Effects of writing topic, first language background, and second language proficiency on ‘V that’ clauses in argumentative writing
-
Yingying Liu
Yingying Liu received her PhD in Applied Linguistics from the Pennsylvania State University and is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of English at the Ocean University of China. Her research interests include corpus linguistics, second language acquisition, and English for Academic Purposes. Her work has appeared in
Studies in Second Language Acquisition ,System ,Journal of English for Academic Purposes ,Cognitive Linguistics , andLanguage Teaching .
und
Jingyuan Zhuang
Jingyuan Zhuang received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from The Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include second language acquisition, study abroad, and research methodology. She has published her work in journals such as
The Modern Language Journal .
Abstract
With the growing use of corpora in second language (L2) research, examining the role of writing topics alongside first language (L1) background and L2 proficiency in shaping L2 usage has become increasingly important. This study contributes to this line of inquiry by using a learner corpus of 1,198 argumentative essays to explore how writing topics, in tandem with L1 background and L2 proficiency, influence the use of ‘V that’ clauses (e.g., I think that it is important…) among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writers. The findings reveal significant effects of writing topic on the diversity and semantic distribution of ‘V that’, variations across L1 backgrounds, a decrease in frequency with higher L2 proficiency, and interaction effects among the three factors in all aspects of ‘V that’ usage. These findings highlight the importance of considering topic effects alongside L1 background and L2 proficiency in corpus-based L2 research, suggesting both theoretical and methodological implications.
Funding source: Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation
Award Identifier / Grant number: ZR2024QF159
About the authors
Yingying Liu received her PhD in Applied Linguistics from the Pennsylvania State University and is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of English at the Ocean University of China. Her research interests include corpus linguistics, second language acquisition, and English for Academic Purposes. Her work has appeared in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, System, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Cognitive Linguistics, and Language Teaching.
Jingyuan Zhuang received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from The Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include second language acquisition, study abroad, and research methodology. She has published her work in journals such as The Modern Language Journal.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and highly insightful comments. Any remaining errors are entirely our own.
-
Research funding: This research was supported by a grant from the Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (ZR2024QF159) awarded to Yingying Liu.
Table S1: Overview of the ICNALE subset used in the study.
| Writer group | Texts | Learners | Total words | Mean words | Words range | Total words in SMK | Mean words in SMK | Total words in PTJ | Mean words in PTJ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese A2 | 100 | 50 | 21,998 | 220 | 180–297 | 11,031 | 220.62 | 10,967 | 219.34 |
| Chinese B1.1 | 100 | 50 | 22,459 | 225 | 183–300 | 11,150 | 223 | 11,309 | 226.18 |
| Chinese B1.2 | 100 | 50 | 23,560 | 236 | 191–330 | 11,492 | 229.84 | 12,068 | 241.36 |
| Chinese all | 300 | 150 | 68,017 | 227 | 180–330 | 33,673 | 224.49 | 34,344 | 228.96 |
| Japanese A2 | 100 | 50 | 21,744 | 217 | 186–297 | 10,653 | 213.06 | 11,091 | 221.82 |
| Japanese B1.1 | 100 | 50 | 21,582 | 216 | 173–325 | 10,616 | 212.32 | 10,966 | 219.32 |
| Japanese B1.2 | 98 | 49 | 21,806 | 223 | 181–304 | 10,828 | 216.56 | 10,978 | 219.56 |
| Japanese all | 298 | 149 | 65,132 | 219 | 173–325 | 32,097 | 213.98 | 33,035 | 220.23 |
| Korean A2 | 100 | 50 | 21,912 | 219 | 185–298 | 10,839 | 216.78 | 11,073 | 221.46 |
| Korean B1.1 | 100 | 50 | 21,475 | 214 | 183–298 | 10,584 | 211.68 | 10,891 | 217.82 |
| Korean B1.2 | 100 | 50 | 22,034 | 220 | 200–299 | 10,961 | 219.22 | 11,073 | 221.46 |
| Korean all | 300 | 150 | 65,421 | 218 | 183–299 | 32,384 | 215.89 | 33,037 | 220.25 |
| Thai A2 | 100 | 50 | 21,993 | 219 | 188–295 | 10,959 | 219.18 | 11,034 | 220.68 |
| Thai B1.1 | 100 | 50 | 22,633 | 226 | 198–299 | 11,115 | 222.3 | 11,518 | 230.36 |
| Thai B1.2 | 100 | 50 | 22,784 | 227 | 189–315 | 11,362 | 227.24 | 11,422 | 228.44 |
| Thai all | 300 | 150 | 67,410 | 225 | 188–315 | 33,436 | 222.91 | 33,974 | 226.49 |
| Total | 1,198 | 599 | 2,65,980 | 222 | 173–330 | 131,590 | 219.32 | 134,390 | 223.98 |
Table S2: Mixed-effects model for normalized token frequency (per 200 words) of ‘V that’ led by verbs other than think.
| Variable | b | SE | 95 % CI | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Intercept) | 0.793 | 0.084 | [0.627, 0.959] | 9.409 | <0.001a |
| L1JP | 0.564 | 0.128 | [0.312, 0.816] | 4.398 | <0.001a |
| L1KO | 0.188 | 0.128 | [−0.064, 0.440] | 1.467 | 0.143 |
| L1TH | −0.013 | 0.122 | [−0.253, 0.226] | -0.111 | 0.912 |
| TopicSMK | 0.180 | 0.109 | [−0.033, 0.394] | 1.657 | 0.098 |
| Proficiency | −0.148 | 0.074 | [−0.295, −0.002] | −1.994 | 0.047a |
| L1JP: TopicSMK | −0.103 | 0.162 | [−0.423, 0.216] | −0.636 | 0.525 |
| L1KO: TopicSMK | −0.326 | 0.161 | [−0.642, −0.009] | −2.022 | 0.044a |
| L1TH: TopicSMK | −0.121 | 0.159 | [−0.433, 0.192] | −0.759 | 0.448 |
| TopicSMK:Proficiency | 0.089 | 0.062 | [−0.032, 0.211] | 1.442 | 0.150 |
| L1JP: Proficiency | 0.044 | 0.106 | [−0.165, 0.253] | 0.416 | 0.678 |
| L1KO: Proficiency | 0.108 | 0.091 | [−0.071, 0.286] | 1.186 | 0.237 |
| L1TH: Proficiency | 0.136 | 0.094 | [−0.050, 0.321] | 1.438 | 0.151 |
| R 2 m | 7.0 % | ||||
| R 2 c | 20.4 % |
-
a p < 0.05.
References
Alexopoulou, Theodora, Marije Michel, Akira Murakami & Detmar Meurers. 2017. Task effects on linguistic complexity and accuracy: A large‐scale learner corpus analysis employing natural language processing techniques. Language Learning 67(S1). 180–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12232.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, Shelley 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
Biber, Douglas & Randi Reppen. 1998. Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: A study of complement clauses. In Sylviane Granger (ed.), Learner English on computer, 145–158. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315841342-11Suche in Google Scholar
Caines, Andrew & Paula Buttery. 2017. The effect of task and topic on opportunity of use in learner corpora. In Vaclav Brezina & Lynne Flowerdew (eds.), Learner corpus research: New perspectives and applications, 5–27. New York: Bloomsbury.Suche in Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2006. Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 25(3). 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003.Suche in Google Scholar
Durham, Mercedes. 2011. I think (that) something’s missing: Complementizer deletion in nonnative e-mails. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 1(3). 421. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.6.Suche in Google Scholar
Durrant, Philip & Mark Brenchley. 2019. Development of vocabulary sophistication across genres in English children’s writing. Reading and Writing 32(8). 1927–1953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9932-8.Suche in Google Scholar
Francis, Gill, Susan Hunston & Elizabeth Manning. 1996. Collins Cobuild grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.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
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. & Magali Paquot. 2008. Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction 1(1). 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil.Suche in Google Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. 2009. The effects of essay topics on modal verb uses in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 41(4). 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029.Suche in Google Scholar
Hotta, Tomoko & Kaoru Horie. 2018. L2 acquisition of the Japanese verbal hedge omou: A prototype approach. In Kyoko Masuda (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics and Japanese pedagogy, 199–224. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110456554-008Suche in Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2022. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108616218Suche in Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Hang Su. 2020. Patterns, constructions, and local grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation. Applied Linguistics 38(6). 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx046.Suche in Google Scholar
Ishikawa, Shin’ichiro. 2013. The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. In Shin’ichiro Ishikawa (ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world, 91–118. Kobe, Japan: Kobe University.Suche in Google Scholar
Ishikawa, Shin’ichiro. 2023. The ICNALE guide: An introduction to a learner corpus study on Asian learners’ L2 English. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003252528Suche in Google Scholar
Kamimura, Taeko & Kyoko Oi. 1998. Argumentative strategies in American and Japanese English. World Englishes 17(3). 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00106.Suche in Google Scholar
Khushik, Ghulam Abbas & Ari Huhta. 2020. Investigating syntactic complexity in EFL learners’ writing across common European framework of reference levels A1, A2, and B1. Applied Linguistics 41(4). 506–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy064.Suche in Google Scholar
Klein, Dan & Christopher D. Manning. 2003. Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st annual Meeting of the Association for computational linguistics, 423–430. Sapporo, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1075096.1075150Suche in Google Scholar
Levy, Roger & Galen Andrew. 2006. Tregex and Tsurgeon: Tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Aldo Gangemi, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk & Daniel Tapias (eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on language resources and evaluation, 2231–2234. Genoa, Italy: European Language Resources Association.Suche in Google Scholar
Liu, Yingying & Xiaofei Lu. 2020. N1 of N2 constructions in academic written discourse: A pattern grammar analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 47. 100893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100893.Suche in Google Scholar
Liu, Yingying & Xiaofei Lu. 2024. Development of verb argument constructions in L2 English learners: A close replication of research question 3 in Römer and Berger (2019). Studies in Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312400024X.Suche in Google Scholar
Liu, Yingying & Kevin McManus. 2020. Investigating the use of article-adjective-noun constructions in EFL writing. TESL-EJ 24(2). 1–19. https://osf.io/preprints/osf/fm78d.10.31219/osf.io/fm78dSuche in Google Scholar
Liu, Yingying & Kevin McManus. 2023. Investigating the psychological reality of argument structure constructions and N1 of N2 constructions: A comparison between L1 and L2 speakers of English. Cognitive Linguistics 34(3–4). 503–531. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2023-0029.Suche in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei. 2012. The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal 96(2). 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Man, Deliang & Meng Huat Chau. 2019. Learning to evaluate through that-clauses: Evidence from a longitudinal learner corpus. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 37. 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.007.Suche in Google Scholar
Meara, Paul & James Milton. 2003. X_Lex, the swansea levels test. Newbury: Express.Suche in Google Scholar
Michel, Marije, Akira Murakami, Theodora Alexopoulou & Detmar Meurers. 2019. Effects of task type on morphosyntactic complexity across proficiency: Evidence from a large learner corpus of A1 to C2 writings. Instructed Second Language Acquisition 3(2). 124–152. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.38248.Suche in Google Scholar
Park, Ji-Hyun. 2017. Syntactic complexity as a predictor of second language writing proficiency and writing quality. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar
Plonsky, Luke & Hessameddin Ghanbar. 2018. Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. The Modern Language Journal 102(4). 713–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12509.Suche in Google Scholar
Römer, Ute & Cynthia M. Berger. 2019. Observing the emergence of constructional knowledge: Verb patterns in German and Spanish learners of English at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41(5). 1089–1110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000202.Suche in Google Scholar
Römer, Ute & Jamie Garner. 2019. The development of verb constructions in spoken learner English: Tracing effects of usage and proficiency. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5(2). 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17015.rom.Suche in Google Scholar
Sarte, Kayla Marie & Ksenia Gnevsheva. 2022. Noun phrasal complexity in ESL written essays under a constructed-response task: Examining proficiency and topic effects. Assessing Writing 51. 100595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100595.Suche in Google Scholar
Staples, Shelley, Jesse Egbert, Douglas Biber & Bethany Gray. 2016. Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication 33(2). 149–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527.Suche in Google Scholar
Staples, Shelley & Randi Reppen. 2016. Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and Language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing 32. 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Su, Hang, Jun Ye & Wei Naixing. 2024. Integrating pattern grammar and local grammar into the identification of constructions and the development of a pedagogical constructicon in EAP context: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101401.Suche in Google Scholar
Wu, Juanjuan & Fan Pan. 2024. Stance construction via that-clauses in telecommunications research articles: A comparison of L1 and L2 expert writers. Text & Talk 44(3). 387–410. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0170.Suche in Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Stefan Th. Gries & Nicholas Lester. 2018. Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. In Andrea Tyler, Lihong Huang & Hana Jan (eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research, 99–120. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110572186-004Suche in Google Scholar
Yang, Weiwei, Xiaofei Lu & Sara Cushing Weigle. 2015. Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 28. 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.02.002.Suche in Google Scholar
Yoo, Isaiah WonHo & Yu Kyoung Shin. 2022. English lexical bundles in a learner corpus of argumentative essays written by Korean university students. Corpora 17(Supplement). 23–42. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2022.0245.Suche in Google Scholar
Yoon, Hyung-Jo. 2017. Linguistic complexity in L2 writing revisited: Issues of topic, proficiency, and construct multidimensionality. System 66. 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.007.Suche in Google Scholar
Yoon, Hyung-Jo. 2021. Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: Effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing 34(3). 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
