Chapter published in:
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development
Edited by Gary G. Fogal and Marjolijn H. Verspoor
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 54] 2020
► pp. 81–108

Chapter 4
Adaptive imitation

Formulaicity and the words of others in L2 English academic writing

| Australian National University
| University of Melbourne
This chapter explores how L2 academic writers imitate adaptively as they manage the need to communicate academic content using language that aligns with the predictable patterns of the discourse community. Evidence from two studies of L2 writing is combined to explore how writers work with a dynamic store of language chunks as their emergent building blocks. One study, a cross-sectional discourse analysis of the writing of 480 test-takers (Knoch, Macqueen, & O’Hagan, 2014), investigates formulaicity and source text use in two writing tasks. The other, a longitudinal qualitative case study of a student writer (Macqueen, 2012), takes a close-up view of her word combinations and use of source texts as she revises an assignment. Taken together, the findings suggest that the early stages of L2 academic writing are characterized by greater reliance on verbatim imitation of the patterns of others and less formulaicity. Over time, L2 writers represent academic content through interweaving the words of others with their own internalized patterns in increasingly conventional manipulations.
Keywords: formulaic language, imitation, second language writing, academic literacy
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Fluent formulaicity
    • Developmental perspectives on fluent formulaicity
  • Source text imitation
    • Developmental perspectives on source text imitation
  • Two studies
  • Study 1: Cross-sectional study of writing test responses
    • Aim
    • Participants
    • Writing data
    • Analytic method 1: Fluent formulaicity
    • Analytic method 2: Source text imitation
    • Statistical analysis
  • Findings
    • Density of fluent formulae
    • Source text imitation
    • Summary of Study 1
  • Study 2: Longitudinal case study
    • Aim
    • Method
    • Context and focus sentence
    • Identification of source text content and patterns for imitation
    • Adaptive imitation of source text
    • Summary of Study 2
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 04 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.04mac
References
Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B.
(2006) Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M. A.
(2002) The mirror system, imitation, and the evolution of language. In K. Dautenhahn & C. L. Nehaniv (Eds.), Imitation in animals and artifacts (pp. 229–280). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M.
(1986) Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee (Trans.) C. Emerson & M. H. Austin (Eds.)). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
(2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(Supplement 1), 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S.
(2014) Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 28–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B.
(2013) Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT® test: A lexico-grammatical analysis. ETS Research Report, RR-13-04. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boothe, B.
(2017) Constructing identity. In Petrucci Family Foundation Collection of African-American Art. Portland, OR: Portland Art Museum.Google Scholar
Bustamante, R. O., & Simonetti, J. A.
(2005) Is Pinus radiata invading the native vegetation in central Chile? Demographic responses in a fragmented forest. Biological Invasions, 7(2), 243–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A.
(2004) Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 3(3), 171–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P.
(2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.Google Scholar
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Eouanzoui, K., Erdosy, U., & James, M.
(2006) Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for the new TOEFL®. ETS Research Report, RR-05-13. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M.
(2005) Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A., Yang, L., Qiu, C., Zhang, L., Ji, X., Wang, J., Zhan, J., Zhang, F., Xu, C., Cao, R., Yu, L., Chu, M., Liu, M., Cao, M., & Lai, C.
(2018) Students’ practices and abilities for writing from sources in English at universities in China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Currie, P.
(1998) Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N.
(2009) To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(2), 157–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J.
(1998) An introduction to the bootstrap. New York, NY: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(02), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2009) Language as a complex adaptive system. Chichester: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R.
([1951] 1968) A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–1959 (pp. 168–205). London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y.
(2007) Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 440–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Plagiarism and second language writing in an electronic age. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 161–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, M.
(2017) The abstraction engine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S.
(1998) Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, H., & Verspoor, M.
(2017) Development of chunks in Dutch L2 learners of English. In J. Evers-Vermeul, L. Rasier, & E. Tribushinina (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and language teaching (pp. 235–262). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirvela, A., & Du, Q.
(2013) “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for academic purposes, 12(2), 87–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hou, J., Loerts, H., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2018) Chunk use and development in advanced Chinese L2 learners of English. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 148–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howard, R. M.
(1993) A Plagiarism Pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(3), 233–246.Google Scholar
Howard, R. M.
(1995) Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, P.
(1998) The phraseology of learner’s academic writing. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hull, G., & Rose, M.
(1989) Rethinking remediation: Toward a social-cognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing. Written Communication, 6(2), 139–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keck, C.
(2006) The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C., & Thorp, D.
(2007) A corpus-based investigation of linguistic responses to an IELTS academic writing task. In L. Taylor & P. Falvey (Eds.), Research in speaking and writing assessment (pp. 316–377). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knoch, U., Macqueen, S., & O’Hagan, S.
(2014) An investigation of the effect of task type on the discourse produced by students at various score levels in the TOEFL iBT writing test. ETS Research Report, RR-14–43. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, L. A., & Kathpalia, S. S.
(2002) Literature reviews in student project reports. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 45(3), 187–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P.
(2003) Intrapersonal communication and internalization in the second language classroom. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 349–370). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L.
(2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2006) Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization: There is no end, and there is no state. In Z. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 189–200). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2012) On the roles of repetition in language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics Review, 3(2), 195–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 61–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
(2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T.
(2011) Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647–672. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., & Schmitt, N.
(2009) The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 85–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macqueen, S.
(2012) The emergence of patterns in second language writing: A sociocognitive exploration of lexical trails. Bern: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Emergence in second language writing: A methodological inroad. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 13(2), 493–515. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, T.
(2019) Language and subjectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neff van Aertselaer, J.
(2008) Contrasting English-Spanish interpersonal discourse phrases: A corpus study. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 85–99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohlrogge, A.
(2009) Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing assessment. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (Vol. 2, pp. 375–386). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M.
(2008) Exemplification in learner writing: A cross-linguistic perspective. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 101–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parker, I. M.
(2001) Safe site and seed limitation in Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom): Invasibility, disturbance, and the role of cryptogams in a glacial outwash prairie. Biological invasions, 3(4), 323–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F.
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pecorari, D.
(2003) Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A.
(1996) Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petrić, B.
(2012) Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 102–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A.
(2013) Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(1983) Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(2004) Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.Google 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(3), 214–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M.
(2001) Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2000) First steps towards a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1–2), 61–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Travis, C. E.
(2018) Bilingualism in the community: Code-switching and grammars in contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Lier, L.
(1996) Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X.
(2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1962) Thought and language (E. H. G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Weigle, S. C., & Parker, K.
(2012) Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 118–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
(2000) Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R.
(2000) The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication, 20, 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar