In:Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development
Edited by Gary G. Fogal and Marjolijn H. Verspoor
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 54] 2020
► pp. 81–108
Chapter 4Adaptive imitation
Formulaicity and the words of others in L2 English academic writing
Published online: 4 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.04mac
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.04mac
Abstract
This chapter explores how L2 academic writers imitate
adaptively as they manage the need to communicate academic content using
language that aligns with the predictable patterns of the discourse
community. Evidence from two studies of L2 writing is combined to explore
how writers work with a dynamic store of language chunks as their emergent
building blocks. One study, a cross-sectional discourse analysis of the
writing of 480 test-takers (Knoch,
Macqueen, & O’Hagan, 2014), investigates formulaicity and
source text use in two writing tasks. The other, a longitudinal qualitative
case study of a student writer (Macqueen, 2012), takes a close-up view of her word combinations
and use of source texts as she revises an assignment. Taken together, the
findings suggest that the early stages of L2 academic writing are
characterized by greater reliance on verbatim imitation of the patterns of
others and less formulaicity. Over time, L2 writers represent academic
content through interweaving the words of others with their own internalized
patterns in increasingly conventional manipulations.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Fluent formulaicity
- Developmental perspectives on fluent formulaicity
- Source text imitation
- Developmental perspectives on source text imitation
- Two studies
- Study 1: Cross-sectional study of writing test responses
- Aim
- Participants
- Writing data
- Analytic method 1: Fluent formulaicity
- Analytic method 2: Source text imitation
- Statistical analysis
- Findings
- Density of fluent formulae
- Source text imitation
- Summary of Study 1
- Study 2: Longitudinal case study
- Aim
- Method
- Context and focus sentence
- Identification of source text content and patterns for imitation
- Adaptive imitation of source text
- Summary of Study 2
- Discussion and conclusion
Acknowledgements References
References (71)
Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and
the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate
school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102–117.
Arbib, M. A. (2002). The mirror system, imitation, and the evolution of
language. In K. Dautenhahn & C. L. Nehaniv (Eds.), Imitation in animals and artifacts (pp. 229–280). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee (Trans.) C. Emerson & M. H. Austin (Eds.)). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position
paper. Language Learning, 59(Supplement 1), 1–27.
Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S. (2014). Quantifying the development of phraseological competence
in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 28–41.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on
the TOEFL iBT® test: A lexico-grammatical analysis. ETS Research Report, RR-13-04. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Boothe, B. (2017). Constructing identity. In Petrucci Family Foundation Collection of African-American
Art. Portland, OR: Portland Art Museum.
Bustamante, R. O., & Simonetti, J. A. (2005). Is Pinus radiata invading the native vegetation in
central Chile? Demographic responses in a fragmented
forest. Biological Invasions, 7(2), 243–249.
Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive
intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 3(3), 171–193.
Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic
writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Eouanzoui, K., Erdosy, U., & James, M. (2006). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring
levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for
the new TOEFL®. ETS Research Report, RR-05-13. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and
integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5–43.
Cumming, A., Yang, L., Qiu, C., Zhang, L., Ji, X., Wang, J., Zhan, J., Zhang, F., Xu, C., Cao, R., Yu, L., Chu, M., Liu, M., Cao, M., & Lai, C. (2018). Students’ practices and abilities for writing from
sources in English at universities in China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 1–15.
Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic
survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1–18.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language
acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21.
Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use
of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 47(2), 157–177.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(02), 143–188.
(2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf
and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44.
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Chichester: Blackwell.
Firth, J. R. ([1951] 1968). A synopsis of linguistic theory,
1930–1955. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–1959 (pp. 168–205). London: Longmans Green.
Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists
writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 440–465.
(2008). Plagiarism and second language writing in an electronic
age. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 161–183.
Fortescue, M. (2017). The abstraction engine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing:
Collocations and formulae. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gustafsson, H., & Verspoor, M. (2017). Development of chunks in Dutch L2 learners of
English. In J. Evers-Vermeul, L. Rasier, & E. Tribushinina (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and language
teaching (pp. 235–262). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers’
engagement with source-based academic writing and
reading. Journal of English for academic purposes, 12(2), 87–98.
Hou, J., Loerts, H., & Verspoor, M. H. (2018). Chunk use and development in advanced Chinese L2 learners
of English. Language Teaching Research, 22(2), 148–168.
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death
penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806.
Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learner’s academic
writing. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hull, G., & Rose, M. (1989). Rethinking remediation: Toward a social-cognitive
understanding of problematic reading and writing. Written Communication, 6(2), 139–154.
Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of
L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261–278.
Kennedy, C., & Thorp, D. (2007). A corpus-based investigation of linguistic responses to
an IELTS academic writing task. In L. Taylor & P. Falvey (Eds.), Research in speaking and writing assessment (pp. 316–377). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knoch, U., Macqueen, S., & O’Hagan, S. (2014). An investigation of the effect of task type on the
discourse produced by students at various score levels in the TOEFL
iBT writing test. ETS Research Report, RR-14–43. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Krishnan, L. A., & Kathpalia, S. S. (2002). Literature reviews in student project
reports. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 45(3), 187–197.
Lantolf, J. P. (2003). Intrapersonal communication and internalization in the
second language classroom. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 349–370). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Second language acquisition and the issue of
fossilization: There is no end, and there is no
state. In Z. Han & T. Odlin (Eds.), Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition (pp. 189–200). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
(2012). On the roles of repetition in language teaching and
learning. Applied Linguistics Review, 3(2), 195–210.
(2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems
theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 61–79.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A
corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647–672.
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A
longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 85–102.
Macqueen, S. (2012). The emergence of patterns in second language writing: A
sociocognitive exploration of lexical trails. Bern: Peter Lang.
(2013). Emergence in second language writing: A methodological
inroad. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 13(2), 493–515.
Neff van Aertselaer, J. (2008). Contrasting English-Spanish interpersonal discourse
phrases: A corpus study. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 85–99). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ohlrogge, A. (2009). Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing
assessment. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality,
and functional explanations (Vol. 2, pp. 375–386). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paquot, M. (2008). Exemplification in learner writing: A cross-linguistic
perspective. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 101–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Parker, I. M. (2001). Safe site and seed limitation in Cytisus
scoparius (Scotch broom): Invasibility, disturbance,
and the role of cryptogams in a glacial outwash
prairie. Biological invasions, 3(4), 323–332.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection
and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London: Longman.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in
academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and
plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201–230.
Petrić, B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2
student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 102–117.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment:
Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217–230.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of
communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A. (2013). Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical
bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for academic purposes, 12(3), 214–225.
Tomasello, M. (2000). First steps towards a usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11(1–2), 61–82.
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Travis, C. E. (2018). Bilingualism in the community: Code-switching and grammars in
contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and
authenticity. London: Longman.
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. H. G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
(1987). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of
general psychology. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Weigle, S. C., & Parker, K. (2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing
assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 118–133.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Köylü, Zeynep, Nurullah Eryılmaz, Carmen Pérez‐Vidal, Marjolijn Verspoor & Hana Gustafsson
Macqueen, Susy
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
