论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】This paper will examine the Chinese L2 learners’ characteristics of noun phrases in their EAP writing. The research reveals that more proficient students produce more complex NPs in their academic writing and the proportion of NPs with pre-modifiers is higher than that with post-modifiers.
【Key words】noun phrases； EAP writing； Chinese L2 learners； modifiers
I. Introduction
When students enter into universities， they will encounter with a wide range of challenges and difficulties. A large amount of these obstacles incorporate being aware of the linguistic features in different varieties of English， etc. To tackle these problems， they need to interpret complex discourse in different registers， such as conversation， fiction， news and academic register （Biber et al.， 1999）. As Biber （2006） points out， most universities focus on individual narration or personal opinion compositions and do rather little to cultivate students to deal with these wide range of registers.
The features of Noun Phrases in these registers have been identified， including： phrasal modifiers are more commonly embedded in NPs than in conversation； and the frequencies of the use of NPs are much higher in proficient students than those in less proficient students （Parkinson and Musgrave， 2014）. These features can also be observed in Chinese L2： more proficient students produced more complex NPs in their academic writing and the proportion of NPs with pre-modifiers is higher than that with post-modifiers.
II. Noun phrase in EAP
The features of NPs in academic writing have been identified in a number of studies on written registers， such as NPs are significantly more common and pre-modifiers are much more frequent than post-modifiers in writing. But there are still some characteristics clarifying academic register， which are that the frequency of NPs are the highest in all registers， the construction of NPs are more elaborated， the notions of NPs are more abstract， the meaning of NPs are more explicit， and the structure of NPs are more complex （Biber and Gray， 2010）. Thus， the increasing density of its structure and make them more economical （Parkinson and Musgrave， 2014）.
Furthermore， prepositional phrases as post-modifiers are extremely common in academic register up to 80% of post-modifiers， which are almost 7 times than those in conversation. In news reportage， the proportion of prepositional phrases is slightly less than that in academic register （Biber et al.， 1999）. For other post-modifiers in academic register， the proportion of ED clauses is about 1 thousand words per million， which is the lowest； ING clauses are about 2.5 thousand words per million； ED clauses are about 4 thousand words per million almost the same as appositives； relative clauses are about 11.5 thousand words （Biber et al.， 1999）. Compare relative clauses of 11.5 thousand words with prepositional phrases of 70 thousand word per million， it is easy to conclude that non-clausal phrases are more common than clausal phrase in academic register. However， the above literature ignores the most vital structural features of NPs in academic register because its elaboration heavily relies on phrasal rather than clausal. NPs with pre-modifiers and post-modifiers may elaborate a large number of sentences in academic register （Biber and Gray， 2010）. These modifiers provide the writers with more possibilities of packing and embedding more extra information into the head nouns. In this way， it might make the NPs’ information more elaborated， thus increasing the reading speed and boosting the efficiency of readers’ understanding.
III. Noun phrases in EAP L2 writing
As noted above， professional academic writing features more complex NPs， more compressed structure， and more explicit meaning. For students， especially L2 students， their abilities to handle these features become increasingly important. One possible reason for this is that in the last two centuries， there is a dramatic increase of NPs with modifiers， and they are increasingly frequent and productive in academic register （Biber and Gray， 2011）. As for L2 academic writing， there is a significant correlation between L2 literary proficiency and frequency of use complex NPs （Parkinson and Musgrave， 2014）. There is also a tendency that the complexities of NPs are growing in both number and types with the development of students’ English literacy （Ravid and Berman， 2010）. Thus， the frequency of complex NPs is one of a reliable approach to measuring L2 academic written level.
The development of L2 academic writing features the tendency from complex clauses to complex NPs （Biber et al.， 2011）. According to their comparison of 28 grammatical features between conversation and L2 academic writing， NPs’ developmental stages are proposed. The hypothesized development index for NP complexity include 5 stages： at the first stage， L2 features finite complement clauses without any NPs； at the second stage， it features NPs with adjective as pre-modifiers； at the third stage， it features NPs with nouns and possessive nouns as pre-modifiers and OF phrases and prepositional phrases as post-modifiers； at the fourth stage， it features more NP with nouns and possessive nouns as pre-modifiers and prepositional phrases as post-modifiers rather than OF phrase to express abstract concepts； at the fifth stage， it features appositives and multiple prepositional phrases as post-modifiers （ibid.）.
IV. Noun phrases in Chinese L2 EAP writing
As suggested above， less complex nominals are significant in lower proficiency of L2 learners’ academic writing and high complex nominals are significant in higher proficiency learners’. This result implies that Chinese L2 learners need to improve the ability to construct complex NPs in their academic writing when they develop to advanced proficiency levels， which may be one of the main issues for them （LU， 2011）. However， the capacity of engaging complex NPs is a great challenging for Chinese L2 learners. One possible impact on this ability is the negative transfer of L1 （He and Niao， 2015）. These negative transfers feature grammatical differences both in lexicon and syntax including no article， no prefix or suffix， no singular or plural， no tense， no SV concord， etc. Statistics show that the grammar mistakes of Chinese L2 learners mainly involve in these aspects （Guo， et al.， 2014）. Furthermore， Chinese L2 learners may likely encounter with the dilemma of transferring the Chinese NPs to English NPs or vice versa. One possible factor contributing to this issue is that these two NP structures are rather different： Chinese NPs feature the structure “modifiers head noun” which means that all modifiers are placed on the left or only pre-modifiers are allowed in the NPs， while English NPs feature the structure “Determiner （pre-modification） head noun （post-modification and complementation）” （Biber et al.， 1999） which means that both pre-modifiers and post-modifiers are allowed.
However， the style of transferring the above Chinese phrase to English phrase may be variable in L2： the higher proficient， the more complex， the more compressed， the more explicit， vice versa. As a result， the different NP patterns between Chinese and English can cause many problems in academic writing. Thus， how to overcome these negative transfers and boost NP complexity in academic writing might be one of the main issues for Chinese learners.
V. Conclusion
To conclude， the characteristics of noun phrases in different registers have been identified in this paper. By comparing with different registers， nouns are found to be more likely used as nominal pre-modifiers in writing than in spoken ones. Moreover， the frequencies of the use of NPs are much higher in proficient students than those in less proficient students. These features can also be observed in Chinese L2： more proficient students produced more complex NPs in their academic writing and the proportion of NPs with pre-modifiers is higher than that with post-modifiers.
References：
[1]Biber，D.（2006）.University language：A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers.Amsterdam：John Benjamins.
[2]Biber，D.and Gray，B.（2010）.Challenging Stereotypes about Academic Writing：Complexity，Elaboration，Explicitness，Journal of English for Academic Purposes，9（1），pp.2-20.
[3]Biber，D.and Gray，B.（2011）.Grammatical change in the noun phrase：the influence of written language use，English Language and Linguistics，15（2），pp.223–250.
[4]Biber，D.，Gray，B.，
【Key words】noun phrases； EAP writing； Chinese L2 learners； modifiers
I. Introduction
When students enter into universities， they will encounter with a wide range of challenges and difficulties. A large amount of these obstacles incorporate being aware of the linguistic features in different varieties of English， etc. To tackle these problems， they need to interpret complex discourse in different registers， such as conversation， fiction， news and academic register （Biber et al.， 1999）. As Biber （2006） points out， most universities focus on individual narration or personal opinion compositions and do rather little to cultivate students to deal with these wide range of registers.
The features of Noun Phrases in these registers have been identified， including： phrasal modifiers are more commonly embedded in NPs than in conversation； and the frequencies of the use of NPs are much higher in proficient students than those in less proficient students （Parkinson and Musgrave， 2014）. These features can also be observed in Chinese L2： more proficient students produced more complex NPs in their academic writing and the proportion of NPs with pre-modifiers is higher than that with post-modifiers.
II. Noun phrase in EAP
The features of NPs in academic writing have been identified in a number of studies on written registers， such as NPs are significantly more common and pre-modifiers are much more frequent than post-modifiers in writing. But there are still some characteristics clarifying academic register， which are that the frequency of NPs are the highest in all registers， the construction of NPs are more elaborated， the notions of NPs are more abstract， the meaning of NPs are more explicit， and the structure of NPs are more complex （Biber and Gray， 2010）. Thus， the increasing density of its structure and make them more economical （Parkinson and Musgrave， 2014）.
Furthermore， prepositional phrases as post-modifiers are extremely common in academic register up to 80% of post-modifiers， which are almost 7 times than those in conversation. In news reportage， the proportion of prepositional phrases is slightly less than that in academic register （Biber et al.， 1999）. For other post-modifiers in academic register， the proportion of ED clauses is about 1 thousand words per million， which is the lowest； ING clauses are about 2.5 thousand words per million； ED clauses are about 4 thousand words per million almost the same as appositives； relative clauses are about 11.5 thousand words （Biber et al.， 1999）. Compare relative clauses of 11.5 thousand words with prepositional phrases of 70 thousand word per million， it is easy to conclude that non-clausal phrases are more common than clausal phrase in academic register. However， the above literature ignores the most vital structural features of NPs in academic register because its elaboration heavily relies on phrasal rather than clausal. NPs with pre-modifiers and post-modifiers may elaborate a large number of sentences in academic register （Biber and Gray， 2010）. These modifiers provide the writers with more possibilities of packing and embedding more extra information into the head nouns. In this way， it might make the NPs’ information more elaborated， thus increasing the reading speed and boosting the efficiency of readers’ understanding.
III. Noun phrases in EAP L2 writing
As noted above， professional academic writing features more complex NPs， more compressed structure， and more explicit meaning. For students， especially L2 students， their abilities to handle these features become increasingly important. One possible reason for this is that in the last two centuries， there is a dramatic increase of NPs with modifiers， and they are increasingly frequent and productive in academic register （Biber and Gray， 2011）. As for L2 academic writing， there is a significant correlation between L2 literary proficiency and frequency of use complex NPs （Parkinson and Musgrave， 2014）. There is also a tendency that the complexities of NPs are growing in both number and types with the development of students’ English literacy （Ravid and Berman， 2010）. Thus， the frequency of complex NPs is one of a reliable approach to measuring L2 academic written level.
The development of L2 academic writing features the tendency from complex clauses to complex NPs （Biber et al.， 2011）. According to their comparison of 28 grammatical features between conversation and L2 academic writing， NPs’ developmental stages are proposed. The hypothesized development index for NP complexity include 5 stages： at the first stage， L2 features finite complement clauses without any NPs； at the second stage， it features NPs with adjective as pre-modifiers； at the third stage， it features NPs with nouns and possessive nouns as pre-modifiers and OF phrases and prepositional phrases as post-modifiers； at the fourth stage， it features more NP with nouns and possessive nouns as pre-modifiers and prepositional phrases as post-modifiers rather than OF phrase to express abstract concepts； at the fifth stage， it features appositives and multiple prepositional phrases as post-modifiers （ibid.）.
IV. Noun phrases in Chinese L2 EAP writing
As suggested above， less complex nominals are significant in lower proficiency of L2 learners’ academic writing and high complex nominals are significant in higher proficiency learners’. This result implies that Chinese L2 learners need to improve the ability to construct complex NPs in their academic writing when they develop to advanced proficiency levels， which may be one of the main issues for them （LU， 2011）. However， the capacity of engaging complex NPs is a great challenging for Chinese L2 learners. One possible impact on this ability is the negative transfer of L1 （He and Niao， 2015）. These negative transfers feature grammatical differences both in lexicon and syntax including no article， no prefix or suffix， no singular or plural， no tense， no SV concord， etc. Statistics show that the grammar mistakes of Chinese L2 learners mainly involve in these aspects （Guo， et al.， 2014）. Furthermore， Chinese L2 learners may likely encounter with the dilemma of transferring the Chinese NPs to English NPs or vice versa. One possible factor contributing to this issue is that these two NP structures are rather different： Chinese NPs feature the structure “modifiers head noun” which means that all modifiers are placed on the left or only pre-modifiers are allowed in the NPs， while English NPs feature the structure “Determiner （pre-modification） head noun （post-modification and complementation）” （Biber et al.， 1999） which means that both pre-modifiers and post-modifiers are allowed.
However， the style of transferring the above Chinese phrase to English phrase may be variable in L2： the higher proficient， the more complex， the more compressed， the more explicit， vice versa. As a result， the different NP patterns between Chinese and English can cause many problems in academic writing. Thus， how to overcome these negative transfers and boost NP complexity in academic writing might be one of the main issues for Chinese learners.
V. Conclusion
To conclude， the characteristics of noun phrases in different registers have been identified in this paper. By comparing with different registers， nouns are found to be more likely used as nominal pre-modifiers in writing than in spoken ones. Moreover， the frequencies of the use of NPs are much higher in proficient students than those in less proficient students. These features can also be observed in Chinese L2： more proficient students produced more complex NPs in their academic writing and the proportion of NPs with pre-modifiers is higher than that with post-modifiers.
References：
[1]Biber，D.（2006）.University language：A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers.Amsterdam：John Benjamins.
[2]Biber，D.and Gray，B.（2010）.Challenging Stereotypes about Academic Writing：Complexity，Elaboration，Explicitness，Journal of English for Academic Purposes，9（1），pp.2-20.
[3]Biber，D.and Gray，B.（2011）.Grammatical change in the noun phrase：the influence of written language use，English Language and Linguistics，15（2），pp.223–250.
[4]Biber，D.，Gray，B.，