Emergence in Second Language Writing:
a Methodological Inroad
Emergência na escrita em segunda língua:
uma incursão metodológica
Susy Macqueen*
Language Testing Research Centre
School of Languages and Linguistics
University of Melbourne
Melbourne - Austrália
ABSTRACT: Complex Systems Theory (CST) has been called upon in many
different fields as a means of examining phenomena in a way that makes
interconnectivity and emergence central to research. For applied linguistics, CST
offers the possibility of encompassing both language and learning. In doing so,
the theoretical orientation needs to be fully integrated into the research process
through research methodology. This paper describes a qualitative
microethnographic method, Lexical Trail Analysis, which draws on the concept
of emergence. It is an analytic method that enables us to see the longitudinal
development of words and their patterns. It is applied here in a case study of the
development of one second language user’s lexicogrammatical patterns (formulaic
sequences, collocations, idioms, etc.). Her word patterns are traced as she prepares
for a university entrance test and later, once she enters the university. Her use of
patterns involves adaptive imitation, a complex process of perceiving, imitating
and adapting patterns to suit new communicative goals.
KEYWORDS: Complex Systems Theory; second language learning; Sociocultural
Theory; emergence; formulaic sequences; collocation, vocabulary acquisition, imitation.
RESUMO: A Teoria de Sistemas Complexos (TSC) tem sido acionada em diversos
campos, como forma de examinar os fenômenos de uma maneira que faz com que
a interconectividade e emergência sejam centrais para pesquisa. Para a linguística
aplicada, TSC oferece a possibilidade de englobar tanto a linguagm quanto a
aprendizagem. Ao fazer isso, a orientação teórica tem de ser totalmente integrada
ao processo de pesquisa por meio da metodologia de pesquisa. Este artigo descreve
um método qualitativo microetnográfico, Análise de Traços Lexicais, que se baseia
no conceito de emergência. É um método analítico que nos permite ver o
desenvolvimento longitudinal de palavras e de seus padrões. Ele é aplicado aqui
* susym@unimelb.edu.au
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
493
em um estudo de caso sobre o desenvolvimento de padrões léxico-gramaticais
(sequências formulaicas, colocações, expressões idiomáticas etc.) de uma usuária
de uma segunda língua. Seus padrões de palavras são rastreados enquanto ela se
prepara para o vestibular para a universidade e, posteriormente, assim que ela
entra na universidade. Seu uso de padrões envolve imitação adaptativa, um processo
complexo de percepção de padrões, imitação e adaptação para atender aos novos
objetivos comunicativos.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Teoria dos Sistemas Complexos; aprendizagem de segunda
língua; Teoria Sociocultural; emergência; sequências formulaicas; colocação;
aquisição de vocabulário; imitação.
Introduction
The modern era has seen the increasing tangibility of complexity through
the development of tools that have enabled unprecedented levels of observation,
connectivity and information. Perhaps because of this, the notion of complex,
dynamic systems that are borne out of emergent processes has become a
persuasive metaphor for knowledge building in many disciplines. Central to
complex systems is the notion of ‘emergence’. In a journal devoted to the
concept, Jeffery Goldstein (1999) defines emergence as “the arising of novel and
coherent structures, patterns, and properties during the process of selforganization in complex systems” (p. 49). Emergent phenomena, he says “are
conceptualized as occurring on the macro level, in contrast to the micro-level
components and processes out of which they arise” (p. 49). While the idea is not
new–it has its roots in the writings of Aristotle–it is now well-established as an
explanation for the development of a broad range of phenomena, from cities to
ant colonies (JOHNSON, 2001) and is extensively applied in both philosophy
and the sciences (BEDAU; HUMPHREYS, 2008).
Sociology has also been fertile ground for a complex/dynamic systems
approach, most obviously underpinning network analysis. A leading proponent,
John Scott, describes cultural meaning-making within a systems perspective
whereby the phenomenon of human communication operates within human
systems more generally. These, he argues, have much in common with systems
of nature in terms of the principles of “interdependence, function, and selfregulation” (2011, p. 269). He uses human meaning-making as an example of
a conglomerate of “interdependent systems of signs and representations that
allow human communication to channel a flow of information through which
social relations and social groups are able to function in particular ways and so
494
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
to produce the positive and negative feedback that results in social reproduction
and transformation” (p. 269). It is through such “cybernetic processes”, Scott
claims, that we build “socially organized systems of action” as well as
“psychological systems of the personality” (p. 269). Indeed, emergent processes
are increasingly recognized in language use and the concept of emergence is
evident in three main, related strains of research: linguistic emergentism and
Usage-Based Linguistics (ELLIS, 2008; ELLIS; LARSEN-FREEMAN,
2009; ELLIS; LARSEN-FREEMAN, 2006; HOEY, 2005; HOPPER,
1998, 1988; MACWHINNEY, 1999; TOMASELLO, 2003, 2000;
TYLER, 2010), Complex Systems Theory (FIVE GRACES GROUP,
BECKNER et al., 2009; LARSEN-FREEMAN, 1997, 2012; LARSENFREEMAN; CAMERON, 2008a; b) and ecological approaches (DE BOT,
LOWIE et al., 2007; KRAMSCH; WHITESIDE, 2008; VAN LIER, 2002,
2004, 2000).
In these various approaches, both language use and language learning are
conceived of as stemming from emergent processes. Language use is emergent
in a diachronic sense in that language use brings about language change, such
as grammaticization, creolization, etc. (ELLIS, 2008). Synchronically,
elements of use (e.g. a phoneme) signal identifications with different social
groups, which shift in relation to one another as change ripples through
communities (FIVE GRACES GROUP, BECKNER et al., 2009). At any
time, any one discourse community is made up of idiolects, which differ
infinitesimally from one another but which, en masse, form a conglomerate
of patterns of use (FIVE GRACES GROUP, BECKNER et al., 2009). The
amalgam of language patterns is identifiable to both insiders and outsiders as
the ‘language’ of particular groups, even though group patterning is in a
constant state of flux. Hopper’s notion of emergent grammar (1998), for
example, holds that the sign is provisional; it changes as it is encountered by
users. Regularities of sign use, such as grammatical ‘rules’, settle into patterned
formations through repetition in discourse.
Lexicogrammatical patterning
Since computer technology started making inroads into linguistic
research, corpus data has provided evidence of the emergent patterns of
language use. This agenda has been powerfully informed by the thinking of
J.R. Firth, who introduced the idea of collocation, the “habitual company” of
a word, and colligation, a word’s regular syntactic characteristics ([1951] 1968,
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
495
p. 178-9). The existence of such language patterning, broadly referred to here
as lexicogrammatical patterns, is now well attested in linguistic research and
theory (e.g. HALLIDAY, 2002; HALLIDAY; HASAN, 1976; HOEY, 2005;
SINCLAIR, 1991, 2004; STUBBS, 2001; WRAY, 2002). Despite the
capacity for seemingly infinite linguistic manipulation, humans do not use all
the possible combinations of linguistic signs (PAWLEY; SYDER, 1983).
Instead, we rely on a relatively small number of chunked elements which enable
us to communicate more efficiently in terms of cognitive burden, more
effectively in terms of meaning and more affectively in terms of social
belonging. These somewhat automatised language patterns vary considerably
in type and degree of fixedness. They include collocations, phrasal verbs,
idioms, etc. e.g. take appropriate measures, as it were, not a shred of evidence,
value highly, it’s worth –ing, curry favour, take a bath, wake up, for the time
being, not to mention, be based on, abject poverty (e.g. ERMAN; WARREN,
2000; HOEY, 2005; MOON, 1998; NATTINGER; DECARRICO, 1992;
PAWLEY; SYDER, 1983; SINCLAIR, 1991; WRAY, 2002, 2008). As
Sinclair put it “the choice of one word conditions the choice of the next, and
the next again” (2004, p. 19). This is also true of other levels of language; for
instance, languages do not ‘allow’ any arbitrary combination of phonemes
(HAYES, 2009). In his theory of Lexical Priming, Michael Hoey (2005)
proposed that every word is “primed for collocational use” – through repeated
encounters, a word becomes “cumulatively loaded with the contexts and cotexts in which it is encountered” (p. 8). Language use, then, is the ever-evolving
conglomerate of collective sign patterns in a discourse community. Just as the
distributed intelligence of a superorganism, such as an ant colony, is far greater
than that of individual ants (HÖLLDOBLER; WILSON, 2009), the
lexicogrammatical patterning of discourse communities is far more extensive
than that of individual language users.
The learning of languages is also an emergent process in that the
patterns of language fragments at different organizational levels (i.e.
phonemes, morphemes, letters, words, collocations, grammatical patterns,
genres) may be encountered, perceived and imitated in order to understand
or be understood, to belong or to signal difference. There is now a
significant body of work which deals with chunked language as it pertains
to grammatical development or knowledge of lexical multi-word items.
Chunks have been studied as a part of a grammatical developmental
trajectory, from unanalysed units to creative constructions in individual
496
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
usage (e.g. ESKILDSEN, 2008; HAKUTA, 1974; MYLES, HOOPER et
al., 1998; MYLES, MITCHELL et al., 1999; PETERS, 1983; WONG
FILLMORE, 1976). More idiosyncratic lexical patterning has been studied
in language learner corpora, which have been analysed in terms of frequency,
semantic characteristics, L1 influence and nativelikeness (e.g. GRANGER,
1998; HOWARTH, 1998a, 1998b; LAUFER; WALDMAN, 2011;
NESSELHAUF, 2005; OSBORNE, 2008). Lexically-driven patterns, such
as formulaic sequences and collocations, have also been elicited in tests and
tasks, often related to a pedagogical focus on lexical patterns (e.g. BOERS,
EYCKMANS et al., 2006; GITSAKI, 1999; LAUFER; GIRSAI, 2008;
SCHMITT, DÖRNYEI et al., 2004). More rarely, lexical patterns have been
considered developmentally in proficiency groups (LAUFER; WALDMAN,
2011; OHLROGGE, 2009) or individual learning (CHURCHILL, 2008;
LI; SCHMITT, 2009). Although these various approaches offer quite
different perspectives on the phenomenon of chunking, the collective findings
contribute to a view of language learning in which learners are engaged in
perpetual chunk-making, constructing combinations which become more
automatised over time, and chunk-breaking, segmenting automatic patterns
(for a full discussion, see MACQUEEN, 2012). In this light, both language
learning and language use are “a bidirectional process of associating and
disassociating bits of language” (MACQUEEN, 2012, p. 51).
Lexicogrammatical patterning, therefore, is a “real-time social phenomenon”
that is “always in a process but never arriving” (HOPPER, 1998, p. 156).
In Tomasello’s work on child language acquisition, he proposes that
children do not build utterances “morpheme by morpheme”, but rather
“from a motley assortment of different kinds of preexisting psycholinguistic
units” (p. 307). According to Tomasello, a child’s language starts with
“already constructed pieces of language of various shapes, sizes, and degrees
of abstraction (and whose internal complexities she may control to varying
degrees), and then ‘cuts and pastes’ these together in a way appropriate to the
current communicative situation” (p. 310). Tomasello places great
importance on the ability of the child to learn such fragments imitatively,
gradually storing more and more of them, to be to cut and pasted into novel
contexts. Importantly, this is a complex imitative process during which the
child must engage in role reversal to develop a facility with linguistic
symbols that can be understood from the point of view of self and other
(TOMASELLO, 2003).
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
497
Complex imitation is also central in the work of Vygotsky and modern
applications of his sociocultural approach to the development of the human
capacity to think, use language and learn other languages (LANTOLF;
THORNE, 2006; VYGOTSKY, 1978, 1962). Lantolf and Thorne , for
instance, describe imitation as “goal-directed cognitive activity that can result
in transformations of the original model” (p. 203). Vygotskyan thinking, as
with Tomasello’s usage-based theory of language acquisition, places great
import upon learning as a cultural mechanism. For Vygotsky, human learning
occurs as a result of cultural and historical activity, which is mediated through
the use of cultural tools or “artificial adaptations” (VYGOTSKY, 1978, p. 54).
Indeed, Vygotsky’s theory is predicated upon adaptation and the emergence
of human thought and behaviour as a result of social interaction:
Prior to mastering his own behavior, the child begins to master his
surroundings with the help of speech. This produces new relations with
the environment in addition to the new organization of behavior itself.
The creation of these uniquely human forms of behavior later produce
the intellect and become the basis of productive work: the specifically
human form of the use of tools (VYGOTSKY, 1978, p. 25).
As with the self-organising, emergent capacity of complex systems, Vygotsky
posited that human thought emerges as a result of interactions between the
cognitive ability of the child and the environment, which, in turn, enables new
interactions and further advancement. Learning involves the use of social
interactions and symbolic tools (such as language) to reconstruct and adapt an
individual’s cognitive resources (VYGOTSKY, 1978, 1962).
Thus, the concept of emergence has some descriptive and explanatory
power in language use and language learning. In the following sections, I will
set out an analytic method termed Lexical Trail Analysis which was developed
to encapsulate the emergence of frequently recurring language fragments–
lexicogrammatical patterns–for learners of a second language. To demonstrate
how this method has been applied, I will present a case study of a second
language user as she transitions into a university discourse community.
Making emergence part of the research process: A case study
and an analytical method
Although the concept of emergence has been increasingly theorised in
applied linguistics, just how to operationalise it in terms of language learning
498
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
remains a challenge. Traditionally, language learning is studied either from a
grammatical perspective, focusing, for example, on the acquisition of a particular
grammatical morpheme, or from a lexical perspective, focusing on the
acquisition of single words at different frequency bands, as in lexical
sophistication measures, or the diversity of single words a learner produces as in
type-token measures. If language is indeed an assortment of lexicogrammatical
patterns, ranging from more widely applicable, syntactic patterns to more fixed,
idiosyncratic lexical patterns, how can we document the learning of it? How can
we encapsulate the adaptive aspect of emergence that occurs over time?
The present study sought to document the ways in which second
language learners of English developed their abilities to combine words
according to the patterns of the target discourse communities and target genres
found within them (for the full account, see MACQUEEN, 2012). I was
interested in tracing how words and longer phrases came to be combined by
these second language users as they prepared for the IELTS exam and later as
they completed assignments for their university subjects. My aim was to
explore what patterning occurred in the participants’ writing as well as how
they came to put the words together as they did. To illustrate the method, I
will focus on one of these participants, Ping (a pseudonym).
Method
As Ortega and Iberri-Shea (2005) have suggested, longitudinal research
in language learning is “better motivated when key events and turning points
in the social or institutional context investigated are considered” (p. 38). This
study took the form of a longitudinal case study which encompassed an
“ecological transition” in the participant’s learning context–from IELTS
preparation to university study (BRONFENBRENNER, 1979, p. 6). In a
complex system, this might be considered a “phase shift”, manifesting in a
period of adaptation and the emergence of different behaviour (LARSENFREEMAN; CAMERON, 2008a, p. 45). In effect, this involves exploring
the effects of context, the environment in which an activity occurs, on co-text,
the linguistic environments of particular lexemes .
Case study participant and procedure
Ping was a 19-year-old native Mandarin speaker from China. She had
been in Australia for two weeks when she volunteered to participate in this
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
499
research. At the time, Ping was undertaking a test preparation course at a
language centre to achieve a minimum IELTS test score of 6 for university
admission. In keeping with her goal, Ping completed five argumentative essays
in preparation for the IELTS academic writing test (task two).1 I provided her
with assistance in the form of indirect feedback (problem elements highlighted
but not changed) on aspects of her writing. She also received positive feedback
on aspects of her writing. Ping then revised the essay as she saw fit and I
provided her with a reformulated version of her revised essay so she could
check her revisions. After each essay had been revised, I met with Ping to
discuss aspects of her writing. I then supplied her with a reformulated version
of the essay.
The interview occurred 3-4 days after each essay was revised. The essays
were stimulated recall instruments (GASS; MACKEY, 2000) in that Ping and
I looked at her original and her revised versions while we discussed reasons for
her word combinations (for my purposes) and aspects of the feedback (for her
purposes). The interview method was recursive: accumulating patterns in the
data informed the types of questions I asked, for example, about patterning
that was emerging in Ping’s language or her use of feedback. All interviews
were recorded and transcribed for analysis.
As Watson-Gegeo (2004) proposes, ethnographic interviews can focus
on “goals, inferences, and other understanding of interactions in which they
or others participated; emergent patterns in data; and theoretical issues salient
to the research questions that evolve, grounded-theory style, from
accumulating data and continuous analysis” (p. 342). That said, the very act
of verbalizing thought is likely to have some effect on memory since the
discussion itself is socially constructed (SMAGORINSKY, 2001, 1998).
After Ping achieved an IELTS score of 6.5, she entered university. She
then completed three assignments for her Diploma of Commerce, which were
used in this analysis. Approximately one year later, Ping was given an
individualized gap-fill test based on selected patterns from her own written
corpus. Her participation is summarized in Table 1.
International English Language Testing System. The tasks were IELTS-type tasks,
not actual IELTS tasks. See <http://www.ielts.org/>.
1
500
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
TABLE 1
Ping’s written corpus and timeline (adapted from MACQUEEN, 2012)
Writing sample
Argumentative essay 1
Argumentative essay 2
Argumentative essay 3
Argumentative essay 4
Argumentative essay 5
University assignment 1
University assignment 2
University assignment 3
Individualized test
Total words original writing
Total words (original, revised
and reformulated versions
where applicable)
Word count
Date
343
371
300
290
292
1528
1013
2113
6250
17 May 2005
23 May 2005
31 May 2005
8 Jun 2005
9 Aug 2005
18 Jul 2005
25 Jul 2005
29 Aug 2005
21 June 2006
10,509
Lexical Trail Analysis
The analytic method needed to illuminate the data in terms of
diachronic change in Ping’s lexicogrammatical patterning as well as
incorporate insights from the interviews. This was done by: a) linking the
interview transcript to the aspects of writing that they refer to and b) gathering
all the data that referred to the use of one lexeme or one combination of words
in chronological sequence. This process formed the basis of the analysis.
Definition of a lexical trail
Building a lexical trail involves tracing a participant’s experience with
single lexemes over time. A lexical trail can be defined as a detailed,
contextualized, chronological concordance of a single lexeme or a recurring
combination used by an individual. It includes, where available, the user’s
perspective on the history of his/her use of the word and the words around it,
as well as any other relevant co-textual (i.e. surrounding text) and contextual
information available. In this study such information was gathered from the
participants themselves through qualitative interviews, from both the feedback
and revision process as well as from texts and other sources that participants
used for assistance when writing. This data was then supplemented with
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
501
insights from an individualised test, which was based on each participant’s
lexical trail analysis. In the ethnographic tradition, multiple perspectives on the
data were sought (RAMANATHAN; ATKINSON, 1999), but not all lexical
trails comprise all these data sources. Some contain only a few uses, whereas
others contain 20 or more uses of a word or phrase, along with multiple
insights from interviews, external texts and the test. As with Lillis’s (2008)
“heuristic for tracking changes across drafts”, changes in texts are combined
with other types of data to connect etic text analysis with emic and etic
understandings of it (p. 369). An abridged example of a lexical trail which
traces the verb focus in Ping’s writing is provided in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Example of a lexical trail (adapted from MACQUEEN, 2012)
Composition,
line & date
Ping’s writing interview excerpts where relevant
Ping’s original
Ping’s revision
Susy’s reformulation
Pre-uni 2.11
24 May 2005
…you can focus on the
channels…
…you can focus on
the channels…
…you can focus on
the channels…
Pre-uni 2.12
… you can focus on the
Business Channel … you
can also focus on the
Sports Channel …
… you can focus on the
Business Channel ... you
can also focus on the
Sports Channel …
…you can focus on the
Business Channel ...you
can watch (just to vary the
verb!) the Sports Channel …
Uni 1.4
18 Jul 2005
… the most basic responsibility of a manager is to focus people to the performance of work activities…
Interview Uni
A1.7-22
S: What about this group of words - focus people to?
P: It’s the topic
S: And it definitely had to be here?
P: Yeah
Uni 1.20
… their destination is unified——to focus people to the performance of work activities…
Uni 1.34
… the core job of a manager is to focus subordinates to the performance of work activities…
Uni 1.50
Managers should being focus on the performance of the workers …
Uni 1.57
… the most basic responsibility of a manager is to focus subordinates to the performance…
Uni 3.15
29 Aug 2005
… the corporate social responsibility was focus on businesspeople’s social conscience…
Interview Uni
(A3.72-85)
Test
20 Jun 2006
S: Was focus on - why did you use passive here?
P: Maybe just because it’s in 1983
S: Actually is it passive? Did you mean this to be passive? You need this (types was
focused on) - was focused on- for passive, don’t you?
P: Maybe I guess focus is a adjective
S: Yeah.
P: But I guess I saw this kind of phrase before
S: In this reference or in something else?
P: Many place. It’s not…
Each exercise in the book is focussing (1) focuses (2) on a different grammar point. (use any form of the verb
‘focus’ and at least one other word)
Test introspection box: Why did you choose this answer? b – ‘I have a feeling it’s ok.’
Confidence rating: 3
Notes from test administration: I didn’t show the hint, I asked if Ping could think of another way to use ‘focus’;
she said ‘focuses’, but she felt that ‘is focusing’ is better.
502
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
The gathering together of multiple uses of a word or combination of
words enables us to detect emergent patterns in the individual’s language use.
These may or may not conform to nativelike norms. As trails are built,
patterns in the data start to emerge, such as broader patterns of discourse. Thus,
insight into the process of word learning and lexicogrammatical pattern
building is constructed from a compilation of word-level microethnographies
(MACQUEEN, 2012).
Lexical Trail Analysis applied
Ping’s test formulae
As analysis of Ping’s mini-corpus proceeded, it became apparent that she
depended on certain lexicogrammatical patterns as a composition strategy,
particularly as a means of composing in test conditions. Ping completed all
her argumentative essays in timed conditions (30 minutes), because she felt
this helped her prepare for the IELTS test. Tracing lexemes and patterns in these
essays revealed a rhetorical skeleton, shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Ping’s IELTS discourse patterns (adapted from MACQUEEN, 2012)
Rhetorical position
Lexicogrammatical pattern
Introduction
Some people think that… while others…
No. of uses
2
Thesis
In my opinion, (the advantages (overweigh)
the disadvantages)
4
Paragraph 1
Firstly, + first main point
3
Paragraph 2
Secondly, + second main point
3
Paragraph 3
Last but not least, + last main point
3
Paragraph 4
Nevertheless, + counter argument
3
Conclusion
What (we need to do / needs to be done) is…
2
Ping self-scaffolded her exam performance with a variable set of
lexicogrammatical patterns. She was adept at detecting useful phrases, as the
following discussion of last but not least suggests:
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
503
S:
P:
S:
P:
S:
P:
S:
P:
S:
P:
S:
P:
‘Last but not least’ where did you learn this phrase?
It also from the reading material.
In Australia?
No, in China.
Did you look it up in the dictionary?
No never.
How did you know this was a set expression – how did you know to collect
everything?
Because it was used many times.
Oh I see.
I think it’s useful to use it in the argument.
Yeah I think so
So I look at this kind of material once, twice, three times so I think it’s a set
phrases. (P1.141-152)
Indeed, last but not least was an enduring phrase for Ping which recurred
into her university assignments as a signal for her final point in the composition.
Table 4 shows Ping’s rhetorical formulae throughout her participation period,
encompassing her transition into university discipline writing.
It is interesting to see that Ping’s rhetorical formulae began to change
in her fourth and fifth argumentative essays when she knew she had achieved
the required score for university entrance and no longer needed to practise for
IELTS. She replaces Firstly,… and Secondly,… with more sophisticated
phrases: the first priority is that… and a second major issue, respectively. In my
feedback comment, I praised Ping’s use of these new connectors:
Very good to see you making more sophisticated connections between your
paragraphs, instead of firstly, etc.
504
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
TABLE 4
Ping’s rhetorical formulae (adapted from MACQUEEN, 2012)
Pre-uni 1
Pre-uni 2
Pre-uni 3
Pre-uni 4
505
Intro
Some people think
that… while others
worry about…
Some people think
that…, while others
hold the point of
view that ...
Thesis
I quite agree with
the advantages of
E-mail and the
reasons are as
follows.
In my opinion, the
advantages of
television viewing
overweigh the
disadvantages
because…
In my opinion,
In my opinion,
(…); but generally
speaking, the
advantages
overweigh the
disadvantages.
Para 1
Firstly, (point 1)
Firstly, (point 1)
Firstly, (point 1)
reformulated to:
The first priority
is that…
So the first priority
is that… (point 1)
That is to say,
A second major issue
is that… (point 2)
Para 2
Secondly, (point 2)
Secondly, (point 2)
Secondly, (point 2)
reformulated to:
A second major
issue is that…
On the other hand,
(counter argument)
Para 3
Last but not
least, (point 3)
Last but not least,
(point 3)
Last but not least,
(point 3)
Para 4
Nevertheless,
(counter argument)
Nevertheless,
(counter argument)
Concl.
In my opinion, ...
(...)
What we need
to do is … to enhance
its merits and avoid
its short-comings.
What needs to be
done is to exploit the
merits and eliminate
the drawbacks …
Pre-uni 5
Uni 1
Uni 2
Since…, it is not
hard to acknowledge
that...
The first priority
is to... “…”
That is to say,
(…) The first
priority is to... “…”
That is to say, “…”
Nevertheless, as a
Last but not
coin has two sides,
least, (second last
(counter argument) paragraph,
sentence preceding
conclusion)
To sum up, …
Although (…),
learning something
in a second language
is a beneficial
experience...
Uni 3
In essence, the
advantages of…
overweigh the
disadvantages.
In essence,
(…) The first
priority is to...
(...); that is,
Last but not least,
(second last
paragraph,
sentence preceding
conclusion)
In essence,
At the same time, other new patterns emerged, that is to say and in
essence, and these continued into the university assignments. Essay five, in
particular, breaks from her standard formulae, which she explained was the
result of no longer using what she considered to be “safe” IELTS-style
formulae:
P:
S:
P:
S:
P:
You know when I prepare for IELTS, the most what I pursue is just to get
the score I need so maybe I’ll choose some safe way, but now there’s no need
to worry about IELTS so I just want to improve my... so I try and be more
confident to try something, just like that.
So you think you might be experimenting more with words?
Ex…?
Trying more things, you’re being more free…
Yeah, there’s no need to just remember the ‘firstly, secondly…’ – maybe it’s
not good, but it’s safe to got six in writing, so I just want to avoid mistake
before but now there’s no need to concern about that. (P5.18:20)
In this excerpt, it is clear that Ping’s change in goal had an immediate
impact on the language she used, despite the fact that she was doing the same
kind of task under the same conditions. While she acknowledges that her
original patterning might not be “good”, it was “safe” enough to achieve a score
of six. Deviating from her tried and tested patterns was too risky. Ping’s
university patterns manifest her changing goals, tasks and context.
Emergence of a pattern
It is interesting to chart the trajectory of the first priority as it
demonstrates the emergence of a pattern, from noticing to semiautomatisation. As can be seen in Table 4, the first priority first appeared in my
reformulation of Ping’s use of Firstly… in her third test practice essay. What
I did not realise was that in reformulating the textual position of Firstly, I was
unwittingly reformulating part of Ping’s discourse structure – her signal for
her first main point. Following my model, Ping used The first priority… in
her next essay instead of Firstly… (when she had started to break from her
“safe” test rhetorical pattern). Following this use, I made the feedback
comment above in which I praised her for trying new phrases. At university,
the phrase became a firm part of her rhetorical blueprint, for the purpose of
introducing a key concept in the first paragraph:
506
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
The first priority is to go back to the concept of organization… (PA1.6)
(...) The first priority is to define the core word ‘value’… (PA2.5)
The first priority is to define the three correlative concepts… (PA3.6)
This is a new rhetorical structure for Ping, and the first priority is
transposed from the test practice essays to signal the key concept for the task.
Indeed, the lexemes concept and define/definition do not occur in Ping’s preuniversity essays. In addition, she re-colligates the phrase with an infinitive
clause (underlined above). Further, the phrase becomes part of a new rhetorical
frame which, in line with her new university genres, incorporates a direct
quotation and is followed by an expanded definition in another direct
quotation from another source, signalled by That is to say, …. This elaborate
university rhetorical pattern is shown in Table 5 as it appears in her first two
assignments.
TABLE 5
Assignments 1 & 2 definition sentences and direct quotations
(adapted from MACQUEEN, 2012)
Ping’s formula
Assignment 1
Assignment 2
The first priority is to
(define X).
“Direct quotation”
(Author 1).
The first priority is to
go back to the concept of
organization. “An organization
is …” (Reference 1).
To introduce the Value
Exchange Model, The first
priority is to define the core
word ‘value’ ‘Value’ is defined
as “what …” (Reference 1).
That is to say, “Direct
quotation” (Author 2).
That is to say, “it can …”
(Reference 2).
That is to say, “there must …”
(Reference 2).
Since…
Since …
Since …
In the interview following Ping’s university assignments, I asked her
about the origin of the first priority (which I had forgotten reformulating):
S:
P:
S:
P:
S:
P:
You’ve used this ‘The first priority’ a number of times, is this new?
It’s from you!
Oh is it? (both laugh) ok, so that’s from the feedback that I gave you?
Yeah
That’s funny cos I’ve noticed it a couple of times! Is this quite natural for you now?
Yeah. (A1.28-33)
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
507
Obviously, Ping was keenly aware of certain lexicogrammatical pattern
sources, in this case, she remembered my reformulation of her Firstly… in her
third test practice essay.
Here, we can observe the cut-and-paste process (TOMASELLO, 2003) of
learning the lexicogrammatical patterning of an additional language. Ping imitated
the phrase but also adapted it to suit the demands of her new context and the
discipline-specific genres she was now required to write. In her second assignment,
Ping’s construction and the segmentation of old and new word combinations were
made clear by her use of a mid-sentence capital ‘T’: To introduce the Value Exchange
Model, The first priority is to define…. In this use, her imitated chunk the first priority
is being nested in other discipline-specific patterns as Ping manages the resources of
her new discourse community in the service of new communicative goals.
Interestingly, during her period of participation in this study, Ping had not yet gained
full control of the first priority – her four uses were all slightly inappropriate
semantically, a result of my reformulation of her discourse marker, where the use of
the first priority was appropriate. I did not realize that by changing a pattern at sentence
level, I was also meddling with Ping’s discourse strategy, and that my intervention
would have an effect on how she later adapted her stock of patterns to the literacy
demands of university. Further, this highlights the fact that the imitation of patterns
is part of a complex process of internalization. Even if learners imitate chunks exactly
as they encounter them, they begin a process of making patterns serve their own
purposes, simultaneously chunk-making and chunk-breaking.
Ping’s adaptation of the first priority can be described at various levels
of the text in terms of Hoey’s theory of lexical priming (2005). First, it is a
collocation (priority does not occur elsewhere in the data) which is colligated
at the beginning of the sentence, followed by an infinitival complement. The
semantic association of the word priority is to be preceded by the notion of
initial and followed by the notion of concept. At a textual level, it is colligated
to occur just after the introduction in a text, at the beginning of the paragraph
(its “textual colligation”), and its textual-level semantic association is that it
introduces the definition of a key task-related concept. Hoey describes these
associations at word, sentence and textual level as the “priming prosody” (2005,
p. 166). Seeing the pattern in terms of its lexical priming shows how Ping’s
pattern use is emergent: it was adapted for a specific rhetorical purpose which
was different from her previous uses of firstly, different from the source (my
feedback) and different from her first imitation of it.
508
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
Discussion: A methodological inroad
Charting the chronological trajectories of words and patterns through
Ping’s language use provides us with a glimpse of how patterning emerges in
an individual’s language use through social interaction. We have seen that some
patterns may remain firmly fixed in a user’s store of chunk-like combinations,
whereas others might shift with a user’s changing goals and contexts. We have
also seen how lexicogrammatical fragments can be imitated and drawn into
a learner’s stock of patterns – in Vygotskyan terms, the movement from the
interpersonal plane to the intrapersonal plane (VYGOTSKY, 1978). This
process might be termed adaptive imitation: it is an innovative and recursive
microgenetic development that involves perceiving and transforming a
language fragment in accordance with the user’s co-textual and contextual
constraints and goals (MACQUEEN, 2012). As Lantolf and Thorne have
argued, “internalization through imitation is not a matter of copying but
entails an active, and frequently creative, reasoning process” (2007, p. 210).
The documentation of patterning also demonstrates the process of
chunk-making and chunk-breaking: words and phrases become fused to
varying degrees with other words or with certain aspects of a text, such as
position or concept; words and phrases also become less frequent or
disassociated with other textual features. However, the conclusions that can
be drawn from a learner’s use of single words and patterns in a data set are
obviously limited by the extent and type of data collected. A corpus that
included spoken language would doubtless reveal different types of patterning,
for instance. The method is also constrained by the nature of qualitative
interviewing as a method and the fact that Ping and I were re-constructing the
writing experience together (TALMY, 2010). This is particularly true in terms
of pattern selection for discussion. Larsen-Freeman (2004) suggested that the
emergence of language patterns might be revealed through “thick, longitudinal
descriptions … on which retrospective microgenetic analyses can be conducted
to identify affordances present in the context and in which learner agency is
fully acknowledged (…) in order to be able to see emergent language patterns
that self-organize out of social interaction, pressures arising from the cognitive
system, and biological constraints of the brain and the body” (p. 607). Lexical
Trail Analysis is able to reveal something of the microgenetic processes which
enable patterning to occur in language use. Each trail tells a slightly different
story and, when many trails by one learner can be gathered, a clearer picture
of the process emerges.
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
509
Of course, studying a word and its surrounds is not new, but what is
specific to the technique described here is that there is an ethnographic
perspective brought to bear on word combinations. Context is made central
to co-text by viewing the word or pattern in holistic terms, to the limits of
available data. It calls different systems into the action, such as geographic
systems, where participants move across space; economic systems, which place
pressure on types and rates of learning; and educational systems, including
language assessment, institutional belonging and transitions between
institutions, as we have seen here in Ping’s transition. This interdependence
echoes Scott’s “cybernetic processes” of human communication through which
social relations are reproduced and transformed (2011, p. 269). Tracing
diachronic change in lexicogrammatical patterning might therefore be
insightful at a community level (in contrast to the individual level presented
in this article). The genesis of patterns as they are adaptively imitated by
individuals and the emergent community patterning that results from the
distribution of usage might show us more of the process of chunk-making and
chunk-breaking that languages continually undergo. This would be
particularly insightful at sites of language contact, where chunks, as an essential
sociocognitive tool, might encompass the patterns of two historically distinct
speech communities. In child language acquisition, too, where the place of
imitation is well theorised (for example, in the work of SNOW, 1983; 1981;
TOMASELLO, 2003), lexical trails may have something to offer by inviting
the sociocognitive resources of the child’s environment into the analysis, e.g.
caregiver, sibling and peer language patterning, children’s books, television, etc.
As van Lier has suggested, examining the processes of language learning (and
I add lexicogrammatical patterning) from a microecological perspective places
“perception (and attention, focusing, and vigilance) and (inter)action at the
centre” of the research process (VAN LIER, 1997, p. 785). From this
approach, we may learn something new.
References
BEDAU, M. A.; HUMPHREYS, P. (Ed.). Emergence: Contemporary readings
in philosophy and science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Pressed. 2008.
BOERS, F. et al. Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a Lexical
Approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, v. 10, n. 3, p. 245-261, 2006.
BRONFENBRENNER, U. The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. 330p.
510
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
CHURCHILL, E. A dynamic systems account of learning a word: From ecology
to form relations. Applied Linguistics, v. 29, n. 3, p. 339-358, 2008.
DE BOT, K.; LOWIE, W.; VERSPOOR, M. A Dynamic Systems Theory
approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
v. 10, n. 1, p. 7-21, 2007.
ELLIS, N. C. The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language
use, language change, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, v. 92,
n. 2, p. 232-249, 2008.
ELLIS, N. C.; LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Language as a Complex Adaptive System.
Chichester: Blackwell, 2009.
ELLIS, N. C.; LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Language emergence: Implications for
applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, v. 27, n. 4, p. 558-589, 2006.
ERMAN, B.; WARREN, B. The idiom principle and the open choice principle.
Text, v. 20, n. 1, p. 29-62, 2000.
ESKILDSEN, S. W. Constructing another language—Usage-based linguistics in
second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, v. 30, n. 3, p. 335-357, 2008.
FIRTH, J. R. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930-1955. In: PALMER, F. R.
(Ed.). Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952-1959. London: Longmans Green, [1951]
1968. p.168-205.
FIVE GRACES GROUP et al. Language is a Complex Adaptive System: Position
paper. Language Learning, v. 59, n. Supplement 1, p. 1-27, 2009.
GASS, S. M.; MACKEY, A. Stimulated recall methodology in second language
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. 177p.
GITSAKI, C. Second language lexical acquisition: A study of the development of
collocational knowledge. San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1999.
GOLDSTEIN, J. Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence:
Complexity and Organization, v. 1, n. 1, p. 49-72, 1999.
GRANGER, S. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations
and formulae. In: COWIE, A. P. (Ed.). Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and
applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. p.145-160.
HAKUTA, K. Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second
language acquisition. Language Learning, v. 24, n. 2, p. 287-297, 1974.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. On grammar. New York: Continuum, 2002. 442p.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K.; HASAN, R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman,
1976. xv, 374.
HAYES, B. Introductory phonology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
511
HOEY, M. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Oxon:
Routledge, 2005.
HÖLLDOBLER, B.; WILSON, E. O. The superorganism: The beauty, elegance,
and strangeness of insect societies. New York: Norton, 2009.
HOPPER, P. Emergent grammar. In: TOMASELLO, M. (Ed.). The new
psycholog y of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language
structure. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998. p.155-75.
HOPPER, P. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In:
TANNEN, D. (Ed.). Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and
understanding. Norwood: Ablex, 1988. p.117-134.
HOWARTH, P. Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied
Linguistics, v. 19, n. 1, p. 24-44, 1998a.
HOWARTH, P. The phraseology of learner’s academic writing. In: COWIE, A.
P. (Ed.). Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1998b. p. 161-186.
JOHNSON, S. Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities and
software. New York: Scribner, 2001.
KRAMSCH, C.; WHITESIDE, A. Language ecology in multilingual settings.
Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, v. 29, n. 4,
p. 645-671, 2008.
LANTOLF, J. P.; THORNE, S. L. Sociocultural theory and second language
acquisition. In: VAN PATTEN, B.; WILLIAMS, J. (Ed.). Explaining Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. p. 201-224.
LANTOLF, J. P.; THORNE, S. L. Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 296.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. CA for SLA? It all depends ... Modern Language
Journal, v. 88, n. 4, p. 603-607, 2004.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Chaos/complexity science and second language
acquisition. Applied Linguistics, v. 18, n. 2, p. 141-165, 1997.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary
theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, v. 45, n. 2, p. 202-214, 2012.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D.; CAMERON, L. Complex systems and applied
linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008a.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D.; CAMERON, L. Research methodology on language
development from a complex systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, v. 92,
n. 2, p. 200-213, 2008b.
512
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
LAUFER, B.; GIRSAI, N. Form-focused instruction in second language
vocabulary learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied
Linguistics, v. 29, p. 694-716, 2008.
LAUFER, B.; WALDMAN, T. Verb-Noun Collocations in Second Language
Writing: A Corpus Analysis of Learners’ English. Language Learning, v. 61, n. 2,
p. 647-672, 2011.
LI, J.; SCHMITT, N. The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A
longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, v. 18, n. 2, p. 85-102,
2009.
LILLIS, T. Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing”:
Closing the gap Between text and context in academic writing research. Written
Communication, v. 25, n. 3, p. 353-388, 2008.
MACQUEEN, S. The emergence of patterns in second language writing: A
sociocognitive exploration of lexical trails. Bern: Peter Lang, 2012.
MACWHINNEY, B. The emergence of language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1999. 500p.
MOON, R. Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. 338p.
MYLES, F.; HOOPER, J.; MITCHELL, R. Rote or rule? Exploring the role of
formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning,
v. 48, n. 3, p. 323-364, 1998.
MYLES, F.; MITCHELL, R.; HOOPER, J. Interrogative chunks in French L2:
A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, v. 21,
p. 49-80, 1999.
NATTINGER, J. R.; DECARRICO, J. S. Lexical phrases and language teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
NESSELHAUF, N. Collocations in a learner corpus. Studies in corpus linguistics
14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005.
OHLROGGE, A. Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing
assessment. In: CORRIGAN, R.;MORAVCSIK, E. A., et al (Ed.). Formulaic
language: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, v.2, 2009. p. 375-386.
ORTEGA, L.; IBERRI-SHEA, G. Longitudinal research in second language
acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, v. 25, p. 26-45, 2005.
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
513
OSBORNE, J. Phraseology effects as a trigger for errors in L2 English. In:
MEUNIER, F.; GRANGER, S. (Ed.). Phraseology in foreign language learning
and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. p. 67-83.
PAWLEY, A.; SYDER, F. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection
and nativelike fluency. In: RICHARDS, J. C.; SCHMIDT, R. W. (Ed.).
Language and communication. London: Longman, 1983. p. 191-226.
PETERS, A. M. The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983. 131p.
RAMANATHAN, V.; ATKINSON, D. Ethnographic approaches and methods
in L2 writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied Linguistics, v. 20, n. 1,
p. 44-70, 1999.
SCHMITT, N. et al. Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A
longitudinal study. In: SCHMITT, N. (Ed.). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition,
processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. p. 55-86.
SCOTT, J. Conceptualising the social world: Principles of sociological analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
SINCLAIR, J. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991. 179p.
SINCLAIR, J. Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. New York:
Routledge, 2004. 212p.
SMAGORINSKY, P. Rethinking protocol analysis from a cultural perspective.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, v. 21, p. 233-245, 2001.
SMAGORINSKY, P. Thinking and speech and protocol analysis. Mind, Culture,
and Activity, v. 5, n. 3, p. 157-177, 1998.
SNOW, C. E. Saying it again: The role of expanded and deferred imitations in
language acquisition. In: NELSON, K. (Ed.). Children’s language. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Erlbaum, v.4, 1983. p. 29-58.
SNOW, C. E. The uses of imitation. Journal of Child Language, v. 8, p. 205-212, 1981.
STUBBS, M. Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers, 2001. 267p.
TALMY, S. Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument
to social practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, v. 30, p. 128-148, 2010.
TOMASELLO, M. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. 388p.
TOMASELLO, M. First steps towards a usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, v. 11, n. 1-2, p. 61-82, 2000.
514
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
TYLER, A. Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second
language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, v. 30, p. 270-291, 2010.
VAN LIER, L. An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics.
In: KRAMSCH, C. (Ed.). Language acquisition and language socialization.
London: Continuum, 2002. p.140-164.
VAN LIER, L. The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural
perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
VAN LIER, L. From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an
ecological perspective. In: LANTOLF, J. P. (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second
language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. p. 296.
VAN LIER, L. Observation from an ecological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, v.
31, n. 4, p. 783-787, 1997.
VYGOTSKY, L. S. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. 159p.
VYGOTSKY, L. S. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The
MIT Press, 1962.
WATSON-GEGEO, K. A. Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a
language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, v. 88,
n. 3, p. 331-350, 2004.
WONG FILLMORE, L. The Second Time Around: Cognitive and Social
Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. 1976. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford
University, 1976.
WRAY, A. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002. 332p.
WRAY, A. Formulaic Language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008.
Recebido em 01/08/2012. Aprovado em 04/10/2012.
RBLA, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 2, p. 493-515, 2013
515