Genre-specific features of second language speech: connectives in exposition and narration

References

Anderson, John Robert. 1995. Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar

Benoit, Kenneth. 2018. quanteda: Quantitative analysis of textual data. R package version 0.99.22. Available at: http://quanteda.io.Search in Google Scholar

Berman, Ruth A. & Dan Isaac Slobin. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Bhatia, V. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London, UK: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Bi, Peng. 2020. Revisiting genre effects on linguistic features of L2 writing: A usage-based perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 30(3). 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12297.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, D. 1999. A register perspective on grammar and discourse: Variability in the form and use of English complement clauses. Discourse Studies 1. 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001002001.Search in Google Scholar

Bolton, Kingsley, Gerald Nelson & Joseph Hung. 2002. A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing: Research from the International Corpus of English in Hong Kong (ICE-HK). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2). 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.7.2.02bol.Search in Google Scholar

Brezina, Vaclav & Miriam Meyerhoff. 2014. Significant or random. A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19. 1–28.10.1075/ijcl.19.1.01breSearch in Google Scholar

Bruner, Jerome. 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674029019Search in Google Scholar

Canestrelli, Anneloes, Williem M. Mak & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2013. Causal connectives in discourse processing: How differences in subjectivity are reflected in eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes 28. 1394–1413. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685885.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Cheryl Wei-yu. 2006. The use of conjunctive adverbials in the academic papers of advanced Taiwanese EFL learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(1). 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.1.05che.Search in Google Scholar

Crewe, William J. 1990. The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal 44(4). 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.316.Search in Google Scholar

Crossley, Scott A., Kristopher Kyle & Mihai Dascalu. 2019. The tool for the automatic analysis of cohesion 2.0: Integrating semantic similarity and text overlap. Behavioral Research Methods 51. 14–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1142-4.Search in Google Scholar

Crossley, Scott A. & Danielle S. McNamara. 2012. Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading 35(2). 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x.Search in Google Scholar

Driscoll, Dana Lynn, Joseph Paszek, Gwen Gorzelsky, Carol L. Hayes & Edmund Jones. 2020. Genre knowledge and writing development: Results from the writing transfer project. Written Communication 37(1). 69–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319882313.Search in Google Scholar

Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Ted Sanders. 2009. The emergence of Dutch connectives; how cumulative cognitive complexity explains the order of acquisition. Journal of Child Language 36(4). 829–854. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000908009227.Search in Google Scholar

Gao, Xia. 2016. A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers’ use of linking adverbials in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24. 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.08.002.Search in Google Scholar

Goh, Christine. 2016. Teaching speaking. In Willy A. Renandya & Handoyo Puji Widodo (eds.), English language teaching today. Linking theory and practice, 143–159. Bern, Switzerland: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Goh, Christine & Anne Burns. 2012. Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Graesser, Arthur C., Keith K. Millis & Rolf A. Zwaan. 1997. Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology 48(1). 163–189.10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163Search in Google Scholar

Ha, Myung-Jeong. 2016. Linking adverbials in first-year Korean university EFL learners’ writing: A corpus-informed analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning 29(6). 1090–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1068814.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Heng, Renquan, Liping Pu & Xing Liu. 2023. The effects of genre on the lexical richness of argumentative and expository writing by Chinese EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology 13. 8545. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1082228.Search in Google Scholar

Hwang, Haerim, Hyeyoung Jung & Hyunwoo Kim. 2020. Effects of written versus spoken production modalities on syntactic complexity measures in beginning-level child EFL learners. The Modern Language Journal 104. 267–283. http://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12626.10.1111/modl.12626Search in Google Scholar

Kegley, Pamela H. 1986. The effect of mode discourse on student writing performance: Implications for policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 8(2). 147–154. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737008002147.Search in Google Scholar

Kellogg, Ronald T. 1996. A model of working memory in writing. In C. Michael Levy & Sarah Ransdell (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications, 57–71. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Kleijn, Suzanne, Henk L. W. Pander Maat & Ted J. M. Sanders. 2019. Comprehension effects of connectives across texts, readers, and coherence relations. Discourse Processes 56(5-6). 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2019.1605257.Search in Google Scholar

Kormos, Judit. 2011. Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 20(2). 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001.Search in Google Scholar

Kormos, Judit. 2014. Differences across modalities of performance. In Heidi Byrnes & Rosa M. Manchón (eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing, 193–216. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.7.08korSearch in Google Scholar

Lei, Lei. 2012. Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics by Chinese doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(3). 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.003.Search in Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lu, Xiaofei. 2011. A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. Tesol Quarterly 45(1). 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859.Search in Google Scholar

Mostafa, Tamanna & Scott A. Crossley. 2020. Verb argument construction complexity indices and L2 writing quality: Effects of writing tasks and prompts. Journal of Second Language Writing 49. 100730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100730.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Allen & Herbert Alexander Simon. 1972. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Pu, Liping, Renquan Heng & Cong Cao. 2022. The effects of genre on the syntactic complexity of argumentative and expository writing by Chinese EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology 13. 1047117. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1047117.Search in Google Scholar

Qin, Wenjuan & Paola Uccelli. 2016. Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 33. 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.001.Search in Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.r-project.org/.Search in Google Scholar

Renandya, Willy A. & Minh Thi Thuy Nguyen. 2023. Teaching speaking in L2 contexts. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of practical second language teaching and learning, 269–280. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9781003106609-22Search in Google Scholar

Rhee, Seok-Chae & Chae Kwan Jung. 2012, March. Yonsei English Learner Corpus (YELC). Paper presented at the First Yonsei Corpus Symposium, Seoul, Korea.Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, Ted J. M., Wilbert P. M. Spooren & Leo G. M. Noordman. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15(1). 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544800.Search in Google Scholar

Scott, Mike. 1997. PC analysis of key words – And key key words. System 25(2). 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00011-0.Search in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 1996. Second-language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In Jane Willis & Dave Willis (eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching, 17–30. Oxford, UK: Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar

Spooren, Wilbert & Ted Sanders. 2008. The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40(12). 2003–2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021.Search in Google Scholar

Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Thornbury, Scott. 2005. Beyond the sentence: Introducing discourse analysis. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.Search in Google Scholar

Traxler, Matthew J., Anthony J. Sanford, Joy P. Aked & Linda M. Moxey. 1997. Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23. 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.1.88.Search in Google Scholar

Webber, B. 2009. Genre distinctions for discourse in the Penn TreeBank. Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP: Volume 2-Volume 2, 674–682. Suntec, Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1690219.1690240Search in Google Scholar

Weigle, Sara Cushing. 2002. Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511732997Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Weiwei. 2014. Mapping the relationships among the cognitive complexity of independent writing tasks, L2 writing quality, and complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 writing (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.Search in Google Scholar

Yıldız, Mine & Savaş Yeşilyurt. 2017. Effects of task planning and rhetorical mode of writing on lexical complexity, syntactic complexity, and overall writing quality of EFL writers’ task performance. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 13(2). 440–464.Search in Google Scholar

Yoon, Hyung-Jo. 2017. Investigating the interactions among genre, task complexity, and proficiency in L2 writing: A comprehensive text analysis and study of learner perceptions (unpublished PhD dissertation). East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.Search in Google Scholar

Yoon, Hyung‐Jo & Charlene Polio. 2017. The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. Tesol Quarterly 51(2). 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.296.Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, Fangyuan & Rod Ellis. 2003. The effects of pre‐task planning and on‐line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 24(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.1.Search in Google Scholar