Non-finite clause use in disciplinary research writing: a formulaic sequence-based functional comparison between expert and student writers
-
Xixin Qiu
und
J. Elliott Casal
Abstract
Non-finite clauses (NFCs), despite their increasingly recognized role in second language (L2) acquisition and academic writing as part of a multidimensional conceptualization of syntactic complexity, have not been analyzed in functional and discipline-specific perspectives. This study addresses this gap by providing a linguistic-descriptive account of NFC use in expert and advanced student English research writing. Using a 2.26-million-word corpus of published research articles and student manuscripts in Agricultural Science, this study profiles the distribution of NFC subtypes and identifies frequent discoursal functions realized by non-finite verb-centered formulaic sequences. The findings reveal significant differences in NFC use across writer groups, with student writers utilizing NFCs less overall and in the majority of structural subtypes. Functional analyses further demonstrate that advanced student writers employed a narrower range of formulaic frames for a narrower range of discoursal functions, highlighting both a reduced lexical repertoire and a rhetorically less sophisticated style, in regard to NFCs. Findings underscore the importance of considering a full range of lexical/phraseological and discourse-functional patterns of clause-level linguistic features, such as NFCs, in order to gain a more pedagogically interpretable understanding of syntactic complexity in L2 and academic writing.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Professor Ping Liu for providing the corpus data and Dr. Xiaofei Lu for comments on earlier drafts.
-
Research ethics: Not applicable.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Author contributions: The authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: None declared.
-
Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Data availability: The raw data can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.
References
Ansarifar, Ahmad, Hesamoddin Shahriari & Reza Pishghadam. 2018. Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 31. 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.008.Suche in Google Scholar
Anthony, Lawrence. 2020. AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available at: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Federica Barbieri. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26(3). 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Bethany Gray. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1). 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Bethany Gray. 2016. Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511920776Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Viviana Cortes. 2004. If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3). 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray & Kornwipa Poonpon. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45(1). 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray, Shelly Staples & Jesse Egbert. 2020. Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 46. 100869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100869.Suche in Google Scholar
Casal, J. Elliott. 2020. An integrated corpus and genre analysis approach to writing research and pedagogy: Development of graduate student genre knowledge. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Doctoral Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Casal, J. Elliott & Joseph J. Lee. 2019. Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed first-year L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 44. 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Casal, J. Elliott & Xixin Qiu. 2023. Non-finite clause use in novice and expert academic writing in Agricultural Science: A corpus driven analysis. In Millie Walková (ed.), Linguistic approaches in EAP: Expanding the discourse, 89–116. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350300330.0015Suche in Google Scholar
Casal, J. Elliott & Jungwan Yoon. 2023. Frame-based formulaic features in L2 writing pedagogy: Variants, functions, and student writer perceptions in academic writing. English for Specific Purposes 71. 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.03.004.Suche in Google Scholar
Casal, J. Elliott, Xiaofei Lu, Xixin Qiu, Genggeng Zhang & Yuanheng Wang. 2021. Syntactic complexity across academic research article part-genres: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 52. 100996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100996.Suche in Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2015. Same task, different corpus: The role of personal corpora in EAP classes. In Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska & Alex Boulton (eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning, 131–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.69.07chaSuche in Google Scholar
Cortes, Viviana. 2004. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23(4). 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Cotos, Elena, Sarah Huffman & Stephanie Link. 2017. A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating rigour and credibility. English for Specific Purposes 46. 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.01.001.Suche in Google Scholar
del Saz Rubio, M. Milagros. 2011. A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of agricultural sciences. English for Specific Purposes 30(4). 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Deng, Yaochen, Lei Lei & Dilin Liu. 2021. Calling for more consistency, refinement & critical consideration in the use of syntactic complexity measures for writing. Applied Linguistics 42(5). 1021–1028.10.1093/applin/amz069Suche in Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 1997. On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: Native and non-native writers compared. In Jan Aarts, Inge de Mönnink & Herman Wekker (eds.), Studies in English language and teaching: In honor of Flor Aarts, 185–198. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004653351_014Suche in Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2015. Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.71Suche in Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany, Elena Cotos & Jordan Smith. 2020. Combining rhetorical move analysis with multi-dimensional analysis: Research writing across disciplines. In Ute Römer, Viviana Cortes & Eric Friginal (eds.), Advances in corpus-based research on academic writing. Effects of discipline, register & writer expertise, 138–168. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Suche in Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. The Oxford English grammar. Great Britain: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27(1). 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & John Milton. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2). 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90033-3.Suche in Google Scholar
Kyle, Kristopher. 2016. Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication. Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Kyle, Kristopher & Scott Crossley. 2018. Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal 102(2). 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468.Suche in Google Scholar
Lambert, Craig & Judit Kormos. 2014. Complexity, accuracy & fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 35(5). 607–614.10.1093/applin/amu047Suche in Google Scholar
Lan, Ge & Yachao Sun. 2019. A corpus-based investigation of noun phrase complexity in the L2 writings of a first-year composition course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 38. 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Larsson, Tove. 2017. A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes 48. 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffery, Robert Hoogenraad, David Birch & David Birch. 1984. English grammar for today: A new introduction. London & Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press.10.1177/003368828401500208Suche in Google Scholar
Liu, Ping, Xiaoqian Huang & Shan Liu. 2015. Constructing an agricultural research article corpus of English. Corpus Linguistics [in Chinese] 2(2). 97–106.Suche in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15. 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu.Suche 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.Suche in Google Scholar
Lü, Jing & Fei Deng. 2020. The compilation of AgriDEAP: A agricultural science academic English corpus. Corpus Linguistics [in Chinese] 7(2). 89–99.Suche in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei, J. Elliott Casal & Yingying Liu. 2020. The rhetorical functions of syntactically complex sentences in social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 44. 100832.10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100832Suche in Google Scholar
Norris, John M. & Lourdes Ortega. 2009. Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4). 555–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044.Suche in Google Scholar
Oswald, Frederick L. & Luke Plonsky. 2010. Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30. 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190510000115.Suche in Google Scholar
Parkinson, Jean & Jill Musgrave. 2014. Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for academic purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14. 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.12.001.Suche in Google Scholar
Qiu, Xixin. 2024. A concept- and corpus-based instruction to promote effective communication in disciplinary research writing: Development of sentence-level linguistic knowledge in ESL/EFL graduate students. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University doctoral dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, Marianna. 2015. A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: The case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing 29. 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.005.Suche in Google Scholar
Saricaoglu, Aysel, Zeynep Bilki & Plakans Lia. 2021. Syntactic complexity in learner-generated research paper introductions: Rhetorical functions and level of move/step realization. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 53. 101037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101037.Suche in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110808704Suche in Google Scholar
Shadloo, Farzaneh, Hesamoddin Shahriari Ahmadi & Behzad Ghonsooly. 2019. Exploring syntactic complexity and its relationship with writing quality in EFL argumentative essays. Topics in Linguistics 20(1). 68–81. https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2019-0005.Suche in Google Scholar
Shao, Zimeng, Hanbo Zhang, Jiaqi Zhang, Yuexin Zhong & Xiaoyan Xu. 2022. Phrasal complexity in English argumentative writing: Variations across Chinese STEM versus English majors’ production and EFL textbook essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 55. 101070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101070.Suche in Google Scholar
Shrout, Patrick E. 1998. Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 7(3). 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1191/096228098672090967.Suche in Google Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, Rita & Nick C. Ellis. 2010. An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics 31(4). 487–512. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058.Suche in Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elizaveta. 2022. Clausal complexity of expert and student writing: A corpus-based analysis of papers in social sciences. Language Learning in Higher Education 12(2). 453–475. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2022-2052.Suche in Google Scholar
Staples, Shelly, Jesse Egbert, Douglas Biber & Bethany Gray. 2016. Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline & genre. Written Communication 33(2). 149–183.10.1177/0741088316631527Suche in Google Scholar
Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak. 2004 [1994]. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills, 2nd edn. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Taguchi, Naoko, William Crawford & Danielle Z. Wetzel. 2013. What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program. TESOL Quarterly 47(2). 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.91.Suche in Google Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, Monika S. Schmid & Xiaoyan Xu. 2012. A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(3). 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007.Suche in Google Scholar
Yang, Bingjun. 2014. Using non-finites in English academic writing by Chinese EFL students. English Language Teaching 7(2). 42–52. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p42.Suche in Google Scholar
Yang, Weiwei, Xiaofei Lu & Sara Cushing Weigle. 2015. Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity & judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 28. 53–67.10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002Suche in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2024-0070).
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
