Cover not available
Part of
Cross-linguistic Correspondences: From lexis to genre
Edited by Thomas Egan and Hildegunn Dirdal
[Studies in Language Companion Series 191] 2017
► pp. 271–296

Chapter 11
Frequency and lexical variation in connector use

| Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences
The present study investigates the frequency and lexical variation in connector use in argumentative texts in English and Norwegian. The concept of ‘connector’ includes adverbial conjuncts and co-ordinating conjunctions, and the material comprises texts by expert and novice (student) writers. The results indicate that conjunctions are more frequent in English expert texts than in the corresponding Norwegian material, but the opposite tendency is found between the novice writers. In terms of lexical variation, there are two main findings. The first is that much of the observed variation is the result of many items being used only once, and the second is that there are a number of cross-linguistic correspondences in the most frequently used lexical items.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Previous research
    • 1.2The present study: Aims and definitions
  • 2.Material and method
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Connector frequency
    • 3.2Correlation between frequency of connectors and lexical variation
    • 3.3Meaning categories and lexical variation
    • 3.4Most frequent lexical items
  • 4.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.191.11ror
References (17)
References
Altenberg, Bengt. 1999. Adverbial connectors in English and Swedish: Semantic and lexical correspondences. In Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, Hilde Hasselgård & Signe Oksefjell (eds), 249–268. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2007. The correspondence of resultive connectors in English and Swedish. Nordic Journal of English Studies 6(1).Google Scholar
Fries, Peter H. 1995. Themes, development and texts. In On Subject and Theme: A Discourse Functional Perspective [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 118], Ruqaia Hasan & Peter H. Fries (eds), 317–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2001. The Integrated Contrastive Model: Spicing up your data. Languages in Contrast 3(1): 95–123.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 1996. From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Languages in Contrast: Papers from a Symposium on Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies, Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds), 37–52. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Dagneaux, Estelle, Meunier, Fanny & Paquot, Magali. 2009. International Corpus of Learner English v2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Haaland, Live. 1997. Contrastive linking in English and Norwegian. MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn, revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2004. Thematic choice in English and Norwegian. Functions of Language 11(2): 187–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kunz, Kerstin & Lapshinova-Koltunski, Ekaterina. 2014. Cohesive conjunctions in English and German: Systemic contrasts and textual differences. In Recent Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora, Lieven Vandelanotte, Kristin Davidse, Caroline Gentens & Ditte Kimps (eds), 229–262. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leńko-Szymańska, Agnieszka. 2008. Non-native or non-expert? The use of connectors in native and foreign language learners’ texts. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère 27: 91–108.Google Scholar
Mur Dueñas, Pilar. 2009. Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles. English Text Construction 2(2): 246–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mol, Susan. 2004. Causality in a Cross-linguistic Perspective: so, therefore, and thus versus så, derfor, and således . MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Paquot, Magali. 2008. Exemplification in learner writing: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, Fanny Meunier & Sylviane Granger (eds), 101–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rørvik, Sylvi & Egan, Thomas. 2013. Connectors in the argumentative writing of Norwegian novice writers. In Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Proceedings of the first Learner Research Conference (LCR 2011), Sylviane Granger, Gaëtanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds), 401–410. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Shaw, Philip. 2004. Sentence openings in academic economics articles in English and Danish. Nordic Journal of English Studies 3(2): 67–84.Google Scholar