Cover not available
Article published In:
Register in L1 and L2 Language Development
Edited by Bethany Gray and Jesse Egbert
[Register Studies 3:2] 2021
► pp. 247–278

L2 Theme development in Discursive and Experimental undergraduate student writing

 | South China Normal University
ORCID logo | Coventry University
To complement earlier studies of writing development in the BAWE corpus of successful student writing (Nesi & Gardner 2012; Staples et al. 2016), we examine the Systemic Functional Linguistics notion of Theme as used by L2 writers across first- and third-year and in two distinctive discourse types: persuasive/argumentative Discursive writing of assignments in the soft disciplines and Experimental report writing of assignments in the hard sciences. Theme analysis reveals more substantial differences across the two discourse types than between first- and third-year L2 undergraduate writing. Textual Themes are consistently more frequent than interpersonal Themes, and some variance is found within subcategories of each. Significant differences in lexical density occur across third-year discourse types and between first- and third-year Experimental writing where a predominance of N+N topical Themes is also found. These findings are important as previous research has tended to focus on L1 Discursive writing.
Keywords: Theme, second language writing development, academic writing across disciplines, BAWE corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theme in academic writing
    • 2.1Studies of Theme in L2 writing
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2The L2Dev corpus
    • 3.3General linguistic characteristics of the L2Dev corpus
    • 3.4Theme analysis
  • 4.L2 writing development: Findings
    • 4.1L2 writing development and Theme
    • 4.2Writing development and textual Theme
    • 4.3L2 writing development and interpersonal Themes
    • 4.4L2 writing development and ideational (topical) Themes
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20018.che
References (25)
References
Aull, L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31 (2):151–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, P., & Lee, M. (2019). Exploring textual and interpersonal Themes in the expository essays of college students of different linguistic backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes, 54 1:75–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J. M. (2018). Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘native versus non-native speaker’. Applied Linguistics, 39(2):236–240.Google Scholar
Ebeling, S., & Wickens, P. (2012). Interpersonal Themes and author stance in student writing. Language and Computers, 74(1):23–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gao, W. (2012). Nominalization in medical papers: A comparative study. Studies in Literature and Language, 4 (1), 86–93.Google Scholar
Gardner, S. (2008). ‘Mapping Ideational Meaning in a Corpus of Student Writing’ in C. Jones & E. Ventola (eds) New Developments in the Study of Ideational Meaning. London: Equinox Publishing, 169–188.Google Scholar
Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D. (2019). Discipline, Level, Genre: Integrating Situational Perspectives in a New MD Analysis of University Student Writing, Applied Linguistics, 40(4):646–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th Edition. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Han, C., & Gardner, S. (2021). However and other transitions in the Han CH-EN corpus. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 100984. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted … In this article I aim to do just that’ A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1207–1231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H. (2009). Thematic choice and expressions of stance in English argumentative texts by Norwegian learners. Corpora and language teaching, 33 1:121–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
He, M. (2020). A review on studies of Theme in academic writing. Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 4 (3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herriman, J. (2011). Themes and Theme progression in Swedish advanced learners’ writing in English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10 (1):1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hewings, A. & North, S. (2006). Emergent disciplinarity: a comparative study of Theme in undergraduate essays in geography and history of science. In Whittacker, R., O’Donnell, M. & A. McCabe (eds) Language and Literacy: Functional Approaches. London: Continuum. 264–281.Google Scholar
Jing, W. (2014). Theme and thematic progression in learner English: A literature review. Columbian Applied Linguistics Journal, 16(1):67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leedham, M. (2015). Chinese Students’ Writing in English: Implications from a corpus-driven study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lu, X. (2017). Automated measurement of syntactic complexity in corpus-based L2 writing research and implications for writing assessment. Language Testing, 34 (4):493–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a Noun: Arresting the Universe in Science and Humanities. In Halliday, M. A. K. & J. R. Martin. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press, 221–267.Google Scholar
(2002). Meaning beyond the clause: SFL perspectives. ARAL 221:52–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J., & Musgrave, J. (2014). Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14 1:48–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesi, H. & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in Higher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
North, S. (2005). Disciplinary variation in the use of Theme in undergraduate essays. Applied Linguistics, 26 (3), 431–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M. (2014). The UAM Corpus Tool 3.4.16 [URL]
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar