Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-nr6nt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:12:59.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formulaic Language in Learner Corpora

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Magali Paquot  and
Sylviane Granger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Formulaic language is at the heart of corpus linguistic research, and learner corpus research (LCR) is no exception. As multiword units of all kinds (e.g., collocations, phrasal verbs, speech formulae) are notoriously difficult for learners, and corpus linguistic techniques are an extremely powerful way of exploring them, they were an obvious area for investigation by researchers from the very early days of LCR. In the first part of this article, the focus is on the types of learner corpus data investigated and the most popular method used to analyze them. The second section describes the types of word sequences analyzed in learner corpora and the methodologies used to extract them. In the rest of the article, we summarize some of the main findings of LCR studies of the learner phrasicon, distinguishing between co-occurrence and recurrence. Particular emphasis is also placed on the relationship between learners’ use of formulaic sequences and transfer from the learner's first language. The article concludes with some proposals for future research in the field.

Type
SECTION B: FORMULAIC LANGUAGE AND PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 32 , March 2012 , pp. 130 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crossley, S. A., & Salsbury, T. (2011). The development of lexical bundle accuracy and production in English second language speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching, 49, 1–26.

Crossley and Salsbury traced the development of two-word lexical bundles in the speech of six EFL learners over a period of one year. They compared their frequency of use with that found in the Santa Barbara Corpus (a collection of casual conversation recordings), and reported that overall the learners begin to produce bigrams at a more nativelike frequency as a function of time studying English and English proficiency. At the same time, they observed that some bundles (e.g., I am, I have, I did, I want, maybe I, and you can) remained more frequent, most probably because they carry a greater pragmatic load in learner speech.

Gilquin, G. (2007). To err is not all. What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 55, 273–291.

This article made use of both learner corpus data and experimental data to study advanced French-speaking EFL learners’ knowledge of make-collocations. The corpus study showed that learners did not make many errors when using make-collocations, but they tended to underuse them and preferred those collocations that had a direct equivalent in French. In the elicited data, on the other hand, the error rate was much higher and learners’ judgments were often unreliable.

Nesselhauf, N. (2009). Co-selection phenomena across new Englishes: Parallels (and differences) to foreign learner varieties. English World-Wide, 30, 1–26.

In this article, co-occurrence phenomena that only display a low degree of idiomaticity and culture-boundedness (e.g., competing collocations such as play a role and play a part, the noun complementation of collocations such as HAVE + INTENTION + of –ing vs. to + infinitive, and nonnative prepositional verbs such as demand for) are shown to occur across both institutionalized (Kenyan, Indian, Singaporean, and Jamaican English) and learner varieties of English. Except for new prepositional verbs that are more frequent in L2 varieties, the frequency of these co-occurrence phenomena in institutionalized varieties lies between that in native speaker English and in learner English.

Waibel, B. (2008). Phrasal verbs: German and Italian learners of English compared. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM.

This book is an in-depth study of the use of phrasal verbs by German and Italian EFL learners. While the two learner populations share a number of features of unnaturalness in their use of phrasal verbs (collocational deviations, choice of a wrong phrasal verb, and simplification of meaning), they also differ substantially. For example, German learners made extensive use of highly colloquial and informal phrasal verbs. Due to the semantic similarity of German particle verbs and English phrasal verbs, they also used more phrasal verbs. The study not only investigated the influence of the first language on learners’ use of phrasal verbs, it also considered the impact of other learner and task variables (e.g., exposure, use of reference tools).

REFERENCES

Adolphs, S., & Durrow, V. (2004). Social-cultural integration and the development of formulaic sequences. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 107–126). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2009). “So er I just sort of I dunno I think it's just because. . .”: A corpus study of “I don't know” and “dunno” in learner spoken English. In Jucker, A. H., Schreier, D., & Hundt, M. (Eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse (pp. 151–166). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Allen, D. (2011). Lexical bundles in learner writing: an analysis of formulaic language in the ALESS learner corpus. Komaba Journal of English Education, 1, 105–127.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 101–122). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterning of “make” in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 22, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at . . .: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Biskup, D. (1992). L1 influence on learners’ renderings of English collocations: A Polish/German empirical study. In Arnaud, P. & Béjoint, H. (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 85–93). London, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bo, G., & Shutang, Z. (2005). A corpus-based contrastive study of recurrent word combinations in English essays of Chinese college students and native speakers. CELEA Journal, 28, 37–48.Google Scholar
Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 30–49.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Québec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 59, 393–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2004). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, A. P. (1988). Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary. In Cater, R. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 126–139). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. (1994). Phraseology. In Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 3168–3171). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Cross, J., & Papp, S. (2008). Creativity in the use of verb + noun combinations by Chinese learners of English. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (Eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp. 57–81). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & Salsbury, T. (2011). The development of lexical bundle accuracy and production in English second language speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching, 49, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs—A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cock, S. (2004). Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series, 2, 225–246.Google Scholar
De Cock, S. (2005). Learners and phrasal verbs. In Rundell, M. (Ed.), Macmillan phrasal verbs plus. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
De Cock, S. (2007). Routinized building blocks in native speaker and learner speech: Clausal sequences in the spotlight. In Campoy, M. C. & Luzón, M. J. (Eds.), Spoken corpora in applied linguistics (pp. 217–233). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
De Cock, S. (2011). Preferred patterns of use of positive and negative evaluative adjectives in native and learner speech: an ELT perspective. In Frankenberg-Garcia, A., Flowerdew, L., & Aston, G. (Eds.), New trends in corpora and language learning (pp. 198–212). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2008) Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language. In Meunier, F. & Granger, S. (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (1–13). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Evert, S. (2008). Corpora and collocations. In Lüdeling, A., & Kytö, M. (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 1212–1248). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fan, P. (2010). Lexical acquisition viewed from a contrastive analysis of collocational behavior of near-synonyms. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33, 52–64.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In Firth, J. R. (Ed.), Studies in linguistic analysis (pp. 1–32). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2007). To err is not all. What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 55, 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., De Cock, S., & Granger, S. (2010). The Louvain international database of spoken English interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2011). From EFL to ESL: Evidence from the International Corpus of Learner English. In Hundt, M. & Mukherjee, D. (Eds.), Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: Bridging a paradigm gap (pp. 55–78). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, R. A. (2010). L2 Spanish acquisition of English phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic analysis of L1 influence. In Campoy-Cubillo, M. C., Bellés-Fortuño, B., & Gea-Valor, M. L. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching (pp. 149–166). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Götz, S., & Schilk, M. (2011). Formulaic sequences in spoken ENL, ESL, and EFL. In Hundt, M., & Mukherjee, J. (Eds.), Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: Bridging a paradigm gap (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B., & Johansson, M. (Eds.), Languages in contrast: Text-based cross-linguistic studies (pp. 37–51). Lund Studies in English 88. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Cowie, A. (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (2008). Learner corpora in foreign language education. In N. Deusen-Scholl, Van & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 4. Second and foreign language education (pp. 337–351). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (2009). Learner corpora: A window onto the L2 phrasicon. In Barfield, A. & Gyllstad, H. (Eds.), Researching collocations in another language (pp. 60–65). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (in press). Learner corpora. In Chapelle, C. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., & Meunier, F. (2002). The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CD-ROM (Version 2). Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2008). Disentangling the phraseological web. In Granger, S. & Meunier, F. (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–49). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groom, N. (2009). Effects of second language immersion on second language collocational development. In Barfield, A. & Gyllstad, H. (Eds.), Researching collocations in another language (pp. 21–33). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A., & Barr, R. (2010). Comparing indicators of authorial stance in psychology students’ writing and published research articles. Journal of Writing Research, 2, 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, P. (1996). Phraseology in English academic writing: Some implications for language learning and dictionary making. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19, 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, J. (2007). Lexical collocations and their relation to the online writing of Taiwanese college English majors and non-English majors. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4, 192–209.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50, 245–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Paquot, M. (2012). Exploring the role of n-grams in L1 identification. In Jarvis, S. & Crossley, S. (Eds.), Approaching language transfer through text classification. Explorations in the detection-based approach (pp. 71–105). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juknevičienė, R. (2008). Collocations with high-frequency verbs in learner English: Lithuanian learners vs. native speakers. Kalbotyra, 59, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juknevičienė, R. (2009). Lexical bundles in learner language: Lithuanian learners vs. native speakers. Kalbotyra, 61, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaszubski, P. (2000). Selected aspects of the lexicon, phraseology and style in the writing of Polish advanced learners of English: A contrastive, corpus-based approach (Doctoral dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland). Retrieved from http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~przemka/rsearch.html#PhDGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15, 59–92.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. (1979). Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1/L2 difference, L1/L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61, 647–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leacock, C., Chodorow, M., Gamon, M., & Tetreault, J. (2010). Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies: Lecture 9. Automated grammatical error detection for language learners. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. (1996). Getting “easy” verbs wrong at the advanced level. IRAL, 34, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, UK: Language Teaching.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2009). The idiom principle in L2 English: Assessing elusive formulaic sequences as indicators of idiomaticity, fluency, and proficiency. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2010). The development of collocation use in academic texts by advanced L2 learners: A multiple case study approach. In Wood, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 2–46). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Liao, Y., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54, 193–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, G. (1999). Adjective intensification—Learners versus native speakers. A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luzón Marco, M. J. (2010). Analysis of organizing and rhetorical items in a learner corpus of technical writing. In Campoy-Cubillo, M. C., Bellés-Fortuño, B., & Gea-Valor, M. L. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching (pp. 79–94). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2005). Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neff, J., Ballesteros, F., Dafouz, E., Martínez, F., & Rica, J. P. (2004). The expression of writer stance in native and non-native argumentative texts. In Facchinetti, R. & Palmer, F. (Eds.), English modality in perspective (pp. 141–161). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Neff, J., Dafouz, E., Herrera, H., Martínez, F., Rica, J. P., Diez, M., Prieto, R., & Sancho, C. (2003). Contrasting learner corpora: The use of modal and reporting verbs in the expression of writer stance. In Granger, S. & Petch-Tyson, S. (Eds.), Extending the scope of corpus-based research. New applications, new challenges (pp. 211–230). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff van Aertselaer, J. (2008). Contrasting English-Spanish interpersonal discourse phrases: A corpus study. In Meunier, F. & Granger, S. (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 85–100). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). Transfer at the locutional level: An investigation of German-speaking and French-speaking learners of English. In Tschichold, C. (Ed.), English core linguistics. Essays in honour of D. J. Allerton (pp. 269–286). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2009). Co-selection phenomena across new Englishes: Parallels (and differences) to foreign learner varieties. English World-Wide, 30, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohlrogge, A. (2009). Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing assessment. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 387–404). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Osborne, J. (2008). Phraseology effects as a trigger for errors in L2 English: The case of more advanced learners. In Meunier, F. & Granger, S. (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 67–83). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M. (2008). Exemplification in learner writing: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Meunier, F. & Granger, S. (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 101–119). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M. (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 29–59). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Ping, P. (2009). A study of the use of four-word lexical bundles in argumentative essays by Chinese English majors—A comparative study based on WECCL and LOCNESS. CELEA Journal, 32, 25–45.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. (2009). Exploring L1 and L2 writing development through collocations: A corpus-based look. In Barfield, A. & Gyllstad, H. (Eds.), Researching collocations in another language (pp. 49–59). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1987). Looking up. An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing. London, UK: Collins Cobuild.Google Scholar
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 Learner production and processing of collocation: A multi-study perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 429–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjöholm, K. (1998). A reappraisal of the role of cross-linguistic and environmental factors in lexical L2 acquisition. In Haastrup, K. & Viberg, A. (Eds.), Perspectives on lexical acquisition in a second language (pp. 209–236). Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M., & Barth, I. (2003). Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings. Functions of Language, 10, 65–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thewissen, J. (2008). The phraseological errors of French-, German-, and Spanish-speaking EFL learners: Evidence from an error-tagged learner corpus, In Proceedings from the 8th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference (TaLC8), Lisbon [Associação de Estudos e de Investigação Científica do ISLA-Lisboa] (pp. 300–306).Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. (in press). Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. Modern Language Journal.Google Scholar
Waibel, B. (2008). Phrasal verbs: German and Italian learners of English compared. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., & Shaw, P. (2008). Transfer and universality: Collocation use in advanced Chinese and Swedish learner English. ICAME Journal, 32, 201–232.Google Scholar
Wei, Y., & Lei, L. (2011). Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 42, 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., & Gries, S. (2011). Corpus-driven methods for assessing accuracy in learner production. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., & Römer, U. (2009). Becoming a proficient academic writer: Shifting lexical preferences in the use of the progressive. Corpora, 4, 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinkgräf, M. (2008). V+N collocations in the written production of university level students. Estudios de lingüística aplicada, 8, 91–116.Google Scholar