Comparing Formulaicity of Learner Writing through Phrase-Frames: A Corpus-Driven Study of Lithuanian and Polish EFL Student Writing

Open access


Learner corpus research continues to provide evidence of how formulaic language is (mis)used by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). This paper deals with less investigated multi-word units in EFL contexts, namely, phrase-frames (Fletcher 2002- 2007), i.e. sets of n-grams identical except for one word (it is * to, in the * of). The study compares Lithuanian and Polish learner writing in English in terms of phrase-frames and contrasts them with native speakers. The analysis shows that certain differences between Lithuanian and Polish learners result from transfer from their native languages, yet both groups of learners share many common features. Most importantly, the phrase-frame approach highlights structural peculiarities of learner writing which are otherwise difficult to capture.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ädel Annellie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Ädel Annellie and Britt Erman. 2012. Recurrent Word Combinations in Academic Writing by Native and Non-native Speakers of English: a Lexical Bundles Approach. English for Specific Purposes 31. 81-92.

  • Baumgarten Nicole. 2014. Recurrent Multiword Sequences in L2 English Spoken Academic Discourse: Developmental Perspectives on 1st and 3rd Year Undergraduate Presentational Speech. Nordic Journal of English Studies 13(3). 1-32.

  • Biber Douglas et al. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

  • Burneikaitė Nida. 2009. Metadiscoursal Connectors in Linguistics MA Theses in English. Kalbotyra 61(3). 36-50.

  • CECL (Centre for English Corpus Linguistics). 1998. LOCNESS. Louvain-la-Neuve: Universite catholique de Louvain. Available from [Accessed: 12th September 2016].

  • Chen Yu-Hua and Paul Baker. 2010. Lexical Bundles in L1 and L2 Academic Writing. Language Learning and Technology 14(2). 30-49.

  • De Cock Sylvie. 2004. Preferred Sequences of Words in NS and NNS Speech. BELL - Belgian Journal of English Language and Literature 2. 225-246.

  • Fan May. 2009. An Exploratory Study of Collocational Use by ESL Students. A Task Based Approach. System. [Online] ScienceDirect 37. 110-123. Available from: [Accessed: 3rd January 2017].

  • Fletcher William H. 2002-2007. KfNgram. Annapolis: USNA. [Online] Available from: [Accessed: 20th November 2011].

  • Fletcher William H. 2010. Phrases in English. [Online] Available from: [Accessed: 20th September 2014].

  • Forsyth Richard S. and Łukasz Grabowski. 2015. Is There a Formula for Formulaic Language? Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 51(4). 511-549.

  • Fuster-Marquez Miguel. 2014. Lexical Bundles and Phrase-frames in the Language of Hotel Websites. English Text Construction 7(1). 84-121.

  • Garner James R. 2016. A Phrase-frame Approach to Investigating Phraseology in Learner Writing Across Proficiency Levels. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(1). 31-67.

  • Grabowski Łukasz. 2015. Phrase-frames in English Pharmaceutical Discourse: a Corpus-Driven Study of Intra-disciplinary Register Variation. Research in Language 13(3). 266-291.

  • Granger Sylviane. 1996. From CA to CIA and Back: An Integrated Contrastive Approach to Computerized Bilingual and Learner Corpora. In: Karin Aijmer Bengt Altenberg & Stig Johansson (eds.) Lund Studies in English 88: Languages in Contrast. Text-based crosslinguistic studies 37-51. Lund: Lund University Press.

  • Granger Sylviane et al. 2009. The International Corpus of Learner English. Handbook and CDROM. Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.

  • Gray Bethany and Douglas Biber. 2013. Lexical Frames in Academic Prose and Conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1). 109-135.

  • Grigaliūnienė Jonė and Rita Juknevičienė. 2012. Corpus-based Learner Language Research: Contrasting Speech and Writing. Darbai ir dienos 58. 137-152.

  • Halliday Michael A.K & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Pearson Education.

  • Hasselgren Angela. 1994. Lexical Teddy Bears and Advanced Learners: A Study Into the Ways Norwegian Students Cope with English Vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4. 237-260.

  • Hyland Ken. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Hyland Ken. 2008a. Academic Clusters: Text Patterning in Published and Postgraduate Writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18(1). 41-62.

  • Hyland Ken. 2008b. As Can Be Seen: Lexical Bundles and Disciplinary Variation. English for Specific Purposes 27. 4-21.

  • Jalali Hassan. 2013. Lexical Bundles in Applied Linguistics: Variations Across Postgraduate Genres. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Translation Studies. [Online] Available from: [Accessed: 3rd January 2017].

  • Jarvis Scott. 2000. Methodological Rigor in the Study of Transfer: Identifying L1 Influence in the Interlanguage Lexicon. Language Learning 50(2). 245-309.

  • Juknevičienė Rita. 2009. Lexical Bundles in Learner Language: Lithuanian Learners vs. Native Speakers. Kalbotyra 61(3). 61-72.

  • Juknevičienė Rita. 2013. Recurrent Word Sequences in Written Learner English. In: Inesa Šeškauskienė and Jonė Grigaliūnienė (eds.) Anglistics in Lithuania. Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Aspects of Study 178-197. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

  • Kizil Aysel S. and Abdurrahman Kilimci A. 2014. Recurrent Phrases in Turkish EFL Learners’ Spoken Interlanguage: A Corpus-driven Structural and Functional Analysis. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies [Online] 10(1). 195-210. Available from: [Accessed: 3rd January 2017].

  • Kjellmer Göran. 1991. A Mint of Phrases. In: Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik 111-127. London: Longman.

  • Leńko-Szymańska Agnieszka. 2014. The Acquisition of Formulaic Language by EFL Learners: A Cross-sectional and Cross-linguistic Perspective. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(2). 225-251.

  • Martelli Aurelia. 2006. A Corpus Based Description of English Lexical Collocations Used by Italian Advanced Learners. [Online] Atti del XII Congresso Internazionale di Lessicografia: Torino 6-9 settembre 2006 1005-1011. Available from: [Accessed: 15th September 2016].

  • Martinez Ron and Norbert Schmitt. 2012. A Phrasal Expressions List. Applied Linguistics 33(3). 299-320.

  • MICUSP (Michigan Corpus of Upperlevel Student Papers). 2009. Ann Arbor MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.

  • Nesselhauf Nadia. 2005. Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • O’Donnell Matthew B. Römer Ute and Nick C. Ellis. 2013. The Development of Formulaic Sequences in First and Second Language Writing. Investigating Effects of Frequency Association and Native Norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1). 83-108.

  • Paquot Magali. 2013. Lexical Bundles and L1 Transfer Effects. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (3). 391-417.

  • Paquot Magali. 2014. Cross-linguistic Influence and Formulaic Language: Recurrent Word Sequences in French Learner Writing. EUROSLA Yearbook 14. 240-261.

  • Pawley Andrew and Francis H. Syder. 1983. Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency. In: Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.) Language and Communication 191-225. London: Longman.

  • R Core Team. 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Viena Austria. [Online] Available from: [Accessed 15th September 2016].

  • Renouf Antoinette and John Sinclair. 1991. Collocational Frameworks in English. In: Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics 128-143. New York: Longman.

  • Römer Ute. 2009. English in Academia: Does Nativeness Matter? Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 20 (2). 89-100.

  • Römer Ute. 2010. Establishing the Phraseological Profile of a Text Type. The Construction of Meaning in Academic Book Reviews. English Text Construction 3(1). 95-119.

  • Römer Ute and Matthew O’Donnell. 2009. Positional variation of phrase frames in a new corpus of proficient student writing. [Online] Paper presented at AACL conference. Edmonton Canada 9 Oct 2009. Available from: [Accessed: 15th September 2016].

  • Scott Mike. 2008. Wordsmith Tools. Version 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Sinclair John. 2004. Trust the Text: Language Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.

  • Simpson-Vlach Rita. and Nick C. Ellis. 2010. An Academic Formulas List: New Methods in Phraseology Research. Applied Linguistics 31(4). 487-512.

  • Stubbs Michael. 2007. Quantitative Data on Multi-word Sequences in English: the Case of the Word ‘World’. In Michael Hoey Michaela Mahlberg Michael Stubbs and Wolfgang Teubert (eds) Text Discourse and Corpora 163-190. London: Continuum.

  • Tognini-Bonelli Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Vidakovic Ivana and Fiona Barker. 2010. Use of Words and Multi-word Units in Skills for Life Writing Examinations. Research Notes 41. 7-41.

  • Waibel Birgit. 2007. Phrasal Verbs in Learner English: A Corpus-based Study of German and Italian Learners. [Online] Unpublished PhD dissertation. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs- Universität. Available from: [Accessed: 15th September 2016].

  • Wang Ying. 2016. The Idiom Principle and L1 Influence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Wray Alison. 2000. Formulaic Sequences in Second Language Teaching: Principle and Practice. Applied Linguistics 21(4). 463-489.

  • Wray Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.177
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.471

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 300 190 26
PDF Downloads 182 110 7