Outline

1. “In light of this, it is suggested…”: Comparing n-grams in Chinese and British students’ undergraduate assignments from UK universitiesMaria Leedham ICAME 2009m.e.leedham@open.ac.uk

2. Outline 1. Research questions and the corpora 2. Findings 2.1 N-grams and functional classifications 2.2 Four-grams in four corpora 2.3 Four-grams across disciplines 3. Conclusions and pedagogical implications

3. Research Questions 1.In what ways do n-grams differ in Chinese and British undergraduate students' academic writing in U.K. universities? 2. How do n-grams develop in Chinese and British students' writing from year 1 to year 3 of undergraduate study? 3. What are the pedagogical implications for teachers of academic writing? 4. Do n-grams reveal any disciplinary differences? .

4. British Academic Written English (BAWE) 6,506,995 words 2,896 texts 2,761 assignments 1,039 contributors 30+ disciplines 13 genre families 4 levels of study Compiling my corpora L1 English and L1 Chinese Divided into years 1&2, and year 3 12 disciplines Extra students recruited through teaching contacts, discussion lists and Facebook. The Corpora

5. Four corpora

6. Changes in n-gram tokens • The number of n-grams of each size reduces in year 3 Chinese… • …and increases in year 3 English

7. Functional classification • Participant-oriented: - Engagement features (eg it is important to) - Stance features (eg may be due to) • Text-oriented: - Framing (eg in the case of) - Structuring (eg as shown in the) - Resultative (eg as a result of) - Transition (eg on the other hand) • Research-oriented: - Description (eg the size of the ) - Quantification (eg one of the most) - Location (eg in the present study) - Topic (eg the currency board system) - Procedure (eg the role of the) (Hyland, 2008a,b)

8. 4-grams: functional classification

9. Outline 1. Research questions and the corpora 2. Findings 2.1 N-grams and functional classifications 2.2 Four-grams in four corpora 2.3 Four-grams across disciplines 3. Conclusions and pedagogical implications

10. A closer look at 4-grams KEY Bold = common across L1 groups Shaded = common across year groups

11. Concgrams with ‘can’

12. Difficulties with classification • Participant-oriented: engagement features - address readers directly (eg it can be seen, as can be seen) • Text-oriented: structuring signals - direct reader within the text (eg as shown in the, as shown in figure)

13. 4-grams: functional classification

14. Word docs and text files • Tables, diagrams and images are tagged and deleted. • => The sense of the whole assignment is lost.

15. Non-prose features • These features reduce the need for connected prose • Listlikes as a strategy ??

16. Outline 1. Research questions and the corpora 2. Findings 2.1 N-grams and functional classifications 2.2 Four-grams in four corpora 2.3 Four-grams across disciplines 3. Conclusions and pedagogical implications

19. Linkers

21. Pronouns across disciplines

22. Some conclusions Across L1 groups • L1 English students seem to use more participant-oriented chunks than L1 Chinese students • BUT maybe this is more to do with the classification? • ALSO, over time, Chinese students increase their use of non-prose features such as tables and listlikes - this perhaps reduces the need for textual and interpersonal chunks. Across disciplines • Some n-grams are common across disciplines (e.g. ‘as a result of’, ‘may be due to’) • Some n-grams are more discipline-specific (e.g. ‘the amount of’, ‘the number of’ in Food Science) • Some n-grams such as ‘on the other hand’ are common across all disciplines in L1 Chinese writing.

23. Pedagogical implications • Writing in each discipline is different – in terms of chunks, use of diagrams and tables, acceptability of pronouns… • => Discipline-specific EAP classes are useful • Many genres are demanded of students (essay, lab report, reflective writing…) • => Model assignments are a good idea. • Both L1 Chinese and L1 English students need guidance as to appropriate language within their discipline and within each genre.

24. References • British Council 2007. ‘China Market Introduction’. Downloaded from http://www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-information-background-china.htm • Hewings, A. & Hewings, M. 2001 ‘Approaches to the study of disciplinary variation in academic writing: implications for syllabus design’, in David R. Hall, and Ann Hewings (eds.) Innovation in English language teaching, pp. 71-83. A reader. Open University/Routledge. • Heuboeck, A., Holmes, J. & Nesi, H. 2007 The Bawe Corpus Manual. Retrieved from http://www.coventry.ac.uk/researchnet/d/505/a/5160. • Hyland, K. (2008a). Academic clusters: text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41-62. • Hyland, K. (2008b). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21. • Leedham, M. (forthcoming, 2009) ‘From traditional essay to ‘Ready Steady Cook’ presentation: reasons for innovative changes in assignments’ In Active Learning in HE. • Nesi, H. and S. Gardner (2006) ‘Variation in Disciplinary Culture: University Tutors' Views on Assessed Writing Tasks’, in Richard Kiely, Gerald Clibbon, Pauline Rea-Dickins, and Helen Woodfield, (eds)Language, Culture and Identity in Applied Linguistics (British Studies in Applied Linguistics, 21) London: Equinox Publishing.