Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 7:1 (2024) ► pp.75–98

Using lexical bundles to teach prepositions to Korean EFL students

Corpus-based instructed SLA

| Georgia State University , United States
| Hallym University , Korea
| Sogang University , Korea

Integrating corpus-based analyses with instructed SLA, this study explores how lexical bundles can be used to teach prepositions to EFL learners. It first identifies lexical bundles occurring most frequently with preposition errors in a learner corpus of L1-Korean high school student writing. It then uses the 10 identified bundles to compare three different types of instructional treatment: one hundred L1-Korean high school EFL students received either implicit instruction (teaching each bundle as a unit with no emphasis on embedded prepositions) or one of two types of explicit instruction (focusing on embedded prepositions with or without input enhancement). The explicit-instruction-with-input-enhancement group showed the greatest improvement, followed closely by the implicit-instruction group; the other explicit group showed the least improvement. These results suggest that textual enhancement can facilitate L2 preposition acquisition and that recurrent sequences such as lexical bundles can serve as a useful pedagogical means to teach linguistic forms.

Keywords: input enhancement, English preposition, formulaic language, corpus-based analysis, linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1English prepositions in LBs
    • 2.2Visual input enhancement and LB-based instruction
  • 3.Research questions
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Stage 1: Corpus analysis
    • 4.2Stage 2: Preposition instruction
      • 4.2.1Participants and instructional conditions
      • 4.2.2Teaching materials
      • 4.2.3Pretest and posttests
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Stage 1: Corpus-based analysis
    • 5.2Stage 2: Preposition instruction
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 18 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00022.kan
References
Alasmary, A.
(2019) Academic lexical bundles in graduate-level math texts: A corpus-based expert-approved list. Language Teaching Research, 26 (1), 99–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L.
(2022) AntConc (Version 4.2.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from [URL]
Arnon, I., & Snider, N.
(2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62 (1), 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Back, J.
(2011) Preposition errors in writing and speaking by Korean EFL learners: A corpus-based approach. Studies in British and American Language and Literature, 99 1, 227–247.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
(2004)  If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbook. Applied Linguistics, 25 (3), 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D.
(2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 1, 191–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bychkovska, T., & Lee, J.
(2017) At the same time: Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 university student argumentative writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30 1, 38–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., & Baker, P.
(2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology, 14 (2), 30–49.Google Scholar
(2016) Investigating critical discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37 (6), 849–880. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahunsi, T., & Ewata, T.
(2022) An exploration of the structural and colligational characteristics of lexical bundles in L1-L2 corpora for English language teaching. Language Teaching Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duan, S., & Shi, Z.
(2021) A longitudinal study of formulaic sequence use in second language writing: Complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Teaching Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gholami, L.
(2021) Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic vs. formulaic errors. Language Teaching Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gholami, L., & Gholami, J.
(2018) Uptake in incidental focus-on-form episodes concerning formulaic language in advanced adult EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, 24 (2), 189–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Z., Park, E. S., & Combs, C.
(2008) Textual enhancement of input: Issues and possibilities. Applied Linguistics, 29 (4), 597–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2012) Bundles in Academic Discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 1, 150–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jourdenais, R., Ota, M., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B., & Doughty, C.
(1995) Does textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183–216). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Kinne, S.
(2017) Weight as a determinant of syntactic variation in English L1 and L2 academic writing. A corpus study of weight effects in verb-particle/prepositional phrase combinations. In P. de Haan, R. de Vries, & S. van Vuuren (Eds.), Language, Learners and Levels: Progression and Variation. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Izumi, S.
(2002) Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 1, 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lah, J., & Yoo, I.
(2015) A corpus analysis of the preposition of a in Korean college matriculants’ writing. English Teaching, 70 (3), 99–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, M., & Révész, A.
(2018) Promoting grammatical development through textually enhanced captions: An eye-tracking study. The modern language journal, 102(3), 557–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, S.
(2007) Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive voice. Language Learning, 57 1, 87–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y., Yoo, I., & Shin, Y.
(2020) The use of English prepositions in lexical bundles in essays written by Korean university students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45 1, 100848. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R.
(1997) The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 reader’s comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8 1, 151–182.Google Scholar
(2001) Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84 1, 496–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R., Egi, T., Nuevo, A., & Tsai, Y.
(2003) The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Applied Language Learning, 13 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., & Inceoglu, S.
(2016) The effectiveness of visual input enhancement on the noticing and L2 development of the Spanish past tense. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6 (1), 89–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mueller, C.
(2011) English learners’ knowledge of prepositions: Collocational knowledge or knowledge based on meaning? System, 39 1, 480–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nekrasova, T.
(2009) English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning, 59 (3), 647–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, A.
(2021) Data-driven learning – a call for a broader research gaze. Language Teaching, 54 1, 259–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M.
(1998) Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2 1, 229–258.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
(2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 1, 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puimège, E., Montero Perez, M., & Peters, E.
(2021) Promoting L2 acquisition of multiword units through textually enhanced audiovisual input: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research, 02676583211049741.Google Scholar
Rankin, T., & Schiftner, B.
(2011) Marginal prepositions in learner English: Applying local corpus data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16 (3), 412–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Grandage, S., & Adolphs, S.
(2004) Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psychologically valid? In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 127–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, Y.
(2019) Do native writers always have a head start over nonnative writers? The use of lexical bundles in college students’ essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40 1, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, Y., Cortes, V., & Yoo, I.
(2018) Using lexical bundles as a tool to analyze definite article use in L2 academic writing: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39 1, 29–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, Y., & Kim, Y.
(2017) Using lexical bundles to teach articles to L2 English learners of different proficiencies. System, 69 1, 79–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shook, D.
(1994) FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5 1, 57–93.Google Scholar
Song, J., & Sardegna, V.
(2014) EFL learners’ incidental acquisition of English prepositions through enhanced extensive reading instruction. RELC Journal, 45 (1), 67–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A.
(2013) Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12 1, 214–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V.
(2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial sciences, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, J.
(1998) Getting the learners’ attention: A typographical input enhancement study. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus-on-form in second language classroom acquisition (pp. 91–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Winke, P.
(2013) The effects of input enhancement on grammar learning and comprehension: A modified replication of Lee (2007) with eye-movement data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35 (2), 323–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, D.
(2015) Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Wong, W.
(2000) The effects of textual enhancement and simplified input on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
(2003) Textual enhancement and simplified input: Effects on L2 comprehension and acquisition of non-meaningful grammatical form. Applied Language Learning, 13 1, 17–45.Google Scholar
Wray, A.
(2004)) ‘Here’s one I prepared earlier’: Formulaic language learning on television. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 249–268). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, S., Liu, D., & Li, Z.
(2023) Testing the Bottleneck Hypothesis: Chinese EFL learners’ knowledge of morphology and syntax across proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 39 (4), 1191–1217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeldham, M.
(2018) Does the presence of formulaic language help or hinder second language listeners’ lower-level processing? Language Teaching Research, 24 (3), 338–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoo, I., & Shin, Y.
(2020) Determiner use in English quantificational expressions: A corpus-based study. TESOL Quarterly, 54 (1), 90–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar