Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 4:1 (2018) ► pp.54–81

Shell noun use in English argumentative essays by native speakers of Japanese, Turkish, and English

Frequency and rate of noun-pattern attraction

| Bluegrass Community and Technical College
| University of Cincinnati
Shell noun (SN) use in learner writing has been studied in terms of SN choices and SN pattern choices, but less so in terms of SN-pattern co-selection (i.e. which patterns are used with which SNs). This study examined English SN choices and their preferred lexicogrammatical patterns in argumentative essays by speakers of Turkish and Japanese in order to find SN-pattern attraction in learner writing, compared to SN use in writing of native English speakers. Results indicate that learners understand SN functions, given pattern frequencies comparable to those of native speakers. However, there were differences among groups in which SNs were most strongly attracted to or repelled by the SN patterns. This prompted a qualitative investigation. Findings of non-native SN use are discussed with respect to word-sense categories and clause marking. Suggestions are made for further research.
Keywords: shell noun phrases, EFL writing, native-speaker writing, lexical patterns, collostruction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Background
    • 1.2Theoretical considerations
    • 1.3Shell noun use in EFL writing
    • 1.4The present study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Data sources
    • 2.2Procedure
    • 2.3Data analysis scheme
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Comparison of pattern frequencies (RQ1)
    • 3.2Noun-pattern attraction (RQ 2)
      • 3.2.1[Det-N]
      • 3.2.2[N-of-X]
      • 3.2.3[N-that-X]
      • 3.2.4[N-to-X]
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1SN patterns and association strength
    • 4.2Collostructions
    • 4.3Future directions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.16014.sch
References (44)
References
Aktas, R. & Cortes, V. 2008. “Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing”, Journal of English for Specific Purposes 71, 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benitez-Castro, M. A. 2015. “Coming to grips with shell-nounhood: A critical review of insights into the meaning, function and form of shell-noun phrases”, Australian Journal of Linguistics 35(2), 168–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benitez-Castro, M. A. & Thompson, P. 2015. “Shell-nounhood in academic discourse: A critical state-of-the-art review”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(3), 378–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Centre for English Corpus Linguistics. 2016: online. The Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). Available at: <[URL]> (accessed June 2017).
Cromwell, B. 2016: online. Word order in Turkish sentences. Available at: <[URL]> (accessed March 2016).
Davies, M. 2008: online. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 Million Words, 1990-Present. Available at: <[URL]>.
Ellis, N. 2006. “Language acquisition as rational contingency learning”, Applied Linguistics 27(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J. 2006. “Use of signaling nouns in a learner corpus”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3), 345–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Use of signaling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1), 36–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Forest, R. W. 2015. Signalling Nouns in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garside, R. 1987: online. “Using CLAWS to annotate the British National Corpus”. Available at: <[URL]> (accessed October 2013).
Gilquin, G. 2010. Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2003. “Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language”, Trends in Cognitive Science 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 1996. “From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora”. In K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg, & M. Johansson (Eds.), Languages in Contrast: Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies. Lund: University of Lund, 37–51.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Tyson, S. 1996. “Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English”, World Englishes 15(1), 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (Eds.). 2009. The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2 (Handbook + CD-ROM). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2007. Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x. Retrieved from <[URL]>.
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schӧnefeld, D. 2005. “Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions”, Cognitive Linguistics 16(4), 635–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. “Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Wulff, S. 2009. “Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting and corpora”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 31, 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H. 2012. “ Facts, ideas, questions, problems, and issues in advanced learners’ English”, Nordic Journal of English Studies 11(1), 22–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2014. Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E. 2001. “Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts”, Applied Language Learning 12(2), 111–132.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2004. “Textual colligation: A special kind of lexical priming”, Language and Computers 49(1), 171–194.Google Scholar
2005. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanić, R. 1991. “Nouns in search of a context”, International Review of Applied Linguistics 29(2), 93–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M. 2005. English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. “Corpus linguistic theory and its application in ELT”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3), 363–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Paper (MICUSP). 2009. The Regents of the University of Michigan. Available at: <[URL]>.
Nesi, H. & Moreton, E. 2012. “EFL/ESL writers and the use of shell nouns”. In R. Tang (Ed.), Academic Writing in a Second or Foreign Language: Issues and Challenges facing ESL/EFL Academic Writers in Higher Education Contexts. London: Continuum, 126–145.Google Scholar
Ōno, S. 1970. The Origin of the Japanese Language. Tokyo: Kokusai Bunka Shinkokai [Japan Cultural Society].Google Scholar
Pakenham, K. J., McEntire, J., & Williams, J. 2013. Making Connections: Skills and Strategies for Academic Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. 2013. “Lexical bundles and L1 transfer effects”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(3), 391–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. 2014. “How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research”, Language Learning 64(4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a. “Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment?” In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 101–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b. “Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels”. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 117–138.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2008. WordSmith Tools. Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2013. “Collostructional analysis”. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 290–306.Google Scholar
Vinka, M. (1993). The syntax of three Japanese postpositions. Working Papers 40 , University of Lund Department of Linguistics, 229–250.Google Scholar
Wulff, S. & Römer, U. 2009. “Becoming a proficient academic writer: Shifting lexical preferences in the use of the progressive”, Corpora 4(2), 115–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Geluso, Joe
2022. Grammatical and functional characteristics of preposition-based phrase frames in English argumentative essays by L1 English and Spanish speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 55 ► pp. 101072 ff. DOI logo
Benitez-Castro, Miguel-Angel
2021. Shell-noun use in disciplinary student writing: A multifaceted analysis of problem and way in third-year undergraduate writing across three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 61 ► pp. 132 ff. DOI logo
Pae, Hye K.
2020. The East and the West. In Script Effects as the Hidden Drive of the Mind, Cognition, and Culture [Literacy Studies, 21], ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Dilin
2018. A corpus study of Chinese EFL learners’ use of circumstance, demand, and significant . Journal of Second Language Studies 1:2 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.