Metaphoric Noun Variants and Modification Types in Undergraduate ESL Students’ Academic Writing Texts

Vasemaca Tadulala Ledua Alifereti

Abstract


Significant grammatical innovations over the years have been a reaction to changes in purposes of communication due to demands from the reading public. It is assumed such changes are embraced in English used by undergraduate students in readings they are exposed to, and texts produced during their studies. In analyzing data, comprising ESL undergraduate students’ writing scripts, the study seeks to find how such grammatical innovations are manifested in selection of nouns and modification types. A noun is a compulsory element, contributing meaning to text and over the years, constituents comprising nominal groups have evolved from prototype noun to the compressed metaphoric variant. Data is analyzed, against the backdrop of Halliday and Matthiessen’s metaphor taxonomy. Results indicate, majority of students have yet to move from overuse of prototype to more metaphoric noun variants. Noun modification choices are restricted and this is a language gap that needs addressing. Awareness of contemporary grammatical innovations pertaining to nouns and modification strategies are imperative in order to improve ESL students’ text quality and effectiveness.

Keywords


Experiential, Logical, Nominalization, Grammatical Metaphor, Systemic Functional Grammar, Nominal Group

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alifereti, V. (2013). Analyzing Verticality in University of the South Pacific (USP) students’ argumentative writing texts: a Systemic Functional perspective. PhD dissertation submitted to Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.

Biber, D., Gray, B. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: the influence of written language use. English: Language and Linguistics Vol. 15(2) 223-250. Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/S1360674311000025

Biber, D., Grieve, J., & Iberri-Shea, G., (2008). Noun phrase modification, 182-193. Retrieved from URL: publications.aston.ac.uk /16253/1/Biberetal_ Onelang Two gram. pdf.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Björk, L. (2003). Text Types, Textual Consciousness and Academic Writing Ability. In L. Bjork, G. Brauer, L. Reinecker, & P. Jorgensen (Eds.), Teaching Academic Writing in European Higher Education, 29-40. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Büker, S. (2003).Teaching Academic Writing to International Students: Individual Tutoring as a Supplement to Workshops. In L. Bjork, G. Brauer, L. Reinecker, & P. Jorgensen, Teaching Academic English in European Higher Education, 41-75. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Brown, C.H. (1990). A survey of category types in natural language. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes. Studies on linguistic categorization, 17-47. Oxford: Routledge.

Christie, F. (2002). The development of abstraction in adolescence in subject English. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M.C. Colombi (Eds.). Developing advanced literacy in First and Second Languages. Meaning with Power, 45- 66. Mahwah, NJ and London: Erlbaum.

Dennett, J. (1985). Writing Technical English: A Comparison of the Process of Native English and Native Japanese Speakers. Diss. U of Colorado, Boulder. Ann Arbor: UMI 8528478.

Deverell, G. (1989).The relationship between English proficiency and academic success at the University of the South Pacific. Directions, 11(1), 10-18.

Downing, A., & Locke, P. (2006). English Grammar: a University Course. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M., & Cox, B. (2006). Understanding the Language demands of schooling: nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, Vol. 38(3), 247-273. Lawrence Erlbaum association, Inc.

Günther, C. (2011). Noun ellipsis in English: adjectival modifiers and the role of context. English Language & Linguistics 15(2): 279-301.

Gunther, C., Kotowski, S., Plag, I. (2018). Phrasal Compounds can have adjectival heads: evidence from English. English Language & Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M. A.K. (1994). An introduction to Functional Grammar. (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. (1999). Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London, NY: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: aspects of language in a socio-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Hasan, R. (1989). Semantic variation and socio-linguistics. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 9, 221-275.

Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2005). A student’s introduction to English grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hu, Z., Brown, D., & Brown, L. (1982). Some Linguistic Differences in the Written English of Chinese and Australian Students. Language Learning and Communication, 1, 39-45.

Johnson, M. (1993). Conceptual metaphor and embodied structures of meaning: A reply to Kennedy and Vervaeke. Philosophical Psychology, 6, 413-422.

Jones, J. (2005). Learning to write in the disciplines: the application of Systemic Functional linguistic theory to the teaching and research of student writing. In L. J. Ravelli, & R. A. Ellis, Analyzing Academic Writing, Contextualized Frameworks, 254-274. University of Wales, Cardiff: Continuum.

Khan, V., & Mugler, F. (2001). The Fiji Form 7 Prescription and the Language Needs of First Year Tertiary students. Directions Journal of Educational Studies. University of the South Pacific, 23(2).

Lakoff, G. (1994). What is a conceptual system? In W. F. Overton & D.S. Palermo, (Eds.), The Nature and Ontogenesis of Meaning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Li, M. (2015). A systemic functional study of the Head identification of the English nominal group. Theory and Practice Language Studies, 5(1) pp.79-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/ tpls.0501.10

Lieber, R. (2016). English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi:101017/S1360674318000023

Martin, J. (2007). Construing knowledge: a functional linguistic perspective. In F. Christie & J.R. Martin (Eds.). Language, Knowledge and Pedagogy: Functional Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives, 34-64. London, NY: Continuum.

Martin, J., & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire & NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Maton, K. (2000). Recovering pedagogic discourse: A Bernsteinian approach to the sociology of educational knowledge. Linguistics and Education, 11 (1), 79-98.

Painter, C. (1999). Learning Language in Early Childhood. London & NY: Cassell.

Richards, J., Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary of language teaching and Applied Linguistics. Longman Publishing Group.

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104, 192-233.

Scarcella, R. (1984). Cohesion in the Writing Development of Native and Non-Native English Speakers. Diss. U of Southern California. Ann Arbor: UMI.

Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistic Perspective. Mahwah, NJ & London: Erlbaum.

Schleppegrell, M. (2001). Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling. Linguistics and Education, Vol. 12(4), 431-459. Elsevier Science Inc.

Silva, T. (1997). Differences in ESL and Native-English-Speaker Writing: The Research and Its Implications. In C. Severino, J. Guerra, & J. Butler, Writing in Multicultural Settings, 209-219. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Silva, T. (1990). Second Language Composition Instruction: Developments, issues, and direction in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the classroom, 11-23. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Simon- Vandenbergen,A.M., Taverniers, M., & Ravelli, L. (eds.). (2003). Grammatical Metaphor. Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Sinclair, J. (2006). Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary. Harper Collins India.

Smet, H., & Vancayzeele, E. (2014). Like a rolling stone: the changing use of English premodifying present participles. English Language and Linguistics 19.1:131-156. Cambridge University Press. Doi:10.1017/S136067431400029X

Trips, C. (2014). How to account for the expressive nature of phrasal compounds in a conceptual-semantic framework. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 11(1), 33-61.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Ungerer, F., & Schmidt, H. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London, New York: Longman Limited.

Yang, L. (2006). An analysis of Chinese students’ academic writing in a Canadian University. In A. Cumming, Goals for Academic Writing, 73-89. Benjamins Publishing Company.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.8n.3p.46

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. 

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.