This corpus-based study analyzes different types of epistemic markers used in argumentative essays by University students. More specifically it compares Swedish L2 writers and English L1 writers. The scope of the analysis covers epistemic modal verbs, lexical verbs and adverbs. A number of markers are counted to see which expressions are preferred by L1 and L2 writers respectively and if the frequency rates differ between the two groups. Further, it discusses whether the non-native writers use epistemic markers appropriate to an academic register, and an attempt is made to see whether the L1 and L2 writers show similar patterns of ‘committing’ to and ‘distancing’ themselves to their arguments. The results reveal a few notable differences between the Swedish and English writers. A tendency is seen among the L2 writers to ‘overuse’ certain expressions, particularly in the category of lexical verbs. Compared to the native writers, the L2 writers display higher frequency rates when it comes to markers that are most commonly found in spoken conversation. Further the L2 writers seem to display more ‘writer visibility’ than the L1 writers do, which could perhaps be due to differences in writing culture. The findings also suggest that Swedish L2 writers, even on a relatively advanced level, may have difficulties in mastering modal expressions in English.

The purpose of this study is to determine two types of error gravity in a corpus of texts written by native Chinese learners of English (ELLs)—one that enriches the traditional construct of gravity found in error gravity research by including error frequency, or how often an error occurs in a text relative to others, as an intervening variable, and one that applies the new error gravity data in a practical way to help establish salient grammatical focal points for written corrective feedback (WCF). Previous error gravity research has suggested that the amount of irritation caused by error is determined by the extent to which an utterance departs from "native-like" speech. However, because these studies often neglect the role of frequency in determining gravity—relying on isolated sentences, pre-determined errors, and manipulated texts to define it—a more complete view of error gravity is needed. Forty-eight native English speakers without ESL teaching experience and 10 experienced ESL teachers evaluated a set of 18 timed, 30-minute essays written by high intermediate to advanced native-Chinese ELLs. Errors were identified, verified, tagged, and classified by the level of irritation they produced. Results show the most serious errors included count/non-count (C/NC), insert verb (INSERT V), omit verb (OMIT V), and subject-verb agreement (SV). The most frequent error type was word choice (WC), followed by singular/plural (S/PL), awkward (AWK), and word form (WF). When combined, singular/plural (S/PL), word form (WF), word choice (WC), and awkward (AWK) errors were found to be the most critical. These findings support Burt and Kiparsky's (1972) global/local error distinction in which global errors, or those lexical, grammatical and syntactic errors that affect the overall organization or meaning of the sentence (Burt, 1975) are deemed more grievous than local ones, which affect only "single elements (constituents)" (Burt, 1975, p. 57). Implications are discussed in terms of future research and possible uses in the Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback classroom.

The number of English as a second language (ESL) students attending universities in the United States has increased during the 2011-2012 school year (Hagedorn & Lee, 2005), with, for the first time since 2001, more undergraduate international students than graduate students in institutions across the country (Davis, 2012). Given the wide range of backgrounds and English proficiencies represented by this group, their varying needs are frequently not being fully met, particularly in reading and writing, two areas that are often weak in ESL students but linked to academic success (Matsuda, 2004). Regarding writing, much research has shown that ESL students need feedback on various aspects of writing to improve (Ferris, 2009), ranging from content, to organization, to linguistic features. However, giving feedback on each of these components may not be possible for writing teachers, due to time demands. Alternatively, peer tutors may effectively work with ESL students to help them understand academic writing expectations in the U.S. and meet said expectations. This investigative study looked at a newly-developed ESL Writing Fellows (WF) program at Brigham Young University, focusing on the perceptions of the various stake holders (students, writing teachers, and Fellows themselves) regarding the success of the ESL WF program. Via pre- and post-program surveys, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups, the perceptions of the students were obtained. Via non-structured interviews, the perceptions of the teachers and Fellows themselves were obtained. From these data, themes that looked at the aspects of the program that were successful and that need to be improved were developed and analyzed, primarily from an administrative perspective. Overall, this study found that ESL students greatly appreciated having the individualized tutoring provided by the ESL WF program. Students valued the feedback given by the tutor on content, organization, and grammatical issues, and found the follow-up conferences with the tutor to be a great asset as the tutors could explain intended meaning. Additionally, tutors felt more comfortable negotiating intended meaning with the Fellow, which may be more effective at helping students develop the needed schema to apply Fellow suggestions to future writing assignments. However, much of the success of the program relies on the individual Fellow, with Fellows who neglect duties or provide feedback that conflicts with that of the teacher creating problems for students. Administrators should hire and train tutors accordingly. Teachers agreed that the Fellows generally were an asset to their classes, and the Fellows themselves appreciated the opportunity to work one-on-one with ESL students, feeling that this program afforded them experience that would make them more employable in the future.

Grammatical accuracy in second language (L2) writing is one of the key issues that English as a Second Language (ESL) learners struggle with, both in intensive English language programs and continuing after their university matriculation. Numerous instructional methodologies exist that center around the concept of error correction—how can or should ESL instructors correct grammatical errors in L2 students' writing to best facilitate improvements in written linguistic accuracy? Error correction in L2 writing has been a controversial issue for over a decade (e.g., Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1996), and in an effort to contribute to an understanding of this controversial topic, this study investigated an innovative method of error correction known as dynamic written corrective feedback (WCF). For 15 weeks, 24 students at the Brigham Young University (BYU) English Language Center (ELC) received a form of dynamic WCF dramatically modified from Hartshorn's (2008) original method with the objective of increased practicality. These students produced a 30-minute pretest and posttest essay, and researchers calculated the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of each pretest and posttest. Data from the current study is compared against data from Hartshorn (2008), which found dynamic WCF to be successful in improving accuracy after carrying out similar research. The results validate previous findings and confirm that dynamic WCF is an effective approach to error correction, even when dramatically modified.

Corrective feedback (CF) is regarded as a controversial topic when it comes to writing in the L2 classroom. Some researchers have found it to be both meaningless and harmful, while others have researched the effects of different types of CF and found it to be good for language development in several ways. This made us interested in conducting a study focusing on what attitudes grade 3-5 (age 9-11) teachers have concerning CF, and if they themselves use it for their L2 students’ writing. The study was conducted through five semi-structured interviews with teachers working in Lund, Sweden. The aim of the study was to investigate compulsory school teachers’ experiences of and thoughts on CF as a teaching method for improving young L2 learners’ writing. The results revealed that the teachers believe CF to be an irreplaceable part of language learning but that it should be adapted to each individual’s needs. Although all interviewed teachers acknowledged CF’s potential harm on learners’ motivation and willingness to write, no one believed that it could be left out completely.

The present study, a quantitative lexical analysis, examines the extent to which vocabulary size and lexical diversity contribute to writing scores on advanced non-native speakers’ and native speakers’ academic compositions. The data consists of essays composed by 104 adult non-native English learners enrolled in advanced second language writing courses and 68 native speaking university students in a first-year composition course. The lexical diversity of the sample essays is quantified by both the Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD) and the voc-D while vocabulary size is measured by CELEX word frequency means, three instruments that are available in the computational linguistics program Coh-Metrix 3.0. Writing scores are provided by three independent raters’ evaluations according to the TOEFL iBT Independent Writing Rubric. Results from a binary logistic regression reveal that lexical diversity has a significantly greater impact on writing score than vocabulary size (p < .01). Nevertheless, a series of MANOVAs indicate that vocabulary size initially facilitates writing scores at the lower proficiency levels, but it is an essay’s lexical diversity that promotes it to the higher score levels. Additional findings from the MANOVAs demonstrate that native speakers’ profiles of lexical diversity and size are significantly different from their non-native peers (p < .001). The lexical profiles also differed significantly among the individual score levels of the TOEFL iBT rubric (p < .05). A final outcome from a Pearson’s product moment correlation analysis shows that iii vocabulary size has only a moderate relationship to lexical diversity, suggesting that variation of mid-range vocabulary may be more important to writing proficiency than the use of more sophisticated terms that occur less frequently in natural language. Implications for practice suggest that it is not enough to simply teach vocabulary words in the L2 composition classroom, but also to guide learners in how to employ these words in a varied manner within their writing. Furthermore, the results of this study indicate that teachers should spend more time on helping students use medium frequency words along with synonyms of a similar frequency rather than teaching students infrequent vocabulary, which may appear to sound more advanced.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.