Abdullah Alasmary King Saud University aasmary@ksu.edu.sa The Productive Mastery of Recurrent Academic Word Combinations by First (L1) and Second (L2) Language Learners Abdullah Alasmary King Saud University aasmary@ksu.edu.sa

wondering if you ever consider expanding your creativity to something…..?

Recurrent Word Combinations “co-occurrence of a lexical item and one or more additional linguistic elements which functions as one semantic unit in a clause or sentence and whose frequency of co-occurrence is larger than expected on the basis of chance” (Ellis, 2008: p. 2).

Theoretical basis Cognitive linguistics idiom principle open choice principle (Sinclair, 1991) Lexical priming Every word is primed to occur with other words; these are its collocates. Every word is primed to occur with particular semantic sets; these are its semantic associations. Every word is primed to occur in association with particular pragmatic functions; these are its pragmatic associations. (Hoey, 2005, p. 12)

previous research The pervasive presence of recurrent sequences is an indisputable fact, as is indicated by numerous corpus-based studies. Recurrent sequences take different forms and perform various discourse functions. (Biber, 2009; Biber, Conrad & Cortes, 2004; Cortes, 2013; Durrant & Schmitt, 2010; Hyland, 2008; Laufer, 2011). Native speakers demonstrate a thorough understanding of a wide range of sequences, while nonnatives’ knowledge of such sequences is largely inadequate (Schmitt & Carter, 2004; Yamashita & Jiang, 2010). Academic discourse is replete with lexically bundled items that serve referential, stance or discourse organizing functions (Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010).

The present study Research questions: Is there a difference between Native English Speakers and Arabic-speaking learners of English in the productive use of recurrent academic word combinations? What patterns of misuse do the writings produced by native and nonnative speakers reveal about the target combinations?

the present study Target recurrent sequences Academic Formula List (AFL) (Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010) 38, four-word sequences Data collection A can-do test (Schmitt & Zimmerman, 2002) Two options

The present study Participants *In months Group N Male Female Age Length of stay Native Speakers 25 15 10 (M = 20.28, SD. 1.67) --------------------- Nonnative Speakers 23 2 (M = 23.64, SD. 2.82) 33* *In months

Results Table 1 The productive knowledge of recurrent word combinations by NS and NNS (Max.114) Group Min. Max. Mdn. Mann-Witney U ES N 24 103 95 *50.50 0.71 NNS 6 93 36 *p<0.01

Results Table 2 The least produced recurrent word combinations by NS RWC % M S.D Function in terms of a 47 1.40 1.44 Referential to the fact that 39 1.16 1.34 in the course of 32 0.96 1.30 with respect to the 29 0.88 1.36 on the part of 24 0.72 1.24

Results Table 3 The least produced recurrent word combinations by NNS RWC % M S.D Function in the form of 5 0.16 0.62 Referential to the fact that in a number of 4 0.12 0.60 on the part of 1 0.04 0.20 the validity of the 0.00

Discussion A large number of recurrent word combinations are not properly reproduced by Nonnative Speakers. The most productively realized word combinations by both groups are stance markers. A lot of these stance markers are initiated by the anticipatory it. The least productively utilized word combinations are found to perform referential functions.

The influence of the node word Patterns of Misuse NS data The influence of the node word 1. I will not go to my ex-boyfriends’ birthday party with respect to the new girlfriend. 2. In the course of biology, I passed.

The influence of the node word Reproducing parts of the target RWC Patterns of misuse NNS Data The influence of the node word 1. The nature of the USA is beautiful. Reproducing parts of the target RWC 2. In terms of quality, we have great goods. L1 transfer 3. To the fact that I cannot drive.

Recommendations Formulae-based approach to EAP Form- and function-focused instruction Corpus-extracted contexts.

Thank you