Startseite Lexical and grammatical collocations in beginning and intermediate L2 argumentative essays: a bigram study
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Lexical and grammatical collocations in beginning and intermediate L2 argumentative essays: a bigram study

  • Detong Xia ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Yudi Chen und Hye K. Pae ORCID logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 18. März 2022
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
Aus der Zeitschrift International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Band 61 Heft 4

Abstract

Collocations play an important role in L2 learners’ fluent and idiomatic language production. Previous studies using a frequency-based approach to studying collocations underscored the potential to use association measures for distinguishing L2 writing proficiency. However, studies in this line have largely neglected the syntactic relation of words within a collocation. In addition, most L2 collocation studies have focused on learners at upper-intermediate levels and above, leaving the use of collocations by beginner-level learners understudied. Using the Yonsei English Language Corpus, this study investigated frequency (measured by normalized frequency and normalized deviance of proportions), formulaicity (measured by mutual information and t-scores), and diversity (measured by normalized entropy scores) of seven lexical collocations and four grammatical collocations in argumentative essays from beginning to upper-intermediate levels. Results showed that upper-intermediate L2 learners used more collocations with higher association strength and diversity than did beginning-level learners. In addition, collocations used by upper-intermediate learners were more idiomatic and suitable for L2 academic writing. The findings indicated that specific collocational patterns (i.e. adverb-verb and verb-preposition) could serve as reliable indicators of distinguishing beginning L2 writing from upper-intermediate L2 writing.

Keywords: CEFR; collocational patterns; frequency-based approach; L2 writing
Corresponding author: Detong Xia, School of Education, University of Cincinnati, 2600 Clifton Ave, 45220 Cincinnati, OH, USA, E-mail:

Funding source: CECH Graduate Student and Faculty Mentoring Grant

Appendix

Table A1:

Number (proportion) of essays by topic across proficiency levels.

Topic A2 B1 B2
1 Allowing physical punishment in schools 68 (15%) 57 (13%) 58 (13%)
2 Using animals in medical experiments 79 (18%) 52 (12%) 63 (14%)
3 Banning smoking in public buildings 43 (10%) 67 (15%) 62 (14%)
4 Using cellular phones while driving 59 (13%) 69 (15%) 58 (13%)
5 Compulsory military service 137 (30%) 136 (30%) 136 (30%)
6 Using real names on the internet 64 (14%) 69 (15%) 73 (16%)
Table A2:

The adjective-noun collocations in one A2-level essay and one B2-level essay.

A2 (essay ID: 2051; entropy = 0.79; word length = 302) B2 (essay ID: 1600; entropy = 1; word length = 304)
It’s absolutely right! Many people use cellular phone when they are driving car. The fact is proved at science and many test. I explain how dangerous using cellular phone when drivers drive their automobiles now. First, man can’t play many things at the same time . Drivers should concentrate on driving while drivers drive their cars. It’s most reasonable situation. But drivers can talk with their friends and family. But cellular phone needs a hand during driving. It’s very dangerous motion and can damage other’s car when car accident happens. A mistake of man can hurt lives of other people . Second, using cellular phone can deconcentrate man’s brain in many sciences test. It is proved by a USA science team many years ago. When drivers are holding cellular phones while they are driving, big accidents are going to happened, chance can rise sharply. I read it in newspaper long time ago, so I insist to not be allowed to use cellular phone for drivers. It was my opinion of using the cellular phone while driving. Now I give solutions of its problem. These days, cellular phone is very important things for social network . We can find people are using cellular phone easily at any place. Because people want to touch with other any times. While driving they can use device for busy people. That can attach to car’s inside and can hold cellular phone while driving. And earphones are also good way. If people use that, two hands are more free for driving. So people hear these advice carefully. It can reduce car accident more and more. But above all, people not using cellular phones is the most reasonable situation and I want people to understand and change their attention in good ways. Finally, I disagree using the cellular phones when drivers are driving their car. Yes, they should not. When I was young, my family were going to Gangneung for a trip. When we were in the Yongdong Highway, there was a big car accident at the left side . Luckily, we could escape the horrible accident . When we arrived at our hotel, we heard the news about the accident in our going to Gangneung. According to the news, the accident broke out for driver’s using cellular phones while driving a car. And after then I realized that using phones driving a car is very dangerous. So I talk about it with my father at that night. Like this, using a phone while driving a car is very dangerous. There are many reasons . First, when we use a cell phone, we take a lot of attention to it because we answer to the other side . But we must take attention when driving a car. So using a cell phone while driving makes our attention disturbed in two sides. And then, we can’t take attention in driving. So it can cause a car accident. This fact causes the second reason . For the second, when car accidents happen, it makes much destruction, many dead peoples and terrible traffic . So we must decrease the car speed to a low level to save our property and human lives and to increase the efficiency of our transportation system. But using a cellphone while driving can cause a lot of danger. So it causes many second hand effect like mentioned in the upper sentence. For these reasons, drivers of automobiles must not be allowed to use cellphones when they are diving. Regarding all reasons of car accident, it looks like a small part . But we must obey this rule to save our property for the position called the most leading transportation system country in the world.

  1. The adjective-noun collocations are bolded and underlined.

References

AlHassan, Lina & David Wood. 2015. The effectiveness of focused instruction of formulaic sequences in augmenting L2 learners’ academic writing skills: A quantitative research study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 17. 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Benson, Morton, Evelyn Benson & Robert F. Ilson. 1997. The BBI dictionary of English word combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.bbi1(2nd)Suche in Google Scholar

Bestgen, Yves. 2017. Beyond single-word measures: L2 writing assessment, lexical richness, and formulaic competence. System 69. 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.08.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Bestgen, Yves & Sylviane Granger. 2014. Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing 26. 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Suche in Google Scholar

Candarli, Daygu. 2021. A longitudinal study of multi-word constructions in L2 academic writing: The effects of frequency and dispersion. Reading and Writing 34(5). 1191–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10108-3.Suche in Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, Marianne & Diane Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course, 2nd edn. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Jianhua & Xiaopeng Zhang. 2022. L2 development of phraseological knowledge via a xu-argument based continuation task: A latent curve modeling approach. System 106. 102767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102767.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Yu-Hua & Paul Baker. 2016. Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics 37(6). 849–880.Suche in Google Scholar

Church, Kenneth Ward & Patrick Hanks. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics 16(1). 76–83.10.3115/981623.981633Suche in Google Scholar

Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences, 2nd edn. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2012. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 560 million words, 1990–2012. Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca.Suche in Google Scholar

Demir, Cüneyt. 2017. Lexical collocations in English: A comparative study of native and non-native scholars of English. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 13(1). 75–87.Suche in Google Scholar

Durrant, Philip & Norbert Schmitt. 2009. To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Egbert, Jesse, Tove Larsson & Biber Douglas. 2020. Doing linguistics with a corpus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108888790Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2008. Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learn-ing of constructions, learned-attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 372–405. New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. & Dave C. Ogden. 2017. Thinking about multiword constructions: Usage-based approaches to acquisition and processing. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3). 604–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12256.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., Rita Simpson-Vlach & Carson Maynard. 2008. Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 42(3). 375–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Evert, Stefan. 2009. Corpora and collocations. In Lüdeling Anke & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, 1212–1248. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213881.2.1212Suche in Google Scholar

Forsberg, Fanny & Inge Bartning. 2010. Can linguistic features discriminate between the communicative CEFR-levels?: A pilot study of written L2 French. In Inge Bartning, Maisa Martin & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research, 133–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Suche in Google Scholar

Gablasova, Dana, Vaclav Brezina & Tony McEnery. 2017. Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning 67(S1). 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225.Suche in Google Scholar

Garner, James. 2016. A phrase-frame approach to investigating phraseology in learner writing across proficiency levels. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(1). 31–67. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.02gar.Suche in Google Scholar

Garner, James. 2022. The cross-sectional development of verb-noun collocations as constructions in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60(3). 909–935. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2019-0169.Suche in Google Scholar

Garner, James, Crossley Scott & Kristopher Kyle. 2019. N-gram measures and L2 writing proficiency. System 80(2). 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Garner, James, Crossley Scott & Kristopher Kyle. 2020. Beginning and intermediate L2 writer’s use of n-grams: An association measures study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 58(1). 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0089.Suche in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 2005. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Granger, Sylviane. 2018. Formulaic sequences in learner corpora: Collocations and lexical bundles. In Anna Siyanova-Chanturia & Ana Pellicer-Sánchez (eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective, 228–247. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315206615-13Suche in Google Scholar

Granger, Sylviane & Magali Paquot. 2008. Disentangling the phraseological web. In Sylviane Granger & Fanny H. Meunier (eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective, 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.139.07graSuche in Google Scholar

Granger, Sylviane & Yves Bestgen. 2014. The use of collocations by intermediate versus advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 52(3). 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0011.Suche in Google Scholar

Granger, Sylviane & Yves Bestgen. 2018. Tracking L2 writers’ phraseological development using collgrams: Evidence from a longitudinal EFL corpus. In Sebastian Hoffmann, Andrea Sand, Sabine Arndt-Lappe & Lisa Marie Dillmann (eds.), Corpora and lexis, 277–301. Leiden & Boston: Brill.10.1163/9789004361133_011Suche in Google Scholar

Gray, Bethany & Douglas Biber. 2013. Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1). 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.08gra.Suche in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2008. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4). 403–437. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.02gri.Suche in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In Aquilino Sánchez & Moisés A. Sánchez (eds.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: Selected approaches, 269–291. Berlin: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Nick C. Ellis. 2015. Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning 65(S1). 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119.Suche in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. & Luna Filipović. 2012. Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the common European framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Henriksen, Birgit. 2013. Research on L2 learners collocational competence and development—a progress report. In Bardel Camilla, Christina Lindqvist & Laufer Batia (eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use: New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis, 29–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Suche in Google Scholar

Howarth, Peter. 2000. Reviews. International Journal of Lexicography 13(1). 50–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/13.1.50.Suche in Google Scholar

Kim, Susie. 2021. Generalizability of CEFR criterial grammatical features in a Korean EFL corpus across A1, A2, B1, and B2 levels. Language Assessment Quarterly 18(3). 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1855647.Suche in Google Scholar

Kremmel, Benjamin, Tineke Brunfaut & Charles Alderson. 2017. Exploring the role of phraseological knowledge in foreign language reading. Applied Linguistics 38(6). 848–870.Suche in Google Scholar

Laufer, Batia & Tina Waldman. 2011. Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning 61(2). 647–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00621.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Lei, Lei & Dilin Liu. 2018. The academic English collocation list. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 23(2). 216–243. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16135.lei.Suche in Google Scholar

Lenko-Szymanska, Agnieszka. 2014. The acquisition of formulaic language by EFL learners: A cross-sectional and cross-linguistic perspective. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(2). 225–251.10.1075/ijcl.19.2.04lenSuche in Google Scholar

Lijffijt, Jefrey & Stefan Th. Gries. 2012. Correction to Stefan Th. Gries’ “Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(1). 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.1.08lij.Suche in Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2003. The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics 24(2). 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.223.Suche in Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2004. Learner corpora and their potential in language teaching. In John Sinclair (ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching, 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/scl.12.11nesSuche in Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2005. Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/scl.14Suche in Google Scholar

Ohlrogge, Aaron. 2009. Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing assessment. In Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Ouali Hamid & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language (Volume 2): Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations, 375–385. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.83.07ohlSuche in Google Scholar

Paquot, Magali. 2014. Cross-linguistic influence and formulaic language. EUROSLA Yearbook 14. 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.14.10paq.Suche in Google Scholar

Paquot, Magali. 2018. Phraseological competence: A missing component in university entrance language tests? Insights from a study of EFL learners’ use of statistical collocations. Language Assessment Quarterly 15(1). 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2017.1405421.Suche in Google Scholar

Paquot, Magali. 2019. The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research. Second Language Research 35(1). 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317694221.Suche in Google Scholar

Paquot, Magali & Sylviane Granger. 2012. Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32. 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190512000098.Suche in Google Scholar

Paquot, Magali & Hubert Naets. 2015. Adopting a relational model of co-occurrences to trace phraseological development. Unpublished paper presented at the Third learner corpus research conference (LCR), Cuijk-Nijmegen.Suche in Google Scholar

Paquot, Magali, Hubert Naets & Stefan Th. Gries. 2020. Using syntactic co-occurrences to trace phraseological complexity development in learner writing: Verb + object structures in LONGDALE. In Bert Le Bruyn & Magali Paquot (eds.), Learner corpus research meets second language acquisition, 122–147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108674577.007Suche in Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew & Frances H. Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Jack C. Richards & Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication, 191–225. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Suche in Google Scholar

Rhee, Seok-Chae & Chae K. Jung. 2014. Compilation of the Yonsei English learner corpus (YELC) 2011 and its use for understanding current usage of English by Korean pre-university students. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 14(11). 1019–1029. https://doi.org/10.5392/jkca.2014.14.11.1019.Suche in Google Scholar

Salton, Gerard. 1989. Automatic text processing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Suche in Google Scholar

Schmid, Helmut. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing. 44–49.Suche in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John M. 1991. Corpus concordance collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna. 2015. Collocation in beginner learner writing: A longitudinal study. System 53. 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna & Stefania Spina. 2020. Multi-word expressions in second language writing: A large-scale longitudinal learner corpus study. Language Learning 70(2). 420–463.10.1111/lang.12383Suche in Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2(1). 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu.Suche in Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Texts, corpora, and problems of interpretation: A response to Widdowson. Applied Linguistics 22(2). 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.149.Suche in Google Scholar

Vedder, Ineke & Veronica Benigno. 2016. Lexical richness and collocational competence in second-language writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 54(1). 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0015.Suche in Google Scholar

Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519772Suche in Google Scholar

Wray, Alison. 2008. Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Wulff, Stefanie & Nick C. Ellis. 2018. Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In David T. Miller, Fatih Bayram, Jason Rothman & Ludovica Serratrice (eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields, 37–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Suche in Google Scholar

Xia, Detong, Haiyang Ai & Hye K. Pae. 2022. “Please let me know”: Lexical bundles in business emails by business English learners and working professionals. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 8(1). 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20019.xia.Suche in Google Scholar

Yoon, Hyung Jo. 2016. Association strength of verb-noun combinations in experienced NS and less experienced NNS writing: Longitudinal and cross-sectional findings. Journal of Second Language Writing 34. 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.11.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2021-08-06
Accepted: 2022-03-02
Published Online: 2022-03-18
Published in Print: 2023-11-27

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Investigating the impact of task complexity on uptake and noticing of corrective feedback recasts
  4. Consequences of the comparative fallacy for the acquisition of grammatical aspect in Spanish
  5. Incorporating peer feedback in writing instruction: examining its effects on Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ writing performance
  6. Listener engagement: the missing link in research on accented speech
  7. Enhancing English spatial prepositions acquisition among Spanish learners of English as L2 through an embodied approach
  8. Lexical and grammatical collocations in beginning and intermediate L2 argumentative essays: a bigram study
  9. When concept-based language instruction meets cognitive linguistics: teaching English phrasal verbs with up and out
  10. Validation of a multiple-choice implicature test: insights from Chinese EFL learners’ cognitive processes
  11. A longitudinal study of topic continuity in Chinese EFL learners’ written narratives
  12. Miscommunicated referent tracking in L2 English: a case-by-case analysis
  13. Rule-based or efficiency-driven processing of expletive there in English as a foreign language
  14. When are performance-approach goals more adaptive for Chinese EFL learners? It depends on their underlying reasons
  15. Teaching L2 Spanish idioms with semantic motivation: should this be done proactively or retroactively?
  16. Role of individual differences in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through listening to stories: metacognitive awareness and motivation
  17. Measuring and profiling Chinese secondary school English teachers’ language mindsets: an exploratory study of non-native teachers’ perceived L2 proficiency loss
  18. The role of working memory in the effects of models as a written corrective strategy
  19. Comparing motivational features between feedback givers and receivers in English speaking class
  20. Examining resilience in EFL contexts: a survey study of university students in China
  21. High school EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback beliefs and practices, and the effects of lesson focus
  22. L3 acquisition of aspect: the influence of structural similarity, analytic L2 and general L3 proficiency
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0188
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
CEFR; collocational patterns; frequency-based approach; L2 writing

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Investigating the impact of task complexity on uptake and noticing of corrective feedback recasts
  4. Consequences of the comparative fallacy for the acquisition of grammatical aspect in Spanish
  5. Incorporating peer feedback in writing instruction: examining its effects on Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ writing performance
  6. Listener engagement: the missing link in research on accented speech
  7. Enhancing English spatial prepositions acquisition among Spanish learners of English as L2 through an embodied approach
  8. Lexical and grammatical collocations in beginning and intermediate L2 argumentative essays: a bigram study
  9. When concept-based language instruction meets cognitive linguistics: teaching English phrasal verbs with up and out
  10. Validation of a multiple-choice implicature test: insights from Chinese EFL learners’ cognitive processes
  11. A longitudinal study of topic continuity in Chinese EFL learners’ written narratives
  12. Miscommunicated referent tracking in L2 English: a case-by-case analysis
  13. Rule-based or efficiency-driven processing of expletive there in English as a foreign language
  14. When are performance-approach goals more adaptive for Chinese EFL learners? It depends on their underlying reasons
  15. Teaching L2 Spanish idioms with semantic motivation: should this be done proactively or retroactively?
  16. Role of individual differences in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through listening to stories: metacognitive awareness and motivation
  17. Measuring and profiling Chinese secondary school English teachers’ language mindsets: an exploratory study of non-native teachers’ perceived L2 proficiency loss
  18. The role of working memory in the effects of models as a written corrective strategy
  19. Comparing motivational features between feedback givers and receivers in English speaking class
  20. Examining resilience in EFL contexts: a survey study of university students in China
  21. High school EFL teachers’ oral corrective feedback beliefs and practices, and the effects of lesson focus
  22. L3 acquisition of aspect: the influence of structural similarity, analytic L2 and general L3 proficiency
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 20.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2021-0188/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen