Tense,aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts

Abstract

This study analyses specific written discourse production in which NNSs’ usage of English tenses and voice appears to be dramatically different from that of NSs. The data for the study narrowly focuses on a small number of verb phrase features, such as tenses, aspects and the passive voice, examining how they are presented in writing instruction texts and identifying areas of L2 learning in need of intensive instruction. The main goal of the analysis is to identify the patterns and median frequency rates of L1 and L2 uses of three English tenses (the present, the past and the future), two aspects (the progressive and the perfect), and passive verb structures encountered in a NS and NNS corpus of L1 and L2 academic student academic texts (746 essays/226,054 words). The results of the study demonstrate that even after many years of L2 learning and use, advanced NNS students may have difficulty with the conventionalized uses of tenses, aspects and the passive voice in written academic discourse. The paper also offers a few practical techniques to improve NNS students’ production of passable L2 written academic prose. Therefore, the types of texts and contexts in which NNSs may choose to use particular tenses, aspects and voice (or to avoid them) represent an important research venue because such investigations can lead to new insights into learners’ real-life L2 skills. In particular, in academic writing that all NNS students in universities in English-speaking countries must produce in copious quantities, the issues of tense, aspect and specifically passive voice usage are usually seen as very important (Michaelis, 1994; Nehls, 1988, 1992; Swales and Feak, 2000).

The study presented here analyses specific written discourse production in which NNSs’ usage of English tense and voice appears to be dramatically different from that of NSs. The data for the study narrowly focuses on a small number of verb phrase features, such as tenses, aspects and the passive voice, with the goal of identifying areas of L2 learning in need of intensive instruction, in light of the fact that these important features of academic text are barely even mentioned in most writing instructional texts. The paper also offers a few practical techniques to improve NNS students’ production of passable L2 written academic prose. The research goal of this study is to analyse the patterns and median frequency rates of L1 and L2 uses of three English tenses (the present, the past and the future with both will- and would-constructions), two aspects (the progressive and the perfect) and passive verb structures encountered in a NS and NNS corpus of L1 and L2 academic student academic texts (746 essays/226,054 words).

References

Axelrod, R. and Cooper, C. 2001: The St. Martin’s guide to writing, sixth edition. New York: St Martin’s .

Bayley, R. 1994: Interlanguage variation and the quantitative paradigm: Past tense marking in Chinese-English. In Tarone, E. , Gass, S. and Cohen, A. , editors, Research methodology in second-language acquisition, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum , 157-181.

Beason, L. and Lester, M. 2000: A commonsense guide to grammar and usage, second edition. Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s .

Celce-Murcia, M. 1998: Discourse analysis and grammar instruction. In Oaks, D. editor, Linguistics at work: a reader in applications, Fort Worth, TX: Hartcourt Brace College Publishers , 687-704.

Celce-Murcia, M. and Olshtain, E. 2000: Discourse and context in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press .

DeCarrico, J. 1986: Tense, aspect, and time in the English modality . TESOLQ uarterly 20(4): 665-682 .

Dudley-Evans, T. and St. John, M. J. 1998: Developments in English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Hacker, D. 2003: A writer’s reference, fifth edition. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s .

Hinkel, E. 1992: L2 tense and time reference . TESOLQ uarterly 26(3): 556-572 .

10.

Hinkel, E. 1997: The past tense and temporal verb meanings in a contextual frame . TESOLQ uarterly 31(2): 289-313 .

11.

Hinkel, E. 2001: Giving examples and telling stories in academic essays . Issues in Applied Linguistics 12(2): 149-170 .

12.

Hinkel, E. 2002a: Teaching grammar in writing classes: tenses and cohesion. In Hinkel, E. and Fotos, S. , editors, New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classroom s, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum , 181-198.

13.

Hinkel, E. 2002b: Second language writers’ text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .

14.

Hinkel, E. 2002c: Why English passive is difficult to teach (and learn). In Hinkel, E. and Fotos, S. , editors, New perspectives on grammar teaching, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum , 233-260.

15.

Hinkel, E. 2004: Teaching academic ESL writing: practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .

16.

Hoye, L. 1997: Adverbs and modality in English. London: Longman .

17.

Hunston, S. 2002: Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

18.

Hwang, S. J. 1987: Discourse features of Korean narration. Arlington, TX: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas .

19.

Jensen, V. 1987: Rhetorical emphases of Taoism . Rhetorica 5(3): 219-229 .

20.

Johns, A. 1997: Text, role, and context: developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

21.

Jordan, R. 1997: English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

22.

Kennedy, X. , Kennedy, D. and Holladay, S. 2002: The Bedford guide for college writers, sixth edition. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s .

23.

Lunsford, A. 2001: The everyday writer, second edition. New York: St Martin’s Press .

24.

McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. 1994: Language as discourse. London: Longman .

25.

Master, P. 1991: Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose . English for Specific Purposes 10(1): 15-33 .

26.

Maynard, S. 1998: Principles of Japanese discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

27.

Michaelis, L. 1994: The ambiguity of the English present perfect . Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 111-157 .

28.

Nehls, D. 1988: Modality and the expression of future time in English . IRAL 26(4): 295-307 .

29.

Nehls, D. 1992: An analysis of verbal aspect . IRAL 30(4): 255-280 .

30.

Ostler, S. 1987: English in parallels: a comparison of English and Arabic prose. In Connor, U. and Kaplan, R. editors, Writing across languages: analysis of L2 text, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley , 169-185.

31.

Owen, C. 1993: Corpus-based grammar and the Heineken effect: lexico-grammatical description for language learners . Applied Linguistics 14(2): 167-187 .

32.

Paltridge, B. 2001: Genre and the language learning classroom. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press .

33.

Pfaff, C. W. 1987: Functional approaches to interlanguage. In Pfaff, C. W. , editor, First and second language acquisition processes, Cambridge, MA: Newbury House , 81-102.

34.

Pica, T. 1994: Questions from the language classroom: research perspectives . TESOLQ uarterly 28(1): 49-79 .

35.

Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985: A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman .

36.

Raimes, A. 1992: Exploring through writing, second edition. New York: St Martin’s Press .

37.

Raimes, A. 1999: Keys for writers: a brief handbook. Boston: Houghton Mifflin .

38.

Reid, J. 2000: The process of composition, third edition. New York: Longman .

39.

Rutherford, W. 1984: Second language grammar learning and teaching. New York: Longman .

40.

Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. 1985: Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. In Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. , editors, Grammar and second language learning, New York: Newbury House , 274-282.

41.

Schiffrin, D. 1981: Tense variation in narrative . Language 57, 45-62 .

42.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1991: Speaking to many minds: on the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner . Second Language Research 7(2): 18-32 .

43.

Sharwood Smith, M. 1993: Input enhancement in instructed SLA: theoretical bases . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2): 165-179 .

44.

Sharwood Smith, M. and Rutherford, W. 1988: Grammar and second language teaching. New York: Newbury House .

45.

Smalley, R. , Ruetten, M. and Kozyrev, J. 2000: Refining composition skills, fifth edition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle .

46.

Swales, J. 1990: Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

47.

Swales, J. and Feak, C. 1994: Academic writing for graduate students. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press .

48.

Swales, J. and Feak, C. 2000: English in today’s research world. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press .

49.

Weissberg, R. and Buker, S. 1990: Writing up research. New York: Pearson .

50.

Wray, A. 2002: Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

51.

Wray, A. and Perkins, M. R. 2000: The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model . Language and Communication 20, 1-28 .