Applied Linguistic Corpus (ALC), which can offer learners or teachers more information about vocabulary use in the field of applied linguistics. In addition to the distribution of the AWL and non-AWL vocabulary in ALC, the most important feature of this study is that it will provide learners, teachers, and course designers with further information on each word, including its collocations, lexical bundles and rhetorical functions. The information will be beneficial for learners in their academic writing. Teachers and course designers can integrate the information into their teaching and course materials as well. 6 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The present study is to explore the use and distribution of AWL vocabulary in Applied Linguistics Corpus (ALC). Several issues are reviewed in this section. Section 2.1 contains the concept of corpus linguistics and its application to language teaching and learning. What follows in Section 2.2 is the introduction to four kinds of vocabulary, namely, high frequency words, academic vocabulary, technical vocabulary, and low frequency words. Next, the rationale and criteria of frequency word lists are addressed in Section 2.3. Moreover, Section 2.4 reviews some studies about collocations and lexical bundles. Then Section 2.5 reports the rhetorical functions in different RA sections, and Section 2.6 discusses some studies related to the AWL. Finally, the summary of this chapter is given. 2.1 Corpus Linguistics With the advancement of computer technology, corpus linguistics has increasingly influenced the language learning and teaching. This section discusses the definition of corpus linguistics, characteristics of corpus-based analysis and the use of language features based on corpus linguistics. 2.1.1 The Definition of Corpus Linguistics and the Corpus Corpus linguistics is a study of natural language on examples of "authentic" or "real-life" language use through a corpus (MaEnery & Wilson, 2001). A corpus is described as a collection of texts that can represent the state or variety of language such as written and spoken language and stored in the computer (Mudraya, 2006). A corpus is commonly developed to analyze particular linguistic features such as the use of to-clause in academic context. 7 2.1.2 The Characteristics of Corpus-based Analysis According to Biber, Conrad and Reppen (1998), there are four characteristics of corpus-based analysis. First of all, the analysis is empirical because the researcher observes the actual patterns of language use in natural texts. Second, the corpus-based analysis relies on computer-assisted techniques such as concordancers ("KWIC" displays = "Key Word in Context") and the computer programs to tag grammatical points or code grammatical variants. Third, the linguistic features in a corpus can be analyzed in both quantitative and qualitative/interpretive way. For example, the concordancer can show the frequency of the word "receiver" in one corpus, which is a quantitative observation. Then we can further analyze the different meanings of "receiver" in different contexts, which is a qualitative analysis. Finally, one important concept is that meaningful analysis must be stimulated by linguistic research questions, not only by the availability of a corpus. For instance, a corpus may be designed to compare the difference between the use of the demonstrative pronoun "this" in conversation context and in academic writing context. Because the investigation is prompted to address this linguistic research question, the analysis of a corpus becomes meaningful. In conclusion, corpus linguistics provides us a new way of thinking about language because linguistic features are not based on prescriptive perspective anymore, but on descriptive view. 2.1.3 Analysis of Language Features Based on Corpus Linguistics Corpus linguistics generally explores the following three language features: vocabulary, grammar, and lexico-grammar. In term of vocabulary, a corpus is usually developed by lexicographers to build a comprehensive dictionary. Learner dictionaries like Collins COBUILD English Dictionary and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English are based on corpora. Ordinarily, six major research questions can be addressed by the corpus-based lexicographic investigation: the meanings associated with a particular word in natural contexts, the frequency of a word relative to other related words, the non-linguistic association patterns of a particular word, the collocation of a particular word and the distribution of the collocation across registers, the distribution of the uses of a word, the use and distribution of synonymous words (Biber, et al., 1998, 8 pp. 23-24). The answers to these six questions can provide the second or foreign language learners with the meanings, collocations, importance, social functions of a word. To illustrate usefulness of corpus linguistics on vocabulary, Table 2.1 shows the use and distribution of three synonymous words, large, great, and big. In both registers, the collocates of big present that the use of big usually refers to "physical size", such as big enough, man, house, toe, boy, and room. Regarding the collocates of large, its use is usually associated with "quantity or amount of something" in academic prose like large number(s), proportion, amounts, and quantities, while its use is more related to "physical size" in fiction, such as large house, room, and man. In terms of the collates of great, its use is similar to the use of large in the sense of "quantity or amount of something" like great number, majority, extent, and part in academic prose. Further, great can as well imply the sense of "intensity" such as great importance, care, advantage, detail, and interest. In fiction, great also "intensifies" the degree of something like great care, pleasure, and relief, and has a wider range of use such as great man (a sense of good or important), great burrow (a sense of physical size), and great aunt (a sense of family relationship). To sum up, corpus linguistics can lead learners to understand the different or similar use of one word across different registers. 9 Table 2.1 The Most Common Right Collocates of big, large, and great in Two Registers From Longman-Lancaster Corpus Academic prose (2.7 million words) Big Large Great Right collocate Freq. per million Right collocate Freq. per million Right collocate Freq. per million enough 2.2 number 48.3 deal 44.6 traders 1.1 numbers 31.3 importance 12.5 scale 29.4 number 8.9 and 28.0 majority 8.1 enough 15.9 variety 7.0 proportion 11.8 extent 7.0 amounts 10.7 part 4.1 quantities 10.3 care 3.3 part 10.0 advantage 2.6 extent 8.9 detail 2.6 interest 2.6 Fiction (3 million words) Big Large Great Right collocate Freq. per million Right collocate Freq. per million Right collocate Freq. per million man 9.6 and 15.2 deal 40.4 enough 8.9 black 4.3 man 6.6 and 8.3 enough 3.6 burrow 5.6 black 8.3 house 3.0 big 4.6 house 7.6 room 2.7 aunt 4.0 one 7.0 white 2.7 care 4.0 toe 5.0 number 2.3 pleasure 4.0 old 4.6 for 2.3 and 3.0 red 4.3 man 2.0 relief 3.0 boy 3.6 one 2.0 black 2.7 room 3.6 in 2.0 to 2.7 Note. From Corpus Linguistics: Investigating language structure and use (p. 46), by D. Biber, S. Conrad, and R., Reppen, 1998, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Copyright 1998 by Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen. With regard to the grammar, corpus-based studies focus on the use, function and distribution of morphology, grammatical categories, syntactic constructions across registers (Biber, et al., 1998). 10 For example, Table 2.2 demonstrates distribution and function of a syntactic construction, namely, that-clause and to-clause which are dispersed differently in conversation and academic prose. According to Table 2.2, it is shown that that- clause occurs more frequently in conversation register than to-clause does, while that-clause appears less frequently in academic prose than to-clause does. This helps learners understand the general distribution of that-clause and to-clause across different registers. Then learners can try to imitate the usages when encountering the different contexts, conversational or academic. Table 2.2 Overall Distribution of that-clause and to-clause in Conversation and Academic Prose (each * represent 500 occurrence per million words) Conversation Academic Prose that-clause to-clause Note. From Corpus Linguistics: Investigating language structure and use (p. 74), by D. Biber, S. Conrad, and R. Reppen, 1998, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Copyright 1998 by Cambridge University Press. Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen. In addition to vocabulary and grammar patterns in the corpus-based investigation, there may be association between lexicon and grammar, namely, lexico-grammatical associations. Two research questions are commonly posed to answer the grammatical association of nearly synonymous words such as start and begin or little and small, and the lexical association of nearly equivalent grammatical constructions such as that-clause and to-clause (Biber, et al, 1998). For example, two words start and begin have the similar meanings and can be viewed as transitive and intransitive verbs. However, the results from Longman-Lancaster Corpus shows that start is usually regarded as an intransitive verb than begin is, but begin is commonly viewed as transitive verb and combined with a to-clause (p. 98). It is useful for learners to understand when to use start or begin based on this corpus-based investigation. Besides, the data from BNC and Longman-Lancaster Corpus demonstrates that some verbs are combined with to-clause or that-clause divergently across different registers. In conversation register, think, say, and know commonly take that-clause as their object, while want, try, and like often are connected with to-clause type. In academic context, some 11 verbs like say, show, see and find are commonly combined with that-clause, but others such as tend, appear, seem and attempt are coupled with to-clause (p.102-104). It is obvious that lexical patterns are one of the major factors to decide clause type for verbs. These findings can provide learners and teachers with some guidelines in learning and teaching verbs under different contexts. In conclusion, the corpus linguistics applied to the analysis of language use has illustrated a more comprehensive view on the use of vocabulary, grammar and lexico-grammar. 2.1.4 The Corpus for English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Some general corpora have been developed such as the Brown corpus, BNC, the LOB, and so on. In addition, there are specific corpora for specific discipline, which are designed to explore the language use of one particular discipline. Flowerdew (2002) summarized the existed corpora in various disciplines, including English for Science and Technology (EST) corpus, English for medicine, English for business, finance, and economics. She concluded that the majority of the corpus-based investigation is EST, and it is obvious that law and arts subjects like history, philosophy, linguistics and the social sciences are rarely explored in the literature. It is a need for researchers to pay more attention to these unexplored fields. 2.1.5 Summary Corpus linguistics presents extensive and comprehensive perspectives on the use of vocabulary, grammar, and lexico-grammar. The present study primarily explores the vocabulary use based on corpus approach. The present study develops a corpus and explores the vocabulary use in terms of the frequency of a word relative to other related words, the collocation of a particular word, and the distribution of the uses of a word. In addition, although previous studies have focused on English for specific disciplines such as science and technology, medicine, finance, business, and economics (Flowerdew, 2002), few have explored the field of applied linguistic. To extend the further research on applied linguistics, the present study specifically explores the vocabulary use in the field of applied linguistics, a branch of linguistics. 12 2.2. Vocabulary in Language Teaching and Learning It is realistic for language teachers or learners to ask how many words native speakers and non-native speakers know before they set goals for vocabulary teaching or learning. Nation (2001) reported that educated native English speakers know about 20,000 word families, which should be manageable for non-native speakers, but it is actually not a realistic goal because non-native speakers do not encounter English words every day. Although it is better for non-native language learners to learn a wide range of vocabulary, this is a long-term goal for life-long learning, not a short-term goal for classroom learning. In the classroom context, students can choose the type of vocabulary they need to achieve the short-term goal. To assist learners with their vocabulary learning, four kinds of vocabulary essentially based on frequency are recognized, and brief explanations for each vocabulary are introduced in the following. 2.2.1 Four Kinds of Vocabulary According to Coxhead and Nation (2001), it is beneficial to divide the English vocabulary into four groups, including high frequency words, academic vocabulary, technical vocabulary, and low frequency words. They explained these four groups as followed: z High frequency words comprise around 2,000 word families. The classic collection of the high frequency words is Michael West's (1953) General Service List of English Words (GSL). Typically they account for approximately 80% of the running words in an academic text. z Academic vocabulary consists of 570 word families which occur comparatively frequent in a wide range of academic texts but not so common in other kinds of texts. A major representative collection of the academic vocabulary is Academic Word List (AWL, Coxhead, 2000). The coverage of its vocabulary is around 8.5% to 10% of the running words in an academic text. The AWL is fundamental for learners with academic purposes. z Technical vocabulary differs from one discipline to another. It comprises probably 1,000 words for any particular discipline. It only represents around 5% in an academic text. z Low frequency words occur differently based on various topics so the words are not 13 extensively dispersed and occur in low frequency. Some words may occur only once or twice and are hard to meet for a long time. To sum up, the combination of the GSL and the AWL can account for around 90% coverage of the running words in academic texts. Thus, learners can learn the vocabulary in the GSL and the AWL to fulfill their short-term goal for English for academic purpose course. Then they can begin to learn technical and low frequency words in their own fields. The four kinds of vocabulary play different roles under different learning stages. To understand the four kinds of vocabulary further, the following sections will address them in detail. 2.2.2. The General Service List (GSL) The GSL was developed by West (1953), consisting of 2,000 word families, extracted from the texts from 1938 to 1949. The GSL is a medium-sized and dictionary-like book, and the 2,000 words are listed alphabetically with brief definitions and examples. West used a variety of criteria to select the words, including frequency, ease of learning, coverage of useful concepts, and stylistic level (pp. ix- x). The problem of the original version did not strictly define world family and the inclusion of related form under a headword was inconsistent. Thus, John Bauman and Brent Culligan in early 1995 revised the GSL. They classified the words under the same word families based on level 1 to level 4 in Bauer and Nation's study (1993), which will be explained intensively in Section 2.3.3. Moreover, they used the Brown Corpus (Frances and Kucera, 1982) to determine the frequency of each word. Then the total vocabulary in the new version of GSL contains 2284 words. Although the GSL has been criticized for its size and age, it accounts for 90% coverage of fiction texts, 75% of nonfiction texts and 76% of the Academic Corpus (Coxhead, 2000). Furthermore, Nation and Hwang (1995) reported that there was a large overlap (approximately 80%) between the GSL and the more recent high frequency lists such as the Brown corpus and LOB. Consequently, the GSL is still valuable in vocabulary teaching and learning. 14 2.2.3 The Academic Word List (AWL) The Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000, see Appendix B) was developed by collecting texts from a wide range of disciplines including law, art, commerce, and science, by examining the frequency of each word occurring at least 100 times in the entire corpus, 10 times in each of four main disciplines (28 subject areas in total), and at least once in 15 subject areas out of 28. She selected words from a written Academic Corpus which contains approximately 3.5 million running words but removed those words that were listed in the GSL. The list contains 570 word families and represents approximately 10% of the total words (tokens) in the Academic Corpus but only 1.4% in the fiction collection. A word family includes one base word and its inflected and derived forms (Bauer and Nation, 1993). Table 2.3 exhibits three examples of word families. The AWL vocabulary was grouped into word families because word families play an important role in the mental lexicon (Nagy, Anderson, Schommer, Scott, & Stallman, 1989, as cited in Coxhead, 2000). Since a word family comprises a base word and all its derived and inflected forms, learners only have to recognize the base word and control the basic word-building processes, and they do not take much effort to comprehend the regularly derived or inflected forms (Bauer & Nation, 1993, p. 253). The AWL is divided into 10 sublists based on frequency. The first nine sublists contain 60 word families respectively and the tenth sublist includes 30 word families. The words in the first three sublists occurred with comparatively high frequency; that is, each word occurs in at least every 12 pages of an academic text on average. The most frequent 60 words in the first sublist account for over one-third of the total coverage of the Academic Corpus, and the next 60 words together with the first 60 words represent only half of the total coverage. 15 Table 2.3 Sample Word Families From the Academic Word List concept legislate indicate conception concepts conceptual conceptualisation conceptualise conceptualised conceptualises conceptualising conceptually legislated legislates legislating legislation legislative legislator legislators legislature indicated indicates indicating indication indications indicative indicator indicators Note. Words in italics are the most frequent form in that family occurring in the Academic Corpus. Note. From "A new academic word list,"by A. Coxhead, 2000, TESOL Quarterly, 34, p.218. Copyright 2000 by TESOL. 2.2.4 The Importance of Academic Vocabulary There are three reasons why academic vocabulary is regarded as significant and qualified as a useful and realistic learning tool for learners with academic purposes (Coxhead & Nation, 2001). First, academic vocabulary represents a substantial number of words in academic texts, but not in non-academic texts. For example, Coxhead (2000) found that the academic vocabulary in the AWL covered 8.5% to 10.0% of the tokens in her 3.5 million running word academic corpus across four disciplines with 28 subject areas. Second, learners in their own field may be more familiar with their technical vocabulary than academic vocabulary, so they may only understand the technical vocabulary, rather than general academic vocabulary when reading academic texts. For example, Cohen, Glasman, Rosenbaum-Cohen, Ferrara and Find (1988, as cited in Coxhead & Nation, 2001) reported that non-technical words like essential, maintain, and invariable were not recognized by learners. Thus, students should be directed to academic vocabulary. Third, compared to technical vocabulary, academic vocabulary is especially what English teachers can use to help learners to master because English teachers can explain academic vocabulary better than technical vocabulary in different fields, which they do not understand the background knowledge. It seems that academic vocabulary greatly influences vocabulary learning and teaching in the academic contexts. In recent 16 years, the AWL has become the main representative list of academic vocabulary because of its high coverage in academic texts. It can provide learners with the necessary academic vocabulary to meet the needs of EAP courses. 2.2.5 Technical Vocabulary Technical vocabulary is specific to a particular topic, field or discipline, and beneficial for learners with specific goals in language use. Further, there are degrees of "technicalness" based on how restricted a word is to a particular field. According to Coxhead and Nation (2001), technical vocabulary can be classified under 4 categories from category 1, being the most technical, to category 4, the least. Table 2.4 illustrates the definitions of 4 categories and the examples from the field of applied linguistic (p.261). Table 2.4 Four Categories of Technical Vocabulary Category 1 – The word form appears rarely if at all outside this particular field. In other words, the word appears most often in a particular field. e.g. morpheme, hapax legomena, lemma Category 2 – The word occurs both inside and outside a particular field, but not with the same meaning. e.g. sense, reference, type, token Category 3 – The word occurs both inside and outside a particular field, but it has one particular meaning in this field. The specialized meaning can be easily accessible through its meaning outside the field. e.g. range, frequency Category 4 – Although the word is more common in a field than elsewhere, its meaning is easily recognizable through its use outside the field. e.g. word, meaning Note. Adapted From The specialised vocabulary of English for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purpose (p. 261), by A. Coxhead and P. Nation, 2001, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Copyright 2001 by Cambridge University Press. It is obvious that the form and the meaning of words in category 1 are unique to one specific field. Someone that knows those words well tends to have knowledge of that field beyond just knowing the words. Those words can be investigated by computer analysis on its frequency and 17 range, and only be learned by studying the subject. The words in category 2 have different meanings in and out of the field so it is a need for learners to particularly focus on the meaning in one field so as to understand the knowledge in that field. For example, type in the field of applied linguistics refers to the number of different word-forms, but it commonly refers to a group of people or things that have similar characteristics or qualities based on the definition from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. On the contrary, the words in category 3 and 4 are less technical because they are neither unique in form or in meaning to a particular field. Learners can access the general meanings through their use outside the field. However, category 2 and 3 indicate that the range-based analysis on form is not sufficient to the clear division of technical and non-technical words so "meaning" should be taken into consideration. From Table 2.4, some technical words may have technical meanings as well as general meanings. Thus, one question is inquired about how to classify some words as technical or as non-technical words. Coxhead and Nation (2001) suggested that it is important to define the principles of classification. There are three alternatives: Category 1 as technical words versus Category 2, 3 and 4 as non-technical words, Category 1 and 2 versus Category 3 and 4, or Category 1, 2, and 3 versus Category 4. In brief, the cut-off point of technical and non-technical words would come after category 2, 3, or 4. 2.2.6 The Low Frequency Words According to Nation (2001), the low frequency words cover around 5% of the running words in an academic text. Thousands of them exist in one language (Goulden, Nation, Read, 1990) and become the biggest group of words. They comprise all the words that are not the high frequency words, not academic words, and not technical words in one corpus. It is difficult to present the exact low frequency words because these words appear differently from one corpus to another. Nation (2001) reported that an individual's technical vocabulary may be another person's low frequency words, which proves the fluctuation of low frequency words. It seems challenging for learners to learn these low frequency words. Thus, the low frequency words can be learned based on learners' 18 own field after they master the words in the GSL and AWL, which in total cover around 90% of the academic text. 2.2.7 Summary There are four kinds of vocabulary as mentioned above. It is found that the GSL vocabulary and the AWL vocabulary can represent approximately 90% of running words in academic texts so learners can learn these two lists first. Then they master the technical vocabulary that only occurs in their own field. Finally, they can spend time on the low frequency words if they intend to expand their vocabulary size. The present study specifically focuses on the AWL because of its importance and wide range use in diverse academic fields so that the research develops the Applied Linguistics Corpus to explore the AWL vocabulary in this corpus and to investigate the specialized vocabulary which only occurs in the field of applied linguistics. These specialized words may belong to technical words. However, this study would not discuss which category the technical words belong to since the most important is that learners just need to know the narrowing meaning and its use in this specialized field (Sutarsyah, Nation, & Kennedy, 1994). Moreover, this study used the original 2000 word families in the GSL because Coxhead (2000) also used the original GSL version (West, 1953) to compare it with the AWL. For consistency, the present study exploited West's GSL. 2.3 Word Frequency Lists Word frequency lists provide learners, teachers and course designers with a rational basis for vocabulary learning or teaching. They are especially valuable for second or foreign language learners to concentrate on because they provide learners realistic goals to learn vocabulary. Some famous and valuable word frequency lists such as the GSL and AWL have greatly benefits English learners and teachers. The beginner can focus on the most frequent 2000 words in the GSL, and the learners with academic purposes can pay attention to the words in the AWL. Because of the value of the word frequency lists, this section depicts the insights of word frequency lists in Section 2.3.1, 19 and then describes the rationale of using frequency word list for vocabulary learning and teaching in Section 2.3.2, and the criteria for making a good word frequency list in Section 2.3.3. 2.3.1 The Insights of Word Frequency Lists The frequency count is the essential and foremost information derived from a corpus. With the advanced computer technology making the frequency count more easily, different word frequency lists are created from the corpora over hundreds of millions of running words such as Cambridge International Corpus (CIC) of general English and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse English (CANCODE) of spoken English, and from the field-specific corpora such as Automotive repair manuals (Autohall) of specialized English (Milton & Hales, 1997). Three word frequency lists have been created from these three corpora, as shown in Table 2.5. To make such frequency lists is simple with computer aid, but what accounts is that what insights we can acquire from these three corpora across different registers, spoken, written, and specialized English. Three insights of word frequency lists are gained from Table 2.5 (Schmitt, 2000). First, the most frequent words cover an excessive percentage of word occurrences in language. The is the most frequent word in general and spoken English, covering around 6-7% of all running words. Schmitt (2000) indicated that the top three words in CIC make up about 11.5%, the top 10 words 22%, the top 50 words 37%, top 100 words 44%, and the top 2,000 words about 80%. The results showed that a relative handful of words do occur repeatedly, but the others occur rather infrequently. A second insight is that the most frequent words in English tend to be function words such as preposition, conjunction, and determiners, which have little or no meaning, and are primarily useful for grammatical construction of language. On the other hand, the content words such as noun, verb, adjective, and adverb, occur much later than the function words. For instance, the content word said is in 25th position in CIC, and the word know is in 15th position in CANCODE. However, in a specialized English corpus, Autohall, content words occur earlier such as remove in 9th position and appear much more in the list. It is obvious that content words are affected by the type of the corpus. Finally, the spoken and written English corpora differ 20 considerably. For example, a number of content words in spoken corpora like know, well, got, think, and right, appear much higher than those in written corpora. On closer observation, these words are not actually content words, but elements of interpersonal phrases (e.g., you know, I think), single-word organizational markers (well, right) and other kinds of discourse items representing the features of the spoken English (MaCarthy & Carter, 1997). In conclusion, these insights can provide us the basic concepts about the word frequency word lists. When creating our own list, we may find the same phenomena in our word frequency list. Table 2.5 The Most Frequent General, Spoken, and Automotive Words Frequency Ranks General English CIC Spoken English CANCODE Car manuals AUTOHALL 1 the the and 2 of I the 3 to you to 4 and and of 5 a to in 6 in it is 7 that a or 8 is yeah with 9 for that remove 10 it of a 11 was in replace 12 he was for 13 on is oil 14 with it's be 15 I know valve 16 as no check 17 at oh engine 18 be so from 19 by but if 20 his on on 21 but they gear 22 have well install 23 from what rear 25 said have not 21 Table 2.5 (Continued) Frequency Ranks General English CIC Spoken English CANCODE Car manuals AUTOHALL 26 not we bearing 27 they he assembly 28 you do it 29 this got cylinder 30 an that's break 31 had for as 32 has this that 33 or just at 34 one all by 35 which there clutch 36 will like shaft 37 were one piston 38 their be front 39 who right system 40 we not air 41 would don't switch 42 all she pressure 43 she think transmission 44 her it rod 45 more with removal 46 been then side 47 about at note 48 there about out 49 when are seal 50 its as ring Note. From Vocabulary in language teaching (p.72), by N. Schmitt, 2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Copyright 2000 by Cambridge University Press. 2.3.2 The Rationale of Using Word Frequency Lists as Vocabulary Learning and Teaching Tools There are two main reasons why the frequency-based word lists are valuable for vocabulary learning and teaching. First of all, the frequency- based word lists can help learners expand their vocabulary size by showing them which words they should learn (Cobb, n.d.). For example, the GSL contains the most frequent 2000 words in English. For native speakers, they encounter these 22 words in a natural setting while non-native speakers do not have the same environment for them to acquire those words. Thus, the frequency-based word lists can provide a shortcut for non-native speakers to master these words. Second, the essence of English, like that of other languages, is that a small number of words will occur repeatedly. If you can know these words, you can enhance English reading power dramatically in a short time (Cobb, n.d.). Because of these two rationales, it is useful to create the frequency-based word lists applied to vocabulary learning and teaching. 2.3.3 The Criteria of a Good Word Frequency List Since the frequency-based word list is beneficial for vocabulary learning and teaching, it is important to make a good word list. A good frequency-based word list should take several factors into consideration. Nation and Waring (1997) have reported six factors which should be considered as criteria for creating a good word frequency list. The six criteria are explained as follows (pp.18-19). 1. Representativeness: A general corpus that the list is based on should collect the texts from a wide range of types so that it can "represent" the wide uses of language. In this way, the biases of a particular type text will not impinge on the results of the list. Biber (1990) showed that particular language features would cluster together in one particular text type. To avoid this problem, it is suggested that a corpus should cover a wide range of texts. On the contrary, it can be interpreted that the word list can be designed for specific purpose if the texts are collected from one particular type text such as research papers, university textbook, novels, and so forth. Because in such specialized text, its corpus can reflect the most appropriate language use in the specific register. 2. Frequency and range: the word in a frequency word list should occur "frequently" across a wide "range" of texts. Moreover, it should appear in some form in most of the different texts. For example, the AWL is based on the Academic Corpus which contains four disciplines and each word form in the AWL occurs at least 10 times in each discipline. The frequency counts of each word form in the AWL are at least 100 times in its corpus. 3. Word families: A word family contains one base word and its inflected and derived forms (Bauer 23 and Nation, 1993). Word families play a key role in the mental lexicon (Nagy et al, 1989, as cited in Coxhead, 2000). Thus, it is suggested that the criteria to classify some words under one headword should be based on six levels proposed by Bauer and Nation (1993). There are eight strict criteria applied to create these six levels. They are frequency, productivity, predictability, regularity of the written form of the base, regularity of the spoken form of the base, regularity of the spelling and affix, regularity of the spoken form of the affix, and regularity of function (pp.255-256). Those criteria can determine the level at which an affix is placed, and put restrictions on what particular words can be included as a part of a word family at a given level. Actually, there are seven levels but only six levels were used in the AWL, which Coxhead did not offer an explanation. Thus, Table 2.6 only summarizes six levels, which are adapted from Bauer and Nation's study (1993). Table 2.6 Summary of Six Levels for Grouping Words Under Word Families Level Definition 1 Each form is a different word: This level is insignificant. 2 Inflectional suffixes: Words with the same base and inflections are considered as members of the same word family. The inflectional categories are plural, third person singular present tense, past tense, past participle, -ing, comparative, superlative and possessive. 3 The most frequent and regular derivational affixes: The eight criteria for defining the levels are strictly applied to this level. The affixes included at level 3 are -able, -er, -ish, -less, -ly, -ness, -th, -y, non-, un-. 4 Frequent, orthographically regular affixes: The eight criteria are prioritized, especially that frequency (widely generalized) is more important than productivity, and orthographical criteria than phonological criteria. The affixes at level 4 are -al, -ation, -ess, -ful, -ism, -ist, -ity, -ize, -ment, -ous, in-, al with restricted uses. 5 Regular but infrequent affixes: A number of affixes whose behavior is fairly regular and may be productive, but not widely generalized, do not individually add greatly to the number of words that can be understood. They are added to free bases such as contributory. But at level 7 they are added to bound bases such as introductory. Some affixes are -age in leakage, -al in arrival, -an in American, -ance in clearance, -ant in consultant, just to name a few here. 6 Frequent but irregular affixes: Level 6 includes the affixes which provide major problems of segmentation, either because they cause orthographic allomorphy i 24 Table 2.6 (Continued) Level Definition 6 their bases (in addition to necessary suffix, parts of base are deleted or added), or because there are major problems involved in segmenting them caused by homography. On account of these problems the affixes cause, only the very widely generalized ones are worth dealing with. The affixes included in this level are -able, -ee, -ic, -ify, -ion, -ist, -ition, -ive, -th, -y, pre-, re-. -able also occurs in Level 3 but all instances of -able at Level 6 require formative -ate to be truncated before -able suffixation, as from permeate to permeable. 4. Idioms and set expressions: some items occur frequently as "multi-word units" like good morning or never mind, and their meaning is not clear from the meaning of each word such as at once or set out. If they occur frequently, they should also be included in the list. 5. Range of information: some information about one word in the word frequency list should be presented so that the list can be beneficial in course design. The information contains the forms and parts of speech included in a word family, frequency, the underlying meaning of the word, variations of meanings and collocations and the relative frequency of these meanings and use, and the restrictions on the use of the word with regard to politeness, geographical distribution. Some dictionaries like the revised edition of Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary include much of this information, but still not sufficient. For some word lists like the GSL and the AWL, both of them only include a little information of each word. The GSL contains the parts of speech, the brief meaning and some examples while the AWL itself only includes the parts of speech, and frequency. Thus, there is still room for scholars to include other information of the words in the GSL and AWL. 6. Other criteria: West (1953) also used the following principles to select the words in his GSL. They include the ease or difficulty of learning, necessity, cover, stylistic level, intensive and emotional words. The ease or difficulty of learning refers to whether learning another related meaning from a known word is easier than learning another word. Necessity means some low frequency words may convey the necessary ideas, but cover means some high frequency words 25 may be unnecessary. Stylistic level is concerned with the style such as colloquial or literary. These criteria can be included according to the purpose of the word list. 2.3.4 Summary This section has shown the insights, value and criteria of word frequency lists. Due to the usefulness of word frequency lists, the present study creates a word frequency list of AWL words and non-AWL content words in the Applied Linguistics Corpus (ALC) to address the third research question. Further, different word frequency lists are created based on different criteria according to researchers' needs and purposes. The word frequency lists in the present study will follow four criteria: representativeness (journal articles in the field of applied linguistics), frequency (at least 5 times in ALC ) and range (five times across five journals), and word families (for AWL word list). 2.4 The Study of Word Combination The study of frequently co-occurred word combination has attracted the attention of researchers and instructors in the recent decades. The common name for word combination is collocation, and Biber, et al. (1999) named three-word or more word combination lexical bundles. This part reviews the studies of collocations and focuses on verb-noun collocations particularly in Section 2.4.1, and puts stresses on the studies of lexical bundles in Section 2.4.2. Then Section 2.4.3 summarizes the focus of the present study in terms of word combination. 2.4.1 Verb-Noun Collocations Recently, collocations become more and more necessary in vocabulary learning because Farghal and Obiedat (1995) claimed that the highlighting of collocational aspects of lexical items "is the sole way of nurturing the active use of language and helping the foreign language learners construct lexically as well as grammatically acceptable sentences" (p. 318). Moreover, most EFL learners are deficient in collocation competence (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993; Farghal & Obiedat, 1995; 26 Wu, 1996). The above studies have shown the importance of collocation in vocabulary learning and teaching. There are a large number of various definitions about collocation from different researchers. For example, Lewis (2000) stressed the naturalness of collocation: "collocation is about the way words naturally co-occur in what David Brazil brilliantly called 'used language'" (2000, p. 132). In this paper, the definition of collocation is based on The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combination (Benson, M., Benson, E. & Ilson, 1997), which defines collocation as "certain words that regularly combine with certain other words or grammatical constructions" (p. ix). They claimed that "In English, as in other languages, there are many fixed, identifiable, non-idiomatic phrases and constructions. Such groups of words are called recurrent combinations, fixed combinations, or collocations" (p. xv). Furthermore, they divided collocations into two types: lexical collocations and grammatical collocations. "Grammatical collocations consist of a dominate word — noun, adjective/participle, verb — and a preposition or a grammatical construction. Lexical collocations, on the other hand, do not have a dominate word; they have structures such as the following: verb+ noun, adjective+ noun, noun+ verb, noun+ noun, adverb+ adjective, adverb+ verb." (Benson et al, 1997, p. ix). In addition, the verb-noun collocation is regarded as the most difficult part for nonnative speakers. Chen and Tang (2004) explored students' collocation errors in their writing and speaking aspects in order to figure out the sources of their errors. They found that verb-noun (V-N) was the most frequent error students made no matter what proficiency level they were in. Liu (1999) examined collocational errors in college student's writings and also found that verb-noun collocational errors appeared to occur the most frequently. Nesselhauf (2003) analyzed the free writing of German advanced learner of English and discovered that the most frequent miscollocation type was wrong choices of verb. He explained that the verb in the collocation had a restricted sense, but the more important reason was that L1 had no equivalent counterpart in L2 at times. Chen and Tang (2004) also pointed out that L1 influence played an important role in verb-noun collocation. This is because students were negatively affected by their mother tongue. 27 When there is no direct translation between L1 and L2, students have more difficulty figuring out the correct collocation. Therefore, teachers should pay more attention to those collocations of which L2 has no equivalent counterpart in L1. According to aforementioned results, the verb-noun collocation is regarded as the most difficult part that many learners encounter so this study emphasized on the V-N collocation. 2.4.2 Lexical bundles Lexical bundles are defined as extended collocations, most frequently recurring sequence of three or more words in a given register (Biber et al., 1999; Biber & Barbieri, 2007; Cortest, 2004). Moreover, most of them are "not structurally complete, not idiomatic in meaning" (Biber & Barbieri, 2007). For example, I don't know, do you want, and I don't think are three-word lexical bundles; I don't know if and I just wanted are four-word lexical bundles. All of them are not structurally complete and also not idiomatic in meaning. Although they are not 'structurally' complete, they are 'well-defined structural correlates.' Table 2.7 shows that most lexical bundles usually "consist of the beginning of a clause or phrase plus the first word of an embedded structure (e.g. a dependent complement clause or a prepositional phrase). These sequences of words can be regarded as structural 'frame', followed by a 'slot'" (Biber, Conrad and Cortes, 2004, p.399). This frame serves a kind of discourse anchor for the 'new' information in the slot so readers or listeners can interpret the information and figure out the functions each lexical bundle serves. Because of the usefulness of lexical bundles in interpreting the information in speech and writing, it would be better to look beyond the single vocabulary and probe into three or more word lexical bundles. The following are some studies about the analyses of lexical bundles in different registers. In Biber et al. (1999) study, the main purpose of their study was to identify grammar usage like clause grammar, parts of speech, noun phrase between academic prose (written register) and conversation (spoken register). Lexical bundle was one of their focuses. It was their first time to identify lexical bundles so they were more conservative and only required each lexical bundle should occur at least 10 times per million and across 5 different texts. The academic prose and 28 conversation corpora have approximate 5 million running words respectively. Academic prose included research articles from various disciplines such as biology/entomology, education, medicine, sociology, linguistics and so on, and also academic book extracts across disciplines like computing, education, engineering/technology, medicine and so forth. The finding showed that three-word lexical bundles occurred more than four-word lexical bundles in the conversation as well as in academic prose. They reported that "there are almost ten times as many three-word lexical bundles as four-word lexical bundles" and that four-word lexical bundles are also ten times more than five-word lexical bundles (p.993). It seems the lexical bundles with more words occurred fewer and fewer in both conversation and academic prose. Moreover, they also divided their lexical bundles into different types based on their structural correlates, as shown in Table 2.7. Table 2.7 indicates that conversation and academic prose corpora have different structure patterns of lexical bundles. This finding showed that conversation (oral, spoken register) had more "personal" and "interactive" patterns such as I don't think so, I'm going to, and what are you doing than academic prose (literate, written register) which had more noun or prepositional phrases, and "impersonal" and "informational" patterns such as has been shown that, it is possible that, and was no significant difference (Biber, 1995). This phenomenon was further confirmed in the study of Biber, Conrad, Reppen, Byrd, and Helt (2002). 29 Table 2.7 Structural Types of Lexical Bundles in the Study of Biber et al. (1999, p. 1001~1024) A. Conversation 1. personal pronoun + lexical verb phrase e.g. I don't know what, I don't think so, I said to him, you don't want to, I went to the 2. pronoun/ noun phrase + be e.g. it's going to be, that's what it is, I'm going to be, but the thing is, , there's a lot of 3. verb phrase with active verb e.g. have a look at, go to the toilet, put it in the, see if you can, want me to do, got to go to 4. yes-no question fragment e.g. do you know what, do you want to, are you talking about, do you have to, would you like to 5. wh-question fragment e.g. what are you doing, what did he say, what do you mean, where did you get, how do you know 6. lexical bundles with wh-clauses e.g. don't know what it, see what I mean, know where it is, what I'm going to, when we went to 7. lexical bundles with to-clauses e.g. don't want to go, be able to do, would like to go, to go out with, would like to go 8. verb+ that-clause fragment: few in conversation e.g. think I'm going to, said I don't know 9. adverbial clause fragment: relatively few e.g. if you want to, if you can get, as long as you, because I want to, as soon as you 10. noun phrase expressions e.g. the end of the, the middle of the, or something like that, nothing to do with, quite a lot of 11. prepositional phrase expression e.g. at the end of, in the middle of, at the same time, in the first place, by the time I 12. quantifier expression e.g. all over the place, all the way around, all of a sudden 13. other expressions e.g. two and a half, three and a half 14. meaningless sound bundles e.g. da da dad a, la la la la, mm mm mm mm 30 Table 2.7 (Continued) B. Academic prose 1. noun phrase with of-phrase fragment e.g. the end of the, the form of a, one of the most, the purpose of the, the nature of the, the early stage of 2. noun phrase with other post-modifier fragment e.g. the way in which, the extent to which, the difference between the, an important role in, an increase in the 3. prepositional phrase with embedded of-phrase fragment e.g. as a result of, as a matter of, by the end of, to that of the, in the process of 4. other prepositional phrase fragment e.g. as in the case, in the present study, in a way that, in the United States, of the most important, similar to that of 5. anticipatory it + verb phrase/ adjective phrase e.g. it is possible to, it is clear that, it can be seen, it was found that, it has been suggested 6. passive verb + prepositional phrase fragment e.g. is shown in figure, are shown in table, can be found in, be used as a, can be seen as 7. copula be + noun phrase/ adjective phrase e.g. is one of the, was no significant difference, is similar to that, is due to the 8. (verb phrase+) that-clause fragment e.g. should be noted that, has been shown that, that there is a, that it is not 9. (verb/adjective +) to-clause fragment e.g. are likely to be, is not possible to, was found to be, has been shown to, to be found in 10. adverbial clause fragment e.g. as shown in figure, as we have seen, if there is a 11. pronoun/noun phrase+ be (+…) e.g. this is not the, there was no significant, there are a number, there has been a 12. other expressions e.g. as well as the, than that of the, may or may not 31 Although the recurrent lexical bundle sequence in the study of Biber et al. (1999) should occur at least ten times per million words and also spread across at least five different texts in one register as mentioned above. However, Biber and Barbieri (2007) stated that "the frequency cut-off used to identify lexical bundles is somewhat arbitrary" (p.5). Therefore, researchers can decide the frequency cut-off based on the purpose of their study. For example, Biber et al. (2004) requested a more restrict selection: each lexical bundle should occur at least 40 times per million and also across 5 different texts because their many lexical bundles occurred even more than 200 times per million. They only focused on four-word lexical bundles so as to limit the scope of the investigation. The corpora they used were classroom teaching (spoken register, 1,248,800 running words) and textbooks (written register, 760,600 running words). They compared the patterns of lexical bundles in these two corpora with conversation and academic prose corpora developed in Biber et al.'s (1999) study. The finding showed that there were 43 lexical bundles in conversation, 84 in classroom teaching, 27 in textbook and 19 in academic prose, which implied that spoken register had more lexical bundles than written register. In addition, they divided their bundles based on structural correlates, as indicated in Table 2.8. Table 2.8 shows there were three categories of structural types: lexical with verb phrase fragment, lexical bundles with dependent clause fragments, and lexical bundles with noun or prepositional phrases. In fact, the categories in Table 2.8 were the classifying results of Table 2.7. This study found structural types of lexical bundles in classroom teaching and conversation were more various than textbooks and academic prose. In other words, classroom teaching and conversation corpora contained more lexical bundles with "verb phrase" such as you don't have to, and I'm not going to, and lexical bundles with "dependent clauses" such as if you want to, and I don't know if. On the other hand, textbook and academic prose have more lexical bundles only with "noun or prepositional phrases", such as on the basis of, the extent to which, and at the same time. Further, they found that three primary functions that lexical bundles served: (1) stance expressions, (2) discourse organizers, and (3) referential expressions, as described in Table 2.9. Stance expression bundles, such as I don't think so, You don't have to and are more likely to, "express attitudes or assessments of certainty that frame some other proposition" (p. 32 384). Discourse organizers "reflect relationship between prior and coming discourse" (p.384). For example, if you look at, has to do with, and on the other hand belong to discourse organizer bundles. Regarding referential expression bundles, they "make direct reference to physical or abstract entities, or to the textual context itself, either to identify the entity or to single out some particular attribute of the entity as especially important" (384). Some instances such as that's one of the, have a lot of, a little bit of, and the nature of the, serve referential expression function. In this study, classroom teaching used more stance and discourse organizing bundles than conversation, and used more referential bundles than academic prose. This result has suggested that classroom teaching mixed "oral" (conversation), characterized by real-time production circumstances, the focus on personal and interpersonal purposes, and "literate" (academic), described as the focus on informational purpose, features in the use of lexical bundles. It is implied that different specific register (classroom teaching, academic prose, conversation, textbook) employs different kinds of lexical bundles and uses different functions. Table 2.8 Structural Types of Lexical Bundles in the Study of Biber et al. (2004) 1. Lexical bundles that incorporate verb phrase fragment 1a. (connector +) 1st /2nd person pronoun + VP fragments: e.g. you don't have to, I'm not going to, well I don't know 1b. (connector + ) 3rd person pronoun + VP fragment: e.g. it's going to be, that's one of the, and this is a 1c. Discourse marker + VP fragment: e.g. I mean you know, you know it was, I mean I don't 1d. Verb phrase (with non-passive verb): e.g. is going to be, is one of the, have a lot of, take a look at 1e. Verb phrase with passive verb: e.g. is based on the, can be used to, shown in figure N 1f. Yes-no question fragments: e.g. are you going to, do you want to, does that make sense 1g. Wh-question fragments: e.g. what do you think, how many of you, what does that mean 2. Lexical bundles that incorporate dependent clause fragments 2a. 1st /2nd person pronoun + dependent clause fragment e.g. I want you to, I don't know if, I don't know why, you might want to 33 Table 2.8 (Continued) 2. Lexical bundles that incorporate dependent clause fragments 2b. Wh-clause fragments: e.g. what I want to, what's going to happen, when we get to 2c. If-clause fragment: e.g. if you want to, if you have a, if we look at 2d. (verb/adjective +) To-clause fragment e.g. to be able to, to come up with, want to do is 2e. That-clause fragments: e.g. that there is a, that I want to, that this is a 3. Lexical bundles that incorporate noun phrase and prepositional phrase fragments 3a. (connector + ) Noun phrase with of-phrase fragment: e.g. one of the things, the end of the, a little bit of 3b. Noun phrase with other post-modifier fragment: e.g. a little bit about, those of you who, the way in which 3c. Other noun phrase expressions: e.g. a little bit more, or something like that, and stuff like that 3d. Prepositional phrase expressions: e.g. of the things that, at the end of, at the same time 3e. Comparative expressions: e.g. as far as the, greater than or equal, as well as the Note. From "If you look at...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks," by D. Biber, S. Conrad, & V. Cortes, 2004, Applied Linguistics, 25, p.381. Copyright 2004 by Oxford University Press. Table 2.9 Functional Types of Lexical Bundles in Three Studies Biber et al. (2004) Cortes (2004) Biber and Barbieri (2007): functions are similar to those in the study of Biber et al. (2004) but with slight variance. 1. Stance expressions A. Epistemic stance e.g. and I think that, the fact that the B. Attitudinal/ modality stance B1) desire e.g. if you want to A. History RAs: 1. Referential bundles 1a) place marker e.g. at the university of 1b) quantifying bundles e.g. a member of the 1c) subject-bound bundles e.g. in the history of 2. Text organizers 1. Stance Bundles 1a) Epistemic lexical bundles e.g. I don't know what, the fact that the 1b) Desire bundles e.g. I don't want to, I want you to 1c) Obligation (directive) 34 Table 2.9 (Continued) Biber et al. (2004) Cortes (2004) Biber and Barbieri (2007) B2) obligation/ directive e.g. I want you to B3) Intention/ prediction e.g. I'm not going to B4) ability e.g. to be able to 2. Discourse organizers A. Topic introduction/focus e.g. I'll tell you what B. Topic elaboration/clarification e.g. I mean you know 3. Referential expressions A. Identification/focus e.g. one of the most B. Imprecision e.g. or something like that C. Specification of attributes C1) quantity specification: e.g. have a lot of C2) tangible framing attributes e.g. the size of the C3) intangible framing attributes e.g. in the case of D. Time/place/text reference D1) place reference e.g. in the United States D2) time reference e.g. at the same time D3) text deixis e.g. as shown in figure D4) multi-functional reference e.g. the end of the 2a) contrast/ comparison e.g. on the one hand 2b) inferential e.g. as a result of 2c) framing e.g. in the context of 3. Others e.g. in the name of B. Biology RAs: 1. Referential bundles 1a) time markers e.g. at the end of 1b) place markers e.g. the center of the 1c) descriptive bundles e.g. the depth of the 1d) quantifying bundles e.g. a large number of 2. Text organizers 2a) contrast/comparison e.g. on the other hand 2b) inferential e.g. on the basis of 2c) focus e.g. it is important to 2d) framing e.g. in the context of 3. Stance bundles 3a) epistemic-impersonal / probable-possible e.g. may be due to 3b) other stance bundles e.g. has been shown to 4. Others e.g. in the evolution of e.g. you have to do 1d) Intention/ prediction bundles e.g. what we're going to 1e) Ability bundles e.g. to be able to 2. Discourse organizers 2a) Topic introduction bundles e.g. what I want to 2b) Topic elaboration/clarification bundles e.g. has to do with 2c) Identification/focus e.g. those of you who 3. Referential bundles 3a) Imprecision bundles e.g. or something like that 3b) Bundles Specifying attributes e.g. a little bit of, the size of the 3c) Time/place/ Text-deixis bundles e.g. in the United States, the end of the, as shown in Figure 35 Cortes (2004) compiled two kinds of corpora, published academic writing in history and biology, and students writing in history and biology. The purpose of this study was to identify the most frequent four-word lexical bundles in published history and biology writing, to analyze the structural and functional types of these lexical bundles, and to investigate whether students in history and biology used those lexical bundles in their writing. Cortes only required each lexical bundle occur 20 times per million because she took a more conservative approach. Further, she only focused on four-word lexical bundles because four-word lexical bundles contained three-word bundles in their structures (as in as a result of, which has as a result) and four-word lexical bundles are more frequent than five-word ones (p.401). Table 2.10 indicates the structural types of lexical bundles in published history and biology research articles. Basically, most of these structural types were the same as those in the types in academic prose in the study of Biber et al. (1999) except one B8 type, (noun phrase/pronoun)+V+(complement). Some examples were play an important role, these results suggest that, and has been shown to. This implied the variety of lexical bundles in some specific disciplines. However, lexical bundles in academic prose have more with noun and prepositional phrases, which is similar to that in Biber et al. (2004). Further, the functions of lexical bundles, as shown in Table 2.9, were referential bundles and text organizers in history while functions were referential bundles, text organizer, and stance bundles. The definitions of these three functions are similar to those in the study of Biber et al. (2004) although this study had different sub-categories under text organizer. This study defined text organizers as the bundles to interpret prior or forthcoming discourse, which was the same as discourse organizer in the study of Bier et al. (2004). The finding of function part showed that the research articles in different discipline may use different functional types of lexical bundles. In terms of students' writing in Cortes (2004), the finding reported that the most frequent lexical bundles as identified in published research articles were rarely or never used in the students' writing and the functions used in students' writing were not associated with those used in history and biology RAs. It is suggested that those students should be directed to those highly frequent lexical bundles found in published research articles on purpose because unconscious learning did 36 not help students master those lexical bundles. Conscious "noticing" learning (Schmidt, 1990) can make students become familiar with those lexical bundles because they can be aware of the different contexts and discourse functions they should perform in the academic disciplines. Table 2.10 Structural Types of Lexical Bundles in the Study of Cortes (2004) A. Target bundles in "history" classified according to their structural correlates 1. Noun Phrase with ''of'' phrase fragment e.g. a member of the, both sides of the, one of the most, the beginning of the, 2. Noun phrase with post-nominal clause fragment e.g. the extent to which, the fact that the, the ways in which 3. Prepositional phrase with embedded ''of'' phrase e.g. as a result of, as part of a, as part of the, at the beginning of the 4. Other prepositional fragments e.g. at a time when, at the same time, for the first time, in the first place 5. Verb (be)+complement (noun phrase) e.g. was one of the 6. Other expressions e.g. as well as a, as well as the B. Target bundles in "biology" classified according to their structural correlates 1. Noun Phrase with ''of'' phrase fragment e.g. a function of the, a large number of, a measure of the, a wide range of 2. Noun phrase with post nominal clause fragment e.g. the degree to which, the extent to which, the possibility that a 3. Other noun phrases e.g. an important role in, an increase in the, spatial and temporal variation 4. Prepositional phrase with embedded ''of'' phrase e.g. as a consequence of, as a function of, at the beginning of, at the end of 5. Other prepositional phrases e.g. at the same time, in addition to the, in contrast to the, in the present study 6. it+ Vbe+ adjective+(clause fragment) e.g. it is difficult to, it is important to, it is likely to, it is possible to 7. (modal) Vbe+(complement noun phrase/adj. phrase) e.g. be the result of, is likely to be, is the number of, is a function of 8. (noun phrase/pronoun)+V+(complement) e.g. play an important role, these results suggest that, has been shown to Note. From "Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology," by V. Cortes, 2004, English for Specific Purposes, 23, p.405, 407. Copyright 2004 by The American University. 37 Biber and Barbieri (2007) extended the scope of research in the study of Biber et al (2004). They probed into the wider range of spoken and written university register. The spoken registers included classroom teaching, classroom management, office hour, study group and service encounters while written registers contained published textbooks, course management (syllabi and assignments), institutional writing (campus-related written text students encountered) and academic prose (from the one in Biber et al.,1999). This study focused on four-word lexical bundles and required each lexical bundles should occur at least 40 times per million. How many texts should each lexical bundle spread across in this study? Due to multiple sub-corpora in this study, they made the following decisions based on the corpus size. Please see Table 2.11. Table 2.11 Selection Rules for Distribution of Lexical Bundle Across Different Texts Corpus Size Multiple Texts Corpora in Biber and Barbieri's Study 50,000 word across 3 different texts Classroom management, office hours, service encounters, course management 100,000 word across 4 different texts Study groups, institutional writing > 200,000 word across 5 different texts Classroom teaching, textbooks, The focus of Biber and Barbieri's study (2007) was to identify different lexical bundles across different spoken and written registers and also to recognize the functions (stance, discourse organizers, and referential) of the lexical bundle across various registers such as classroom teaching, classroom management, office hour, textbook, institutional writing and so on. The findings showed that lexical bundles were all common in spoken registers. But to their surprise, lexical bundles are used more salient in non-academic written register, that is, course management (syllabi and assignments), than those in the spoken and academic registers. This surprising finding was in contrast to the previous research that reported lexical bundles seemed to be more common in speech than in writing (Biber et al., 2004). Thus, it is important to investigate the lexical bundles in various register in order to understand more about the use of lexical bundles in different registers. 38 Concerning the functions of the lexical bundles as shown in Table 2.9, they found most of lexical bundles in spoken registers and management registers(course and class) were used to express 'stance.' Further, 'discourse organizing functions' seem to be relatively important in the 'teacher-centered' spoken registers such as classroom teaching, office hour, etc. On the other hand, the "referential function" dominated the use of lexical bundles in written university registers. The findings in this study has projected a clearer picture to what extent different register was associated with a set of bundles and served particular function in the discourse, which can make us understand further about the different lexical bundles in various registers and the functions they serve in a wide range of register. Table 2.12 summarizes the above four important studies about lexical bundles. Table 2.12 Summary of the Selected Literature in Lexical bundles Study Corpora (running words) Selection Rule of Lexical Bundle Lexical Bundle Structural /Functional Types Findings Biber et al. (1999) 1. Conversation (spoken register, 7 million running words) 2. Academic prose (written register, 5.3 million) 1. Occur10 times per million 2. Spread across 5 different texts 3. Focus on Three-word, Four-word, Five-word and Six-word lexical bundles Table 2.7/ --- 1. Frequency counts: 3-word > 4-word > 5-word > 6-word lexical bundles 2. Spoken register: more 'oral, personal' structural types 3. Written register: more 'impersonal' and 'informational' structural patterns. Biber et al. (2004) 1. Classroom teaching (spoken register, 1,248,800) 2. Textbooks (written register, 760,600) 1. Occur 40 times per million 2. Spread across 5 different texts 3. Focus on 'four-word' lexical bundles Table 2.8/ Table 2.9 1. Lexical bundles: Spoken registers > written registers. 2. Spoken registers: lexical bundles with verb phrase, dependent clause fragment 3. Written register: lexical bundle with noun/prepositional phrases. 4.Three functions Classroom teaching > conversation and academic prose. 39 Table 2.12 (Continued) Study Corpora (running words) Selection Rule of Lexical Bundle Lexical Bundle Structural /Functional Types Findings Cortes (2004) 1. Research articles a. history (966,187) b. biology (1, 026,344) 2. Student writing a. history (493,109) b. biology (411,267) 1. Occur 20 times per million 2. Spread cross 5 different texts 3. Focus on 'four-word' lexical bundles Table 2.10/ Table 2.9 1. Structural types: almost the same as those in Biber et al.'s study (1999). 2. History and biology RAs: used different functions 3. Students' writing: rarely used the lexical bundles in RAs and the functions students used was different from those in RAs. Biber & Barbieri (2007) 1. Spoken registers a. classroom teaching (1,248,811) b. classroom management (39,255) c. office hours (50,400) d. study groups (141,100) e. service encounters (97,700) 2. Written registers a. textbooks (760,619) b. course management (52,410) c. institutional writing (151,500) d. Academic prose (5,330,000) 1. Occur 40 times per million 2. Spread across 3 to 5 different texts 3. Focus on 'four- word' lexical bundles. ---/ Table 2.9 1. Lexical bundles: common in spoken register. 2. Lexical bundles in one of written registers, course management, were more salient than any other specific registers. 3. Stance functions: more in spoken registers 4. discourse organizers: more in 'teacher-centered' spoken registers 5. referential functions: more in written registers. Note. --- means no particular focus on this part. 2.4.3 Summary Section 2.4.1 has pointed out the importance of V-N collocations for EFL learners to master English so this study particularly focuses on the verb-noun collocations for those top 100 AWL word-forms in the applied linguistics research articles. Section 2.4.2 further indicates the usefulness of lexical bundles for readers or listeners to interpret the information; therefore, this study would 40 also pay attention to lexical bundles for the top 100 AWL word-forms. The present study takes a more conservative approach and only requires that each lexical bundle should occur at least 10 times per million. One reason is that we only focus on the AWL word-form, not every word-form in our corpus. The frequency counts for 'AWL word-form' lexical bundles may be less than 'every word-form' lexical bundles. Besides, we look at 'four-word' lexical bundles because four-word lexical bundles have already contains three-word lexical bundles and occur more frequently than five-word lexical bundles. This is the same reasons as mentioned in Cortes' study (2004). In addition, the function of each AWL lexical bundle in this study would be further investigated. However, we would not use the same categories that the above studies employed and would use the rhetorical functions particularly used in the research articles. Section 2.5 would further introduce the rhetorical functions in research articles. 2.5 Rhetorical Functions for AIMRD Sections in Research Articles Since the early 80s, a large number of applied linguists and language teacher, especially those who devoted to the teaching of ESP and EAP, have shown great interests in genre analysis of written discourse. Especially, most researchers have paid attention to the genre analysis of research articles (RAs) in different disciplines to understand the communicative purposes in the RAs. Genre analysis, by definition, "explores discourse features in the broad context of the communicative event, and attempts to provide the rationale of the discourse features in terms of authors' publicly retrievable intentions and institutional conventions." (Yang & Allison, 2004, p. 265) Some researchers have focused on the rhetorical patterns of academic articles by analyzing their rhetorical moves and constituent steps in different disciplines. Specifically, they have investigated the overall organization of different parts of the research articles, including abstract (Hyland, 2000; Martin, 2003; Santos, 1996; Samraj, 2005), introduction (Swales, 1990; Samraj, 2002; Ozturk, 2007), method (Brett, 1994; Nwogu, 1997; Lim, 2006), results (Brett, 1994; Williams, 1999; Yang & Allison, 2003 ), and discussions (Holmes, 1997; Yang & Allison, 2003). The analysis unit they used was 'Move' and 'Step' (Swales, 1990). 'Move' is a "semantic unit relevant to the 41 writer's purpose" (McKinley, 1983, cited in Yang & Allison, 2003). Further, Nwogu defined the 'Move' as "a text segment made up of a bundle of linguistics features (lexical meaning, propositional meanings, illocutionary forces, etc) which gives the segment a uniform orientation and signal the content of discourse in it" (1997, p. 122). Thus, 'Move' can help readers to capture the function of a particular part of the text and to understand the communicative purpose that writers intend to express. While 'Move' reveals the function and purpose of a particular segment of the texts at a more general level, 'Step' can further specify the detailed rhetorical means of realizing the function of Move (Yang & Allison, 2003, p.370). The Move-step analysis is a robust method of genre analysis, which was used in CARS model for Introduction section (Swales, 1990). In addition, the following sections review studies that investigated different sections in RAs, that is, Abstract-Introduction-Method-Result-Discussion. 2.5.1 Rhetorical Structures of RAAbstracts –Santos (1996) Originally, the IMRD (Introduction-Method-Result-Discussion) model was used to depict the macrostructure of the whole RA. However, Swales (1990) found that "most abstracts reflect the IMRD patterns of the RA itself" (p.181). Therefore, IMRD model describe not only the rhetorical structure of the whole RA but also the RA abstract pattern. To specifically probe into the rhetorical structure of abstract in the field of applied linguistics, Santos (1996) collected 94 published RA abstracts from three international well-recognized journals, Language Learning, Applied Linguistics, and TESOL Quarterly. Then the author selected 'Move" as the analysis unit, which is "to be considered as a genre stage which has a particular, minor communicative purpose to fulfill, which in turn serves the major communicative purpose of the genre" (Santos, 1996, p. 485). After the analysis, a five-move rhetorical pattern was proposed, as shown in Table 2.13. 42 Table 2.13 A Proposed Rhetorical Patterns for RA Abstracts in the Field of Applied Linguistics by Santos The Five Moves Situating the research Move 1 Submove 1A—Stating current knowledge (and/or) Submove 1B—Citing previous research (and/or) Submove 1C—Extended previous research (and/or) Submove 2—Stating a problem Presenting the research Move 2 Submove 1A—Indicating main features (and/or) Submove 1B—Indicating main purpose (and/or) Submove 2—Hypothesis raising Move 3 Describing the methodology Move 4 Summarizing the results Discussing the research Move 5 Submove 1—drawing conclusions (and/or) Submove 2— Giving recommendation Note. From "The textual organization of research article abstracts in applied linguistics," by M. B. D. Santos, 1996, Text, 16, p.485. Basically, Move 1 is to give readers the background and literature review of the topic and also to motivate them to continue reading. The obligatory elements in Move 1 are Submove 1 and submove 2. There are three choices in Submove 1, stating current knowledge, citing previous research, and extended previous research. This means that we can choose all or either one when introducing the background. Submove 2 is to state a problem, which serves two functions, 1) stating the previous research is still embryonic, and 2) stating the current research is still under debate. Move 2 starts to present the current research, namely, to announce the justification of the article by indicating its key features of the research in question, presenting its main purpose, or raising the hypothesis. Further, Move 3 serves the function of describing the design of the study in terms of subjects, procedures, materials, instruments, variable, which depend on the type of experiments (p.491). Move 3 can occur independently or merge with Move 2. Next, Move 4 is to summarize the main findings of the research in brief, and to indicate how the data were manipulated. Some common words that signal the result part are 43 results/analysis/study/findings/outcome/evidence/data/research, and verb tense in Move 4 is passive such as was found/was observed/was shown, which shows an 'impersonal, neutral, and scientific tone and implies the authors' objective view on what is being reported. Besides, the occurrence of evaluative lexical items, such as significant, difference, or significantly, is very high, and the avoidance of numerical results is a tendency. Lastly, Move 5 "covers both the evaluation of findings, and also the other type of submove which characterizes the linking of the reported research back to the broad research field" (p. 495). Submove 1, drawing conclusions, usually contains the verbs such as suggest and interpret, deictic reference this/that, or over nominal reference the main conclusions. Submove 2 briefly indicates the suggestions for future research. In conclusion, these five moves have provided us the basic rhetorical functions of RA abstracts in the field of applied linguistics. 2.5.2 Rhetorical Structures of RA Introductions – Swales (1990) In terms of the Introduction section in RA, Swales' CARS model (Create A Research Space) is very common in stating the rhetorical structures of RA introductions. This CARS model offers learners an overview on how a typical introduction is constructed in a wide range of disciplines. Three main moves contain the specific steps to further depict the communicative purposes. Table 2.14 shows the CARS model. According to Swales, RA introductions often begin by 'establishing a territory (Move1).' Three representative types are claiming centrality, making topic generalizations, and reviewing items of previous research. Sometimes step 1 and step 2 or step 2 and step 3 will be combined together. The purpose of move 1 is to provide readers the background of your study. Step 1, claiming centrality, is to claim the importance/interest of the issue, refer to the classic, favorite or central character of the issue, or claim many investigator active in this area (p.144 ). Step 2, making topic generalization, "expresses in general terms the current state of the art- of knowledge, or of techniques" (p146.). Step 3 reviews the previous research so as to further understand the current research. 44 Table 2.14 A CARS Model for RA Introductions Move 1 Establishing a territory (obligatory) Step 1—Claiming centrality (and/or) Step 2—Making topic generalization(s) (and/or) Step 3—Reviewing items of previous research Move 2 Establishing a niche Step 1A—Counter-claiming (or) Step 1B—Indicating a gap (or) Step 1C—Question-raising (or) Step 1D—Continuing a tradition Move 3 Occupying the niche (obligatory) Step 1A—Outlining purposes (or) Step 1B—Announcing present research Step 2 —Announcing principal findings Step 3 —Indicating RA structure Note. From Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings (p. 141), by J. Swales, 1990, p. 141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Copyright 1990 by Cambridge University Press. Move 2, labeled as 'Establish a niche,' provides the justification for current research and indicates the area that few previous studies paid attention to. Four ways (step 1A-1D) are proposed in Move 2, showed in Table 2.14. Counter-claiming shows the claim in the current research is against the previous ones. Indicating a gap is to point out the lack area that previous research has never or rarely done. Question-raising is to use the question tone to point out some parts in a given research area still need to be investigated. Continuing a tradition is that the current research follows up the tradition research method or extends the previous research. Move 3 'occupying the niche' has a purpose to "turn the niche established in Move 2 into the research space that justifies the present article" (p. 159). One obligatory element in Move 3 is Step1A (outlining the purpose of the current study) or Step 1B (announcing the present research). The other two options in Move 3 are Step2 and Step 3, which may optionally used in RA introductions. In conclusion, Move 3 is considered as a move that is more likely to be elucidated according to the different disciplines depending on how it is shaped in the convention of individual disciplines. 45 2.5.3 Rhetorical Structures of RA Method With regard to the Method section in RA, few studies have paid attention to the rhetorical structures of Method section in different disciplines such as sociology (Brett, 1994), medical (Nwogu, 1997), and management (Lim, 2006). Brett (1994) pointed out that the Method sections in his corpus appeared to have three rhetorical moves or ''tasks'' (Brett, 1994, p. 49): (1) to describe how the data have been obtained, (2) to explain how the concepts and variables of the research work, and (3) to state but not to explain the statistical techniques used in getting results in quantitative sociology. Nwogu (1997) analyzed 15 articles on medical research and recognized three moves with their constituent elements for medical Method sections: (1) describing data-collection procedures, (2) describing experimental procedures, and (3) describing data-analysis procedures (p.125). Lim (2006) collected 20 articles from two management journals, Journal of Management and Academy of Management Journal. A 'move-step' analysis was adopted in this study. Table 2.15 shows the detailed move-step elements in management RA methods. 46 Table 2.15 An Overview of Moves and Steps Identified in the Method Sections of Management RAs Rhetorical Move Constituent Step Move 1: Describing data collection Step 1: Describing the sample procedure/s (a) Describing the location of the sample (b) Describing the size of the sample/population (c) Describing the characteristics of the sample (d) Describing the sampling technique or criterion Step 2: Recounting steps in data collection Step 3: Justifying the data collection procedure/s (a) Highlighting advantages of using the sample (b) Showing representativity of the sample Move 2: Delineating procedure/s for measuring variables Step 1: Presenting an overview of the design Step 2: Explaining method/s of measuring variables (a) Specifying items in questionnaires/databases (b) Defining variables (c) Describing methods of measuring variables Step 3: Justifying the method/s of measuring variables (a) Citing previous research method/s (b) Highlighting acceptability of the method/s Move 3: Elucidating data analysis procedure/s Step 1: Relating (or recounting) data analysis procedure/s Step 2: Justifying the data analysis procedure/s Step 3: Previewing results Note. From "Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study," by J. M. H., Lim, 2006, English for Specific Purposes, 25, p.287. Copyright 2006 by The American University. Besides, two published teaching materials have given short explication of linguistic choices and rhetorical categories in the Method section. First, Swales and Feak (1994) discussed linguistic features of the Method section, highlighting the use of sentence connectors, imperative verbs, the past passive and the past active, but just mentioned rhetorical categories in the Method section only in passing. Weissberg and Buker (2005) cited ''information elements," as indicated in Table 2.16, without discussing the overall functions of and inter-relationships between these elements in detail. 47 Table 2.16 Information Elements Included in the Method Section M1: Overview of the experiment M2: Population/sample M3: Location M4: Restriction/limiting conditions M5: Sampling techniques *M6:Procedures *M7:Materials M8: Variables M9: Statistical treatment (* always included) Note. From Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English (p. 92), by R. Weissberg, and S. Buker, 2005, Taiwan: Pearson Education Taiwan and Crane Publishing Co. Ltd. Copyright 2005 by Pearson Education Taiwan and Crane Publishing Co. Ltd. 2.5.4 Rhetorical Structures of RA Results and Discussions– Yang & Allison (2003) Some studies have probed into the rhetorical structures of results (Brett, 1994; Williams, 1999), discussions (Holmes, 1997), and result and discussion together (Yang & Allison, 2003). The present study focused on the field of applied linguistics. Thus, this section would review the Yang and Allison's study. Yang and Allison (2003) collected 20 RAs in applied linguistics, from four high-status journals, Applied Linguistics, TESOL Quarterly, English for Specific Purposes, and English Language Teaching Journal. They investigated the rhetorical structures among the following sections, Results, Results and Discussion, Discussion, Conclusion, and Pedagogical Implication. Further, they employed a two-level analysis unit, Move-step, to account for their findings. Among 20 RAs, the total 20 RAs had the Results section but only 8 RAs had Discussion section separately. Thus, they analyzed the rhetorical moves in these two sections respectively. Table 2.17 indicates the moves and steps that Results and Discussion sections had in their corpus. 48 Table 2.17 Rhetorical Structure in RA Results and Discussion in the Field of Applied Linguistics Section Moves Steps Move 1—Preparatory information Move 2 —Reporting results (Obligatory) Move 3 — Commenting on results (Obligatory) 1. Interpreting results 2. Comparing results with literature 3. Evaluating results 4. Account for results Move 4 —Summarizing results Move 5 —Evaluating the study 1. Indicating limitation 2. Indicating significance/ advantage Results Move 6 —Deductions from the research Recommending further research Move 1 — Background information Move 2 — Reporting results Move 3 — Summarizing results Move 4 — Commenting on results (Obligatory) 1. Interpreting results 2. Comparing results with literature 3. Account for results 4. Evaluating results Move 5 — Summarizing the study Move 6 — Evaluating the study 1. Indicating limitation 2. indicating significance, advantage 3. Evaluating methodology Discussion Move 7 — Deductions from the research 1. Making suggestions 2. Recommending further research 3. Drawing pedagogical implication Note. From "Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions," by R., Yang and D., Allison, 2006, English for Specific Purposes, 22, p.374, 376. Copyright 2003 by The American University. In terms of Results section, move 1, preparatory information, is "a reminder and connector between sections, as it provides relevant information for the presentation of results" (p.373). Move 2 (reporting results) and move 3 (commenting on results) were considered as obligatory moves, which are overlapped in Discussion section Move 2 and Move 4. However, Move 2 (reporting results) in Results section was the focus while Move 4 (Commenting on results) in Discussion 49 section was the key feature (p. 376). Further, Move 4 (summarizing results) in Results section was optional because of low frequency. Move 5 (Evaluating the study) and Move 6 (deductions from the research) are rarely occurred in the Results section. Concerning the Discussion section, Move 1, background information, is "to relate their discussion to the study by recapitulating main points such as research questions, aims and purposes, theoretical or methodological information" (382). Move 2 and 3 serve the same function as the Move 2 and 4 in Results section. Move 4, commenting on results, was the key focus in Discussion section. Besides, Move 5, summarizing the study, is "to provide a brief account of the main points from the perspective of the overall study" (p382). Move 6 (evaluation the study) and Move 7(deductions from the research) are the optional moves because they are discussed in the Conclusion section or Pedagogical implication section if that RA has these two sections. In conclusions, the focus of Results section is "reporting results" while the highlight in Discussion section is "commenting on results." For the further explanation for each move and step, please refer to Appendix C. 2.5.5 Summary Section 2.5 has reviewed some studies about the rhetorical structure of AIMRD sections in the RA. The present study focuses on the field of applied linguistics so the reviewed studies report the rhetorical functions of RA sections in the applied linguistics field except the Introduction and Method sections. However, the CARS model is very common in analyzing the rhetorical moves or steps (functions) in the RA such as in Ozturk's study (2007), which applied the CARS model to analyze the move structure in 20 RAs from the field of applied linguistics. Thus, the present study would use the CARS model. Besides, no study specifically pays attention to Method section in the field of applied linguistics. Due to the reason, a modified rhetorical structure used in the present study is shown in Table 2.17. Basically, we adapted the information elements in Weissberg and Buker's book (2005) and added one more element, Data analysis, which is common in Method section (Lim, 2006). The rhetorical structures (functions) used in the present study are summarized 50 in Table 2.18. We also marked each move and step by adding some signs. The marking strategy was used to bring convenience to raters when they rate the rhetorical structures (functions). Table 2.18 Rhetorical Functions in the AIMRD Sections in One RA Five Sections Moves + Steps Abstract (Santos, 1996, p. 485) A1: Situating the research 1. stating current knowledge/citing previous research/ extended previous research 2. stating a problem A2: Presenting the research 1. indicating main features/main purpose 2. hypothesis raising A3: Describing the methodology A4: Summarizing the results A5: Discussing the research 1. drawing conclusion 2. giving recommendations Introduction (adopted from Swales, 1990, p. 141) I1:Establishing a territory 1. claiming centrality and/or 2. making topic generalization and/or 3. review items of previous research I2: Establishing a niche (choose one only) 1. counter- claiming 2. indicating a gap 3. question-raising 4. continuing a tradition I3: Occupying the niche 1. outlining purpose or announcing present research 2. announcing principal findings 3. indicating RA structure Method (adapted from Weissberg & Buker, 2005, p. 92) M1: Overview of the experiment M2: Population/sample M3: Location M4: Restriction/limiting conditions M5: Sampling techniques M6:Procedures 51 Table 2.18 (Continued) Five Sections Moves + Steps M7:Materials M8: Variables M9: Statistical treatment M10: Data Analysis R1:Preparatory information R2: Reporting results R3: Commenting on results 1. Interpreting results 2. Comparing results with literature 3. Evaluating results 4. Account for results R4: Summarizing results R5: Evaluating the study 1. Indicating limitation 2. Indicating significance/advantage Results: (adopted from Yang & Allison, 2003, p. 374) R6: Deductions from the research 1. Recommending further research D1: Background information D2: Reporting results D3: Summarizing results D4: Commenting on results 1. Interpreting results 2. Comparing results with literature 3. Account for results 4. Evaluating results D5: Summarizing the study D6: Evaluating the study 1. Indicating limitation 2. indicating significance, advantage 3. evaluating methodology Discussion (adopted from Yang & Allison, 2003, p. 376) D7: Deductions from the research 1. making suggestions 2. recommending further research 3. drawing pedagogical implication 52 2.6 The AWL-related Research The AWL appears useful in academic texts, so several studies have explored different aspects of the AWL. Some studies have examined its usefulness for English for Specific Purposes (ESP) (Chung & Nation, 2003; Mudraya, 2006), while others have explored the use of the AWL in various perspectives, such as stress-pattern analysis (Murphy and Kandil, 2004), homography recognition (Wang and Nation, 2004), the feasibility of creating a French AWL (Cobb and Horst, 2004), the comparison between the AWL and BNC word lists (Nation, 2004), and the usefulness of on-line database for learners to expand AWL vocabulary (Horst, Cobb, and Nicolae, 2005). The following reviews the AWL in ESP in Section 2.4.1, explores other aspects of the AWL in the research in Section 2.4.2, and summarizes the whole AWL-related research in Section 2.4.3. 2.6.1 The AWL in ESP Chung and Nation (2003) created two field- specific corpora, anatomy and applied linguistics field from two books, Clinically Oriented Anatomy (Moore and Dalley, 1999) and Learning a Second Language through Interaction (Ellis, 1999). The anatomy corpus contains 450,000 tokens, and the applied linguistics corpus 93,445 tokens. The purpose of their study was to explore the use of technical vocabulary in these two corpora. A rating scale was used by two different raters working separately to identify technical words in order to achieve high inter-rater reliability, which was 0.95. Then they investigated the coverage of four kinds of vocabulary, the GSL, the AWL, technical words, and low frequency words in these two corpora. The findings showed that the applied linguistics corpus has fewer technical words (16.3%) than the anatomy text (37.6%) but more AWL words (17.4%) than the anatomy one (8.6%). It seems that the AWL vocabulary plays an influential role in field-specific corpus, especially in the field of applied linguistics. Mudraya (2006) established a Student Engineering English Corpus (SEEC), which contained approximately 2,000,000 running words, and 1,200 word families. Then she built a frequency word list based on word families, occurring at least 100 times, and compared the nature of this corpus with the British National Corpus (BNC, 100 million running words) and the COBUILD Bank of 53 English Corpus (450 million running words). The results showed that the content words in the SEEC belong to a scientific register while BNC and COBUILD are more general English, and that the high frequency content words in SEEC occurred with low frequency in the BNC and COBUILD. In addition, they used WordSmith Tools software (Scott, 1996), a concordancer program, to analyze the key-keywords, which refer to the most frequent words occurring in the SEEC. It was found some verbs occurred with high frequency in the SEEC and also occurred in AWL, such as assume, correspond, define, illustrate, indicate, locate, obtain, occur, require, and sketch. It was suggested that learners in engineering field should pay more attention to academic English, covered by the AWL. In conclusion, the AWL vocabulary plays an influential role in specialized texts, such as anatomy, applied linguistics and engineering. Thus, learners in ESP courses can utilize the AWL to expand their academic vocabulary, and teachers can also exploit it to assist students with their comprehension of academic texts. 2.6.2 Various Perspectives of the AWL The previous section has addressed the importance of the AWL in specific fields. This section will review some studies which have explored different aspects of the AWL itself. The following are five studies related to the AWL. Murphy and Kandil (2004) explored the stress-pattern analysis of the Academic Word list (AWL). The two researchers calculated the number of syllables in each word in the AWL, and identified the location of the primary and secondary stressed syllable for each word by referring to the online "Dictionary.com," which was developed by North American lexicographers. A numeric system was built to record the frequency of stress pattern of each word in the AWL. They identified word- stress patterns of the 2,979 lexical items, including 525 polysyllabic AWL headwords and 2,454 polysyllabic words in the AWL's sublists. The findings showed that 39 word-stress patterns were recognized, and the initial 14 patterns covered more than 90% of the AWL's lexical items while the remaining 25 patterns only occurred with low frequency. For example, the pattern 3-2 is 54 the most frequent pattern, which means one word has three syllables, and the primary stress falls on the second syllable. The words in this pattern category include assessment, consistent, commitment, establish, and so on. It is suggested that learners in EAP courses can benefit from such pattern phenomena with the word stress frequency data. Further, the results may be beneficial for ESL teachers and researchers who are interested in speech intelligibility training or vocabulary acquisition. Wang and Nation (2004) examined whether the words in the AWL had homographs by using the New Oxford Dictionary of English (Pearsall, 1998) and a semantic relatedness rating scale, and investigated whether those homographs of each word were frequent enough in the academic corpus to influence their inclusion under the same word family in the AWL by using WordSmith tools. They distinguished polysemes from homographs in this study. Polysemes were described as the 'related meanings' of the same word form such as conceive an idea and conceive a baby, while homographs were defined as the 'unrelated meanings' for the same word form such as row of houses and row a boat. The findings indicated that only a limited number of word families (60 out of 570 word families in the AWL, around 10% of the whole word families) contained homographs, which should not be listed under the same family. Moreover, only 21 of these 60 words occurred with high frequency in academic corpus, so they analyzed these 21 words to examine whether they met the criteria for the inclusion in the AWL, namely, 100 occurrence in the entire Academic Corpus and 10 occurrence in each of the four disciplines. Only six words with one particular meaning met the criteria: consist (made up of); issue (the action of flowing); volume (book); attribute (features); objective (not subjective); and abstract (extract, remove as in the abstract of an article), but three words were dropped out of the AWL: intelligence, offset, and panel. In sum, the total 570 word families in the AWL only had 9 changes, 6 additions and 3 deletions. For pedagogical implications, it is suggested that teachers and students should focus on the core use of each word because there is always one meaning used more frequently than other meanings for each word. In this study, the authors listed the 60 AWL word families containing the homographs, and identified one meaning of each word always occurred more frequently than other meanings. This 55 list will be useful for teachers and learners to recognize the core use of each word. Cobb and Horst (2004) explored whether there is a need for an academic word list in French. Because the AWL with the most frequent 2,000 word families can cover around 90% of the words that readers encounter in the academic texts, they raised a question of whether this situation is the same in French. Thus, they collected the French texts from newspapers, popular exposition, and medical articles, and used online lexical frequency profiling program (Web Vocabprofiler available online http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/). The analysis of the 2000 French word list, which matched with the most frequent 2,000 word families in English, showed that these 2,000 words are sufficient for everyday and academic use in French. Therefore, there is no need to create a French AWL to facilitate the comprehension of academic texts. Nation (2004) created three 1,000 word lists based on the British National Corpus (BNC). Then he compared the three word lists with the GSL and the AWL to determine which word list offered better coverage. The BNC contained 100 million running words, 10% from spoken data and 90% from written data. Leech, Rayson, and Wilson (2001) divided the BNC into 100 sub-divisions by classifying similar texts into the same group. Then they created a list of lemmas which occurred at least 1000 times in BNC. A lemma includes a headword and its inflected forms subsumed under the same parts of speech. The three 1,000 words lists were extracted from 6,500 entries in this list of over 10,000 occurrence in the BNC, and they were based on three criteria: frequency data (how often a lemma and its members occurred in BNC), range data (how many of 100 sub-divisions one lemma and its members occurred in), and dispersion data (how similar the frequency of each word occurred across 100 sub-divisions). Then the three 1000 word lists were represented by word families in order to be compared with the GSL and the AWL. Nation compared coverage of the three BNC word lists, the GSL, and the AWL across various corpora, including the Academic Corpus with 3.5 million tokens (Coxhead, 2000), the Macroeconomics Corpus with 300,000 tokens from one book written by M. Parkin (Addison-Wesley, Mass.1990), Lund Corpus of Spoken English with 500,000 tokens (Svartvik & Quirk, 1980), the Fiction Corpus with 3.5 million token from Project Guthenburg (Coxhead, 2000). The findings showed that the three BNC word lists had 56 slightly better coverage across these corpora although the three word lists shared much the same vocabulary with the GSL and the AWL. Horst, Cobb, and Nicolae (2005) created an interactive online database (available at http://www.lextutor.ca) for students to expand their academic vocabulary from the AWL and some unfamiliar words the students find in academic texts. This online database provides students with AWL, Focus, specialized words activities, and students can set up their own word bank by entering a word, its definition, examples, and parts of speech. The purpose was to improve students' academic vocabulary retention by encouraging them to get involved in deep processing, a missing aspect of computer exercises for vocabulary learning. This study was conducted from Fall 2000 to Fall 2002 and included three participant groups with different first languages (L1) such as Chinese, and Vietnamese classified as Asian language; Quebec French, Spanish, and Portuguese as Romance language; Arabic, Farsi, and Russian as others. The researchers examined the quality of the students' examples in Word Bank, investigated the individual use of online resources from students of Asian and Romance L1 backgrounds, explored vocabulary growth by having students take a pretest and posttest on the meaning of words targeted for learning, and assessed which online resource, the online dictionary, the Word Bank quiz feature, the hypertext reading, or the cloze maker, are used more frequently. The findings showed that the quality of the students' examples in different contexts were appropriate, the Asian group entered more AWL vocabulary in the Word Bank than the Romance group, their performance on pre- and post-tests confirmed the students' vocabulary growth, and students used more online dictionary and Word Bank quiz features. The examination of the interactive online database was positive suggesting that further development of interactive on-line activities would be helpful to offer rich input and boost deeper processing. 2.6.3 Summary Previous studies have explored the AWL use in ESP and investigated different perspectives of the AWL. Few studies have paid attention to the use of the AWL vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics with the exception of Chung and Nation (2003). However, the limitation of their study is 57 that the corpus was relatively small – one applied linguistics book with 93,445 running words. Thus, this present study develops a larger corpus in the field of applied linguistics to make the results more generalizable. In addition, no studies have specifically probed into the use and distribution of the AWL vocabulary in applied linguistics journal articles. To bridge this gap, the present study collects 200 journal articles in the field of applied linguistics. 2.7 Summary of Chapter Two Chapter two have reviewed some important issues in corpus linguistics on language learning, the types of vocabulary and their importance in vocabulary learning and teaching, the rationale and criteria of word frequency lists, the usefulness and importance of VN collocation and lexical bundles, the studies of rhetorical functions in AIMRD section in RAs, and the AWL-related studies. It is found that no studies specifically focused on the distribution and use of AWL vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics. Thus, the purpose of the present study is to explore the use of AWL vocabulary in the applied linguistics journal articles further so as to provide learners some guidelines in learning vocabulary in the applied linguistics discipline. 58 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY With the research questions proposed in the first chapter, this chapter describes the detailed design of the present study. The following sections include the compilation of Applied Linguistics corpus (ALC) and data analysis procedures. 3.1 Compilation of Applied Linguistics Corpus (ALC) The present study developed an Applied Linguistics Corpus (ALC) by collecting 200 research papers published in five international journals in the field of applied linguistics: (1) Applied Linguistics(AL), (2) Language Learning (LL), (3) The Modern Language Journal (MLJ), (4) Second Language Research (SLR), and (5) TESOL Quarterly (TESOL). These five journals have been established for a long time and internationally recognized. They also covered a wide range of topics about applied linguistics. Developing a corpus consisted of the following procedures: collecting each text in the electronic version, removing its references, appendix, footnotes, and acknowledgement, and counting its words by computing. All the texts in each journal were arranged in alphabetical order according to the authors' names (see Appendix D). Table 3.1 shows the scope of the articles selected from each journal. Regarding AL journal, the reason why the articles from 1999 and 2000 are not included is due to some technical problems. Besides, the articles in different journals were extracted from different years. For example, the researcher chose articles in SLR journal from 1998 to 2006 but selected texts in LL journal only from 2003 to 2006. This is because the present study needs the articles with Introduction-Method-Result-Discussion (IMRD) sections to answer the third research question. Thus, all of the 40 articles in each journal contain IMRD sections. For the purpose of rhetorical function analysis and to address the third research question, the researcher specifically chose 40 research articles (RAs) from each journal which have Introduction, Method, Result and Discussion sections. These sections are labeled IMRD by Swales (1990) as part of his genre analysis framework. The Introduction- Method- Result- Discussion sections in the 40 59 Table 3.1 Scope of RAs Selected from Each Journal Journal Year, Issue (Number) Applied Linguistics (AL) (40 articles, 316,548 running words) 1998, 19 (1) ~ 1998, 19(4) 2001, 22 (1) & (3) 2002, 23 (1) & (2) 2003, 24 (1), (2) & (4) 2004, 25 (1) & (3) 2005, 26 (1) ~ (3) 2006, 27 (2) ~ (4) Language Learning (LL) (40 articles, 335,848 running words) 2003, 53 (1) ~ 2003, 53 (4) 2004, 54 (1) ~ 2004, 54 (4) 2005, 55 (supp1), (1), (2) & (4) 2006, 56 (1) ~ (3) The Modern Language Journal (MLJ) (40 articles, 314,689 running words) 2002, 86 (3) ~ (4) 2003, 87 (1) ~ (4) 2004, 88 (1) ~ (3) 2005, 89 (1), (2) & (4) 2006, 90 (1) Second Language Research (SLR) (40 articles, 301,693 running words) 1998, 14 (1), (3) & (4) 1999, 15 (1) ~ (4) 2000, 16 (1) ~ (4) 2001, 17 (1) & (3) 2002, 18 (1) & (4) 2003, 19 (1) & (4) 2005, 21 (1) ~ (4) 2006, 22 (1) ~ (4) TESOL Quarterly (TESOL) (40 articles, 285,344 running words) 2001, 35 (1) ~ (3) 2002, 36 (1), (2) & (4) 2003, 37 (1) ~ (4) 2004, 38 (1) ~ (4) 2005, 39 (1) & (4) 2006, 40 (2) RAs may or may not be labeled as such. While articles in Applied Linguistics (AL) and Second Language Research (SLR) have the "introduction" heading, articles in Language Learning (LL), Modern Language Journal (MLJ), and TESOL Quarterly (TESOL) do not. Yang and Allison (2004) mentioned that the omission of the "Introduction" heading was suggested by TESOL Quarterly 60 publisher to follow APA style. Thus, journal policy on RA style affects RA authors to use or not to use some section headings. With regard to Method section, most of the RAs have "method" heading while a few of them has different headings, such as "the (present) study," "experiment" or "Research Question." Although "Research Question" may belong to Introduction section (Yang & Allison, 2004 ), the researcher still tagged //M// before "Research Question" if there was no other option such as "Method," "Experiment" or "The present study" heading. Next, Result section is simpler because of only two alternatives, "result" or "finding" headings. Finally, Discussion section usually contains four elements: discussion, conclusion, (pedagogical) implications and limitation/further research. Most of RAs have "discussion" heading followed by conclusion, implications or limitation headings but the researcher only tagged //D// before the "discussion" heading. However, if there is no "discussion" heading, the researcher chose any of the other three elements as Discussion section. The rationale was derived from Yang and Allison's study (2003). They have done genre analysis on the RAs from Applied Linguistics, TESOL Quarterly, English for Specific Purpose, and English Language Teaching Journal, and reported that "Discussion", "Conclusion" and even "Pedagogical Implication" headings may all occur in one RA or only one or two of these three headings appear in one RA. However, they found that some moves or steps (rhetorical function) in the three sections overlapped. Therefore, the present study regarded "Conclusion" and "Pedagogical Implication" as alternatives for Discussion section. In addition to IMRD, every RA from each journal also has Abstract section in the beginning of the text so the researcher tagged "A" for Abstract section in each RA. However, not every article has "Abstract" heading. The articles in LL and MLJ usually have "abstract" heading while those in AL, SLR and TESOL journals do not. Thus, the researcher would just tag "A" in the beginning of each RA. Table 3.2 summarizes the criteria for how to divide one RA into AIMRD sections. 61 Table 3.2 Criteria for Classifying One RA into AIMRD Sections RA Section Classifying Criteria Abstract 1. "Abstract" heading or 2. The beginning of the RA Introduction 1. "Introduction" heading or 2. "Background" heading or 3. No heading but after Abstract or 4. Topic-related heading like ACADEMIC SECOND LANGUAGE LISTENING COMPREHENSION Method 1. "Method/Methodology" heading or 2. "The (present) study" heading or 3. "Experiment" heading or 4. "Research Questions" heading Result 1. "Result" heading or 2. "Finding" heading Discussion 1. "Discussion" heading or 2. "Conclusion" heading or 3. "(Pedagogical) implication" heading or 4. "Limitation/further research" heading 3.2 Data Analysis Procedures The first research question is to investigate the frequency of the ALW word-forms used in the applied linguistics journal articles. To answer this question, the first stage is to obtain a list of AWL word-forms that occur 50 times in the entire ALC and at least five times in each of the five journals. The criteria include both frequency (50 times in the ALC) and range (5 times in each of the five 62 journals). The rationale to select this rate of occurrence is based on Coxhead's selection of her AWL. Coxhead's corpus for the AWL is around 3.5 million and her selection criteria of the AWL word-form is that each word-form in the AWL should occur at least 100 times in the entire corpus and at least 10 times in each of the four disciplines. Because the running words of ALC are approximately 1.5 million, which are around half the size of Coxhead's corpus, the selection criterion is that each word-form should occur as frequently as the AWL word-form in Coxhead's corpus. In other words, each word-form should occur at least 50 times in the whole ALC and at least five times in each of the five journals. A programmer from the Department of Computer Science calculated the frequency of all AWL word-forms from Coxhead's list in the ALC and provided a ranking of the AWL word-form. The researcher then looked through the ranking and drew a cut-off line at the last word-form that occurs 50 times in the entire ALC and at least five times in each of the five journals. The second research question is to analyze the verb-noun (V-N) collocations and lexical bundles of the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of their word families in the ALC. To address this question, a list of V-N collocations and a list of lexical bundles need to be identified. In terms of VN collocation, the programmer identified the phrases with verb and noun, which were the candidates for V-N collocations, from the large monolingual corpus, written British National Corpus (BNC) first. Next, he analyzed the candidates for VN collocations by exploiting Logarithmic Likelihood Ratio (LLR) statistics to measure the strength of association between verb and noun. A list of VN collocations in BNC was therefore created. Subsequently, the phrases with verb and noun were identified in the Applied Linguistics Corpus (ALC) as well. Due to the small size of ALC, he could not use LLR statistics to judge whether VN candidates in the ALC were VN collocations. Thus, he compared the VN candidates in the ALC with the VN collocations in the BNC. If VN candidates in the ALC were also found among the VN collocations from BNC, they were regarded as VN collocations in the ALC. Then he filtered out VN collocations which do not have any AWL word-form among the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of their word families in the ALC. With regard to four-word lexical bundles, we only focused on four-word the lexical bundles 63 because four-word bundles contain three-word bundles and occur more frequently than five-word bundles (Cortes, 2004). Each four-word lexical bundle should include at least one AWL word-form among the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of their word families in the ALC. Owing to this restriction, we only required that each lexical bundle occur at least 10 times per million words and once in each of the five journals. Although Biber et al (2004) suggested 40 times per million was a more strict selection, we still chose 10 times per million and once in each of the five journals due to the restriction that each lexical bundle should include one AWL word-form. This should be acceptable because Biber and Barbieri (2007) claimed that "the frequency cut-off used to identify lexical bundles is somewhat arbitrary" (p.5). In brief, there were approximately 1.5 million running words in the ALC so the lexical bundles in the present study should occur at least 15 times in the ALC and at least once in each of the five journals. The third research question is to identify the rhetorical functions for four-word lexical bundles that were found in the second research question. Table 3.3 shows the rhetorical functions of the five RA sections, which was adopted or adapted from different studies as reviewed in Section 2.5. Each of the four-word lexical bundles was analyzed to see which of the rhetorical functions listed in Table 3.3 the bundle performs. Two raters were involved in this analysis. Both of them are second-year TEFL program graduate students. Two raters learned the basic concept of rhetorical functions from graduate courses about Academic Writing. The raters were trained to match each lexical bundle with the functions it performs by reading definitions of the functions and looking at the example sentences that represent that function (see Appendix C). Each lexical bundle is presented in its complete sentence contexts. After the researcher coded the section in which the lexical bundles occur most frequently, the two raters looked at all of the lexical bundles in different sections and coded their rhetorical functions. All cases of disagreements were discussed and resolved. 64 Table 3.3 Rhetorical Functions in Five RA Sections Five Sections Moves + Steps Abstract (Santos, 1996, p. 485) A1: Situating the research 1. stating current knowledge/citing previous research/ extended previous research 2. stating a problem A2: Presenting the research 1. indicating main features/main purpose 2. hypothesis raising A3: Describing the methodology A4: Summarizing the results A5: Discussing the research 1. drawing conclusion 2. giving recommendations Introduction (adopted from Swales, 1990, p. 141) I1:Establishing a territory 1. claiming centrality and/or 2. making topic generalization and/or 3. review items of previous research I2: Establishing a niche (choose one only) 1. counter- claiming 2. indicating a gap 3. question-raising 4. continuing a tradition I3: Occupying the niche 1. outlining purpose or announcing present research 2. announcing principal findings 3. indicating RA structure Method (adapted from Weissberg & Buker, 2005, p. 92) M1: Overview of the experiment M2: Population/sample M3: Location M4: Restriction/limiting conditions M5: Sampling techniques M6:Procedures M7:Materials M8: Variables M9: Statistical treatment M10: Data Analysis 65 Table 3.3 (Continued) Five Sections Moves + Steps R1:Preparatory information R2: Reporting results R3: Commenting on results 1. Interpreting results 2. Comparing results with literature 3. Evaluating results 4. Account for results R4: Summarizing results R5: Evaluating the study 1. Indicating limitation 2. Indicating significance/advantage Results: (adopted from Yang & Allison, 2003, p. 374) R6: Deductions from the research 1. Recommending further research D1: Background information D2: Reporting results D3: Summarizing results D4: Commenting on results 1. Interpreting results 2. Comparing results with literature 3. Account for results 4. Evaluating results D5: Summarizing the study D6: Evaluating the study 1. Indicating limitation 2. indicating significance, advantage 3. evaluating methodology Discussion (adopted from Yang & Allison, 2003, p. 376) D7: Deductions from the research 1. making suggestions 2. recommending further research 3. drawing pedagogical implication In terms of the analysis of the non-AWL content word-forms, there were two stages. The first stage involves identifying content word-forms that occur at least 50 times in the ALC and at least five times in each of the five journals. The programmer filtered out the AWL and GSL vocabulary 66 and some abbreviations such as ESL, EFL ie, vs, and SD first. Then five kinds of function words were removed as well, including auxiliaries, conjunctions, determiners, prepositions, pronouns, and quantifier (e.g. many, most, etc.). After this filtering stage, a non-AWL content word-form list was produced. Next, in order to confirm whether students in the field of applied linguistics are familiar with these high frequency non-AWL word-forms, 30 English-major freshmen and 30 TEFL-program first-, second- and third-year graduate students were asked to fill out one questionnaire in which top 100 non-AWL content word-forms are listed. They had to mark on the questionnaire the word-forms whose meaning they are not sure. The purpose is to examine which non-AWL content word-forms are comprehensible to novice learners (freshmen students) and advanced learners (graduate students) in the field of applied linguistics. Table 3.4 summarizes the research questions and its correspondent data analysis procedures. Table 3.4 Data Analysis Procedures A. AWL Vocabulary Research Questions Steps 1. How frequently are the AWL words-forms used in the applied linguistics journal articles that are collected in this study? Frequency analysis of AWL word-forms in the ALC 2. What are the verb-noun collocations and lexical bundles of the high frequency AWL word-forms that are recognized in the first research question? The identification of VN collocations and four-word lexical bundles of the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of their word families in ALC 3. What are the rhetorical functions for the high frequency lexical bundles which are identified in the second research question in Swales' (1990) IMRD sections (Introduction- Method – Result – Discussion)? Rhetorical functions rating for lexical bundles B. Non-AWL Vocabulary Research Questions Steps 4. What non-AWL content word-forms occur with high frequency in the applied linguistics journal articles? Frequency analysis by filtering out AWL and GSL vocabulary, some abbreviations, and function words 5. To what extent are English-major freshmen and TEFL-program graduate students familiar with the top 100 non-AWL word-forms listed in the fourth question? Survey on English-major freshmen and TEFL-program graduate students. 67 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The present study investigates the frequency and use of AWL vocabulary in the applied linguistics journal articles. Further, the frequency of the non-AWL content vocabulary and students' acquaintance with the non-AWL content vocabulary are also explored. The following sections address the findings for each research question in order. 4.1 Frequency Analysis of AWL Vocabulary in the ALC In order to address the coverage of the AWL word-forms used in the ALC, the first stage is to conduct a computational analysis on AWL vocabulary. As Table 4.1 indicates, AWL word-forms account for 11.3% in the entire ALC (1,554,032 running words), and AWL word-forms represent 10.8% to 11.6% in each sub-corpus (AL, LL, MLJ, SLR, and TESOL). The difference among five journals is less than 1%. Table 4.1 Coverage of AWL Word-forms in Each Journal and the ALC Corpus AL LL MLJ SLR TESOL ALC AWL word-forms 36,811 38,612 35,411 32,532 32,527 175,893 Running words 316,458 335,848 314,689 301,693 285,344 1,554,032 Percentage (%) 11.6 11.5 11.3 10.8 11.4 11.3 Table 4.2 Coverage of Top 477 AWL Word-forms in the ALC Top 477 AWL Word-forms Frequency Counts Coverage of the ALC (%) Top 1-100 79,397 5.1 Top 101-200 26,222 1.7 Top 201- 300 15,712 1.0 Top 301- 400 10,109 0.7 Top 401-477 5108 0.3 Total (Top 477) 136,548 8.8 68 1-100 101-200 201-300 301-400 401-477 Percentage of Top AWL 477 Word-forms in the ALC 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 4.1 Coverage of Top 477 AWL Word-forms in the ALC Frequency analysis shows the 477 AWL word-forms (see Table 4.4 for the top 100 AWL-forms and Appendix E for the 101-477 AWL word-forms) that occur at least 50 times in the entire ALC and 5 times in each of the five journals. The coverage of the 477 AWL word-forms in the ALC can be seen in Table 4.2. The total frequency counts of these 477 word-forms are 136,548 times, which is 8.8% in the whole ALC. Further, the occurrences of the top 100 AWL word-forms are 79,397 times so the top 100 AWL word-forms in ALC account for 5.1%. In other words, the remaining top 101 to 477 AWL word-forms only make up 3.7% in the whole ALC. Figure 4.1 above illustrates the downward trend of coverage of the top 477 AWL word-forms in the ALC. This downward tendency suggests the important role of the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC. Appendix F demonstrates the word families of the 477 AWL word-forms. The "family" column shows how these 477 AWL word-forms are categorized into different word families. The "family_freq." column refers to the total occurrences of one word family in the ALC. The "word-form" column shows the members of one word family. For example, the "participate" word family has six members in the ALC, namely, participants, participant, participation, participated, participate, and participating. The "word-form rank" column displays the ranking of each 69 word-form in the ALC. The "word freq." column shows the frequency of each word-form in the ALC. Students in the field of applied linguistics can capitalize on this list because word families are useful for them to learn vocabulary (Bauer & Nation, 1993). Table 4.3 Coverage of Top 477 AWL Word-forms that Occurred in the ALC in Each of Coxhead's Sublists Coxhead's Sublist AWL Word-form in ALC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 1-100 38 28 5 8 8 7 1 3 2 0 100 101-200 41 19 10 15 4 5 4 1 1 0 100 201-300 24 15 17 16 8 10 6 3 1 0 100 301-400 24 15 17 10 3 9 6 7 5 4 100 401-477 15 14 11 7 12 3 6 3 4 2 77 Total 142 91 60 56 35 34 23 17 13 6 477 Percentage (%) 30 19 13 12 7 7 5 3 3 1 100 Table 4.3 shows the coverage of the top 477 AWL word-forms (that were identified in the ALC) in each Coxhead's sublist. The coverage of the top 477 AWL word-forms in the ALC is declining from Coxhead's sublist 1 to 10. Specifically, 49% of these 477 AWL word-forms in the ALC come from sublist 1 and sublist 2. This illustrates that most of these 477 AWL word-forms are high frequency words because they occur more in Coxhead's previous sublists and fewer and fewer in later sublists (The frequency of words in Coxhead's ten sublists goes downward from sublist 1 to 10). Figure 4.2 shows the downward tendency. 70 Coxhead's Sublists 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Percentage of Top 477 AWL Word-forms in Each Sublist 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Figure 4.2 Percentage of Top 477 AWL Word-forms in Coxhead's Each Sublist As mentioned earlier, compared to the top 477 AWL word-forms which make up 8.8% in the ALC, the first 100 AWL word-forms of them have already account for 5.1% in the ALC. Thus, this study specifically focuses on the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC, as shown in Table 4.4. As can be seen in Table 4.4, 38 out of the top 100 word-forms are the words in Coxhead's sublist 1, such as research, data, significant, and so on. The words in Coxhead's sublist 2 occur very frequently in the ALC as well (28 out of the top 100 word-forms) such as participants, strategies, and acquisition. Altogether, 66% of the most frequent 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC derive from Coxhead's sublist 1 and 2 (see word-forms with gray background). 71 Table 4.4 Top 100 AWL Word-forms in the ALC Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of Word-form Sublist Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of Word-form Sublist 01 research research 2895 1 51 previous previous 595 2 02 participants participate 2846 2 52 positive positive 589 2 03 data data 2451 1 53 awareness aware 573 5 04 task task 2316 3 54 approach approach 563 1 05 significant significant 1994 1 55 tense tense 560 8 06 strategies strategy 1919 2 56 gender gender 549 6 07 acquisition acquire 1900 2 57 analyses analyse 540 1 08 items item 1829 2 58 motivation motive 523 6 09 analysis analyse 1803 1 59 section section 516 1 10 found found 1799 9 60 functional function 514 1 11 text text 1601 2 61 errors error 508 4 12 context context 1518 1 62 involved involve 508 1 13 target target 1469 5 63 required require 503 1 14 processing process 1227 1 64 accuracy accurate 499 6 15 evidence evident 1099 1 65 indicated indicate 494 1 16 features feature 1094 2 66 range range 491 2 17 input input 1078 6 67 variable vary 486 1 18 interaction interact 1074 3 68 appropriate appropriate 485 2 19 tasks task 1003 3 69 clause clause 485 5 20 structure structure 989 1 70 topic topic 476 7 21 process process 951 1 71 available available 475 1 22 instruction instruct 943 6 72 relevant relevant 473 2 23 similar similar 937 1 73 transfer transfer 473 2 24 role role 936 1 74 initial initial 471 3 25 focus focus 870 2 75 complexity complex 470 2 26 hypothesis hypothesis 851 4 76 aspects aspect 469 2 27 significantly significant 847 1 77 feature feature 469 2 28 contexts context 838 1 78 function function 465 1 29 factors factor 814 1 79 clauses clause 451 5 30 strategy strategy 791 2 80 indicate indicate 450 1 31 individual individual 779 1 81 version version 449 5 32 specific specific 760 1 82 finally final 448 2 33 whereas whereas 760 5 83 theory theory 439 1 34 variables vary 759 1 84 focused focus 435 2 72 Table 4.4 (continued) Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of Word-form Sublist Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of Word-form Sublist 35 academic academy 732 5 85 processes process 433 1 36 explicit explicit 717 6 86 intermediate intermediate 427 9 37 texts text 712 2 87 variance vary 421 1 38 interpretation interpret 708 1 88 participant participate 417 2 39 categories category 699 2 89 exposure expose 412 5 40 responses respond 679 1 90 revealed reveal 411 6 41 overall overall 670 4 91 conducted conduct 405 2 42 complex complex 658 2 92 aspect aspect 402 2 43 response respond 621 1 93 implicit implicit 398 8 44 item item 615 2 94 communication communicate 391 4 45 researchers research 615 1 95 statistically statistic 376 4 46 structures structure 607 1 96 error error 375 4 47 category category 604 2 97 acquired acquire 371 2 48 negative negate 603 3 98 identified identify 365 1 49 factor factor 599 1 99 appendix append 362 8 50 contrast contrast 598 4 00 investigated investigate 360 4 Note. The bold-faced word-forms are the most frequent ones in their word families in respective sublist. Furthermore, Figure 4.3 shows the percentage of the top 100 AWL word-forms from the ALC, distributing over Coxhead's sublist 1 to 9. Again, Figure 4.3 displays that most of the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC occur in Coxhead sublist 1 and 2, but the AWL word-forms from sublist 3 to 6 account for 28% of the top 100 AWL word-forms and those from sublist 7 to 9 make up only 6%. Thus, the word-forms from sublist 1 and 2 greatly exceed those from sublist 3 to 9. This distribution tendency demonstrates that the components of top 100 word-forms consist of more from sublist 1 and 2, which is similar to the result of the distribution of the top AWL 477 word-forms in Coxhead's sublists as mentioned above. 73 Coxhead's Sublists 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Percentage of the Top 100 AWL Word-forms (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Figure 4.3 Percentage of Top 100 AWL Word-forms That Occurred in the ALC in Coxhead's Each Sublist Another finding is that 63% of the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC are the most frequently-occurring members in their word families (see bold-faced word-forms in Table 4.4). For example, research is the most frequent word-form in 'research word family' in Coxhead's sublist 1 which includes researched, researcher, researchers, researches, and researching. Another example is that strategies in Coxhead's sublist 2 occurs most frequently in 'strategy word families' which contains strategic, strategies, strategically, strategist, and strategists. These bold-faced word-forms in Table 4.4 conform to the most frequently-occurring members of each word family in Coxhead sublists. This finding suggests the importance of the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC. It seems that some word-forms in Table 4.4 are used in academic research writing such as research(er), participant(s), data, significant(ly), analysis, found, evidence, hypothesis, factors, variables, interpretation, previous, approach, theory, and method. Other word-forms are related to content areas in applied linguistics field. For example, some are related to language learning and teaching such as strategies, acquisition, task(s), input, instruction, interaction, communication, negative/positive (feedback), explicit/implicit (feedback), and transfer. Moreover, the meanings of some word-forms are related to linguistics such as structure(s), features, tense, clause(s), and 74 aspect. To sum up, the Coxhead's AWL account for high percentage in the field of applied linguistics, especially sublist 1 and 2. The 477 AWL word-forms and their word families identified in the ALC can be the more direct resource for students to learn because they occur frequently in the applied linguistics journal articles. Specifically, the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC can serve the basis for learning academic vocabulary in the beginning of students' learning process. 4.2 V-N Collocations and Lexical Bundles for High Frequency AWL Vocabulary This section explores the verb-noun collocation and four-word lexical bundles of the top 100 AWL word-forms and the headwords of their word families that were identified in Section 4.1. Subsection 4.2.1 illustrates the V-N collocations in terms of its frequency and use in the ALC; on the other hand, Subsection 4.2.2 addresses the four-word lexical bundles regarding its frequency, structural types, and use. 4.2.1 V-N Collocations Table 4.5 displays the VN collocations derived from the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of their word families, and also shows the most frequent section (IMRD) in which these VN collocations occur and their context examples. As Table 4.5 indicates, the 41 V-N collocations are derived from 24 of the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of the family. The "headword of AWL family" column shows which word family the collocations are produced from. The parenthesis words in the "headword of AWL family" column are the word-form that occur in the ALC and belong to the member of one word family. For example, "participants" is one word-form that appears in the ALC and belongs to the member of the "participate" word family. In addition, "V-N Collocation" column addresses the V-N collocations which these 24 word-forms or the headword of their word family generate. The 24 word-forms or the headwords generate one to three V-N collocations with various frequencies. For example, the AWL word-form "task" has three V-N collocations: complete…task, perform…task, and do…task. It means that task is often collocated 75 with these three verbs, complete, perform and do. However, the frequency of each V-N collocation is different in the ALC, as shown in the "total freq.(frequency)" column. This column shows that complete and task are more common collocates than perform…task or do…task in the entire ALC. The column labeled as "most freq. section" refers to the section in which each VN collocation occurs most frequently. For example, of the 45 times that the V-N collocation "complete…task" occur in the ALC, 35 of them occur in the Method section. Therefore, the abbreviation M (35) in the column "most freq. section" in Table 4.5 is used to represent this phenomenon. This "most freq. section" column also shows that V-N collocations occur most frequently in the Introduction, Method, Result, and Discussion sections but none appear most frequently in the Abstract section. Figure 4.4 shows this phenomenon and also illustrates the number of V-N collocations in each RA section. It is shown that the Introduction section contains more V-N collocations than the remaining three sections. The organization of the Introduction section is highly conventionalized, so formulaic expressions like collocations could occur frequently. 76 Table 4.5 41 V-N Collocations of 24 Word-forms No. Headword of AWL Family V-N Collocations Total Freq. Most Freq. Section Examples 1. participate (participants) 1. participate… study 2. ask…participants 45 11 M (35) M (6) 1. Reliability of this version of the test was estimated on the performance of the 95 non-native speakers participating in the present study.(AL03_06ER) 2. The folktale was elicited by asking the participants to tell a story that was traditional in their culture.(LL02_06CL) 2. task(s) 1. complete… task 2. perform… task 3. do…task 80 49 15 M (35) M (20) M (8) 1. Based on a pilot test, the participants were allowed 28 minutes to complete the tasks.(MLJ16_04RE) 2. Fourteen days after reviewing and correcting Version 2, the students performed a delayed writing task. (TESOL04_06LS). 3. All subjects, both native and nonnative, were asked to do two tasks: an oral production task and a judgement task.( SLR24_01YB) 3. item(s) 1. consist… item 2. include…item 3. contain…item 29 12 10 M (25) M (8) M (6) 1. The test consisted of 18 items, with 6 items representing each of the three RC types.(LL33_03IS) 2. The FLCAS includes 33 items, scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.(MLJ32_03RM) 3. The delayed posttest contained the same items as the first posttest, but they were randomly redistributed.(MLJ16_04RE) 4. text(s) read… text 131 D (50) Only Group C read a text that was enhanced, but the mean test score difference between Groups C and F was not statistically significant. (TESOL03_06KY) 5. evident (evidence) 1. provide… evidence 2. find… evidence 3. show…evidence 140 34 27 I (58) I (24) R (11) 1. A number of these authors have simply made this suggestion as a self-evident observation, but several have provided evidence for this viewpoint.(TESOL40_01YC) 2. Camps (2002) studied a group of second-semester Spanish college students who had never taken Spanish before and found more evidence for the spread of imperfect than for the spread of preterite. (LL02_06CL) 3. Additionally the learners show evidence that they have acquired the fully specified finite forms of these same verb types.(SLR06_06RS) 77 Table 4.5 (Continued) No. Headword of AWL Family V-N Collocations Total Freq. Most Freq. Section Examples 6. interact (interaction) examine…interaction 10 I (6) Kramsch (1985), for example, pointed out that researchers examining teacher-student interaction in the classroom need to consider the instructional context.(MLJ31_03OR) 7. structure use…structure 10 R (4) Both Chloe (who presumably hears a lot of dislocation in her input) and Emma (whose input is more limited) very productively use the dislocation structure.(SLR23_01HJ) 8. instruct (instruction) receive… instruction 56 M (28) In order to ensure that the sample was homogeneous in relation to the target structure, prior to the experiment, all the participants received the same instruction on Spanish contrary-to-fact conditional sentences in the present.(MLJ16_04RE) 9. role 1. play… role 2. investigate…role 3. examine…role 217 21 20 I (99) I (10) I (11) 1. Thus, with dative experiencers, at least to some extent, thematic prominence also plays a role for subject interpretation. (SLR38_98MS) 2. The existing research investigating the role of L2 reading proficiency in lexical development through reading pertains to the influence of this variable during lexical inferencing.(LL36_03PD) 3. Examining the role of self-initiations is important to further substantiate the comprehensible output hypothesis and the related claims about IL modification and L2 learning.(TESOL39_01SA) 10. hypothesis (ses) 1. test…hypothesis 2. support… hypothesis 3. reject…hypothesis 44 35 13 I (25) D (15) R (5) 1. My study was specifically designed to test the semantic transfer hypothesis.(MLJ13_04JN) 2. Furthermore, this study supports the hypothesis that change in oral English proficiency can be attributed in part to change in phonological awareness.(TESOL12_04GD) 3. The results rejected the null hypothesis of no between-groups difference.(TESOL07_05HG) 11. context (s) 1. provide…context 21 I (9) 1. According to Buck (1995), these preparatory activities can provide a context for interpretation and can activate background knowledge. (TESOL05_06RJ) 78 Table 4.5 (Continued) No. Headword of AWL Family V-N Collocations Total Freq. Most Freq. Section Examples 2. depend…context 14 I (7) 2. Significant differences were found in the opportunity, provision, and use of feedback depending on these interactional contexts as described below.(MLJ31_03OR) 12. strategy (ies) 1. use… strategy 2. apply…strategy 112 17 D (48) D (7) 1. No evidence was found that readers compensated for FL difficulties by using more strategies directed toward building a global model of text content.(LL37_03SM) 2. First, we consider the explanation which concludes that Turkish L2 learners are merely applying the pragmatic strategies of their L1 for the binding of reflexives in their L2.(SLR26_00DM) 13. vary vary… degree 30 I (14) Learners may vary in the degree to which they have each of the four aspects of metaphoric competence.(TESOL36_01LJ) 14. respond respond…question 15 M (8) They were invited to respond to this question in their L1s or in English, in whichever they felt more comfortable.(AL05_06MA) 15. category fall…category 11 D (4) The reported strategies fell into three categories: (a) guessing from context, (b) prior knowledge, and (c) recognizing cognates. (MLJ24_03FD) 16. involve involve…use 21 I D (7) Intralingual strategies involve the use of linguistic means of the target language such as synonyms, definitions, or linguistic contexts. (MLJ13_04JN) 17. require require…use 12 R (5) Test B required the use of pronouns to refer to inanimate objects rather than persons.(MLJ23_03ER) 18. range range…age 10 M (10) These participants ranged in age from 20 to 45, with the exception of one participant, who was 55.(LL30_03GK) 19. indicate indicate…level 20 R (13) The analysis of the data for computer anxiety indicated that anxiety level ranged from high to low in the following order: Groups E, F, C, A, D, and B.(MLJ14_04MS) 20. expose (exposure) have…exposure 26 I (11) Thus, it is likely, as Montrul herself suggests, that the intermediate Spanish speakers had not had enough exposure to notice them in the input.(SLR20_02IS) 79 Table 4.5 (Continued) No. Headword of AWL Family V-N Collocations Total Freq. Most Freq. Section Examples 21. reveal reveal… difference 55 R (33) Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks tests (Table 6) revealed significant differences in most areas from pre- to posttest. (LL31_03GS) 22. conduct 1. conduct…study 2. conduct…interview 23 11 I (12) M (8) 1. Schouten-van Parreren (1989) conducted a long-term case study with three L2 children to investigate the acquisition of vocabulary through picture books.(AL22_03VK) 2. We conducted follow-up interviews by phone and adjusted the instrument based on feedback. (TESOL06_05CJ) 23. acquire 1. acquire…knowledge 2. acquire…language 21 16 D (11) I (11) 1. Through exposure to language in use, learners unconsciously acquire implicit knowledge that forms the basis for their own language use. (TESOL23_03KG) 2. These early studies, along with those on negation in English, showed that learners pass through general stages in the process of acquiring a second language. (LL30_03GK) 24. investigate 80 Number of V-N Collocations 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Introduction Method Result Discussion Figure 4.4 Number of Different V-N Collocations Across Four RA Sections In addition, the column "most freq. section" demonstrates how different V-N collocations with the same AWL word-form are employed in different RA sections. For example, "provide…evidence" and "find…evidence" are most frequently used in the Introduction section while "show…evidence" is most frequently used in the Result section (Please see No. 5 in Table 4.5). When "hypothesis" is collocated with various verbs, its collocations can be used in the Introduction, Result and Discussion sections (Please see No. 10). The remaining instances are "conduct…study" in the Introduction section but "conduct…interview" in the Method section (No. 22), and "acquire…language" in the Introduction section but "acquire…knowledge" in the Discussion section (No. 23). In addition, the same V-N collocation may be used frequently in two RA sections, such as "involve…use" in the Introduction and Discussion sections (see No. 16). Table 4.6 summarizes this phenomenon and clearly demonstrates how the V-N collocations are used in the four sections. 81 Table 4.6 V-N Collocations in IMRD Sections AWL Word-forms V-N Collocations evident (evidence) 1. provide… evidence 2. find… evidence interact (interaction) examine…interaction role 1. play… role 2. investigate…role 3. examine…role hypothesis (ses) test…hypothesis context (s) 1. provide…context 2. depend…context vary vary… degree involve involve…use expose (exposure) have…exposure conduct conduct…study acquire acquire…language Introduction (17 collocations) investigate 1. investigate… effect 2. investigate…relationship 3. investigate…question participate (participants) 1. participate… study 2. ask…participants task(s) 1. complete… task 2. perform… task 3. do…task item(s) 1. consist… item 2. include…item 3. contain…item instruct (instruction) receive… instruction respond respond…question range range…age Method (12) conduct conduct…interview evident (evidence) show…evidence structure use…structure hypothesis (ses) reject…hypothesis require require…use indicate indicate…level Result (6) reveal reveal… difference 82 Table 4.6 (Continued) Sections AWL Word-forms V-N Collocations text(s) read… text hypothesis (ses) support… hypothesis strategy (ies) 1. use… strategy 2. apply…strategy category fall…category involve involve…use Discussion (7) acquire acquire…knowledge Finally, the "examples" column in Table 4.5 further displays how each V-N collocation is used in different RA sections. Each example sentence in this column is randomly selected from a larger set of sentences that contain the target V-N collocations in a specific RA section. For example, the section in which the V-N collocation "provide… evidence" occurs most frequently is the Introduction section (58 instances). The sentence that is presented in the "example" column in Table 4.5 is randomly selected from the 58 instances. In terms of various use of collocations, some verbs are followed by one preposition (prep.) and then the noun phrase (NP). The examples for "participate" are as follows: Reliability of this version of the test was estimated on the performance of the 95 non-native speakers participating in the present study. Prep. + NP (Method, AL03_06ER) All of the teachers who participated in this study were volunteers. Prep. +NP (Method, TESOL09_04BY) The preposition "in" is commonly used after "participate" so the usage of "participate…study" is "participate in…study." Other VN collocations with prepositions are consist of…item, depend on…context, vary in…degree, respond to …questions, fall into…categories, and range in…age. The instances are in the following: 83 a) consist…item For the L1 English – L2 Spanish group the test consisted of 22 items out of 79, for the L1 English – L2 Greek group of 24 out of 66 sentences. (Method, SLR14_05PT) b) depend… context On the other hand, quasi- or pseudo-optional rules seem optional only on the surface but have different acceptability values and carry different interpretations depending on the context of utterance. (Introduction, SLR29_00PS) c) vary…degree Also, with the exception of Adams (1982), none of the studies cited above actually assessed the degree of participants' familiarity with the topic, or studied within-participant performance on texts varying in their degree of familiarity to the readers. (Introduction, LL36_03PD) d) respond…question Students were also asked to respond to the question "What percentage of the passage do you think you understood." on the 6-point unipolar scale described in the Instruments section. (Method, TESOL37_01OS) e) fall…category Two glossed words fall into the first category and one falls into the second. (Discussion, MLJ24_03FD) f) range…age Participants ranged in age from 18 to 22 years, with an average age of19.7. (Method, SLR10_05AE) In brief, seven V-N collocations in total have prepositions after the verb. The above examples show the usage of preposition in V-N collocations; moreover, other unmentioned instances display the same preposition for each verb except "fall…category." There are totally 11 occurrences for this V-N collocation, fall…category. However, two of 11 occurrences have different V+Prep.+N patterns other than "fall into… category," which were shown below: One word that falls within the first category (where phrasal glossing was used) is estirpe 'lineage. (Discussion, MLJ24_03FD) 84 The second group of learners (n = 16) were graduate students in French and would generally fall in the advanced category in an OPI-ACTFL proficiency test (Magnan, 1986). (Method, LL08_05DL) This phenomenon demonstrates the variety of use of one word so learners and teachers can direct students' attention to those verbs with different prepositions followed up. In conclusion, the 41 V-N collocations recognized among the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of their word families show how the words are collocated together and frequently perform in one RA section. 4.2.2 Four-word Lexical Bundles Table 4.7 demonstrates four-word lexical bundles derived from the top 100 AWL word-forms, and shows the most frequent sections in which these bundles occur, the rhetorical functions that these bundles most frequently perform, and the context examples of these bundles. As Table 4.7 indicates, 26 four-word lexical bundles are derived from 12 of the top 100 AWL word-forms. The "AWL word-form" column shows these 12 word-forms. Moreover, we found these 12 AWL word-forms produce one to five lexical bundles, as shown in the "4-word lexical bundles" column. For instance, significant has four bundles: significant difference between the, significant main effect for, there was no significant, and no significant difference was. In the "4-word lexical bundles" column, only one AWL word-form, research, has different lexical bundles in two sections, Introduction (i.e. research has shown that) and Discussion (i.e. research is needed to). Except for this case, other lexical bundles with the same AWL word-form are all commonly used in one RA section. For instance, the lexical bundles "in the target language" and "of the target language" are both most frequently used in the Introduction section. Table 4.8 has categorized the lexical bundles into four RA sections, Introduction, Method, Result and Discussion. This classification can highlight how different lexical bundles were used in different sections. Furthermore, fourteen four-word lexical bundles in Table 4.8 occur in the Introduction sections, which greatly outnumber the other three sections. This phenomenon can be 85 seen in Figure 4.5. This finding implies that the organization of the Introduction section is highly conventionalized so formulaic expressions like lexical bundles could occur frequently. 86 Table 4.7 26 Four-word Lexical Bundles of 12 AWL Word-forms No. AWL Word-form Four-word Lexical Bundles Total Freq. Most Freq. Section Rhetorical Function (most freq.) Examples 1. research 1. research is needed to 2. research has shown that 17 16 D (9) I (10) D7 I1 1. Further research is needed to corroborate evidence that the correction of ungrammatical sentences in the context of elicited imitation is a reliable indication of internalized constraints on grammar. (AL03_06ER) 2. Research has shown that modified learner-to-learner interactions, especially, increase learners' communicative ability (Gass & Varonis, 1994; Long, 1996). (MLJ21_03AZ) 2. participant 1. participants were asked to 2. half of the participants 61 22 M (44) M (9) M6 M7 1. Two weeks later, the participants were asked to do the treatment/retrospection tasks. (AL12_05TS) 2. There were also two order variants of both tests: One half of the participants responded to the test items in the order from 1 to 50; the other half responded to them in the reverse order. (MLJ39_01GT) 3. data the data were collected 15 M (11) M6 The data were collected in three sessions over a 1-week period. (TESOL39_01SA) 4. significant 1. significant difference between the 2. significant main effect for 3. there was no significant 4. no significant difference was 66 46 46 22 R (38) R (44) R (26) R (13) R2 R2 R2 R2 1. Post hoc analysis indicated a significant difference between the Deductive group and both the Inductive and Control groups for these tests. (MLJ23_03ER) 2. A scan clearly be seen from Figure 4, in this condition there is a very significant main effect for Referent type [F(2,64) 254.] (SLR07_06SA) 3. ANOVA results indicated that there was no significant difference between the percentages for the language groups. (LL18_05WM) 4. On the other hand, for the TP and VI groups, no significant difference was found between students at the HLP and LLP levels (see Figure 1). (TESOL05_06RJ) 87 Table 4.7 (Continued) No. AWL Word-form Four-word Lexical Bundles Total Freq. Most Freq. Section Rhetorical Function (most freq.) Examples 5. acquisition 1. in the acquisition of 2. on the acquisition of 3. in second language acquisition 4. of second language acquisition 57 39 35 35 I (30) I (27) I (26) I (27) I1 I1 I1 I1 1. Tomlin and Villa (1994) note the crucial role of detection in the acquisition of grammatical patterns. (LL31_03GS) 2. This research showed that the provision of explicit rule presentation prior to exposure had positive effects on the acquisition of specific language forms. (LL26_04SC) 3. The issue of attention and awareness in second language acquisition (SLA) has been explored in the framework of Schmidt's (1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 2001) Noticing Hypothesis. (AL12_05TS) 4. Although multivariate analyses have been used in studies of second language acquisition, they are generally applied to phonological (Adamson & Regan, 1991) or morphological (Young, 1991, 1993) features. (LL30_03GK) 6. found 1. was found to be 2. significant difference was found 38 27 R (21) R (18) R2 R2 1. As indicated in the ANOVA table, the effect of pragmalinguistic features was found to be significant (F(5, 395). (AL12_05TS) 2. However, a significant difference was found between both groups for the sentence I consider John one of my best friends. (SLR11_05CM) 7. context in the context of 98 I (36) I1 Studies of the learning of artificial languages have been conducted in the context of debates in LI acquisition but are probably more relevant to SLA given that the subject of these experiments are all well beyond the early stages of L1 acquisition. (LL07_05CS) 8. target 1. in the target language 52 I (29) I1 1. Similarly, Brooks and Donato (1994) and Swain and Lapkin (2000) found that theL1 enables L2 students to negotiate meaning and communicate successfully in the target language. (TESOL14_04LD) 88 Table 4.7 (Continued) No. AWL Word-form Four-word Lexical Bundles Total Freq. Most Freq. Section Rhetorical Function (most freq.) Examples 8. target 2. of the target language 49 I (23) I1 2. As described by Widdowson (1975), the de-familiarization of language used in poetry destabilizes the learners' familiar relation of words to world and sets them on a search for gaps in their own linguistic knowledge of the target language. (AL25_01HD) 9. process in the process of 47 I (22) I1 Similarly, Ayoun(1999) claims that the English learners of French in her study were in the process of resetting the verb-placement parameter. (SLR01_06CS) 10. similar similar to that of 26 D (13) D4 Thus, the little foreign accent of the Spanish speakers (relative to the Chinese and Japanese speakers) coupled with a rhythm similar to that of Chinese and Japanese may have helped these listeners score higher. (TESOL31_02MR) 11. role 1. an important role in 2. the role of the 3. on the role of 4. of the role of 5. play an important role 37 36 33 32 20 I (18) I (18) I (19) I (18) I (12) I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 1. The findings of this study indicated that three factors play an important role in the learner's linguistic awareness: the proficiency level, the learning environment, and the students' access to authentic L2 input. (LL05_06SG) 2. Much of the recent work has concerned adult students (Kramsch and Sullivan 1996; Lantolf 1997; Sullivan 2000a, b) or it has primarily focused on the role of the teacher (van Dam 2002). (AL09_05CA) 3. The bulk of the relevant literature has focused in particular on the role of the syllable in L2 segmentation. (SLR10_05AE) 4. With the explicit recognition of the role of pragmatic competence in communicative ability, many L2 studies have analyzed learners' pragmatic performance in communicative contexts. (MLJ10_05TN) 5. Repetition as a cohesive device has been shown to play an important role in monolingual children's narrative discourse (Bennett-Kastor, 1994). (LL16_05RV) 89 Table 4.7 (Continued) No. AWL Word-form Four-word Lexical Bundles Total Freq. Most Freq. Section Rhetorical Function (most freq.) Examples 12. focus the focus of the 35 M (15) M1 The focus of the study is on findings relative to the narrative/expository variable in the corpus, with a secondary focus on thematic relationships between the texts in the corpus (for a more detailed treatment of thematic issues see Gardner 1999). (AL14_04GD) 90 Table 4.8 Four-word Lexical Bundles in IMRD Sections AWL Word-form Lexical Bundles research research has shown that acquisition in the acquisition of; on the acquisition of in second language acquisition; of second language acquisition context in the context of target in the target language; of the target language process in the process of Introduction (Number: 14) role an important role in; the role of the; on the role of; of the role of; play an important role participant(s) participants were asked to; half of the participants data the data were collected Method (4) focus the focus of the significant significant difference between the; significant main effect for there was no significant; no significant difference was Result (6) found was found to be; significant difference was found research research is needed to Discussion (2) similar similar to that of Note. Bold-faced and underlined word-forms: the same AWL word-form but different lexical bundles in two different sections. Number of 4-Word Lexical Bundles Introduction Method Result Discussion 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Figure 4.5 Number of Different Four-word Lexical Bundles Across Four RA Sections 91 Four word-forms (i.e. participants/participate, context, acquire/acquisition, and role) not only produce lexical bundles but also generate V-N collocations. Besides, the RA sections in which these V-N collocations and lexical bundles most frequently occur are almost the same, namely Introduction and Method sections, as shown in Table 4.9. The word-form "participate/participants" produces "participate…study" and "ask…participants" collocations and "participants were asked to" and "half of the participants" bundles. All of them are used in the Method section. The word-form "context" generates "provide…context" and "depend…context" collocations and "in the context of" bundle. All of them are used in the Introduction section. The word-form "role" produces three collocations, "play…role, investigate…role, examine…role" and five bundles, "an important role of, the role of the, in the role of, of the role of, and play an important role. All of them are also used in the Introduction section. Although the above three word-forms have different collocations and bundles, the collocations and bundles with the same word-form are all used in the same RA section. The only exception is that two collocations of the word-form "acquire" are used respectively in the Discussion (acquire…knowledge) and Introduction (acquire…language) section while four bundles are all used in the Introduction section. However, "acquire…knowledge" also occur in the Introduction section frequently (9 times), just a little less frequently than the Discussion section (11 times). Thus, the collocations and bundles with the word-form "acquire" or "acquisition" are used frequently in the Introduction section. It seems that the meaning of one word can influence which RA section their collocations and bundles tend to the most frequently occur in. 92 Table 4.9 The Common Word-forms Found in Both Collocation and Bundle Groups V-N Collocations Most Freq. Section Four-word Lexical Bundles Most Freq. Section participate…study ask…participants M M participants were asked to half of the participants M M provide…context depend…context I I in the context of I acquire…knowledge acquire…language D I in the acquisition of on the acquisition of in second language acquisition of second language acquisition I I I I play…role investigate…role examine…role I I I an important role of the role of the in the role of of the role of play an important role I I I I I The "total freq." column shows the total occurrences of each four-word lexical bundle. The "most freq. section" column refers to the sections in which the bundles commonly occurred. Of the 17 times that the bundle "research is needed to" occurs in the ALC, nine of them occurred in the Discussion section. Therefore, the abbreviation D (9) in "section (most freq.)" is used to represent this phenomenon. The "rhetorical function (most freq.)" in Table 4.7 illustrates the specific rhetorical function each lexical bundle most frequently performs. The "examples" column demonstrates the context in which the bundles occur. Rhetorical functions and the examples will be explained in detail in the Section 4.3. Another finding is that the AWL word-form found has different meaning from its original one in sublist 9, which denotes "to start something such as an organization, company, or city" (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2004, p.767.). However, the found in the ALC is the past participle of find, which signifies "to discover or see something that you have been searching for" (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2004, p.713). This can be seen in the following examples: 93 None of the interaction effects was found to be significant across subjects. (Result, SLR04_06LA) On the other hand, for the TP and VI groups, no significant difference was found between students at the HLP and LLP levels (see Figure 1). (Result, TESOL05_06RJ) As reviewed in Section 2.4.2, lexical bundles can be divided into different structural types based on their structural correlates. Biber et al. (1999) classified their lexical bundles into many types across two registers, conversation and academic prose. As can be seen in Table 4.10, the first seven structural types conform to the types in academic prose. The eighth type, (noun phrase / pronoun)+ V+ (complement), is found in the biology RAs in Cortes' study (2004). In brief, all of the eight structural types occur in academic contexts, which conform to the nature of the ALC, a collection of academic texts. In addition, Biber et al. (2004) further classified these structural types into three big categories: Type 1) Lexical bundles that incorporate noun or prepositional phrase fragments, Type 2) Lexical bundles that incorporate dependent clauses fragments, and Type 3) Lexical bundles that incorporate verb phrase fragments. The 26 lexical bundles in the present study can also be classified into these three categories. Specifically, 17 lexical bundles belong to the Type 1, four bundles are included in Type 2, and five bundles are grouped as Type 3. The majority of the bundles are Type 1 because the ALC consists of academic research articles which would produce more noun or prepositional phrase bundles. 94 Table 4.10 Structural Types of Four-word Lexical Bundles Structural types Lexical bundles Type1 Lexical bundles that incorporate noun or prepositional phrase fragments 1. noun phrase with of-phrase fragment half of the participants; the role of the; the focus of the 2. noun phrase with other post-modifier fragment significant difference between the; significant main effect for; an important role in 3. prepositional phrase with embedded of-phrase fragment in the context of; in the acquisition of; on the acquisition of in the process of ; on the role of; of the role of 4. other prepositional phrase fragment in second language acquisition; of second language acquisition in the target language; of the target language; similar to that of Type2 Lexical bundles that incorporate dependent clauses fragments 5. (verb phrase+) that-clause fragment research has shown that 6. (verb/adjective +) to-clause fragment participants were asked to; was found to be; research is needed to Type3 Lexical bundles that incorporate verb phrase fragments 7. pronoun/noun phrase+ be (+…) there was no significant; no significant difference was; significant difference was found; the data were collected 8. (noun phrase/pronoun)+V+(complement) play an important role In conclusion, the 26 four-word lexical bundles identified in the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC demonstrate how four words bundle together (structural types) and how they are frequently used in one RA section. 4.3 Rhetorical Functions for Lexical Bundles in IMRD Sections As displayed in Table 4.7, the "rhetorical function (most freq.)" column indicates the function each lexical bundle most frequently performs. Except for "participants were asked to" and "half of the participants" serving different functions in one RA section, all of the other lexical 95 bundles with the same AWL word-form serve the same function in one RA section. The bundle "participants were asked to" serves the function of M6, which stands for the "procedures" function in the Method section, while "half of the participants" presents the function of M7, which denotes the "material" function in the Method section. On the other hand, all of the acquisition lexical bundles (i.e. in the acquisition of, on the acquisition of, in second language acquisition, and of second language acquisition) perform the same function, I1, which means "establish the territory" in the Introduction section. The same situation happens to the AWL word-form role, whose lexical bundles (i.e. an important role in, the role of the, on the role of, of the role of, and play an important role) serve the same function I1; moreover, all of the lexical bundles of the AWL word-form significant present the same function, R2, which denotes "reporting results." These functions can equip learners with a good sense of what words go together to perform one kind of function. The "examples" column provides the context in which the lexical bundles are used. The context can help to figure out which rhetorical function the lexical bundle performs. For instance, the bundle "research is needed to" most frequently serves the D7 function, deduction from the research. The example below can show this function: Further research is needed to corroborate evidence that the correction of ungrammatical sentences in the context of elicited imitation is a reliable indication of internalized constraints on grammar. (Discussion, AL03_06ER) The examples can further demonstrate which subfunction the bundles perform. Some functions have subfunctions, as shown in Table 3.3. Take the example D7, it has three subfunctions, namely, 1) making suggestions, 2) recommending further research, and 3) drawing pedagogical implication. If we look into the more specific function the bundle "research is needed to" serves, we can investigate the example below: Although the relative efficacy of verbal accommodations has been studied extensively, further research is needed to understand the parameters of nonverbal behavior in the L2 classroom, its status as input, and its role in learner output and uptake of the L2. (Discussion, LL22_04LA) 96 The above example showed that the subfunction of D7 is "recommending further research". Due to this precise subfunction, learners can understand more clearly how to use the bundle, research is needed to. In addition to main function (i.e. I1, I2, I3, R1, R2, R3, etc.) of each lexical bundle, the subfunction (I1 1, I1 2, I1 3, R3 1, R3 2, etc.) of each lexical bundle was shown in Appendix G. Some AWL word-forms generate different lexical bundles but all of their bundles perform common functions in one RA section. For example, all of the "acquisition, target and role" lexical bundles occur the most frequently in the Introduction section (see Table 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13). The rhetorical function that they most frequently perform is I1, "establish the territory," followed by I3, denoting "occupy the niche." I3 in an RA usually means that authors start to outline the purpose or to announce present research, as shown in the following examples: a) acquisition The goal of this research project is to examine in depth how linguistic constraints interact in the acquisition of an L2 phonology. (I 3, AL26_01HJ) b) target Specifically, I examine the cumulative evidence yielded by primary studies that investigated the extent to which syntactic complexity measures derived from L2 writing samples can be useful indices of the writers' overall proficiency in the target language. (I 3, AL21_03OL) c) role In order to further our understanding of the role of the environment in SLA and of the possible effects of learner age on SLA, the present study investigated the effects of two variables on the provision and incorporation of implicit negative feedback. (I 3, LL34_03MA) 97 Table 4.11 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Acquisition Lexical Bundles Rhetorical Function I1 I2 I3 Total in the acquisition of 23 2 5 30 on the acquisition of 20 3 4 27 in second language acquisition 22 0 4 26 of second language acquisition 21 1 5 27 Total 86 6 18 110 Percentage (%) 78 5 17 100 Table 4.12 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Target Lexical Bundles Rhetorical Function I1 I2 I3 Total in the target language 24 0 5 29 of the target language 19 0 4 23 Total 43 0 9 52 Percentage (%) 83 0 17 100 Table 4.13 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Role Lexical Bundles Rhetorical Function I1 I2 I3 Total an important role in 16 0 2 18 the role of the 15 0 3 18 on the role of 9 8 2 19 of the role of 16 0 2 18 play an important role 11 0 1 12 Total 67 8 10 85 Percentage (%) 79 9 12 100 Only few of the "acquisition and role" lexical bundles deliver I2 function, which "establish a niche" by indicating a gap, claiming counter points, raising a question or continuing a tradition. The sentences below demonstrate this function: a) acquisition Almost none of the previous studies on the acquisition of reflexives in L2 explored how pragmatic factors affect the interpretation of reflexives. (I 2, SLR26_00DM) 98 b) role In contrast to the extensive research on the role of cues in reading comprehension, relatively little research has been conducted on the role of cues in listening comprehension. (I 2, MLJ26_03JE) Figure 4.6 summarizes the distribution of I1, I2 and I3 across "acquisition, target and role" lexical bundles. It is shown that their bundles tend to perform the common functions although they are generated from different AWL word-forms. In other words, these three AWL word-forms share the similar functions in the Introduction section (I1 and I3). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 I 1 I 2 Percentage of Functions I 3 acquisition target role Figure 4.6 Proportion of "Introduction" Rhetorical Functions in Three AWL Word-forms Lexical Bundles In terms of the Result section, two AWL word-forms, significant and found, generate two to four lexical bundles. Table 4.14 displays the proportion of four rhetorical functions that four significant lexical bundles serve. It is shown that R2 is the function which four lexical bundles all perform. Only "significant difference between the" serves the R1 function, signifying "preparatory information," as illustrated below: Recall that what we are looking for in the experiment is a significant difference between the means on the two conditions, which will indicate that subjects (as groups) distinguish between telic and atelic sentences. (R 1, SLR35_99SR) 99 This sentence functions as a reminder and the connector between the Method and Result sections. Except for the bundle "no significant difference was", the other three bundles present the R3 function, denoting "comment on results," as demonstrated in the following: However, among the second-semester learners, the experimental group made slightly higher gains than the control group, suggesting that they may have benefited from the treatment even though there was no significant difference between mean gain scores of second-semester control and experimental groups. (R 3, MLJ29_03MR) Last, two bundles "significant difference between the and there was no significant" function as R4, "summarize results." The sentence below shows R4: In sum, the results of the biclausal sentences reveal that while there was no significant difference between the proficiency levels, there was a significant difference between the levels and the Turkish and English control groups for all sentence types. (R 4, SLR26_00DM) Table 4.14 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Significant Lexical Bundles Rhetorical Function R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Total significant difference between the 1 30 5 2 0 0 38 significant main effect for 0 43 1 0 0 0 44 there was no significant 0 22 2 2 0 0 26 no significant difference was 0 13 0 0 0 0 13 Total 1 108 8 4 0 0 121 Percentage (%) 1 89 7 3 0 0 100 Table 4.15 Distribution of Rhetorical Functions of Found Lexical Bundles Rhetorical Function R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Total was found to be 2 19 0 0 0 0 21 significant difference was found 0 18 0 0 0 0 18 Total 2 37 0 0 0 0 39 Percentage (%) 5 95 0 0 0 0 100 100 Table 4.15 illustrates the distribution of two rhetorical functions that two found lexical bundles serve. Nevertheless, only "was found to be" performs the R1 function, as exemplified below: To investigate why the relationship was found to be significant in the L1 but not in the L2, I examined the participants' performance on the L2 version of the test in more detail by dividing them into three groups according to an approach used frequently by Riding and his coworkers (see, e.g., Riding & Douglas, 1993) (R 1, TESOL36_01LJ) On the other hand, the bundle "significant difference was found" just functions R2. This lexical bundle also contains another AWL word-form, significant, which may not serve R1 function very much, as shown in Table 4.14. To summarize, Figure 4.7 represents the distribution of R1, R2, R3 and R4 across significant and found lexical bundles. It is displayed that the common functions which their bundles perform are R1 and R2. Besides, the significant lexical bundles have more potential to serve different functions, such as R3 and R4. Similarly, their bundles are apt to perform the same functions although they are generated from different AWL word-forms. In other words, these two word-forms share the similar functions in the Result section. It is concluded that some word-forms can perform the same rhetorical functions although they generate different four-word lexical bundles. Percentage of Functions 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 R 1 R 2 R 3 R 4 siginficant found Figure 4.7 Proportion of "Result" Rhetorical Functions in Two AWL Word-forms Lexical Bundles 101 To summarize, almost all of the different lexical bundles with the same AWL word-form can perform the same rhetorical function. Specifically, the bundles with some different AWL word-forms (e.g. significant, found) can share some common functions in one RA section. 4.4 Non-AWL Content Word-forms in the ALC The fourth research question is to explore what non-AWL content word-forms occur with high frequency in the applied linguistics journal articles. To address this question, we removed the vocabulary in the GSL and AWL, some abbreviations such as ESL, EFL ie, vs, and SD, and function words like auxiliaries, conjunctions, determiners, prepositions, pronouns, and quantifier (e.g. many, most, etc.). Then, frequency analysis shows 128 non-AWL content word-forms that occur at least 50 times in the ALC and five times in each of the five journals, as indicated in Table 4.16. The total occurrences of these 128 word-forms are 43,001 times, which account for 2.8% in the entire ALC. As mentioned in Section 4.1, the 477 AWL word-forms make up 8.8% in the ALC. Thus, the coverage of the AWL word-forms in the ALC is much more than that of the non-AWL content word-forms in the ALC, as shown in Figure 4.8. This phenomenon confirms the usefulness of AWL vocabulary in academic texts. AWL Non-AWL Percentage of Word-forms in the ALC 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Figure 4.8 Percentage of High Frequency AWL and Non-AWL Word-forms in the ALC 102 These 128 word-forms can reflect the characteristics of word use in the ALC. Some specialized terms which always occur in the field of applied linguistics are recognized, such as lexical, semantics, pragmatics, syntax, interlanguage, corpus, and so on, as illustrated in the bold-faced word-forms in Table 4.16. In addition to the specialized terms in the applied linguistic field, some word-forms that commonly occur in the academic research papers are identified, such as ANOVA, null, longitudinal, correlation(s), correlated, hypothesized, alpha, quantitative, and so forth (see italic word-forms in Table 4.16). In addition, there are some nationality names such as Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, American, British and Canada in these 128 content word-forms, as demonstrated in the underlined word-forms in Table 4.16. Table 4.16 The Non-AWL Content Word-forms in the ALC Rank Word-form Frequency Rank Word-form Frequency Rank Word-form Frequency 1 vocabulary 2373 46 embedded 290 91 counterparts 105 2 proficiency 2095 47 interviews 288 92 elicit 104 3 Spanish 1859 48 interlanguage 279 93 concrete 100 4 comprehension 1780 49 narrative 278 94 online 100 5 lexical 1593 50 ANOVA 257 95 fluent 98 6 scores 1387 51 tokens 253 96 retrieval 98 7 classroom 1179 52 proficient 250 97 British 96 8 linguistic 1170 53 scored 250 98 candidates 96 9 Chinese 1137 54 phrase 240 99 transcribed 96 10 French 1097 55 stimulus 237 100 really 92 11 Japanese 995 56 phrases 232 101 independently 90 12 discourse 900 57 ratings 230 102 density 87 13 semantic 874 58 developmental 219 103 temporal 86 14 syntactic 823 59 semantically 209 104 plausible 85 15 pragmatic 701 60 typical 200 105 pilot 84 16 oral 670 61 pedagogical 190 106 spontaneous 82 17 phonological 658 62 adjectives 186 107 subset 80 18 morphology 635 63 typically 186 108 token 78 19 recall 633 64 administered 172 109 adverbs 77 20 cognitive 565 65 settings 170 110 questionnaires 76 21 competence 530 66 adjective 162 111 weaker 72 103 Table 4.16 (Continued) Rank Word-form Frequency Rank Word-form Frequency Rank Word-form Frequency 22 score 490 67 hypothesized 162 112 summarized 69 23 Arabic 448 68 semester 160 113 undergraduate 69 24 questionnaire 446 69 graduate 159 114 summarize 68 25 stimuli 390 70 salient 158 115 unrelated 68 26 morphological 389 71 elementary 157 116 emphasized 67 27 pronouns 388 72 elicited 154 117 profile 67 28 null 380 73 placement 146 118 recordings 67 29 verbal 379 74 correlated 144 119 deleted 63 30 cues 370 75 usage 141 120 rationale 62 31 utterances 361 76 transparent 140 121 referents 61 32 fluency 345 77 cloze 137 122 discursive 59 33 syntax 342 78 enrolled 136 123 superior 58 34 corpus 333 79 quantitative 135 124 Canada 56 35 overt 326 80 segment 126 125 unclear 56 36 interview 321 81 alpha 121 126 categorized 55 37 American 320 82 metalinguistic 120 127 entails 53 38 literal 320 83 linguistics 118 128 transcription 53 39 classrooms 313 84 textbooks 118 129 40 lexicon 309 85 China 112 130 41 correlations 305 86 comprehend 109 131 42 correlation 298 87 differential 108 132 43 session 295 88 engaged 107 133 44 bilingual 294 89 longitudinal 106 134 45 utterance 294 90 simultaneously 106 135 Note. Bold-faced word-forms: some specialized terms in the field of applied linguistics Note. Italic word-forms: occur frequently in the academic research papers. Note. Underlined word-forms: nationality names 4.5 Students' Familiarity With Top 100 Non-AWL Content Word-forms In addition to the frequency analysis on the non-AWL content word-forms in Section 4.4, students' acquaintance with these word-forms is also the focus of the present study. To limit the scope of investigation, the present study selects the top 100 non-AWL word-forms for students' 104 survey. The findings of the survey address the fifth research question, to what extent English-major freshmen and TEFL-program students are familiar with the top 100 non-AWL word-forms. The result of the survey shows that the majority of the graduate students (more than 80%) know almost all of the word-forms (99 out of 100 word-forms) while the majority of the freshmen (more than 80%) know only 62 out of 100 word-forms. Specifically, all of the graduate students know 79 word-forms, but all of the freshmen only know 40 word-forms. It is shown that the graduate students understand more specialized vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics than the freshmen. Several word-forms among the top 100 non-AWL word-forms are not known to the freshmen but well-known to the graduate students. Freshmen are not familiar with some basic knowledge word-forms of applied linguistics such as semantic, phonological, pragmatic, syntactic, and syntax, not to mention other more specialized knowledge word-forms such as lexical, stimuli(us), interlanguage, corpus, lexicon, metalinguistics, and retrieval. Besides, some word-forms such as ANOVA, pedagogical, alpha, and correlations commonly occur in academic research paper. Most of the freshmen do not know these word-forms because they rarely read academic research papers. On the other hand, the graduate students are more familiar with those that freshmen do not know very well because they have been involved in the field of applied language longer than the freshmen and also read a number of academic research papers during their pursuit of their MA degree. In conclusion, the graduate students are much more familiar with these 100 non-AWL word-forms than freshmen. Freshmen still need to make themselves acquainted with these basic knowledge word-forms and some specialized word-forms when they are more involved in the field of applied linguistics in the future. 105 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1 Summary of the Whole Study Since little research probes into the vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics via corpus analysis, the present study fills this gap and compiles a corpus of applied linguistic journal articles (ALC). The present study specifically investigates the use of the "AWL" vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics because it is an aspect of AWL that has not been well-explored. The non-AWL content vocabulary is another focus in the present study in order to understand the vocabulary use more comprehensively in the field of applied linguistics. To sum up, the purpose of the present research is to examine the use and frequency of the AWL word-forms and non-AWL content word-forms in the applied linguistics journal articles. To achieve the goal of the present study, five research questions are addressed. The frequency of the AWL word-forms in the ALC is discussed. Next, the identification of verb-noun collocations and four-word lexical bundles of the top 100 AWL word-forms is addressed. Specifically, the rhetorical functions of the four-word lexical bundles are further elucidated. In addition to the use of the AWL word-forms in the ALC, we further investigate the high frequency non-AWL content word-forms and conduct a survey on how English-major freshmen and TEFL-program graduate students are familiar with the top 100 non-AWL word-forms. The results concerning each research question in the present study are addressed as follows: A. Research Question 1: 1. AWL word-forms account for 11.3% in the entire ALC (1,554,032 running words); on the other hand, the top 477 AWL word-forms (50 times in the ALC and 5 times in each of the five journals) represent 8.8% in the whole ALC, and the top 100 AWL word-forms account for 5.1%. (See Table 4.1 and Table 4.2) 2. Appendix F shows the word families of the top 477 AWL word-forms in the ALC. 3. 49% of the top 477 AWL word-forms in the ALC derive from Coxhead's sublist 1 and 2 while 106 fewer and fewer of these word-forms scatter from sublist 3 to 10. (See Table 4.3 and Figure 4.2) 4. 66% of the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC match those in Coxhead's sublist 1 and 2, 28% in sublisth 3 to 6, and only 6% in sublist 7 to 9, whereas no word-forms come from sublist 10. (See Figure 4.3) 5. 63% of the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC conform to the most frequent-occurring members of each word family in Coxhead's sublists. For example, evidence is the most frequent word-form in evident word family, containing evidenced, evidence, evidential, and evidently. (See Table 4.4) 6. Among the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC, some word-forms such as research, participants, data, etc. are usually used in academic research writing, some such as strategies, input, instruction, etc. are related to language learning and teaching, and some are relevant to linguistics such as structures, features, tense, and so on. (See Table 4.4) B. Research Question 2: V-N Collocations 1. 41 V-N collocations are identified among 24 of the top 100 AWL word-forms or the headword of their word families. One AWL word-form produces one to three V-N collocations with different frequency counts. For example, the word-form "item" has three collocations, consist…item (29 times), include…item (12 times), and contain…item (10 times). (See Table 4.5) 2. 41 V-N collocations occur most frequently in one of four RA sections, Introduction, Method, Result, or Discussion sections while none is commonly used in the Abstract section. Specifically, the RA section in which 41 V-N collocations appear most frequently is the Introduction section. (See Table 4.5 and Figure 4.4) 3. Different collocations with the same AWL word-form (i.e. evidence, hypothesis, conduct, acquire) are used in various RA section. For example, "provide…evidence" and "find…evidence" are used most frequently in the Introduction section while "show…evidence" is most frequently used in the Result section. (See Table 4. 5) 4. One V-N collocation (i.e. involve…use) is used most frequently in two RA sections, Introduction 107 and Discussion. (See Table 4. 5) 5. Seven of 41 V-N collocations contain prepositions following the verbs. They are participate in…study, consist of…item, depend on…context, vary in…degree, respond to …questions, fall into…categories, and range in…age. The structural type is Verb+ (Preposition)+ Noun phrase. (See Table 4.5) Four-word Lexical Bundles 6. 26 four-word lexical bundles from 12 of the top 100 AWL word-forms are recognized; One AWL word-form may produce one to five lexical bundles. The word-form "research" generates two bundles: research is needed to and research has shown that. (See Table 4.7) 7. Different lexical bundles with the same AWL word-form (i.e. research) are used in different sections. The bundle "research is needed to" is used most frequently in the Discussion section while the bundle "research has shown that" is in the Introduction section. Except for research lexical bundles, all of the other bundles are most frequently used in the same RA section. (See Table 4.7) 8. 26 four-word bundles appear most frequently in one of four RA sections, Introduction, Method, Result, or Discussion sections while none is frequently used in the Abstract section. Specifically, the four-word bundles that occur in the Introduction section outnumber those in the other RA sections. (See Table 4.7 and Figure 4.5) 9. Four word-forms (i.e. participate/participants, context, acquire/acquisition, and role) not only generate four-word lexical bundles but also produce V-N collocations. The RA section in which these V-N collocations and lexical bundles most frequently occur is almost the same. (See Table 4.9) 10. The word-form found in Coxhead's AWL means "to start something such as an organization, company, or city." However, the AWL word-form, found, is the past participle of find, which signifies "to discover, see, or get something that you have been searching for" in the ALC. For example, none of the interaction effects was found to be significant across subjects (Result, SLR04_06LA). The word-form found in this sentence is the past participle of find. 108 11. The 26 four-word lexical bundles are classified into three groups of structural types in academic contexts: Type 1) Lexical bundles that incorporate noun or prepositional phrase fragments (e.g. in the context of), Type 2) Lexical bundles that incorporate dependent clauses fragments (e.g. research has shown that), and Type 3) Lexical bundles that incorporate verb phrase fragments (e.g. no significant difference was). (See Table 4.9) 12. The majority of the bundles (17 out of 26) are categorized into Type 1 structural type because the corpus in the present study consists of academic research papers. C. Research Question 3: 1. Except for "participants were asked to" and "half of the participants" serving different rhetorical functions in one RA section, other lexical bundles with the same AWL word-form all perform the same function in one RA section. For example, the lexical bundles of the AWL word-form significant all present the same function, R2, which denotes "reporting results" in Result section. (See Table 4.7) 2. Some AWL word-forms generate different lexical bundles but all of their bundles perform the common functions in one RA section. Three AWL word-forms (i.e. acquisition, target, role) with two to five bundles most frequently perform the function, I1, followed by I3. Besides, the rhetorical functions that significant and found AWL word-forms with two to four bundles commonly serve are R2 and R1 (See Figure 4.6, Figure 4.7 ) D. Research Question 4: 1. 128 non-AWL word-forms occur at least 50 times in the whole ALC and 5 times in each of the five journals, and they only account for 2.8% in the ALC. (see Table 4.16) 2. The coverage of 477 AWL word-forms (8.7%) is much more than that of 128 non-AWL content word-forms (2.8%) in the ALC. (See Figure 4.8) 3. These 128 word-forms can reflect the characteristics of word use in the ALC. A number of specialized terms are recognized, such as lexical, semantics, pragmatics, syntax, and so forth, and several word-forms commonly used in academic research papers are identified, such as ANOVA, null, longitudinal, correlation(s), etc. Moreover, there are some nationality names like Spanish, 109 French, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, American, British and Canada. (See Table 4.16) E. Research Question 5: 1. Among the top 100 non-AWL content word-forms, TEFL graduate students all knew 79 word-forms while freshmen just knew 40 word-forms 2. Among the top 100 non-AWL content word-forms, freshmen do not know some basic knowledge terms in the field of applied linguistics, such as semantic, phonological, pragmatic, syntactic, and syntax, not to mention more specialized knowledge terms such as lexical, stimuli(us), cues, corpus. Besides, they are not familiar with the word-forms used in academic research papers like ANOVA, pedagogical, alpha. 3. In terms of graduate students group, the majority of them (over 80%) are almost familiar with the top 100 non-AWL word-forms except one word-form, alpha. (See Table 4.18) 5.2 Discussion of the Results Section 5.1 has summarized the whole study and also reported the results for each research question. The following sections are going to address the implications from the above results. 5.2.1 Distribution of High Frequency AWL Word-forms in Coxhead's Sublists Coxhead (2000) reported that the AWL covered 8.5 to 10% in her two academic corpora. However, the AWL word-forms in the present study account for 11.3% in the ALC. Since the percentage of AWL word-forms in the ALC is more than 10% in the present study, this result confirms the finding in Chung and Nation's study (2003), that is, the AWL accounted for higher percentage in the field of applied linguistics. This is also the evidence that AWL word-forms are important for students in the field of applied linguistics because they are used frequently in the applied linguistics field. Specifically, the top 477 AWL word-forms which occur at least 50 times in the ALC and 5 times in each of the five journals already make up 8.8% in the entire corpus. Then the top 100 AWL word-forms account for 5.1% in the entire corpus. In other words, the top 101 to 477 AWL 110 word-forms only represent 3.7% among the whole ALC. This finding establishes that the higher frequency words (the top 1-100) occur more often than lower frequency words (the remaining top 101-477) so they account for a bigger portion in the whole corpus. This phenomenon is the same as the arrangement of Coxhead's 10 sublists. Her sublist 1 also accounted for a bigger portion than the remaining sublists. The coverage of Coxhead's 10 sublists in her academic corpus demonstrated the downward trend from sublist 1 to 10. Compared with Coxhead's 10 sublists, the coverage of AWL word-forms in the ALC is also descending from top 1-100 (5.2%), top 101-200 (1.7%), top 201-300 (1.0%), top 301-400 (0.7%), to top 401-477 (0.3%). Appendix F shows the word families of the top 477 AWL word-forms in the ALC. Students in the field of applied linguistics can capitalize on this list because word families are useful for them to learn vocabulary. Nagy et al. (1989, as cited in Coxhead, 2000) claimed that word families play a key role in the mental lexicon. Students can learn the base word such as "participate" and control the basic word-building processes, so they can learn other derived or inflected words such as "participants and participated" quickly (Bauer & Nation, 1993). Teachers can regard this list as a vocabulary learning goal and incorporate them into the course materials. Almost half of the top 477 AWL word-forms (49%) originate from Coxhead's sublist 1 and 2, and the others occur fewer and fewer from sublist 3 to 10. This finding implies that half of these 477 word-forms are frequent because the word-forms in Coxhead's sublist 1 and 2 are more frequent than those in other sublists. Thus, the top 477 AWL word-forms can represent the frequently-used AWL word-forms that learners in the field of applied linguistics can capitalize on. Besides, Coxhead's sublist 1 and 2 are more useful to the learners in the field of applied linguistics than other remaining sublists. The top 100 word-forms in the ALC has already account for 5.1% so this study particularly focuses on this top 100 AWL word-forms. 66% of them also derive from Coxhead's sublist 1 and 2. However, the remaining 34% are scattering from sublist 3 to 9 with no obvious trend, and no word-forms come from sublist 10. Again, this confirms the usefulness of Coxhead' sublist 1 and 2, and emphasizes that top 100 word list can provide learners in the field of applied linguistics a more 111 direct access to the words they need in this field because they directly reflect the necessary words learners need. 63% of the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC conform to the most frequently-occurring member of their word family in Coxhead's sublists. This finding establishes once more that the usefulness and convenience of the top 100 word-forms in the ALC to the learners in the applied linguistics field because they are frequently used. Thus, students can look into the word use in the top 100 word list and learn their collocations or lexical bundles, which will be discussed in Section 5.2.2. Among the top 100 AWL word-forms in ALC, some word-forms such as research, participants, data, etc. are usually used in academic research writing, some such as strategies, input, instruction, etc. are related to language learning and teaching, and some are relevant to linguistics such as structures, features, tense, and so on. The word use can reflect the characteristics of the corpus so they can guide students to know some word-forms used in academic research papers, and others used in the field of applied linguistics. In conclusion, although Coxhead's AWL is important for students in the field of applied linguistics, the top 477 AWL word-forms and their word families identified in the ALC are comparatively much more useful to students since they can provide them a short cut to learn the necessary academic words in the field of applied linguistics. Among the top 477 AWL word-forms, the top 100 AWL word-forms are especially useful to students due to their bigger coverage (5.1%) in the ALC. 5.2.2 Comparison and Contrast Between V-N Collocations and Four-Word Lexical Bundles This section addresses the differences and similarities of the results between V-N collocations and four-word lexical bundles. First, the differences between them are discussed, focusing on the number of V-N collocations and four-word lexical bundles identified in the top 100 word-forms or the headword of their word families, and the structural types of both word combinations. Amongst the top 100 AWL word-forms in the ALC, 41 V-N collocations are identified while 112 26 four-word bundles are recognized. The finding shows that more V-N collocations are identified than four-word lexical bundles. One reason is that the selection criteria for V-N collocations and four-word lexical bundles are different. We only require that V-N collocations occur at least 10 times in the ALC and one time in each of the five journals because these V-N collocations also occur in the written BNC whose size is large enough to obtain representative V-N collocations. Thus, we think these V-N collocations are important even though their frequency is only 10 times in the ALC. On the other hand, we require that four-word lexical bundles recur 10 times per million (i.e. 15 times in the ALC) and also occur at least once in each of the five journals. In brief, the selection criteria for four-word lexical bundles are stricter than V-N collocations so more V-N collocations are identified than four-word lexical bundles. The V-N collocations in the present study only display one structural type: Verb+ (Preposition) + Noun Phrase, while the four-word lexical bundles show a variety of structural types. In terms of V-N collocations, seven of V-N collocations have the prepositions after the verbs. For example, "All of the teachers who participated in this study were volunteers (Method, TESOL09_04BY)." This sentence contains "in" after the verb "participate." This finding shows the importance of preposition in the V-N collocations and the necessity of context when you want to understand how to use the collocations. Therefore, the present study not only identifies the most frequent 100 AWL word-forms but also demonstrates their collocations within different sentence contexts. In contrast, the four-word lexical bundles can be divided into a variety of structural types, which can be grouped into three big categories: Lexical bundles that incorporate noun or prepositional phrase fragments, Lexical bundles that incorporate dependent clauses fragments, and Lexical bundles that incorporate verb phrase fragments. The majority (17 out of 26) of the four-word lexical bundles in this study is the noun or prepositional phrase fragments. This finding is similar to that of Biber et al. (2004) and Cortes (2004). Both of these studies reported the lexical bundles in academic prose (including academic research articles) have more bundles with noun and prepositional phrases. This is because academic prose belongs to the written register which has 113 more noun and preposition phrases. Besides, the written register also displays "impersonal" and "informational" patterns (Biber, 1995; Biber et al, 2002) so the remaining structural types (bundles with depend clause or verb phrase fragments) in the present study also shows the "impersonal" and "informational" patterns, such as research has shown that, was found to be, no significant difference was, and so forth. In conclusion, the structural types of four-word lexical bundles conform to the types found in the previous studies, and also displays the features of written register. The similarities between V-N collocations and four-word lexical bundles are the RA section in which they most frequently occur, the different sections in which collocations and lexical bundles with the same AWL word-form appear, and the common AWL word-forms that generate different V-N collocations and four-word lexical bundles. The RA section in which both types of word combinations (collocations and bundles) occur most frequently is Introduction, and the section in which both types of word combinations occur the least frequently is Abstract. The reason why no collocations or bundles occur frequently in the Abstract section is that the running words of Abstract section are much smaller than those of other sections. The Abstract in one RA in the present study usually has less than 300 words. Because this study only looks at the RA section in which collocations and bundles occur most frequently, the frequency counts of collocations/bundles in the Abstract section are never as high as those of collocations/bundles in the other sections (namely, IMRD). Thus, no collocations or bundles most frequently occur in the Abstract section. In terms of Introduction, more V-N collocations and four-word lexical bundles most frequently occur in this section. Specifically, the lexical bundles in the Introduction section greatly exceeded other sections. This situation shoul inw 14.6 9.oinw 14ti2tract secti 114 in the following sentence perform "establishing a territory" function: A number of these authors have simply made this suggestion as a self-evident observation, but several have provided evidence for this viewpoint. (TESOL40_01YC) Likewise, the bundle in the process of in the sentence below also showed the "establishing a territory" function: Similarly, Ayoun (1999) claims that the English learners of French in her study were in the process of resetting the verb-placement parameter. (SLR01_06CS) In conclusion, 17 V-N collocations and 14 four-word lexical bundles served the different rhetorical functions in the Introduction due to their nature of meanings. In other words, the collocations and bundles identified in the ALC perform more functions in the Introduction. Besides, it is probably that the organization of the Introduction is highly conventionalized so collocations and bundles occur frequently in the Introduction section. Next, collocations and bundles with the same AWL word-form are used in different RA sections. Four word-forms (i.e. evidence, hypothesis, conduct, and acquire) are identified in V-N collocations, and one word-form (i.e. research) is recognized in four-word lexical bundles. For example, collocations "provide…evidence" and "find…evidence" are most frequently used in the Introduction section while "show…evidence" is written most frequently in the Result section. Others are "test…hypothesis" in the Introduction section but "reject…hypothesis" in the Result section, "conduct…study" in the Introduction section but "conduct…interview" in the Method section, "acquire…language" in the Introduction section but "acquire…knowledge" in the Discussion section. The bundle "research has shown that" is used in the Introduction section while the bundle "research is needed to" is used in the Discussion section. This phenomenon shows that the different combinations of words can perform different functions in different RA sections, especially when the combinations have "verb" and "noun", which can decide the meaning of the 115 combinations. Thus, only two different lexical bundles (i.e. research has shown that, and research is needed to) with the same AWL word-form are used in two different RA sections because these two bundles contained "verb and noun", and the "verb" here decide which RA function they should serve. Other bundles with the same AWL word-form are still used in one section because most of them are "noun and prepositional phrases" such as in the acquisition of, on the acquisition of, in section language acquisition, and of second language acquisition, which are all used in the Introduction section. That V-N collocations are used more differently in various RA sections than bundles can be expected due to the nature of its combination (with verb and noun). It can be concluded that the word combinations containing "verb" and "noun" are used more differently in various RA sections while the combinations with "noun or prepositional phrases" are used more consistently in one RA section. Moreover, V-N collocations only have two word-forms but the bundles have four word-forms. It is common the expressions with more words are more fixed in its use in one RA section. Last, four word-forms (i.e. participate/participants, context, acquire/acquisition, and role) produce both V-N collocations and four-word lexical bundles. The RA section these V-N collocations and lexical bundles most frequently occur is almost the same. This finding suggests that the nature of the word meaning plays a role to judge in which RA section the bundles and collocations of one word-form are used in addition to the word combinations with verb/noun or noun/prepositional phrases mentioned in the previous paragraph. For example, "participate" means "to take part in an activity or event," and "participants" denotes "someone who is taking part in an activity or event." The nature of both word meanings is the same so their collocations (participate…study, and ask…participants) and bundles (participants were asked to and half of the participants) always occur in the same section, Method. To sum up, the different numbers of V-N collocations and lexical bundles identified in the top 100 AWL word-forms are due to the different selection criteria. The criteria for bundles are stricter than V-N collocations. Besides, although V-N collations displays only one structural type, and lexical bundles present the variety, all of their structural types reflect the features of academic 116 research articles, namely, having noun or prepositional phrases or conveying "impersonal" and "informational" concepts. Three factors can decide which RA section collocations or bundles most frequently occur in: the relationship between the meaning of collocations/bundles and the rhetorical function they perform, word combinations with verb/noun or with noun/prepositional phrases, and the nature of word meaning. 5.2.3 Rhetorical Functions of Four-word Lexical Bundles in the ALC The rhetorical functions in the present study are the rhetorical "moves" in each RA section, which can reflect the communicative purposes that RA authors would like to express. Some different lexical bundles deriving from the same AWL word-form can perform the same function in one RA section. For example, significant difference between the, significant main effect for, there was no significant, and no significant difference was are all generated from the AWL word-form significant, and all of them serve the R2 function, "reporting results." This finding suggests that one word-form performs the same rhetorical functions although they generate different four-word lexical bundles. This finding is similar to that in Biber et al. (2004) and Cortes (2004) although they proposed different taxonomy of functions. Some AWL word-forms generate different lexical bundles but all of their bundles perform some common functions in one RA section. The AWL word-form, acquisition, target and role, all generated different bundles, but all of their bundles most frequently perform the I1 function and second most frequently perform I3. Moreover, significant and found AWL word-forms all most commonly perform the R2 function and second most frequently served R1 function. It is implied that the nature of some words is similar so they would be used to perform the same rhetorical functions. Thus, the nature of acquisition, target, and role is similar so their bundles display the same functions, I1 and I3 in the Introduction section. Besides, the nature of significant and found is more related with the function in the Result section. Therefore, both of their bundles all perform R2 and R1 functions. Further, the meaning of a word can imply not only which RA section its bundles most 117 frequently occur in but also the function its bundles will perform. The word-form participants denotes the subjects in one RA so their bundles must occur most frequently in the Method and also function as reporting "procedures" or "materials." Further, the word-form significant is the quantifying modifier so its bundles must occur most frequently in the Result section and function as "reporting results." The same situation happens to the word-form found, denoting something is discovered, so its bundles would occur most frequently in the Result section and also serve the "reporting results" function. Rhetorical functions can help readers to understand the "communicative purpose" that writers intend to convey in one RA. Thus, it is useful to understand the functions that lexical bundles perform in the RA when learners would like to write a RA. The present study has already offered such a function list of lexical bundles so the learners can capitalize on them. 5.2.4 Non-AWL Content Word-forms in the ALC In the ALC, 128 non-AWL content word-forms are identified and account for 2.8% in the ALC, which is much less than the coverage of the top 477 AWL word-forms in the ALC (8.8%). It seems that AWL word-forms play a more important role than the non-AWL content word-forms in the field of applied linguistics. However, the non-AWL content word-forms still have their position in the applied linguistics when we further probe into its word use. The non-AWL content word-forms displays the specialized terms that only occur more frequently in the field of applied linguistics than in other fields. A number of specialized terms are identified, such as lexical, semantics, pragmatics, syntax, interlanguage, corpus, and so on. This implies that field-specific corpus can reflect the specific vocabulary use in the particular field. Compared with Mudraya's study (2006), she found some field-specific words used more frequently in engineering corpus than others in other fields, such as velocity, equation, diameter, metal, beam, equilibrium, etc. Thus, it is found that some specialized terms in the present study are particularly used in the field of applied linguistics. The field-specific vocabulary can help understand the background knowledge of one particular field so the 128 non-AWL can help learners acquire the 118 background knowledge in the field of applied linguistics. A number of word-forms commonly used in academic research papers are identified, such as ANOVA, null, longitudinal, correlation(s), etc. This phenomenon reflects the nature of the ALC, which collected academic research papers. Therefore, the vocabulary related to academic research papers would occur frequently in the ALC. Besides, some nationality names were recognized like Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, American, British and Canada. They occur frequently because the researchers in the field of applied linguistics conducted studies on the structure or language phenomena of these languages, or the participants in their studies came from various countries. In sum, this frequency list can help students acquire some specialized terms in the field of applied linguistics when they are involved in this field. 5.2.5 Comparison and Contrast of Students' Familiarity With Top 100 Non-AWL Word-forms Between Freshmen and Graduate Students This section reports the differences and similarities between English-major freshmen's and TEFL-program graduate students' familiarities with the top 100 non-AWL word-forms. The survey results report that graduate students know 79 word-forms while freshmen are just familiar with 40 word-forms. The reason is that the top 100 non-AWL word-forms contain a number of specialized terms in the field of applied linguistics so the freshmen, who only entered this field less than two semesters, cannot become acquainted with them until they have taken some courses such as morphology, phonology, pragmatics, syntax, and so forth. Some basic knowledge words of applied linguistics such as semantic, phonological, pragmatic, syntactic, and syntax are not well-known to freshmen. The reason is that these 30 freshmen are in their second semester in the Foreign Languages and Literature Department and only take basic courses such as Introduction to English and Introduction to Linguistics in this field so they may not be very familiar with these terms, not to mention other more specialized knowledge terms such as lexical, cognitive, stimuli(us), cues, corpus, lexicon, metalinguistics, and retrieval 119 which less than 60% students knew. Besides, they are not familiar with the word-forms used in academic research papers like ANOVA, pedagogical, alpha, etc. This is because they rarely have chances to read academic research papers and do not need to write a research paper at this stage. Thus, they are unfamiliar with them. On the other hand, the finding shows that the graduate students are more familiar with the top 100 non-AWL word-forms than freshmen. It is implied that the graduate students have already acquired the basic knowledge of applied linguistics such as syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and pragmatics so they all know the relevant words very well. Further, they have investigated some language features or conducted research on language in some courses like Research Method course and have been involved in the field of applied linguistics longer than the freshmen so they are more familiar with some specialized knowledge terms in academic research papers such as lexicon, correlation, stimuli, null, cues, cognitive, ANOVA, pedagogical, and so on. In summary, this finding can help students to understand which terms should be learned so as to acquire the basic knowledge or some specialized knowledge in the field of applied linguistics. 5.3 Pedagogical Implications The present study has provided the top 477 AWL word-forms as well as their word families. Besides, the V-N collocations and lexical bundles of the top 100 AWL word-forms, the rhetorical functions of lexical bundles are analyzed. The 128 non-AWL content word-forms in the applied linguistics journal articles are also recognized. The direct learning and direct teaching of the frequently used AWL word-forms, collocations, bundles and its rhetorical functions, and non-AWL content word-forms have value. Some scholars have claimed that courses involving direct attention to language features have been found to lead to better learning than courses only focusing on incidental learning (Ellis, 1990; Long, 1988). For learners in the ESP course, the 477 AWL word-forms, and 128 non-AWL content word-forms can become their focus of vocabulary learning because these word-forms are frequently used in the field of applied linguistics. Such frequency lists can provide learners realistic goals to learn vocabulary 120 because they can help learners expand their vocabulary size by displaying which words they should learn (Cobb, n.d.). The word families are also beneficial for learners because learners can learn the derived or inflected words of one word quickly once they acquire the base word in one word family (Bauer & Nation, 1993). Since learners are especially deficient in V-N collocations (Chen & Teng, 2004; Liu, 1999), the V-N collocations identified in the present study can equip students with better sense of V-N collocational relationship. Further, they can understand which RA section these V-N collocations should be used in so their writing could conform to the standard journal articles. In Cortes' study (2004), she reported that unconscious learning did not help students master the use of lexical bundles. Thus, she suggests that students should "notice" the frequent use of these expressions (Schmidt, 1990), and try to understand the different contexts and functions that the bundles perform in academic discipline. Therefore, the lexical bundles and rhetorical functions they perform can be useful materials for learners to master. For teachers, the results are valuable to be incorporated into the ESP writing and reading courses. They can incorporate the AWL word-forms and their word families into the academic writing course by requiring students to use these words in their writing. Also, teachers can show students some contexts examples by using concordancing tool so students can understand how they are used under different contexts. With respect to the non-AWL word frequency list, teachers can regard it as a resource list for students and emphasize they may encounter those words when reading academic papers so teachers request them to master those they are not familiar with yet. Further, they can integrate the V-N collocations and lexical bundles with their rhetorical functions into the writing exercise because students need to be guided to "notice" those expressions consciously. Specifically, the lexical bundle examples have illustrated how genre-specific bundles are connected to the communicative functions of each RA section. Thus, teachers can train students how to use different lexical bundles to perform some specific rhetorical functions so as to communicate their ideas clearly and also conform to the standards in academic community of applied linguistics. In addition to classroom teaching and learning, the scholars can cooperate with publishers in 121 Taiwan like the Crane or Bookman to write a course book specifically designed to teach academic vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics. When the UWL and one of its predecessors, the American University Word List (Praninskas, 1972), were created, they are served as the basis for the course book of academic vocabulary. Some authors have written the vocabulary learning books based on these two lists (Farid, 1985; Valcourt & Wells, 1999; Yorkey,1981). Therefore, it is hoped that the frequently-used AWL word-forms, their collocations, lexical bundles, and non-AWL content word-forms can be the basis for course books of the academic vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics. 5.4 Contribution of the Study As Flowerdew (2002) pointed out that few corpus studies in ESP probed into the field of applied linguistics, the present study fills this gap and specifically focuses on the applied linguistics field so the results are valuable to the learners, teachers or scholars in this field. No studies have particularly explored the use of AWL vocabulary in the field of applied linguistics. Therefore, the present study displays the comprehensive use of AWL vocabulary in this field, including the top 477 AWL word-forms, the word families of the 477 AWL word-forms, the V-N collocations and lexical bundles. The top 477 AWL word-forms and their word families can be the direct resource for students to learn vocabulary. V-N collocations and bundles are also beneficial to students. Some studies have shown that non-native speakers often encountered phraseology difficulties compared to the native speakers. (Allerton 1984; Cowie 1992; Granger 1998; Howarth 1998; Pawley & Syder 1983). Phraseology is collocational or lexical bundles ideas. Due to the necessity of phraseology competence, Richards (1983) advises us "to gather fuller data on such forms (through discourse analysis and frequency counts, for example) with a view to obtaining useful information for teachers, textbook writers, and syllabus designers." (p. 115). Therefore, the present study has provided such useful information to learners, teachers and course designers. Last, the present study also indicates that the majority of freshmen in the field of applied linguistics are not fully familiar with all the high frequent non-AWL word-forms. Thus, teachers can 122 direct students' attention to the non-AWL vocabulary that only occur frequently in the applied linguistics field. In this way, freshmen will have confidence when they read their textbooks or write an academic paper in the future. 5.5 Limitation and Future Research Although the corpus in this study contains over one and a half million running words, it is still relatively small compared to Academic Corpus (3.5 million running words) for the AWL. Thus, it is suggested that future researchers can expand the corpus as large as possible in order to better generalize the results. Due to restricted time and short of manpower, this study cannot analyze V-N collocations and lexical bundles for the remaining top 101 to 477 AWL word-forms and the top 100 non-AWL word-forms. Future research can further probe into them so as to provide more useful materials for learners, teachers, and course designers in this field. Since this study only focused on the published RAs in the field of applied linguistics, future research can duplicate Cortes' idea (2004) by collecting students' writing and comparing their use of AWL vocabulary, V-N collocations and lexical bundles. The result may provide in-depth insights into how teachers can help students learn AWL vocabulary, its collocations and bundles. Finally, since this study has already provided some detailed information about each high frequency AWL word-forms, future studies can explore the effectiveness of the application of AWL/non-AWL vocabulary, collocations and bundles in classroom teaching, and examines their usefulness for students in the filed of applied linguistics. 123 References Allerton, D. (1984). Three (or four) levels of word co-occurrence restriction. Lingua, 63, 17-40. Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations? System, 21, 101. Bauer, L., & Nation, P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography,6, 253-279. Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1997). The BBI dictionary of English word Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Biber, D. (1990). A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 3-43. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistics comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: a multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9-48. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371-405. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003. Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes,13, 47–59. Campion, M., & Elley, W. (1971). An academic word list. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Chen, C. Y. & Tang, Y. T. (2004). Collocation errors of Taiwanese college students: Oral or written production. In The proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 483- 494). Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co. Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes,23, 397–423. Cowie, A. P. (1992). Multi-word lexical units and communicative language teaching. in P. Arnaud and H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics ( pp.1-12). London: Macmillan. Chung, M., & Nation, P. (2003). Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 103-116. Cobb, T. (n.d.) Why and how to use frequency lists to learn words. Retrieved July 30, 2006 from http://www.lextutor.ca/research/. Cobb, T., & Horst, M. (2004). Is there room for an academic word list in French? In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp.15-38). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213-238. 124 Coxhead, A., & Nation, P. (2001). The specialized vocabulary of English for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purpose (pp.252-267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Farid, A. (1985). A vocabulary workbook: Prefixes, roots, and suffixes for ESL students. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Farghal, M., & Obiendat, H. (1995). Collocations: a neglected variable in EFL. IRAL, 33(4), 315-330. Flowerdew, L. (2002). Corpus-based analysis in EAP. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 95-114). Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited. Frances, W., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston :Houghton Mifflin. Frances, W. & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston :Houghton Mifflin. Ghadessy, P. (1979). Frequency counts, words lists, and materials preparation: A new approach. English Teaching Forum, 17, 24-27. Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 341-363. Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. (pp. 145-160). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Pearson. Hofland, K., & Johansson, S. (1982). Word Frequencies in British and American English. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities. Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social science: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 321-337 Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Nicolate, I. (2005). Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive on-line database. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 90-110. Howarth, P. (1998). "The Phraseology of Learners'Academic writing," in A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (pp. 161-186). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Pearson. Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further development in lexical approach. London: Language Teaching Publications. Lim, M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 282-309. Liu, C. P. (1999). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. In The proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 483- 494). Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co. 125 Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development in. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition (pp. 335-373). New York: Newbury House. Lynn, R. W. (1973). Preparing word lists: a suggested method. RELC Journal, 4(1), 25-32. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (3rd ed.) (2004). Hong Kong: Pearson Education Asia Limited. Martin, P. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 25-43. Mass, R. (1990). The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Addison-Wesley. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1997). Written and spoken vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 20-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McEnery T., & Wilson, A. (Eds.). (2001). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Meyer, C. F. (2002). English corpus linguistics an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milton, J., & Hales, T. (1997). Applying a Lexical Profiling system to technical English. In A. Ryan & A. Wray (Eds), Evolving models of language (pp. 72-83). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Moore, K. L. & Dalley, A. F. (1999). Clinically oriented anatomy. (4th ed.) Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. Mudraya, O. (2006). Engineering English: A lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 235-256. Murphy, J., & Kandil, M. (2004). Word-level stress patterns in the academic word list. System, 32, 61-74. Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation, P. (2004). A study of the most frequent word families in the British National Corpus. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp.3-13). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nation, P., & Hwang, K. (1995). Where would general service vocabulary stop and special purposes vocabulary begin? System, 23, 35-41. Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage, and word lists. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nesselhauf, N (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 223- 242. Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 119-138. Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25-38. 126 Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 191-225). New York: Longman. Pearsall, J. (Ed.). (1998). The new Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Praninskas, J. (1972). American university word list. London: Longman. Richards, J. C. (1983). Communicative needs in foreign language learning. ELT Journal, 37, 111-120. Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of genre set: research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 141-156. Samraj, B. (2002). Introductions in research articles: variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17. Santos, M. B. D. (1996). The textual organization of research articles in applied linguistics, Text, 16, 481-499. Schmidt, R.W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scott, M. (1996). WordSmith tools [Computer software]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sutarsyah, C., Nation, P., & Kennedy, G. (1994). How useful is EAP vocabulary for ESP? A corpus based case study. RELC Journal, 25, 34- 50. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative speakers of English. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Svartvik, J. & Quirk, R. (1980). A Corpus of English Conversation. Lund: Liber/Gleerups. Valcourt, G., & Wells, L. (1999). Mastery: A University Word List reader. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Wang, M. T., & Nation, P. (2004). Word meaning in academic English: Homography in the Academic Word List. Applied Linguistics, 25, 291-314. Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (2005). Writing up research: Experimental research report writing for students of English. Taiwan: Pearson Education Taiwan & Crane Publishing Co. Ltd. West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longmans, Green. Williams, I. A. (1999). Result sections of medical research articles: analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 347-366. Wu, W. S. (1996). Lexical collocations: One way to make passive vocabulary active. Paper from the eleventh conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 461- 480). Taipei: Crane. Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385. 127 Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2004). Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 264-279 Yorkey, R. (1981). Checklists for vocabulary study. New York: Longman. 128 Appendix A Permission Letters From Five Journals RE: Asking permission to use Applied Linguistics articles in a corpus-analysis study 寄件者: PUNTIS, Gemma L. (gemma.puntis@oxfordjournals.org) 寄件日期: 2007 ?4月19 日 上午 10:08:23 收件者: Selena (selenahuangv@hotmail.com) Dear Ms Huang Thank you for your email, I appreciate the information. I have no objections to the actions you list below (you are not required to send us any of the republications though, thank you) Many thanks and kind regards Gemma Gemma Puntis | Rights Assistant Rights and New Business Development Oxford Journals | Oxford University Press Great Clarendon Street | Oxford | OX2 6DP | UK T: +44 (0) 1865 354779 E: gemma.puntis@oxfordjournals.org F: +44 (0) 1865 353485 W. www.oxfordjournals.org From: Selena [mailto:selenahuangv@hotmail.com] Sent: 18 April 2007 15:34 To: JOURNALS PERMISSIONS; PUNTIS, Gemma L. Cc: viphavee; selenahuangv@gmail.com Subject: Re: Asking permission to use Applied Linguistics articles in a corpus-analysis study Importance: High Dear Ms. Puntis, Thank you very much for your kind reply. I am Ju-yu Huang, Dr Vongpumivitch's advisee. My advisor is taking a trip to the US for an international conference. Therefore, she wants me to reply to your email by myself immediately. 129 Regarding the articles we used, I attach one file for your reference. Please note that we only used 40 articles from 7 different years. Also, please let us confirm whether the following actions are all right with you: (1) We will "not" release full texts of any Applied Linguistics articles. However, our reports do have to contain some sentences as examples. In addition to word lists, we also look into collocation (beyond one word) and keyword-in-context. For these analyses, the maximum length of the texts revealed in the paper should not be more than three sentences in each example. (2) We only downloaded 40 articles from 1998-2006. The articles downloaded are all reports of empirical studies because we specifically were looking for words used in Introduction - Method - Results - Discussion sections. Therefore, not all AL articles were included in our corpus. (Please refer to the attachment.) (3) In our reference section, the individual papers included in the corpus will "not" be listed because they were data, not reference source. However, in the methodology section of our future research papers and the MA thesis, we will give a full citation of the years and issue/volume numbers of the journals included in our corpus. For example, "The papers included in the corpus are from Applied Linguistics issue 19, number 1 (year 1998) to issue 27, number 4 (year 2006)." (4) In the MA thesis, we will have an appendix listing all individual papers in the corpus. In the future research papers submitted to any journal like Applied Linguistics, on the other hand, we will acknowledge your support in the acknowledgement section and not have the appendix to save space. (5) We will send you all published papers that will result from this project. (6) Other than academic dissemination, we do "not" plan to use my thesis results or the corpus for any commercial purpose. Please confirm whether you agree to the above actions. If you have any questions, please feel free to let us know. Thank you very much in advance for your reply. Sincerely, Ju-yu Huang Department of Foreign Languages and Literature National Tsinghua University, Hsinchu 30013, Taiwan 130 RE: More questions about copyrights with Language Learning and Modern Language Journal 寄件者: viphavee (viphavee@mx.nthu.edu.tw) 寄件日期: 2007 ?5月4日上午 06:47:43 收件者: 'Journals Rights' (JournalsRights@oxon.blackwellpublishing.com); Laura.Wilson@oxon.blackwellpublishing.com 副本: 'Selena' (selenahuangv@hotmail.com) Dear Ms. Wilson, Thank you for your email and the Excel file. We are glad that we are allowed to analyze the language of the articles from Modern Language Journal and Language Learning in Ms. Huang's thesis. If one day parts of the MA thesis are published as research articles, then we will fill in the Excel file to the best of our knowledge and send it to you along with the accepted manuscript(s) for your consideration. Sincerely, Viphavee From: Wilson Laura [mailto:Laura.Wilson@oxon.blackwellpublishing.com] On Behalf Of Journals Rights Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 8:37 PM To: viphavee Subject: RE: More questions about copyrights with Language Learning and Modern Language Journal Yes, you will need to re-0apply for such usage. I have attached a permission request form for completion. Please return this to journalsrights@oxon.blackwellpublishing.com ensuring all fields are completed. Best wishes Laura Wilson. Permissions Controller Wiley-Blackwell PO Box 805 9600 Garsington Road Oxford OX4 2ZG United Kingdom Fax: 00 44 1865 471150 131 Permission requests can now be sent to journalsrights@oxon.blackwellpublishing.com Blackwell is committed to creating a culture of value and respect for all of our staff. We expect to work in an environment where there are high standards of behaviour and achievement. We maintain a culture which operates within accepted boundaries of professional behaviour and performance. please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to From: viphavee [mailto:viphavee@mx.nthu.edu.tw] Sent: 09 April 2007 09:37 To: Wilson Laura Cc: Journals Rights Subject: More questions about copyrights with Language Learning and Modern Language Journal Dear Ms. Wilson, Thank you very much for your reply. We are delighted to hear that we have your support in our research. Our previous email to you was bounced back to us, so we decide to write to you again. Please let us ask a clarification question regarding your previous message. You stated that "Permission is granted for [us] to use the material below for [Ms. Huang's] thesis subject to the usual acknowledgements and on the understanding that [we] will reapply for permission if [we] wish to distribute or publish [our] thesis commercially." Our question is regarding Ms. Huang's publication of her thesis results as an academic journal paper (e.g., a paper published in Language Learning). This is a distribution of her work academically, "not" commercially. Shall we reapply for permission for that purpose? If yes, shall we do that before we submit the drafts to the journals, or shall we do that after the papers are accepted for publication by the journal editors? Also, we realize that Blackwell also owns the copyright to "Modern Language Journal," another journal from which we collected articles for our corpus. We collected articles from "Modern Language Journal" issue 86 number 3 (year 2002) up to issue 90 number 1 (year 2006). Dr. Sally Sieloff Magnan, the journal editor, had not replied to our message. Would you mind giving us the permission to use MLJ articles in our study? Finally, please let us confirm that the following actions are all right with you: (1) We will not release full texts of any Language Learning and Modern Language Journal articles. However, our reports do have to contain some sentences as examples. In addition to word lists, we 132 also look into collocation (beyond one word) and keyword-in-context. For these analyses, the maximum length of the texts revealed in the paper should not be more than three sentences in each example. (2) We only downloaded 40 articles from 2003-2006 (Language Learning) and 40 more from 2002-2006 (Modern Language Journal). The articles downloaded are all reports of empirical studies because we specifically were looking for words used in Introduction - Method - Results - Discussion sections. Therefore, not all Language Learning/Modern Language Journal articles were included in our corpus. (3) In our reference section, the individual papers included in the corpus will "not" be listed because they were data, not reference source. However, in the methodology section of our future research papers and the MA thesis, we will give a full citation of the years and issue/volume numbers of the journals included in our corpus. For example, "The papers included in the corpus are from Language Learning issue 53, number 2 (year 2003) to issue 56, number 3 (year 2006)." (4) In the MA thesis, we will have an appendix listing all individual papers in the corpus. In the research papers, on the other hand, we will acknowledge your support in the acknowledgement section and not have the appendix to save space. (5) We will send you all published papers that will result from this project. Thank you very much for your understanding and patience. We are looking forward to hearing from you again. Sincerely, Viphavee 133 RE: Asking for permission to use papers in Second Language Research in a corpus analysis study From: Lambert, Matthew [mailto:matthew.lambert@sagepub.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:31 PM To: viphavee Cc: Selena; Hawkins, Roger D; Mike Sharwood Smith Subject: RE: Asking for permission to use papers in Second Language Research in a corpus analysis study Dear Viphavee, Thank you for your email, in June 2006 Sage Publications bought the Hodder journals (including Second Language Research), and as a part of this we bought the copyright in all of the back issues of all of these journals. This means that you will not need to contact Hodder in regard to this (in fact if you did contact them, they would most probably refer you back to me!). In response to your action queries 1-5: 1) Using short excerpts like this is absolutely fine. As the excerpts are short you may use them without permission under the 'fair dealing' provisions in copyright law. 2-4) these are all fine 5) Thank you for this, I look forward to reading these papers. I wish you every success with this project, and if you need anything further please do not hesitate to contact me, Very best wishes Matthew Matthew Lambert |Rights Department Sage Publications Ltd | 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London, EC1Y 1SP Tel: +44 (0)20 7324 8500 | Fax: +44 (0)20 7324 8600 | www.sagepub.co.uk Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail -----Original Message----- From: viphavee [mailto:viphavee@mx.nthu.edu.tw] Sent: 28 March 2007 07:10 To: Lambert, Matthew 134 Cc: 'Selena'; 'Hawkins, Roger D'; 'Mike Sharwood Smith' Subject: RE: Asking for permission to use papers in Second Language Research in a corpus analysis study Dear Mr. Lambert, Thank you very much for your reply. Your email was clear, and we are delighted to hear that we have your support in our research. We have one more question, please. Our corpus includes articles taken from issue 14, number 1 (year 1998) up to issue 22, number 3 (year 2006). Dr. Sharwood Smith informed us that Sage has the copyright of issue 22 number 3 and up, while Hodder Headline has the copyright of issue 22 number 2 and older. Should we also contact Hodder Headline? Also, please let us confirm that the following actions are all right with you: (1) We will not release full texts of any Second Language Research articles. However, our reports do have to contain some sentences as examples. In addition to word lists, we also look into collocation (beyond one word) and keyword-in-context. For these analyses, the maximum length of the texts revealed in the paper should not be more than three sentences in each example. (2) We only downloaded 40 articles from 1998-2006. The articles downloaded are all reports of empirical studies because we specifically were looking for words used in Introduction - Method - Results - Discussion sections. Therefore, not all SLR articles were included in our corpus. (3) In our reference section, the individual papers included in the corpus will "not" be listed because they were data, not reference source. However, in the methodology section of our future research papers and the MA thesis, we will give a full citation of the years and issue/volume numbers of the journals included in our corpus. For example, "The papers included in the corpus are from Second Language Research issue 14, number 1 (year 1998) to issue 22, number 3 (year 2006)." (4) In the MA thesis, we will have an appendix listing all individual papers in the corpus. In the research papers, on the other hand, we will acknowledge your support in the acknowledgement section and not have the appendix to save space. (5) We will send you all published papers that will result from this project. Thank you very much for your understanding and patience. We are looking forward to hearing from you again. Sincerely, Viphavee 135 April 4, 2007 Department of Foreign Languages and Literature National Tsinghua University, Hsinchu 30013, Taiwan Phone: +886-3-5742717 Dear Dr. Vongpumivitch, I am writing in response to your query regarding your advisee Ju-yu Huang's MA thesis, which includes a corpus compiled using words from TESOL Quarterly articles in addition to several other glish language journals. En As the thesis is not using complete articles or parts of articles, TESOL grants permission to use the words in the corpus, provided that the following conditions are met: 1. The thesis must be available for free to graduate students as well as researchers. 2. The university cannot make the corpus commercially available without permission from TESOL. 3. TESOL Quarterly must be properly referenced within the thesis. Please feel free to contact me at tchapman@tesol.org if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Tomiko M. Chapman Permissions Editor 136 Appendix B Headwords of the Academic Word List This list contains the head words of the families in the Academic Word List. The numbers indicate the sublist of the Academic Word List. For example, abandon and its family members are in Sublist 8 of the Academic Word List. (Coxhead, A.J. (1998). An Academic Word List. English Language Institute Occasional Publication Number 18. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.) abandon 8 abstract 6 academy 5 access 4 accommodate 9 accompany 8 accumulate 8 accurate 6 achieve 2 acknowledge 6 acquire 2 adapt 7 adequate 4 adjacent 10 adjust 5 administrate 2 adult 7 advocate 7 affect 2 aggregate 6 aid 7 albeit 10 allocate 6 alter 5 alternative 3 ambiguous 8 amend 5 analogy 9 analyse 1 annual 4 anticipate 9 apparent 4 append 8 appreciate 8 approach 1 appropriate 2 approximate 4 arbitrary 8 area 1 aspect 2 assemble 10 assess 1 assign 6 assist 2 assume 1 assure 9 attach 6 attain 9 attitude 4 attribute 4 author 6 authority 1 automate 8 available 1 aware 5 behalf 9 benefit 1 bias 8 bond 6 brief 6 bulk 9 capable 6 capacity 5 category 2 cease 9 challenge 5 channel 7 chapter 2 chart 8 chemical 7 circumstance 3 cite 6 civil 4 clarify 8 classic 7 clause 5 code 4 coherent 9 coincide 9 collapse 10 colleague 10 commence 9 comment 3 commission 2 commit 4 commodity 8 communicate 4 community 2 compatible 9 compensate 3 compile 10 complement 8 complex 2 component 3 compound 5 comprehensive 7 comprise 7 compute 2 conceive 10 concentrate 4 concept 1 conclude 2 concurrent 9 conduct 2 confer 4 confine 9 confirm 7 conflict 5 conform 8 consent 3 consequent 2 considerable 3 consist 1 constant 3 constitute 1 constrain 3 construct 2 consult 5 consume 2 contact 5 contemporary 8 context 1 contract 1 contradict 8 contrary 7 contrast 4 contribute 3 controversy 9 convene 3 converse 9 convert 7 convince 10 cooperate 6 coordinate 3 core 3 corporate 3 correspond 3 couple 7 create 1 credit 2 criteria 3 crucial 8 culture 2 currency 8 cycle 4 data 1 debate 4 decade 7 decline 5 deduce 3 define 1 definite 7 demonstrate 3 denote 8 deny 7 depress 10 derive 1 design 2 despite 4 detect 8 deviate 8 device 9 devote 9 differentiate 7 dimension 4 diminish 9 discrete 5 discriminate 6 displace 8 display 6 dispose 7 distinct 2 distort 9 distribute 1 diverse 6 document 3 domain 6 domestic 4 dominate 3 draft 5 drama 8 duration 9 dynamic 7 economy 1 edit 6 element 2 eliminate 7 emerge 4 emphasis 3 empirical 7 enable 5 encounter 10 energy 5 enforce 5 enhance 6 enormous 10 ensure 3 entity 5 environment 1 equate 2 equip 7 equivalent 5 erode 9 error 4 establish 1 estate 6 estimate 1 ethic 9 ethnic 4 evaluate 2 eventual 8 evident 1 evolve 5 exceed 6 exclude 3 exhibit 8 expand 5 expert 6 explicit 6 exploit 8 export 1 expose 5 external 5 extract 7 facilitate 5 factor 1 feature 2 federal 6 fee 6 file 7 final 2 finance 1 finite 7 flexible 6 fluctuate 8 137 induce 8 inevitable 8 infer 7 infrastructure 8 inherent 9 inhibit 6 initial 3 initiate 6 injure 2 innovate 7 input 6 insert 7 insight 9 inspect 8 instance 3 institute 2 instruct 6 integral 9 integrate 4 integrity 10 intelligence 6 intense 8 interact 3 intermediate 9 internal 4 interpret 1 interval 6 intervene 7 intrinsic 10 invest 2 investigate 4 invoke 10 involve 1 isolate 7 issue 1 item 2 job 4 journal 2 justify 3 label 4 labour 1 layer 3 lecture 6 legal 1 legislate 1 levy 10 liberal 5 licence 5 likewise 10 link 3 locate 3 logic 5 maintain 2 major 1 manipulate 8 manual 9 margin 5 mature 9 maximise 3 mechanism 4 media 7 mediate 9 medical 5 medium 9 mental 5 method 1 migrate 6 6 participate 2 military 9 minimal 9 minimise 8 minimum 6 ministry 6 minor 3 mode 7 modify 5 monitor 5 motive 6 mutual 9 negate 3 network 5 neutral 6 nevertheless 6 nonetheless 10 norm 9 normal 2 notion 5 notwithstanding 10 nuclear 8 objective 5 obtain 2 obvious 4 occupy 4 occur 1 odd 10 offset 8 ongoing 10 option 4 orient 5 outcome 3 output 4 overall 4 overlap 9 overseas 6 panel 10 paradigm 7 paragraph 8 parallel 4 parameter 4 partner 3 passive 9 perceive 2 percent 1 period 1 persist 10 perspective 5 phase 4 phenomenon 7 philosophy 3 physical 3 plus 8 policy 1 portion 9 pose 10 positive 2 potential 2 practitioner 8 precede 6 precise 5 predict 4 predominant 8 preliminary 9 presume 6 previous 2 primary 2 prime 5 principal 4 principle 1 prior 4 priority 7 proceed 1 process 1 professional 4 prohibit 7 project 4 promote 4 proportion 3 prospect 8 protocol 9 psychology 5 publication 7 publish 3 purchase 2 pursue 5 qualitative 9 quote 7 radical 8 random 8 range 2 ratio 5 rational 6 react 3 recover 6 refine 9 regime 4 region 2 register 3 regulate 2 reinforce 8 reject 5 relax 9 release 7 relevant 2 reluctance 10 rely 3 remove 3 require 1 research 1 reside 2 resolve 4 resource 2 respond 1 restore 8 restrain 9 restrict 2 retain 4 reveal 6 revenue 5 reverse 7 revise 8 revolution 9 rigid 9 role 1 route 9 scenario 9 schedule 8 scheme 3 scope 6 section 1 sector 1 secure 2 seek 2 select 2 sequence 3 series 4 sex 3 shift 3 significant 1 similar 1 simulate 7 site 2 so-called 10 sole 7 somewhat 7 source 1 specific 1 specify 3 sphere 9 stable 5 statistic 4 status 4 straightforward 10 strategy 2 stress 4 structure 1 style 5 submit 7 subordinate 9 subsequent 4 subsidy 6 substitute 5 successor 7 sufficient 3 sum 4 summary 4 supplement 9 survey 2 survive 7 suspend 9 sustain 5 symbol 5 tape 6 target 5 task 3 team 9 technical 3 technique 3 technology 3 temporary 9 tense 8 terminate 8 text 2 theme 8 theory 1 thereby 8 thesis 7 topic 7 trace 6 tradition 2 transfer 2 transform 6 transit 5 transmit 7 transport 6 trend 5 trigger 9 ultimate 7 undergo 10 underlie 6 undertake 4 uniform 8 unify 9 unique 7 utilise 6 valid 3 vary 1 vehicle 8 version 5 via 8 violate 9 virtual 8 visible 7 vision 9 visual 8 volume 3 voluntary 7 welfare 5 whereas 5 whereby 10 widespread 8 138 Appendix C Rating Instructions for Rhetorical Functions Definitions and Examples Introduction CARS Model (Swale, 1990, p. 141-143) I1:Establishing a territory 1. claiming centrality: claim the importance/interest of the issue; can refer to the classic, favorite or central character of the issue; claim many investigator active in this area. e.g. Recently, there has been a spate of interest in how to…. 2. making topic generalization: to express in general terms the current state of the art- of knowledge, or of techniques. And to emphasize the frequency and complexity of the data. e.g. The aetiology and pathology of...is well known. English is rich in related words exhibiting 'stress shift.' 3. review items of previous research: to review one or more items deemed by the authors to be relevant to that establishments e.g. Brie (1988) showed that the moon is made of cheese. I2: Establishing a niche (choose one only) 1. counter- claiming: against the previous claim or finding e.g. However, the use of …results in such a degree of spherical aberration that radical design changes have become necessary. 2. indicating a gap e.g. Despite the controversy and extensive discussion surrounding this issue, no empirical research has examined the effects of differential timing on the acquisition of the Japanese syllabaries. (MLJ33_02AY) 3. question-raising e.g. However, it is not clear whether the use of…can be modified to reduce spherical aberration to acceptable levels. 4. continuing a tradition e.g. The remaining issue is to find a way of better controlling spherical aberration. I3: Occupying the niche 1. outlining purpose or announcing present research e.g. The present study extends the use of the last model to asymmetric… 2. announcing principal findings e.g. The main findings in the present study included…. 3. indicating RA structure e.g. In the following, the design of experiments would be addressed in section 3 and the results and discussions would be reported in section 4. Method(Weissberg & Buker, 2005, p.91,92) M1: Overview of the experiment 139 e.g. A bilingual group and a monolingual group, each comprised of 30 children, were compared. M2: Population/sample e.g. In each group, there were six subjects at each of five different age levels. The subjects were… M3: Location e.g. The study area has three major vegetation bands: a mountain shrub community at lower elevations (2235-2330m), large aspen forest at elevations between 2330 and 3333m, and mixed forest of Engelmann spruce and fir at higher elevations. M4: Restriction/limiting conditions e.g. These centers accept only children from below poverty threshold; thus, comparable socioeconomic status among the test subjects was insured. M5: Sampling techniques e.g. The bilingual subjects were selected from the 99 Mexican-American children in a previous study (Carrow, 1971) on the basis of performance at age mean or above in both languages on a test of auditory comprehension. M6:Procedures e.g. ……The children were brought individually to a test area where they engaged in spontaneous conversation. For the bilingual children, conversations were conducted in English and Spanish to determine the language in which each child appeared more fluent. M7:Materials e.g. The test instrument employed in this study was a revised version of the Auditory Test for Language Comprehension (Carrow, 1968),…… M8: Variables e.g. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Text comprehension. After reading each story participants were asked to recall as much as they could of the passage that they had just read without referring back to it. (LL25_04PD) M9: Statistical treatment e.g. A 2 x 5 analysis of variance was used for test for age and language group differences. M10: Data Analysis e.g. We did not cut off essays at 200 words because then we would miss out on some target items, the focus of the analysis. Results (Yang & Allison, 2003, p. 374, 381) R1:Preparatory information: A reminder and connector btw sections, as it provides relevant information for the presentation of results e.g. The results of this experiment will be presented in both quantitative and qualitative form. We will first examine tables for the four main temporal variables, plus a table which indicates the average length of pause in each text... R2: Reporting results: The results of a study are presented, normally with relevant evidence such as statistics and examples. 140 e.g. The results indicate that if a subject has a high SR in L1, then it is likely that SR will also be high in L2. R3: Commenting on results : to establish the meaning and significance of the research results in relation to the relevant field. 1.Interpreting results e.g. These results suggest, first, that some significant changes take place between time one and time two and, second, that the knowledge which underlies L2 processing is in some way different to the knowledge which underlies the processing of L1 2. Comparing results with literature e.g. These findings support the previous survey results of Ostler (1980) and the ethno- graphic data of Mason (1995). 3. Evaluating results e.g. Such differences may also be promoted by the educational systems of both cultures, and by... This can be a reason why... 4. Account for results e.g. Of course, the results are rather speculative and based on a small sample... R4: Summarizing results: To present integrated results on the basis of a number of specific results e.g. To sum up, it becomes clear that keeping a heritage language alive across generations is not a simple matter of mothers taking a position on language use and holding it. ... R5: Evaluating the study: see Discussion section 1. Indicating limitation 2. Indicating significance/advantage R6: Deductions from the research: see Discussion section Recommending further research Discussion (Yang & Allison, 2003, p. 376, 382) D1: Background information: To relate their discussion to the study by recapitulating main points such as research questions, aims and purposes, theoretical or methodological information. e.g. Our aim has been to explore, within the limits of the data available, a relatively complex issue: the accommodation of languages that parents in ethnolinguistic minority groups have to make... D2: Reporting results: see Result section D3: Summarizing results: see Result section D4: Commenting on results: see Result section 1. Interpreting results 2. Comparing results with literature 3. Account for results 4. Evaluating results D5: Summarizing the study: To provide a brief account of the main points from the perspective of the overall study e.g. In summary, the research presented in this paper offers a contrastive text linguistics study of 141 rhetorical differences between texts ... D6: Evaluating the study: To evaluate the overall study by pointing out the limitations, indicating the contributions or evaluating the methodology. 1. Indicating limitation e.g. The present study has raised a number of interesting differences, but a larger corpus is needed to establish how far they can be generalized... 2. indicating significance, advantage e.g. What is new in our study is the links we try to find with school performance, and the within family dynamics of the accommodation process, ... 3. evaluating methodology e.g. ... She performed extremely well in the experiment (as well as in the Japanese course), but it is questionable whether her experimental data represent the strategy she would employ outside of the laboratory... D7: Deductions from the research: To extend beyond the results by suggesting what can be done to solve the problems identified by the research, pointing out the line of further study or drawing pedagogical implications 1. making suggestions e.g. ...Where such complex methods are used it may be better for the writer to provide a full and specific description of ... 2. recommending further research e.g. Further research might be profitably conducted within a single discipline to deter- mine the degree of variability according to subdiscipline, ideology, region of origin and level of prestige... 3. drawing pedagogical implication e.g. The findings of this study may have some implications for the teaching of EAP... 142 Appendix D References for ALC Applied Linguistics 2006 (7 articles) AL01_06CL: Cameron, L., & Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 671-690. AL02_06ER: Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431-463. AL03_06ER: Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 464-491. AL04_06FD: Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619. AL05_06MA: Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405-430. AL06_06MJ: Mellow, J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 645–670. AL07_06YA: Yiakoumetti, A. (2006). A bidialectal programme for the learning of standard modern Greek in Cyprus. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 295–317. 2005 (6 articles) AL08_05BN: Bell, N. D. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS–NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 192-218. 143 AL09_05CA: Cekaite, A., & Aronsson, K. (2005). Language play, a collaborative resource in children's L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 169-191. AL10_05HN: Harwood, N. (2005). 'We do not seem to have a theory ...The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap': Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 343-375. AL11_05RR: Reiter, R. M., Rainey, I., & Fulcher, G. (2005). A comparative study of certainty and conventional indirectness: Evidence from British English and Peninsular Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 1-31. AL12_05TS: Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90-120. AL13_05VL: Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 70-89. 2004 (3 articles) AL14_04GD: Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words found in children's narrative and expository reading materials. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 1-37. AL15_04HI: Hardy, I. M., & Moore, J. L. (2004). Foreign language students' conversational negotiations in different task environments. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 340-370. AL16_04WC: Walter, C. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 315-339. 2003 (6 articles) AL17_03BR: Blake, R. J., & Zyzik, E. C. (2003). Who's helping whom?: Learner/heritage-speakers' networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 519-544. 144 AL18_03DH: Daller, H., Hout, R. V., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197-222. AL19_03KG: Kelly, G. J., & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28-55. AL20_03MS: Matsumura, S. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 465-491. AL21_03OL: Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492-518. AL22_03VK: Vidal, K. (2003). Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 56-89. 2002 (2 articles) AL23_02GD: Giannoni, D. S. (2002). Worlds of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgement texts in English and Italian research articles. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 1-31 AL24_02NG: Nelson, G. L., Carson, J., Batal, M. A., & Bakary, W. E. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 163-189. 2001 (3 articles) AL25_01HD: Hanauer, D. I. (2001). The task of poetry reading and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 295-323. AL26_01HJ: Hansen, J. G. (2001). Linguistic constraints on the acquisition of English syllable codas by native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 338-365. 145 AL27_01RP: Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57. 1998 (13 articles) AL28_98DW: DAVIES, W. D., & KAPLAN, T. I. (1998). Native speaker vs. L2 learner grammaticality judgements. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 183-203. AL29_98HP: Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 24-44. AL30_98JA: Joe, A. (1998). What effects do text-based tasks promoting generation have on incidental vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 357-377. AL31_98JB: Johnston, B., Kasper, G., and Ross, S. (1998). Effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 157-182. AL32_98JF: Jones, F. R. (1998). Self-instruction and success: A learner-profile study. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 378-406. AL33_98LB: Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255-271. AL34_98MS: McCafferty, S. G. (1998). Nonverbal expression and L2 private speech. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 73-96 AL35_98SJ: Shaw, P., & Liu, E. T. K. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 225-254. AL36_98SP: Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U. K., Chang, Y. Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D., & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 97-121 146 AL37_98TA: Tsui, A. B. M., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 432-451. AL38_98VM: Verhallen, M., & Schoonen, R. (1998). Lexical knowledge in LI and L2 of third and fifth graders. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 452-470. AL39_98VO: Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4). 491-514. AL40_98WS: Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production: implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 295-333. Language Learning 2006 (6 articles) LL01_06BA: Groot, A. M. B. D. (2006). Effects of stimulus characteristics and background music on foreign language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 56(3), 463-506. LL02_06CL: Comajoan, L. (2006). The Aspect Hypothesis: Development of morphology and appropriateness of use. Language Learning, 56(2), 201-268. LL03_06GM: Gullberg, M. (2006). Handling discourse: Gestures, reference tracking, and communication strategies in early L2. Language Learning, 56(1), 155-196. LL04_06KK: Kondo-Brown, K. (2006). How do English L1 learners of advanced Japanese infer unknown Kanji words in authentic texts? Language Learning, 56(1), 109-153. LL05_06SG: Schauer, G. A. (2006). Pragmatic awareness in ESL and EFL contexts: Contrast and development. Language Learning, 56(2), 269-318. 147 LL06_06VL: Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431-462. 2005 (12 articles) LL07_05CS: Carroll, S. E. (2005). Input and SLA: Adults' sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 55(supp1), 79-138. LL08_05DL: Dekydtspotter L., & Outcalt, S. D. (2005). A syntactic bias in scope ambiguity resolution in the processing of English-French cardinality interrogatives: Evidence for informational encapsulation. Language Learning, 55(1), 1-36. LL09_05EV: Erdener, V. D., & Burnham, D. K. (2005). The role of audiovisual speech and orthographic information in nonnative speech production. Language Learning, 55(2 ),191-228. LL10_05GJ: Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). Explaining the "Natural Order of L2 Morpheme Acquisition" in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55(supp1), 27-77. LL11_05GS: Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575-611. LL12_05KV: Kempe, V., & Brooks, P. J. (2005). The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Russian gender: Can elements of child-directed speech aid in learning morphology? Language Learning, 55(supp1),139-176. LL13_05LS: Lee, S. Y. (2005). Facilitating and inhibiting factors in English as a foreign language writing performance: A model testing with structural equation modeling. Language Learning, 55(2), 335-374. 148 LL14_05MR: Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, S. M., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2005). Testing the effects of regional, ethnic, and international dialects of English on listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55(1), 37-69. LL15_05PT: Paribakht, T. S. (2005). The influence of first language lexicalization on second language lexical inferencing: A study of Farsi-speaking learners of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 55(4), 701-748. LL16_05RV: Rydland, V., & Aukrust, V. G. (2005). Lexical repetition in second language learners' peer play interaction. Language Learning, 55(2) 229-274. LL17_05SR: Sparks, R. L., Javorsky, J., & Philips, L. (2005). Comparison of the performance of college students classified as ADHD, LD, and LD/ADHD in foreign language courses. Language Learning, 55(1),151-177. LL18_05WM: Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55(1), 71-98. 2004 (10 articles) LL19_04AA: Albert, A., & Kormos, J. (2004). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 54(2), 277-310. LL20_04DT: Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M.J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54(4), 655-79. LL21_04JE: Jung, E. H. (2004). Topic and subject prominence in interlanguage development. Language Learning, 54(4), 713-38. LL22_04LA: Lazaraton, A. (2004). Gesture and speech in the vocabulary explanations of one ESL teacher: A microanalytic inquiry. Language Learning, 54(1), 79-117. 149 LL23_04LB: Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399-436. LL24_04LY: Liao,Y., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54(2), 193-226. LL25_04PD: Pulido, D. (2004). The relationship between text comprehension and second language incidental vocabulary acquisition: A matter of topic familiarity? Language Learning, 54(3), 469-523. LL26_04SC: Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54(1), 35-78. LL27_04WR: Wayland, R. P., & Guion, S. G. (2004). Training English and Chinese listeners to perceive Thai tones: A preliminary report. Language Learning, 54(4), 681-712. LL28_04ZY: Zhang, Y. (2004). Processing constraints, categorial analysis, and the second language acquisition of the Chinese adjective Suffix –de (ADJ). Language Learning, 54(3), 437-468. 2003 (12 articles) LL29_03AN: Akamatsu, N. (2003). The effects of first language orthographic features on second language reading in text. Language Learning, 53(2), 207-231. LL30_03GK: Geeslin, K. L. (2003). A comparison of copula choice: Native Spanish speakers and advanced learners. Language Learning, 53(4), 703-764. LL31_03GS: Gass, S., Svetics, I., & Lemelin, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language Learning, 53(3), 497-545. LL32_03HC: Hu, C. F. (2003). Phonological memory, phonological awareness, and foreign language word learning. Language Learning, 53(3), 429-462. 150 LL33_03IS: Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53(2), 285-323 LL34_03MA: Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35-66. LL35_03MF: Morri, F.A., & Tarone, E. E. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53(2), 325-68. LL36_03PD: Pulido, D. (2003). Modeling the role of second language proficiency and topic familiarity in second language incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Learning, 53(2), 233-84. LL37_03SM: Stevenson, M., & Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (2003). Inhibition or compensation? A multidimensional comparison of reading processes in Dutch and English. Language Learning, 53(4), 765-815. LL38_03SR: Schoonen, R., Gelderen, A. V., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165-202. LL39_03VL: Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463-496. LL40_03VM: Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3), 547-86. 151 The Modern Language Journal 2006 (4 articles) MLJ01_06MH: Maxim, H. H. (2006). Integrating textual thinking into the introductory college-level foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1) 19-32. MLJ02_06MK: Mcdonough, K. (2006). Action research and the professional development of graduate teaching assistants. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 33-47 MLJ03_06RJ: Larios, J. R. D., Manchon, R. M., & Murphy, L. (2006). Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of problem-solving formulation processes. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 100-114. MLJ04_06VL: Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency? The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 6-18. 2005 (7 articles) MLJ05_05CK: Csizer, K., & Dornyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 19-36. MLJ06_05EH: Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 206-220. MLJ07_05GT: Greidanus, T., Beks, B., & Wakely, R. (2005). Testing the development of French word knowledge by advanced Dutch- and English-Speaking learners and native speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 221-233. MLJ08_05LA: Lazaraton, A., & Ishihara, N. (2005). Understanding second language teacher practice using microanalysis and self-reflection: A collaborative case study. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 529-542. 152 MLJ09_05SP: Stapleton, P. (2005). Using the web as a research source: Implications for L2 academic writing. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 177-189. MLJ10_05TG: Taillefer, G. F. (2005). Foreign language reading and study abroad: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic questions. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 503-528. MLJ11_05TN: Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543-562. 2004 (11 articles) MLJ12_04AD: Ayoun, D. (2004). The effectiveness of written recasts in the second language acquisition of aspectual distinctions in French: A follow-up study. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 31-55. MLJ13_04GS: Graham, S. J. (2004). Giving up on modern foreign languages? Students' perceptions of learning French. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 171-191. MLJ14_04GZ: Gan, Z., Humphreys, G.., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 229-244. MLJ15_04JN: Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 416-432. MLJ16_04MS: Matsumura, S., & Hann, G. (2004). Computer anxiety and students' preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 403-415. MLJ17_04PK: Potowski, K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 75-101. 153 MLJ18_04RE: Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. The Modern Language Journal 88(2), 192-216. MLJ19_04SJ: Sullivan, J. H. (2004). Identifying the best foreign language teachers: Teacher standards and professional portfolios. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 390-402. MLJ20_04SS: Donitsa-Schmidt, S., Inbar, O., & Shohamy, E. (2004). The effects of teaching spoken Arabic on students' attitudes and motivation in Israel. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 217-28. MLJ21_04TP: Toth, P. D. (2004). When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish classroom discourse. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 14-30. MLJ22_04YM: Yu, M. C. (2004). Interlinguistic variation and similarity in second language speech act behavior. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 102-119. 2003 (12 articles) MLJ23_03AZ: Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167. MLJ24_03BJ: Barcroft, J. (2003). Effects of questions about word meaning during L2 Spanish lexical learning. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 546-561. MLJ25_03ER: Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 242-260. MLJ26_03FD: Frantzen, D. (2003). Factors affecting how second language Spanish students derive meaning from context. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 168-199. 154 MLJ27_03FM: Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222-241. MLJ28_03JE: Jung, E. H. (2003). The role of discourse signaling cues in second languagelistening comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 562-577. MLJ29_03JS: Jenkins, S., & Parra, I. (2003). Multiple layers of meaning in an oral proficiency test: The complementary roles of nonverbal, paralinguistic, and verbal behaviors in assessment decisions. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1). 90-107. MLJ30_03LG: Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 343-364. MLJ31_03MR: Morin, R. (2003). Derivational morphological analysis as a strategy for vocabulary acquisition in Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2) 200-221. MLJ32_03MY.: Mori, Y. (2003). The roles of context and word morphology in learning new Kanji words. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 404-420. MLJ33_03OR: Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519-533. MLJ34_03RM: Rodriguez, M., & Abreu, O. (2003). The stability of general foreign language classroom anxiety across English and French. The Modern Language Journal, 87(3), 365-374. 2002 (6 articles) MLJ35_02AY: Hatasa, Y. A. (2002). The effects of differential timing in the introduction of Japanese syllabaries on early second language development in Japanese. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 349-367. 155 MLJ36_02HT: Hsiao, T. Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368-383. MLJ37_02JL: Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 546-561. MLJ38_02KD: Kim, D., & Kellyhall, J. (2002). The role of an interactive book reading program in the development of second language pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 332-348. MLJ39_02KM: Kobayashi, M. (2002). Cloze tests revisited: Exploring item characteristics with special attention to scoring methods. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 571-586. MLJ40_02LS: Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 485-507. Second Language Research 2006 (9 articles) SLR01_06CS: Conradie, S. (2006). Investigating the acquisition of the Split-IP parameter and the V2 parameter in second language Afrikaans. Second Language Research, 22(1), 64-94. SLR02_06GH: Goad, H., & White, L. (2006). Ultimate attainment in interlanguage grammars: a prosodic approach. Second Language Research, 22(3), 243-268. SLR03_06HR: Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research, 22(3), 269-301. 156 SLR04_06LA: Cieslicka, A. (2006). Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research, 22(2), 115-144. SLR05_06LC: Lozano, C. (2006). Focus and split-intransitivity: The acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22(2), 145-187. SLR06_06RS: Rule, S., & Marsden, E. (2006). The acquisition of functional categories in early French second language grammars: The use of finite and non-finite verbs in negative contexts. Second Language Research, 22(2), 188-218. SLR07_06SA: Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Language Research, 22(3), 339-368. SLR08_06SR: Slabakova, R. (2006). Learnability in the second language acquisition of semantics: a bidirectional study of a semantic parameter. Second Language Research, 22(4), 498-523. SLR09_06TA: Tremblay, A. (2006). On the second language acquisition of Spanish reflexive passives and reflexive impersonals by French- and English-speaking adults. Second Language Research, 22(1), 30-63. 2005 (5 articles) SLR10_05AE: Altenberg, E. P. (2005). The perception of word boundaries in a second language. Second Language Research, 21(4), 325-358. SLR11_05CM: Yueh-ching, M. (2005). English prototyped small clauses in the interlanguage of Chinese/Taiwanese adult learners. Second Language Research, 21(1), 1-33. SLR12_05HH: Hopp, H. (2005). Constraining second language word order optionality: Scrambling in advanced English–German and Japanese–German interlanguage. Second Language Research, 21(1), 34-71. 157 SLR13_05JA: Juffs, A. (2005). The influence of first language on the processing of wh-movement in English as a second language. Second Language Research, 21(2), 121-151. SLR14_05PT: Parodi, T., & Tsimpli, I. M. (2005). 'Real' and apparent optionality in second language grammars: Finiteness and pronouns in null operator structures. Second Language Research, 21(3), 250-285. 2003 (5 articles) SLR15_03AB: Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19(4), 329-358. SLR16_03HT: Hertel, T. J. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 19(4), 273-304. SLR17_03JH: Joo, H. R. (2003). Second language learnability and the acquisition of the argument structure of English locative verbs by Korean speakers. Second Language Research, 19(4), 305-328. SLR18_03KC: Kingston, C. K., & Meara, P. (2003). Untangling word webs: Graph theory and the notion of density in second language word association networks. Second Language Research, 18(4), 303-324. SLR19_03SR: Slabakova, R. (2003). Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars. Second Language Research, 19(1), 42-75. 2002 (1 article) SLR20_02IS: Inagaki, S. (2002). Japanese learners' acquisition of English manner-of-motion verbs with locational/directional PPs. Second Language Research, 18(1), 3–27. 2001 (4 articles) SLR21_01DL: Dekydtspotter, L., & Sprouse, R. A. (2001). Mental design and (second) language epistemology: adjectival restrictions of wh-quantifiers and tense in English–French interlanguage. Second Language Research, 17(1), 1-35. 158 SLR22_01FF: Franceschina, F. (2001). Morphological or syntactic deficits in near-native speakers? An assessment of some current proposals. Second Language Research, 17(3), 213–247. SLR23_01HJ: Herschensohn, J. (2001). Missing inflection in second language French: Accidental infinitives and other verbal deficits. Second Language Research, 17(3), 273–305. SLR24_01YB.: Yuan, B. (2001). The status of thematic verbs in the second language acquisition of Chinese: against inevitability of thematic-verb raising in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 17(3), 248–272. 2000 (5 articles) SLR25_00DB: Dube, B. (2000). Where are the minimal trees? Evidence from early Zulu L2 subordination. Second Language Research, 16(3), 233–265. SLR26_00DM: Demirci, M. (2000). The role of pragmatics in reflexive interpretation by Turkish learners of English. Second Language Research, 16(4), 325–353. SLR27_00OH: Oshita, H. (2000). What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: A corpus study of 'passive' unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research, 16(4), 293–324. SLR28_00PP: Prevost, P., & White, L. (2000). Missing Surface Inflection or Impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16(2),103–133. SLR29_00PS: Papp, S. (2000). Stable and developmental optionality in native and non-native Hungarian grammars. Second Language Research, 16(2), 173–200. SLR30_00RR: Roman, R. B., & Yoshinaga, N. (2000). The acquisition of multiple wh-questions by high-proficiency non-native speakers of English. Second Language Research, 16(1), 3–26. 159 1999(6 articles) SLR31_99DN: Duffield, N., & White, L. (1999). Assessing L2 knowledge of Spanish clitic placement: converging methodologies. Second Language Research, 15(2), 133–160. SLR32_99MS: Montrul, S. (1999). Causative errors with unaccusative verbs in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 15(2), 191–219. SLR33_99RR: Roebuck, R. F., Martinez-Arbelaiz, M. A., & Perez-Silva, J. I. (1999). Null subjects, filled CPs and L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 15(3), 251–282. SLR34_99SN: Schmitt, N., & Dunham, B.(1999). Exploring native and non-native intuitions of word frequency. Second Language Research, 15(4), 389–411. SLR35_99SR: Slabakova, R. (1999). The parameter of aspect in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 15(3), 283–317. SLR36_99YH: Ying, H. G. (1999). Access to UG and language transfer: A study of L2 learners' interpretation of reconstruction in Chinese. Second Language Research, 15(1), 41–72. 1998 (4 articles): SLR37_98JA: Juffs, A. (1998). Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 14(4), 406–424. SLR38_98MS: Montrul, S. A. (1998). The L2 acquisition of dative experiencer subjects. Second Language Research, 14(1), 27–61. SLR39_98PJ: Paradis, J., Corre, M. L., & Genesee, F. (1998). The emergence of tense and agreement in child L2 French1. Second Language Research, 14(3), 227–256. 160 SLR40_98YB: Yuan, B. (1998). Interpretation of binding and orientation of the Chinese reflexive ziji by English and Japanese speakers. Second Language Research, 14(4), 324–340. TESOL Quarterly 2006 (5 articles): TESOL01_06FK: Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293. TESOL02_06HR: Hayes-Harb, R. (2006). Native speakers of Arabic and ESL texts: Evidence for the transfer of written word identification processes. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 321-339. TESOL03_06KY: Kim, Y. (2006). Effects of input elaboration on vocabulary acquisition through reading by Korean learners of English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 341-373. TESOL04_06LS: Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners' use of vocabulary in a postreading composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 295-320. TESOL05_06RJ: Chang, C. S., & Read, J. (2006). The effects of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 375-397. 2005 (3 articles) TESOL06_05CJ: Chen, J. F., Warden, C. A., & Chang, H. T. (2005). Motivators that do not motivate: The case of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 609-633 TESOL07_05HG: Hu, G. "(2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 635-660. TESOL08_05XY: Xu, Y., Gelfer, J., & Perkins, P. (2005). Using peer tutoring to increase social interactions in early 161 schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 83-106. 2004(11 articles) TESOL09_04BY: Butler, Y. G. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 245-278. TESOL10_04CD: Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers' reinterpretation of a task-based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639-662. TESOL11_04FX: Fang, X., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and curricular reform in China: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 301-323. TESOL12_04GD: Giambo, D. A., & Mckinney, J. D. (2004). The effects of a phonological awareness intervention on the oral English proficiency of Spanish-speaking kindergarten children. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 95-117. TESOL13_04HL: Hahn, L. D. (2004). Primary stress and intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223. TESOL14_04LD: Liu, D., Ahn, G. S., Beak, K. S., & Han, N. O. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers' code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605-638. TESOL15_04LJ: Liu, J. (2004). Effects of comic strips on L2 learners' reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 225-243. TESOL16_04MA: Simon-Maeda, A. (2004). The complex construction of professional identities: Female EFL educators in Japan speak out. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 405-436. TESOL17_04MN: Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603. 162 TESOL18_04RJ: Reeves, J. (2004)."Like everybody else": Equalizing educational opportunity for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 43-66. TESOL19_04SM: Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M., & Oteiza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 67-93. 2003 (10 articles) TESOL20_03FS: Frazier, S. (2003). A corpus analysis of would-clauses without adjacent If-clauses. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 443-466. TESOL21_03GP: Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273. TESOL22_03GPY: Gu, P. Y. (2003). Fine brush and freehand: The vocabulary-learning art of two successful Chinese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 73-104. TESOL23_03KG: Kennedy, G. (2003). Amplifier collocations in the British National Corpus: Implications for English language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 467-487. TESOL24_03KJ: Ko, J., Schallert, D. L., & Walters, K. (2003). Rethinking scaffolding: Examining negotiation of meaning in an ESL storytelling task. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 303-324. TESOL25_03KL: Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home language and beliefs about reading affect the behaviors of "Underprepared" L2 college readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 35-71. TESOL26_03LA: Lazaraton, A. (2003). Incidental displays of cultural knowledge in the nonnative-English-speaking teacher's classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 213-245. 163 TESOL27_03NH: Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645-670. TESOL28_03PE: Platt, E., Harper, C., & Mendoza, M. B. (2003). Dueling philosophies: Inclusion or separation for Florida's English language learners? TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 105-133. TESOL29_03SR: Simpson, R., & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 419-441. 2002 (4 articles): TESOL30_02HZ: Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572. TESOL31_02MR: Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, S. F., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian. (2002). The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 173-190. TESOL32_02PI: Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002) Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. TESOL33_02TC: Turner, C. E., & Upshur, J. A. (2002). Rating scales derived from student samples: Effects of the scale maker and the student sample on scale content and student scores. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 49-70. 2001 (7 articles) TESOL34_01ER: Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432. TESOL35_01LI: Leki, I. (2001). "A narrow thinking system": Nonnative-English-speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 39-67. 164 TESOL36_01LJ: Littlemore, J. (2001). Metaphoric competence: A language learning strength of students with a holistic cognitive style? TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 459-491. TESOL37_01OS: Oh, S. Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69-96. TESOL38_01PL: Pickering, L. (2001). The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 233-255. TESOL39_01SA Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 433-457. TESOL40_01YC: Youngs, S. C., & Youngs, G. A. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers' attitudes toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 97-120. 165 Appendix E The Top 101-477 AWL Word-forms in the ALC Top 101-200 AWL Word-forms in ALC Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of word-form Sublist Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of word-form Sublist 101 method method 360 1 151 perspective perspective 250 5 102 occur occur 360 1 152 grade grade 249 7 103 communicative communicate 359 4 153 instructors instruct 248 6 104 adult adult 355 7 154 investigate investigate 248 4 105 access access 352 4 155 passive passive 248 9 106 selected select 351 2 156 assumed assume 244 1 107 design design 340 2 157 significance significant 242 1 108 final final 337 2 158 designed design 240 2 109 interactions interact 330 3 159 percentage percent 239 1 110 consistent consist 327 1 160 resources resource 239 2 111 obtained obtain 325 2 161 conclusion conclude 237 2 112 identify identify 324 1 162 constraints constrain 237 3 113 affect affect 323 2 163 structural structure 236 1 114 issue issue 323 1 164 defined define 235 1 115 specifically specific 323 1 165 framework framework 235 3 116 procedure proceed 321 1 166 similarly similar 233 1 117 potential potential 320 2 167 elements element 232 2 118 furthermore furthermore 319 6 168 hence hence 232 4 119 sources source 319 1 169 visual visual 232 8 120 status status 318 4 170 computer compute 231 2 121 empirical empirical 316 7 171 methods method 230 1 122 variation vary 315 1 172 area area 228 1 123 issues issue 311 1 173 predicted predict 227 4 124 theoretical theory 304 1 174 source source 227 1 125 environment environment 299 1 175 researcher research 226 1 126 output output 299 4 176 previously previous 224 2 127 prior prior 299 4 177 topics topic 222 7 128 investigation investigate 297 4 178 majority major 221 1 129 period period 296 1 179 demonstrated demonstrate 220 3 130 hypotheses hypothesis 293 4 180 areas area 217 1 166 131 perceived perceive 293 2 181 sequence sequence 216 3 132 indicates indicate 285 1 182 individuals individual 215 1 133 occurred occur 282 1 183 assigned assign 214 6 134 reliability rely 281 3 184 instance instance 214 3 135 contextual context 278 1 185 component component 213 3 136 despite despite 271 4 186 involves involve 211 1 137 construction construct 270 2 187 requires require 211 1 138 construct construct 268 2 188 approaches approach 210 1 139 major major 267 1 189 internal internal 210 4 140 consisted consist 265 1 190 interpretations interpret 210 1 141 abstract abstract 264 6 191 assume 167 Top 201-300 AWL Word-forms in ALC Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of word-form Sublist Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of word-form Sublist 201 participation participate 196 2 251 equivalent equivalent 154 5 202 indicating indicate 195 1 252 orientation orient 154 5 203 assumption assume 193 1 253 proportion proportion 154 3 204 require require 193 1 254 varied vary 154 1 205 coded code 192 4 255 conclusions conclude 153 2 206 goal goal 191 4 256 sufficient sufficient 153 3 207 qualitative qualitative 191 9 257 create create 152 1 208 subsequent subsequent 190 4 258 identical identical 152 7 209 occurs occur 188 1 259 ensure ensure 151 3 210 underlying underlie 188 6 260 goals goal 151 4 211 distribution distribute 186 1 261 reveal reveal 151 6 212 interpreted interpret 185 1 262 distinct distinct 150 2 213 phenomenon phenomenon 185 7 263 accurately accurate 149 6 214 criteria criteria 183 3 264 consistently consist 149 1 215 primarily primary 182 2 265 corresponding correspond 148 3 216 somewhat somewhat 182 7 266 concept concept 147 1 217 components component 179 3 267 via via 147 8 218 perception perceive 179 2 268 considerable considerable 146 3 219 project project 178 4 269 constructed construct 146 2 220 survey survey 177 2 270 core core 145 3 221 involve involve 175 1 271 consequently consequent 144 2 222 summary summary 174 4 272 aware aware 142 5 223 validity valid 174 3 273 crucial crucial 142 8 224 evaluation evaluate 173 2 274 reliable rely 142 3 225 identification identify 173 1 275 initially initial 141 3 226 respondents respond 173 1 276 options option 141 4 227 series series 172 4 277 scope scope 141 6 228 confirmed confirm 171 7 278 statistics statistic 141 4 229 concepts concept 170 1 279 variability vary 139 1 230 approximately approximate 168 4 280 nevertheless nevertheless 138 6 231 comments comment 168 3 281 focusing focus 135 2 232 instructions instruct 168 6 282 alternative alternative 134 3 168 233 sections section 166 1 283 motivated motive 134 6 234 established establish 165 1 284 participated participate 134 2 235 predictions predict 165 4 285 selection select 134 2 236 traditional tradition 165 2 286 parallel parallel 133 4 237 contribute contribute 164 3 287 conclude conclude 132 2 238 domain domain 164 6 288 demonstrate demonstrate 132 3 239 exposed expose 164 5 289 establish establish 132 1 240 style style 164 5 290 generated generate 130 5 241 global globe 163 7 291 predict predict 130 4 242 authors author 160 6 292 interpret interpret 129 1 243 explicitly explicit 159 6 293 interpretive interpret 129 1 244 phase phase 159 4 294 contact contact 128 5 245 illustrated illustrate 158 3 295 infer infer 128 7 246 principle principle 157 1 296 assumptions assume 127 1 247 assess assess 156 4 297 contribution contribute 127 3 248 methodology method 156 1 298 facilitate facilitate 127 5 249 concluded conclude 155 2 299 stress stress 127 4 250 created create 155 1 300 randomly random 126 8 169 Top 301-400 AWL Word-forms in ALC Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of word-form Sublist Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of word-form Sublist 301 assessed assess 125 1 351 maximum maximise 100 3 302 contrasts contrast 124 4 352 participate participate 99 2 303 vary vary 124 1 353 hierarchy hierarchy 98 7 304 apparent apparent 123 4 354 outcomes outcome 98 3 305 derived derive 123 1 355 obvious obvious 97 4 306 identifying identify 122 1 356 percentages percent 97 1 307 restricted restrict 122 2 357 select select 97 2 308 adults adult 121 7 358 shift shift 97 3 309 displayed display 121 6 359 contributed contribute 96 3 310 evident evident 121 1 360 preceding precede 95 6 311 apparently apparent 120 4 361 random random 95 8 312 emerged emerge 119 4 362 confirm confirm 94 7 313 link link 119 3 363 implies imply 94 3 314 network network 119 5 364 accompanied accompany 93 8 315 option option 119 4 365 illustrate illustrate 92 3 316 external external 118 5 366 dynamic dynamic 91 7 317 element element 117 2 367 interact interact 91 3 318 instructed instruct 117 6 368 presumably presume 91 6 319 potentially potential 117 2 369 consisting consist 90 1 320 roles role 117 1 370 consists consist 90 1 321 sum sum 117 4 371 encounter encounter 90 10 322 format format 114 9 372 ranging range 90 2 323 linked link 114 3 373 display display 89 6 324 achieve achieve 113 2 374 indication indicate 89 1 325 investigating investigate 113 4 375 similarity similar 89 1 326 logical logic 113 5 376 affects affect 88 2 327 respond respond 113 1 377 norms norm 88 9 328 responded respond 112 1 378 thereby thereby 88 8 329 cited cite 111 6 379 evaluated evaluate 87 2 330 insights insight 111 9 380 reaction react 87 3 331 achieved achieve 110 2 381 requirements require 86 1 332 assignment assign 110 6 382 aid aid 85 7 170 333 excluded exclude 110 3 383 Appropriately appropriate 85 2 334 requirement require 110 1 384 bias bias 85 8 335 dimension dimension 109 4 385 links link 85 3 336 encountered encounter 109 10 386 methodological method 85 1 337 environments environment 109 1 387 positively positive 85 2 338 theories theory 109 1 388 obtain obtain 84 2 339 varying vary 108 1 389 brief brief 83 6 340 consistency consist 107 1 390 minimal minimal 83 9 341 occurrence occur 107 1 391 theme theme 83 8 342 ranged range 107 2 392 likewise likewise 82 10 343 sequences sequence 107 3 393 considerably considerable 81 3 344 acquiring acquire 106 2 394 distributed distribute 81 1 345 illustrates illustrate 105 3 395 exclusively exclude 81 3 346 attributed attribute 104 4 396 ongoing ongoing 81 10 347 occurring occur 103 1 397 reveals reveal 81 6 348 deviations deviate 102 8 398 availability available 80 1 349 rely rely 102 3 399 contrary contrary 80 7 350 exhibit exhibit 100 8 400 inherent inherent 80 9 171 Top AWL 401-477 Word-forms in ALC Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of word-form Sublist Rank Word-form Headword of Word Family Frequency of word-form Sublist 401 targeted target 80 5 451 nonetheless nonetheless 63 10 402 normal normal 79 2 452 inappropriate appropriate 62 2 403 requiring require 79 1 453 adapted adapt 61 7 404 revised revise 79 8 454 creating create 61 1 405 similarities similar 79 1 455 resolved resolve 61 4 406 challenges challenge 78 5 456 ultimately ultimate 61 7 407 incorporated incorporate 78 6 457 imply imply 60 3 408 involvement involve 78 1 458 interpreting interpret 60 1 409 focuses focus 77 2 459 institutions institute 59 2 410 normally normal 77 2 460 computed compute 58 2 411 trend trend 77 5 461 empirically empirical 58 7 412 precisely precise 76 5 462 solely sole 58 7 413 relevance relevant 76 2 463 attributable attribute 57 4 414 subordinate subordinate 76 9 464 establishing establish 57 1 415 unique unique 76 7 465 implication implicate 56 4 416 consequence consequent 75 2 466 isolation isolate 56 7 417 occurrences occur 75 1 467 plus plus 56 8 418 subsequently subsequent 75 4 468 insight insight 55 9 419 participating participate 74 2 469 overlap overlap 55 9 420 obviously obvious 73 4 470 sufficiently sufficient 55 3 421 capacity capacity 72 5 471 variations vary 55 1 422 enable enable 72 5 472 contributes contribute 53 3 423 objective objective 72 5 473 integration integrate 53 4 424 structured structure 72 1 474 removed remove 53 3 425 consequences consequent 71 2 475 correspond correspond 51 3 426 preliminary preliminary 71 9 476 consist consist 50 1 427 constructing construct 70 2 477 deviation deviate 50 8 428 evaluate evaluate 70 2 478 429 precise precise 70 5 479 430 technique technique 70 3 480 431 comment comment 69 3 481 432 site site 69 2 482 172 433 stable stable 69 5 483 434 tape tape 69 6 484 435 colleagues colleague 68 10 485 436 evidenced evident 68 1 486 437 transferred transfer 68 2 487 438 assessing assess 67 1 488 439 challenge challenge 67 5 489 440 consensus consent 67 3 490 441 fundamental fundamental 67 5 491 442 constitutes constitute 66 1 492 443 circumstances circumstance 65 3 493 444 individually individual 65 1 494 445 demonstrates demonstrate 64 3 495 446 documented document 64 3 496 447 incorporate incorporate 64 6 497 448 investigates investigate 64 4 498 449 rejected reject 64 5 499 450 assumes assume 63 1 500 173 Appendix F Word Families of the 477 AWL Word-forms in the ALC Rank Headword of Family Family_freq. Word-form Word-form rank Word-form freq. participants 2 2846 participant 88 417 participation 201 196 participated 284 134 participate 352 99 1 participate 3766 participating 419 74 research 1 2895 researchers 45 615 2 research 3736 researcher 175 226 task 4 2316 3 task 3319 tasks 19 1003 significant 5 1994 significantly 27 847 4 significant 3083 significance 157 242 strategies 6 1919 5 strategy 2710 strategy 30 791 context 12 1518 contexts 28 838 6 context 2634 contextual 135 278 processing 14 1227 process 21 951 7 process 2611 processes 85 433 acquisition 7 1900 acquired 97 371 acquire 198 197 8 acquire 2574 acquiring 344 106 variables 34 759 variable 67 486 variance 87 421 variation 122 315 varied 254 154 9 vary 2561 variability 279 139 174 vary 303 124 varying 339 108 variations 471 55 10 data 2451 data 3 2451 items 8 1829 11 item 2444 item 44 615 analysis 9 1803 12 analyse 2343 analyses 57 540 text 11 1601 13 text 2313 texts 37 712 structure 20 989 structures 46 607 structural 163 236 14 structure 1904 structured 424 72 15 found 1799 found 10 1799 responses 40 679 response 43 621 respondents 226 173 respond 327 113 16 respond 1698 responded 328 112 features 16 1094 17 feature 1563 feature 77 469 target 13 1469 18 target 1549 targeted 401 80 focus 25 870 focused 84 435 focusing 281 135 19 focus 1517 focuses 409 77 indicated 65 494 indicate 80 450 indicates 132 285 indicating 202 195 20 indicate 1513 indication 374 89 interaction 18 1074 interactions 109 330 21 interact 1495 interact 367 91 175 instruction 22 943 instructors 153 248 instructions 232 168 22 instruct 1476 instructed 318 117 interpretation 38 708 interpretations 190 210 interpreted 212 185 interpret 292 129 interpretive 293 129 23 interpret 1421 interpreting 458 60 factors 29 814 24 factor 1413 factor 49 599 similar 23 937 similarly 166 233 similarity 375 89 25 similar 1338 similarities 405 79 categories 39 699 26 category 1303 category 47 604 evidence 15 1099 evident 310 121 27 evident 1288 evidenced 436 68 functional 60 514 function 78 465 28 function 1239 functions 144 260 involved 62 508 involving 150 251 involves 186 211 involve 221 175 29 involve 1223 involvement 408 78 required 63 503 requires 187 211 require 204 193 requirement 334 110 requirements 381 86 30 require 1182 requiring 403 79 31 hypothesis 1144 hypothesis 26 851 176 hypotheses 130 293 complex 42 658 32 complex 1128 complexity 75 470 consistent 110 327 consisted 140 265 consistently 264 149 consistency 340 107 consisting 369 90 consists 370 90 33 consist 1117 consist 476 50 occur 102 360 occurred 133 282 occurs 209 188 occurrence 341 107 occurring 347 103 34 occur 1115 occurrences 417 75 specific 32 760 35 specific 1083 specifically 115 323 investigated 100 360 investigation 128 297 investigate 154 248 investigating 325 113 36 investigate 1082 investigates 448 64 37 input 1078 input 17 1078 individual 31 779 individuals 182 215 38 individual 1059 individually 444 65 role 24 936 39 role 1053 roles 320 117 identical 258 152 identified 98 365 identify 112 324 identification 225 173 40 identify 984 identifying 306 122 clause 69 485 41 clause 936 clauses 79 451 177 accuracy 64 499 accurate 142 262 42 accurate 910 accurately 263 149 theory 83 439 theoretical 124 304 theories 338 109 43 theory 901 theoretically* 481 49 errors 61 508 44 error 883 error 96 375 explicit 36 717 45 explicit 876 explicitly 243 159 aspects 76 469 46 aspect 871 aspect 92 402 assumed 156 244 assume 191 208 assumption 203 193 assumptions 296 127 47 assume 835 assumes 450 63 method 101 360 methods 171 230 methodology 248 156 48 method 831 methodological 386 85 previous 51 595 49 previous 819 previously 176 224 finally 82 448 50 final 785 final 108 337 statistically 95 376 statistical 143 262 51 statistic 779 statistics 278 141 approach 54 563 52 approach 773 approaches 188 210 53 whereas 760 whereas 33 760 contrast 50 598 contrasts 302 124 54 contrast 755 contrasting* 498 33 55 construct 754 construction 137 270 178 construct 138 268 constructed 269 146 constructing 427 70 communication 94 391 56 communicate 750 communicative 103 359 57 academy 732 academic 35 732 awareness 53 573 58 aware 715 aware 272 142 version 81 449 59 version 708 versions 145 259 topic 70 476 60 topic 698 topics 177 222 range 66 491 ranged 342 107 61 range 688 ranging 372 90 revealed 90 411 reveal 261 151 62 reveal 682 reveals 397 81 section 59 516 63 section 682 sections 233 166 conclusion 161 237 concluded 249 155 conclusions 255 153 64 conclude 677 conclude 287 132 positive 52 589 65 positive 674 positively 387 85 66 overall 670 overall 41 670 motivation 58 523 67 motive 657 motivated 283 134 issue 114 323 68 issue 634 issues 123 311 appropriate 68 485 appropriately 383 85 69 appropriate 632 inappropriate 452 62 selected 106 351 70 select 629 selection 285 134 179 select 357 97 selecting* 485 47 initial 74 471 71 initial 612 initially 275 141 affect 113 323 affected 199 197 72 affect 608 affects 376 88 73 negate 603 negative 48 603 design 107 340 74 design 580 designed 158 240 exposure 89 412 75 expose 576 exposed 239 164 76 tense 560 tense 55 560 available 71 475 77 available 555 availability 398 80 78 gender 549 gender 56 549 relevant 72 473 79 relevant 549 relevance 413 76 sources 119 319 80 source 546 source 174 227 transfer 73 473 81 transfer 541 transferred 437 68 reliability 134 281 reliable 274 142 82 rely 525 rely 349 102 procedure 116 321 83 proceed 523 procedures 194 202 predicted 173 227 predictions 235 165 84 predict 522 predict 291 130 concepts 229 170 85 concept 519 concept 266 147 major 139 267 86 major 488 majority 178 221 adult 104 355 87 adult 476 adults 308 121 180 perceived 131 293 88 perceive 472 perception 218 179 instances 149 252 89 instance 466 instance 184 214 area 172 228 90 area 445 areas 180 217 contribute 237 164 contribution 297 127 contributed 359 96 91 contribute 440 contributes 472 53 primary 146 258 92 primary 440 primarily 215 182 potential 117 320 93 potential 437 potentially 319 117 defined 164 235 94 define 436 definition 195 201 95 intermediate 427 intermediate 86 427 demonstrated 179 220 demonstrate 288 132 96 demonstrate 416 demonstrates 445 64 obtained 111 325 97 obtain 409 obtain 388 84 environment 125 299 98 environment 408 environments 337 109 distinction 148 256 99 distinct 406 distinct 262 150 100 conduct 405 conducted 91 405 access 105 352 101 access 401 accessible 478 49 102 implicit 398 implicit 93 398 component 185 213 103 component 392 components 217 179 criterion 192 207 104 criteria 390 criteria 214 183 empirical 121 316 105 empirical 374 empirically 461 58 181 created 250 155 create 257 152 106 create 368 creating 454 61 107 append 362 appendix 99 362 principles 197 201 108 principle 358 Principle 246 157 illustrated 245 158 illustrates 345 105 109 illustrate 355 illustrate 365 92 established 234 165 establish 289 132 110 establish 354 establishing 464 57 elements 167 232 111 element 349 element 317 117 assess 247 156 assessed 301 125 112 assess 348 assessing 438 67 goal 206 191 113 goal 342 goals 260 151 percentage 159 239 114 percent 336 percentages 356 97 evaluation 224 173 evaluated 379 87 115 evaluate 330 evaluate 428 70 assigned 183 214 116 assign 324 assignment 332 110 sequence 181 216 117 sequence 323 sequences 343 107 118 furthermore 319 furthermore 118 319 link 313 119 linked 323 114 119 link 318 links 385 85 120 status 318 status 120 318 121 output 299 output 126 299 122 prior 299 prior 127 299 123 period 296 period 129 296 182 consequently 271 144 consequence 416 75 124 consequent 290 consequences 425 71 computer 170 231 125 compute 289 computed 460 58 126 despite 271 despite 136 271 distribution 211 186 127 distribute 267 distributed 394 81 confirmed 228 171 128 confirm 265 confirm 362 94 subsequent 208 190 129 subsequent 265 subsequently 418 75 130 abstract 264 abstract 141 264 options 276 141 131 option 260 option 315 119 displayed 309 121 display 373 89 132 display 259 displays* 479 49 133 mental 257 mental 147 257 implications 200 197 134 implicate 253 implication 465 56 135 perspective 250 perspective 151 250 136 grade 249 grade 152 249 137 passive 248 passive 155 248 apparent 304 123 138 apparent 243 apparently 311 120 139 resource 239 resources 160 239 comments 231 168 140 comment 237 comment 431 69 141 constrain 237 constraints 162 237 142 framework 235 framework 165 235 143 hence 232 hence 168 232 144 visual 232 visual 169 232 considerable 268 146 145 considerable 227 considerably 393 81 achieve 324 113 146 achieve 223 achieved 331 110 183 randomly 300 126 147 random 221 random 361 95 148 internal 210 internal 189 210 sufficient 256 153 149 sufficient 208 sufficiently 470 55 150 notion 201 notion 196 201 corresponding 265 148 151 correspond 199 correspond 475 51 encountered 336 109 152 encounter 199 encounter 371 90 153 code 192 coded 205 192 excluded 333 110 154 exclude 191 exclusively 395 81 155 qualitative 191 qualitative 207 191 156 underlie 188 underlying 210 188 157 phenomenon 185 phenomenon 213 185 158 somewhat 182 somewhat 216 182 159 project 178 project 219 178 160 survey 177 survey 220 177 stress 299 127 161 stress 174 stressed* 486 47 162 summary 174 summary 222 174 163 valid 174 validity 223 174 164 series 172 series 227 172 obvious 355 97 165 obvious 170 obviously 420 73 166 approximate 168 approximately 230 168 insights 330 111 167 insight 166 insight 468 55 168 tradition 165 traditional 236 165 169 domain 164 domain 238 164 170 style 164 style 240 164 171 globe 163 global 241 163 attributed 346 104 172 attribute 161 attributable 463 57 173 author 160 authors 242 160 174 phase 159 phase 244 159 184 normal 402 79 175 normal 156 normally 410 77 176 equivalent 154 equivalent 251 154 implies 363 94 177 imply 154 imply 457 60 178 orient 154 orientation 252 154 179 proportion 154 proportion 253 154 deviations 348 102 180 deviate 152 deviation 477 50 181 identical 152 identical 258 152 182 ensure 151 ensure 259 151 183 via 147 via 267 147 precisely 412 76 184 precise 146 precise 429 70 challenges 406 78 185 challenge 145 challenge 439 67 186 core 145 core 270 145 187 crucial 142 crucial 273 142 incorporated 407 78 188 incorporate 142 incorporate 447 64 189 scope 141 scope 277 141 190 nevertheless 138 nevertheless 280 138 191 alternative 134 alternative 282 134 192 parallel 133 parallel 286 133 193 generate 130 generated 290 130 194 contact 128 contact 294 128 195 infer 128 infer 295 128 196 facilitate 127 facilitate 298 127 197 derive 123 derived 305 123 198 restrict 122 restricted 307 122 199 emerge 119 emerged 312 119 200 network 119 network 314 119 201 external 118 external 316 118 202 sum 117 sum 321 117 203 format 114 format 322 114 204 logic 113 logical 326 113 205 cite 111 cited 329 111 185 206 dimension 109 dimension 335 109 207 exhibit 100 exhibit 350 100 208 maximise 100 maximum 351 100 209 hierarchy 98 hierarchy 353 98 isolation 466 56 210 isolate 98 isolated* 492 42 211 outcome 98 outcomes 354 98 212 shift 97 shift 358 97 213 precede 95 preceding 360 95 214 accompany 93 accompanied 364 93 215 dynamic 91 dynamic 366 91 216 presume 91 presumably 368 91 217 norm 88 norms 377 88 218 thereby 88 thereby 378 88 219 react 87 reaction 380 87 220 aid 85 aid 382 85 221 bias 85 bias 384 85 222 brief 83 brief 389 83 223 minimal 83 minimal 390 83 224 theme 83 theme 391 83 225 likewise 82 likewise 392 82 226 ongoing 81 ongoing 396 81 227 contrary 80 contrary 399 80 228 inherent 80 inherent 400 80 229 revise 79 revised 404 79 230 trend 77 trend 411 77 231 subordinate 76 subordinate 414 76 232 unique 76 unique 415 76 233 capacity 72 capacity 421 72 234 enable 72 enable 422 72 235 objective 72 objective 423 72 236 preliminary 71 preliminary 426 71 237 technique 70 technique 430 70 238 site 69 site 432 69 239 stable 69 stable 433 69 240 tape 69 tape 434 69 241 colleague 68 colleagues 435 68 186 242 consent 67 consensus 440 67 243 fundamental 67 fundamental 441 67 244 constitute 66 constitutes 442 66 245 circumstance 65 circumstances 443 65 246 document 64 documented 446 64 247 reject 64 rejected 449 64 248 nonetheless 63 nonetheless 451 63 249 adapt 61 adapted 453 61 250 resolve 61 resolved 455 61 251 ultimate 61 ultimately 456 61 252 institute 59 institutions 459 59 253 sole 58 solely 562 58 254 plus 56 plus 467 56 255 overlap 55 overlap 469 55 256 integrate 53 integration 473 53 257 remove 53 removed 474 53 Note. * means the word is not included in the top 477 AWL word-forms 187 Appendix G Specific Rhetorical Functions for Four-word Lexical Bundles Lexical bundle (freq.) Function Frequency Percentage (%) I1 3 16 44 I1 2 10 28 I3 1 6 16 I3 3 1 3 I2 2 1 3 I2 4 1 3 in the context of (36) I2 1 1 3 I1 3 3 43 the contexts in which (7) I3 1 4 57 I1 3 21 70 I1 2 2 7 I3 1 5 17 I2 2 1 3 in the acquisition of (30) I2 3 1 3 I1 3 20 74 I2 2 3 11 on the acquisition of (27) I3 1 4 15 I1 3 13 50 I1 2 7 27 I1 1 2 8 in second language acquisition (26) I3 1 4 15 I1 3 16 59 I1 2 5 19 I2 2 1 3 of second language acquisition (27) I3 1 5 19 I1 3 13 45 I1 2 11 38 in the target language (29) I3 1 5 17 I1 3 17 74 I1 2 2 9 of the target language (23) I3 1 4 17 I1 3 12 54 I1 2 3 14 in the process of (22) I2 2 2 9 188 I3 1 5 23 I1 3 16 89 an important role in (18) I3 1 2 11 I1 3 12 67 I1 2 2 11 I1 1 1 5 the role of the I3 1 3 17 I1 3 8 42 I1 2 1 5 I2 2 7 38 I2 3 1 5 I3 1 1 5 on the role of (19) I3 3 1 5 I1 3 15 83 I1 1 1 6 of the role of (18) I3 1 2 11 I1 3 11 92 play an important role (12) I3 1 1 8 research has shown that (10) I1 3 10 100 M6 24 55 M7 16 36 M2 3 7 participants were asked to (44) M8 1 2 M7 5 56 M2 2 22 half of the participants (9) M6 2 22 M6 5 50 participants were told that (10) M7 5 50 M1 5 33 M7 4 27 M10 2 13 M2 2 13 M5 1 7 the focus of the (15) M6 1 7 M6 4 37 M2 3 27 M1 2 18 M3 1 9 the data were collected (11) M7 1 9 189 M7 3 42 M8 2 29 the number of items (7) M9 2 29 R2 30 79 R3 1 4 10 R3 3 1 3 R4 2 5 significant difference between the (38) R1 1 3 R2 43 98 significant main effect for (44) R3 1 1 2 R2 22 84 R3 1 2 8 there was no significant (26) R4 2 8 no significant difference was (13) R2 13 100 statistically significant in the R2 9 100 R2 19 90 was found to be (21) R1 2 10 significant difference was found (18) R2 18 100 effect was found for (10) R2 10 100 R2 5 83 these results indicate that R3 1 1 17 research is needed to (9) D7 2 9 100 D4 1 6 46 D4 2 3 23 D2 2 15 D3 1 8 similar to that of (13) D7 2 1 8