A corpus-based study of be-copula in native speaker and non-native speaker learners’ argumentative essays
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss2pp21-43Abstract
Background and Purpose: There is little research on the use of BE-copula in learner compositions in terms of how BE is used, and what functions it performs at specific stages of composition. This study aims to investigate the functions of BE-copula in argumentative essays written by non-native speaker (NS) and native speaker (NNS) learners and determine the similarities and differences in the way the learners use BE-copula in their essays.
Methodology: This descriptive study employed a corpus-based methodology with the corpus data obtained from the Malaysian Corpus of Learner English (MACLE) and Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). Only data from L1-Malay learners, which were extracted from MACLE, and which form a sub-corpus of L1-Malay learner argumentative essays, were analyzed in the study. Adopting Hyland’s three-stage structure of an argumentative essay as the framework for analysis, data were analyzed for the distribution of BE-copula and the functions it performed in the learner essays.
Findings: Results from the quantitative analysis revealed a similar pattern in the use of BE-copula between NNS and NS learners, with both groups showing an inclination towards the present forms (is, are) and BE-copula construction. A t-test analysis revealed a more significant use of BE-copula in terms of both forms and functions by the NS learners. The qualitative analysis revealed that even though the NNS learners exhibited almost similar composing elements as the NS counterparts, their texts were stylistically simple, more constrained, less fluent, and effective due to limited syntactic variety.
Contributions: The empirical findings from the in-depth quantitative and qualitative analyses have enabled more insightful conclusions to be drawn about the NNS learners’ use of BE-copula in their writing. The present study has direct pedagogical implications for the teaching of academic writing in the ESL context.
Keywords: Argumentative essay, academic writing, be-copula, corpus-based, learner corpus research.
References
Ang, L. H., Tan, K. H., & Lye, G. Y. (2020). Error types in Malaysian lower secondary school student writing: A Corpus informed analysis of subject-verb agreement and copula be. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 26(4), 127-140.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use the characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 639-668.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (1998). Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: A study of complement clauses. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 145–158). Addison Wesley Longman.
Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 219–244.
Brazil, D. (1995). A grammar of speech. Oxford University Press.
Dissanayake, S. D., & Dissanayake, C. B. (2019). Common syntactic errors made by the undergraduates in writing English as a second language. International Journal of Liberal Arts and Social Science, 7(11), 1-8.
Flowerdew, L. (2003). A combined corpus and systemic-functional analysis of the problem–solution pattern in a student and professional corpus of technical writing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 489–511.
Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. C. (2014). Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23(1), 1–16.
Galti, A. M. (2016). Awareness of students on the use of affective strategy and their level of speaking anxiety. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 3(1), 319-322.
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: Paper from a symposium on text-based cross-linguistic
studies. Lund studies in English Vol. 88 (pp. 37–51). Lund University Press.
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F. (2002). The international corpus of learner English handbook and CD-ROM. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Gray, B. (2010). On the use of demonstrative pronouns and determinersas cohesive devices: A focus on sentence-initial this/these in academic prose. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 167-183.
Hasselgård, H. (2014). It-clefts in English L1 and L2 academic writing. The case of Norwegian learners. In K. Davidse, C. Gentens, L. Ghesquière, & L. Vandelanotte (Eds.), Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns (pp. 295–319). John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal, 21(1), 66-78.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.
Hinkel, E. (2001). Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts. Applied Language Learning, 12(1), 111–132.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text. Linguistic and rhetorical features. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 275-301.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Imani, A., & Habil, H. (2012). NNS postgraduate students’ academic writing: Problem-solving strategies and grammatical features. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 66(1), 440-471.
Imtiaz, Z., & Mahmood, M. A. (2014). Genre analysis of argumentative essays of Pakistani EFL Learners. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(30), 95-100.
Jarvis, S. (2007). Theoretical and methodological issues in the investigation of conceptual transfer. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 43–71.
Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2020). “There are significant differences…”: The secret life of existential there in academic writing. Lingua, 233(1), 1-31.
Kanestion, A., & Singh, M. K. S. (2019). A corpus-based genre analysis moves in introductory paragraph of argumentative writing. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(7), 821–831.
Kanestion, A., Singh, S., Kaur, M., & Shamsudin, S. (2017). Developing a framework for writing skill: A corpus-based analysis of the written argumentative essays. Sains Humanika, 9(4-2), 39–47.
Knowles, G., Zuraidah, M. D., Jariah, M. J., Rajeswary, S., Janet, Y., & Sathiadevi. (2006). The Malaysian corpus of learner English: A bridge from linguistics to ELT. In H. Azirah & H. Norizah (Eds.), Varieties of English in Southeast Asia and beyond.
University of Malaya Press.
Liu, D. (2015). Moves and wrap-up sentences in Chinese students’ essay conclusions. SAGE Open, 1(1), 1-9.
Matesic, M., & Memisevic, A. (2016). Pragmatics of adjectives in academic discourse: From qualification to intensification. Jezikoslovlje, 17(1), 179-206.
McCarthy, M. (1994). It, this, and that. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 266-275). Routledge.
Milton, J. (2001). Elements of a written interlanguage: A computational and corpus-based study of institutional influences on the acquisition of English by Hong Kong Chinese Students. In G. James (Ed.), Research report Vol 2. Language Centre, the
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the language learning classroom. The University of Michigan Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
Roslina, A. A., & Zuraidah, M. D. (2019). Tagging L2 writing: Learner errors and the performance of an automated part-of-speech tagger. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(3), 140-155.
Roslina, A. A. (2018). A corpus-based study of the use of “BE” in Malay ESL learner essays (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Malaya.
Smirkou, A., & Smirkou, M. (2018). The development of the copula among Moroccan learners of English: The lightness of Be. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 23(5), 67-78.
Staples, S., & Reppen, R. (2016). Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32(1), 17–35.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Nonnative speaker graduate engineering students and their introductions: Global coherence and local management. In U. Connor & A. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing (pp. 189-207). TESOL.
Swales, J. M. (2005). Attended and unattended “this” in academic writing: A long and unfinished story. ESP Malaysia, 11(1), 1-15.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. (2012). Commentary for academic writing for graduate students. University of Michigan Press.
Wulff, S., Römer, U., & Swales, J. (2012). Attended/unattended this in academic student writing: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 129-157.
