Abstract:
This article studies how L2 Russian speaking learners of English for Academic Purposes acquire the skill of grammatical metaphor phrasal inclusion. The study applies corpus methodology (Lancsbox concordance tools) and statistical analysis tools in order to analyse the interdendency between the level of linguistic expertise of learners and their ability to apply certain patterns with grammatical metaphors in academic writing. Additionally, the instances of intermediate realisations (errors) are investigated. The analysed corpus is a subset of the Russian Error-Annotated Learner English Corpus (REALEC) initiated by the National Research University Higher School of Economics. The subcorpus used in this research included opinion essays written by first year Master’s students in elective courses on arguing in English in the span of three years (2016, 2017, 2018). The corpus comprised the total of 112037 words.
The results of the current study suggest that three models of grammatical metaphor inclusion into complex nominal phrases present the most prominent challenge for Russian-speaking L2 learners of English for Academic Purposes from the perspective of grammatical complexity and informational density (adjective + nominalisation, nominalisation + -ing clause, nominalisation + -ed clause). From the viewpoint of language accuracy, the model ‘nominalisation + prepositional phrase’ presents the most significant challenge for students.
Keywords: grammatical metaphor, nominal group acquisition, academic discourse, corpus study, REALEC, grammatical complexity, valency reduction.
For citation: Galeyeva A.I., Gumovskaya G.N. Grammatical Metaphor Constructions: Acquisition Analysis. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2023, no 3, pp. 183–191. https://doi.org/10.29025/2079-6021-2023-3-183-191 (In Engl.).
Bionote:
*Arina I. Galeyeva1, Galina N. Gumovskaya2
1,2 National Research University Higher School of Economics;
21 Staraya Basmannaya Str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 105066;
1ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8131-3874; 2ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5823-792X;
*e-mail: arinagaleyeva@gmail.com
References:
1. Staples S. et al. Writing trajectories of grammatical complexity at the university: Comparing L1 and L2 English writers in Bawe. Applied Linguistics. 2022; 1 (44): 46–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac047.
2. Aslam A, Fayyaz S. Investigating the use of nominalization: a comparative study of Pakistani learners’ and native English speakers’ argumentative essays. Psychology and Education Journal. 2021; 2 (58): 3638–3648.
3. Heidari Kaidan Z, Jalilifar A, Don A. On the significance of disciplinary variation in research articles: Perspectives from nominalization. Cogent Education. 2021; 1 (8). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2021.1890872.
4. Liardét CL. Nominalization and grammatical metaphor: Elaborating the theory. English for Specific Purposes. 2016; 44: 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.04.004.
5. Halliday MAK, et al. An introduction to functional grammar. 2014. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771.
6. Hao J. Nominalisations in scientific English. Functions of Language. 2020; 2 (27): 143–173. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16055.hao.
7. Pujol Dahme AM, Selfa M. Academic language in Catalan students’ research reports across levels of study. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. 2020; 1 (16): 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0065.
8. Luporini A. Metaphor, nominalization, appraisal: Analyzing coronavirus-related headlines and subheadings in China Daily and the Wall Street Journal. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies. 2021; 1 (21): 253–273. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2021-2101-15.
9. Thomas D, To V. Nominalisation in high scoring primary and secondary school persuasive texts. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 2016; 2 (39): 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03651967.
10. Kellogg D, Aghajani Kalkhoran S. “And that”: Halliday’s logogenesis, sociogenesis, and phylogenesis in Darwin’s tangled Bank. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics. 2021; 3 (30): 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/09639470211009672.
11. He Q, Yang B. A corpus-based study of the correlation between text technicality and ideational metaphor in English. Lingua. 2018; 203: 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.10.005.
12. Baratta AM. Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics. 2010; 4 (42): 1017–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.007.
13. Xuan WW, Chen S. A synthesis of research on grammatical metaphor: Meta-data and content analysis. WORD. 2019; 4 (65): 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2019.1670911.
14. Liardét CL, Black S. Trump vs. Trudeau: Exploring the power of grammatical metaphor for academic communication. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2020; 45: 100843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100843.
15. Zhou W, Li Z, Lu X. Syntactic complexity features of science research article introductions: Rhetorical-functional and disciplinary variation perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2023; 61: 101212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101212.
16. Işık-Taş EE. Nominal stance construction in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2018; 34: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.004.
17. REALEC. Available at: https://realec.org/. Accessed January 17, 2021.
18. BAWE. Available at: https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repository/xmlui/handle/20.500.12024/2539. Accessed November 04, 2020.
19. Brezina V, Weill-Tessier P, McEnery T. #LancsBox (5.1). Available at: https://lancsbox.lancs.ac.uk/. Accessed March 20, 2021.
20. Biber D, Gray B, Poonpon K. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? Register-Functional Approach to Grammatical Complexity. 2021: 291–312. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003087991-18.
21. Lan G, Lucas K, Sun Y. Does L2 writing proficiency influence noun phrase complexity? A case analysis of argumentative essays written by Chinese students in a first-year composition course. System. 2019; 85: 102116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102116.
22. Bello I. Cognitive implications of nominalizations in the Advancement of Scientific Discourse. International Journal of English Studies. 2016; 2 (16). https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2016/2/262921.