[lynne flowerdew] corpus-based analyses of the pro(bookfi.org)

193

Upload: kharoline

Post on 22-Jul-2016

54 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 2: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

Corpus-based Analyses of the Problem–Solution Pattern

Page 3: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

Volume 29

Corpus-based Analyses of the Problem–Solution Pattern. A phraseological approachby Lynne Flowerdew

General Editor

Elena Tognini-BonelliThe Tuscan Word Center/ The University of Siena

SCL focuses on the use of corpora throughout language study, the development of a quantitative approach to linguistics, the design and use of new tools for processing language texts, and the theoretical implications of a data-rich discipline.

Studies in Corpus Linguistics (SCL)

Consulting Editor

Wolfgang Teubert

Advisory Board Michael BarlowUniversity of Auckland

Douglas BiberNorthern Arizona University

Marina BondiUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Christopher S. ButlerUniversity of Wales, Swansea

Sylviane GrangerUniversity of Louvain

M.A.K. HallidayUniversity of Sydney

Susan HunstonUniversity of Birmingham

Stig JohanssonOslo University

Graeme KennedyVictoria University of Wellington

Geoffrey N. LeechUniversity of Lancaster

Anna MauranenUniversity of Helsinki

Ute RömerUniversity of Hannover

Michaela MahlbergUniversity of Liverpool

Jan SvartvikUniversity of Lund

John M. SwalesUniversity of Michigan

Yang HuizhongJiao Tong University, Shanghai

Page 4: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

Corpus-based Analyses of the Problem–Solution PatternA phraseological approach

Lynne FlowerdewHong Kong University of Science & Technology

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam / Philadelphia

Page 5: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Flowerdew, Lynne.Corpus-based analyses of the problem/solution pattern : a phraseological approach /

Lynne Flowerdew. p. cm. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, issn 1388-0373 ; v. 29)Includes bibliographical references and index.1. Corpora (Linguistics) 2. Grammar, Comparative and general--Data processing. I.

Title.P128.C68F56 2008

415'.0285--dc22 2007031621isbn 978 90 272 2303 6 (Hb; alk. paper)

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V.No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The NetherlandsJohn Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

8 TM

Page 6: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� For�my�father�Albert�Frederick�Scovell,�scientist�and�inventor

Page 7: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 8: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

Table of contents

Acknowledgments xi

chapter�1Problem-Solution pattern: An overview and corpus analytic perspective 1Clause�relations�as�a�means�of�identifying�the�Problem-Solution�pattern� 1Grammatical�signals�of�clause�relations�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern� 4Lexical�signals�of�clause�relations�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern� 5Corpus�analysis�of�a�grammatical�signal�for�the�Problem�element� 8Corpus�analysis�of�a�lexical�signal�for�the�Problem�element� 10Conclusion� 11

chapter�2Issues in corpus linguistics and discourse studies 13Methodologies� 14Contextual�features� 15Interpretation�of�data� 16Corpus�linguistics:�Towards�a�multi-faceted�approach� 19

chapter�3The two corpora: Context and compilation 21Contextual�background�of�the�Professional�and�Student�corpus� 21Issues�in�corpus�compilation� 24Conclusion� 32

chapter�4�Frequency, key word and key-key word analysis of signals for the Problem-Solution pattern 33Classificatory�framework�for�signals:�Appraisal�system� 33Frequency�analysis�of�signals� 35Key�word�analysis�of�signals� 39Key-key�word�analysis�of�signals� 44Differences�between�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP� 49Conclusion� 50

Page 9: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

viii� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

chapter�5PROFCORP: Phraseological analysis of signals for the Problem element 53Classificatory�framework:�Causal�semantic�relations� 53Classificatory�framework:�Lexico-grammatical�patterns� 55Analysis�of�problem�and�problems� 57Analysis�of�need� 62Analysis�of�impacts�and�impact� 63Conclusion� 73

chapter�6PROFCORP: Phraseological analysis of signals for the Solution element 75Classificatory�framework:�Functional�categories�for�nominal�signals� 76Classificatory�framework:�Grammatical�/�causal�categories�for�adjectival�and�verbal�groups� 77Analysis�of�recommendations� 78Analysis�of�solutions�and�solution  80Analysis�of�recommended  82Analysis�of�proposed  89Analysis�of�implementation  92Conclusion� 94

chapter�7STUCORP: Phraseological analysis of signals for the Problem element 97Analysis�of�problem�and�problems  98Analysis�of�need  110Conclusion� 113

chapter�8STUCORP: Phraseological analysis of signals for the Solution element 115Analysis�of�recommendations  115Analysis�of�solutions�and�solution  117Analysis�of�recommended  120Analysis�of�proposed  123Analysis�of�implementation  126Conclusion� 128

Page 10: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Table�of�contents� ix

chapter�9General conclusions and implications for pedagogy 129Some�principal�findings�from�PROFCORP� 129Expert�vs.�apprentice�writing� 131Pedagogic�implications�and�applications�of�findings� 133Overall�conclusions� 138

Appendices 141References 165Name index 175Subject index 177

Page 11: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 12: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

Acknowledgments

I�am�greatly� indebted�to�Michael�Hoey�for�his� invaluable�guidance,� inspiration�and�encouragement�in�carrying�out�the�research�for�this�book.�I�am�also�grateful�to�Tony�McEnery�and�Mike�Scott�for�their�insightful�comments�on�an�earlier�draft.�My�thanks�go�to�the�anonymous�reviewer�and�Elena�Tognini-Bonelli,�the�series�editor,�for�all�their�advice.�I�would�also�like�to�thank�Ulla�Connor�for�her�support�and�encouragement�for�my�work�over�the�years.�Colleagues,�Pansy�Lam,�Edward�Li,�Jacqui�Lam�McArthur�and�John�Milton,�have�provided�friendship,�conversa-tions�and�moral�support�over�the�past�15�years,�for�which�I�am�very�grateful.

Last,�but�not�least,�I�wish�to�thank�my�husband�John�and�my�sons,�Rupert�and�Humphrey,�without�whose�constant�support,�encouragement�and�understanding�this�book�might�never�have�been�written.

Page 13: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 14: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

chapter�1

Problem-Solution pattern An�overview�and�corpus�analytic�perspective

One�of�the�most�common�patterns�of�text�organization�is�the�Problem-Solution�pattern,�comprising�four�main�elements:�Situation,�Problem,�Solution�and�Evalu-ation.�This�pattern�functions�as�the�main�organizing�principle�of�many�different�kinds�of�written�and�spoken�texts�ranging�from�advertisements�to�workplace�re-ports�and�has�been�extensively�studied�by�Hoey�(1983,�1986,�2001)�and�Jordan�(1984)�among�others.�An�annotated�bibliography�of�the�early�work�on�the�Prob-lem-Solution�pattern�by� linguists� such�as�Beardsley,�Becker,�Labov�and�Winter�can�be�found�in�Hoey�(1983:�189–201).�Much�of�the�discussion�and�analysis�of�this�pattern�has�focused�on�clause�relations�as�a�means�of�identifying�the�pattern,�and�also�on�the�grammatical�and�lexical�signals�for�realizing�the�basic�elements�of�the�pattern.�This�introductory�chapter�illustrates�these�key�concepts�and�concludes�by�making�a�case�for�identification�of�the�signals�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�using�corpus�analytic�techniques.

Clause relations as a means of identifying the Problem-Solution pattern

Hoey�and�Winter’s�(1986)�starting�point�for�analysis�of�the�Problem-Solution�pat-tern�is�with�how�discourse�is�created�through�clause�relations,�then�moving�on�to�the�ways�in�which�these�clause�relations�are�signaled.�Moreover,�both�Winter�and�Hoey�stress�that�a�clause�relation�is�a�cognitive�process�whereby�the�reader�inter-prets�the�discourse�in�a�particular�way�set�up�by�inferential�connections�made�by�the�writer.�

Besides� the� interpretative�nature�of�clause�relations,�another�observation� is�that�the�clause�relation�does�not�relate�only�to�clauses�or�adjacent�sentences,�but�can�also�refer�to�the�relation�between�two�paragraphs,�which�can�be�seen�as�a�larg-er�clause�relation�(Hoey�1983).�This�aspect�is�important�in�that�it�recognises�that�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�is�not�confined�to�the�level�of�the�clause,�sentence�or�paragraph�(as�was�initially�thought�by�Becker�1965),�but�can�refer�to�any�unit�of�discourse�above�the�level�of�the�clause.�The�observation�that�different�elements�are�

Page 15: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

2� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

not�necessarily�co-terminous�with�paragraphs,�sentences�or�clauses�can�be�illus-trated�by�the�following�example�for�an�Internet�service�from�Hoey�(2001:�128):

TRYING�TO�WORK�WITH�THE�INTERNET?IS�THE�INTERNET�TURNING�YOU�INTO�A�MONSTER?�LET�MCIS�HELP�YOU�TO�CONTROL�THE�BEAST.MCIS�is�a�Total�Internet�Solution�Provider�and�can�assist�you�in�the�following�areas:�[A�list�follows]�

The�Situation�element�in�the�first�sentence�and�the�Problem�element�in�the�sec-ond� sentence� are� both� co-terminous� with� their� respective� sentences.� However,�the�third�sentence�offers�a�Solution�(MCIS)�as�well�as�a�positive�evaluation�(help)�and�reiterates�the�problem�(beast),�signaled�by�the�near-synonym�monster�in�the�previous�sentence.�In�the�above�example,�the�evaluative�element�is�embedded�in�the�Solution�and�both�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements�extend�across�clauses�and�sentences.

This�nature�of�textual�patterning�has�been�commented�on�by�other�discourse�analysts,�most�notably�McCarthy�(1991):

These�patterns�are�manifested�in�regularly�occurring�functional�relationships�be-tween�bits�of�text.�These�bits�may�be�phrases,�clauses,�sentences�or�groups�of�sen-tences;�we�shall�refer�to�them�as�textual�segments to�avoid�confusion�with�gram-matical�elements�and�syntactic�relations�within�clauses�and�sentences.�A�segment�may�sometimes�be�a�clause,�sometimes�a�sentence,�sometimes�a�whole�paragraph;�what�is�important�is�that�segments�can�be�isolated�using�a�set�of�labels�covering�a�finite�set�of�functional�relations�that�can�occur�between�any�two�bits�of�text.�� (McCarthy�1991:�28)

‘These� functional� relationships� between� bits� of� text’� referred� to� by� McCarthy�above� are� synonymous� with� the� types� of� clause� relations� summarised� in� Hoey�(2001:�30),�namely�Sequence�relations�(e.g.�time,�cause-consequence,�means-pur-pose,� and� premise-deduction)� and� Matching� relations,� which� include� contrast,�similarity,�exemplification,�preview-detail�and�exception.�These�clause�relations�can�themselves�act�as�signals�of�Problem-Solution�patterns�because�these�signal-ling�relationships�regularly�co-occur.�With�specific�reference�to�the�Problem-So-lution�pattern,�Hoey�notes�that�‘…�the�relation�between�Problem�and�Response�is�also�one�of�Cause–Consequence�and�that�between�Response�and�Result�is�also�one� of� Instrument–Achievement’.� (Hoey� uses� the� term� ‘Response’� rather� than�Solution�when�referring�to�this� individual�part�of�the�pattern,�and�employs�the�term�‘Result’�when�a�successful�outcome�to�the�Solution�is�achieved).�However,�it�should�be�noted�that�evidence�of�the�existence�of�the�cause-consequence�relation�

Page 16: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�1.� Problem-Solution�pattern� 3

does�not�necessary�entail�evidence�of�the�existence�of�the�Problem-Solution�pat-tern�(Hoey�1983).�

By�way�of� illustration,� in�an�excerpt� from�the�discussion�section�of�a�final-year�undergraduate�engineering�project�report�in�Figure�1-1,�in�the�Problem�1b�+�Solution�pair,�the�cause�is�signalled�by�However,� in�the�first�sentence�and�the�consequence�by�As a result,�in�the�second�sentence.�In�this�example,�there�is�also�an�Instrument–Achievement�pair,�where�the�main�clause�in�the�second�sentence�(…we added an air pump…)�signals�the�Instrument,�and�the�subordinate�clause�(…allowing external air …)�the�Achievement.�

Results�AnalysisModifications Although�we�could�not�test�the�concentration�of�oxygen�in�the�seawater�due�to�equipment�failure�we�could�observe�that�the�fish�in�the�tank�lacked�oxy-gen�as�most�of�them�came�up�to�the�water�surface�for�respiration.�The�origi-nal�air�injection�system�integrated�with�the�filter�could�not�provide�enough�oxygen�to�the�culture.�We�added�an�external�air�pump�to�improve�the�situ-ation.�However,�we�could�not�inject�air�into�the�tank�directly�as�foam�might�form.�As a result,�we�added�an�air�pump�into�the�foam�removal�unit,�allow-ing�external�air�to�be�injected�into�the�unit.

Situation

Problem 1a + partial Solution

Problem 1b +Solution

In�order�to�remove�carbon�dioxide�from�the�culture,�we�put�some�seaweed�in�the�tank.�This�is�the�most�efficient�way�to�remove�carbon�dioxide�from�the�water.

Problem 2 +Solution +Evaluation

Figure 1-1. Example�of�clause�relations�in�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�(Flowerdew�2003:�491)

In�fact,�the�above�extract�in�Figure�1-1�is�a�modification�of�the�pattern,�in�this�case�‘progressive�multilayering’,�where�each�Solution�only�solves�part�of�the�Problem�(see�Hoey�1983:�81–106�for�variations�of�the�basic�pattern).

The�following�section�examines�clause�relations�in�more�detail�to�determine�how�the�clause�relations�(and�hence�the�Problem-Solution�pattern)�are�signalled�grammatically�and�lexically�to�the�reader.�Although�the�means�of�signalling�clause�relations�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�have�been�discussed�in�the�literature�under�the�categories�of�elicitation�techniques�(i.e.�questioning�and�paraphrasing),�grammatical�signals,�lexical�signals�and�lexical�repetitions,�I�shall�confine�my�dis-cussion�to�grammatical�and�lexical�signals�as�these�are�the�foci�of�the�computa-tional�analysis�in�this�book.

Page 17: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

4� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Grammatical signals of clause relations for the Problem-Solution pattern

The� earliest� work� in� this� area� was� carried� out� by� Winter� (1971,� 1977)� who� il-lustrates� how� certain� closed-set� grammatical� items� such� as� subordinators� and�sentence�connectors�(comprising�adjuncts)�act�as�signalling�devices�for�the�Prob-lem-Solution�pattern.�A�list�of�the�subordinators�and�sentence�connectors,�which�he� terms�Vocabulary�1�and�Vocabulary�2� items�respectively,� is�given� in�Winter�(1977).�I�will�now�examine�some�examples�from�the�literature�where�the�logical�sequence�of�Instrument–Achievement�clause�relations,�which�as�stated�previously�can�signal�Response�and�Result,�can�itself�be�signalled�by�these�finite�categories�of�grammatical�connectives.�

One�key�aspect�to�note�about�these�Vocabulary�1�and�2�items�is�their�inter-changeability,� in� certain� circumstances,� not� only� within� a� vocabulary� type� but�also�across�vocabulary�types.�Winter�(1971:�45)�cites�the�following�example�of�an�Instrument-Achievement�relation�to�show�the�syntactic�and�semantic�properties�of�so. In� the� sentences�below,� so� can�be� replaced�by� thus,� another�grammatical�item�from�the�same�Vocabulary�2�class.�However,�one�of�the�questions�that�still�needs�an�answer�is�under�what�circumstances�we�would�use�one�signal�rather�than�another�given�their�apparent�changeability.

� (3)� a.� The�hovercraft�terminals�can�be�sited�away�from�the�main�ports,�and�so � � � relieve�overcrowded�dock�systems.

� (3)� b.� The�hovercraft�terminals�can�be�sited�away�from�the�main�ports,�thus relieving�the�overcrowded�dock�systems.

Other� examples� of� the� Instrument–Achievement� relation� taken� from� Proctor�(1988:�25)�demonstrate�how�a�Vocabulary�1�item,�the�subordinator�by -ing,�can�be�substituted�by�the�Vocabulary�2�sentence�connector�Thus.

� � By�appealing�to�my�father’s�sense�of�humour,�I�avoided�upsetting�him�immedi-ately�when�I�told�him�that�his�car�had�been�stolen�outside�the�police�station.

� � I� appealed� to� my� father’s� sense� of� humour.� I� thus� avoided� upsetting� him�immediately�when�I�told�him�that�his�car�had�been�stolen�outside�the�police�station.

However,� replacement� of� one� item� with� another� is� not� always� possible,� as� the�choice�of�one�over�the�other�is�governed�by�the�context.�As�Proctor�(1988)�points�out�the�grammar�of�subordination�in�the�first�sentence�above�presents�the�infor-mation�of�its�clause�as�given�by�the�context�of�the�utterance,�whereas�the�gram-mar�in�the�second�sentence�presents�the�same�information�as�new.�Grammatical�choices�are�therefore�highly�dependent�upon�not�only�the�semantic�relations�ex-

Page 18: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�1.� Problem-Solution�pattern� 5

isting�between�clauses�and�sentences,�but�also�pragmatic�factors�derived�from�the�context.�

So�far,�these�grammatical�items�have�been�discussed�in�terms�of�their�signal-ling�effectiveness�for�identifying�clause�relations,�but�as�Hoey�(1983)�points�out�our�starting�point�can�also�be�with�a�description�of�clause�relations�as�a�way�of�shedding�light�on�the�nature�of�these�devices.�He�also�notes�that�for�Winter�the�signal�and�relation�are�of�equal�importance,�with�each�requiring�a�description�of�the�other�for�identification.�Another�important�point�to�note�is�that�although�these�clause�relations� tend�to�be�realised�by�certain�grammatical� items,�by�no�means�is�there�a�one-to-one�correspondence�between�the�signal�and�its�clause�relation:�‘Texts�often�contain�strong�clues�or�signals�as�to�how�we�should�interpret�the�rela-tions�between�segments;�these�are�not�absolutely�deterministic�but�are�supporting evidence to�the�cognitive�activity�of�deducing�relations’�(McCarthy�1991:�29).

However,�attempts�have�been�made�to�provide�lists�of�grammatical�items�as�‘supporting� evidence’� for� identifying� the� Problem-Solution� pattern� by� Jordan�(1984)�and�Proctor�(1988).�Based�on�her�example�texts,�Proctor,�conflating�Win-ter’s�Vocabulary�1�and�2�items,�gives�a�list�of�grammatical�exponents�for�realising�each�of�the�four�basic�components�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�Jordan’s�lists�are�somewhat�different�from�those�of�Proctor�as�he�does�not�discuss�Winter’s�vo-cabulary�1�and�2�items,�but�classes�both�grammatical�and�lexical�items�under�a�category�of�Signals of Logic.�Here,�some�of�the�grammatical�items�such�as�by …ing�and�so belong�in�Winter’s�Vocabulary�1� items�of�subordinators,�whereas�others�such�as�as a result and�therefore belong�to�his�Vocabulary�2�items�of�sentence�con-nectors.�Although�the�classification� lists�of� Jordan�and�Proctor�are�not�without�their�respective�merits,�an�inherent�weakness�with�both�of�them�is�that�they�do�not�consider�the�mediating�role�of�clause�relations�in�the�process:�‘…�supplying�connections�to�a�discourse�with�subordination�and�conjuncts�is�a�test�not�of�the�existence�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�but�of�the�existence�of�particular�rela-tionships�(i.e.�Cause–Consequence,�Instrument–Achievement)�holding�between�(normally)�adjacent�parts�of�a�discourse’�(Hoey�1983:�57).

Lexical signals of clause relations for the Problem-Solution pattern

The�picture�is�a�little�clearer�for�those�lexical�signals�of�the�Problem-Solution�pat-tern�as�there�exist�more�areas�of�agreement�among�researchers�as�to�what�consti-tutes�lexical�signals.�Although�Hoey�(1983)�mentions�that�lexical�signalling�can�take�the�form�of�a�sentence,�clause�or�phrase,�the�normal�procedure�is�to�focus�on� individual� lexical� items,� which� is� the� case� in� this� section.� Hoey’s� definition�(1983:�63)�emphasises�the�importance�of�their�role�in�the�encoding/decoding�of�

Page 19: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

6� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

textual�meaning,�thus�underscoring�the�intentional�and�interpretative�nature�of�such�signals:� ‘Lexical�signals�are� the�author’s/speaker’s�explicit� signalling�of� the�intended�organisation�and�are� therefore�obviously�of�primary� importance;� it� is�probable�that�they�are�one�of�the�main�means�whereby�a�reader/listener�‘decodes’�a�discourse�correctly’.� Jordan�(1984:�4–5),�meanwhile,� suggests�specific� lexis� for�signalling�the�Problem-Solution�pattern:

Within�a�defined�situation,�you�will�recognise�a�‘problem’�in�the�widest�sense�of�the�word.�…words�that�indicate�this�concept�–�not�just�the�word�problem�itself,�but� its�near-synonyms�difficulty, dilemma, drawback, danger, snag, hazard,�and�so�on,�and�words�such�as�pest, unpleasant, disorganised, fear, smelly�and� illness.�Whenever�we�recognise�such�a�word�in�the�text,�we�expect�the�text�to�tell�us�of�a�solution�(actual,�attempted,�or�proposed),�and�solutions�are�recognised�as�things�or�actions�that�avoid, counteract,�reduce, prevent�or�overcome�the�problem.�Then�the�text�may�evaluate�the�effectiveness�of�the�solution�with�such�words�as�excel-lent, important, quick, unique�and�failure.

Lexical�signals�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�have�been�discussed�by�Winter�(1977)�under�the�rubric�of�‘Vocabulary�3’�items.�These�are�discourse-organising�words�which�can�also�replace�Vocabulary�1�or�2�items,�outlined�in�the�previous�sec-tion,�to�express�the�same�meaning.�To�take�an�example�from�McCarthy�(1991:�29),�the�Cause–Consequence�relationship�can�be�expressed�through�the�Vocabulary�3�item�reason, e.g.�‘The reason he went home was that he was feeling ill’�as�well�as�through�the�Vocabulary�1�item�because as�in�the�sentence�‘Because he felt ill, he went home’.�There�therefore�exists�a�choice�between�a�lexical�(i.e.�Vocabulary�3)�or�a�grammatical�item,�Vocabulary�1�in�the�case�above,�just�as�there�exists�a�choice�between�different�grammatical� items�within�Vocabulary�1,�as�mentioned�previ-ously.�However,�under�what�conditions�one�grammatical�item�would�be�preferred�over�another,�or�a�lexical�item�preferred�over�a�grammatical�item�to�convey�the�same�clause�relation,�is�obviously�dependent�on�certain�pragmatic�and�contextual�features�of�the�discourse.

To�illustrate�how�these�various�Vocabulary�3�items�operate�in�text�as�signals�for� the� Problem-Solution� pattern,� let� us� examine� the� following� example� from�Harris�(1986:�163).

� S3� On�October�9th�Henry�set�off�for�Calais,�leaving�half�of�his�arms�at�Harfleur�and�taking�the�other�half�with�him.

� S4� It�had�been�raining�heavily�in�the�last�few�days�and�all�the�rivers�were�swol-len.

� S5� Henry�found�it�very�difficult�to�cross�the�fords�and�rivers�as�the�French�army�always�ran�parallel�and�protected�each�fording�place.

Page 20: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�1.� Problem-Solution�pattern� 7

� S6� Henry�solved this problem by�cutting�very�quickly�across�a�neck�of�the�land�before�the�French�could�and�he�managed to�get�across.�(H.2.A.11)

In�the�above�example,�the�lexis�difficult, solved this problem�and�managed�all�func-tion�as�signals�for�various�elements�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern,�but�act�as�signals� in� different� ways.� Solved� and� problem� clearly� have� a� discourse-organis-ing�role:�the�item�this problem�refers�retrospectively�to�the�fact�that�it�was�‘very�difficult to�cross�the�fords�and�rivers’�and�solved sets�up�an�anticipated�solution.�However,�it�should�be�pointed�out�that�whether�a�noun�such�as�problem�functions�anaphorically�is�dependent�on�its�accompanying�deictic.�In�the�phrase�This prob-lem,�it�is�the�demonstrative�This which�carries�the�burden�of�anaphoric�reference.�Here,�problem�has�the�function�of�what�is�being�referred�to.�

The�items�difficult and�managed, while�not�signalling�the�overall�text�organisa-tion,�still�operate�as�lexical�signals�for�Problem�and�Evaluation�respectively,�acting�as�the�referential�vocabulary�for�these�elements,�and�thus�play�a�more�local�role�in�creating�textual�coherence.�Obviously,�the�same�lexical�item�can�operate�either�as�a�referring�(discourse-organising)�or�referential�(discourse)�signal�depending�on�other�contextual�features�of�the�discourse.�For�instance,�in�the�example�supplied�above,�in�S5 we�could�paraphrase�‘…�very�difficult to�cross�the�fords�and�rivers’�as�‘a�problem to�cross�the�fords�and�rivers’.�In�this�case,�the�item�problem�would�be�acting�as�a�local�discourse�signal�rather�than�a�connective�one,�binding�adjacent�clauses�and�sentences,�as�in�S6 above.�

It�is�also�worthwhile�to�mention�here�the�other�terms�used�in�the�literature,�besides�Vocabulary�3�items,�to�designate�those�types�of�nouns�which�have�a�meta-discursive�i.e.�discourse-organising�function�and�rely�on�the�context�for�their�full�interpretation.� Francis� (1986,� 1994)� refers� to� ‘anaphoric� nouns’,� Ivanič� (1991)�talks�of�‘carrier�nouns’�and�Schmidt�(2000)�of�‘shell�nouns’�–�see�Schmidt�(2000,�Chapter� 2)� for� a� helpful� review� of� these� overlapping� categories.� More� recently,�Flowerdew’s�(2003a,�2003b,�2006)�corpus-based�research�on�signalling�nouns�re-veals�the�key�discourse�role�such�types�of�abstract�nouns�play�in�establishing�links�across�and�within�clauses.

As�regards�the�Problem-Solution�pattern,�both�Jordan�and�Proctor�have�sup-plied�useful�sets�of�lexis�realizing�different�elements�of�the�pattern;�however,�the�drawback�of�both�of�these�lists�is�that�they�are�based�on�a�limited�number�of�texts.�Proctor’s� analysis� is� based� on� only� four� academic� texts� in� the� fields� of� Science�and�Technology�while� Jordan’s� list� is�derived� from�a�somewhat� random�choice�of�various�text�segments�covering�different�genres�and�registers.�Proctor,�writing�presciently�in�1988,�notes�that�such�analysis�for�the�identification�of�lexical�signals�could�very�usefully�be�aided�by�computational�techniques:�

Page 21: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

8� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

The� work� of� compiling� an� index� of� discourse� signals� that� could� eventually� be�incorporated� in� the�contextual�grammar�of�English,� though� lengthy�and�time-consuming,�is�not�impossible.�Recent�advances�in�information�technology�have�greatly�facilitated�statistical�counts�and�storage.�It�is�possible�that�certain�word�or�phrase�locating�programs�can�be�used�to�speed�up�parts�of�the�analysis.�Indeed,�the�development�of�computational�techniques�for�this�kind�of�analysis�may�pres-ent�challenging�and�rewarding�lines�of�enquiry�for�interested�individuals.�� (Proctor�1988:�42)

The�following�two�sections�give�a�taste�of�how�a�grammatical�and�lexical�signal�for�the�Problem�element�can�be�fruitfully�analysed�from�a�corpus�analytic�perspective�based�on�the�phraseological�approach�to�language.�

Corpus analysis of a grammatical signal for the Problem element

One�key�grammatical�item�that�has�been�frequently�mentioned�as�a�signal�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern� is� the�connector�however.�This� item�was�searched�in�a�corpus�of�professional�environmental�reports�(PROFCORP)�of�approximately�225,000�words�comprising�60�executive� summaries,�one�of� the� two� specialized�corpora�under�discussion�in�this�book�(see�Chapter�3�for�a�description�of�this�cor-pus).�Out�of�a�total�of�8,724�types�(the�number�of�different�word�forms),�however was�found�to�be�the�100th�most�frequent�with�264�tokens.�In�spite�of�its�high�fre-quency,�it�did�not�show�up�as�a�key�word,�i.e.�a�word�of�unusually�high�frequency�when�compared�with�a�large-scale�general�reference�corpus�(Scott�1997,�2001a)�in�this�case,�the�100-million�word�British�National�Corpus,�BNC.�This�may�well�be�because�however�is�used�not�only�in�the�technical�genre�of�report�writing�but�also�in�everyday�English�as�providing�evidence�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�

It�would�be�of�interest�to�examine�how�this�item�functions�from�a�phraseolog-ical�perspective,�i.e.�to�have�a�look�at�its�colligational�and�lexico-grammatical�pat-terning�and�how�it�relates�to�different�elements�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�

Colligation,� a� phenomenon� first� described� by� Firth� (1957),� refers� to� ‘the�grammatical�company�a�word�keeps’�(Hoey�1997:�8).�For�example,�Hoey�(1993),�using�a�corpus�of�just�under�100�million�words,�demonstrates�how�reason�has�a�colligational�relationship�only�with�the�demonstrative�deictics�and�not�with�the�possessive�ones.�Colligation�also�refers�to�the�positioning�of�a�word�in�a�sentence,�another�concept�which�has�been�variously�defined.�Francis�(1991)�takes�this� to�mean�the�distribution�of�a�word�across�subject,�object�and�complement�slots�in�a�sentence,�whereas�Hoey�also�considers�this�term�from�the�Hallidayan�perspective�of�Theme�/�Rheme�position.�In�my�specialized�corpus,�however was�found�to�have�

Page 22: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�1.� Problem-Solution�pattern� 9

a�colligational�preference� for� sentence-initial�position�with�184,� i.e.�70%�of� the�tokens�occurring�in�this�position.�

As� expected,� most� of� the� instances� of� however introduced� problems� that�might�or�might�not�arise�from�the�proposed�construction�activities,�with�reasons�given.�

� � However, water quality impacts may arise due to contaminated runoff from the construction sites.

However, as the proposed road improvement scheme is well away from the sea, there would not be any direct discharge of effluent to sea waters.

Three�other�patterns�for�however�were�also�discernable.�First,�it�was�used�to�indi-cate�that�the�solution�was�only�a�partial�one,�and�that�an�aspect�of�the�problem�still�remained�(an�example�of�‘multilayering’),�as�in�Table�1-1�below.

In�the�other�two�patterns�however was�used�as�a�linking�device,�binding�the�Problem� and� Solution� elements.� The� structure� in� Table� 1-3� (however, with� +�nominalization)�was�found�to�occur�in�concluding-type�sentences�where�the�pro-posed�solution�had�already�been�discussed�earlier�in�the�report.�

Table 1-1. Concordance�for�however�to�indicate�a�partial�solution

Site�were�used�to�accommodate�the�car�park.� However these�are�insufficient�to�allow�full�coul�design�of�flood�lighting�to�minimise�glare. However the�effectiveness�of�these�measurng�Lap�Kok�eastern�shore�will�remain�intact. However, the�revised�configuration�will�alsoecked�over�so�that�the�noise�will�be�enclosed. However, these�new�roads�will�attract�addit

Table 1-2. Concordance�for�however�to�signal�solution�to�problem

or�disposal�to�a�non-containment�landfill�site. However,� filtered�dust�could�be�landfilled�at�Se�of�the�acceptable�noise�levels�are�exceeded. However 3�dBA�should�be�added�to�the�preishing�activities�in�the�Western�harbour�will, however, be�progressively�curtailed�in�the�ating�vegetation�will�result�in�visual�intrusion however, these�slopes�will�be�planted�and�the�d

ondary�schools�near�the�road.�The�impact�can� however be�minimized�by�appropriate�mitigati

Table 1-3. Concordance�for�however�to�signal�solution�to�problem

mended�TSP�hourly�guideline�of�500�ug/m3. However,� with�the�implementation�of�standard�in�noise�levels�similar�to�ambient�conditions.� However, with�the�provision�of�suitable�site��itive�receptors�at�the�Lung�Kwu�Tan�villages. However, with�the�provision�of��appropriate�

concentrations�may�exceed�acceptable�limits.� However, with�the�adoption�of�dust�supressionsuspended�particles�lost�from�surface�soils. However, with�the�use�of�hard�surfaces�and�an

Page 23: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

10� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Corpus analysis of a lexical signal for the Problem element

Pollution was�found�to�occur�220�times�in�PROFCORP.�Although�this�item�was�less�frequent�than�however (264�occurrences),�it�was�found�to�be�key�in�the�corpus�as�a�whole,�whereas�however was�not.�When�each�individual�report�was�compared�with�the�larger-scale�reference�corpus,�pollution�was�also�found�to�be�key�in�10�out�of�the�60�reports�(see�Flowerdew�2003�for�further�details�on�keyword�analy-sis).�These�results�show�that�the�keyness�of�a�word�may�not�necessarily�be�related�to�frequency,�in�cases�where�the�word�reflects�the�topic�of�a�specialized�genre.

Pollution�was�also�found�to�have�certain�collocational�preferences�and�pat-terning.�It�should�be�noted�that,� like�colligation,�collocation�has�been�variously�defined.�Whereas�Sinclair�(1987)�and�McEnery�and�Wilson�(2001)�relate�colloca-tion�to�measures�of�statistical�significance,�i.e.�considering�lexical�items�with�items�that� appear� with� greater� than� random� frequency,� Cowie� and� Howarth’s� (1996)��approach�is�to�favour�the�“textual”�over�the�“statistical”�identification�of�collocates�for�the�following�reasons:

Collocations�are�often�described�as�fixed�and� recurrent�word-combinations….�But�both�parts�of�this�description�are�misleading.�Typically,�collocations�are�not�fixed�but�variable�to�a�limited�and�arbitrary�degree.�As�for�frequency,�it�can�be�shown� that� individual restricted collocations may recur to only a limited extent within a given text or across several texts devoted to the same topic�[my�italics].�It�is�best�to�think�of�a�collocation�as�a�familiar�(institutionalized),�stored�(memorized)�word-combination�with�limited�and�arbitrary�variation.� (Cowie�&�Howarth�1996:�82)

Likewise,�Stubbs�(2001c:�74–75)�puts�forward�a�similar�reason�as�to�why�measures�of�statistical�significance�may�be�of�limited�use�in�some�cases.�He�cites�the�example�of�a�small�corpus�yielding�the�following�data�for�the�node�adverb�‘distinctly’:

–� <distinctly�<N�+�1:�cagey,�cool,�dated,�dour,�downbeat,�iffy,�inferior,�meaner,�muted,�strange,�thin,�unimpressed,�unwell>

Stubbs�remarks�that�the�above�adjectival�collocates�occurred�only�once�each�and�therefore�statistical�measures�to�determine�the�likelihood�of�co-occurrence�could�not�be�carried�out.�What�he�does�pinpoint�in�these�data,�is�the�attraction�of�‘dis-tinctly’�with�disapproving�words,�thus�emphasizing�the� interpretation�of�corpus�findings�by�the�human�analyst.�This�is�the�approach�I�have�tended�towards�in�this�book�–�interpretation�of�small�corpus�data�by�the�human�analyst,�not�only�inter-pretation�of�the�text�internally�at�the�lexico-grammatical�level,�but�also�externally�with�recourse�to�contextual�and�situational�features�of�the�discourse.

Page 24: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�1.� Problem-Solution�pattern� 11

To�return�to�the�analysis�of�problem,�I�examine�its�collocations�from�a�“tex-tual”�perspective�as�certain�collocations�would�show�up�‘to�only�a�limited�extent’�in� this�specialized�corpus.�As� for� the�collocational�preferences�of�pollution,�air�and�water�were�the�most�common,�co-occurring�39�and�27�times�with�pollution,�respectively.�Pollution also�occurred�14�times�in�what�appeared�to�be�a�semi-fixed�phrase� allowing� some� lexical� variation:� environmental protection and pollution control measures / requirements.

Pollution typically�occurred�in�two�main�phraseologies.�In�the�first�pattern�pollution�was�followed�by�from, a�reduced�form�of arising from which�was�some-times�used�instead,�and�thus�involved�a�cause-consequence�relationship�as�shown�by�the�examples�in�Table�1-4.

Pollution was�also�found�in�means-purpose�clauses,�with�‘two-way’�signaling�verbs,�such�as�‘reduce’,�‘prevent’�and,�in�particular,�‘minimize’.�Such�verbs�are�an-other�means�whereby�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements�are�linked�(Table�1-5).�

The�sample�concordance�lines�above�of�the�grammatical�signal,�however,�and�the�lexical�signal,�pollution,�thus�exemplify�the�value�of�concordancing�techniques�to�reveal�common�phraseologies,�which�may�not�be�retrievable�solely�through�in-tuitive�means.�

Conclusion

This�introductory�chapter�has�laid�out�the�theoretical�groundwork�for�the�means�of� identifying� the� Problem-Solution� pattern� in� text� through� a� clause� relational�approach�to�text�analysis.�It�has�also�discussed�the�lexical�and�grammatical�sig-nals�for�identifying�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements�in�various�clause�relations.�

Table 1-4. Concordance�of�pollution�followed�by�‘from’

ll�be�dust�emissions�from�site�formations.�Air pollution from�site�and�motor�vehicles�are�likelSimilarly�means�to�reduce�the�potential�for pollution from�fuel�spillage�on�site�have�be�sugthe�use�of�silt/oil�traps�will�prevent�marine pollution from�on-site�construction�activities�at

llowing�development�may�result�from�traffic pollution from�the�new�road�network.�Pollutanpended�solid�matter�in�site�run-off�or�organic pollution from�foul�effluent.�As�the�scale�of�th

Table 1-5. Concordance�of�pollution�in�means-purpose�clauses

tion�phases�of�the�development.�To�minimize� pollution and�nuisance�from�the�developmenttrmwater.�All�possible�measures�to�minimise pollution loads�should�be�implemented�and

Works�to�the�Urmston�Road;�to�minimise pollution, environmental�and�ecological�disturboutside�the�embayment�area�to�reduce�the pollution. Loading�into�the�trapped�body�of�wat

the�south�of�the�western�seawall.�To�prevent pollution of�marine�waters�by�floating�debris

Page 25: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

12� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Most�importantly,�corpus-based�techniques�have�been�shown�to�be�very�useful�for�identifying� the�phraseologies�of� such�signals� for� the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�This�approach�therefore�adopts�a�more�discourse�analytic�perspective�to�corpus�linguistics,�an�issue�that�is�taken�up�in�detail�in�the�following�chapter.

Page 26: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

chapter�2

Issues in corpus linguistics and discourse studies

This�chapter�addresses�several�key�issues�in�corpus�linguistics�and�discourse�anal-ysis�which�are�pertinent�to�the�major�themes�of�this�book,�namely,�the�method-ologies�employed,�contextual�features,�and�interpretation�of�data.�Here�I�make�the�case� that�by� taking�a�more�discourse�analytic�approach� to�corpus-based� inves-tigations,�some�of�these�issues�can,�to�a�certain�extent,�be�resolved.�At�the�same�time,�corpus-based�approaches�also�have�advantages�for�discourse�analysis�(see�Baker�2006:�10–17,�for�a�succinct�account�of�the�advantages�of�the�corpus-based�approach�to�discourse�analysis).�

McEnery�et�al.� (2006)�offer� the� following�dichotomies�of�corpus� linguistics�vis-à-vis�discourse�analysis:

…while�DA�emphasizes�the�integrity�of�text,�corpus�linguistics�tends�to�use�rep-resentative� samples;�while�DA� is�primarily�qualitative,� corpus� linguistics� is� es-sentially�quantitative;�while�DA�focuses�on�the�contents�expressed�by�language,�corpus�linguistics�is�interested�in�language�per se;�while�the�collector,�transcriber�and�analyst�are�often�the�same�person�in�DA,�this�is�rarely�the�case�in�corpus�lin-guistics…� (McEnery�et�al.�2006:�111)

In�other�words,�the�strengths�of�corpus�linguistics�tend�to�be�the�weaknesses�of�discourse�analysis,�and�vice-versa.��With�reference�to�the�quotation�above�‘while�DA� focuses� on� the� contents� expressed� by� language,� corpus� linguistics� is� inter-ested�in�language�per se’,�both�approaches�to�text�analysis�could�be�considerably�strengthened� if,� for� example,� the� phraseologies� uncovered� through� corpus� lin-guistics�techniques�could�fruitfully�inform�genre�analysis,�while�genre�analytic�ap-proaches�could�be�applied�to�corpus-based�analyses�to�shed�light�on�the�rhetorical�aspects�of�text�organization.�This�point�is�taken�up�in�more�detail�in�the�follow-ing�section�on�methodologies�(see�Biber�et�al.�2007�for�studies�which�use�corpus�analysis�to�describe�genre�moves).

Page 27: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

14� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Methodologies

Swales�(2002,�2004)�has�commented�on�the�methodologies�that�corpus�linguistics�employs�(assuming�that�one�accepts�the�basic�premise�that�corpus�linguistics�is�a�methodology�rather�than�a�theory�of�language;�see�McEnery�et�al.�2006:�7–8�for�a�review�of�this�argument).�Swales�argues�that�the�software�commonly�used,�namely�concordancing�packages�for�displaying�the�key-word-in-context,�constrains�anal-ysis�to�a�somewhat�atomized,�bottom-up�type�of�investigation�of�the�corpus�data.�This�type�of�analysis�is�considered�to�be�at�odds�with�the�more�top-down�kind�of�process-based�analysis�associated�with�the�genre�approach�to�text�analysis,�where�the�starting�point� is�with� the�macrostructure�of� the� text�with�a� focus�on� larger�units�of�text�rather�than�sentence-level,�lexico-grammatical�patterning.�Parting-ton�(1998)�has�called�for�a�‘symbiosis’�of�these�top-down�and�bottom-up�strate-gies,�which�is�evident�in�several�recent�corpus-based�studies�making�use�of�the�move�structures�of�genre�analysis�(see�Bhatia�et�al.�2004;�Connor�et�al.�2002;�Flow-erdew�2008b).�For�example,�Bhatia�et�al.�(2004)�examined�some�common�verbs�with�their�noun�collocations�in�the�four�prototypical�move�structures�in�law�cases�(see�Table�2-1).�Bhatia�et�al.�found�that�verbs�had�a�clear�preference�for�certain�move�structures,�with�submit� in� the�move�presenting argument�often�appearing�in�the�patterning�“counsel�for�the�plaintiff/defendant�submitted�that…”,�or�“it�was�submitted�that…”.��This�more�quantitative�approach�of�corpus�linguistics�can�thus�augment�the�more�qualitative-based�analyses�of�genre�approaches.�

This�more�genre�analytic�approach�to�corpus�analysis�counteracts�to�some�ex-tent�the�following�criticism�made�by�Grabe�and�Kaplan�(1996),�who�raised�queries�regarding�corpus�research�on�the�grounds�that�the�field�lacks�a�theoretical�founda-tion�for�the�interpretation�of�data,�thus�implying�that�its�methodological�basis�is�somewhat�open�to�question.

Table 2-1. Position�of�noun-verb�collocations�in�law�cases�(Bhatia�et�al.�2004:�214)

Genre Move FrequencySubmit Dismiss Reject Grant

1��Facts�/�Stating�history�of�the�case � 75 � 47 12 � 822��Presenting�argument 263 � � 6 � 9 � 513��Deriving�ratio�decidendi � � 5 � 16 44 � 804��Pronouncing�judgment � � 3 � 42 � 9 � 16

Total 346 111 74 229

Page 28: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�2.� Issues�in�corpus�linguistics�and�discourse�studies� 15

The� general� dilemma� facing� most� projects� on� corpus� research� is� the� lack� of� a�theoretical�foundation�for�the�interpretation�of�the�results�prior�to�the�analysis.�Thus,�most� corpus� research�has�been�of� a�post-hoc�nature,� looking�at� the� fre-quency�counts�and�deciding�what�can�be�said�about�these�results.� (Grabe�&�Kaplan�1996:�46)

However,�to�date,�this�integration�of�corpus�and�genre�approaches�has�been�utilized�only�for�those�genres�which�exhibit�a�fairly�formulaic,�conventionalized�rhetorical�structure�such�as�job�application�letters�and�law�cases�and�for�small�corpora,�as�the�data�would�have�to�be�examined�and�coded�manually�for�identification�of�move�structures�(Flowerdew�2005).�Those�texts�comprising�mixed�genres�or�consisting�of�embedding�of�move�structures�would�present�a�challenge�for�existing�software,�although�software�tools�are�becoming�increasingly�sophisticated�and�a�tool�such�as�WinMax has�the�flexibility�to�code�embedded�move�structures.�

Contextual features

Another�main�argument�that�has�been�put�forward�against�a�corpus-based�meth-odology�for�analysis�of�text�is�that�it�does�not�take�account�of�the�contextual�fea-tures�of�text.�As�Widdowson�(1998,�2002)�points�out,�corpus�data�are�but�a�sample�of� language,� as� opposed� to� an� example� of� authentic� language,� because� it� is� di-vorced�from�the�communicative�context�in�which�it�was�created:�‘the�text�travels�but� the� context� does� not� travel� with� it’.� In� this� respect,� Tribble� (2002)� outlines�an�analytic�framework�for�contextual�analysis�derived�from�a�genre�analytic�per-spective,�which�he�views�as�crucial�for�informing�corpus-based�analyses.�Tribble’s�position,�then,�is�to�see�the�role�of�context�as�very�much�informing�corpus-based�analyses.

Although�the�above�features�are�really�only�a�skeleton�of�the�intricate,�multi-dimensional� contextual� network� expounded� in� recent� genre� studies� (Bhatia�2004),� even� such� rudimentary� and� essential� contextual� aspects� are� not� usually�taken�into�account�in�corpus�investigations�as�the�analyst�does�not�have�recourse�to�the�communicative�context� in�which�the�text�was�produced.�However,�more�recently,�spoken�corpora�such�as�the�Michigan�Corpus�of�Academic�Spoken�Eng-lish�(Simpson-Vlach�&�Leicher�2006)�have�been�marked�up�for�speech�events�and�speaker�attributes,�thus�allowing�a�more�context-sensitive�analysis�of�the�data.

It�is�this�absence�of�context�that�poses�one�of�the�most�serious�drawbacks�for�the�interpretation�of�concordance�lines�(Hunston�2002),�another�aspect�of�corpus�linguistics�that�has�been�much�debated�in�the�literature.�

Page 29: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

16� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Interpretation of data

This� lack� of� knowledge� of� contextual� features� and� social� practices� can� be� par-ticularly�problematic�for�the�corpus�analyst�when�dealing�with�pragmatic�features�of�text,�which�may�only�be�recoverable�form�the�socio-cultural�context�or�other�features�of�the�text,�as�noted�by�Widdowson:

…on�the�evidence�of�their�customary�collocates,�particular�words�can�be�shown�to�have�a�typical�positive�or�negative�semantic�prosody,�and�it�can�be�plausibly�suggested� that� facts� of� co-textual� co-occurrence� should� be� recognized� as� part�of�the�semantic�signification�of�such�words.�But�this,�of�course,�does�not�tell�us�about�what�pragmatic significance� [my� italics]�might�be�assigned� to�such�a�co-occurrence�in�a�particular�text.�The�point�about�these�co-textual�findings�is�that�they� are� a� function� of� analysis,� with� texts� necessarily� reduced� to� concordance�lines.�One�might�trace�a�particular�line�back�to�its�text�of�origin,�but�then�if�it�is�to�be�interpreted,�it�has�to�be�related�to�other�features�of�the�original�text.� (Widdowson�2004:�60)

However,�in�a�paper�on�corpus�semantics�Stubbs�(2001a)�argues�that�the�conven-tionalized�view�that�pragmatic�meanings�are�usually� inferred�by� the�reader/lis-tener,�making�them�highly�context-dependent,�may�be�overstated�and�that�large-scale�corpus�studies�can�provide�evidence�to�show�that�pragmatic�meanings,�like�semantic�prosodies,�can�also�be�conventionally�encoded�in�linguistic�form.�This,�though,�may�depend�on�the�type�of�corpus�under�investigation�and�whether�one�has�knowledge�of�the�discursive�conventions�of�the�genre.�In�this�respect,�Bhatia�et�al.�(2004)�point�out�that�the�two�verbs�dismiss�and�reject�used�in�law�cases�(see�

Table 2-2. Analytic�framework�(Contextual)�(Tribble�2002:�133)

Contextual analysis

1. name What�is�the�name�of�the�genre�of�which�this�text�is�an�exemplar?2. social context In� what� social� setting� is� this� kind� of� text� typically� produced?�

What� constraints� and� obligations� does� this� setting� impose� on�writers�and�readers?

3. communicative purpose What�is�the�communicative�purpose�of�this�text?4. roles What�roles�may�be�required�of�writers�and�readers�in�this�genre?5. cultural values What�shared�cultural�values�may�be�required�of�writers�and�read-

ers�in�this�genre?6. text context What�knowledge�of�other�texts�may�be�required�of�writers�and�

readers�in�this�genre?7. formal text features What�shared�knowledge�of�formal�text�features�(conventions)�is�

required�to�write��effectively�in�this�genre?

Page 30: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�2.� Issues�in�corpus�linguistics�and�discourse�studies� 17

Table�2-1)�appear�to�be�almost�synonymous�semantically,�but�that�if�one�wanted�to�make�a�pragmatic�distinction�between�them,�it�would�be�necessary�to�look�at�the�institutional�and�discursive�practices�of�this�genre.

Evidence�in�support�of�Stubbs’�view�is�provided�by�O’Halloran�and�Coffin’s�(2004)�research�motivated�by�critical�discourse�analysis�(CDA)�approaches.�Based�on�a�45-million-word�sub-corpus�of�the�Sun newspaper�drawn�from�the�450-mil-lion-word�Bank�of�English,�O’Halloran�and�Coffin�show�how�negative�attitudinal�meaning� can� be� gleaned� from� multiple� concordance� lines;� an� accumulation� of�negative�co-texts�for�United States of Europe�displays�a�regular�negative�attitude�for� ‘United� States� of� Europe’,� thus� reflecting� the� anti-Europe� stance� of� the� Sun�newspaper.�Such�an�ideological�stance�may�not�be�immediately�obvious�when�en-countered�as�a�single�instance,�but�can�be�retrieved�from�examining�the�co-textual�environment�of�repeated�occurrences�of�the�search�word�in�a�large�corpus.

CDA�approaches�to�text�analysis�often�employ�various�categories�from�Halli-day’s�systemic�functional�grammar�(1994),�most�notably�the�aspects�of�transitivity�and�nominalization.�In�their�research,�O’Halloran�and�Coffin�made�use�of�experi-ential�meanings�to�uncover�negative�stance.�Using�concordancing�techniques�they�uncover�a�pattern�where�Brussels�or�the�EU�are�primary�‘doers’,�and�when�the�EU�is�the�implicit�Initiator,�Britain�is�an�Actor�carrying�out�an�activity�initiated�by�the�EU:�‘The�continual�reinforcement�of�this�pattern�helps�to�establish�the�experien-tial�meaning�in�the�text�of�Britain�as�powerless�in�the�face�of�the�EU’�(p.�283).�The�following�examples�illustrate�this�stance.

� � …Brussels�aimed�to�snatch�power�over�UK�employment,�foreign�affairs…� � Actor� � � � � � � � [� � � Goal� � � � ]

� � …Britain�would�be�forced�to�surrender�control�of�its�economy�to�Brussels�[by�the�EU]

� � Actor� � � � � � � � [� Goal� � � ]� implicit�ini-tiator� ]

Table 2-3. Concordance�lines�for�‘United�States�of�Europe’�(adapted�from�O’Halloran�&�Coffin�2004:�288)

leader’s�bleak�plan�for�a�� United�States�of�Europe came�as�a�hammer�blow�tothe�road�towards�a�Federal United�States�of�Europe. Hague�has�never�tried�to

forming�into�a�giant� United�States�of�Europe –�with�the�same�tax�andThe�empire�builders�want�a� United�States�of�Europe. Thank�goodness�you�have

thirds�say�there�will�be�a United�States�of�Europe within�the�next�20�years.for�a�hopeless�dream�of�a�� United�States�of�Europe. He�is�certain�to�pay�the

was�the�first�step�to�a� United�States�of�Europe –�which�would�costor�a�state�in�a�newly-formed� United�States�of�Europe? These�are�the�central

Just�as�many�are�against United�States�of�Europe under�a�federal

Page 31: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

18� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Here,�in�contrast�to�Tribble’s�viewpoint�that�contextual�features�of�a�genre�analytic�approach�inform�the�corpus�analysis,�we�have�another�perspective�from�critical�discourse� analysis� (CDA)� whereby� corpus� data� is� viewed� as� shedding� light� on�the�social�and�cultural�context�from�which�the�corpus�is�extracted,�as�exempli-fied�by�Table�2-3�and�the�examples�above.�This�is�in�line�with�Halliday’s�system�of�language�as�a�social�semiotic,�which�CDA�leans�heavily�on.�The�repetitions�of�linguistic�patterns�in�the�co-text,�revealed�by�co-selection�of�items�on�the�vertical�axis�of�the�concordance�lines,�reflect�the�context,�i.e.�the�situational�and�cultural�parameters�involved�in�the�creation�of�meaning�(Tognini-Bonelli�2001,�2004).�As�Blommaert�(2005:�66)�notes:�‘We�should�be�looking�at�how�the�linguistic�generates�the�economic,�social,�political,�as�well�as�how�the�economic,�social,�and�political�generate�the�linguistic’.�One�could�say�that,�generally�speaking,�a�CDA�approach�to�corpus�analysis�achieves�the�first�goal,�while�a�genre-analytic�approach�meets�the� second� of� Blommaert’s� aims.� But� even� the� traditional� distinctions� between�CDA�and�genre�(in� the�Swalesian�sense)�are�becoming�blurred�with� the�recent�work�of�Bhatia�proposing�the�need�for�a�critical�genre�analytic�approach�to�the�un-derstanding�of�discursive�practices,�which�rely�on�the�bending�of�generic�norms�to�present�a�certain�ideological�positioning�(see�Bhatia�2008�for�a�critical�analysis�of�a�corpus�of�corporate�letters�to�shareholders).

It�should�be�noted�that�the�field�of�CDA,�which�in�general�does�not�make�use�of�corpus�linguistic�techniques,�has�been�singled�out�for�its�cognitive�biases,�i.e.�‘reading�too�much’�into�individual�texts�and�assigning�ideological�significance�to�co-textual�relations�on�very�scant�evidence�and�pure�conjecturing�(cf.�Blommaert�2005;�Widdowson�2004).�Widdowson�takes�Fairclough�(1995)�to�task�for�assign-ing�the�co-occurrence�of�‘flock’�and�‘people’�a�passive�signification�only�through�an� intuitive� inclination� for� linking� ‘flock’� with� ‘sheep’.� Widdowson� (2004:�110)�concludes� that:� ‘CDA�might�more�profitably�draw�on�an�approach�to� linguistic�description�that�deals�with�texts�in�their�entirety�and�takes�explicit�account�of�co-textual�relations.�Corpus�analysis� is� just�such�an�approach…’;�the�corpus-based�CDA�research�of�O’Halloran�and�Coffin�bears�out�this�statement�and�points�the�way�for�future�interdisciplinary�research.�It�is�interesting�to�note�that�in�a�major�textbook�on�the�methods�of�CDA�(Titscher�et�al.�2000),�there�are�scant�references�to�‘corpus’,�which�does�not�even�appear�in�the�index.�

However,�co-occurrence�of�items�in�recurring�concordance�lines�still�has�to�be� interpreted� and,� as� Baker� (2006)� points� out,� a� potential� problem� lies� in� the�interpretation�being�open�to�contestation.�By�way�of�example,�Baker�(2006:�18)�cites�a�study�by�Rayson�et�al.�(1997)�which�found�that�people�from�socially�dis-advantaged�groups�used�more�non-standard�language�(e.g.�ain’t)�and�taboo�terms�(e.g.�bloody)�than�people�from�more�advantaged�groups.�Baker�notes�that:�‘while�the�results�aren’t�open�to�negotiation,�the�reasons�behind�them�are’,�commenting�

Page 32: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�2.� Issues�in�corpus�linguistics�and�discourse�studies� 19

that�the�analyst�could�arrive�at�a�number�of�conclusions�to�explain�the�data�(e.g.�upbringing,�using�the�terms�to�show�group�identity�and�solidarity),�based�on�their�own�biases�and�identities.�

A�check�against�potential�misinterpretation�would�be�to�validate�one’s�inter-pretation�with�‘specialist�informants’�who�are�members�of�a�particular�discourse�community� familiar� with� its� discursive� practices.� Hyland� (1998),� for� example,�consulted�four�native-speaker�biologists�on�the�use�of�hedging�devices�in�a�corpus�of�80�research�articles�in�cell�and�molecular�biology.�He�asked�them�to�voice�their�reactions� to� underlined� features� in� the� text� and� had� them� participate� in� small�focus�group�discussions�to�elucidate�why�the�‘expert’�writing�under�investigation�was� appropriately� phrased� for� readers.� This� more� ethnographic� dimension� to�genre,�involving�data-gathering�procedures�such�as�participant�observation�and�input� from� subject� specialists,� is� usually� associated� with� the� New� Rhetoric� ap-proach�to�genre�studies,�where�the�focus�is�very�much�on�looking�at�how�various�aspects�of�the�socio-cultural�dimension�shape�the�genre.�

Corpus linguistics: Towards a multi-faceted approach

Chapter�1�laid�out�the�theoretical�underpinning�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�and�illustrated�via�selected�concordance�lines�for�the�items�however�and�pollution�how�a�more�discourse-analytic�perspective,�drawing�on�aspects�of�the�Problem-Solution� pattern,� could� inform� the� field� of� corpus� linguistics.� This� chapter� has�illustrated�how�other�areas�of�discourse�studies,�namely�genre�and�CDA,�which�view� text�as� socially-situated,�can�enhance� the�field�of�corpus� linguistics,� espe-cially�with�regard�to�contextual�issues�and�interpretation�of�the�data.�At�the�same�time,�these�three�approaches�to�text�analysis�can�profit�from�corpus�methodolo-gies�which�provide�quantitative�data�in�the�form�of� �recurring�phraseologies�as�evidence�for�different�elements�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern,�certain�ideologi-cal�stances�in�CDA�or�prototypical�move�structures�in�genre�studies.

Based�on�the�lacunae�identified�between�corpus�linguistics�and�various�sub-fields�of�discourse�analysis�(cf.�Flowerdew�1998a)�this�book�aims�to�suggest�how�more�of�a�symbiosis�between�these�interdisciplinary�fields�can�be�achieved.��Spe-cifically,�this�book�will�deal�in�detail�with�the�following�question,�which�is�one�of�the�main�foci�of�the�book:

– How�can�elements�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�be�identified�through�cor-pus�linguistic�methodologies?

Page 33: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

20� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

In�more�general�terms,�the�book�will�also�consider�the�following�aspects�in�the�phraseological� analysis� of� elements� for� the� Problem-Solution� pattern,� briefly�overviewed�in�Chapter�1.

– What�aspects�of�Halliday’s� systemic-functional�grammar�may�be�useful� for�analysis�of�the�corpus�data?�

– How�can�insights�from�genre�analysis�aid�interpretation�of�the�data?– What�can�recurring�patterns�in�the�data�tell�us�about�the�discursive�practices�

of�the�genre?

This� book� presents� a� small-scale� research� study� which� seeks� to� apply� insights�from�discourse�studies�and�corpus� linguistics�with�a�view�to�moving�towards�a�more�multi-faceted�analysis�of�corpus�data.�As�a�result,�the�dichotomies�between�the�two�fields,�as�highlighted�in�the�quotation�from�McEnery�et�al.�(2006)�at�the�beginning�of�this�chapter,�will�not�be�so�pronounced�and,�by�extension,�the�issues�raised�regarding�their�respective�weaknesses�also�less�conspicuous.

Page 34: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

chapter�3

The two corpora Context�and�compilation

This�chapter�first�describes�the�two�corpora�on�which�the�research�is�based,�with�particular� reference� to� their� contextual� features� (e.g.� audience,� communicative�purpose),�as�these�are�significant�factors�in�shaping�the�discourse.�Various�aspects�of� the� compilation� and� preparation� of� the� corpora� for� subsequent� analysis� are�then�described.�In�this�regard,�of�particular�importance�are�the�issues�of�corpus�size�and�representativeness,�identification�of�types�and�lemmatization.

Contextual background of the Professional and Student corpus

Professional�Corpus�(PROFCORP)

The�professional�corpus�(PROFCORP)�comprises�60�professional�reports�on�en-vironmental�issues.�The�majority�of�these�reports�are�the�executive�summaries�of�Environmental�Impact�Assessment�(EIA)�reports�commissioned�from�the�early�to�mid�1990’s�by�the�Hong�Kong�Environmental�Protection�Department�(EPD)�or�Civil�Engineering�Department�from�various�environmental�consultancy�compa-nies�in�Hong�Kong.�These�are�solicited�reports,�written�in�response�to�a�‘Request�for�Proposal’,�which�document� the�potential� environmental� impacts� that� could�arise� from�the�construction�and�operation�of�proposed�buildings/facilities.�The�aim�of�the�reports�is�to�suggest�possible�mitigation�measures�which�could�be�im-plemented�to�alleviate�any�possible�adverse�environmental�effects.�It�is�to�be�noted�that�most�of�the�companies�specify�a�template�for�structuring�the�reports,�so�it�is�not�uncommon�to�find�variations�of�the�main�headings�‘Environmental�Impacts’�and�‘Mitigation�Measures’�across�many�of�the�reports.

In�some�cases,�the�reports�are�co-authored,�but�they�are�always�checked�over�and�endorsed�by�a�senior�engineer�before�being�submitted�to�the�EPD.�They�are�written� by� both� native� speakers� and� non-native� speakers� of� English,� although�in�the�Hong�Kong�context�care�is�needed�in�defining�the�concept�of�non-native�speaker.� Some� of� the� engineers� working� in� these� companies� are� referred� to� as�ABC�(American-Born�Chinese),�while�others�have�undertaken�their�tertiary�edu-

Page 35: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

22� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

cation,�and�possibly�their�secondary�schooling�in�the�States,�UK�or�Canada.�As�a�result,�they�have�English�which�is�almost�indistinguishable�from�that�of�educated�speakers�of� those�afore-mentioned�countries.�However,�what� is� at� issue�here� is�not�so�much�whether�the�writers�are�native�or�non-native�speakers,�but�whether�they�are�competent�writers�of�the�type�of�written�professional�documentation�un-der�investigation.�It�should�be�noted�that�this�data�collection�of�the�EIA�reports�took�place�before�the�1997�handover�when�Hong�Kong�was�a�British�territory�and�UK-based�consultancy�companies�dominated�the�bidding�for�government�con-tracts.�The�senior�engineer-in-charge�who�vetted�the�final�version�of�the�reports�would�have�been�British�and�therefore�these�reports�can�be�considered�as�written�in�British�English.�This�background�information�has�important�implications�for�the�choice�of�a�contrastive�reference�corpus,�which�is�discussed�in�Chapter�5.

The�titles�of�these�reports�together�with�a�breakdown�of�the�number�of�words�in�each�and�the�consultancy�firms�who�produced�them�are�given�in�Appendix�3-1.�Each�report�was�given�a�filename,�e.g.�1_ERM,�which�could�be�used�to�identify�the�consulting�company�who�produced�the�report�and�to�differentiate�one�report�from�another�written�by�the�same�company.�

Student�Corpus�(STUCORP)

The�student�corpus�(STUCORP)�comprises�80�group�project�reports�written�by�2nd�and�3rd�year�undergraduate�Science�and�Engineering�students�on�a�Technical�Communication�Skills�course�in�the�Language�Centre�at�the�Hong�Kong�Univer-sity�of�Science�and�Technology�(HKUST).�For�this�group�project�the�assignment�guidelines�stipulate�that�students�are�expected�to�choose�an�area�for�investigation�where�a�problem�or�need�can�be�identified�on�the�basis�of�evidence�from�second-ary�and�primary�source�data�(survey�questionnaire,�interview,�observation),�and�propose�a�set�of�recommendations�on�the�basis�of�the�identified�problem�or�need.�No�templates�are�provided�in�order�to�discourage�students�from�over-relying�on�‘model� examples’,� although� the� in-house� produced� student� textbook� does� give�several�examples�of�reports,�which�the�students�can�draw�on�for�their�own�project�reports.�Instead�of�providing�a�template,� the�student�textbook�reviews�different�organisational�structures�(i.e.�part-by-part,�or�whole-by-whole)�and�types�of�sub-headings�(i.e.�structural,�topical)�with�the�aim�of�encouraging�students�to�choose�the�most�appropriate�one�for�their�report.

All� the� topics�of� the�student�reports� in�STUCORP�differ� from�those�of� the�professional�reports� in�PROFCORP,�as� they�relate� to� the�university�and�mostly�concern�departmental�or�service�unit�issues�which�are�of�importance�to�the�stu-dents�in�some�way.�The�titles�of�the�student�reports�together�with�a�breakdown�

Page 36: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�3.� The�two�corpora� 23

of�the�number�of�words�in�each�and�the�general�topic�areas�which�they�cover�are�given�in�Appendix�3-2.�As�with�all�the�reports�in�PROFCORP,�each�report�was�assigned�a�filename,�e.g.�1_CS,�which�could�identify�the�topic�of�the�report,�with�the�first�digit�in�the�filename�used�to�distinguish�one�report�from�another�on�the�same�topic.

In�one�sense,� the�student�reports�can�be�considered�as�solicited�as�they�are�an� assessed� assignment� as� part� of� an� academic� requirement.� In� another� sense,�though,�unlike�the�EIA�reports� in�PROFCORP,�these�reports�are�unsolicited� in�that�the�students�write�the�report�on�the�basis�of�a�problem�perceived�by�them�rather�than�in�response�to�a�request�by�a�department�to�investigate�an�issue.�Be-cause�the�reports�are�unsolicited,�the�students�have�to�make�a�strong�case�for�the�existence�of�a�problem,�as�the�departments�concerned�either�might�not�be�aware�that�a�problem�exists,�not�realise�its�import,�or�may�not�agree�that�there�is�a�prob-lem.�This�is�why�most�of�the�material�in�the�student�textbook�is�devoted�to�the�aspect�of�providing�evidence�for�a�problem�through�gathering�data�from�primary�and�secondary�sources.�Moreover,�although�these�reports�are�of�a�technical�na-ture,�the�guidelines�specify�that�the�report�must�be�written�for�management,�i.e.�a�non-specialist�audience.�Appendix�3-3�presents�the�rubrics�for�the�assignments�and�some�extracts�from�the�textbook�designed�to�sensitise�students�to�key�aspects�of�the�project�reports.

Although�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�are�the�product�of�two�different�dis-course�communities,�the�two�corpora�are,�in�fact,�similar�in�two�main�respects:�length�and�text�type.�First�of�all,�the�two�corpora�are�of�comparable�size�–�each�contains�approximately�225,000�running�words�(see�Appendices�3-1�and�3-2).�Sec-ondly,�the�fact�that�the�reports�in�PROFCORP�fall�under�the�category�of�Environ-mental�Impact�Assessment�reports�implies�that�they�are�recommendation-based�by�virtue�of�their�text�type�as�an�environmental�problem�is�identified�for�future�mitigation.�Likewise,�the�reports�in�STUCORP�can�also�be�regarded�as�belonging�to�the�Problem-Solution�text�type�because,�as�mentioned�previously,�the�assign-ment�guidelines�specify�this�discourse�structure�for�the�reports,�which�is�also�in�evidence�in�some�of�the�titles,�sometimes�with�the�focus�on�the�problem�aspect�(cf.�report�no.�23�in�Appendix�3-2�entitled�Investigation of sports facilities)�or�with�the�focus�on�the�solution�aspect�(cf.�report�no.�6�entitled�Installing computer ter-minals in UST campus).�Although�some�of�the�titles�may�only�reflect�the�solution�aspect,�the�body�of�the�reports�should�provide�evidence�for�an�existing�problem�as�this�is�stipulated�in�the�assignment�guidelines.�However,�at�this�stage,�we�can-not�state�categorically�that�these�reports�are�Problem-Solution�based�as�we�only�have�external�evidence�for�this,�i.e.�in�the�form�of�the�report�guidelines,�stipulating�the�audience�and�purpose.�As�Lee�(2001)�notes,�text�categorizations�are�generally�based�on�‘external’�criteria,�i.e.�where�and�when�the�text�was�produced,�by�and�for�

Page 37: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

24� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

whom�and�its�communicative�purpose,�rather�than�‘internal’�criteria�based�on�its�linguistic�characteristics.�The�purpose�of�the�analysis�in�Chapter�4�is�to�provide�linguistic�evidence�for�classifying�the�reports�in�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�as�belonging�to�the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�

In�sum,�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�can�therefore�both�be�regarded�as�‘spe-cialised’�on�the�grounds�that�they�are�delimited�by�a�specific�text�type,�discourse�domain�and�have�been�compiled�with�an�a�priori�purpose� in�mind.� (see�Flow-erdew�2004a�for�a�detailed�discussion�on�the�notion�of� ‘specialised’).�This�is�an�example�of�what�Sinclair�(2001:�xi)�refers�to�as�the�early human intervention (EHI)�method�–�as�opposed�to�the�late�or�delayed human intervention (DHI) associated�with�large-scale�corpus�analysis�–�where�the�analysts�have�a�clear�goal�at�the�out-set�and�thus�construct�a�corpus�and�decide�on�the�methodology�with�a�specific�purpose�in�mind.

In�the�following�sections�various�aspects�concerning�compilation�of�the�two�corpora�are�discussed�with�reference�to� issues�raised�in�the� literature.�Method-ological� issues� regarding� identification� of� types� and� lemmatization,� which� are�related�not�only�to�the�type�of�corpus�under�investigation,�but�also�to�the�line�of�linguistic�enquiry,�are�also�addressed.�

Issues in corpus compilation

Size�and�representativeness

Several�corpus�linguists�have�raised�issues�concerning�the�size�and�representative-ness�of�specialized�corpora.�In�fact,�these�are�thorny�issues,�which�have�also�been�widely�debated�in�the�literature�on�corpus�studies�in�general,�and�to�which�there�seem�to�be�no�easy�answers.

A�commonly�held�view�is� that�the� larger�the�corpus,� the�better� it� is� for�ex-tracting� linguistic� information:� ‘Regarding� the� question� of� corpus� size,� writers�are�unanimous�in�arguing�that�in�principle�bigger�is�better�(Sinclair�1991).�The�more�text�there�is�in�a�corpus,�the�more�likely�it�is�to�give�an�accurate�representa-tion�of�the�language�and�an�adequate�number�of�examples�of�a�given�key�word’�(Flowerdew�1996:�100).�While�this�is�true�in�general�terms,�this�whole�question�of�what�is�considered�to�be�an�appropriate�size�for�a�corpus�is�highly�dependent�on�the�phenomenon�one�is�investigating.�As�other�researchers�have�pointed�out�(de�Haan�1992),�there�is�no�ideal�size�for�a�corpus�and�the�suitability�of�the�sample�depends�on�the�specific�study�that�is�undertaken�and�the�needs�and�purposes�of�the�investigation.

Page 38: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�3.� The�two�corpora� 25

With� regard� to� the� investigation� of� specific� items,� McEnery� and� Wilson�(2001:�154)�point�out� that� the� lower� the� frequency�of� the� feature�one�wishes� to�investigate,�the�larger�the�corpus�should�be.�This�would�apply�to�nouns,�adjectives,�adverbs�etc,�(i.e.�content�words)�which�tend�to�have�a�much�lower�frequency�than�grammatical�words�in�any�given�corpus.�Conversely,�one�can�argue�that�smaller�corpora�can�be�used�for�investigating�the�more�common�features�of�language�such�as�grammatical�items,�and�indeed,�Biber�(1990)�has�pointed�out�that�smaller�cor-pora�are�perfectly�adequate�for�purposes�such�as�these.�The�size�of�the�corpus�is�therefore�of�paramount� importance�and�must�be�closely�matched�with�the� fea-tures�under�investigation.�However,�here�again,�size�has�to�be�balanced�against�the�level�of�delicacy�of�the�investigation,�an�issue�touched�upon�in�Kennedy�(1998),�who� remarks�on� the�danger�of�having� too�much�output� such� that� the�data�are�unwieldy�to�work�with.�

Sinclair�(2005)�makes�a�very�strong�case�for�size�not�being�such�an�issue�as�far�as�small,�specialized�corpora�are�concerned.�Evidence�for�this�point�is�based�on� a� comparison� of� frequencies� across� two� one-million-word� corpora:� LOB,� a�general�corpus,�and�the�Hong�Kong�corpus�of�the�English�of�Computing�Science,�as�shown�in�Table�3-1.�

Sinclair�comments�thus:

This�is�only�one�example,�but�it�is�good�news�for�builders�of�specialised�corpora,�in�that�not�only�are�they�likely�to�contain�fewer�words�in�all,�but�it�seems�as�if�the�characteristic�vocabulary�of�the�special�area�is�prominently�featured�in�the�fre-quency�lists,�and�therefore�that�a�much�smaller�corpus�will�be�needed�for�typical�studies�than�is�needed�for�a�general�view�of�the�language.� (Sinclair�2005:�15)

Sinclair’s�frequency-based�evidence�that�specialised�corpora,�by�their�very�nature,�do�not�exhibit�as�much�internal�variation�as�general�corpora,�is�a�factor�that�has�implications� for�not�only� the� size�of� the� corpus�but� also� its� representativeness.�The�greater�the�variation�in�the�corpus�text�under�study,�the�more�samples�and�a�larger�corpus�are�required�to�ensure�representativeness�and�thus�validity�of�the�data� (Meyer�2002).�See�also�McEnery�and�Wilson�(2001:�63–66),� for�a�detailed�

Table 3-1. Comparison�of�frequencies�in�a�general�and�a�specialised�corpus�(Sinclair�2005:�15)

LOB HK %

Number�of�different�word-forms�(types) 69990 27210 39%Number�that�occur�once�only 36796 11430 31%Number�that�occur�twice�only � 9890 � 3837 39%Twenty�times�or�more � 4750 � 3811 *0%200�times�or�more � � 471 � � 687 (69%)

Page 39: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

26� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

discussion�on�corpus�representativeness.�In�respect�of�this�issue,�it�is�well�to�heed�the�words�of�Tognini-Bonelli�(2001:�57):�‘We�should�always�bear�in�mind�that�the�assumption� of� representativeness� “must� be� regarded� largely� as� an� act� of� faith”�(Leech�1991:�27),�as�at�present�we�have�no�means�of�ensuring�it,�or�even�evaluat-ing�it�objectively�(see�also�Sinclair�1991:�9).

This�vexing�issue�of�corpus�representativeness�could�be�regarded�as�more�cru-cial�as� far�as�specialized�corpora�are�concerned�on�account�of� the� fact� that� the�representativeness�of�specialized�corpora�is�usually�measured�by�reference�to�ex-ternal�selection�criteria�(i.e.�by/for�whom�the�text�is�produced,�what�is�its�subject�matter),� which� could� be� regarded� as� somewhat� subjective.� On� the� other� hand,�Williams�(2002)�sees�one�way�round�this�dilemma�by�making�a�case�for�using�in-ternal�selection�criteria�based�on�lexical�items,�which�he�argues�is�a�more�objective�means�of�ensuring�the�representativity�of�specialized�corpora.

A�complicating�factor�is�that�often�pragmatic�factors,�such�as�how�easily�the�data�can�be�obtained�come�into�play,�i.e.�the�compiler�has�to�fall�back�on�non-prob-ability� sampling� techniques� involving� “judgement”� and� “convenience”� (Meyer�2002:�44).�That�being�said,�it�is�a�sine�qua�non�that�a�specialized�corpus�should�be�of�adequate�size�such�that�there�is�a�sufficient�number�of�occurrences�of�a�linguis-tic�structure�or�pattern�to�ensure�representativeness�for�validating�a�hypothesis.�

Insofar�as�the�compilation�of�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�are�concerned,�an�effort�has�been�made�to�ensure�that�the�corpora�are�as�representative�as�possible�for�the�type�of�writing�under�investigation.�For�example,�the�60�reports�in�PROF-CORP�were�partly�selected�on�the�basis�that�they�represent�23�different�consulting�companies,� thus� ensuring� no� one� company� style� would� dominate.� However,� it�was� impossible� to� select� an� equal� number� of� reports� from� each� of� the� compa-nies�as�access�to�these�was�dependent�on�which�ones�were�available�in�the�pub-lic�libraries.�As�a�general�rule,�though,�the�larger�the�company,�the�more�reports�were� catalogued� in� the� libraries,� so� the� distribution� of� reports� in� PROFCORP�can�be�seen�as�reflecting�the�size�of�the�company,�which�could�also�be�regarded�as�another�aspect�of�representativeness.�The�data�collection�therefore�relies�on�a�combination�of�“judgement”�and�“convenience”�sampling;�every�effort�was�made�to�collect�reports�from�as�wide�a�range�of�companies�as�possible,�but�ultimately�this�depended�on�what�was�available� in�the�public� libraries� in�Hong�Kong�(see�Meyer�2002:�42–43,�who�discusses�different�types�of�sampling�frames).�As�for�the�80�reports�in�STUCORP,�25�different�main�topic�areas�are�represented.�Some�of�the� topic�choices�are�more�popular�with�students� than�others,�but�again� this� is�represented�by�their�distribution�in�the�corpus.

As�regards�the�argument�of�using�internal�selection�criteria�as�a�more�objec-tive�means�of�ensuring�the�representativity�of�specialised�corpora,�in�Chapter�4,�I�will�demonstrate�by�internal�criteria�that�both�corpora�are�Problem-Solution�ori-

Page 40: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�3.� The�two�corpora� 27

ented�and�therefore�contain�sufficient�examples�for�investigation�of�the�linguistic�structures�realising�this�particular�text�type.�Moreover,�as�each�corpus�comprises�approximately�225,000�words,�they�do�not�yield�a�quantity�of�output�that�is�over-whelming�to�work�with,�an�important�point�noted�by�Kennedy�earlier.�

Identification�of�types�

A�type�is�defined�as�each�different�word�form�whereas�a�token�is�an�individual�occurrence�of�any�word�form,�i.e.�type�(Barnbrook�1996:�53).�One�noticeable�dif-ference�between�these�reports�is�that�the�PROFCORP�consists�of�8,724�different�types�whereas�the�STUCORP�has�7,268�different�types.�This�result�runs�counter�to�what�I�expected�as�given�the�diverse�topics�of� the�student�reports�compared�with� the� focus�on�a�particular� topic� (environmental� assessment)�of� the�profes-sional�reports,�I�would�have�predicted�the�student�reports�to�contain�more�dif-ferent�types.�The�linguistic�analysis�of�key�words�in�Chapter�4�sheds�light�on�this�phenomenon.

First�of�all,� though,� it� is�of�crucial� importance�to�consider�what�constitutes�a� ‘type’� at� the� outset� as� this� will� have� a� bearing� on� the� subsequent� analysis� of�the� corpus.� In� the� following� sub-sections,� I� discuss� decisions� made� regarding�specifications�of�types,�or�word�boundaries.�As�the�reports�in�both�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�contain�multi-word�nouns,�Latin�abbreviations�and�cases�where�sometimes�an�abbreviated�form�of�a�word�is�used�but�at�other�times�the�full�form,�it�is�necessary�to�have�a�consistent�policy�on�how�to�handle�these.

Multi-word proper nounsMulti-word� proper� nouns,� denoting� names� of� countries,� islands,� towns,� roads,�buildings,�airports�and�names�of�people,�were�treated�as�one�semantic�unit,� i.e.�one�type.�In�order�for�the�software�to�count�these�nouns�as�one�type,�the�symbol�0�was�used�in�place�of�spaces.�So,�for�example,�Hong�Kong�would�be�shown�as�Hong0Kong.�Not�surprisingly,�PROFCORP�was�found�to�contain�a�wider�range�of�examples�of�such�nouns�than�STUCORP�as� the�professional�reports�refer� to�entities�within�the�whole�of�Hong�Kong,�whereas�the�student�reports�are�mostly�related�to�university�departments�and�service�units.�

All�the�proper�nouns�were�identified�by�three�means.�First,�they�were�identi-fied�by�manually�skimming�through�the�printed�output�of�the�corpora.�Changes�were�then�made�in�the�computerised�version�of�the�corpora,�with�the�assistance�of�the�search command.�Finally,�an�alphabetical�wordlist�was�manually�checked�to�verify�that�all�instances�of�proper�nouns�had�been�collected.

Page 41: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

28� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Latin abbreviationsIn�a�draft�wordlist,�it�was�noted�that�there�were�occurrences�of�single�letters,�which�required�further�investigation.�It�was�found�that�these�isolated�cases�of�single�let-ters�were�Latin�abbreviations�in�either�small�or�upper�case�(N.B.;�I.E.;�e.g.;�p.m.).�As�there�was�a�full�stop�separating�the�two�parts,�the�program�was�obviously�read-ing�some�of�the�Latin�abbreviations�as�two�separate�words.�The�full�stop�was�re-moved�so�all�Latin�abbreviations�would�be�read�as�one�type.���

Abbreviations vs. full formsThis�category�concerns�those�items�where�the�full�form�is�used�in�some�parts�of�the�text�(e.g.�Environmental Protection Department) but�the�abbreviated�form�in�other�parts�(e.g.�EPD) for�synonymous�pairs�of�semantically-related�items.�

Three�options�are�possible�for�dealing�with�this�situation:

(i)� treat�EPD as�one�item�and�Environmental Protection Department�as�three(ii)��treat�EPD� as� three� items� and� Environmental Protection Department� also� as�

three(iii)�treat�EPD as�one�item�and�Environmental Protection Department�also�as�one.

The�simplest�solution�would�be�to�opt�for�(i)�if�EPD�is�seen�as�functioning�as�an�anaphoric/exophoric�element,�in�fact,�similar�to�a�pronoun�which�also�either�re-fers�the�reader�back�to�a�multi-word�phrase�or�to�an�entitiy�identifiable�on�the�ba-sis�of�real�world�knowledge.�This�would�be�feasible�with�the�PROFCORP�reports�where�the�abbreviations�used,�such�as�EPD,�conform�to�the�convention�of�using�the� full� form� for� the�first�mention,�with� the�abbreviation�noted� in�parentheses�and�using�the�abbreviated�form�hereafter�in�the�text.�However,�this�standard�us-age�for�full�forms�and�abbreviations�was�not�observed�in�the�STUCORP�reports.�Students�mixed�full�forms�and�abbreviated�forms�quite�indiscriminately�in�their�reports�with�the�result�that�the�function�of�an�abbreviated�form�having�an�ana-phoric�function�was�distinctly�blurred,�as�this�was�often�taken�up�by�the�full�form.�As�it�is�imperative�to�apply�the�same�criteria�to�both�corpora�for�identifying�word�types,�option�(i)�is�therefore�rejected�on�account�of�the�arbitrary�use�of�abbrevia-tions�in�the�STUCORP.�

Another�possibility�was�option�(ii),�where�EPD�is�expanded�into�three�items.�This�option�was�also�rejected�as�although�semantically� it�would�be�a� legitimate�strategy,�it�contravenes�one’s�sense�that�EPD�functions�as�one�entity.�I�therefore�decided�to�adopt�option�(iii)�which�does�allow�EPD�to�be�considered�as�one�en-tity.�Another�reason�for�choosing�option�(iii)�is�that�it�can�also�accommodate�the�anomalous�use�of�the�full�forms�in�the�STUCORP�reports�(which�very�often�have�an�anaphoric�function�usually�taken�up�by�the�abbreviated�form)�by�treating�them�

Page 42: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�3.� The�two�corpora� 29

as�one�item.�Sometimes,�it�is�not�clear�cut�as�to�how�many�items�the�full�form�con-sists�of�(cf.�Electronic�Notice Board�and�Electronic Noticeboard),�but�this�is�not�an�issue�if�option�(iii)�is�chosen.

Apart� from� EPD� used� for� Environmental Protection Department� and� EIA�for�Environmental Impact Assessment�reports,�very�few�other�abbreviations�were�found�in�the�PROFCORP.�However,�in�the�STUCORP,�four�main�categories�of�us-age�were�identified,�which,�as�can�be�seen�from�the�examples�below,�mainly�refer�to�HKUST�entities.�As�with�the�proper�nouns,�the�separate�words�in�the�full�forms�were�joined�by�using�the�symbol�0.

Departments� � Centre�of�Computing�Services�and�Telecommunications�(CCST)� � Safety�and�Environmental�Protection�Office�(SEPO)� � Student�Affairs�Office�(SAO)

Type of student according to discipline� � Computer�Science�(CS)� � Computer�Engineering�(CPEG)� � Electrical�and�Electronic�Engineering�(EEE)

� � Universities� � Hong�Kong�University�of�Science�and�Technology�(HKUST)� � Chinese�University�of�Hong�Kong�(CUHK)

� � Internet�features� � World�Wide�Web�(WWW)� � Internet�Service�Providers�(ISP)� � Electronic�Noticeboard�(ENB)

Obviously,�the�above�is�quite�a�time-consuming�process�as�all�these�adjustments�are�made�manually.�In�this�respect,�the�reader�is�referred�to�work�being�carried�out�at�the�University�of�Liverpool�(cf.�Renouf�1996�for�details�of�the�ACRONYM�project),�where�corpus�tools�are�being�developed�for�the�automatic�identification�of�thesaurally-equivalent�terms�such�as�those�listed�above.�This�project�is�referred�to�in�Chapter�5�with�respect�to�synonymous�and�hyponymous�relations�existing�between�keyword�lexis�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�

In�addition�to�the�decisions�made�above�to�count�multi-word�proper�nouns,�Latin�abbreviations�and�the�full�forms�of�their�corresponding�abbreviations�as�one�type,�another�issue�which�arose�was�how�to�deal�with�the�inconsistencies�in�the�handling�of�characters�found�within�words.�Such�characters�refer�to�hyphenated�words�and�apostrophes�used�in�short�forms�of�verbs,�auxiliaries,�and�negatives,�which�are�discussed�in�detail�below.�

Page 43: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

30� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Characters found within wordsMany�inconsistencies�in�hyphenation�occur�across�the�texts�and�sometimes�three�different�variations�of�the�same�item�were�found,�e.g.�back-up,�back up�and�also�backup.�As�the�hyphenated�words�outnumber�their�two-word�counterparts,�these�were�therefore�considered�as�the�core,�or�unmarked,�items,�so�to�speak.�For�this�reason,�all�words�which�are�hyphenated�in�the�original�text�are�treated�as�having�the�default�value�of�a�single�word.�So,�for�example,�both�back-up�and�backup�are�treated� as� the� same� type.� However,� the� Wordlist� tool� identifies� back up� as� two�separate� types.� These� typographical� variations� therefore� result� in� some� minor�anomalies,�but�it�was�felt�that�any�attempt�to�categorise�items�with�variant�spelling�such�as�back-up, back up�and�backup as�a�single�type�would�be�a�time-consuming�process�which�would�not�result�in�much�gain.

Like�the�hyphen,�the�apostrophe�is�another�character�that�can�occur�within�a�word�in�short�forms�of�verbs,�auxiliaries�and�negatives�such�as�It’s,�you’re,�can’t and�don’t.�All�contractions�were� left�as� they�were�rather� than�being�restored�to�their�full�form�for�two�reasons.�First,�it�is�useful�to�retain�the�contractions�in�the�original�as�they�reflect�stylistic�choices�of�the�author(s).�For�example,�there�were�no�instances�of�the�short�form�don’t in�PROFCORP�but�25�occurred�in�STUCORP�which�is�an�indication�of�the�different�levels�of�formality�in�the�reports.�Secondly,�it�would�be�very�time-consuming�to�make�adjustments�manually�in�the�corpora.�Bruthiaux�(1996),�who�discusses�the�issue�of�hyphenation�and�apostrophes�(pp.�33–34),�trawled�through�his�corpus�to�manually�separate�all�contractions�marked�by�an�apostrophe�(I’m becoming�I’ m,�for�example)�so�that�such�contractions�were�treated�as�two�words.�This�is�possible�with�his�relatively�small�corpus�of�advertise-ments�(16,075�words)�but�would�be�very� laborious�in� larger�corpora.�Thus,�the�size�of�a�corpus�is�another�vital�consideration�as�to�whether�certain�text�adjust-ments�are�expedient�or�not.�It�was�also�noted�that�there�were�five�misuses�of�the�apostrophe�s�in�STUCORP,�with�it’s substituted�for�possessive�its,�but�these�mis-spellings�were�also�retained�in�accordance�with�my�desire�to�tamper�with�the�text�as�little�as�possible.

I� therefore� did� not� change� any� of� the� output� produced� by� Wordsmith’s�Wordlist relating� to� characters,� i.e.� hyphens� and� apostrophes� within� words,� for�ease�of�expediency.�Neither�did�I�attempt�to�standardise�words�which�are�identical�phonologically�and�lexically,�but�not�orthographically�(i.e.�those�words�which�can�take�either�American�or�British�spelling,�e.g.�organize�vs.�organise)�as�this�would�have�meant�making�adjustments�in�the�text,�rather�than�relying�on�the�Wordlist output,�and�in�any�case�such�adjustments�would�have�made�very�little�difference�in�the�subsequent�analysis.�

One�area,� though,�where� identification�of�types� is�of�utmost� importance�in�the�type�of�lexico-grammatical�analysis�undertaken�in�this�corpus�analysis�is�that�

Page 44: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�3.� The�two�corpora� 31

of�lemmatization.�In�the�following�section�I�first�define�lemmatization,�and�then�explain�my�rationale�for�not�lemmatizing�the�corpus.�

Lemmatization�

A�lemma�is�usually�considered�as�the�base�or�uninflected�form�of�a�word�(Biber�et�al.�1998:�29).�As�Sinclair�(1991:�42)�points�out�‘Traditionally,�the�‘base’,�or�un-inflected�form�is�used�even�when�that�form�is�hardly�ever�found�on�its�own,�or�hardly�ever�found�at�all’.�Here�the�word�‘Traditionally’�seems�to�be�setting�up�an�objection�to�this�definition,�which�Sinclair�provides�later�in�the�text�when�he�puts�forward�the�suggestion�that�the�most�frequently-encountered�form�could�equally�well�be�regarded�as�the�lemma.

Lemmatization�is�defined�as�follows�in�Sinclair�(1991):

Lemmatization�is�the�process�of�gathering�word-forms�and�arranging�them�into�lemmas�or�lemmata.�So�the�word-forms�give, gives, gave, given, giving, and�prob-ably�to give,�will�conventionally�be�lemmatized�into�the�lemma�give.�Any�occur-rence�of�any�of�the�six�forms�will�be�regarded�as�an�occurrence�of�the�lemma.�� (Sinclair�1991:�173)

However,� just�as�the�word�‘traditionally’� implies�that�defining�a� lemma�is�not�a�straightforward�procedure,�the�word�‘conventionally’�also�hints�that�lemmatiza-tion�may�not�be�as�simple�and�obvious�a�process�as�it�at�first�appears�either.�This�reservation�towards�lemmatization�is�echoed�in�Sinclair�(1992:�390–391)�‘…�it�is�conventional�to�think�of�meaning�as�constant�across�different�inflected�forms�of�a�word;�in�such�cases�the�inflections�could�be�conflated�together�into�lemmas�and�a�lemmatiser�used�to�do�the�job’.�Counter-examples�to�this�assumption�are�given�in�Sinclair�and�Renouf�(1988)�who�provide�corpus�evidence�to�demonstrate�that�the�morphological�pair�certain and�certainly behave�quite�independently�of�each�other�in�terms�of�meaning�and�usage�patterns.�(In�fact,�the�examples�of�certain�and�certainly�would�not�be�considered�by�some�as�even�belonging� to� the�same�lemma�as�they�are�not�of�the�same�word�class�as�one�is�adjectival�and�the�other�adverbial).��At�a�greater�degree�of�specificity�regarding�meaning,�Tognini-Bonelli�(2001:�92–98,�cited�in�Knowles�&�Don�2005)�questions�whether�facing�and�faced should�be�assigned�to�the�lemma�‘face’�as�the�former�has�a�concrete�meaning�(e.g.�facing forwards)�in�addition�to�its�metaphorical�meaning�(e.g.�facing a dilemma),�whereas� the� latter� retains�only� the�metaphorical�meaning� (e.g.� faced with a di-lemma).�Therefore,�even�the�notion�of�what�constitutes�a�lemma�is�debatable�from�a�meaning�potential�point�of�view.

Page 45: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

32� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Another� problem� associated� with� lemmatization� is� that� different� forms� of�a� lemma�pattern�differently,� in�terms�of�collocation�and�colligation�(Barnbrook�1996:�50;�Stubbs�1996:�37).�Stubbs�(1996:�38)�cites�Sinclair’s�(1991)�example�of�the�lemma�SET,�of�which�the�verbal�form�set was�found�to�be�much�commoner�than�the�other�forms�and�commonest�in�past�tense�use,�with�SET�IN�tending�to�occur�in�end�of�sentence�position.�These�are�colligational�preferences.�Stubbs�(1996)�has�also�shown�how�different�lemmas�can�also�have�different�collocates.�For�example,�of� the� lemma�EDUCATE� the� form�education�mainly�collocates�with� terms�de-noting�institutions�(e.g.�further, higher, university)�whereas�the�form�educate col-locates�with�the�near�synonyms�enlighten, help, inform.�Sinclair�(1992)�proposes�that� examining� the� collocational� patterns� of� different� word� forms� can� be� used�as�a�basis�for�deciding�whether�they�belong�to�the�same�lemma�or�not.�Another�consideration�is�the�fact�that�different�forms�of�a�lemma�may�possibly�have�differ-ent�semantic�prosodies�(positive�or�negative�connotations�associated�with�a�word,�Louw�1993).

It�has�been�pointed�out�above� that�different� forms�of�a� lemma�have�differ-ent�frequencies�in�a�corpus,�may�have�different�meanings,�different�colligational�and�collocational�patterning,�may�occupy�different�positions�in�the�sentence,�and�may�possibly�have�different�semantic�prosodies�(see�Hoey�1997�for�an�elabora-tion�of�these�aspects).�As�one�of�the�main�aims�of�this�research�is�to�examine�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�from�a�phraseological�perspective,�it�would�therefore�be�counterproductive�to�lemmatize�the�corpus�automatically.

Conclusion

This� chapter� has� described� the� background� and� contextual� features� of� the� two�corpora,�including�a�brief�overview�of�the�literacy�practices�and�processes�(Barton�2000)� in�which�the�writing�was�constructed.�It�has�also�addressed�the� issues�of�corpus�size�and�representativeness,�with�a�justification�of�the�adequacy�of�the�two�corpora�in�this�respect.�The�chapter�has�also�detailed�the�methodological�proce-dures�undertaken�in�compiling�the�corpora�for�analysis.�From�the�above�discus-sion�on�identification�of�types�and�lemmatization�it�can�be�seen�that�I�have�largely�adhered�to�Sinclair’s�(1991:�21)�clean-text�policy:�‘The�safest�policy�is�to�keep�the�text�as� it� is,�unprocessed�and�clean�of�any�other�codes.�These�can�be�added�for�investigation’.�I�have�made�the�minimal�amount�of�text�adjustments�in�accordance�with�Sinclair’s�clean-text�policy�as�my�aim�is�not�to�obtain�statistical�information�from�large�amounts�of�text,�but�rather�to�use�statistical�tabulation�of�the�corpus�evidence�as�a�starting�point�for�qualitative�analysis�of�specific�features�in�two�spe-cialised�corpora,�using�the�Concord�and�KeyWords�tools.

Page 46: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

chapter�4�

Frequency, key word and key-key word analysis of signals for the Problem-Solution pattern

The�first�section�of�this�chapter�describes�the�Appraisal�framework�of�Inscribed�and�Evoking�categories,�borrowing�from�systemic-functional�linguistics,�for�clas-sifying�the�signals�of� the�Problem�Solution�pattern.�The�second�part�presents�a�frequency,�keyword�and�key-key�word�analysis�of�the�signals,�classified�according�to�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items,�with�particular�attention�paid�to�their�interface�with�another�categorisation�of�lexis,�technical�and�sub-technical�vocabulary.

As�was�noted�in�the�previous�chapter,�although�all�the�texts�in�PROFCORP�are�labelled�as�‘environmental�audit’,�which�by�its�very�definition�implies�a�type�of�recommendation�report,�and�this�is�evidenced�by�many�of�the�headings�such�as�‘Recommendations’,�we�still�need�concrete�evidence�as�proof�for�this.�The�same�also�applies�to�the�reports�in�STUCORP,�many�of�which�are�also�explicitly�labelled�as�recommendation-based�by�virtue�of�their�titles�and�by�the�guidelines�given�to�students�for�this�writing�task.�Identification�of�the�signals�for�the�Problem-Solu-tion�pattern�through�computational�techniques�would�provide�internal�linguistic�evidence�for�classifying�both�the�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�as�Problem-Solu-tion�based,�which�as�noted�in�the�previous�chapter,�is�a�more�reliable�indicator�of�representativeness�than�relying�solely�on�external�criteria.

Classificatory framework for signals: Appraisal system

Signals�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern,�by�their�very�nature,�are�evaluative�and�thus�there�needs�to�be�a�categorization�which�accommodates�this�inherent�qual-ity.�It�was�therefore�felt�that�utilising�the�Appraisal�system�for�encoding�attitude�from� the� systemic-functional� tradition� (Martin� 2000,� 2003)� would� provide� an�ideal�framework.��

Page 47: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

34� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Inscribed�vs.�Evoking�items

According�to�the�Appraisal�system,�items�are�classified�as�Inscribed�or�Evoking.�The�Inscribed�option�realises�lexis�which�is�explicitly�evaluative.�This�would�cor-respond�to�the�items�in�Proctor’s� list�referred�to�in�Chapter�1,�such�as�problem, fault, drawback,� where� the� evaluation� is� built� into� the� word,� as� it� were.� Carter�(1992)�also�recognises�this�evaluative�quality�inherent�in�some�of�these�Inscribed�Vocabulary�3�items�which�serve�the�same�function�as�Francis’�A-nouns�mentioned�in�Chapter�1:�‘An�interesting�category�of�A-nouns�are�those�which�generally�signal�attitudes.�Such� items�do�more� than�merely� label� the�preceding�discourse.�They�mark�it�in�an�interpersonally�sensitive�way�revealing�the�writer’s�positive�or�nega-tive�evaluation�of�the�antecedent�proposition’�(p.�80).�Here,�Carter�touches�upon�an�important�distinction�between�Inscribed�and�Evoking�lexis�regarding�the�read-er/writer�orientation�towards�the�text,�as�also�pointed�out�in�Hoey�(2001):� ‘The�writer�inscribes�the�evaluation;�on�the�other�hand,�it�is�the�word�that�evokes�(or�provokes)�an�evaluation�in�the�reader’�(p.�126).�

The� Evoking� option� ‘draws� on� ideational� meaning� to� ‘connote’� evaluation,�either� by� selecting� meanings� which� invite� a� reaction� or� deploying� imagery� to�provoke�a�stance’�(Martin�2003:�18).�In�this�model,�it�is�the�‘invite’�option�of�the�Evoking�category�I�am�interested�in,�where�the�item,�taken�out�of�context,�would�evoke� an� evaluative� response� in� the� reader.� For� example,� items� such� as� cancer and�dust in�Jordan’s�list,�which�as�Proctor�argues�are�lexical�realisations�of�the�P.�[Problem]�signal�rather�than�signals�by�and�of�themselves,�would�belong�to�this�category.�Yet�another�option�would�seem�to�exist�for�the�Evoking�category�where�it�would�only�be�possible�to�tell�from�the�context�whether�an�item�such�as�landfill�evokes�a�positive�or�negative�semantic�prosody�(see�Thompson�&�Hunston�2000�for�a�discussion�of�the�role�of�context�in�bringing�out�this�element�of�evaluation).�Although�Partington�(2001)�does�not�use�the�terms�Inscribed�and�Evoking�in�his�discussion�on�investigating�connotation,�Inscribed�lexis�seems�to�be�what�he� is�referring�to�when�he�mentions�that�where�connotation�is�so�intrinsic�to�a�word�it�is�taken�for�granted,�i.e.�writer-initiated,�and�Evoking�lexis�when�he�discusses�examples�where�the�connotation�seems�less�intrinsic,�which�can�be�based�on�situ-ational�or�cultural�factors.�

However,� the� distinctions� between� Inscribed� and� Evoking� evaluative� lexis�are�by�no�means�as�clear-cut�as� the�definitions�above�seem�to�suggest.�Most�of�the�items�considered�as�Inscribed�lexis,�where�the�word�is�intrinsically�evaluative,�would� be� superordinate� categories� such� as� problem,� solution,� but� this� category�could�also�encompass�more�specific�terms�such�as�inefficient,�unsatisfied,�where�the�evaluation�is�explicitly�signaled�by�adjectival�prefixes�such�as�in-,�un-�or�non-.�The�Evoking�category,�which�covers�items�where�the�evaluation�is�less�intrinsic,�

Page 48: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�4.� Frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�analysis� 35

also�raises�queries�for�classification�of�evaluative�lexis.�In�this�category,�I�would�also�include�items�such�as�pollution�for�the�reason�that,�although�such�lexis�does�have�an�intrinsic�negative�connotation,�which�would�seem�to�qualify�it�for�mem-bership�of�the�Inscribed�class,�it�is�not�a�superordinate�term,�but�rather�acting�as�a�hyponym�of�problem.�I�would�therefore�like�to�argue�that�as�lexis�such�as�problem�and�pollution�have�different�hyponymic�status,�they�should�be�accorded�a�different�classification.�Other�terms,�such�as�noise clearly�fit�into�the�Evoking�category�as�their�negative�connotation�is,�to�a�large�extent,�induced�by�the�reader’s�interpreta-tion�of� it.� It�would�seem�that� the�difficulties�with�Martin’s�classification�mainly�arise� from� the� fact� that� this� kind� of� evaluative� lexis� occurs� more� along� a� cline�and�does�not�easily�lend�itself�to�being�shoehorned�into�two�discrete�categories,�a�point�also�discussed�in�Flowerdew�(2003,�2004b).�Nevertheless,�in�spite�of�these�classification�difficulties,�it�has�much�to�recommend�it�in�highlighting�the�overall�patterning�of�different�kinds�of�evaluative�lexis�in�the�two�corpora�(see�Hunston�1993,�1994�for�detailed�descriptions�of�evaluation�in�scientific�text�and�Camiciotti�&�Tognini-Bonelli�(eds.)�2004�for�discussions�on�conceptualisation�and�recogni-tion�of�evaluation).

Frequency analysis of signals

Starting�at�a�very�general�level,�it�would�be�useful�to�compare�the�100�most�fre-quent�words�in�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP�with�the�100�most�frequent�words�in�two�general�large-scale�corpora�covering�a�wide�variety�of�genres.�The�general�corpora�chosen�were�COBUILD�listed�in�Sinclair�(1986:�192)�and�the�core�written�component�of� the�BNC�(http://info.ox.ac.uk/bnc)�as� these� two�corpora�contain�a� wide� variety� of� genres� and� are� the� most� recent� large-scale� corpora� available,�although�compiled�in�the�1990s.�The�aim�of�using�this�approach�is�to�get�a�very�general�indication�whether�both�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�contain�high�fre-quency�signals�relating�to�the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�

Appendix�4-1�shows�the�100�most�frequent�words�occurring�across�these�four�corpora.�A�striking�difference�between�the�composition�of�the�two�general�corpo-ra�and�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�is�that�the�two�general�corpora�mainly�consist�of�function,�i.e.�grammatical�words,�whereas�content�words�tend�to�dominate�in�the�other�two�corpora.�(In�the�following�analyses,�the�order�of�frequency�is�given�in�brackets�for�ease�of�reference�in�the�wordlists).

Page 49: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

36� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Grammatical�signals�

An�examination�of�the�wordlists�of�the�core�written�component�of�the�BNC�sam-pler�and�COBUILD�reveals�quite�a�lot�of�similarity�between�the�two�lists�in�that�most�of�these�items�consist�of�similar�function�words,�which�are�grammatical�in�nature.�Interestingly,�in�COBUILD�but (20)�could�be�a�grammatical�signal�antici-pating�a�Problem�statement,�but�this�could�only�be�verified�with�reference�to�the�context.�Likewise,�in�the�BNC�the�modal�verb�should (75), which�is�often�used�for�proposing�solutions�and�making�recommendations,�may�well�signal�a�Response,�but�again,�we�cannot�know�this�without�recourse�to�the�context.�In�these�two�gen-eral�corpora,�these�are�the�only�two�items�in�the�100�most�frequent�words�which�hint�at�the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�

Similar� grammatical� items� are� also� found� in� PROFCORP� and� STUCORP:�however (72),�but (87)�and�should (55) in�STUCORP.�A�corpus�analysis�of�how-ever (100)� from� PROFCORP� was� provided� in� Chapter� 1� to� illustrate� the� type�of�phraseological�analysis�that�can�be�undertaken.�There�are�no�other�potential�grammatical�signals�for�the�pattern�in�either�corpus.�One�reason�for�this�could�well� be� that� these� belong� to� a� closed� set� of� items� where� few� choices� are� avail-able�in�the�grammatical�system,�whereas�vocabulary�items�constitute�a�more�open�set�from�which�a�far�greater�number�of�choices�are�available�to�express�the�same�meaning.�

It�has�already�been�noted�that�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP�contain�more�con-tent�than�function�words�in�the�100�most�frequent�words.�In�the�following�section,�I�examine�the�nature�of�these�content�words�to�determine�which�ones�signal�ele-ments�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern,�and�consequently�which�kind�of�lexis�they�constitute,�Inscribed�or�Evoking,�on�the�one�hand,�and�technical�or�sub-technical,�on�the�other.�

Lexical�signals:�Inscribed�vs.�Evoking�

In�STUCORP,�there�are�three�Inscribed�items:�problem (58), need (86) and�result (84),�which�could�either�be�a�noun,�part�of�the�verb�phrase�result in,�or�part�of�the�sentence�connector�As a result.�In�PROFCORP�the�emphasis�is�clearly�on�the�Solution�element,�denoted�by�the�following�Inscribed�items:�measures�(36),�pro-posed�(43),�mitigation�(45),�and�recommended�(63),�with�monitoring (49)�and assessment�(62)�for�the�Evaluation�element.�As�pointed�out�in�Chapter�3�these�Vocabulary�3�items�could�function�textually,�i.e.�as�connectives,�and�also�as�lexis�which�operates�at�a�more�local�level�of�signalling.�However,�clearly,�frequency�lists�cannot�provide�this�kind�of�detailed�information.

Page 50: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�4.� Frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�analysis� 37

Now�I�will�discuss�examples�of�the�other�type�of� lexical�signal�–�Evoking�–�where�the�item�evokes�some�kind�of�evaluation�when�considered�out�of�context�in�relation�to�the�reader’s�conventional�interpretation�of�it.�These�Evoking�items�differ�from�the�Inscribed�items�described�in�the�previous�paragraph�as�they�are�the�lexical�realisations�of�the�Problem�statement�whereas�the�Inscribed�items�are�the�actual�signals�for�the�Problem.�Items�in�PROFCORP�which�would�appear�to�fit�this�category�include�the�following:�noise (14),�traffic�(51),�waste�(53)�and�dust�(72).�Impacts�(22)�and�impact�(30)�are�also�included�here�because�in�the�context�of�environmental�studies�they�imply�a�negative�effect.�In�the�Dictionary of Ecology and Environment (1995)�impact assessment is�defined�as�‘evaluation�of�the�effect�upon�the�environment�of�a�large�construction�programme’�(p.�122).�Disposal (98)�is�an�Evoking�item�for�the�Solution�element.�As�mentioned�in�the�previous�chapter�there�also�exists�another�kind�of�Evoking�item�where�we�can�only�tell�from�the�context�whether�the�word�has�a�positive�or�negative�semantic�prosody.�In�PROF-CORP,�construction (16),�landfill�(71)�and�reclamation�(84)�are�examples�of�this�type�of�items�as�they�can�be�regarded�as�either�an�element�of�the�Problem�or�Solu-tion,�i.e.�they�can�cause�a�problem�or�be�put�forward�as�a�solution.�For�example,�out�of�the�356�tokens�of�landfill,�which�occurs�as�a�key�word�in�ten�reports�(see�Table�4-2),�125�of�these�indicate�some�kind�of�problem,�e.g.�…quantities of gas are being generated within the landfill.�It�is�of�interest�to�note�that�this�type�of�Evoking�lexis�does�not�occur�in�the�STUCORP�word�frequency�list.�

The�signals,�which�are�overwhelmingly�lexical�in�nature,�are�therefore�clearly�Problem-Solution� based,� with� Inscribed� items� occurring� in� both� PROFCORP�and�STUCORP,�but�Evoking�items�only�found�in�PROFCORP.�A�final�observa-tion�is�that�in�PROFCORP�the�Inscribed�items�relate�to�the�Solution�whereas�the�Evoking�items�tend�to�focus�on�the�Problem�aspect�both�in�terms�of�a�wider�range�and�higher�frequency�of�occurrence.�

Lexical�signals:�Technical�vs.�sub-technical�

Apart� from� this� evaluative� dimension� discussed� above� from� the� perspective� of�Inscribed� vs.� Evoking� items,� we� can� also� ask� questions� about� the� subject� mat-ter�of�the�lexis.�An�examination�of�the�data�points�to�an�interesting�intersection�of�Inscribed�and�Evoking�lexis�with�sub-technical�vocabulary.�Following�Baker’s�(1988:�92)�definition�of�sub-technical�as�‘items�which�express�notions�general�to�all�or�several�specialised�disciplines,�e.g.�factor,�method�and�function’,�as�a�general�rule,� the� Inscribed� lexis,� e.g.� problem, need, recommended,� tends� to� be� sub-technical�vocabulary�as�such�items�have�a�discourse�role�and�are�therefore�also�categorised�as�Vocabulary�3�items.�

Page 51: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

38� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

On�the�other�hand,�the�Evoking�lexis�highlighted�by�the�frequency�analysis�of�PROFCORP�would�seem,�at�first�sight,�to�constitute�another�type�of�sub-technical�vocabulary.�This�is�because�words�such�as�noise, construction, traffic, waste, dust etc.,�whilst�having�a�high�frequency�of�occurrence�within�the�area�of�environmen-tal�studies,�are�also�used�in�general�English.�However,�I�say�at�first�sight,�because�in�the�Dictionary of Ecology and Environment�(1995),�many�of�these�words�are�listed�as�collocating�with�other�nouns�and�adjectives,�thus�expressing�a�concept�particu-lar�to�the�field�of�environmental�studies.�For�instance,�ambient noise is�defined�as�‘=�general�noise�which�surrounds�an�organism�(such�as� traffic�noise,�waterfalls�etc.)’�(p.�10).�When�a�noun�in�common�usage�is�found�to�have�a�strong�colloca-tion�with�a�particular�noun�or�adjective�in�this�field,�I�would�argue�that�it�takes�on�a�technical�meaning�and�no�longer�meets�one�of�the�definitions�of�sub-technical.�In�other�words,�ambient noise�is�therefore�a�technical�term�as�it�does�not�occur�in�general�English�usage�and�for�this�reason�is�to�be�considered�as�a�multi-word�unit�rather�than�a�collocation.�Another�common�(technical)�collocation�in�this�field�is�sensitive receiver which�is�actually�defined�in�one�of�the�reports�as�‘A�sensitive�receiver�is�a�receiver�considered�sensitive�to�given�impacts�from�changes�in�noise�or�air�quality,�vibration,�land�use,�visual�or�landscape�impacts’.

The�above�examples�illustrate�that�lexis�can�change�from�being�sub-technical�to�technical�in�nature�by�virtue�of�its�collocational�behaviour�(see�Williams�1998;�Yang�1986,�for�corpus-based�research�on�technical�and�sub-technical�vocabulary�in�the�fields�of�biology�and�engineering,�respectively).�It�is�therefore�necessary�to�expand�the�traditional�classification�frameworks�for�technical�and�sub-technical�vocabulary�based�on�single�word�items�to�also�include�multi-word�combinations.�

I�will�now�re-examine�some�of�the�Evoking�items�from�the�frequency�list�in�light�of�the�above�argument�with�reference�to�the�definitions�provided�by�the�Dic-tionary of Ecology and Environment.�The�definition�for�disposal when�it�collocates�with�land�and�marine is�given�as�‘depositing�waste�in�a�hole�in�the�ground’�and�‘depositing�waste�at� sea’.�When�disposal collocates�with�refuse,�waste or�sewage,�it�has�the�meaning�of� ‘getting�rid�of�something’.�(p.�71).�In�addition�to�ambient noise�(general�noise�surrounding�an�organism),�I�would�argue�that�all�these�items�of�Evoking�lexis�are�technical�as�they�would�not�commonly�be�found�in�general�English.�Using�the�Concord tool�in�Wordsmith would�verify�whether,�for�example,�noise,�if�it�collocates�with�ambient�should�be�regarded�as�technical�or�sub-techni-cal.�This�point�will�be�taken�up�in�Chapter�6.

The�same�case�can�be�made�for�Inscribed�items,�e.g.�Impact Assessment (eval-uation�of�the�effect�upon�the�environment�of�a�large�construction�programme)�for�the�Problem�element�and�Mitigation Measures (measures�taken�to�offset�these�negative�effects)�for�the�Solution�element.�In�fact,�both�these�collocations�are�of-

Page 52: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�4.� Frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�analysis� 39

ten�used�as�sub-headings�in�the�environmental�audit�reports,�which�denotes�the�discourse-organising�status�of�this�Inscribed�lexis.

The� foregoing�discussion�has� shown�that� in�STUCORP�there�are�a� few�In-scribed�items��such�as�problem�and�need�which�could�be�categorised�as�sub-tech-nical�vocabulary.�On�the�other�hand,�PROFCORP�contains�a�higher�proportion�of�Evoking�items�such�as�noise,�construction,�and�traffic,�which,�taken�as�they�stand,�are�also�sub-technical�but�could�also�be�classified�as�technical�by�virtue�of�their�collocational�behaviour.�However,�this�point�still�needs�to�be�verified.�This�analysis�may� therefore� challenge� the�assumption� that� lexical� signals� are�always�sub-technical� vocabulary,� but� more� data� on� collocational� patterning� is� needed�before�this�can�be�accepted.��

Notwithstanding,� preliminary� examination� of� these� frequency� lists� has�thrown�up�some�interesting�data�for�more�in-depth�analysis�in�subsequent�chap-ters.�These�preliminary�data�do� suggest� that�both�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�differ�from�the�two�general�corpora�in�their�fundamental�makeup�by�virtue�of�the�high�frequency�of�several�lexical�items�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern,�although�it�has�been�noted�that�these�are�far�more�prevalent�in�PROFCORP,�especially�of�the�Evoking�type.�I�have�also�proposed�a�redefinition�of�the�notion�of�technical�vs.�sub-technical�vocabulary�to�take�into�account�collocational�patterning.�This�point�will�be�revisited�and�explored�in�greater�detail�in�Chapters�6�and�7.

However,�such�type�of�frequency�data�only�gives�us�a�very�general�overview.�A�key�word�analysis,�by�revealing�words�of�unusually�high�frequency�as�outlined�briefly�in�Chapter�1,�would�provide�more�insights�into�the�genre�or�discourse�pat-terns�of�the�corpus.��

Key word analysis of signals

Scott’s� (1997)� starting�point� is�with� the�concept�of� “aboutness”� (Phillips�1989);�i.e.� the� content� of� the� text,� which� relates� to� Halliday’s� (1994)� ideational� meta-function.�Moreover,�like�Hoey�(2001)�he�also�recognises�that�a�text’s�“aboutness”�depends�on�the�reader’s�decoding�of�the�text.�‘Aboutness�is�a�function�of�a�text-in-the-world:�that�is,�it�needs�a�human�reader�or�listener�to�perceive�it,�to�decide�what�it�is.�The�text�alone�is�only�potentially�“about”�something’�(Scott�2000a:�107).�He�then�goes�on�to�ask�where�is�this�“aboutness”�located�in�the�text�and�how�is�it�signalled�internally.�He�answers�this�by�offering�the�concept�of�“keyness”,�‘a�word�which� occurs� with� unusual� frequency� in� a� given� text’� (In� fact,� a� key� word� can�be�either�positive,�i.e.�of�unusually�high�frequency,�or�negative,�of�unusually�low�frequency).�The�computational�procedure�for�identifying�a�key�word�is�a�purely�mechanical�procedure�which�does�not�rely�on�a�knowledge�of�English�or�world-

Page 53: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

40� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

knowledge:�the�identification�of�key�words�is�through�a�comparison�of�the�repeti-tion�of�word-types�with�word-tokens�(Scott�1996–1999).�

This�key�word�procedure�has�been�used�for�uncovering�stylistic�features�(Scott�&�Tribble�2006),�identifying�the�genre�to�which�a�text�belongs�(Tribble�2002)�and�revealing�sub-technical�and�non-technical�vocabulary�in�engineering�texts�(Mu-draya�2005).�However,�to�my�knowledge,�apart�from�a�small-scale�study�by�Scott�(2001b),�no�large-scale�computational�analysis�of�signals�for�elements�of�the�Prob-lem-Solution�pattern�has�been�undertaken�to�date.�

I� will� now� examine� the� key� words� in� each� corpus� as� a� whole� and� then� in�each�separate�report�to�determine�whether�these�display�lexical�signals�or�lexical�realisations�for�the�pattern.�My�hypothesis�would�be�that�the�key�words�in�each�text�file,�i.e.�report,�would�contain�signals�for�elements�of�the�pattern,�thereby�pro-viding�further�evidence�for�classifying�these�reports�as�Problem-Solution�based�because�the�pattern�itself�was�so�salient�and�the�link�between�particular�words�and�roles�the�pattern�so�fixed.�For�the�reference�corpus,�I�used�the�one-million�word�core�written�component�of�the�BNC,�as�I�did�not�have�access�to�the�full�BNC�at�the�time.�However,�this�general�corpus�is�still�satisfactory�for�my�purposes�as�it�con-tains�86�texts�from�nine�different�subject�domains.�But�it�is�well�to�bear�in�mind�that�‘Times�Change,�and�so�do�Corpora’�(to�borrow�a�title�from�Johansson�1991).�With� the�growing� importance�attached� to� the� role�of� ‘International�English’�or�ELF,�English�as�a�Lingua�Franca,�in�corpus-based�studies�(see�Mauranen�2003;�Se-idlhofer�2001),�it�is�expected�that�future�research�will�draw�on�the�localized�data�of�the�International�Corpus�of�English,�such�as�ICE–HK,�for�exploitation�as�suitable�contrast� corpora� (see� http://www.hku.hk/english/research/icehk/index.htm).� (I�do�not�regard�PROFCORP�as�having�the�full�status�of�international�English�be-cause�of�the�socio-cultural�conditions�in�which�the�reports�were�constructed�(see�Chapter�3)�and�for�this�reason�PROFCORP�may�have�more�in�common�with�the�variety�of�English�in�the�ICE-GB�component).�

In�addition�to�the�choice�and�size�of�reference�corpus,�another�consideration�when�using�the�key�words�procedure�is�the�cut-off�point�for�the�Log�Likelihood�which�is�set�by�establishing�a�minimum�significance,�i.e.�p�value;�the�smaller�the�p�value�the�fewer�key�words�in�the�display.�For�computing�the�keyness,�the�p�value�was�set�at�0.000000000001�to�obtain�a�reasonable�number�of�key�words�for�analy-sis�and�the�minimum�frequency�requirement�was�left�at�the�default�value�of�3�to�avoid�being�swamped�by�data.�The�number�of�key�words�in�each�report�ranged�from�15�to�around�90�(in�the�Help�files,�Scott,�in�fact,�suggests�having�around�40�key�words�as�a�reasonable�number�on�which�to�draw�conclusions�about�a�text).�

The�following�section�summarises�the�main�findings�according�to�the�catego-ries�of�Inscribed�vs.�Evoking�lexis�with�reference�to�its�status�as�technical�vs.�sub-technical�vocabulary.�These�key�word�results�will� also�be�compared�with� those�

Page 54: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�4.� Frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�analysis� 41

of�the�frequency�analysis�in�the�previous�section.�(As�grammatical�items�did�not�show�up�in�the�key�word�analysis,�as�mentioned�in�Chapter�1,�they�are�not�dealt�with�here).

Lexical�signals:�Inscribed�vs.�Evoking�

The�list�of�key�words�in�each�corpus�and�in�each�individual�report�was�also�ex-amined�for� instances�of�Inscribed�and�Evoking� items�for� the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�In�PROFCORP�a�distinct�pattern�began�to�emerge�across�the�corpus�as�a�whole�and�all�the�reports.�In�the�whole�PROFCORP�corpus�15�out�of�the�top�40�key�words�can�be�classified�as�belonging�to�one�of�the�categories�for�the�pattern.�The�Evoking�items,�noise,�impacts,�impact,�waste,�traffic,�dust,�realise�the�Prob-lem�element�with�construction,�landfill�and�reclamation�having�the�potential�to�be�either�the�Problem�or�Solution�element�depending�on�the�context.�In�contrast,�the�Solution�element�is�signalled�by�key�words�of�an�Inscribed�nature,�e.g.�miti-gation,�measures,�proposed,�recommended,�with�monitoring�and�assessment�used�for�the�Evaluation�element.�These�findings�are�very�much�in�keeping�with�the�findings�from�the�frequency�analysis�and�also�mirror�the�same�kind�of�patterning�as�that�found�in�the�individual�reports.�Another�important�observation�is�that�in�every�single�report�in�PROFCORP�there�were�two�or�more�Inscribed�signals�and�four�or�more�Evoking�items�which�clearly�shows�that�not�only�the�corpus�taken�as� a� whole� but� also� each� report� can� be� considered� as� Problem-Solution� based.�Appendix�4-2�presents�the�key�words�from�a�PROFCORP�report�to�illustrate�this�finding.

In�contrast,�out�of�the�top�40�key�words�in�STUCORP�there�is�only�one�In-scribed�signal,�i.e.�problem.�Furthermore,�22�out�of�the�80�individual�reports�in�STUCORP�do�not�contain�any�key�words�which�are�obvious�as�either�Inscribed�or�Evoking�items�for�the�Problem�or�Solution�elements.�However,�in�the�remaining�58�reports�there�is�a�much�wider�range�of�Inscribed�signals�for�both�the�Problem�and�Solution�element�than�was�noted�in�the�frequency�analysis,�which�can�partly�be�explained�by�the�default�minimum�of�three.�For�example,�we�find�the�following�superordinate�words,�including�the�signal�problem,�which�all� imply�some�kind�of�problem�statement:�concern, need, failures, burden, difficulties, dissatisfac-tion, dishonesty, destruction, shortcoming, issue, demand. It�is�interesting�to�note�that�some�Inscribed�items�are�also�adjectival�in�nature,�e.g. insufficient, in-adequate, inefficient, unfair, uninteresting, unsatisfied,�where�the�negative�im-port�of�the�word�is�signalled�by�the�prefix�-in�or�-un.�These�findings�are�in�contrast�to�both�the�keyword�analysis�of�the�whole�corpus�and�also�the�frequency�analysis,�where�the�only�Inscribed�items�noted�for�the�Problem�element�were�problem�and�

Page 55: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

42� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

need.�It�is�unlikely�that�the�above�key�word�items�would�show�up�in�the�100�most�frequent�words�or�as�key�in�the�corpus�as�a�whole�as�they�only�occur�as�key�in�one,�two�or�three�out�of�the�60�reports.�We�also�have�a�similar�situation�regarding�the�Inscribed�items�for�the�Solution�element,�with�solution, solutions, proposal, proposed, suggestions,� suggested, recommendations, recommended,� occur-ring�as�key� in�only�a�handful�of� the�reports.�Evoking�key�words,�e.g.�cheating, rubbish, accidents, crimes, theft, infringement, debts, penalty, overcrowding, stress,�were�also�found�in�the�individual�reports,�but�did�not�show�up�either�in�the�frequency�analysis�or�in�the�key�word�analysis�of�the�whole�corpus.�

Lexical�signals:�Technical�vs.�sub-technical�

The�key�word�list�of�each�report�in�PROFCORP�was�trawled�through�manually�to� isolate� instances�of� technical�vocabulary�occurring�as�key.� It�was� found� that�there� were� only� seven� reports� which� did� not� contain� any� technical� vocabulary�amongst�their�key�words.�A�most�interesting�finding�was�that�50�out�of�the�60�re-ports�contained�abbreviations�which�could�be�regarded�as�standing�for�‘technical�phrases’,�or�multi-word�combinations�to�use�Yang’s�(1986)�terminology.�Appendix�4-4�presents�a�list�of�the�technical�vocabulary�occurring�either�as�individual�key�words,�or�key�phrases�signalled�by�the�use�of�abbreviations.

As�can�be�seen�from�this�list,�the�majority�of�technical�vocabulary�appears�in�abbreviation�form,�which�I�have�attempted�to�classify�under�subject-related�head-ings.�There�is�one�term�under�section�H�which�deserves�special�mention�here.�In�several�reports�there�are�allusions�to�Fung Shui�(i.e.�geomancy)�matters,�which�are�“of�particular�concern�to�villagers”�and�“are�sensitive�issues”�as�they�play�a�part�in�the�decision-making�of�where�construction�should�be�carried�out.�While�Fung Shui�is�not�strictly�a�‘technical’�term,�I�have�included�it�in�this�list�as�it�demon-strates�how�cultural�issues�can�affect�technical�operations,�as�exemplified�by�the�following�extract:

Proposed offshore berths are located to the northeast of Sha Chau, therefore avoiding direct intrusion to the “Fung Shui” of the temple which has a northwest aspect.

The�remainder�of�the�technical�lexis�is�in�the�form�of�multi-word�combinations�transcribed�as�abbreviations�after�the�initial�mention�of�the�item.�As�I�have�sug-gested�earlier,�many�of�the�individual�words�in�these�abbreviations�could�be�viewed�as�sub-technical,�e.g.�facility (see�Appendix�4-1),�as�they�have�a�high�frequency�of�occurrence�in�this�field�but�are�also�used�in�general�language.�However,�when�these�words�combine�with�other�words,�the�whole�expression�takes�on�a�technical�

Page 56: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�4.� Frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�analysis� 43

aspect�as�it�would�not�be�found�in�general�English,�e.g.�Refuse Transfer Facili-ties, RTF�(see�section�F�in�Appendix�4-4).�Moreover,�the�use�of�abbreviations�for�these�multi-word�combinations�strengthens�the�case�that�they�should�be�regarded�as�fixed�expressions,�i.e.�as�one�conceptual�entity�having�a�technical�meaning�in�this�particular�field.�

I� will� now� examine� whether� these� key� technical� multi-word� combinations�bear�any�relation�to�the�Inscribed�and�Evoking�key�words�for�the�Problem-Solu-tion�pattern�noted�in�the�previous�section.�The�Inscribed�signal�assessment com-bines�with� impact� to� form�Impact Assessment,�which� is�a�common�key�word�term�in�section�A�‘Environmental�Study’.�As�for�the�Evoking�items,�it�was�noted�earlier�that�key�lexis�such�as�noise,�traffic,�discharge�and�waste�carries�a�nega-tive� connotation� which� would� therefore� signal� the� Problem� element.� However,�when�we�examine�the�list� in�Appendix�4-4�we�find�that�noise�and�waste occur�in�abbreviated�phrases�which�signal�the�Solution�element�–�see�for�example,�Al-lowable Noise Levels (ANL)�and�Noise Control Ordinance (NCO)�in�section�B�‘Environmental�rules�and�regulations’�and�Low-level Radioactive Waste�Storage Facility�(LRWF)�in�section�F�‘Mitigation�Measures’.�Such�abbreviations�could�be�regarded�as�a�condensed�form�encapsulating�both�problem�and�solution�elements;�for�example,�‘noise�control�ordinance’�can�be�paraphrased�as�an�ordinance�in�or-der�to�control�noise,�using�a�two-way�signaling�verb�(see�Chapter�1).�Moreover,��prosodic�meaning�may�be,�but�is�not�necessarily�accessible�via�conscious�reflec-tion.�In�cases�where�native-speaker�intuition�proves�unreliable,�corpus�data�can�be�of�use�in�uncovering�this�prosodic�meaning,�as�in�the�case�of�landfill.�An�ex-amination�of�the�corpus�co-text�reveals�landfill to�have�a�negative�meaning�when�it�combines�with�gas, i.e.�Landfill Gas (LFG)�in�section�E�‘Gases�/�Metals�causing�environmental�damage’,�but�a�positive�meaning� in�Pillar Point Valley Landfill (PPVL) in�section�F�‘Mitigation�Measures’.

An� examination� of� the� list� of� key� technical� vocabulary� in� STUCORP� (see�Appendix�4-5)�shows�that�several�of�these�items�are�computer-related,�although�some�would�argue�that�lexis�such�as�Internet,�e-mail�and�PC,�like�kg.�and�km.�in�section�G�‘Measurements’�in�Appendix�4-4,�are�sub-technical�rather�than�purely�technical�as�they�are�found�in�general�English.�However,�I�view�them�as�techni-cal�as�they�retain�the�same�meaning�in�both�general�and�more�specialised�usage,�which�conforms�with�Goodman�and�Payne’s�(1981)�definition�of�technical�terms�having�congruity�among�scientists�(unlike�the�term�‘cell’,�for�example,�which�has�a�different�meaning�in�biology�to�that�in�general�English).�Here,�we�have�an�ex-ample�of�de-terminologization�which�refers�to�a�process�whereby�specialist�terms�such�as�those�relating�to�computers�make�their�way�into�general�language�through�the�mass�media�or�direct�impact�(Bowker�&�Pearson�2002).�I�have�also�included�university�departments�and�service�centres�in�the�list�in�Appendix�4-5�for�the�rea-

Page 57: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

44� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

son�that�their�abbreviated�forms,�which�occur�as�key�words,�would�not�be�found�in�general�language.�It�is�evident�that�this�list�is�quite�short,�most�probably�because�in�the�guidelines�for�this�assignment�students�are�instructed�to�explain�or�couch�technical� information�in�language�that�is�accessible�to�a�manager�who�may�not�be�a�specialist�in�the�field�(see�Chapter�2).�Unlike�in�PROFCORP,�none�of�these�technical�words�relate� to� the�Problem-Solution�pattern�and� there� is�no�overlap�between�these�technical�key�words�and�the�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items�discussed�previously.�

If�we�now�return�to�Appendices�4-2�and�4-3,�which�present�the�key�word�lists�for�one�PROFCORP�and�one�STUCORP�report,�it�is�evident�that�in�general�these�lists�consist�of�a�mixture�of�technical�and�sub-technical�vocabulary.�The�sub-tech-nical vocabulary�comprises�discourse-organising�words,� such�as� measures and�recommended�in�Appendix�4-2,�and�problems and�need�in�4-3,�and�the�techni-cal�vocabulary�largely�by�abbreviated�terms�in�the�PROFCORP�reports�(and�pos-sibly�by�collocations�although�this�has�yet� to�be�proved),�and�computer-related�terms,�e.g.�server,�dial-in�in�the�STUCORP�reports.�The�prevalence�of�abbrevia-tions�showing�up�as�key�words�of�a�technical�nature,�especially�in�PROFCORP,�suggests�that�the�use�of�abbreviations�in�scientific�writing�is�an�area�that�merits�attention�for�future�research.

Having�considered�these�vocabulary�issues,�i.e.�the�intersection�of�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items�with�technical�and�sub-technical�vocabulary,�in�relation�to�the�corpus�as�a�whole�and�to�individual�texts,�I�will�now�examine�their�keyness�across�a�number�of�texts.

Key-key word analysis of signals

Whereas�the�key�word�analysis�can�tell�us�which�words�are�key�in�a�given�text,�the�key-key�word�analysis�goes�one�step�further�by�showing�the�words�which�are�key�in�a�large�number�of�texts.�This�can�be�done�by�creating�a�database�from�the�key�words�files,�which�will�list�the�key�words�which�are�most�frequent�over�a�number�of�files.�The�key�words�technique�is�very�useful�in�revealing�the�genre�or�discourse�characteristics�of�the�corpus�as�a�whole,�through�a�set�of�semantically-related�key�words�as�mentioned�previously,�but�the�key-key�word�analysis�gives�a�more�deli-cate�analysis�by�showing�the�number�of�texts�in�which�the�word�is�found�to�be�key,�i.e.�a�word’s�“keyness”.

For�example,�each�of�the�60�reports�and�80�reports�in�PROFCORP�and�STU-CORP�respectively�will�have�its�own�key�words.�These�key�words�will�probably�fall�into�two�main�categories.�There�will�be�key�words�which�are�key�in�one�report,�but�not�generally�key�in�others.�In�the�case�of�PROFCORP,�where�the�reports�come�

Page 58: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�4.� Frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�analysis� 45

from�various�companies�working�on�different�projects�for�different�areas�in�Hong�Kong,�we�would�expect�the�names�of�the�companies�(e.g.�Maunsell)�and�areas�(e.g.�Wan Chai)�to�be�key�in�a�restricted�number�of�reports.�The�other�category�of�key�words�would�consist�of�more�general�lexis�which�would�be�typical�of�the�discourse�under� investigation,�and�thus�be�classed�as�“key-key”�words.� It� is�hypothesised�that� words� relating� to� the� Problem-Solution� pattern� would� occur� as� “key� key”�lexis�in�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP.�

Appendices�4-6�and�4-7�show�a�list�of�key-key�words�occurring�in�4�or�more�texts�in�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�respectively.�Four�texts�were�chosen�as�the�cut-off� point� as� those� key� words� occurring� in� three� texts� or� below� commonly�related� to� technical� vocabulary,� e.g.� dot-matrix� in� STUCORP� or� the� names� of�companies,�e.g.�Maunsell�in�PROFCORP,�which�did�not�relate�to�elements�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�

Lexical�signals:�Inscribed�vs.�Evoking�

Table�4-1�(based�on�the�statistically�prominent�words�extracted�from�Appendices�4-6�and�4-7)�shows�the�Inscribed�signals�from�each�corpus�with�the�number�of�texts�in�which�they�are�key�noted�in�brackets.�However,�as�mentioned�previously,�at�this�stage�of�the�analysis,�we�do�not�yet�know�whether�these�Inscribed�signals�

Table 4-1. Inscribed�signals�in�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP

Element STUCORP PROFCORP

Problem Problem�(8)Problems�(4)Need�(4)Insufficient�(5)

Solution Recommendations�(5) Mitigation�(43)�measures�(30)Solutions�(4) Proposed�(28)Solution�(4) Recommended�(27)

Recommendations�(8)Treatment�(9)Options�(5);�Plan�(5);�Scheme�(5)Minimise�(5)�reduce�(4)�ensure�(4)

Evaluation Feasibility�(8) Monitoring�(29)Feasible�(6) Assessment�(23)

Audit�(5)

Note.�Figures�in�parentheses�denote�the�number�of�texts�in�which�the�words�were�found�to�be�key.

Page 59: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

46� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

are�functioning�at�a�textual�or�local�level�of�coherence.�(This�aspect�will�be�covered�in�Chapters�6�and�7.)

While�the�above�table�gives�clear�proof�that�both�corpora�comprise�Problem-Solution�based�reports,�their�overall�profiles�of�the�patterning�are�somewhat�dif-ferent.�These�differences�will�be�discussed�in�detail�in�the�following�main�section.

In�PROFCORP,�Concord,�another� tool� in�WordSmith,�was�used�to�examine�certain�words�at�sentence�level,�namely�options,�plan�and�scheme,�to�determine�whether� they�qualified�as� Inscribed�signals,�and� if� so,� for�what�elements�of� the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�One�point�uncovered�by� this� analysis�was� the� func-tion� in�PROFCORP�of� seemingly�synonymous� lexis.� (This� issue�of�under�what�circumstances�one�word�is�used�in�preference�to�another�with�the�same�semantic�equivalence�was�raised�in�Chapter�1.)

For�instance,�design, project, scheme�and�plan�are�all�listed�as�synonyms�in�the�Collins Bank of English Thesaurus (1998),�but�in�the�context�of�the�environ-mental�reports�in�PROFCORP,�one�cannot�necessarily�be�substituted�for�another.�For�example,�design and�project are�always�used�to�designate�some�type�of�con-struction�in�the�Situation�element�and�they�occur�as�key�words�across�twelve�and�eight�reports,�respectively.�Even�though�both�words�are�used�for�the�Situation,�the�following�examples�show�that�they�are�not�interchangeable:

At present, the programme for design of the sewerage along Castle Peak Road is not determined and the pipe sizes and invert levels have yet to be decided.

Certain amendments to the construction specification have also been found necessary and have been accepted by tenderers for the project.

In�contrast,�plan� is�never�used�to�mark�the�Situation,�but�always�occurs�as�key�lexis�for�the�Solution�element,�signalling�a�solution�for�some�kind�of�environmen-tal�effect:

Contractually, a noise limit together with a noise monitoring and action plan can be specified in the contract to control noise. ��

Like�plan,�the�items,�scheme and�proposed�also�signal�a�proposed�solution,�as�in�the�two�examples�below:�

Other benefits of the Stage 1 Scheme include: the removal of pollution loads from water bodies in the Eastern and New Territories.

Fifteen measures were proposed to avoid or mitigate air quality impacts

The�above�examples�thus�highlight�the�dangers�of�relying�solely�on�a�thesaurus�for�clarification�of�meaning�as�contextual�issues�can�also�come�into�play.

Page 60: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�4.� Frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�analysis� 47

It�was�not�surprising�to�find�feasibility and�feasible in�STUCORP,�and�moni-toring,�assessment and�audit�in�PROFCORP�acting�as�Inscribed�key-key�word�signals�for�the�Evaluation�element�given�the�context�of�writing.�In�STUCORP�the�Inscribed�lexis�is�used�for�assessing�the�practical�implementation�of�the�Solution�before�it�has�been�introduced,�(i.e.�is�it�feasible�to�implement�the�proposed�solu-tion�from�a�technical,�economic,�environmental�and�social�point�of�view),�where-as�in�PROFCORP�the�recommended�monitoring,�assessment�and�audit�measures�are�applied�to�the�Solution�when�it�is�already�in�place.�

The�list�of�Evoking�items�in�Table�4-2�is�valuable�in�that,�like�the�list�for�the�Inscribed�signals,�it�gives�us�a�general�profile�of�the�subject�matter�and�the�textual�patterning�of�each�corpus.�There�exist�quite�striking�differences�between�the�two�corpora,�which�will�also�be�taken�up�in�the�following�main�section.

In�PROFCORP,�there�were�problematic�areas�in�the�classification�where�it�was�necessary�to�use�the�Concord�software�in�order�to�determine�how�certain�Evok-ing�items�should�be�categorised.�Construction and�landfill are�classified�under�both�the�Problem�and�Solution�as�Concord shows�that�they�are�used�in�different�

Table 4-2. Evoking�items�in�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP

Element STUCORP PROFCORP

Problem stolen�(4) Impacts�(50)��impact�(26)Contaminated�(14)�contamination�(4)Noise�(44)�traffic�(23)�Sewage�(12)�sewerage�(6)Waste�(20)�wastes�(5)�dust�(20)Pollution�(10)�emissions�(10)�Sediments�(10)�odour�(9)Effluent�(6)�discharge�(5)�Discharges�(5)NSRS (9)Dba (8)TSP (7)leachate (6)stormwater (5)groundwater (4)*�landfill�(10)*�construction�(47)

Solution Disposal�(14)�implementation�(6)Barriers�(5)Ordinance�(4)*�Landfill�(10)*�construction�(47)

Note.�Figures�in�parentheses�denote�the�number�of�texts�in�which�the�words�were�found�to�be�key.��Italics�=�technical�vocabulary.��*�Can�signal�either�the�problem�or�the�solution�element.

Page 61: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

48� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

situations.�As�pointed�out�previously,�sometimes�it�is�only�from�the�context�that�we�can�tell�whether�an�item�evokes�a�positive�or�negative�semantic�prosody.�For�example,�landfill�can�refer�to�a�proposed�solution,�as�signalled�by�…�it is�proposed … in�the�example�below:

In order to provide a continuous waste disposal outlet, it is proposed that 3.2 million cu metres of landfill space should be provided.

Later,� in� the� same� text,� though,� this� proposed� solution� is� seen� as� generating� a�problem,�signalled�by�the�use�of�impacts:

The major impacts due to waste deposition at the landfill will be additional leachate and landfill gas that would be generated.

Here,�we�have�an�example�of�what�Hoey�terms�‘progressive�multilayering’�where�the�Response,�i.e.�to�build�a�landfill�site,�only�solves�part�of�the�problem�as�it�sets�up�another�problem�to�be�solved,�i.e.�the�management�of�leachate�and�landfill�gas�(see�Chapter�1).

Lexical�signals:�Technical�vs.�sub-technical�

The�Inscribed�and�Evoking�signals�also�interface�with�the�categories�of�technical�and�sub-technical�vocabulary.�The�majority�of�the�Inscribed�signals�in�Table�4-1�can�be�classified�as�sub-technical�vocabulary�as�they�have�a�discourse-organising�function.�However,�I�have�also�made�the�point�that�in�cases�where�certain�lexis�collocates�to�form�fixed�phrases,�these�should�be�regarded�as�technical�vocabulary�as� they�are�specialised�terms� in� the�field�and�do�not�occur� in�general� language�even�though�each�separate�word�of�a�combination�might�occur�in�general�English.�Impact Assessment�and�Mitigation measures�are�examples�of�such�lexis.�From�Table�4-1�it�can�be�seen�that�the�lexis�in�these�two�phrases�occurs�as�key�in�a�large�number� of� reports,� thereby� delineating� these� words� as� the� main� superordinate�lexis�for�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements�of�the�pattern.�

None�of� the� technical�vocabulary� in�STUCORP�(see�Appendix�4-5)� relates�to�the�Problem-Solution�pattern,�whereas�many�of�the�items�in�PROFCORP�(see�Appendix�4-4)�do.�In�Table�4-2�the�technical�vocabulary�in�PROFCORP�is�indi-cated�in�italics�and�always�occurs�in�the�Problem�slot.�As�pointed�out�earlier,�at�first�glance,�the�remaining�words�would�be�classified�as�sub-technical�according�to�my�definition,�as�they�are�also�used�in�general�English.�However,�if�we�compare�these�Evoking�items�with�the�technical�vocabulary�listed�in�Appendix�4-4,�we�find�a�considerable�overlap�between�the�individual�items�in�Table�4-2�and�their�occur-rence�as�part�of�an�abbreviated�term.�For�example,�waste,�noise,�sewerage�and�ordinance are� found�under� section�B� ‘Environmental� rules�and� regulations’� in�

Page 62: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�4.� Frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�analysis� 49

Appendix� 4-4.� Another� observation� is� that� whereas� sewage and� leachate have�been�categorised�as�Problem�in�Table�4-2�on�the�basis�of�their�inherent�negative�connotation,� they� fall�under�F� ‘Mitigation�Measures’� in�Appendix�4-4�(Sewage Treatment Works, STW, and�Leachate Treatment Facility, LTF) on�account�of�their�combination�with�other�lexis.�Further�investigation�at�sentence�level�is�there-fore�necessary� to�shed� light�on�under�what�circumstances�such� lexis�should�be�classified�as�technical�or�sub-technical.�

It�is�to�be�noted�from�Appendix�4-4�that�a�substantial�proportion�of�the�tech-nical�vocabulary�in�PROFCORP�only�occurs�as�key�in�one�or�two�reports�and�is�therefore�not�recorded�in�Tables�4-1�and�4-2.�One�might�assume�from�the�data�that�this�technical�vocabulary�is�particular�to�a�handful�of�reports�which�could�be�from�the�same�company.�However,�this�was�found�not�to�be�the�case�with�the�ma-jority�of�the�low�frequency�key-key�word�terms.�Concord was�used�to�determine�from�which�file�the�vocabulary�was�extracted.�For�example,�AQO (Air Quality Objectives) in�section�B�‘Environmental�rules�and�regulations’�in�Appendix�4-4�is�only�found�to�be�key�in�two�reports,�but�in�fact�the�49�occurrences�of�this�term�are�spread�over�6�different�reports�which�are�from�over�half�of�the�major�companies�supplying�these�reports.�This�technical�vocabulary�can�therefore�be�considered�as�fairly�representative�of�the�field�on�the�whole�although�it�might�only�occur�as�key�in�a�few�reports.

Differences between PROFCORP and STUCORP

In�general,�the�key�words�and�key-key�words�of�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items�mir-ror�the�pattern�uncovered�in�the�first�stage�of�the�analysis,�i.e.�the�frequency�analy-sis,�thus�providing�ample�evidence�for�designating�both�corpora�as�Problem-Solu-tion�based.�As�for�the�Inscribed�items,�these�were�found�in�both�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP�with�a�sole�focus�on�the�Solution�element�in�PROFCORP,�as�shown�in�Table�4-1.�By�contrast,�a�range�of�Evoking�items�were�found�in�PROFCORP�for�both�elements�of�the�pattern�with�a�focus�on�the�Problem�element.�IN�STUCORP,�though,�no�Evoking� items�were�present� for� the�Solution�element�and�only�one�for�the�Problem�element�(please�refer�to�Table�4-2).�These�differences�can�be�ac-counted�for�by�both�the�type�of�task�and�the�apprenticeship�nature�of�the�Student�Corpus,�as�discussed�below.�

One�of�the�main�reasons�for�this�discrepancy�lies�in�the�composition�of�the�two� corpora.� The� PROFCORP� reports� are� relatively� homogeneous� in� terms� of�subject�matter,�as�they�are�all�environmental�audit�reports�and�we�would�expect�the�same�Inscribed�and�Evoking�lexis�to�occur�across�reports,�which�has�indeed�been�shown�to�be�the�case.�In�contrast,�the�STUCORP�reports�cover�several�dif-

Page 63: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

50� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

ferent�topic�areas,�e.g.�computer�facilities,�sports�programmes,�language�courses,�credit�card�usage,�academic�dishonesty,�laboratory�security�(see�Appendix�2-2).�The�key�word�vocabulary�is�therefore�much�more�diffuse,�as�reflected�by�the�wider�range�of�topics,�which�means�fewer�occurrences�of�key�words�across�reports.�

However,�some�of�the�differences�could�also�be�accounted�for�by�the�linguistic�competence�of�professional�compared�with�less�experienced�or�apprentice�writ-ers,�as�evidenced�by�the�limitations�of�vocabulary�in�STUCORP�for�expressing�the�Problem-Solution�pattern.�Whereas�the�pattern�is�represented�multi-lexically�in�PROFCORP,�i.e.�through�Inscribed�(which�overlaps�with�sub-technical),�Evoking�and�technical�lexis,�it�is�represented�almost�exclusively�uni-lexically�in�STUCORP,�i.e.�only�through�Inscribed�signals.

Tables� 4-1� and� 4-2� show� that� the� reports� in� STUCORP� employ� the� basic�metalanguage�of�the�pattern,�which�can,�in�part,�probably�be�traced�back�to�the�rubrics�for�the�assignment�(see�Chapter�3�and�Appendix�3-2).�These�stipulate�that�students� are� required� to� investigate� a� problem� or� need,� propose� solutions� and�evaluate�the�feasibility�of�implementing�these�solutions.�It�appears,�therefore,�that�students�are�incorporating�this�metalanguage�provided�in�the�assignment�guide-lines�into�their�project�reports,�with�problem�being�a�salient�key-key�word.�(Here,�I�use�‘salient’�in�the�sense�of�‘an�important�feature�to�note’,�although�problem�is�much�less�statistically�prominent�than�some�of�the�other�key-key�words�in�Table�4-1).�In�fact,�problem�and�need�were�also�found�to�occur�in�the�100�most�frequent�words�in�STUCORP�and�problem was�noted�as�the�only�word�relating�to�the�pat-tern�which�occurred�as�key�in�the�corpus�taken�as�a�whole.�

And�how�can�we�explain�the�paucity�of�key-key�word�Evoking�items�in�STU-CORP?�There�is�only�one�Evoking�item�for�the�Problem�element�in�STUCORP�i.e.�stolen,�whereas�in�PROFCORP�there�are�26�items�which�are�with�one�excep-tion�all�nouns�One�possible�reason�is�that�students�are�operating�within�a�narrow�lexical� range�and�may�tend�to� fall�back�on�using� the�superordinate�category�of�Inscribed�signals�such�as�problem because�they�lack�a�more�sophisticated�reper-toire�of�Evoking�lexis�for�realising�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements.�Another�explanation,� though,� is� that� as� the� topics� of� the� student� reports� cover� a� much�wider�subject�range,�and�consequently�would�have�their�own�Evoking�lexis,�the�same�vocabulary�items�would�not�occur�across�reports�and�therefore�would�not�show�up�as�key�in�four�or�more�of�the�reports.�Nevertheless,�there�are�8,724�differ-ent�types�in�PROFCORP�with�7,268�in�STUCORP,�suggesting�that�students�may�be�over-relying�on�the�metalanguage�exposed�by�the�keyword�Inscribed�signals.�Chapters�6�and�7�shed�more�light�on�this�issue�in�the�examination�of�phraseolo-gies�for�selected�key�words.�

Page 64: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�4.� Frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�analysis� 51

Conclusion

This�chapter�has�identified�the�high�frequency,�key�word�and�key-key�word�lexis�in�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�and�demonstrated,�via�internal�linguistic�criteria,�that�both�corpora�can�indeed�be�classified�as�Problem-Solution�oriented.�In�fact,�the�tabulated�findings�can�be�regarded�as�a�form�of�outline�of�the�rhetorical�struc-ture�of�the�reports.�For�example,�the�Inscribed�signals�in�Table�4-1�constitute�the�outline�format�for�STUCORP,�whereas�in�PROFCORP�the�outline�for�the�pattern�is�mainly�highlighted�by�the�Evoking�items�for�the�Problem,�but�Inscribed�lexis�for�the�Solution�element�(see�Tables�4-1�and�4-2).�The�Problem-Solution�pattern�is� further�reinforced�in�PROFCORP�by�the�key�technical�vocabulary�presented�in�Appendix�4-4.�For�instance,�the�technical�items�under�section�E�‘Gases�/�met-als� causing�environmental�damage’� and�under� sections�B� ‘Environmental� rules�and�regulations’�and�F�‘Mitigation�measures’�signal�the�Problem�and�Solution�ele-ments,�respectively,�which�intersect�with�the�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items�in�this�corpus.�

It�has�also�been�put� forward� that� the� linguistic�evidence�drawn�from�these�two�corpora�can�(tentatively)�lead�us�to�distinguish�experienced�writers�from�less�experienced�or�apprentice�writers�on�account�of�the�narrow�range�and�paucity�of�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items�in�STUCORP,�although�more�evidence�from�a�phra-seological�perspective�is�needed�to�substantiate�this�observation.�This�is�the�focus�of�the�following�chapters.

Page 65: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 66: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

chapter�5

PROFCORPPhraseological�analysis�of�signals��for�the�Problem�element

In�Chapter�4�I�identified�the�Inscribed�and�Evoking�keywords�for�the�Problem-So-lution�pattern�in�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�(Tables�4-1�and�4-2).�In�this�chap-ter,� I� analyse� selected� items� for� the� Problem� element� in� PROFCORP� from� the�perspective�of�two�broad�categories:

– Causal�semantic�relations�and�non-causal�phrases– Lexico-grammatical�patterns

Examining�lexical�items�realising�the�Problem-Solution�elements�within�a�frame-work�of�semantic�relations�will�set�the�phraseological�analysis�at�a�more�discourse-based�level,�an�overall�aim�which�was�stated�in�Chapter�2.�I�also�rely�on�other�Hal-lidayan�categories,�namely�Theme/Rheme�patterning� to� shed� light�on� the�data,�and�also�look�at�whether�recurrent�patternings�can�reveal�the�discursive�practices�of� this� quite� conventionalised� written� genre� of� EIA� reports,� also� mentioned� as�broad�aims�in�Chapter�2.

A� more� detailed� overview� of� these� two� strands� of� the� classificatory� frame-work,�together�with�some�preliminary�brief�examples�from�PROFCORP�to�illus-trate� the�various� investigative�procedures,� is�outlined�below.� I�also�use� the�Ap-plied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�(approximately�7�million�words;�see�Aston�&�Burnard�1998;�Burnard�2002),�which�is�the�closest�large-scale�reference�corpus�in�terms�of�subject�matter�to�the�EIA�specialised�corpus,�in�order�to�substantiate�some�of�the�findings.

Classificatory framework: Causal semantic relations

In�spite�of�Swales’� reservations�about�corpus-based�methodologies� reviewed� in�Chapter�2,�this�proposed�framework�is�an�attempt�to�go�some�way�towards�achiev-ing�a�‘symbiosis’�between�more�‘top-down’�and�‘bottom-up’�approaches.�

Page 67: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

54� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

The�brief�corpus-based�analyses�in�Chapter�1�provided�preliminary�evidence�that�problem�statements�are�commonly�found�in�some�type�of�causal�clause�rela-tion.�Halliday�and�Hasan�(1976:�256–261)�discuss� three�specific� types�of�causal�relation�(Reason,�Result�and�Purpose)�and�also�Conditional�relations�under�the�general�causal�relation.�These�all�belong�to�Halliday�and�Hasan’s�conjunctive�re-lation,�one�of�the�four�types�of�relations�for�creating�cohesion�in�text.�A�similar�framework�for�signalling�general�semantic�relations�of�cause–effect�has�been�put�forward�by�Crombie�(1985),�who�proposes�the�following�specific�categories�expli-cated�below:�

� � Reason�–�Result� � � � B�the�result�of�A� � Means�–�Result� � � � B�by�means�of�A� � Grounds�–�Conclusion� � B�deduced�from�A� � Means�–�Purpose� � � A�in�order�to�B� � Condition�–�Consequence� B�would�result�if�A

Some�corpus-based�work�has�already�been�carried�out�using�the�above�semantic�framework�(Flowerdew�1998b)�comparing�various�explicit�linguistic�devices�for�expressing� the� three� semantic� relations� of� reason� –� result;� means� –� result;� and�grounds�–�conclusion�in�a�40,000�word�corpus�of�undergraduate�academic�writ-ing�with�a�comparable�corpus�of�expert�writing,�Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report,� one� of� the� mini-corpora� in� the� MicroConcord� Academic� Corpus� Col-lection.�Marco�(1999)�also�touches�on�this�area�in�her�corpus-based�research�on�the�lexical�signalling�of,�what�she�terms,�conceptual�relations.�She�notes�that�the�cause-result�relation�is�often�realised�by�the�nominal�phrase� the result of.�

Although�I�am�proposing�to�use�a�similar�classificatory�framework�to�the�one�in�my�1998b�study,�my�focus�is�different.�In�this�study,�I�am�concerned�with�how�the�signals�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�operate�lexico-grammatically�within�this�framework�rather�than�simply�looking�at�how�these�relations�are�realised�lin-guistically.�The�lexico-grammatical�patterning�for�these�relations�is�analysed,�but�in�relation�to�the�signals�within�the�various�semantic�categories.�Below�I�give�an�example�of�some�typical�phrases�for�the�signal�problem in�PROFCORP�for�Crom-bie’s�five�categories�within�the�general�semantic�relation�of�cause-effect.

� � Reason�–�Result� � � � … export scheme will create a noise problem.� � Means�–�Result� � � � … thereby averting an odour problem� � Grounds�–�Conclusion� � … and so flooding is not a serious problem.�� � Means�–�Purpose� � � …in order to alleviate the problem of..� � Condition�–�Consequence� … If there is a problem with …

It�can�therefore�be�seen�that,�at�the�highest�level,�I�am�adopting�a�notional�(also�sometimes�referred�to�as�‘conceptual’)�classificatory�framework�for�the�phrases�in�

Page 68: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 55

which�the�signals�for�the�Problem�element�occur.�Those�phrases�which�cannot�be�assigned�to�one�of�the�causal�categories�above�will�be�analysed�according�to�their�function�in�the�discourse.�The�following�sub-section�will�outline�the�procedures�for�delineating�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�this�Inscribed�and�Evoking�vocabulary.

Classificatory framework: Lexico-grammatical patterns

In�the�corpus-based�approach,�one�key�issue�is�whether�the�point�of�entry�to�in-vestigation�is�with�the�pattern�grammar�or�the�lexis.�

Sinclair’s�work� is�based�on�possibly� two�contradictory�methodologies.�One� in-volves�the�researcher�painstakingly�investigating�the�phraseology�of�one�lexical�item�after�another.�The�other�involves�the�use�of�a�computer�to�list�the�most�fre-quently-occurring�word�sequences.�Francis�faces�the�same�problem�of�whether�to�take�the�lexical�item�as�the�starting�point�or�whether�to�take�the�patterns�as�the�starting�point.�She�investigates�the�adjective,�possible,�for�example,�and�notes�that�it�occurs�with�an�unusually�wide�range�of�patterns,�each�of�which�it�shares�with�other�adjectives.�On�the�other�hand,�she�investigates�patterns�such�as�the�apposi-tive�that-clause,�and�lists�the�nouns�which�share�that�pattern. (Hunston�&�Francis�2000:�31)�

Whether�the�pattern�grammar�or�the�lexis�is�used�as�an�entry�point�would�very�much� seem� to�depend�on� the�purpose�and� scope�of� the� investigation�and�also�the�nature�of�the�corpus.�For�compiling�a�comprehensive�lexico-grammar�of�the�English�language�it�may�be�best�to�start�with�the�pattern�and�identify�all�the�words�that�have�a�particular�pattern.�However,�where�the�aim�is�to�examine�the�lexico-grammar� in� a� specialized� corpus,� it� may� be� more� opportune� to� start� with� the�lexis.�As�Sinclair�(2005)�notes�‘the�characteristic�vocabulary�of�the�special�area�is�prominently�featured�in�the�vocabulary�lists’�(see�Chapter�3).�This�is�indeed�what�the�analyses�in�Chapter�4�have�revealed,�the�key�lexis�for�defining�the�Problem-Solution� pattern,� thus� providing� a� justification� for� using� the� lexis� as� a� starting�point�for�analysis.

At�the�primary�level�of�delicacy�I�first�examine�the�collocational�patterning�of�selected�items�for�the�Problem�element.�In�Chapter�1�the�concordance�for�pollu-tion showed�it�to�collocate�with�‘minimise’.�Another�way�of�looking�at�collocation�is�to�start�with�the�verb�and�then�move�to�the�noun,�which�then�raises�the�question�of�a�word’s�semantic�prosody.�As�Stubbs�(2001b)�points�out,�CAUSE�collocates�with�words�with�unpleasant�connotations,�e.g.�problem, damage, death, disease,�whereas�PROVIDE�collocates�with�words�with�positive�semantic�prosody�such�

Page 69: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

56� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

as�aid, care, employment�and�facilities.�In�contrast�to�Stubbs,�my�starting�point�is�with�the� lexical� item�working�back�to� investigate�which�verbs�an�item�typically�collocates�with.�This�procedure�has�the�advantage�of�throwing�up�a�range�of�verbs�which�collocate�with�these�evaluative�items.�For�example,�in�PROFCORP,�prob-lem not�only�collocates�with�the�verb�cause*,�but�also�create*,�present* and�pose*.�Concordancing�separately�on� these�verbs�would�show�whether� they� tend�to�be�associated�with�a�negative�or�positive�semantic�prosody.�

By�way�of� a�brief� example,�using� the�core�written�component�of� the�BNC,�I� found,� like� Stubbs,� that� cause* overwhelmingly� collocates� with� nouns� with� a�negative�semantic�prosody,�and�also�often�occurs�in�the�syntactic�structure�verb�+�adjective�+�noun�(e.g.�…�would cause considerable water damage …).�Where�pose*�and�present*�have�the�meaning�of�cause,�the�15�and�16�examples�respectively�are�all�associated�with�nouns�with�a�negative�connotation.�However,�pose*�and�present*�are�unlike�cause*�in�two�respects.�First,�they�usually�collocate�with�nouns�such�as�problem, difficulties, danger,�which�are�Inscribed�signals�for�the�Problem�element,�whereas�cause*�is�more�likely�to�occur�with�Evoking�nouns�(e.g.�your exhibition is�likely to cause traffic congestion�…).�A�unique�feature�of�present*,�however,�is�that�in�seven�out�of�the�16�occurrences�present* is�used�with�a�noun�whose�negative�import�is�neutralised,�e.g.�This will present no difficulties during your holiday.�Cre-ate*,�on�the�other�hand,�is�used�more�often�with�words�with�pleasant�associations,�e.g.�Water bubbles up through the pebbles, creating a cool refreshing effect.�This�brief�analysis� of� causative� verbs� shows� that� words� seemingly� belonging� to� the� same�semantic�set�do,�in�fact,�have�different�collocational�behaviours�not�only�in�terms�of�their�semantic�prosodies,�but�also�semantic�preferences�for�either�Inscribed�or�Evoking�items�(semantic�preference�is�usually�used�to�refer�to�the�nature�of�the�noun,�whether�it�be�concrete�or�abstract,�or�belonging�to�a�certain�semantic�field,�e.g.�disease�etc.;�see�Partington�2004).

Another� objective� is� to� investigate� the� grammatical� company� that� a� word�keeps�(see�Chapter�1).�With�respect�to�the�collocates�of�the�item�under�investiga-tion,�we�could�also�consider�the�grammatical�company�that�a�collocation�keeps,�which�could�be�viewed�as�lexical colligation.�For�example,�it�has�been�noted�that�in� PROFCORP� problem collocates� with� the� verbs� cause*,� create*,� present*� and�pose*.�The�next�step�would�be�to�consider�the�tense,�voice�and�aspect,�i.e.�the�col-ligational�preferences,�of�the�verbs�in�these�verb�+�noun�collocations.�

Apart� from�the�usual� features�considered� in�a�phraseological�approach,� i.e.�collocation,�colligation,�semantic�prosody�and�semantic�preference,�another�con-sideration� relates� to� the� interpersonal� dimension.� It� is� also� important� to� know�whether� the� main� verb� is� marked� interpersonally� either� with� a� modal� verb� or�some�other�expression�such�as�unlikely�or�probably to�indicate�epistemic�use.�An-other�point�of�interest�is�whether�different�forms�of�a�lemma,�e.g.�problem�and�

Page 70: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 57

problems pattern�differently,�not�only�in�terms�of�their�lexico-grammatical�pat-terning�but�also�in�terms�of�their�distribution�across�the�five�causal�categories�and�in�any�non-causal�phrases.�It�may�also�be�the�case�that�certain�phrases�are�associ-ated�with�a�particular�Theme/Rheme�position�in�the�clause�or�sentence�within�a�particular�causal�category.�

All�these�aspects�will�be�considered�in�the�analyses�below�of�selected�items�from�PROFCORP:�the�Inscribed�signals�problem, problems, need,�and�the�Evok-ing�items�impact�and�impacts.

Analysis of problem and problems

The� Inscribed� items� problem� and� problems� do� not� occur� as� key-key� words� in�PROFCORP�(see�Table�4-1).�However,�as�problem�and�problems�occurred�as�key-key� words� in� STUCORP,� it� was� decided� to� examine� these� in� PROFCORP� as� a�point�of�comparison.�

Table�5-1�below�presents�a�summary�of�the�findings�for�problem�and�prob-lems in�PROFCORP,�based�on�the�classificatory�framework�outlined�in�the�pre-vious�section.�The�tokens�in�each�causal�category�refer�to�the�number�of�tokens�in�the�text;�the�tokens�where�either�problem�or�problems�occur�as�a�heading�or�sub-heading�have�been�excluded�from�the�table�below.�

Causal�categories�for�problem

It�can�be�seen� from�the�above� table� that� the�majority� (29)�of� the�41� tokens� for�problem in�PROFCORP�fall� into� the�category�of�Reason-Result,�which�can�be�

Table 5-1. In-text�tokens�for�problem�and�problems�in�PROFCORP�

PROFCORPProblem Problems

(SUB)-HEADING � 0 � 0CAUSAL RELATIONReason-Result 29 20Means-Result � 2 � 0Grounds-Conclusion � 1 � 3Means-Purpose � 6 10Condition-Consequence � 1 � 2Total�(causal) 39 35Non-causal � 2 16Overall Total (In-text) 41 51

Page 71: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

58� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

viewed�either�from�the�perspective�of�cause/reason,�i.e.�what�problem�is�caused,�or�result/effect,�i.e.�what�is�the�cause�of�the�problem.�However,�under�Reason-Re-sult,�I�also�consider�what�is�offered�as�the�solution�to�a�potential�problem�as�this�is�also�a�type�of�causation�as�explained�below.

Out� of� the� 29� tokens� of� problem� in� a� Reason-Result� relation,� 25� of� these�can� be� classified� as� cause/reason,� i.e.� what� problem� is� caused.� This� concept� is�overwhelmingly� expressed� via� explicit� and� implicit� causative� verbs� rather� than�through�other�linguistic�devices�such�as�complex�prepositions�[e.g.�due to�(1),�be-cause of�(1)�or�nouns,�e.g.�cause (1)].�The�explicit�causative�verbs�collocating�with�problem are�create (4),�cause (2),�pose (2),�present�(1),�become�(1).�These�verbs�are�invariably�in�the�active�voice�with�a�variety�of�modal�auxiliaries�used�to�indicate�a�possible�future�problem�arising,�e.g.:

� � …works at the tunnel portal will create a noise problem.

There�are�six�tokens�of�problem which�occur�with�implicit�causative�verbs�(mi-nimise, alleviate, eliminate, avert, resolve,� address).� Implict� causative� verbs� are�defined�by�Fang�and�Kennedy�(1992:�65)�as� ‘those�which�entail� the�meaning�of�‘…make�somebody/thing�do�something’�or�‘make�somebody/thing�+�adj.’�The�five�verbs�in�this�context�can�all�be�roughly�paraphrased�as�‘make�the�problem�better’�in� some� way.� For� example,� minimise� in� the� phrase� …should minimise much of the problem, can�be�paraphrased�as�‘make�[the�problem]�less�severe’.�In�one�case�the�construction�‘adverb�+�ing’�was�used,�e.g.�…thereby averting an odour prob-lem.�These�data�thus�reveal�that�when�problem collocates�with�explicit�causative�verbs,�these�have�a�negative�semantic�prosody.�However,�when�problem collocates�with�implicit�causative�verbs,�these�take�on�a�positive�semantic�prosody�(see�Louw�1993;�Stubbs�2001c),�acting�as�a�two-way�signal�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�(Hoey�1983).

Problem� was� also� found� to� collocate� with� various� parts� of� the� verb� ‘be’� in�six�phrases.�Here,� ‘be�a�problem’� is�found�to�combine�with�some�of�the�techni-cal�keyword�Evoking�lexis�for�the�Problem�element,�e.g.�leachate,�listed�in�Table�4-2.�Reference� is�made� to�a� specific�existing�problem�in� the�Theme�part�of� the�sentence,�which�constitutes�the�‘point�of�the�departure�of�the�message’�(Halliday�1994).�Problem� always�occupies�Rheme�position,� i.e.� the� rest�of� the�message.� I�would�like�to�argue�that�in�the�context�of�these�environmental�reports�‘be’�takes�on�the�semantics�of�a�causative�verb�rather�than�acting�as�a�stative�verb,�as�it�im-plicitly�means�that�a�present�problem�could�create�a�future�one.�To�illustrate,�‘be’�could�well�be�substituted�by�an�explicit�causative�verb,�such�as�‘pose’�or�‘present’�in�all�the�examples�below:�

…it is considered unlikely that septicity would be a problem.

Page 72: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 59

Increased noise levels are not expected to be a problem.

…and operational noise is not considered to be a problem

When�problem occurs�with�existential�‘there’,�as�in�the�two�examples�below,�‘be’�also�seems�to�be�acting�as�an�event�verb,�but�in�this�case�as�a�result/effect�verb�as�it�has�the�meaning�of�‘arise’.

…there should not be any disposal problem.

…it will be unlikely that there will be a problem…

This�use�of�‘be’�with�problem�is�also�evident�in�the�Condition-Consequence�re-lation,�although�there�is�only�one�occurrence�of�this�causal�relation:��If there is a problem with …

It�is�interesting�to�note�that�in�addition�to�the�two�tokens�of�problem�occur-ring�with�existential�‘there’�which�co-occur�with�‘be’�acting�as�a�result/effect�verb,�only�two�other�of�the�29�tokens�for�problem collocate�with�verbs�signalling�result/effect (e.g.�generate,�derive),�rather�than�with�cause/reason�verbs,�e.g.:

The problem derives primarily from degradation of…

The�tokens�of�problem in�both�the�relations�of�Means-Purpose (6� tokens)�and�Means-Result� (2� tokens)� collocate� with� implicit� causative� verbs� (e.g.� improve,�ameliorate, alleviate, mitigate, prevent, avert,�solve)�which,�as�shown�above,�signal�the� Solution� element,� thereby� according� them� the� status� of� two-way� signposts�(e.g….�by solving the problem of… for� the�Means-Result� relation).�One� impor-tant�observation�concerning�these�two-way�signals�is�that�they�tend�to�occur�in�the�same�lexico-grammatical�environment�as�the�Evoking�keywords�(e.g.�noise,�odour)�for�the�Problem�element�(see�Chapter�4,�Table�4-2),�e.g.:

� To ameliorate the future traffic noise problem, a package of …

…all solid materials removed to prevent an odour problem.

These�findings�on�explicit�and�implicit�causative�verbs�are�thus�in�keeping�with�other�research�on�cause-effect�markers�where�the�use�of�causative�verbs�far�out-weighed�‘result’�verbs,�both�in�terms�of�types�and�the�number�of�tokens�(Flow-erdew�1998b).

Non-causal�categories�for�problem

There�are�only�2�tokens�for�problem�which�do�not�fall�into�one�of�the�causal�cat-egories.�These�could�be�viewed�as�having�the�status�of� ‘evaluating�the�problem’,�

Page 73: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

60� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

but� in�a�positive�sense,�e.g.�…no insurmountable problem to the water supply is envisaged.

In�the�following�section,�I�will�analyse�the�causation�and�non-causation�based�tokens�for�problems in�PROFCORP�which�are�also�itemised�in�Table�5-1�above.�I�will�also�compare�problem�and�problems to�see�to�what�extent�different�forms�of�a�lemma�pattern�in�a�similar�fashion�or�differently�in�professional�writing.�

Causal�categories�for�problems

There�are�many�similarities�between�the�distribution�of�the�tokens�for�problems�and�problem in�PROFCORP�across�the�five�semantic�causal�categories.�First,�the�majority�of�these�tokens�(18�out�of�20)�in�the�Reason-Result�category�combine�with� causative� verbs.� Only� three� of� these� [18]� tokens� collocate� with� verbs� sig-nalling�result/effect�(e.g.�Pollution problems could�occur…;�Where potential prob-lems may arise�…),�while�the�remainder�are�divided�between�explicit�and�implicit�causative�verbs.�The�explicit�verbs�for�cause/reason�occurring�with�problems are�cause�(4)�result in�(4)�create,�and�(1)�present�(1).�Modals�and�other�mitigating�ex-pressions,�similar�to�those�occurring�with�problem,�are�used�to�signal�that�these�problems,�in�the�main,�refer�to�possible�ones�arising�from�planned�construction�work,�e.g.:

…that could cause odour and potential health problems.

…are not expected to result in significant odour problems.

One�difference,�however,�lies�in�the�choice�of�verbs�with�problem�and�problems.�‘Be’� in� the� sense� of� ‘create’� occurred� with� problem� (e.g.� …� are not expected to be a problem),�but�did�not�occur�with�problems.�These�data�suggest�that�certain�causative�verbs�may�prefer�singular�or�plural�nouns,�or�indeed�have�a�tendency�to�collocate�with�premodified�nouns,�and�that�factors�such�as�these�have�a�bearing�on�verb�+�noun�collocation�which�are�not�considered�in�collocational�dictionaries.�The�string�‘be�a�problem/problems’�was�searched�in�the�Applied�Science�written�domain�of�the�BNC�and�it�was�found�that�there�were�26�instances�out�of�30�where�‘be’�had�the�meaning�of�‘create’�(e.g.�… only a few faces are supplied and this may be a problem for anyone running wordprocessing…).� In� contrast,� this� construc-tion�was�not�found�in�the�15�instances�of�‘be�problems’,�i.e.�with�the�lemma�in�the�plural,�where�‘be’�was�always�found�with�existential�‘there’�having�the�meaning�of�‘arise’�(e.g.�there might well be problems with klystrons…).

Although�the�tokens�for�problems�in�the�Means-Purpose�relation�collocate�with� similar�verbs� to� those� for�problem in�PROFCORP,�and�also�cover�a� large�range�of�verbs�(e.g.�address, reduce,�resolve, deal with, remedy, minimise, prevent,

Page 74: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 61

overcome, solve),�the�Theme/Rheme�patterning�is�different.�Whereas�three�out�of�the�six�tokens�for�problem�occur�in�Theme�position,�all�the�tokens�for�problems�occur�in�Rheme�position.�This�is�no�doubt�because�of�the�long�clauses�postmodi-fying�problems,�or�a�following�subordinate�clause�as�in�the�examples�below.

� � … detailed design to remedy the noise problems identified prior to the construc-tion of..

…will be required to overcome the anticipated traffic problems on Lung Mun Road and the junction..

…has been drawn up to address the potential main problems identified above, so that …

In�fact,�one�key�difference�between�the�tokens�for�problem�and�problems�is�that�problems is�usually�premodified�across�all�causal�categories�(32�out�of�35�cases)�and�also�has�various�forms�of�postmodification�in�the�Means-Purpose�category�outlined�above.�It�was�found�that�problem was�premodified�in�18�out�of�39�cases,�usually�when�it�occurred�in�the�Means-Purpose�relation,�and�on�the�few�occa-sions�when�it�was�postmodified,�this�postmodification�was�in�a�brief�prepositional�phrase,�e.g.�The problem of leachate�….�

Non-causal�categories�for�problems

The�remaining�16�tokens�for�problems which�cannot�be�classified�under�any�of�the�causation�categories�are� in�sentences�where� the�main� function� is� to�denote�the�existence�of�the�problem�as�in�the�examples�below.�And�once�again,�we�find�a�combination�of�problems with�technical�Evoking�lexis,�e.g.�groundwater:

The same problems exist with mobile cooling units.

The factory workers have at times identified problems with groundwater …

In�the�following�section�I�will�analyse�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�for�the�noun� need,� which� like� problem� and� problems,� also� explicitly� signals� a� negative�evaluation,�although�it�was�not�found�as�a�key�word�in�PROFCORP.�I�will�focus�on�the�nominal�form�only�so�that�the�analysis�is�compatible�with�the�analyses�for�prob-lem�and�problems�and�can�be�carried�out�under�the�same�analytical�framework.

Page 75: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

62� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Analysis of need

Causal�categories�for�need

In�PROFCORP�there�are�118�tokens�for�need of�which�62�are�verbal,�53�nominal,�and�another�three�(also�nominal)�acting�as�headings.�Out�of�the�53�tokens�where�need�is�acting�as�a�noun,�14�tokens�(slightly�over�25%)�are�causation-related.�In�these�14�tokens,�explicit�and�implicit�causative�verbs�play�a�prominent�role�in�re-alising�causation.�For�example,�there�are�4�explicit�verbs�in�various�grammatical�patterns,�e.g.:

� � …will, in turn, generate a need and …

This will give rise to the need for…

…leading to the need to review …

The�other�six�phrases�all�employ�an�implicit�verb�signalling�some�kind�of�partial�resolution�of�a�problem,�e.g.�

…will minimise the need to divert clinical waste..

…will avoid the need to dredge and dispose of …

In�two�phrases,�the�pattern�There is …a need to/for…�is�involved�in�a�Grounds-Conclusion relation,�summing�up�a�previous�stretch�of�text,�which�is�signalled�by�therefore:

There is a need, therefore, for a dedicated-purpose built facility.

There is therefore a need to minimize landfill gas emissions.

In�fact,�there�were�seven�other�cases�where�need was�found�in�this�patterning,�four�of�which�were�in�the�negative,�signalling�absence�of�a�need�(which�is�also�encapsu-lated�by�the�pattern�without the need to/for…,�occurring�3�times)�e.g.:

There is no need to employ a specialist contractor.

There was no immediate need for gas extraction.

Now,� these� other� examples� of� this� patterning� with� need are� also� involved� in� a�causation�relationship,�but�are�not�explicitly�signalled�by�a�marker�such�as�there-fore. Although�Crombie�(1985)�mentions�that�there�are�very�few�cases�in�which�Grounds-Conclusion� can� be� inferred,� the� above� examples� indicate� that� there�may�well�be�exceptions.�And,�in�fact,�an�examination�of�the�wider�context�of�these�seven�sentences�reveals�that�three�of�these�do�signal�Grounds-Conclusion,�wrap-

Page 76: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 63

ping�up�a�previous�sub-section�of�text�by�proposing�a�solution,�e.g.�There will be a need for irrigation water.

Non-causal�categories�for�need

The�remaining�tokens�for�need in�PROFCORP�(40%�of�the�total)�refer�to�identi-fication�or�establishment�of�a�particular�need,�where�the�attribution�is�usually�to�a� specific�organization�or�previous�documentation.�Another�observation�about�these�examples�is�that�the�verbs�are�usually�in�the�present�perfect�aspect�indicat-ing�that�some�kind�of�problem�exists�which�sets�up�the�conditions�for�a�proposed�solution.�

The EIA has identified the need for a flyover.

In�sum,�like�problem�and�problem,�need has�also�been�found�to�be�involved�in�causation-based�relations,�and�it�remains�to�be�seen�whether�these�items�operate�in�a�similar�way�in�STUCORP�(see�Chapter�7).

Analysis of impacts and impact

In�this�section�I�analyse�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�two�Evoking�items,�impacts and�impact,�in�PROFCORP�and�compare�them�with�the�patterning�for�the�Inscribed�signals�of�problems and�problem.�The�other�Evoking�items�will�not�be�examined�separately�as�many�of�these,�both�the�non-technical�(e.g. noise,�traffic)�and�technical�(e.g.�Dba,�leachate)�lexis,�have�been�found�to�collocate�with�impacts and�impact�(see�Table�4-2�for�a�list�of�these�Evoking�items).�If�the�other�Evoking�items�were�examined,�there�would�be�a�lot�of�unnecessary�repetition;�hence,�this�analysis�of�impacts and�impact also�serves�as�a�template�for�analysis�of�the�other�Evoking�items�in�PROFCORP.�No�analyses�of�Evoking�items�in�STUCORP�will�be�carried�out�as�the�only�key�keyword�Evoking�item,�stolen,�occurs�just�49�times�across�6�different�texts.

Causal�categories�for�impacts

I�begin�the�analysis�with�impacts as�this�item�has�the�highest�frequency�of�key-word�occurrence�among�all�the�Evoking�items�in�PROFCORP,�surfacing�as�a�key-word�in�50�out�of�the�60�reports.�Out�of�a�total�of�991�tokens�for�impacts,�five�are�verbs�and�30�of�these�act�as�headings�or�sub-headings�which�have�been�discount-ed�from�the�following�analysis.�It�is�interesting�to�note�that�when�impacts�occurs�

Page 77: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

64� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

as�some�type�of�heading�it�is�usually�in�combination�with�other�Evoking�items,�e.g.�‘environmental’,�‘noise’.�Here,�as�I�have�argued�in�Chapter�4,�when�this�type�of�sub-technical�vocabulary�is�in�a�multi-word�unit�it�takes�on�a�technical�meaning.�Of�the�remaining�956�tokens�for�the�noun�impacts,�497�(i.e.�48%)�have�a�causative�function.�A�breakdown�of�these�according�to�the�five�semantic�categories�of�causal�relations�is�given�in�Table�5-2.

In�common�with�the�Inscribed�signals�for�causation,�the�Reason-Result�cat-egory� is� by� far� the� most� prominent,� with� 384� tokens� out� of� the� 497� (i.e.� 77%)�occurring� in� this� class.� In� the� Reason-Result� category,� 12� tokens� for� complex�prepositions�were� found�with� impacts,�with� ‘due� to’�occurring�nine� times.�Out�of�the�15�adverb�tokens�(‘as�a�result’,�‘therefore’,�‘hence’,�‘consequently’,�and�‘thus’)�occurring� with� impacts,� only� five� were� found� to� belong� in� the� Reason-Result�category,�as� ten�of� these�signalled� the�Grounds-Conclusion relation.�However,�it�was�the�explicit�and�implicit�causative�verbs�which�largely�defined�the�Reason-Result�category.�

The�explicit� causative�verbs� signalling� cause/reason�number�75� tokens.�Of�these�cause�and�result in�are�by�far�the�most�common�occurring�31�and�22�times,�respectively�with�impacts.�In�this�patterning,�impacts�had�a�tendency�to�be�pre-modified�by�general�classifiers�(e.g.�environmental,�ecological)�as�in�the�example�below:

Option 1 will result in greater ecological impacts than Option 2.

Because�potential�environmental�impacts�are�being�referred�to,�the�lexico-gram-matical�patterning�for�impacts with�causation�verbs�contains�a�variety�of�mitigat-ing�expressions,�which�are�very�similar�to�those�for�problems�and�problem,�e.g.�

…an access road could result in significant impacts.

… are unlikely to cause any additional environmental impacts to the adjacent environs.

Table 5-2. In-text�tokens�for�impacts�and�impact�in�PROFCORP

Causal relation No. of tokens IMPACTS No. of tokens IMPACT

Reason-Result 384 214Means-Result 13 18Grounds-Conclusion 16 11Means-Purpose 82 51Condition-Consequence 2 2Total�(causal�relations) 497 296Others 459 356Overall total: 956 652

Page 78: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 65

Other�explicit�causative�verbs�occurring�with�impacts include:�generate�(5),�cre-ate (5),� lead to�(3)�pose�(2),�give rise to�(2).�What�is�noticeable,�however,�is�that�of�the�three�transitive�causative�verbs�cause,�create�and�generate,�it�is�only�gener-ate�which�is� found�in�the�passive�form,�and�here,�all�five�instances�are� in�some�type�of�passive�construction,�e.g.�Several schools will be subject to road traffic noise impacts�generated from Roads… As�I�have�suggested,�this�is�a�type�of�lexical�col-ligation�(i.e.�the�grammatical�company�that�a�collocation�keeps).�In�the�context�of�these�environmental�reports�impacts�has�a�strong�tendency�to�collocate�with�a�variety�of�explicit�causative�verbs�which�have�a�colligational�preference�for�the�ac-tive�voice�(except�for�generate which favours�the�passive),�as�was�also�found�to�be�the�case�with�verb�+�noun�collocations�of�problem and�problems�in�PROFCORP.�Because�the�collocational�and�colligational�patterning�of impacts�is�so�similar�to�that�of�problems,�this�Evoking�item�seems�to�be�functioning�as�a�covert�synonym�of�problems,�most�likely�because�it�is�a�type�of�sub-technical�vocabulary,�a�lexical�item�used�in�general�English�which�also�takes�on�a�specialised�meaning�in�certain�fields.

I� argued� in� a� previous� section� that� when� problem collocates� with� various�parts�of�the�verb�‘be’�it�takes�on�the�semantics�of�a�causative�verb�as�this�idiomatic�phrase�‘be�a�problem’�(e.g.�it is considered unlikely that septicity would be a prob-lem)�has�the�meaning�of��‘cause�/�create�a�problem’.�Likewise�the�phrase�‘have….�impacts’�also�implies�the�meaning�of�‘cause’�or�‘create’.�There�are�five�instances�of�this�use�in�PROFCORP,�as�exemplified�by�the�phrases�below:

… works for these pipelines will have negligible impacts.

… major site activities which are likely to have noise impacts.

‘Be� a� problem’� and� ‘have� …� impacts’� thus� fit� Sinclair’s� (1991)� idiom� principle,�although� the�examples� in�PROFCORP�demonstrate� that� there� is�more� internal�lexical�variation�in�the�case�of�‘have�…�impacts’.�These�examples�also�provide�evi-dence�for�the�polysemy�of�‘be’�and�‘have’�in�certain�lexical�phrases,�just�like�many�other�words�of� the� language� (see�Moon�1998� for�a�discussion�and�examples�of�polysemy�in�fixed�expressions�and�idioms).

I� will� now� examine� those� implicit� causative� verbs� occurring� with� impacts, which� act� as� two-way� signals� for� both� the� Problem� and� Solution� element.� The�verbs� occurring� with� this� function� are� ‘reduce’,� ‘minimise’,� ‘mitigate’,� ‘prevent’,�‘avoid’,� ‘decrease’� and� ‘control’.�There�are�61� tokens�of� these�verbs� in� total,�with�reduce�and�minimise by�far�the�most�common�occurring�28�and�21�times,�respec-tively,�usually�in�the�active�voice�which�is�very�similar�to�the�colligational�pattern-ing�of�the�explicit�causative�verbs�with�impacts.�However,�we�also�have�another�type�of�patterning�operating�here,�the�combination�of�Inscribed�signal�+�Evoking�

Page 79: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

66� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

item.�The�two�verbs�reduce�and�minimise�which�explicitly�signal�the�Solution�el-ement,�were� identified�as�keyword� Inscribed� signals� in�PROFCORP�(see�Table��4-1),�and�here�are�found�to�combine�with�the�Evoking�item�impacts.�This�keyword�patterning�is�also�prevalent�in�the�Means-Purpose�and�Means-Result�relations,�as�we�shall�see�later.

It�has�already�been�noted�that�there�are�75�tokens�for�impacts occurring�with�explicit�causative�verbs�such�as�‘cause’,�‘create’,�‘result�in’�etc.,�signalling�the�cause/reason�relation.�The�number�of�tokens�for�impacts found�with�the�other�explicit�verbs�signalling�the�result/effect relation�is�80.�This�is�a�striking�difference�com-pared�to�the�distribution�of�such�verbs�with�problem�and�problems where�only�two�out�of�the�26�tokens�for�problem�and�three�out�of�the�18�tokens�for�problems�collocated� with� verbs� signalling� the� result/effect� rather� than� the� cause/reason�relation.�

An�analysis�of�the�explicit�result/effect�verbs�occurring�with�impacts shows�that�these�are�limited�to�only�three�verbs:�arise from�(54),�result from�(19)�and�oc-cur�(7).�There�are�also�17�cases�where�impacts occurs�with�existential�‘there’,�plus�a�verb�indicating�the�future.�As�I�have�pointed�out�in�the�previous�section,�in�these�cases�‘be’�is�acting�as�an�implicit�result/effect�verb�as�it�has�the�meaning�of�‘arise’:

There will be no adverse visual impacts.

There will be no significant noise impacts during the operational and mainte-nance period.

As�for�the�explicit�result/effect�verbs,�occur�has�a�different�colligational�pattern-ing�from�the�other�two,�arise from�and�result from.�Occur�was�always�found�as�a�finite�verb�(e.g….and no significant impacts will occur),�whereas�both�arise from�and� result� from� also� occur� in� reduced� relative� clauses.� In� this� respect,� occur is�similar�to�‘be’�and�‘have’,�which�are�all�found�in�sentences�where�a�more�general�reference�is�made�to�the�impacts.�In�contrast,�arise from�and�result in�are�found�in�more�complex�clauses�and�sentences�where�more�precise�information�is�given,�as�explained�below.

In�the�case�of�arise from,�30�out�of�the�54�tokens�are�of�the�participial�variety�as�part�of�a�defining�reduced�relative�clause.�These�were�equally�divided�between�the�Theme�and�Rheme�parts�of�the�sentence,�as�in�the�following�examples:

The major impacts arising from the above activities would be seawater quality, noise and dust.

The report addresses all potential environmental impacts arising from construc-tion and operation of the proposed LRWT.

Page 80: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 67

The�verb�result from�also�displayed�a�very�similar�colligational�and�Theme/Rheme�patterning.� Out� of� the� 19� occurrences,� 10� were� of� the� form� resulting from,� as�shown�below.�

Land use impacts resulting from the modified master plan configuration are similar to impacts assessed in the New Airport Master Plan EIA.

This form of mitigation would significantly reduce the scale of impacts resulting from the AFRF project.

Although�there�are�80�explicit�verb�tokens�of� three�different� types�(result from,�arise from and�occur)�signalling�the�result/effect�aspect,�there�are�also�89�tokens�of�the�preposition�‘from’�with�impacts.�Here,�‘from’ has�a�very�similar�function�to�these�verbs,�as�it�can�be�considered�as�a�reduction�of�‘arising�from’�or�‘resulting�from’:

� � Potential impacts from road traffic noise have been assessed.

This�causative�function�of�‘from’�is�listed�as�an�entry�in�COBUILD (p.�584,�entry�no.�24),�but�in�the�two�COBUILD�examples�below�from does�not�have�the�same�grammatical�status:

The committee’s enquiry arose from representations made by Basildon district Council.

It’s a spin-off from military and space research.

In�the�first�example�above,�from is�part�of�an�intransitive�phrasal�verb,�whereas�in�the�second�it�is�part�of�a�prepositional�phrase,�a�type�of�reduced�relative�clause�with�a�causative�function�which�is�its�use�in�the�combination�of�impacts�+�‘from’.�Now,�this�causative�use�of� ‘from’�raises�a�question.�Usually,�prepositions�are�re-garded�as�structural�or�grammatical�words,�but� in� this�case� ‘from’�has�a� lexical�rather�than�grammatical�orientation�as�it�operates�more�like�a�content�word.�This�data� therefore� questions� the� polar� divisions� of� words� into� open� class� sets� (like�nouns)�or�closed�class�sets�(like�prepositions).�Another�question�to�ask�is�when�‘from’�is�preferred�to�‘arising�from’�or�‘resulting�from’�–�an�issue�which�has�been�raised�previously.

An�inspection�of�impacts with�resulting from,�arising from�and�from�reveals�that� in�this�grammatical�construction�arising from�or�resulting from�seem�to�be�used�when�the�sentence�structure�adheres�to�the�simple�pattern�of�subject�+�verb�+�complement,�and�the�sentence�itself�is�quite�short,�as�in�the�example�below:

The major impacts arising from the above activities would be seawater quality, noise and dust.

Page 81: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

68� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

However�from�seems�to�be�preferred�when�either�the�complement�part�of�the�verb�is�complicated�involving�a�succession�of�post-modifying�clauses,�as�in�(a)�below,�or�when� from� is�found�in�a�rankshifted�phrase�within�the�nominal�group,�as�in�(b).�Normally,�we�think�of�contextual�and�situational�features�as�affecting�lexical�choice�within�the�sentence,�but�here�we�appear�to�have�cases�where�the�internal�sentence�grammar�has�a�bearing�on�this�aspect.�

� (a)� Noise impacts from construction activities have been predicted to be within the HKPSG criterion for all unrestricted periods except at the isolated housing at Peng Chau where the limit will be exceeded for a short period of time.

� (b) The potential sources of water quality impacts from the construction of the Plant will be similar to typical land based construction activities which involve construction run-off and ……

Another�phrase�which�is�not�normally�considered�as�signalling�result/effect,�but�which�appears�to�have�this�function�in�this�context�is�associated with,�of�which�there�are�35�instances�in�the�data.�Two�of�these�examples�are�given�below:

Noise impacts associated with traffic serving the barging point are minor and would only increase noise levels marginally.

Water quality impacts associated with construction are therefore likely to be minimal.

Here,� associated with� seems� to� be� somewhat� ambiguously� involved� in� a� causal�effect�and�could�well�be�being�used�euphemistically�in�scientific�writing�as�a�hedg-ing� device,� more� in� the� sense� of� ‘correlated� with’� rather� than� ‘caused� by’,� most�probably� in� line�with� the�discursive�practices�of� this�particular�discourse�com-munity.�In�this�way,�scientists�would�avoid�claiming�a�direct�causal�effect�which�would�forestall�any�challenges�from�their�peers,�especially�when�controversial�is-sues�are�involved�(see�Hyland�1998).�Concordancing�this�phrase�in�the�Applied�Science�domain�of�the�BNC�shows�that�it�occurs�1327�times�in�162�texts.�An�in-vestigation�of�the�concordance�lines�selected�on�a�one�per�text�basis�reveals�that�in�40%�of�cases�it�clearly�has�a�negative�semantic�prosody,�but�one�that�is�probably�attenuated:

The commission is concerned about the possible risks associated with releasing genetically altered organisms….

In�a�paper�on�corpus�semantics,�Stubbs�(2001a)�argues�that�the�conventionalised�view�that�pragmatic�meanings�are�usually�inferred�by�the�reader/listener�may�be�overstated�and�that� large-scale�corpus�studies�can�provide�evidence�to�show�us�that�pragmatic�meanings�can�also�be�conventionally�encoded�in�linguistic�form.�

Page 82: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 69

This�may�well�be�the�case�with�‘associated�with’�which�appears�to�have�a�weaker�pragmatic�force�than�other�causative�markers.�See�Flowerdew�(2008d),�who,�based�on�corpus�evidence,�makes�a�case�for�associated with being�classified�as�a�‘mate-rial’,�i.e.�happening�verb,�rather�that�a�‘relational’�one�in�this�specialised�genre.

An� analysis� of� the� PROFCORP� data� of� impacts� in� the� Reason-Result cat-egory�has�shown�that�as� in�common�with�problems,� the�Evoking� item� impacts favours�collocation�with�explicit�and�implicit�verbs�for�both�the�cause/reason�and�result/effect�functions.�One�striking�difference�is�that�impacts�is�accorded�a�much�greater� degree� of� specificity,� as� evidenced� by� its� collocational� and� colligational�patterning�with�arise from,�result from�and�from.�What�is�particularly�noteworthy,�though,�is�that�complex�prepositions�(e.g.�‘due�to’,�‘because�of ’,�‘as�a�result�of ’)�for�cause/reason,� and�adverbs� (e.g.� ‘therefore’,� ‘hence’,� ‘thus’)� for�result/effect�have�been�shown�to�be�much�less�common�than�one�would�have�originally�supposed.

82�tokens�were�recorded�for�the�Means-Purpose�category,�covering�12�differ-ent�verbs,�with�minimise�(29),�mitigate (18)�and�reduce�(16)�occurring�the�most�frequently�with�impacts.�By�far�the�most�common�grammatical�construction�used�to�express�the�Means-Purpose�relation�was�(in�order)�to�+�infinitive;�there�was�only�one�example�of�each�of�the�following�constructions:�‘in�such�a�way�that’,�‘so�that’,�‘so�as�to’�and��‘in�order�that’.�

Moreover,�it�is�interesting�to�note�that�there�were�only�ten�cases�where�a�verb�+�impacts�occupied�Theme�position�in�the�sentence,�as�in�the�example�below:

To mitigate these adverse impacts additional mitigation was incorporated into the design.

In� eight� out� of� these� ten� cases� impacts� was� premodified� by� these.� As� noted� in�Chapter�3,�when�such�nouns�are�premodified�by�determiners�the�anaphora�is�car-ried�by�the�determiner�(in�this�case�these),�and�the�noun�assumes�an�evaluative�function.�In�the�above�example,�adverse therefore�has�an�intensifying�function.

In�contrast,�in�the�majority�of�cases�where�a�nominal�group�containing�im-pacts�occurs�in�Rheme�position,�impacts�was�found�not�to�refer�to�any�specific�entity�within�the�text,�as�in�the�examples�below:

� (a)� The objectives of this supplementary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are summarised as follows: to define….; to identify …….; and to recommend measures to minimise any adverse impacts to within established guidelines and standards.

� (b)� special procedures were recommended for the dredging and disposal of the con-taminated mud to minimise potential impacts.

Page 83: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

70� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

� (c)� The landscape plans presented with visual assessment form the basis of a com-prehensive landscaping and tree planting programme designed to ameliorate the visual impacts of the scheme.�

In�(a)�above�any adverse impacts is�exophoric�as�the�impacts�referred�to�are�recov-erable�from�the�situation�rather�than�from�the�text.�Any adverse impacts can�be�interpreted�as�‘any�potential�impacts�that�could�arise�in�the�future’.�This�is�similar�to�Halliday�and�Hasan’s�(1976:�71)�example�of�Don’t go, the train’s coming,�which�Halliday�and�Hasan�suggest�interpreting�as�‘the�train�we’re�both�expecting’.�Like-wise,�potential impacts in�example�(b)�can�also�be�paraphrased�in�a�similar�man-ner�to�the�phrase�in�(a),�while�in�(c)�an�examination�of�the�wider�context�reveals�that� the visual impacts of the scheme refers�not� to�specific� impacts�mentioned�previously�in�the�text,�but�rather�to�‘any�potential�impacts�occurring�in�the�future’.�An�analysis�of�the�Means-Purpose�relation�therefore�suggests�that�when�impacts occurs�in�a�phrase�without�any�specific�anaphoric�or�cataphoric�reference�it�has�a�strong�tendency�to�occupy�Rheme�position�in�the�sentence.

When�impacts occurs�in�the�Means-Result�relation�(13�instances),�it�is�found�with�the�same�two-way�signalling�verbs�(e.g.�minimise,�mitigate,�reduce)�as�were�found�in�the�Reason-Result�and�Means-Purpose�relations.�The�grammar�used�to�express�the�Means-Result�relation�is�always�the�verb�in�the�passive�followed�by�‘by’�or�‘through’�+�noun/-ing,�with�impacts always�in�Theme�position�and�acting�as�an�A-Noun:

These noise impacts can be mitigated by noise barriers.

The impacts will be minimised by maximising the use of materials from the site excavation into the reclamation and site formation fill materials.

The�Grounds-Conclusion relation�is�signalled�by�a�variety�of�complex�preposi-tions�and�adverbs.�The�five�tokens�for�In view of… and�the�single�token�for�In con-sideration of… are�all�sentence-initial,�with�impacts�having�anaphoric�reference�to�some�kind�of�environmental�problem�elaborated�on�in�the�previous�text,�as�in�the�example�below:

In view of these potential impacts, the EIA concluded that every opportunity must be taken to minimise potential impacts on Sousa arising from the con-struction works.

However,�the�other�signals�of�the�Grounds-Conclusion relation,�namely�As a re-sult� (4),�Therefore� (2),�Thus (2),�Hence� (1),� and�Consequently (1)� are� invariably�used�to�indicate�the�lack�of�a�major�problem,�where�impacts occurs�with�an�evalu-ative�adjective:

Page 84: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 71

Consequently, no significant impacts would result upon the marine environ-ment.

As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are expected.

Non-causal�categories�for�impacts

The�remaining�459�tokens�for�impacts, which�do�not�fall�into�any�of�the�causation�relations�examined�above,�mostly�cover�the�evaluation�of�the�Problem�element.�These�specifically�relate�to�the�monitoring�and�assessment�aspect�of�the�impacts�and�are�usually�accompanied�by�a�specific�noun�modifier�(e.g.�dust,�noise)�as�ex-emplified�below:

Model (FDM) was used to examine potential dust impacts during construc-tion.

Noise impacts were also assessed from the proposed transport terminus.

It�was�noted�that�in�the�causal�categories�impacts�had�a�very�similar�patterning�to�that�of�problems and�for�this�reason�can�be�seen�as acting�as�a�type�of�covert�synonym�for�problems.�However,�in�the�non-causation�categories,�problems�has�a�superordinate�role,�with�impacts�acting�as�a�hyponym,�which�is�reinforced�by�its�premodification�by�adjectives�such�as�noise�and�dust�in�the�above�examples.�These�findings�highlight�the�value�of�the�ACRONYM�project�(Renouf�1996)�referred�to�earlier,�which�has�as�its�objective�the�automatic�retrieval�of�hyponymic�elements�through�collocational�profiling,�i.e.�by�identifying�the�most�significant�collocates�of�the�superordinate�term.

The�following�section�will�examine�the�various�lexico-grammatical�pattern-ings�of�impact and�compare�these�with�impacts to�determine�to�what�extent,�if�any,�different�forms�of�a�lemma�pattern�differently.

Causal�categories�for�impact

There�are�745�tokens�for�impact, which�occurs�as�a�keyword�in�26�out�of�the�60�reports.�Table�5-2�in�the�previous�section�gives�a�breakdown�of�the�tokens�for�im-pact across�the�five�different causation�categories.�Out�of�the�total�of�745�tokens�for�impact�88�of�these�act�as�headings�and�sub-headings�and�5�are�of�a�verbal�form�so�these�have�been�excluded�from�the�following�analysis,�leaving�652�tokens�for�both�the�causal�and�non-causal�categories

Although�there�is�a�difference�between�impacts�and�impact�in�terms�of�the�total�number�of�tokens�and�their�keyness�across�reports,�their�distribution�across�

Page 85: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

72� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

the�different�causation�categories�is�remarkably�similar.�For�example,�45%�of�the�total�number�of�tokens�for�impact�(excluding�headings�and�verbal�forms)�has�a�causative�function,�which�is�very�close�to�the�percentage�of�the�tokens�for�impacts,�with�48%�having�this�function.�However,�within�the�causal�relations�the�percent-age�distribution�is�also�very�similar.�72%�of�the�tokens�for�impact fall�within�the�Reason-Result category�compared�with�77%�of�the�tokens�for�impacts.�Likewise,�17%�of�the�tokens�for�impact�and�16%�of�the�tokens�for�impacts�fall�within�the�Means-Purpose category.�Moreover,�as�the�following�analysis�will�demonstrate,�there�are�many�similarities�between�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�impact�and�impacts within�these�five�causal�relations.�The�main�difference�between�im-pact� and� impacts� lies� in� the� frequency�distributions�of� the� lexico-grammatical�patternings,�as�explained�below.

First�of�all,�it�was�the�explicit�and�implicit�causative�verbs�occurring�with�im-pact�to�signal�the�cause/reason relation�which�were�most�prominent�in�the�Rea-son-Result category,�as�was�also�found�to�be�the�case�with�impacts.�There�was�a�total�of�98�explicit�causative�verbs�with�the�following�number�of�tokens�for�each�of�the�following�types:�cause (22),�result in�(16),�generate (4),�with�55�tokens�recorded�for�the�phrase�have an impact on�and�one�token�for�the�more�forceful�phrase�exert an impact.�These� tokens� for�explicit�causative�verbs�with� impact make�up�46%�of�the�total�number�of�tokens�in�the�Reason-Result category,�whereas�they�only�comprised�19%�for�this�category�with�impacts.�The�main�reason�for�this�difference�lies�in�the�fact�that�the�semi-formulaic�phrase�‘have�an�/�any�impact�/�impacts’�is�found�55�times�with�the�singular�noun,�but�only�five�times�with�the�plural.�This�phrase�was�checked�in�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�where�only�33�instances�of�impacts�were� found,�but�661�examples�of� impact occurring�across�187�texts.�To�simplify�the�checking�procedure�a�download�of�one�example�of�im-pact�from�each�text�was�searched�which�revealed�that�some�variation�of�the�basic�pattern�‘have�an�impact’�occurred�in�50�out�of�the�187�lines,�i.e.�27%.�In�contrast,�only�3�instances�of�the�pattern�with�the�plural�lemma�were�found�out�of�the�total�of�33�tokens,�i.e.�(9�%).�These�results�thus�show�that�different�forms�of�a�lemma�of�a�semi-formulaic�phrase�can�indeed�manifest�quite�different�patterning�in�terms�of�frequency�distribution.

An�examination�of�the�tokens�of� impact in�the�result/effect�relation�of�the�Reason-Result�category�shows�that�exactly�the�same�kind�of�patterning�occurs,�but,�again,�with�quite�different�frequency�distributions.�For�example,�the�explicit�verbs�with�impact (e.g.�‘arise�from’,�‘result�from’)�totalled�19�tokens�(8%)�whereas�these�totalled�80�(21%)�with�impacts�in�the�result/effect�relation.�This�difference�can�be�accounted�for�by�the�fact�that�such�verbs�prefer�the�plural�lemma�in�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning:�The direct impacts resulting from the�GIRPD works will be�….�Furthermore,�there�were�only�23�cases�where�impact�was�found�with�

Page 86: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�5.� PROFCORP:�Problem�element� 73

‘from’,�in�the�sense�of�‘arising�from’,�but�89�were�recorded�with�impacts.�These�dif-ferences�in�patterning�thus�indicate�that�it�may�not�be�beneficial�to�lemmatise�a�corpus,�as�was�discussed�in�Chapter�3,�as�it�has�been�shown�that�different�lemmas�can�have�different�behaviours.

However,� no� striking� differences� were� noted� between� impact� and� impacts�with�two-way�signalling�verbs�such�as�‘reduce’,�‘minimise’�and�‘mitigate’.�In�fact,�the�types�and�number�of�tokens�(as�a�percentage�of�the�tokens�for�the�Reason-Re-sult�category)�and�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�were�remarkably�similar.�

Non-causal�categories�for�impact

There�are�356�tokens�out�of�the�652�for�impact which�are�not�causation-related.�Al-though�the�percentage�of�non-causation�tokens�for�impact and�impacts�is�almost�identical�(55%�compared�with�53%),�like�problem�and�problems,�their�functions�are�quite�different.�Whereas�the�tokens�for�impacts�relate�to�the�monitoring�and�assessment�aspect�of�the�impacts,�the�other�tokens�for�impact are�mostly�found�in�the�Introduction�section�of�the�reports,�focussing�on�the�scope�and�background�of�the�studies.�In�many�instances�impact�is�part�of�the�multi-word�item�Environmen-tal� Impact� Assessment� (and� hence� a� technical� term)� prefacing� the� abbreviated�form�EIA�(see�Chapter�3�for�a�discussion�on�how�abbreviated�forms�are�treated�in�PROFCORP).�It�is�therefore�not�surprising�that�most�of�the�tokens�for�impact are�found�in�the�Introduction�sections�where�abbreviated�forms�are�usually�given�in�full�for�their�first�mention,�as�in�the�example�below:

The Environmental Protection Department commissioned ERM Hong Kong to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to assess the potential environmental impacts involved.

Conclusion

This�chapter�has�thrown�up�some�interesting�findings�regarding�the�lexico-gram-matical�patterning�of�selected�signals�for�the�Problem�element�analysed�within�a�causal�framework.�The�analysis�has�shown�that�causality�plays�a�much�greater�role�in�shaping�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�key�words�signalling�the�Prob-lem�element�than�one�might�have�initially�supposed.�It�has�been�shown�to�per-meate�the�type�of�discourse�under�investigation�and�therefore�supports�Trimble’s�(1985:�59)�premise�that�‘…�so�many�processes�and�other�activities�are�expressed�by�scientific�and�technical�discourse�that�relates�actual�or�hypothetical�causes�and�results’.�At�a� textual� level� causality�has�been�shown� to�be�a� factor� in�anaphoric�

Page 87: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

74� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

referencing�and�Theme/Rheme�patterning.�At�a�more�delicate� level�of� the� sen-tence�or�clause,�various�types�of�explicit�and�implicit�causative�verbs�have�been�shown�to�be�of�particular�importance�in�realising�causation,�surprisingly,�more�so�than�connectives.�Besides�these�causative�verbs,�the�verbs�‘be’�and�‘have’�in�certain�semi-formulaic�phrases�and�existential�‘there’�with�a�future�time�marker�have�also�been�shown�to�be�markers�of�causation.�Other�lexis,�such�as�‘from’�and�‘associated�with’,� also� not� normally� viewed� as� indicators� of� causation,� have� been� found� to�signal�causal�relations.�

The� following� chapter� describes� a� similar� analysis� carried� out� for� selected�Evoking�and�Inscribed�signals�for�the�Solution�element�in�PROFCORP,�but�within�a�more�functional�rather�than�notional,�i.e.�conceptual,�framework.�

Page 88: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

chapter�6

PROFCORPPhraseological�analysis�of�signals��for�the�Solution�element

The�analysis�of�Inscribed�and�Evoking�signals�for�the�Solution�element,�like�those�for� the�Problem�element� in�PROFCORP,� is�also�based�on�the�sub-categories�of�phraseology,�i.e.�collocation,�colligation�etc.�outlined�in�the�previous�chapter.�In�this�chapter�the�lexico-grammatical�patternings�of�items�for�the�Problem�element�were�analysed�within�a�classificatory�framework�of�causative�notions.�However,�a�slightly�different�superordinate�classificatory�framework�is�proposed�for�some�of�the�analyses�in�this�chapter�due�to�the�differences�in�the�nature�of�the�signals�between�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements.�Whereas�all� the�signals�examined�in�the�previous�chapter�were�nominal,�the�signals�for�the�Solution�element�cover�other�grammatical�categories�including�verbal�and�adjectival�use�(see�Table�4-1).

Those�keyword�Inscribed�and�Evoking�signals�which�are�nominal,�e.g.�rec-ommendations,�solutions,�solution,�and�implementation, will�be�analysed�at�the�highest�level�according�to�two�broad�functional�categories�–�‘Proposing�a�Solu-tion’�and�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’,�which�are�described�in�more�detail�in�the�follow-ing�section.�This�is�not�to�say�that�the�lexico-grammatical�patternings�in�which�these�nominal�signals�occur�are�not�involved�in�any�causal�relations.�They�are,�but�they�are�dealt�with�under�a�broader�system�of�functional�analysis.�

The�other�main�categories�of�signals�which�have�been�selected�for�investiga-tion�are�the�adjectival�and�verbal�ones,�which�cover�the�items�recommended�and�proposed (which�could�potentially�belong�to�either�category).�These�will�be�exam-ined�under�the�same�causal�categories�as�those�in�the�previous�chapter�for�the�rea-son�that�the�two�functional�categories�listed�above�are�superfluous�for�the�starting�point�of�this�analysis�as�the�function�of�‘Proposing�a�Solution’�is�intrinsic�to�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�all�the�verbal�tokens,�and�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’�intrinsic�to�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�the�adjectival�tokens�for�these�two�signals.�These�points�are�explained�in�more�detail�in�a�subsequent�section.�

In�addition� to�examining� the�Solution�elements�at�a�more�discourse-based�level,�both�from�a�notional�and�functional�perspective,�this�analysis�will�also�con-sider�similar�points�raised�previously,�i.e.�whether�different�forms�of�a�lemma�pat-

Page 89: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

76� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

tern� differently,� whether� the� patterns� are� marked� interpersonally,� and� whether�particular�phrases�can�be�associated�with�a�particular�Theme�/�Rheme�position.�

Classificatory framework: Functional categories for nominal signals

The�two�main� functional�categories� into�which�nominal� items� for� the�Solution�element� fall� are� as� follows.� Typical� phrases� from� PROFCORP� for� solution are�provided�as�examples.

– Proposing�a�solution� � The proposed solution is to use…– Evaluating�a�solution� – Positive�evaluation� � …gives a more cost effective solution…� – Negative�evaluation�� …is unlikely to provide a fully effective solution.

Moreover,�the�positive�and�negative�evaluation�functional�categories�are�not�seen�as�polarities,�but�rather�as�operating�on�a�cline.�For�example,�the�negative�evaluation�above�is�hedged,�i.e.�is unlikely to provide…�rendering�it�less�negative.�Although�it�may�seem�rather�anomalous�to�employ�a�different�classification�framework�at�the�macro-level�of�analysis�of�keyword�nouns�for�the�Problem�and�Solution�ele-ments,�with�a�notional�one�used�for�the�former�and�a�functional�one�for�the�latter�for�the�nominal�signals,�this�can�be�justified�on�the�following�grounds.�According�to�Fillmore�(1968,�cited�in�Wilkins’�1976)�the�logical�relations�existing�between�nouns�and�verbs:

…�comprise�a�set�of�universal,�presumably�innate,�concepts�which�identify�cer-tain�types�of� judgement�human�beings�are�capable�of�making�about�the�events�that�are�going�on�around�them,�judgements�about�such�matters�as�who�did�it,�who�it�happened�to�and�what�got�changed.

The�key�concept�here�is�‘judgement’�and�if�we�take�a�look�at�the�example�phrases�in�which�the�word�problem occurs�in�the�five�categories�of�causal�semantic�rela-tions�outlined�in�Chapter�5�we�can�see�that�they�are�all�judgmental�in�nature�as�they�pertain�to�what�is�or�what�might�be�in�the�future.�The�Inscribed�and�Evok-ing�phraseological�items�for�the�Solution�element,�on�the�other�hand,�fall�under�Wilkins’�category�of�communicative�function�Suasion, specifically�the�following:

4.2.1�Inducement�persuade,�suggest,�advise,�recommend,�advocate,�exhort,�beg,�urge,�incite,�propose�� (p.�46)

In�contrast�to�the�‘judgmental’�aspect�of�the�cause-effect�conceptual�category,�this�functional� category� of� Inducement is� seen� by� Wilkins� as� ‘influential’,� i.e.� as� af-

Page 90: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 77

fecting�the�behaviour�of�others.�The�examples�noted�above�for�the�functions�of�proposing�and�evaluating�solutions�clearly�belong�to�this�category�as�the�main�dis-course�purpose�of�all�the�reports�in�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�is�to�persuade,�i.e.�influence�the�readers�of�a�recommended�course�of�action�to�solve�an�existing�problem�as�in�the�case�of�the�STUCORP�reports�or�a�potential�environmental�one�in�the�case�of�the�PROFCORP�ones.�

I�will�confine�the�following�analysis�to�three�nominal�signals�(recommenda-tions,�solution�and�solutions)�and�two�adjectival�/�verbal�signals�(recommended�and�proposed)�for�the�Inscribed�lexis�for�the�following�reasons.�As�my�aim�is�to�examine�the�same�signals�in�each�corpus�this�would�not�be�possible�for�the�other�items�in�PROFCORP,�listed�in�Table�4-1,�which�only�occur�in�that�corpus.�More-over,�minimise�and�reduce have�already�been�discussed�in�the�previous�chapter�as�they�were�found�to�act�as�two-way�signals�for�the�Problem�element.�

As�for�the�six�Evoking�keyword�items�shown�in�Table�4-2,�implementation,�has�been�chosen�for�analysis�as�it�is�the�only�one�which�also�occurs�in�STUCORP�(but�not�as�a�key�word).�It�is�also�of�a�more�general�nature�than�the�other�Evoking�items�such�as�barriers�and�ordinance�and�for�this�reason�merits�investigation�as�it�is�more�likely�to�throw�up�patterns�which�include�other�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items�showing�how�these�combine�in�the�creation�of�discourse.

Classificatory framework: Grammatical / causal categories for adjectival and verbal groups

As� mentioned� above,� recommended and� proposed,� differ� from� the� other� key-word�signals�in�that�they�are�adjectival�or�verbal�in�nature�rather�than�nominal.�It�has�also�been�noted�in�the�introduction�to�this�chapter�that�it�would�not�be�very�meaningful�to�investigate�this�lexis�under�the�functional�categories�laid�out�in�the�previous�section�as�the�tokens�for�these�signals�automatically�fall�into�the�category�of�‘Proposing�a�Solution’,�where�the�signal�is�verbal�e.g.�Further insulation of noise source is�recommended,�or� ‘Evaluating�a�Solution’,�where� the� signal�has�adjecti-val�status,�e.g.�It is believed that the use of the recommended mitigation measures should reduce impacts….�The�two�different�grammatical�categories�therefore�have�a�default�functional�value.�Where�appropriate,�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�these�signals�will�be�examined�according�to�the�same�causal�categories�laid�out�in�the�previous�chapter.

However�as�the�same�signal�can�be�either�adjectival�or�verbal�it�is�first�of�all�necessary�to�assign�each�of�the�tokens�for�recommended�and�proposed�to�one�of�these�two�categories.�Moreover,�within�the�verbal�category�we�also�have�to�distin-guish�whether�the�signal�is�involved�in�an�impersonal�passive,�subject�accompa-

Page 91: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

78� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

nied�by�passive,�active�or�clausal�construction,�as�a�particular�structure�may�well�influence�its�notional�orientation�in�the�discourse.�For�this�reason,�I�have�decided�to�commence�the�analysis�of�this�category�of�items�from�a�grammatical�base�at�the�primary�level�of�delicacy,�then�moving�to�a�more�notional�analysis�of�items�under�investigation�in�this�category.�

Analysis of recommendations

Table�6-1�below�presents�a�summary�of�the�number�of�tokens�for�the�Inscribed�signals�in�PROFCORP,�which�tells�us�that�this�Solution�element�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�is�realised�by�mainly�adjectival�/�verbal�signals�in�PROFCORP�(i.e.�recommended, proposed).�

There�are�107�tokens�in�total�for�recommendations,�which�occurs�as�a�key-word�in�eight�of�the�reports�in�PROFCORP�(see�Table�4-2).�Twenty-two�of�the�107�tokens�constitute�main�headings,�of�which�10�have�a�dual�function.�Eight�are�part�of�a�heading�labelled�‘Conclusions�and�Recommendations’�and�two�part�of�a�heading�‘Summary�and�Recommendations’,�which�leaves�85�in-text�tokens.

Of�these,�77�tokens�can�be�considered�as�an�aspect�of�‘Proposing�a�Solution’,�although�by�virtue�of�this�lexis�they�are�also�inherently�evaluative�in�nature.�The�analysis�of�the�lexico-grammatical�patternings�of�these�77�tokens�for�recommen-dations in�the� ‘Proposing�a�Solution’�category will�consider�the�choice�of�verbs�collocating�with�this�noun�and�the�grammatical�environment�in�which�these�col-locations�appear,�i.e.�the�lexical�colligations.�Firstly,�43�of�the�77�tokens�occur�with�various�verbs�in�the�active�voice.�This�patterning�has�a�cataphoric�function�of�in-dicating�the�content�of�the�report.�Verbs�such�as�‘present’,�‘highlight’,�‘summarise’�and�‘put�forward’�in�the�present�simple�tense�are�found�in�this�context,�as�in�the�examples�given�below:�

Table 6-1. In-text�tokens�for�Inscribed�signals�in�PROFCORP

Inscribed signals PROFCORPNo. of tokens

Recommended *�400Proposed *�584Recommendations *���85Solutions �������9Solution �����31

*��Occurs�as�a�key�word�in�four�or�more�reports.

Page 92: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 79

This executive summary highlights the findings and recommendations of …

This report presents a summary of the main findings and recommendations…

However,�when�verbs�such�as�those�above�occur�in�the�past�tense,�they�have�an�intertextual�function�as�they�make�reference�to�a�previous�study.�

The EIA considered details and … provided recommendations for monitoring�….

In�other�instances�of�intertextuality,�recommendations has�more�the�sense�of�‘re-quirements’�when�it�occurs�with�verbs�such�as�‘address’,�‘meet’�and�fulfil’:

The external design of the CIF should meet the recommendations of….

In�this�context,�recommendations�was�found�to�occur�in�a�Means-Purpose�rela-tion�in�a�few�instances:

A detailed survey has been carried out to fulfil recommendations…

Secondly,�recommendations also�co-occurs�with�verbs�in�the�passive�voice�in�26�out�of� the�77�tokens.�The�most�common�verbs�occurring�in�this�patterning�are�make�(8);�summarise�(5)�and�provide�(5):

The main conclusions and recommendations are summarised as follows:

Recommendations are provided for monitoring and audit requirements:

Recommendations are made to cover the inclusion of necessary infrastructure.

A�closer�examination�of�the�verbs�make,�summarise�and�provide�shows�that�they�apparently�display�different�colligational�patterning.�Both�provide�and�make�are�commonly� followed� by� some� type� of� Purpose� statement,� as� evidenced� by� the�above�examples.�Also,�the�delexical�verb�make�with�recommendations�only�oc-curs�once�in�the�active,�but�eight�times�as�a�finite�passive,�thus�suggesting�a�prefer-ence�for�the�passive�over�the�active.�However,�this�was�not�found�to�be�the�case�with�summarise and�provide,�which�were�used�in�both�active�and�passive�voice.�Another�observation�is�that�the�thematisation�of�recommendations seems�to�be�related�to�its�positioning�in�a�particular�section�of�the�PROFCORP�reports.�Where�recommendations occurs�as�the�Theme�and�is�followed�by�the�passive�voice�in�the�Rheme�part�of�the�sentence�(e.g.�recommendations are summarised as follows…)�it�is�found�in�the�Conclusion�section�of�the�reports.�On�the�other�hand,�where�it�occurs�in�Rheme�position�and�is�preceded�by�the�verb�in�the�active�voice�(e.g.�This report summarises the main findings and recommendations…)�it�is�found�as�part�of�the�Introduction�sections.�

Page 93: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

80� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Only�eight�of�the�tokens�for�recommendations occur�in�the�category�of�‘Eval-uating�a�Solution’,�i.e.�in�sentences�which are�overtly�evaluative�in�nature,�signalled�by�adjectives�such�as adequate�and�valid in�the�sentences�below:

Therefore, the recommendations made in Section A should be adequate to miti-gate…

Visual and landscape impacts and mitigation recommendations described in the PDS2 remain valid…

Interestingly,�all� these�eight�evaluative�sentences�display�the�same�lexico-gram-matical� patterning,� with� recommendations forming� part� of� a� nominal� group�containing� a� rankshifted� clause,� e.g.� …recommendations made in Section A...;�…recommendations described in the PDS2…. In� fact,� made occurs� seven� times�in� a� nominal� group,� e.g.� …preliminary recommendations made in this� report…�Therefore,� the�PROFCORP�data� show�that�when� the�delexical�verb� ‘make’�col-locates�with�recommendations,�it�prefers�a�passive�form,�either�as�a�main�clause�verb�proposing�a�solution�or� in�a�rankshifted�reduced�relative�clause�as�part�of�an� evaluation� of� a� solution.� However,� a� cross-comparison� with� the� 246� tokens�of�recommendations�in�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�reveals�that�although�‘make’�is�one�of�the�most�frequently�occurring�verbs�with�recommenda-tions,�found�36�times,�its�patterning�is�quite�different�with�26�phrases�found�in�the�active,�and�only�10�in�the�passive.�The�reason�for�this�is�that�the�BNC�data�con-tains�more�interpersonal�markers�as�subject,�e.g.�We made our recommendations about 18 months ago…,�or�the�report�is�personalised,�e.g.�The Copenhagen report … makes recommendations for….�There�were�also�very�few�reduced�relative�claus-es�which�have�an�intertextual�function,�with�only�a�handful�of�examples�noted,�e.g.�…recommendations made in an International Atomic Energy Agency study in 1990.�This�comparison�thus�highlights�the�greater�intertextuality�and�impersonal-ity�of�the�PROFCORP�reports,�contextual�factors�which�are�of�crucial�importance�in�professional�writing�(Bhatia�2004).

Analysis of solutions and solution

Of� the� 16� tokens� for� solutions in� PROFCORP� seven� of� these� act� as� headings�which,� like� recommendations,� have� a� dual� function� e.g.� ‘Environmental� Con-straints�and�Solutions’.�Of�the�other�nine�in-text�tokens�(see�Table�6-1),�two�occur�in�the�Introduction�section�of�the�reports,�indicating�their�objective,�and�can�thus�be�classified�as�‘Proposing�a�Solution’:

Page 94: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 81

The central focus was to develop solutions to maximise the development poten-tial…

The�remaining� seven� tokens� for� solutions occur� in� the�body�of� the� report� and�belong�to�the�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’�category�as�they�are�all�preceded�by�an�evalu-ative�adjective�such�as�‘practical’,�‘preferred’,�‘appropriate’,�‘possible’:

Currently housekeeping measures are the only practical solutions to minimise release of contaminants from ….

In�contrast,�the�singular�form,�of�which�there�are�32�tokens�altogether,�patterns�quite�differently.�Firstly,�there�is�only�one�heading�and�this�refers�to�a�specialised�term.�Various�specialised�terms�are�also�found�with�20�out�of�the�31�tokens�for�solution in�the�text�of�the�reports,�e.g.�ammonia solution, dredge solution, engi-neering solution.�The�remaining�11�tokens�belong�to�the� ‘Evaluating�a�Solution’�category,�but�unlike� the� tokens� for�solutions which�carry�a�positive�evaluation,�most�of�these�have�an�aspect�of�negativity�associated�with�them,�e.g.:

Any scheme of pumping leachate water from … is unlikely to provide a fully effective solution.

The AFRF is an interim solution to be operated whilst a permanent supply option is pursued.

Therefore,�solution patterns�quite�differently� from�solutions� in�PROFCORP.�In�order�to�verify�whether�these�observations�are�generalisable,�I�consulted�the�Ap-plied�Science�component�of�the�BNC.�Here,�597�tokens�of�solution were�recorded�in�168�texts,�and�1215�tokens�for�solutions in�200�texts.�An�examination�of�the�downloads�(one�per�text)�revealed�that�in�the�case�of�solution�there�were�some�similarities.�45�out�of�the�200�tokens�for�solution�were�premodified�by�a�specialist�term,�which�were�more�or�less�equally�divided�between�chemical�terms�such�as�copper-sulphate�solution,�formaldehyde solution�and�computer-related�terms�such�as�shrink-wrapped�software solution,�parallel processing solution.�Another�35�tokens�of�solution were�found�to�occur�in�sentences�which�carried�negative�evaluation,�e.g.�…�the client must learn that avoidance is never an appropriate solution�for their anxiety,�with�another�20�tokens�showing�positive�evaluation.�Unlike�the�tokens�for�solutions�in�PROFCORP,�which�always�carried�positive�evaluation,�those�for�solutions�in�the�BNC�were�both�positively�and�negatively�weighted,�with�16�and�14�examples�recorded�for�each,�respectively.�Both�the�PROFCORP�and�the�BNC�data�thus�show�that�there�is�a�tendency�for�solution to�be�more�negatively�oriented�than�solutions.�This�is�quite�a�surprising�finding�as�I�would�not�have�expected�so-lution�to�have�this�negative�semantic�prosody�as�its�inscribed�nature�is�positive.

Page 95: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

82� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

The�following�section�deals�with�an�analysis�of�the�adjectival�and�verbal�In-scribed�signals�in�PROFCORP.

Analysis of recommended

Table�6-2�presents�the�number�of�tokens�for�recommended and�proposed�in�the�adjectival� and� various� grammatical� categories� that� these� two� similar� types are�found�in.�The�focus�of�the�subsequent�analysis�is�on�the�lexico-grammatical�pat-ternings�of�recommended and�proposed within�these�adjectival�and�various�ver-bal�categories.�The�extent�to�which�these�types�are�involved�in�some�type�of�causal�relation,�either�explicitly�or�implicitly,�will�also�be�examined.�

Below,�I�provide�example�sentences�extracted�from�PROFCORP�to�illustrate�how�recommended is�used�in�the�various�grammatical�categories�presented�in�the�above�table.

Grammatical categories

Example sentences

Premodifying�adjective

Provided�that�the�recommended�mitigation�measures�are�diligently�imple-mented,�it�is�considered�that�construction�activities�will�cause�only�local�and�temporary�disturbance.

Impersonal�passive

It�is�recommended�that�suitable�colouring�and�planting�schemes�be�used.

Subject�+�passive Ambient�dust�monitoring�is recommended�at�the�residential�develop-ments.

Active The�EIA�study�has recommended�that�guidelines�on�good�site�construction�practices�are�included�as�contractual�controls.

Other�clause�construction

Mitigation�measures�recommended�for�the�construction�phrase�will�gener-ally�apply�to�maintenance�dredging.

Table 6-2. In-text�tokens�for�the�adjectival�and�verbal�categories�of�recommended�and�proposed�in�PROFCORP

Grammatical category RecommendedNo. of tokens total

% ofProposedNo. of tokens total

% of

Premodifying�adjective � 95 � 24% 437 � 75%Impersonal�passive 102 � 25% � 36 � � 6%Subject�+�passive 135 � 34% � 57 � � 9.7%Active � 22 � 5% � � 5 � � 1%Other�clause�construction � 46 � 12% � 49 � � 8.3%Total 400 100% 584 100%

Page 96: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 83

Out� of� the� 422� tokens� for� recommended,� 22,� i.e.� approximately� 1� in� 20� of� the�tokens,�are�either�headings�or�sub-headings,�which�again�shows�the�significance�of�Inscribed�signals�for�textual�patterning.�A�random�download�of�2000�tokens�of�recommended (the�maximum�number�allowed)�of�the�written�component�of�the�full�BNC�reveals�that�only�25�of�these�function�as�headings�or�sub-headings,�a�ratio�of�1�to�80,�which�underscores�the�significant�use�of�this�type�as�a�heading�in�these�reports.

Of�the�remaining�400�tokens�approximately�25%�are�of�an�adjectival�and�75%�of�a�verbal�form,�as�can�be�gleaned�from�Table�6-2�above.�A�detailed�analysis�of�these�adjectival�and�verbal�categories�is�given�below.�

Recommended�as�premodifying�adjective

The�most�salient�noun�to�collocate�with�recommended is�‘measures’�which�occurs�36� times� in�some�type�of�noun�phrase,�with� the�specific�pattern� ‘recommended�mitigation�measures’�occurring�25�times.�An�examination�of�these�36�noun�phras-es�where�recommended collocates�with�‘measures’�reveals�that�of�these�25�(but�not�the� same�25�as�mentioned�previously)�are� found� in�a�causal� relation.�The�Con-dition-Consequence relation� is� represented� the�most� frequently,�14� times,�with�seven�tokens�for�‘if ’�and�seven�for�‘provided�that�…’�as�in�the�example�below:

Provided that the recommended mitigation measures are diligently imple-mented, it is considered that construction activities ….

There�are�six�examples�of�implicit�causative�verbs,�with�one�in�a�Purpose�clause.�Notably,�all�of�these�are�the�three�occurring�as�keywords�in�PROFCORP,�namely,�minimise,�reduce and�ensure,�which�act�as�two-way�signals,�e.g.:

� � It is believed that the use of the recommended mitigation measures should reduce impacts at nearby ASRs to acceptable levels ….

The�remaining�59�tokens�for�recommended,�when�used�as�a�premodifying�adjec-tive,�collocate�with�a�semantic�set�of�nouns�(e.g.�levels,�criteria,�requirements,�plan,�limits),�which�like�the�phrase�‘recommended�mitigation�measures’�signify�some�kind�of�monitoring,�e.g.�‘recommended�control�levels’,�‘recommended�water�qual-ity�levels’,�‘recommended�monitoring�and�audit�requirements’.�Therefore,�in�this�context� the�95� in-text� tokens� for�recommended�are�shown�to�have�a�very� tight�collocational�patterning�semantically.�

Page 97: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

84� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Recommended�in�impersonal�passive

102�of�the�400�tokens�of�recommended�(i.e.�25%)�occur�in�an�impersonal�passive�construction,�with�89�found�in�the�present�simple�form:�It / it is�recommended that …�In�contrast,�of�2000�randomly�downloaded�tokens�for�recommended�from�the�written�component�of�the�BNC,�only�99�were�found�in�this�form,�i.e.�2%,�which�shows�the�significance�of�this�pattern�in�PROFCORP.�The�high�frequency�of�this�pattern�across�reports�from�different�companies�is�a�reflection�of�the�convention-alized�style�of�writing�for�this�specific�type�of�EIA�report.�It�was�noted�in�Chapter�3�that�companies�often�have�their�own�“template”�for�writing�such�reports�and�this�“template”�could�well�specify�not�only�report�divisions�and�sub-divisions,�but�also�signalling�phrases�such�as�It is recommended that …

When�this�grammatical�construction�is�used,�an�analysis�of�its�meaning�with-in�the�wider�context�of�the�data�shows�that�it�enters�into�some�aspect�of�causal-ity,�either�explicitly�or�implicitly.�When�it�occurs�in�some�kind�of�explicit�causal�marker,�this�marker�is�operating�at�a�local�level�of�coherence:

In order to avoid this water reserve area, it is recommended that the high rise development be located to the west of the water works.

Due to the high dust levels in the area, it is recommended that monitoring is undertaken.

However�when�this�phrase�occurs�without�any�accompanying�causal�marker,�an�examination�of�the�wider�discourse�context�reveals�that�in�the�majority�of�cases�it�falls�into�the�Grounds-Conclusion�rather�than�the�more�local�discourse-type�of�Reason-Result.�This�is�because�it�usually�occurs�at�the�end�of�a�sub-section�mak-ing�a�recommendation�based�on�content�in�the�preceding�paragraph.�Of�course,�concordancing�can�only�tell�us�what� linguistic� features�are�present� in�a�corpus.�But� it� may� be� possible� to� verify� this� discourse� feature� through� making� It� case�sensitive�as�sub-sections�would�tend�to�begin�a�new�sentence�or�paragraph.�For�example,�under�a�sub-section�headed�‘LANDSCAPE�AND�VISUAL�IMPACT�AS-SESSMENT’,�the�Problem�is�stated�in�the�first�part�as�follows:

Both the construction and operation of the proposed steel mill has potential to result in some landscape and visual impact. … Only the following moder-ate visual impacts were identified: moderate visual impact on walkers in the Countryside Conservation Area…

This�sub-section�concludes�as�follows,�without�any�explicit�signalling�of�Grounds-Conclusion:

Page 98: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 85

It was also recommended that landscaping on the road boundary be used to extend the landscape framework and reduce the visual mass of the develop-ment.�

Crombie�(1985)�notes�that�the�Grounds-Conclusion�relation�is�usually�explicitly�signalled,�but�that�does�not�seem�to�hold�true�for�this�data�in�which�there�are�only�18�cases�where� the�Grounds-Conclusion� relation� is�explicitly� signalled�via� the�following:�therefore�(14),�thus (2),�hence (1),�on this basis�(1):

It is therefore recommended that funding and as much lead time as practicable should be made available prior to the commencement of construction …

In�Downing�and�Locke�(1992:�231)�therefore,�consequently and�hence�are�classified�as�having�‘consequential’�meaning,�and�because of this,�for this reason�and�so�as�having�‘causal’�meaning�(see�Table�6-3�below).�However,�as�therefore in�the�above�context�displays�a�more�causal�meaning,�as� recommendations�are�made�by� the�writer�on�the�basis�of�previous�evidence,�I�would�prefer�to�consider�it�as�belong-ing�to�the�‘causal’�category,�and�not�the�‘consequential’�category,�which�denotes�a�fact-based�causal�connection�contained�within�the�propositional�content�rather�than�a�speaker-based�one.

The� above� example� of� Problem� and� Solution� elements� from� the� same� text�support� Fries’� (2001,� 2007)� research� that� the� information� that� is� placed� in� the�Rhemes�of�the�clauses�of�the�Solution�sections�of�the�texts�‘are�cohesively�tied�to�the�description�of�the�problem�and�thus�address�meanings�that�have�already�been�brought� to�attention�and�made� salient� in� the� text’� (Fries�2007:�1).� In� the�above�extracts�the�Problem�element�is�expressed�as�result in some landscape and visual impact�with�the�Solution�occuring�in�the�Rheme,�matching�the�Problem�through�

Table 6-3. Conjunctive�Themes�(from�Downing�&�Locke�1992)

Meaning Example

Additive Also,�in�addition,�besidesAdversative However,�on�the�other�hand,�yet,�converselyAlternative Alternatively,�either�…�or,�insteadAppositive That�is,�for�instanceCausal Because�of�this,�for�this�reason,�soComparative In�the�same�way,�likewiseConcessive Nevertheless,�anyway,�stillConditional In�that�case,�under�the�circumstancesConsequential Therefore,�consequently,�henceContinuative In�this�respect,�as�far�as�that’s�concernedTemporal First,�then,�next,�presently

Page 99: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

86� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

the�cohesive�lexis�of�reduce visual mass.�Fries�(ibid.:�18)�notes�that�‘Focus on�this�relation�[i.e.�matching�of�Problem-Solution]�is�achieved�when�the�cohesive�tie�is�presented�as�New�information�in�the�Rheme’,�although�these�ideas�have�already�been� mentioned� previously� in� the� description� of� the� problem.� Fries� concludes�that�such�notions�as�Given�and�New�and�Theme�and�Rheme�need�to�be�examined�in�relation�to�the�rhetorical�purposes�of�the�text�segments�in�which�they�occur.�In�the�PROFCORP�data�the�prevalence�of�the�pattern�It / it is recommended that ...�suggests�that�it�may�well�be�being�used�as�a�device�for�setting�up�this�kind�of�matching�relation.

Usually�the�Purpose�aspect�of�the�Means-Purpose�relation�is�found�in�Theme�position,�but�there�are�12�cases�of�the�pattern�‘it�+�verb�+�recommended�that…’�with�a�Purpose�clause�in�Rheme�position.�Moreover,�these�purpose�clauses�tend�to�be�longer�in�length�incorporating�postmodification�of�a�noun�with�a�prepositional�phrase,�as�in�the�following�example:

It is recommended that suitable colouring and planting schemes be used, in conjunction with screening walls, to minimise the visual/landscape impact of these buildings.�

The�foregoing�analysis� thus�reveals� that� in� this�data� ‘it�+�verb�+�recommended�that�…’�has�a�strong�tendency�to�occur�with�various�causal�markers�and�the�type�of�causal�marker�signals�whether�the�phrase�is�operating�inter-sententially�or�at�a�more�global�level.�Where�there�is�no�explicit�causal�marker,�the�phrase�tends�to�have�a�summative�concluding�function.

Recommended�in�subject�+�passive�construction

The�tokens�for�recommended�which�occur�with�a�passive�verb�and�a�subject�total�135,�which�is�34%�of�the�total�number�of�tokens�for�this�type.�In�common�with�the�impersonal�passive,�the�majority�of�the�tokens�for�recommended,�90�out�of�135,�occur�in�a�phrase�with�a�verb�in�the�present�simple�tense,�with�21�and�22�tokens�with�verbs�in�the�past�simple�and�present�perfect�respectively,�and�only�two�tokens�occurring�with�a�modal�verb�(will, can).�

First,�this�construction�shows�a�slight�colligational�preference�for�plural�nouns;�in�60%�of�cases�(i.e.�82�of�the�135�tokens)�the�subject�is�in�the�plural�form.�Signifi-cantly,�however,�around�70%�of�these�are�made�up�of�either�Inscribed�signals�for�the�Solution�element,�(e.g.�mitigation measures, practices, procedures, proposals),�or�Inscribed�signals�for�the�Evaluation�element�(e.g.�requirements, tests, audits),�several�of�which�occur�as�keywords�in�four�or�more�texts�(see�Table�4-).�Examples�of�these�for�both�the�Solution�and�Evaluation�elements�are�given�below.��

Page 100: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 87

Appropriate mitigation measures are recommended for each phase.

Special procedures were recommended for the dredging and disposal of ….

Environmental audits are recommended to check the effectiveness of mitigatory measures and thereby …

The�remaining�40%�of� the� tokens�(i.e.�53�out�of�135)� for�recommended� in� this�construction�are�with�a�noun�in�the�singular.�An�examination�of�these�singular�nouns�reveals�that�they�mostly�fall� into�two�distinct�categories.�Firstly,�one�cat-egory�consists�of�Inscribed�signals�of�both�the�Solution�and�Evaluation�elements,�which�occur�as�key�words�in�four�or�more�reports�(refer�to�Tables�4-1�and�4-2):�

A multi-system gas control scheme is recommended to minimize sub-surface lateral gas migration beyond site boundaries…

An emergency response plan (ERP) is recommended to provide a written proce-dure for dealing with emergency situations such as …

A detailed ecological impact assessment is recommended as part of the afteruse contracts for each site.

Effluent monitoring is recommended for the ammonia solution from the nitrous oxide plant …

The�other�category�comprises�nominalisations,�which�happen�to�be�of�the�gram-matical� metaphor� type,� a� major� feature� of� the� discourses� of� science� (Halliday�1998).

The utilisation of quietened equipment … is recommended to minimise…

Thus, provision of indirect technical remedies … is recommended to ensure…

Regulation of privately delivered construction waste is recommended.

The successful implementation of environmental measures is recommended.

Now,�the�next�question�to�ask�is�when�recommended in�this�subject�+�passive�con-struction�might�be�used�instead�of�recommended�in�impersonal�passive�discussed�in�the�previous�section.�It�appears�that�when�certain�verbs�(e.g.�carry out, make, undertake and�consider)�are�used,�there�is�a�preference�for�the�impersonal�passive,�indicating� that� their�nominal�metaphorical� equivalents,�while�possible,� are�not�commonly�used.

It is recommended that a comprehensive environmental audit is undertaken to confirm that the odour control systems are operating….

It is recommended that a reassessment be made ….

Page 101: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

88� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

By�virtue�of�its�grammatical�nature,�the�nominalisation�occurs�as�Theme�and�rec-ommended�occurs�in�the�Rheme�part�of�the�sentence.�It�is�interesting�to�note�that�some�type�of�Purpose�clause�is�usually�contained�within�the�Rheme�along�with�this�patterning.�Here,�we�have�an�example�of�what�Hunston�and�Francis�(2000)�term�‘clause�collocation’,�as�the�data�shows�that�recommended�in�this�grammatical�structure�has�a�strong�collocation�with�Purpose clauses.

The following mitigation measures are recommended in order that all construc-tion works for the LAR will comply with …

Other means for noise reduction are also recommended to control noise emission at source…

Purpose clauses� are� also� found� in� the� Theme,� but� only� on� 10� occasions,� and�notably�these�are�very�short�without�any�postmodification�of�the�accompanying�noun,�e.g.:

To reduce congestion, regulation of construction waste is recommended.

To alleviate frequent flooding, drainage channels were recommended in the north…

The�prevalence�of�Purpose clauses�with�subject�+�recommended thus�demon-strates�how�intertwined�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements�are�when�solutions�are�being�put�forward.�

Recommended�in�active�voice

In�contrast�to�the�two�types�of�passive�construction�which�make�up�59%�of�the�to-kens�for�recommended,�the�active�is�found�in�only�22�cases,�i.e.�5%�of�the�tokens,�comprising�two�distinct�categories.�In�the�first�category,�recommended signifies�an�aspect�of�intertextuality�when�it�is�used�in�the�past�tense�in�the�Introduction�of�the�reports.�Here,�reference�is�made�to�a�previous�recommendation�by�a�decision-making�body,�which� in� turn�constitutes� the�basis�of� the�present�environmental�report.�As�socio-linguists�belonging�to�the�school�of�New�Rhetoric�point�out:�‘No�text�is�single,�as�texts�refer�to�one�another,�draw�from�one�another,�create�the�pur-pose�for�one�another’�(Devitt�1991:�336).�

In April 1993 the Land Development Policy Committee recommended that detailed planning and design for the first stage of development should include the first eight container berths ….

Page 102: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 89

The�second�sense�in�which�recommended�is�used�is�when�it�occurs�in�the�present�perfect�tense�in�the�Conclusion�section�of�the�report,�summarising�recommenda-tions�contained�in�the�Body�of�the�report.

The EIA report has recommended monitoring and audit of noise throughout the construction.

One� striking� difference� between� these� two� uses� of� recommended in� the� active�voice�and�the�uses�of�this�token�in�the�two�passive�constructions�analysed�in�the�previous�sub-section,� is�that�there�are�no�explicit�or� implicit�causal�relations�in�this�lexico-grammatical�patterning.�This�highlights�the�role�that�tense�and�voice�can�play�in�determining�causality,�as�it�has�been�shown�that�when�recommended occurs�in�a�passive�construction�the�majority�of�the�verbs�are�in�the�present�simple�tense,�assisting�in�the�signalling�of�a�Grounds-Conclusion�relation.�

Recommended�in�other�clause�constructions

In�this�type�of�construction,�recommended occurs�46�times,�accounting�for�12%�of�the�tokens�for�this�type.�Where�the�clause�is�a�relative�one,�in�only�three�cases�does�it�occur�as�a�full�clause.�In�all�other�cases�recommended�stands�for�a�defining�reduced�relative�clause,�always�postmodifying,�as�in�the�following�example:

The Sousa mitigation measures and controls recommended in this Report for the construction stage should be incorporated in the detailed design of the AFRF.

Recommended occurs�12�times�in�the�phrase�‘as�recommended’,�which�is�also�a�type�of�reduced�clause.�It�is�noticeable�that�in�all�cases�‘as�recommended’�is�never�in�sentence�initial�position,�but�always�occurs�after�the�proposition�has�been�in-troduced,�as�in�the�following�example:

Contamination mud in the reclamation area will be dredged using a sealed grab as recommended in EPD Contaminated Spoil Management Study….

The�phrase�‘as�recommended’,�I�would�argue�is�a�signal�of�intertextuality�with�a�sim-ilar�function�to�the�phrase�‘recommendations�made�in…’.�Its�frequency�is�salient,�i.e.�of�rhetorical�importance,�in�these�reports�as�this�phrase�only�occurs�52�times�in�the�whole�written�domain�of�the�BNC.�An�examination�of�these�lines�shows�that�it�overwhelmingly�collocates�with�‘by’,�but�there�are�seven�instances�where�‘as�recom-mended’�is�followed�by�‘in’,�usually�referring�to�some�type�of�report.

The�following�section�will�analyse�the�tokens�for�proposed and�compare�its�functions�in�the�different�grammatical�categories�with�those�for�recommended to�note�the�similarities�and�differences�between�these�two�tokens.

Page 103: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

90� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Analysis of proposed

In�the�Collins Bank of English Thesaurus� (1998)� ‘recommend’ and� ‘propose’�are�listed�as�synonyms�of�each�other,�but�my�data�show�that�there�is�little�similarity�in� the� distribution� of� ‘recommended’� and� ‘proposed’� across� the� broad� adjecti-val�and�verbal�categories.�While�the�proportion�of�adjectival�to�various�kinds�of�verbal�types�is�25%�to�75%�for�recommended, this�is�reversed�for�proposed.�The�adjectival�and�various�verbal�categories�in�which�proposed occurs,�i.e.�impersonal�passive,�subject�+�passive,�active,�and�clauses,�are�examined�below�and�compared�with�those�for�recommended.

Proposed�as�premodifying�adjective

Proposed as�a�premodifying�adjective�collocates�with�a�quite�different�set�of�nouns�from� those� collocating� with� recommended.� Two� general� patterns� for� proposed�are�noted.�In�37�cases�proposed�collocates�with�the�superordinate�noun�‘Develop-ment�/�developments’,�which� is�also� found� to�be� the�most� frequently�occurring�noun�with�proposed.�In�the�other�cases,�proposed�collocates�with�nouns�which�denote�a�specific�type�of�construction�or�development�being�proposed�in�these�EIA�reports.�These�more� specific�nouns�occurring�with� proposed� cover�a�wide�range� e.g.� flyovers,� container terminals,� highways,� landfill extension� and� marine parks,�to�name�just�a�few.

It�would�seem�that�in�the�context�of�these�environmental�reports�it�is�the�dif-ferent�semantic�sets�of�nouns�found�to�collocate�with�recommended�and�proposed,�i.e.� their�different�semantic�preferences, which�determine�the�meaning�of� these�two�seemingly�similar�adjectival�forms.�According�to�this�data,�we�can�say�that�recommended�is�used�with�a�more�restricted�set�of�nouns,�to�refer�to�some�kind�of�guidelines�for�monitoring�purposes,�whereas�proposed has�more�the�meaning�of�a�suggestion.�But�a�trawl�through�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�revealed�that�this�distinction�was�not�found�between�recommended and�proposed in�this�subcorpus�(both�forms�were�used�for�referring�to�some�kind�of�monitor-ing�methods�or�procedures.)�This�distinction�therefore�seems�to�be�specific�to�the�PROFCORP�data�and�alerts�one�to�the�danger�of�overgeneralising,�and�applying�the�findings�from�small-scale�specialised�corpora�to�a�wider�domain�of�the�same�general�topic�area�(see�Gavioli�2002).

Page 104: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 91

Proposed�in�impersonal�passive

36�tokens,�i.e�6%�of�the�tokens�for�proposed,�occur�in�the�impersonal�passive.�In�common�with�recommended,�the�majority�of�tokens,�33�out�of�36,�are�found�in�the�present�simple�tense,�with�two�in�the�present�perfect�and�one�in�the�past�sim-ple�tense.�Proposed is�also�found�to�have�a�very�similar�causal�patterning�to�that�of�recommended�in�this�construction.�Where�it�combines�with�a�causal�marker�in�the�Theme�part�of�the�sentence,�this�is�operating�at�a�local�level�of�coherence,�as�in�the�following:

Due to the increasing demand for land and berthing facilities…, it was proposed as part of the CTB study that the reclamation should be extended.

To ensure timely completion of the works, it is proposed to carry out an environ-mental assessment of the extension project in house.

However�when�proposed occurs�without�any�initial�causal�marker�(22�out�of�36�tokens),�like�recommended�in�the�impersonal�passive�it�has�a�more�global�func-tion�as�it�indicates�a�Grounds-Conclusion�relation.�The�following�sentence�con-cludes�a�sub-section�headed�WASTE�ARISING.�Again,�there�is�no�explicit�textual�theme�such�as�‘therefore’.

It is proposed to leave the marine sediments of Tamar Basin in-situ… in order to leave these contaminated sediments undisturbed.

Proposed�in�passive�+�subject�construction

The�tokens�for�proposed�which�occur�with�a�passive�verb�and�a�subject�total�57,�which�is�almost�10%�of�the�total�number�of�tokens�for�this�type.�The�number�of�to-kens�found�in�the�various�tenses�is�as�follows:�present�simple�(27),�present�perfect�(20),�past�simple�(8),�and�one�token�occurring�with�‘can’�and�one�with�‘may’.�An�examination�of�these�tokens�in�context�reveals�that�the�majority�of�them�in�this�aspect�fall�in�the�last�20%�of�the�report,�which�is�the�concluding�section�where�the�verb�is�found�in�the�present�perfect�tense�(cf.�Gledhill�1995)�e.g.:

Detailed radiological monitoring has been proposed, including monitoring in the vicinity of the …

However,�like�recommended,�60%�of�the�tokens�(34�out�of�57)�occur�with�a�plural�noun�as�subject�in�this�construction.�Although�10�of�these�34�subjects�comprise�an�Inscribed�signal�for�the�Solution�element,�with�eight�examples�of�measures and�two�of�recommendations�noted,�the�remaining�instances�focus�on�Evoking�items�which�do�not�occur�as�keywords.�Examples�of�both�types�are�provided�below.

Page 105: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

92� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Fifteen measures were proposed to avoid or mitigate air quality impact….

Several new access roads are proposed for the site.

When�proposed occurs�with�a�subject�in�the�singular,�these�nouns�are�very�similar�to�those�found�with�recommended,� i.e.�they�are�either�Inscribed�signals�for�the�Solution�and�Evaluation�elements,�or�they�are�nominalisations,�as�in�the�examples�below:

An audit system is also proposed for both construction and operation phases…

… the adoption of solar energy has therefore been proposed.

Proposed�in�active�voice

The�five�tokens�for�proposed�which�occur�in�the�active�voice�are�all�found�in�the�Introduction�section�of� the�reports.�Like�those�tokens�for�recommended� in�the�Introduction,�they�have�an�intertextual�function�as�they�refer�to�a�previous�docu-ment�which�forms�the�basis�of�the�present�investigation:

A Project Steering Group (PSG) was convened by Government in 1991 to assist in planning this flyover and proposed three possible alignments which are referred to herein as Options A, B and C.

Proposed�in�other�clause�constructions

Interestingly,�clauses�are�the�only�verbal�category�in�which�proposed�is�used�with�the�same�degree�of�frequency�as�recommended. In�all�aspects,�it�has�the�same�se-mantic�and�syntactic�characteristics�as�recommended.�Except�in�four�cases�out�of�49�instances,�proposed constitutes�a�reduced�relative�clause.�It�also�collocates�with�similar�nouns,�which�are�mostly�Inscribed�signals�for�the�Problem�element,�e.g.�‘measures’,�‘scheme’�and�‘construction’.�Moreover,�‘as�proposed’,�in�common�with�‘as�recommended’,�is�never�found�in�sentence-initial�position.

As� for� Inscribed� items� for� the� Solution� element� in� PROFCORP,� the� above�analysis�suggests�that�the�Solution�element�tends�to�be�realised�through�the�ad-jectival�and�verbal�signals,�recommended and�proposed,�rather�than�through�the�nominal� signals� recommendations,� solutions� and� solution.� Moreover,� the� data�indicate�that�recommendations�and�solutions may�have�a�preference�for�differ-ent�lexico-grammatical�patternings,�with�recommendations�having�an�important�intertextual�function�and�solutions a�largely�evaluative�one.�The�analysis�has�also�suggested�that�recommended�and�proposed�are�not�synonymous�and�are�not�used�

Page 106: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 93

interchangeably:�recommended�seems�to�be�preferred�in�the�passive�construction�whereas�proposed usually�occurs�as�a�premodifying�adjective.

Analysis of implementation

There�are�six�evoking�items�in�PROFCORP,�which�occur�as�keywords�in�four�or�more�reports.�Out�of�these�implementation has�been�chosen�for�analysis�because�it�is�the�only�one�of�the�Evoking�items,�which�also�occurs�in�STUCORP�(44�to-kens)�and�also�because�it�is�the�Evoking�item�which�has�the�most�general�mean-ing,�as�mentioned�earlier.

133�tokens�are�recorded�for�implementation,�but�only�three�of�these�are�used�as�sub-headings,�thus�indicating�the�more�superordinate�nature�of�the�Inscribed�signals,�which�are�used�as�sub-headings�more�than�the�Evoking�items�such�as�im-plementation.�This�also�suggests�the�importance�of�the�Inscribed�lexis�as�sub-head-ings�for�creating�textual�coherence.�The�130�in-text�tokens�for�implementation are�equally�divided�between�the�categories�of�‘Proposing�a�Solution’�and�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’,�with�65�tokens�occurring�in�each,�which�are�analysed�below.

Of�the�65�tokens�for�implementation under�‘Proposing�a�Solution’,�approxi-mately�a�third�of�these�(21�tokens)�have�the�status�of�a�noun�modifier�with�the�most�common�noun�collocation�being�‘implementation�programme’,�which�oc-curs�nine�times.�Moreover,�the�majority�of�the�tokens�(43�tokens)�for�implementa-tion are�found�in�the�Introduction�sections�of�the�reports,�either�referring�to�the�objectives�or�the�different�phases�/�stages�of�the�plan�to�be�implemented,�e.g.:

The overall objective of the New Airport Master Plan was defined as a compre-hensive scheme for the planning and implementation of an operationally safe and efficient airport.

Ten�of�the�tokens�of�implementation�concern�a�recommendation�and�are�found�in�the�Concluding�sections,�e.g.:

It is recommended that a modified version of past institutional arrangements be adopted for the implementation of the LAPH developments.

There�are�also�65�tokens�for�implementation which�can�be�classified�as�‘Evaluat-ing� a� Solution’� and� here� much� greater� conformity� is� noted� as� these� tokens� are�involved�in�two�distinct�kinds�of�lexico-grammatical�patterning�which�both�entail�an�aspect�of�causativity.�In�the�first�pattern,�of�which�there�are�44�instances,�imple-mentation�is�preceded�by�a�complex�preposition�(e.g.�‘as�a�result�of ’)�or�a�single�preposition�of�the�pattern:�preposition�+�‘the�implementation�of…’,�signalling�the�

Page 107: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

94� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Reason-Result�relation.�Such�prepositions�in�this�patterning�are�as�follows:�with�(23);�after�(6);�through�(4);�prior�to�(2);�associated�with�(2);�on�/�upon�(2);�as�a�result�of�(2);�from�(1);�by�(1);�following�(1).�Although�some�of�these�prepositions�are�clearly�causation-related�such�as�‘as�a�result�of ’,�‘through’�and�‘by’,�the�others�are�not�normally�considered�as�relating�to�causation.�I�have�already�made�a�case�in�the�previous�chapter�for�treating�‘associated�with’�as�a�hedged�causative�device.�In�this�context,�I�would�also�like�to�argue�that�other�prepositions�such�as�‘after’,�‘upon’�and�‘with’,�like�‘as�a�result�of ’,�also�signal�Reason-Result as�they�indicate�the�outcome�of�a�course�of�action,�as�shown�in�the�following�examples:

With the implementation of the preferred mitigation option, the estimated num-ber of dwellings exposed to traffic noise levels was reduced to 120.

Residual noise impacts after implementation of mitigation measures will be within established standards and guidelines.

The�co-occurrence�of�various�prepositions�or�prepositional�phrases�with�gram-matical�metaphor�nouns�such�as�implementation suggests�that�this�type�of�pat-terning� may� be� fairly� typical� of� formal� technical� writing.� And� in� fact� a� search�in�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�of�the�string�‘With�the…’,�which�was� the� preposition� occurring� the� most� frequently� in� this� sense,� did� throw� up�instances�of�such�patterning,�e.g.�With the evolution of multicellular organisms…;�with the completion of …; with the construction�of….

One�significant�finding�was�that�in�the�PROFCORP�data�the�pattern�–�prepo-sition�/�prepositional�phrase�+�grammatical�metaphor�noun�–�always�signalled�a�positive�outcome�of� the�proposed�recommendation,� thus�suggesting�that� this�patterning�could�have�a�positive�semantic�prosody.�But�where�explicit�causative�verbs,�e.g.� ‘lead�to’�and� ‘result� in’�were�used,� there�was�negative�evaluation�of�a�rejected�solution.�

In addition, implementation of Option 1 would lead to significant disruption of traffic.

The�other�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�implementation�is�where�it is�thema-tised�and�followed�by�two-way�signalling�verbs�such�as� ‘reduce’,� ‘minimise’�and�‘ensure’,�which�are�keyword�Inscribed�signals�for�the�Solution�element�(see�Table�4-1).�There�are�20�instances�of�such�patterning�with�examples�given�below.

The implementation of the mitigation measures will ensure that the project is carried out….

The implementation of Kam Tin Bypass will reduce traffic noise levels at resi-dences along Kam Tin Road.

Page 108: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�6.� PROFCORP:�Solution�element� 95

This�patterning�for�the�Evoking�item�implementation is�quite�different�from�the�patterning� for� the� Inscribed� signals� in� this� category� of� ‘Evaluating� a� Solution’.�Whereas�the�evaluation�of�a�solution�is�realised�by�evaluative�adjectives�with�the�Inscribed�signals,�here� it� is� realised�by�Reason-Result�markers,�either�preposi-tions� or� causative� verbs,� to� signal� the� successful� /� unsuccessful� outcome� of� an�implemented�course�of�action.

Conclusion

The�analysis�of�the�various�signals�for�the�Solution�element�has�shown�us�that�in�PROFCORP�as�far�as�the�nominal�signals�are�concerned�the�tokens�for�recom-mendations are�mostly�concentrated� in� the�category�of� � ‘Proposing�a�Solution’,�whereas the�majority�of�the�tokens�for solutions are�evaluative�in�nature.�We�have�also�seen�that�with�respect�to�the�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’�category,�solution is�more�negatively-oriented� that� solutions,� e.g.� … is unlikely to provide a fully effective solution.

Turning�to�the�verbal�signals,�there�is�far�more�uniformity�in�the�lexico-gram-matical�patterning�of�recommended�and�proposed�in�the�verbal�categories�than�was�found�with�the�seemingly�synonymous�nominal�signals.�In�the�various�verbal�categories�it�is�the�subject�+�passive�construction�which�is�most�illuminating�as�it�shows�the�important�role�of�nominalisations�as�grammatical�metaphor�nouns,�e.g.�…the adoption of solar energy has therefore been proposed.�One�keyword�Evoking�item,�implementation,�which�also�happens�to�be�a�grammatical�metaphor�noun,�was� found� to� have� negative� or� semantic� prosodies� depending� on� the� causative�verb�employed.�

A�socio-contextual�feature�of�writing�uncovered�by�this�analysis�is�the�signal-ling�of�intertextual�features�by�the�various�lexico-grammatical�patternings�of�the�key�words.�For�example,�…recommended in…,��recommendations made in…�and�A project�steering group proposed…�were�different�ways�in�which�this�was�accom-plished.�

Using�the�classificatory�frameworks�outlined�at�the�beginning�of�this�chapter,�the�same�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items�for�the�Solution�element�occurring�in�STU-CORP�will�be�analysed�in�Chapter�8.�The�following�chapter�presents�an�analysis�of�those�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items�described�in�Chapter�5�for�the�Problem�ele-ment�in�PROFCORP�with�reference�to�the�STUCORP�data.

Page 109: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 110: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

chapter�7

STUCORPPhraseological�analysis�of�signals��for�the�Problem�element

In�this�chapter�I�analyse�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�key�words�for�the�Problem�element�in�STUCORP�using�the�same�causal�vs.�non-causal�categories�as�those�used�for�classifying�the�PROFCORP�data.�My�main�aim�is�to�see�whether�there�are�any�similarities�or�differences�between�the�patterning�of�these�signals.

With� respect� to� the� last� point,� I� take� it� as� axiomatic� that� STUCORP� is,� in�the� first� place,� primarily� good� data,� which� is� a� somewhat� different� perspective�to�previous�research�on�learner�corpora.�In�the�last�few�years,�much�useful�and�valuable�research�has�been�carried�out�learner�corpora�most�notably�by�Granger�(ed.)�(1998b)�and�Granger�et�al.�(eds)�(2002)�with�the�establishment�of�the�Inter-national�Corpus�of�Learner�English,�ICLE�(see�Pravec�2002�for�a�comprehensive�survey� of� learner� corpora).� Significantly,� most� of� this� research� has� focused� on�various�types�of�error�analysis�in�NNS�student�writing�compared�with�NS�writ-ing�of�argumentative�academic�essays�(see�Granger�1998a;�Milton�2000;�Nessel-hauf�2004a;�Barlow�(2005)�provides�an�in-depth�review�of�the�types�of�errors�in�learner� corpora� and� explanations� of� interlanguage� features� in� learner� writing).�In� this�book,� this�distinction�between�NNS�and�NS�does�not�apply�as� it� is�not�a�question�of�whether�the�writer�is�a�native-speaker�or�not,�although�this�obvi-ously�can�have�a�bearing�on�writing�proficiency,�but� rather�whether� the�writer�is�an�expert�or�apprentice�writer.�For�this�reason,�I�treat�the�Learner�corpus�as�a�corpus�in�its�own�right�and�examine�the�major�findings�from�the�perspective�of�whether�the�students�appear�to�have�mastered�the�language�in�accord�with�vari-ous�contextual�parameters.�Comparisons�are�made�between�the�Learner�and�the�Professional�corpus�but�these�are�not�only�for�the�sake�of�establishing�students’�errors�(although,�of�course�various�types�of�sentence-level�deficiencies�are�impor-tant�considerations),�but�are�more�for�the�purpose�of�ascertaining�to�what�extent�student�writing�is�like�or�unlike�expert�writing,�taking�into�account�the�different�contextual�and�situational�features�of�each�corpus.�

It�is�not�assumed�that�differences�necessarily�indicate�deficiencies�in�student�writing;�nevertheless,�the�STCORP�data�cannot�be�regarded�as�having�the�same�uncomplicated�status�as�the�PROFCORP�data.�Where�differences�do�arise�which�

Page 111: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

98� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

may�diverge�from�normal�practice�in�English,�I�have�consulted�the�Applied�Sci-ence�component�of�the�BNC�to�establish�whether�this�is�a�specific�feature�of�ap-prentice�writing�or�could�be�considered�as�competent�writing�of�a�different�kind�to�that�found�in�the�expert�corpus.�

In�the�following�section�the�Inscribed�signals�problem, problems and�need,�which�occur�as�key�words�and�also�as�key-key�words�in�STUCORP�(see�Table�4-1),�are�chosen�for�detailed�analysis.�The�focus�of�this�analysis�is�a�comparison�of�these�items�with�their�counterparts�in�PROFCORP�(see�Chapter�5)�to�examine�to�what�extent�student�writing�mirrors�professional�writing.�As�no�Evoking�signals�surfaced�for�the�Problem�element�in�STUCORP,�the�analysis�does�not�deal�with�this�category.

Analysis of problem and problems

Table�7-1�below�presents�a�summary�of�the�in-text�tokens�for�problem�and�prob-lems in�both�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP�based�on�the�classificatory�framework�outlined�in�Chapter�5.�

It�has�already�been�noted�that�there�were�no�examples�of�problem�or�problems�acting�as�(sub)-headings�in�PROFCORP.�However,�there�were�19�tokens�of�prob-lem�(4%�of�total)�and�28�tokens�of�problems (10%�of�total)�used�as�sub-headings�in�STUCORP.�One�reason�for�this�is�probably�that�students�are�assimilating�into�their�own�work�the�sub-headings�used�in�several�exemplar�reports�they�have�been�exposed�to�in�class�teaching�to�familiarise�them�with�the�structure�and�content�of�typical�recommendation�reports.�In�fact,�the�materials�contain�a�few�exercises�on�the�use�of�headings�and�sub-headings�in�which�students�are�asked�to�assign�either�

Table 7-1. In-text�tokens�for�problem�and�problems�in�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP

Corpus PROFCORP STUCORPInscribed signal Problem Problems Problem Problems

(SUB)-HEADING � 0 � 0 � 19 � 28CAUSAL�RELATIONReason-Result 29 20 � 84 � 65Means-Result � 2 � 0 � � 6 � � 4Grounds-Conclusion � 1 � 3 � � 5 � � 0Means-Purpose � 6 10 � 48 � 21Condition-Consequence � 1 � 2 � � 7 � � 1Total�(causal) 39 35 150 � 91Non-causal � 2 16 323 170Overall Total (In-text) 41 51 473 261

Page 112: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�7.� STUCORP:�Problem�element� 99

structural�headings�(e.g.� ‘Problems’,� ‘Possible�Solutions’)�or�topical�ones�(e.g.� ‘A�new�computerized�system’).�It�is�therefore�not�surprising�to�find�problem /�prob-lems as�sub-headings�in�a�couple�of�these�reports.�

Causal�categories�for�problem

The�most�striking�observation�about�the�in-text�tokens�for�problem�in�STUCORP�is�that�only�31%�of�them�(150�out�of�473)�can�be�categorised�according�to�the�five�semantic�categories�of�causation,�as�presented�in�Table�7-1.�In�contrast,�as�we�have�seen�in�Chapter�5,�39�out�of�the�41�tokens�of�problem�in�PROFCORP�are�causa-tion-related.�I�will�first�discuss�the�different�kinds�of�lexico-grammatical�pattern-ing�of�problem in�the�Reason-Result�category.�

Out�of�the�84�tokens�of�problem in�STUCORP in�this�category,�20�were�found�to�occur�in�the�same�grammatical�environment�as�the�following�nouns:�cause (10),�causes (7),�reason�(1)�factor�(1)�and,�factors (1).�Surprisingly�there�was�only�one�instance�of�its�occurrence�with�a�complex�preposition,�i.e.,�Such problem may be due to the fact that�….�

There�were�43�tokens�for�problem�which�collocated�with�various�types�of�ex-plicit�verbs�marking�causation,�thus�indicating�negative�semantic�prosody.�First�of�all,�the�following�explicit�causative�verbs�(11)�were�used:�cause�(4),�lead to�(2)�with�one�token�for�each�of�the�following�verbs:�bring,�create,�become,�pose,�and�incur.�As�with�the�data�for�this�type�of�verb�in�PROFCORP,�they�were�mainly�used�in�the�active�voice�with�only�one�example�of�a�passive�(These kind of problem are caused by …)�and�one�example�of�a�reduced�relative�clause�(The general financial problem caused�by …).�In�the�analysis�of�these�verbs�in�PROFCORP�a�case�was�made�for�treating�‘be’�as�a�causative�verb�in�a�few�cases,�but�this�function�of� ‘be’�was�not�found�in�STUCORP�where�one�problem�leading�to�another,�a�progressive�multi-layering�of�the�problem�(one�of�the�variations�of�the�pattern�described�in�Chapter�1)�was�expressed�by�verbal�substitutions�in�the�phrase:�This … problem�(e.g.�This causes a problem…;�This may create a problem.).

Nine�examples�where�students�had�tried�to�use�causative�verbs�denoting�re-sult/effect�were�recorded.�Problem�was�used�with�come from�(e.g.�…and the other problem came from …)�in�two�examples�and�with�rise / arise�in�seven.�However,�this�verb�was�only�used�correctly�in�two�cases,�which�were�of�the�pattern�…�prob-lem … has arisen.�The�main�reason�for�the�incorrect�use�of�this�verb�in�STUCORP�is�that�students�are�confusing�an�explicit�causative�verb�marking�result/effect�with�ones�for�cause/reason,�as�exemplified�below:

Page 113: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

100� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

�*�(a)� It rises a problem that …

�*�(b)� The problem seems�to be arised out of the fact that …

In�(a)�a�cause/reason�verb�such�as�create should�be�used.�In�(b)�the�passive�voice,�which�signals�cause/reason�is�used,�whereas�the�active�voice�should�be�used�here�with�problem to�signal�result/effect.

Now�I�will�examine�the�23�tokens�for�problem�collocating�with�implicit�caus-ative�verbs�which�can�either�have�a�positive�or�negative�semantic�prosody.�Where-as�in�PROFCORP�all�such�verbs�had�the�meaning�of�‘make�the�problem�better’,�in�STUCORP�these�can�be�divided�into�two�groups:�18�phrases�where�the�verb�(e.g.�solve)�has�a�positive�semantic�prosody,�and�five�phrases�where�the�verb�has�a�nega-tive�semantic�prosody�to�convey�the�meaning�that�the�problem�is�exacerbated�in�some�way.�This�difference�between�the�use�of�implicit�causative�verbs�in�the�two�corpora�can�be�accounted�for�by�the�Situation�in�which�the�Problem�is�positioned.�In�PROFCORP�the�environmental�problems�discussed�in�the�reports�are�mainly�potential�ones�which�could�arise�from�any�planned�construction�work,�whereas�in�STUCORP�the�problems�already�exist,�as�evidenced�by�primary�and�secondary�source�data�in�the�student�reports.

With�regard�to�those�five�implicit�verbs�with�a�negative�semantic�prosody�oc-curring�with�problem,�they�were�either�not�used�correctly�or�only�marginally�so.�In�some�cases�the�student�had�attempted�to�use�an�implicit�verb�as�an�explicit�one,�as�in�the�example�below:

* This situation will deteriorate the problem of …

In�other�cases,�the�student�had�used�the�passive,�e.g.�…the problem will probably be worsened,�but�in�native-like�English�(Pawley�&�Syder�1983)�this�concept�would�more�likely�be�expressed�by�an�explicit�causative�verb�+�noun,�derived�from�the�implicit�verb,�e.g.�…will lead to a�worsening of the problem.�In�fact,�a�cross-com-parison�with�the�BNC�shows�that�out�of�272�instances�of�‘worsened’,�only�14�of�these� were� in� the� passive,� and� always� past� tense,� thus� strongly� suggesting� that�the�passive�use,�although�possible,�is�not�usual.1�Another�reformulation�for�this�ergative�verb�could�be�…the problem will worsen.�As�pointed�out�by�Celce-Murcia�(2002)�such�types�of�ergative�verbs�are�particularly�problematic�for�ESL�writers,�noting�that�overpassivation�is�a�common�type�of�error�made�by�advanced�learners�who�have�yet�to�master�the�middle�voice�(ergative)�in�their�writing.�

As�for�the�18�implicit�verbs�denoting�some�kind�of�solution�to�the�problem,�there�are�11�tokens�for�solve,�two�tokens�for�attend to,�and�one�for�each�of�the�fol-

1. I�used�the�whole�BNC�here�as�the�Applied�Science�component�only�contained�19�instances�of�‘worsened’,�only�four�of�which�formed�part�of�a�passive�construction.

Page 114: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�7.� STUCORP:�Problem�element� 101

lowing�verbs:�resolve,�ease,�fix,�reduce,�get rid of.�In�the�sentence�below,�not�only�is�get rid of�an�inappropriate�register�for�the�formal�context�of�recommendation�report�writing,�but�it�is�also�incorrect�semantically.�The�problem�refers�to�the�stu-dents�booking�the�sports�facilities�and�not�turning�up,�so�a�more�appropriate�verb�semantically�in�this�case�would�be�‘resolve’�rather�than�‘eliminate’,�the�more�formal�equivalent�of�‘get�rid�of ’:

In order to get rid of this problem, we had proposed two penalty scheme.

Furthermore,�a�check�with�the�Applied�Science�domain�of�the�BNC�reveals�that�out�of� the�82� instances�of� ‘get*�rid�of ’,�problem�only�occurs�once�and�here� it� is�postmodified� (e.g.� this gets rid of the problem of shrinkage and swelling).� In� all�other�cases,�‘get*�rid�of ’�is�found�with�Evoking�items�(e.g.�…shallow injection is best suited to getting�rid of dirty water...),�thus�suggesting�that�Inscribed�and�Evok-ing�lexis�each�have�their�own�preferences�for�verb�collocations,�as�was�also�noted�for�the�verbs�pose*,�present*�in�Chapter�5.

There�was�also�one�example�where�the�student�had�substituted�a�preposition�for�a�verb,�e.g.�…have a very good policy against the problem.�In�the�whole�BNC�slight�variations�on�the�phrase,�against … problem,�are�found�10�times,�but�always�in�the�context�of�‘encountering�a�problem’,�e.g.�…come up against a problem,�and�never�in�the�sense�of�‘solving�a�problem’.

With�regard�to�the�two-way�signalling�of�both�the�Problem�and�Solution�ele-ments,�what�we�find�with�the�STUCORP�data,�which�we�did�not�find�in�PROF-CORP,�is�that�this�relation�is�very�often�expressed�in�a�lexico-grammatical�phrase�containing�the�two�nouns,� ‘solution(s)’�and� ‘problem’.�In�PROFCORP,�this�dual�signalling�was�always�expressed�by�a�verb,�e.g.�minimise,�reduce�+�the�noun�prob-lem.�However,�out�of�the�20�tokens�of�problem�in�the�STUCORP�data, ten�occur�in�a�phrase�where�a�specific�solution�is�proposed.�Of�these,�eight�tokens�of�problem�are�found�in�the�Rheme�position�of�the�sentence:�

… will be a possible solution to the problem.

… may be a solution to this problem.

…is not a technically feasible solution to the problem.

One�reason�for�the�occurrence�of�this�kind�of�metalanguage�for�the�Problem-So-lution�pattern�in�the�STUCORP�data�could�well�be�that�students�are�over-relying�on�such�metalanguage�because�they�lack�knowledge�of�the�range�of�implicit�verbs��(e.g.�alleviate, eliminate)�found�in�the�PROFCORP�data.�Another�observation�is�that�in�the�PROFCORP�data�modals�such�as�would,�should and�could�are�used�to�convey�the�possible�degree�of�success�of�the�proposed�solution,�e.g.�Daily, or more

Page 115: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

102� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

frequent covering of deposited waste with inert material should minimise much of the problem.

However,�in�STUCORP�in�this�context,�there�are�no�instances�of�these�modals,�with�students�using�possible on�only�four�occasions to�convey�this�epistemic�use,�e.g.�…will be�a possible solution to the problem.�This�suggests�that�students�either�see� no� need� for� modal� marking,� or� more� likely,� have� a� very� limited� repertoire�of�modal�expressions,�an�observation�which�has�also�been�made�in�a�number�of�other�studies�on�learners’�lack�of�epistemic�devices�to�mitigate�their�claims�(see�Flowerdew�2000;�Hyland�&�Milton�1997;�Lorenz�1998).

In�the�STUCORP�data,�the�other�ten�phrases�containing�‘solution(s)’�+�‘prob-lem’�operate�at�a�metadiscourse�level,�with�‘solution(s)’�acting�cataphorically�and�‘problem’�anaphorically�beyond� the� sentence�boundary,� as� in� the�examples�be-low:

… and to suggest some solutions to this problem.

…we suggest some feasible solutions for the problem.

This�kind�of�explicit� signalling�was�not�present� in� the�PROFCORP�data�which�may�well�be�because� two�key�sub-headings� in� the�reports�(‘Environmental� Im-pacts’�and� ‘Mitigating�Measures’)� fulfilled� the�same�function,�and�therefore�ex-plicit�signalling�in�the�body�of�the�reports�was�considered�redundant.�However,�variations� on� this� lexico-grammatical� patterning� ‘solution(s)….problem’� were�found�in�the�BNC,�but�this�pattern�was�more�common�with�‘solution…�problem’�(323�instances)�compared�with�just�45�instances�of�‘solutions�…�problem’.

A�similar�type�of�explicit�metadiscourse�signalling�was�also�found�in�the�lexi-co-grammatical�phrases�for�the�48�tokens�of�problem�in�the�Means-Purpose�rela-tion�(see�Ädel�2006�for�a�corpus-based�analysis�of�learner�metadiscourse).�In�this�category,�there�are�28�phrases�which�are�a�variation�of�the�pattern�‘solution’�+�(in�order)�‘to�solve’�+�‘problem’.�Several�examples�are�provided�below:

…we will suggest possible solutions to tackle this problem.

…recommendation to solve the problem.

…another method to solve the problem.

Of� the� remaining� 20� tokens� of� problem� in� purpose� clauses,� one� occurs� in� the�grammatical�construction�‘so�as…’�(…so as to solve the present problem),�one�to-ken�is�found�after�‘so’�(…so the problem of … can be solved),�and�18�are�found�in�‘in�order�to’�clauses,�11�of�which�occur�in�Theme�position�in�the�sentence,�and�9�in�Rheme�position,�a�pattern�and�distribution�very�similar�to�those�in�the�PROF-CORP�data.�

Page 116: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�7.� STUCORP:�Problem�element� 103

It�has�already�been�noted�that�students�have�difficulty�in�using�causative�verbs�and� collocational� appropriacy� is� also� another� area� which� poses� some� difficulty.�Two�verbs�used�by�students,�cope with�(4)�and�get rid of�(1)�are�a�little�informal�for�the�context�and�it�might�have�been�better�to�have�substituted�‘deal�with’�and�‘re-solve’�respectively.�There�are�four�tokens�for�‘improve’�(e.g.�…recommendations to improve the above problem).�In�these�cases,�it�might�have�been�more�appropriate�to�have�substituted�‘problem’�with�‘situation’�as�what�the�students�are�referring�to�is�an�existing�situation�which�is�problematic,�i.e.�the�lack�of�payphones�on�campus:

The following are some recommendations to improve the above problem: to install more payphones campus…

A�check�with�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�did�not�yield�any�in-stances�of� the�collocation� improve�+�problem,� so� the whole�BNC�was�searched.�This�search�revealed�that�‘improve’�does�occur�with�‘problem’,�but�this�is�only�in�three�cases�and�in�all�of�them�it�is�some�kind�of�health�problem�which�is�being�referred�to,�e.g.�His surgeon has said that two years’ rest may improve the problem significantly.

The�lexico-grammatical�phrases�for�both�the�Means-Result�and�Condition-Consequence�relations�tended�to�be�rather�formulaic,�mostly�of�the�pattern�This problem can be solved by …� for�the�former,�and�If there is a problem�…�for�the�latter.�The�phrases�in�the�Grounds-Conclusion�category�(e.g.�So, this problem is still in a�controversial stage)�were�all�evaluative�in�nature,�which�confirms�the�find-ings�of�previous�small-scale�research�of�student�writing�where�causation�was�the�rhetorical�function�under�investigation�(Flowerdew�1998b).

Non-causal�categories�for�problem

I�now�consider�the�role�of�the�remaining�323�tokens�for�problem�which�cannot�be�classified�under�any�of�the�five�semantic�relations�denoting�causation.�21�of�these�tokens�were�found�in�sentences�relating�to�the�aim�of�the�investigation,�e.g.:

In this project our aim is�to investigate seriousness of copyright problem in the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

Sentences�such�as�the�one�above�stating�the�objective�of�the�project�were�not�found�in�PROFCORP,�where�a�statement�reflecting�the�objective�of�the�report�was�en-cased�in�a�Means-Purpose�relation�with�problem taking�a�plural�form:

An initial environmental impact assessment was commissioned with a view to identifying any insurmountable environmental problems…

Page 117: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

104� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

However,�the�remaining�tokens�for�problem�in�STUCORP�were�found�in�the�sec-tion� of� the� reports� on� describing� and� discussing� the� findings,� usually� with� the�verb�‘be’.�In�the�context�of�these�student�reports�when�problem�is�used�with�part�of�the�verb�‘be’,�this�verb�functions�as�a�stative�verb�denoting�the�existence,�or�relat-ing�to�the�evaluation,�of�a�problem,�as�in�the�examples�below:�

A third problem is insufficient ink.

…belongings unattendance is a very serious problem.

In�78�cases�problem was�premodified�by�evaluative�adjectives�such�as�common,�important,�significant,�severe,�serious,�main,�major.�When�premodified�by�certain�of�these�adjectives�(e.g.�common, serious, severe, significant,�important),�it�tended�to�be�anaphoric,�but�a�type�of�anaphora�operating�at�the�sentence�rather�than�at�the�discourse�level,�e.g.�…�the lack�of modem lines is really a serious problem.�In�several�cases,�students�had�used�the�referent�‘It’,�e.g.�It is really a serious problem,�when�‘This’�might�have�been�expected�for�retrospective�reference�(see�Lin�2002�for�a�corpus-based�study�on�the�overuse�and�misuse�of�‘It’�in�the�writing�of�Chi-nese�learners�of�English).

One�striking�use�of�premodification�was�that�of�the�ordinatives�such�as�first,�second,�third,�and�next,�and�the�deictic�another,�with�12�tokens�recorded�for�the�ordinatives�and�16�tokens�recorded�for�another.�Phrases�containing�ordinals�(e.g.�The next / second / third problem …)�and�those�with�main, major�and�minor,�which�usually�combined�with�ordinals�(e.g.�The first major problem�…)�had�cataphoric�reference,� always� sentence-internal,� with� the� main� lexico-grammatical� pattern�being�‘problem’�+�‘be’�+�noun,�and�a�few�cases�of�the�pattern�‘problem’�+�‘be’�+�‘that�clause’,�as�in�the�examples�below:

The second major problem is the power failure problem.

The main problem is that the Division of Humanities could not allocate resources to establish such a centre now.

12�out�of�the�16�tokens�for�another premodifying�problem also�displayed�a�similar�type�of�patterning,�e.g.�Another problem is / was (that) the…. These�findings�are�consonant� with� Schmidt’s� (2000)� corpus-based� research� on� the� types� of� nouns�classified� as� Inscribed� signals� in� this� article,� who� notes� that� ‘The� lexico-gram-matical�use�of�‘Problem’�nouns�is�marked�by�a�distinct�preference�for�the�patterns�N-be-that,�th-N�and�th-be-N.’�(p.�122).�

In�sum,�these�data� therefore� indicate� that�when�students�use�problem�with�premodifying�adjectives,�the�type�of�premodifying�adjective�accompanying�it�de-termines�its�anaphoric�or�cataphoric�status.�Another�point�to�note�is�that�in�the�

Page 118: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�7.� STUCORP:�Problem�element� 105

above�examples,�the�anaphoric�and�cataphoric�referencing�is�always,�except�in�a�couple�of�cases,�sentence-internal.

However,� the�most�significant� fact�about�the�anaphoric�and�cataphoric�ref-erencing� patterns� associated� with� problem in� STUCORP is� that� it� is� markedly�different�from�that�found�in�the�previous�sub-section,�which�examined�the�lexi-co-grammatical�patterning�of�problem�when�it�was�involved�in�a�causal�relation.�There,�regardless�of� the�causal�category,�problem�was� invariably�anaphoric,�but�most�importantly,�operating�beyond�the�sentence�boundary�(e.g.�…recommenda-tion to solve the problem).�Likewise,�in�PROFCORP,�the�same�kind�of�anaphoric�referencing� at� the� discourse� level� was� present� in� the� causation-related� phrases�(e.g.�…should minimise�much�of the problem).�[An�exception�to�this�was�when�the�indefinite�article�was�used�to�refer�to�a�potential�rather�than�an�existing�problem:�e.g.�…the effluent�export scheme will create a noise problem].�Interestingly,�Scott�(2001b)� found� that�problem had�a�more� local� scope� than�discourse-organising�function�in�a�corpus�of�Guardian�newspaper�feature�articles,�which�seems�to�be�the�case�when�it�is�not�involved�in�a�causation-based�relation.�The�functions�of�problem�either�operating�as�a�local�discourse�signal�or�as�a�more�global�connec-tive�one,�i.e.�as�an�A-Noun�binding�adjacent�clauses�or�sentences,�or�as�an�evalua-tive�or�as�an�evaluative�one�supporting�the�anaphoric�status�of�the�determiner�This�in�the�phrase�This problem has�already�been�brought�up�in�Chapter�1�in�the�review�of�Vocabulary�3�items.�Possible�explanations�for�the�differences�in�these�two�roles�of�problem are�discussed�in�more�detail�below.

According�to�Francis�(1986,�1994),�problem�is�one�of�the�most�common�dis-course-organising�anaphoric�nouns,�which�she�terms�‘A-Nouns’�(Schmidt�refers�to�such�discourse�organising�nouns�as�‘shell�nouns’).�Now,�if�we�examine�the�ex-ample�provided�in�Francis’�1994�article�(p.�85),�we�find�that�it�is�premodified�by�‘this’,� and� also� happens� to� be� involved� in� a� causal� relation,� signalled� by� ‘to� get�around’:

…the� patients’� immune� system� recognised� the� mouse� antibodies� and� rejected�them.�This�meant�they�did�not�remain�in�the�system�long�enough�to�be�fully�ef-fective.The� second� generation� antibody� now� under� development� is� an� attempt� to� get�around� this problem� by� ‘humanising’� the� mouse� antibodies,� using� a� technique�developed�by�…�� (Francis�1994:�85)

Francis’�assumption�is�generally�shown�to�be�valid�where�problem in�both�STU-CORP� and� PROFCORP� is� involved� in� some� kind� of� causal� relation.� However,�other� data� in� STUCORP� (i.e.� that� relating� to� non-causation� phrases)� does� not�support�Francis’�premise.�Moreover,�Hoey�(1998)�also�remarks�that�Francis�seems�to� be� overstating� the� anaphoric� importance� of� these� signalling� nouns� such� as�

Page 119: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

106� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

problem.�He�points�out�that�nominal�groups�containing�another also�label�a�pre-vious�stretch�of�text,�in�this�case�as�a�problem,�since�another problem�is�given�and�requires�the�reader�to�relate�both�an�earlier�and�later�lexicalisation�of�problem to�fully� interpret� it,� thus�suggesting�that� it� functions�both�cataphorically�and�ana-phorically.�

Also,�as�has�been�noted�in�Chapter�1,�the�anaphoric�function�of�such�nouns�as�problem�is�called�into�question�when�it�co-occurs�with�a�demonstrative�such�as�This,�which�carries� the�anaphora�rather� than� the�noun�problem.�Consulting�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�helps�to�shed�light�on�this�issue.�An�examination�of�the�222�concordance�lines�of�This /�this problem�supports�Francis’�notion�of�problem�acting�as�an�anaphoric�noun�at� the�discourse� level.�But� this�anaphoric�use�can�be�explained�by�the�fact�that�138�(i.e.�62%)�of�these�instances�are�causation-based,�with�131�combining�with�a�verb�signalling�the�Solution�ele-ment,�e.g.�This problem was overcome by providing the lamps with locks.�

However,�a�totally�different�picture�emerges�if�we�examine�the�concordance�lines�for�problem with�other�premodifiers�in�the�same�component�of�the�BNC.�For�example,�of�the�36�instances�of�another problem,�only�five�of�these�are�ana-phoric,�where�the�anaphoric�reference�is�always�sentence-internal.�The�majority�have�cataphoric�reference�and�are�of�the�same�patterning�as�those�found�in�STU-CORP.�Moreover,�only�five�of�these�are�causation-based,�all�employing�the�verb�‘arise’.� Not� surprisingly,� ordinatives� also� displayed� similar� patterning� to� that� of�another.� As� for� evaluative� adjectives� (e.g.� serious,� common)� examples� from� the�same�component�of�the�BNC�mentioned�previously,�show�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�to�be�very�similar�to�that�found�in�STUCORP,�i.e.�having�anaphoric�reference�within�the�sentence,�e.g.�…�stray radiations become a serious problem….�However,�in�8�out�of�the�20�concordance�lines�of�serious problem,�the�anaphoric�sentence�referent�is�this,�e.g.�This is a serious problem…,�which�depends�on�a�pre-vious�stretch�of�discourse�for�its�relexicalisation.�What�is�most�significant,�though,�is�that�out�of�the�21�examples�of�serious problem�and�20�examples�of�common prob-lem�examined�in�the�BNC,�there�is�only�one�instance�of�a�causation-related�sen-tence.�Therefore,�unlike�the�data�for�problem�in�causation-related�phrases,�these�data�do�not�support�Francis’�premise�that�problem�is�a�common�A-Noun.�

We�can�therefore�conclude�from�an�analysis�of�the�above�data�in�PROFCORP�and� STUCORP� and� further� examples� from� the� BNC� that� Francis� is� correct� in�saying�that�problem functions�anaphorically�at�the�discourse�level,�but that this statement is�mainly applicable to its role in causal relations.�Moreover,� the�BNC�data�have�also�confirmed�that�problem when�immediately�premodified�by�this or�the plays�an�important�role�in�causal�relations,�which�was�not�found�to�be�the�case�with�other�premodifiers,�such�as�evaluative�adjectives�and�ordinatives.�Another�important�aspect�to�note�is�that�problem�loses�its�status�as�an�A-Noun�when�pre-

Page 120: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�7.� STUCORP:�Problem�element� 107

modified�by�This�as�the�anaphor�is�carried�by�the�determiner.�As�Schmidt�(2000:�8)�points�out�‘shell�nouns�and�shell-noun�phrases�can�only�be�studied�appropriately�if�what�they�link�up�with�is�taken�into�account’.�However,�these�data�from�PROF-CORP�and�STUCORP�and�comparative�data�drawn�from�the�BNC�highlight�the�importance�of�also�taking�into�account�the�semantic�relations�that�a�noun�such�as�problem�may�be�involved�in�when�determining�its�discourse-organising�role�(see�Flowerdew�2003�for�a�discussion�of�these�points).

The�tokens�for�problems are�analysed�according�to�the�same�causal�and�non-causal�categories�as�those�above.

Causal�categories�for�problems

35%�of�the�tokens�for�problems�(91�out�of�261)�are�causation-related,�which�is�a�similar�proportion�to�those�tokens�for�problem in�PROFCORP.�Interestingly,�in�the�Reason-Result�category�explicit�causative�verbs�for�cause/reason�were�rarely�used,�the�only�example�being�‘cause’�occurring�three�times�with�problem.�Like-wise,�there�were�relatively�few�occurrences�of�causation�nouns�(7)�and�complex�prepositions� (2).� However,� there� were� 11� occurrences� of� some� kind� of� explicit�causative�verb�for�result/effect,�but�in�only�one�instance�was�the�verb�used�correct-ly.�In�some�cases�there�were�syntactic�errors�in�formation�of�relative�clauses,�which�has�been�identified�as�a�feature�of�Hong�Kong�English�(see�Gisborne�2000).

� � *�There were some problems resulted from low attendance…

* There are some problems and mainly come from …

In�other�cases,�though,�it�was�the�students’�lack�of�vocabulary�which�was�found�to�be�wanting.�For�example,�in�the�sentence�below�dealing with�appears�to�mean�arising from.

� � * … the problems dealing with computer barns…

There�were�four�sentences�where�‘happen’�or�‘appear’ were�used�in�a�rather�unidi-omatic�way,�as�in�the�two�examples�below.�These�verbs�would�be�better�replaced�by�‘occur’�or�‘arise’,�which�were�found�to�collocate�with�problems�in�PROFCORP.

* Generalised problems mostly happen in computer barns.

* More and more problems appear.

As�for�the�two-way�signalling�lexico-grammatical�phrases�conveying�the�resolu-tion�of�a�problem�(which�as�I�have�argued�is�also�a�type�of�causation)�these�are�also�very�similar�to�those�for�problem� in�STUCORP,�which�fall� into�two�categories:�

Page 121: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

108� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

implicit�verb�+�problems,�or�noun�+�problems.�The�implicit�verbs�collocating�with�problems were�very� similar� to� those�used�with�problem,�with� ‘solve’�occurring�with�17�of�the�25�tokens�for�problems.�In�the�15�cases�where�problems occurred�with�‘solution(s)’�or�a�synonym,�it�always�had�anaphoric�reference�as�did�problem in�this�kind�of�construction,�e.g.�…possible�solutions to these problems.�As�the�pat-ternings� for�problems in� the�Means-Purpose and�Means-Result categories�are�almost� identical� to� those� for� problem� in� these� two�categories,� they�will�not�be�dwelt�on�further�here.�

Non-causal�categories�for�problems

I�will�now�examine�the�remaining�170�tokens�of�problems, which�do�not�belong�to�any�of�the�causation�categories.�In�common�with�those�non�causation-related�tokens�for�problem,�these�either�relate�to�the�purpose�of�the�investigation�which�is�covered�in�the�Introduction�/�Background�section�of�the�reports,�or�the�reporting�of�the�findings�contained�in�the�Body.�However,�one�salient�difference�between�the�non-causation�uses�of�problems�and�problem�in�STUCORP�is�that�the�distri-bution�between�the�tokens�for�problems in�these�two�broad�areas�is�quite�different.�Whereas�only�21�out�of�the�323�tokens�for�problem�(i.e.�6.5%)�relate�to�the�pur-pose�of�the�investigation,�77�out�of�the�170�tokens�for�problems�(i.e.�45%)�do�so.�A�look�at�the�lexico-grammatical�phrases�for�these�tokens�reveals�that�statements�indicating�the�purpose�of�an�investigation�favour�problems�over�problem�e.g.�We would like to know what are the problems on computer usage they are facing.�In�a�few�cases,�problems�had�a�retrospective�function�as�it�occurred�in�the�Conclusion�restating�the�purpose,�e.g.�In this report we have analysed some existing problems in….�The�use�of�problems�in�the�report�Introductions�sets�up�the�following�dis-course�in�the�Body�and no�doubt�explains�why�10%�of�the�total�number�of�tokens�for�problems (28�out�of�289)�were�used�as�a�heading�/�sub�heading�in�the�Body,�whereas�only�4%�of�the�tokens�for�problem had�this�function.�

The�remaining�93� tokens� for�problems� in�STUCORP�which�were� found� in�statements�reporting�the�findings�also�displayed�differences�from�those�for�prob-lem�with�this�function.�First�of�all,�nearly�65%�of�the�tokens�for�problem�had�this�function,�whereas�only�35%�of�the�tokens�for�problems did.�The�main�reasons�for�this�are�twofold�and�can�be�gleaned�from�the�pre-modification�patterns�of�prob-lem�and�problems.�The�tokens�for�problems�often�occur�in�a�kind�of�topic�sen-tence,�with�pre-modification�by�adjectives�such�as�several,�some�and�main,�e.g.:

The result shows that there are several problems in ….

We have discovered that the five main problems of services…

Page 122: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�7.� STUCORP:�Problem�element� 109

However,�in�the�analysis�of�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�for�problem it�was�noted�that�these�tokens�were�premodified�by�enumerator�adjectives,�e.g.�The next problem…;�A third problem…,�which�is�an�elaboration�of�the�topic�sentence,�sug-gesting�that�one�topic�sentence�with�problems�could�generate� two�or� three� fol-lowing�phrases�with�problem.�Although�this�type�of�patterning�did�not�occur�in�PROFCORP�it�cannot�be�regarded�as�a�feature�of�student�writing�only,�as�the�same�kind� of� patterning� occurs� with� problems and� problem� in� the� Applied� Science�component�of�the�BNC,�as�mentioned�previously.�However,�it�could�well�be�that�students�are�overusing�these�topic�sentences�incorporating�sequence�markers.�In�this�respect,�Hinkel�(2002)�found�that�sequence�markers�such�as�first, second�etc.�were�substantially�overused�by�Asian�non-native�speakers.�

To�conclude,�it�can�be�seen�that�the�distribution�of�problem and�problems�in�STUCORP�across�the�five�causal�categories�is�fairly�similar�to�that�of�problem�and�problems in�PROFCORP,�with�most�of�the�tokens�concentrated�in�the�Reason-Result,� and� secondly� the� Means-Purpose� relation.� However,� this� analysis� has�revealed� differences� in� lexico-grammatical� patterning� between� different� forms�of�the�same�lemma�in�both�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP,�thus�lending�weight�to�Hoey’s�(1997,�2005)�argument�that�different�forms�of�a�lemma�pattern�differently.�For�example,�it�was�noted�in�PROFCORP�that�problems and�problem�had�differ-ent�premodification�behaviour�with�problems�premodified�across�all�causal�cat-egories.�Differences�have�also�been�noted� in� the� lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�the�same�lemma�across�the�two�corpora,�such�as�the�absence�of�interpersonal�markers�in�the�form�of�modal�verbs�with�the�tokens�for�problem in�STUCORP.�In�PROFCORP�such�verbs�were�used�as�a�mitigating�device�for�making�recom-mendations,� but� they� were� never� found� in� STUCORP� where� they� would� have�been�appropriate�in�certain�contexts,�thus�confirming�the�findings�of�several�other�corpus-based�studies�which�note�that�student�writing�tends�to�be�too�direct�and�unhedged.�Another�difference�in�the�patterning�of�problem was�where�it�was�used�with� a� two-way� signalling� verb� (e.g.� ‘minimise’,� ‘alleviate’)� in� PROFCORP.� The�verb�‘solve’�was�overwhelmingly�used�by�students,�thus�suggesting�their�limited�vocabulary�range.�However,�as�already�mentioned,�differences�between�the�lex-ico-grammatical� patterning� in� STUCORP� and� PROFCORP� do� not� necessarily�indicate�deficiencies,�and�this�was�found�to�be�the�case�with�topic-like�sentences,�e.g.�We have discovered that the five main problems of services…,�and�sub-topic�sentences,�e.g.�The second major problem is the power failure problem,�which�did�not�occur�in�PROFCORP,�but�were�found�in�the�Applied�Science�Component�of�the�BNC.�It�is�these�types�of�sentences�which�account�for�the�difference�is�the�dis-tribution�of�problem�and�problems between�the�causal�and�non-causal�categories�in�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP.�

Page 123: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

110� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

In�the�following�section,�I�will�analyse�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�for�the�noun�need,�which�like�problem�and�problems also�explicitly�signals�a�nega-tive�evaluation�of�a�situation�and�was�found�as�a�key-key�word�in�STUCORP�(see�Table�4-1).�I�will�focus�on�the�nominal�form�only�so�that�the�analysis�is�compat-ible�with�the�analyses�for�problem and�problems�and�can�be�carried�out�under�the�same�analytical�framework.�

Analysis of need

Causal�categories�for�need

In�STUCORP,�out�of�a�total�of�354�tokens�for�need,�228�are�verbal,�120�are�of�a�nominal� form�and�three�act�as�headings.�28� tokens�(23%)�out�of� the�120�noun�forms�for�need were�causation-related,�and�in�some�respects�similar�to�those�in�PROFCORP,�but�with�more�emphasis�on�the�Solution�element.�Verbs�such�as�‘ful-fil’,�‘meet’�and�‘satisfy’�were�found�to�occur�with�need�in�13�phrases,�nine�of�which�belonged�to�the�Means-Purpose category,�as�shown�in�the�examples�below.�

The opening hours of CCST computer barns should be extended in order to meet the need of students.

Its opening hours, 2pm to 2am, can satisfy the need of students.

However,�the�above�differ�from�the�use�of�need +�‘to’�or�‘for’ in�PROFCORP�as�the�combination�of�need�+�‘of ’�in�STUCORP�is�closer�to�the�verbal�use�in�that�it�relates�to�“students’�need”,�i.e.�what�students�need.�

As�previously�pointed�out,�such�phrases�act�as�two-way�signals,�with�the�verb�signalling�the�Solution�element�and�need�the�Problem�element.�This�dual�signal-ling�necessarily�entails�causativity,�although�there�is�no�explicit�marker�as�such.�

Interestingly,� 10� of� the� causation� sentences� in� which� need occurs� contains�an�adverbial�marker:�Therefore (6),�Thus� (2),�So (1),�Hence (1),�but�only�one�of�these�is�incorporated�within�the�sentence,�albeit�with�faulty�sentence�structure�e.g.�…influences the waiting time, thus usually there is no need to wait for a seat.�All�the�other�adverbs,�however,�are�sentence�initial,�as�in�the�examples�below:

Thus, there is no need to buy a new server.

Therefore, there is a need to provide more payphones.

Usually,�these�adverbials�are�regarded�in�EFL�textbooks�as�markers�of�local�coher-ence,�connecting�two�sentences,�but�in�these�examples,�they�are�functioning�at�a�more�global�level,�as�a�summary�conclusion�for�a�previous�stretch�of�text.�For�this�

Page 124: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�7.� STUCORP:�Problem�element� 111

reason� they� can� be� classified� as� Grounds-Conclusion� rather� than� Reason-Re-sult;�in�this�respect�the�students�show�writing�maturity.�However,�in�the�phrases�signalling� Grounds-Conclusion in� PROFCORP,� the� adverbial� was� always� in-tersentential�and�never�sentence-initial�as� in� the�STUCORP�examples,�so� from�this�perspective�the�student�writing�can�be�considered�as�lacking�variation�in�the�positioning�of�adverbs.�

Non-causal�categories�for�need

Another�20�tokens�for�need are�of�the�pattern�There is/was …a need to/for,�with�10�tokens�colligating�with�to�+�verb,�e.g.�There is a need to learn Putonghua.�This�type�of�colligation�can�be�viewed�as�what�Benson�et�al.�(1986)�refer�to�as�gram-matical�collocation,�i.e.�the�fact�that�the�grammatical�structure�following�need is�‘to’�+�verb,�‘for’�+�noun,�or�‘of ’�+�noun�in�the�case�of�the�student�reports.�However,�we�also�have�another�type�of�colligation�operating�with�need, which�is�the�one�de-fined�by�Hoey�as�‘the�grammatical�company�a�word�keeps’.�This�refers�not�to�what�the� grammatical� structure� is,� but� rather� to� the� preferred� grammatical� pattern-ing,�as�it�were�(see�Chapter�1�for�a�discussion�of�colligation).�For�example,�in�the�case�of�need,�one�common�patterning�is�with�existential�‘there’.�Also,�need�prefers�the�pattern�There is no need to…, which�is�manifest�in�both�the�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�data.�There�are�no�examples�of�the�alternative�negative�form�There isn’t�any need to…�in�either�PROFCORP�or�STUCORP.�Likewise,�none�were� found�for� the�near-synonym�problem. To�substantiate� this�point,� I�checked�these� two�patternings�(There isn’t any…�and�There is no…)�with�need�and�problem�in�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC.�Any only�occurred�with�need� in�three�cases�always�with�an�intervening�adverb,�e.g.�There is seldom any need for…;�There is no longer�any need for…�and�never�with�a�verb�in�the�negative.�The�preferred�colligational�patterning�with�problem�was�always�There is no…,�e.g.�There is no problem with comparators.

Data�from�STUCORP�therefore�show�that�students�are�aware�of�both�the�col-locational�and�colligational�patterning�of�need.�Nevertheless,�one�grammatical�in-felicity�shown�below�which�is�specific�to�the�writing�of�Chinese�learners�of�English�is�the�confusion�of�anticipatory�‘It’�with�existential�‘There’;�Lin�(2002)�shows�that�this�misunderstanding�can�be�attributed�to�the�influence�of�the�students’�mother�tongue.

* It is no need to explain.

Another�key�interlanguage�feature,�that�of�topicalisation�(e.g.�For the problem, it can be solved by…,�has�been�the�subject�of�numerous�studies�(Green�1996)�and�

Page 125: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

112� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

also� examined� from� a� corpus-based� perspective� (cf.� Green� et� al.� 2000;� Milton�2000).�However,�surprisingly,�I�did�not�find�any�evidence�of�this�L1�transfer�in�my�corpus� data� when� examining� the� lexico-grammatical� patterning� of� problem(s)�and�solution(s).�One�reason�for�this�may�be�that�we�have�addressed�this�point�on�a�recurrent�basis�in�our�teaching�materials�so�it�is�heartening�to�think�that�students�might�have�improved�in�this�area.

The�remaining�tokens�for�need either�centre�around�the�purpose�for�the�inves-tigation�in�the�Introduction�or�the�identification�of�some�type�of�need�in�the�Body�of�the�reports,�which�is�very�similar�to�the�functions�of�the�lexico-grammatical�phrases�for�problems�in�STUCORP�and�those�for�need�in�PROFCORP.�However,�the�orientation�of�the�problem�statements�is�quite�different�in�the�two�corpora.�In�PROFCORP�the�problem�is�taken�as�‘given’,�i.e.�already�established,�and�it�has�been�pointed�out�in�the�previous�section�that�that�the�preferred�patterning�for�this�is,�for�example,�The EIA has identified the need for a flyover.�

On�the�other�hand,�in�the�student�reports�the�Problem�statement�is�not�taken�as� ‘given’�as�part�of� the�writing� task� is� to�provide�evidence� for� the�existence�of�some�kind�of�problem.�As�pointed�out�in�Chapter�3,�student�topics�revolve�around�university�concerns�such�as�a�shortage�of�computers�or�the�lack�of�modem�lines�for�dialling�in.�This�lack,�or�shortage,�was�very�often�conveyed�by�the�word�insuf-ficient which�surfaced�as�a�key�word�in�five�texts�(see�Table�4-1)�and�occurred�114�times�in�STUCORP,�as�in�the�examples�below:

Students think their laser-print quota is insufficient.

…number of available computers in barns becomes really insufficient.

Having�established� the�existence�of�a�problem,� the� students� then�proceeded� to�comment�on�this�in�relation�to�students’�needs,�which�is�why�patterning�along�the�lines�of�‘cannot’�+�meet/fulfil/satisfy�+�need of students�was�common.�

…the number of machines cannot meet the need of students.

…this still cannot satisfy with the need of the students.

Although�some�lexico-grammatical�patternings�for�need are�similar�in�both�cor-pora�(e.g.�There is a need …for/to),�in�other�instances�the�patterning�is�quite�dif-ferent�depending�on�whether�the�problem�statement�is�being�presented�as�already�established�or�new.�These�examples�thus�show�the�importance�of�contextual�pa-rameters�in�determining�and�interpreting�collocational�features,�which�was�em-phasised�in�Chapter�3.

Page 126: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�7.� STUCORP:�Problem�element� 113

Conclusion

As�for�the�STUCORP�data,�deficiencies�have�been�found�in�certain�respects.�Stu-dent�writing�displays�a�very�limited�range�of�explicit�and�implicit�verbs�used�for�marking�the�cause/reason�relation,�and�interpersonal�markers�did�not�occur�with�these�verbs�when�they�could�have�been�used�in�some�cases,�thus�supporting�other�corpus-based� studies� which� conclude� that� student� writing� is� too� direct.� More-over,�it�was�found�that�in�the�result/effect�relation,�there�were�many�grammati-cal�infelicities�with�students�confusing�these�verbs�with�those�for�cause/reason.�Students�were�also�unaware�of�alternative�semi-formulaic�phrases,�e.g.�‘this�…�be�a�problem’,�with�students�also�attempting�to�“create”�their�own�lexical�phrases�to�express�an�idea,�which�although�grammatically�correct�sounded�non-native�like.�However,� some�aspects�of�student�writing�were� found�to�resemble�professional�writing.�The�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�sentences�such�as�The second major problem is …,�while�not�appearing�in�PROFCORP,�were�found�in�the�BNC�Ap-plied�Science�component.�

The�type�of�analysis�which�is�the�focus�of�this�chapter�thus�demonstrates�the�value�of�corpus-based�work�for�identifying�both�the�causation�and�non-causation�based�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�keyword�signals�for�the�Problem�element.�However,�as�emphasised�in�the�second�chapter�it�is�also�necessary�to�have�recourse�to�the�wider�context�to�explain�why�the�professional�or�students�writers�construct�the�discourse�as�they�do�and�this�aspect�has�also�been�referred�to�in�the�analysis�of�need.�The�following�chapter�describes�a�similar�analysis�carried�out�for�Evoking�and�Inscribed�signals�for�the�Solution�element�in�STUCORP,�but�within�a�more�functional�rather�than�notional,�i.e.�conceptual,�framework.�

Page 127: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 128: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

chapter�8

STUCORPPhraseological�analysis�of�signals��for�the�Solution�element

The�analysis�of�Inscribed�and�Evoking�signals�in�STUCORP�for�the�Solution�ele-ment�is�based�on�the�functional�classificatory�framework�described�in�Chapter�6.�Five�Inscribed�signals,�recommendations, solution,�solutions, recommended�and�proposed,�will�be�analysed,�in�addition�to�the�Evoking�item�implementation.�As�in�the�previous�chapter,�the�focus�will�be�on�the�similarities�and�differences�in�the�patterning�of�these�signals�with�their�counterparts�in�PROFCORP.

Analysis of recommendations

Table�8-1�below�tells�us�that�the�Solution�element�of�the�Problem-Solution�pat-tern�is�realized�by�mainly�nominal�signals�in�STUCORP�(i.e.�recommendations, solutions,�solution),�but�by�adjectival�/�verbal�signals�in�PROFCORP�(i.e.�recom-mended, proposed).�What�is�striking�is�that�recommendations is�the�only�signal�which�occurs�as�a�key-key�word�in�both�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP.�

Table�4-1�has�shown�us�that�recommendations�occurs�as�a�keyword�in�five�reports�in�STUCORP�and�also�as�a�keyword�in�eight�of�the�reports�in�PROFCORP.�Of�the�39�tokens�for�recommendations�(excluding�11�headings�and�sub-headings)�in�STUCORP,�37�fall�into�the�category�of�‘Proposing�a�Solution’�and�only�two�into�

Table 8-1. In-text�tokens�for�Inscribed�signals�in�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP

Inscribed signals PROFCORPNo. of tokens

STUCORPNo. of tokens

Recommended *400 � � 57Proposed *584 � � 76Recommendations � *85 � *39Solutions � � � 9 � *89Solution � � 31 *118

*�Occurs�as�a�key�word�in�four�or�more�reports.

Page 129: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

116� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

the�category�of�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’.�This�is�similar�to�PROFCORP�where�the�majority�of�the�tokens�for�recommendations�also�belong�to�the�category�of�‘Pro-posing�a�Solution’.�It�is�not�surprising�that�in�STUCORP�only�two�tokens�fall�into�the�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’�category�given�the�nature�of�these�reports,�as�these�are�recommendation-based�reports�suggesting�proposals�which�have�not�as�yet�been�implemented�and�therefore�not�yet�undergone�any�evaluation.�The�evaluative�ad-jectives�used�are�thus�based�on�the�writers’�own�analysis�of�the�situation�rather�than�any�hard�and�fast�evidence,�e.g.:

...we are able to propose some well grounded recommendations for improving the current …curriculum.

However,�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�recommendations�in�STUCORP�is�quite�different�from�that�found�in�PROFCORP.�In�the�previous�section�it�was�noted�in�PROFCORP�that�the�active�and�passive�forms�of�the�verbs�collocating�with�recommendations displayed�a�preference�for�certain�sections�of�the�reports.�For�example,�verbs�such�as�‘present’�and�‘put�forward’�were�commonly�found�in�the�present�simple�active�in�the�Introductions,�e.g.�This report presents a summary of the main�findings and recommendations,�whereas�verbs�such�as� ‘make’,� ‘sum-marise’�and�‘provide’�in�the�present�simple�passive�form�tended�to�be�used�in�the�Body�of�the�reports,�e.g.�Recommendations are made….�However,�no�such�pat-terning�was�present�for�the�tokens�in�STUCORP.�

23�out�of� the�37�tokens�for�recommendations�are�used�in�the�Introduction�sections�of�the�reports,�of�which�15�are�found�with�verbs�in�the�active�(e.g.�‘make’,�‘give’)�and�8�with�verbs�in�the�passive.�With�the�frequent�use�of�the�active�voice,�it�is�not�surprising�to�find�the�interpersonal�pronoun�‘we’�used,�with�the�typical�lexi-co-grammatical�patterning�for�recommendations�shown�in�those�phrases�below:�

In this report, we will provide recommendations to increase residents’ awareness on…

We make recommendations for better project management.

This� aspect� of� interpersonality� was� distinctly� lacking� in� the� PROFCORP� data,�where�the�patterning�for�recommendations in�the�Introduction�sections�was�al-ways�of�the�type:�This report�presents�…

The�remaining�14�tokens�for�recommendations occur�in�the�Body�of�the�re-ports�and� �are�used�cataphorically.� Interestingly,� for�some�reason�or�other,� stu-dents�avoid�using�here�the�interpersonal�pronoun�‘we’�which�was�prevalent�in�the�Introductions.�Instead�we�find�the�passive�used,�e.g.�

Thus the following recommendations are given,

Page 130: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�8.� STUCORP:�Solution�element� 117

Or�constructions�such�as:�

The following are some recommendations to improve the above problem

There are some recommendations for their improvement.

Although�the�above�are�grammatically�correct,�an�inspection�of�the�246�tokens�of�recommendations�in�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�reveals�that�this�construction�does�not�occur,�thus�suggesting�that�it�is�more�typical�of�student�rather�than�professional�writing.�

Analysis of solutions and solution

Both� solutions� and� solution�occur�as�keywords� in� four�of� the� reports� in�STU-CORP,�thus�providing�further�evidence�that�students�are�heavily�assimilating�key�vocabulary� from�the�rubrics� for� this�writing�assignment� into� the�writing�up�of�their�own�recommendation�reports�(see�Appendix�3-2).�106�entries�are�recorded�for�solutions�of�which�89�occur�in�the�text�of�the�reports�as�opposed�to�being�used�as�(sub)-headings.�Of�these�89�in-text�tokens�for�solutions,�58�can�be�classified�under�‘Proposing�a�Solution’�and�31�under�the�category�of�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’,�which�are�both�analysed�in�detail�below.

Exactly�half�of� the�58� tokens� for� solutions in� the�category�of� “Proposing�a�Solution’�occur�in�the�Introduction�sections�of�the�reports.�In�this�section�‘we’�+�a�verb�in�the�active�is�used�in�35�cases�with�solutions,�as�in�the�examples�below,�but�it�is�not�used�exclusively�as�was�found�to�be�the�case�with�recommendations.

…we will finger out the actual problem and suggest solutions to CCST for improving …

…we will suggest some solutions and find out whether they are feasible.

Another�major�type�of�lexico-grammatical�patterning�in�the�Introductions�is�of�the�type:�

The goal / aim / purpose of this project / research / investigation is…

e.g. The goal of this research is to find out …and to suggest some solutions to this problem.

There�are�also�a�few�examples�of�a�verb�in�the�passive�with�variations�in�the�verbs�used,�e.g.�

Some proposed solutions to the problems are then outlined and…

Page 131: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

118� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Although�the�students�are�using�a�wider�range�of�lexico-grammatical�patternings�here�than�those�found�with�recommendations,�their�use�of�lexis�is�quite�restricted.�For�example,� it� is� found�that�students�either�use� ‘suggest’�or� ‘recommend’�with�solutions.�Moreover,� it� is�also�obvious�from�all�the�above�examples�that�the�as-signment�rubrics�are�being�incorporated�into�the�discourse�through�the�constant�repetition� of� problem� /� problems,� which� is� found� to� collocate� overwhelmingly�with�the�verb�‘solve’�in�phrases�occurring�in�the�Introduction�sections�of�the�re-ports�in�STUCORP.

A�different�lexico-grammatical�patterning�exists�for�those�21�phrases�with�so-lutions�found�in�the�Body�of�the�reports,�although�the�juxtaposition�of�problem�/�problems�with�solutions�in�the�same�sentence�is�still�prevalent,�as�seen�from�the�examples�below.�The�most�common�type�of�pattern� is�one�where�solutions has�cataphoric�reference�and�is�used�in�a�kind�of�topic�sentence�as�in�the�examples�below:

There are several solutions recommended to solve the problem.

Owing to the importance of the problem mentioned in this report, five solutions are suggested here…

The�eight�phrases�with�solutions�occurring�in�the�Concluding�section�act�as�sum-mary�conclusions.�

Of�the�31�sentences�with�solutions�which�carry�some�kind�of�evaluation�three�contain�a�phrase�acting�as�a�two-way�signal�pointing�to�the�Solution,�such�as�the�one�below:

The above solutions can reduce the average waiting time for a student to find an unoccupied computer….

The�remaining�27�phrases�include�an�evaluative�adjective,�with�the�most�common�being�possible (13)�and�feasible�(10).�Moreover,�feasible,�in�addition�to�‘problem�/�problems’�and�‘situation’,�seems�to�be�another�lexical�item�from�the�rubrics�which�has�been�incorporated�by�students�into�their�writing.�However�these�phrases�in�which�solutions collocates�with�an�evaluative�adjective�do�not�have�quite�the�same�status�as�those�analysed�in�PROFCORP�where�an�evaluation�was�only�given�after�a�specific�solution�had�been�proposed�in�the�Body�of�the�reports.�In�the�STUCORP�data,�on�the�other�hand,�evaluative�adjectives�are�integrated�into�the�text�in�all�the�lexico-grammatical�phrases�analysed�under�‘Proposing�a�Solution’.�For�example,�in�the�Introduction�sections�possible�is�commonly�used,�whereas�feasible�tends�to�occur�in�the�topic�sentence�introducing�the�Body�of�the�reports,�e.g.:

Page 132: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�8.� STUCORP:�Solution�element� 119

This report will analyse the problems in the system and suggest some possible solutions to resolve it.

As a result, we suggest some feasible solutions for the problem.

I�will�now�analyse�the�tokens�for�solution�in�STUCORP�and�compare�their�func-tions�and�patternings�with�those�for�solutions.�Of�the�118�tokens�for�solution�73�of�these�can�be�classified�as�‘Proposing�a�Solution’�and�45�as�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’.�In�the�category�of�‘Proposing�a�Solution’�the�majority�of�the�tokens�for�solution,�54�out�of�73, occur�in�the�Body�of�the�reports,�whereas�only�11�and�8�tokens�are�found�in�the�Introduction�and�Conclusion,�respectively.�One�common�function�of�phrases�with�solution�in�the�Introduction�is�the�specification�of�criteria:

In the economic aspect, the recommended solution should be cost-effective…

The solution should be financially supportable.

The�main�reason�why�the�majority�of�tokens�for�solution�occur�in�the�Body�of�the�reports�is�that�several�solutions�are�enumerated,�one�by�one,�using�such�phrases�as�the�following:

Another solution is to mass production of those common dishes.

The first solution is to freeze the tuition fee.

One solution is that student helpers may check the machine more frequently.

However,�nine�of�the�tokens�for�solution in�the�Body�also�refer�to�the�criteria�to�be�met,�which�overlaps�with�the�function�found�in�the�Introduction:

The solution should have some flexibility in the structure.

The�eight�tokens�in�the�Conclusion�sections�either�have�a�summarising�or�deduc-tive�function,�as�shown�below:

Increasing the resources is obviously a solution to the problem.

…so we highly recommend CCST to consider this solution in order to…

In�the�Conclusion,�it�is�to�be�noted�that�the�Theme/Rheme�patterning�is�different.�Whereas� in� the� Introduction�and�Body� sections� the�majority�of� the� tokens� for�solution are� thematised,�mainly� for� the�reason�that� they�are�preceded�by�some�kind�of�determiner�or�enumerative�adjective,�the�tokens�for�solution�are�found�in�Rheme�position�in�the�Conclusion.�

45�of�the�tokens�for�solution�can�be�classified�under�the�category�of�‘Evaluat-ing�a�Solution’�and�of�these�the�majority�(35)�are�found�in�the�Body�of�the�reports,�with�only�two�tokens�in�the�Introduction�and�eight�in�the�Concluding�sections.�

Page 133: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

120� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Five�of�the�tokens�for�solution�are�not�evaluated�adjectivally,�but�by�other�gram-matical�constructions�such�as�adverbs�and�verbs�acting�as�two-way�signals�for�the�Problem-Solution�pattern:

This solution can effectively reduce the travelling time …

The�remaining�40�tokens�for�solution collocate�with�various�adjectives,�the�most�common�being�feasible (14),�best�(6)�and�possible�(4).�In�fact,�there�are�18�instances�of�a�superlative�form�of�an�adjective�being�used,�which�is�not�surprising�given�that�several�possible�solutions�are�discussed�in�the�Body�of�the�reports.�Out�of�the�35�tokens�for�solution�in�the�Body�sections,�11�carry�a�negative�evaluation,�indicating�rejection�of�a�proposed�solution,�e.g.:�…alternative 2 is not a technically feasible solution to the problem. If�we�have�a�look�at�the�rubrics�in�Appendix�3-2,�we�can�see�that�this�is�actually�a�response�to�one�of�the�guiding�questions�(no.�2).�In�this�respect,�see�Lea�and�Street�(1999)�who�consider�the�relationship�of�other�sites�of�textual�practice�such�as�guidelines� for�dissertation�writing� to�writing�processes�and�practices�in�the�academy.

The�Theme/Rheme�patterning�for�solution�in�the�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’�cat-egory�is�exactly�the�same�as�that�in�the�‘Proposing�a�Solution’�category.�Solution is�found�in�Theme�position�in�the�Body�of�the�reports,�e.g.�This solution is financially and technically feasible,�but�occupies�Rheme�position�in�the�Concluding�section,�e.g.�We find that the installation of surveillance camera in laboratories is a good solution.

This�analysis�of�solutions and�solution�in�STUCORP�has�shown�that�different�forms�of�a�lemma�not�only�have�a�different�colligational�patterning,�but�also�that�the�same�lemma�can�pattern�differently�depending�on�which�part�of�the�report�it�is�used�in.

Analysis of recommended

The�table�below�presents�a�breakdown�of�the�number�of�tokens�for�recommended and�proposed across�the�adjectival�and�various�verbal�categories�outlined�in�the�previous�section.�In�STUCORP�there�are�58�tokens�for�recommended,�of�which�only�one�is�used�as�part�of�a�sub-heading.�Of�the�remaining�57�tokens,�40%�occur�as�a�premodifying�adjective,�and�60%�as�some�kind�of�verbal�form,�which�are�an-alysed�below�according�to�their�lexico-grammatical�patternings.

Page 134: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�8.� STUCORP:�Solution�element� 121

Recommended�as�premodifying�adjective

Recommended occurs�23�times�as�a�premodifying�adjective�and�its�use�is�restricted�to�collocation�with�a�narrow�range�of�nouns�in�STUCORP,�with�the�most�salient�being�‘solution’�(12)�and�‘system’�(9).�This�is�a�very�similar�use�to�that�found�in�PROFCORP�where�recommended was�also�found�to�collocate�with�a�few�specific�nouns�but�ones�related�to�monitoring�and�auditing.

An�examination�of�these�23�noun�phrases�shows�that�13�occur�in�some�kind�of�causal�relation�sentence.�One�pattern�to�emerge�from�the�data�is�a�concluding�statement�of�a�Grounds-Conclusion�type,�where�an�inference�is�made�based�on�previous�analysis:

Hence, the data implies that the recommended solution is accepted by various groups of people in the community.

Therefore, the recommended system is more economical than the present one.

In�contrast,�it�was�found,�that�in�the�PROFCORP�data�the�most�common�cause�relation�in�which�recommended�was�found�as�a�premodifying�adjective�was�Con-dition-Consequence.�Contextual�parameters�therefore�play�a�role�in�determining�the�type�of�causal�relation�in�which�recommended is�found�as�in�PROFCORP�the�focus�was�on�‘requirements�to�be�met’�whereas�in�STUCORP�the�topic�is�a�‘general�evaluation’�of�the�recommended�solution.

Recommended�in�impersonal�passive

Eight�of�the�57�tokens�for�recommended are�found�in�an�impersonal�passive�con-struction�(see�Table�8-2).� In�percentage� terms� this� is� fewer� than� the� tokens� for�recommended�in�PROFCORP,�but�this�difference�can�be�accounted�for�by�the�fact�

Table 8-2. In-text�tokens�for�the�adjectival�and�verbal�categories�of�recommended��and�proposed�in�STUCORP

Grammatical category Recommended ProposedNo. of tokens % of total No. of tokens % of total

Premodifying�adjective 23 � 40% 45 � 59%Impersonal�passive � 8 � 14% � 2 � � 3%Subject�+�passive 17 � 30% 16 � 21%Active � 5 � � 9% 10 � 13%Clause�construction � 4 � � 7% � 3 � � 4%Total 57 100% 76 100%

Page 135: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

122� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

that�there�are�more�interpersonal�markers�with�the�use�of�active�voice�in�STU-CORP�(e.g.�we make some recommendations…).

All�these�eight�tokens�for�recommended are�involved�in�the�Grounds-Con-clusion causal�relation.�In�four�of�the�cases�this�relation�is�explicitly�signalled�by�adverbs�such�as�‘therefore’�and�‘thus’,�e.g.:

� � Therefore, it is strongly recommended that a urgent development programme on …should be carried out.

Thus, it is recommended that CCST should provide more hardware support to that platform.�

However,�in�the�other�four�cases,�as�I�have�argued�in�the�previous�section�in�the�discussion�of�this�grammatical�construction�in�PROFCORP,�the�Grounds-Con-clusion relation,�while�not�explicitly�signalled,�is�implied�in�the�text�by�virtue�of�the�positioning�of�this�lexico-grammatical�patterning�in�the�overall�discourse.�For�example,�the�sentence�below�occurs�in�the�last�part�of�the�report�and�arrives�at�a�conclusion�based�on�analysis�of�evidence�provided�in�the�Body�of�the�report.

It is recommended that those large laboratories should install this system in order to safe guard the precious properties inside.

In�this�respect,�the�student�use�of�recommended�in�impersonal�passive,�when�it�occurs,�is�similar�to�the�professional�use.�

Recommended�in�passive�+�subject�construction

The�passive�+�subject�construction�is�used�17�times�and�accounts�for�30%�of�the�tokens� for�recommended� in�STUCORP,�which� is�very� similar� to� its�percentage�distribution� in� this�grammatical�category� in�PROFCORP�(34%).� It� is� in�nouns�as�subject�where�the�main�differences�between�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP�lie.�It�was�noted�in�PROFCORP�that�one�category�of�these�subject�nouns�comprised�nominalisations�(e.g.�The utilisation of quietened equipment is recommended…).�However,� such� nouns,� which� very� often� happen� to� be� grammatical� metaphor�nouns,�were�not�found�in�this�data.�In�a�few�cases,�students�had�used�a�gerund�(e.g.�installing)�where�a�grammatical�metaphor�(e.g.�Installation)�could�have�been�used�instead,�e.g.:

Installing computer terminals is then highly recommended over building a new computer barn.

A�cross-check�with�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�reveals�that�instal-lation�occurs�more�frequently�(448�tokens)�than�installing�(153�tokens).�Although�

Page 136: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�8.� STUCORP:�Solution�element� 123

installing is�acceptable�usage,�the�BNC�data�do�suggest�that�there�is�a�preference�for�the�nominalisation�form�over�the�gerund�for�this�particular�verb.

Recommended�in�active�voice

There�are�only�five�tokens�for�recommended�in�the�active�voice,�which�are�all�in�the�past�tense.�However�the�use�of�the�past�tense�differs�from�that�in�PROFCORP�where�it�refers�to�recommendations�made�in�a�previous�document�and�occurs�in�the�Introduction�section�of�the�reports.�In�STUCORP,�recommended is�found�in�the�Body�of�the�reports�where�it�is�used�for�reporting�respondents’�opinions�of�the�survey�questions.

Recommended�in�other�clause�constructions

Only� four� tokens� for�recommended were�recorded�as�part�of�other�clause�con-structions,�of�which�three�were�reduced�clauses.�There�were�no�examples�of�the�phrase�‘as�recommended’,�which�was�found�in�PROFCORP�as�an�intertextual�de-vice,�referring�to�a�previous�study�or�report�(e.g.�…as recommended in EPD Con-taminated Spoil Management Study…).

Analysis of proposed

There�are�84�tokens�for�proposed in�STUCORP,�eight�of�which�function�as�part�of�a�sub-heading,�combining�with�‘system’�in�five�cases.�The�76�tokens�found�in�the�text�of�the�reports�are�analysed�below�according�to�the�grammatical�categories�outlined�in�Table�8-2.

Proposed�as�premodifying�adjective

The�majority,�45�out�of� the�76� tokens�of�proposed� (i.e.�59%),� fall� into� this� cat-egory.�Likewise,�in�PROFCORP�the�majority�of�the�tokens�of�proposed�were�also�found�in�this�category.�A�comparison�with�the�tokens�for�recommended used�as�a�premodifying�adjective�in�STUCORP�reveals,�however,�some�differences�in�fre-quency�and�usage.�First,�proposed occurs�more�frequently�than�recommended�in�STUCORP,�with�45� tokens�recorded� for�proposed as�opposed� to�23� for�recom-mended.�The�reason�for�this�may�be�that�recommended�is�mainly�used�with�only�two�nouns:�solution�(12)�and�system (9).�Proposed,�on�the�other�hand,�is�found�

Page 137: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

124� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

to�occur�with�a�greater�range�of�nouns�(e.g.�modification,�policy,�design,�activity,�strategy,�process,�scheme).�

Not�only�are�there�differences�in�collocation�between�proposed and�recom-mended in�STUCORP,�but�also�differences�in�their�functions�in�the�overall�dis-course.� Whereas� it� was� noted� that� collocations� with� recommended were� often�found�in�a�Grounds-Conclusion type�of�relation�in�the�latter�part�of�the�reports,�the�collocations�with�proposed�were�mainly�distributed�between�the�Introduction�and�Methodology�sections�of�the�report�(cf.�Gledhill�1995,�2000).

Proposed�in�impersonal�passive

There� is� only� one� example� of� the� lexico-grammatical� patterning� it is proposed that…�and�one�example�of�proposed in�the�impersonal�passive�followed�by�a�Pur-pose clause�in�the�Rheme�part�of�the�sentence:

It is proposed to increase the number of credits for Final Year Project to 6 to solve the problems mentioned above.

Proposed�in�subject�+�passive�construction

An�examination�of�the�16�tokens�for�proposed in�the�passive�+�subject�construc-tion�shows�that�of�these�are�all�in�Rheme�position,�with�two�of�the�tokens�preced-ed�by�a�Purpose clause�as�Theme,�and�13�by�a�textual�theme,�as�in�the�following�examples:

To address the stated problem a censorship system is proposed…

Therefore, the following recommendations are proposed.

Although�the�above�patterning�is�very�similar�to�that�found�in�PROFCORP,�sev-eral�of�the�sentences�are�rather�awkward�sounding�because�of�the�subjects�of�the�sentence.�The�patterning�‘it�is�proposed�that�…’�would�sound�more�native-like�in�the�sentences�below:

The new convenience store is proposed to open from 2pm to 2am.

10 sets of computer terminals are proposed to be placed in Academic Concourse.

In�PROFCORP�it�was�found�that�this�construction�employed�nominalisations�in�the�form�of�grammatical�metaphor�nouns,�e.g.�‘utilisation’,�‘option’,�but�such�nouns�were�lacking�in�student�writing.�

Page 138: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�8.� STUCORP:�Solution�element� 125

Proposed�in�active�voice

Again,� there� are� very� few� tokens� of� proposed� in� this� category,� but� one� or� two�points�merit�a�mention.�All�of�the�10�tokens�take�‘we’�as�the�subject.�Proposed is�mainly�found�in�the�Conclusion�section�of�the�reports�where�it�always�signals�a�Grounds-Conclusion�relation:

Therefore, we proposed that CCST should make an announcement to the public to ask the user to be considerate …

However,�proposed�also�occurs�in�the�Introduction�section,�setting�out�the�back-ground,�e.g.:

We have proposed four different schemes to be evaluated.

These�learner�writers�are�therefore�making�a�distinction�between�recommended�and�proposed in�the�active,�as�recommended is�reserved�for�reporting�the�respon-dents’�opinions�in�the�Body�of�the�reports�and�none�of�the�five�tokens�for�recom-mended takes�‘we’�as�the�subject.�Moreover,�‘we’�is�never�found�with�either�recom-mended�or�proposed�in�the�active�in�PROFCORP.�Either�the�impersonal�passive�is�used�or�the�passive�+�subject,�both�of�which�seem�to�have�the�effect�of�distancing�the�writer� from� the� recommendations�presented� in� the�environmental� reports,�and�can�therefore�be�viewed�as�typical,�formulaic�writing�style�for�these�kinds�of�reports�in�the�Hong�Kong�context.�

Proposed�in�other�clause�constructions

There�are�only�three�tokens�for�proposed where�the�learner�writers�have�attempted�to�use�it�in�the�form�of�a�reduced�relative�clause.�Two�of�these�are�used�with�an�agent�(...the FYP topics proposed by the lecturers),�but�the�other�one�below�sounds�distinctly�odd,�and�would�be�more�natural�substituted�by�a�premodifying�adjec-tive�(e.g.�‘since�the�proposed�smart�card…’).

… since the smart card proposed would be accepted by all the photocopiers on campus…

A�comparison�with�the�analysis�of�the�tokens�for�recommended�and�proposed�as�reduced�relative�clauses�in�PROFCORP�reveals�that�these�are�always�accompanied�by�some�form�of�postmodification,�usually�a�prepositional�phrase,�e.g.�…controls recommended in this report….

Page 139: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

126� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

I�now�turn�to�an�analysis�of�one�Evoking�item�and�see�how�it�compares�across�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP.

Analysis of implementation

There�are�six�evoking�items�in�PROFCORP,�which�occur�as�keywords�in�four�or�more�reports.�Out�of�these�implementation has�been�chosen�for�analysis�because�it�is�the�only�one�of�the�Evoking�items,�which�also�occurs�in�STUCORP�(44�to-kens)�and�also�because�it�is�the�Evoking�item�which�has�the�most�general�mean-ing,�as�explained�previously.

The�distribution�of�the�tokens�for�implementation�across�the�functional�cat-egories�in�STUCORP�is�quite�different�from�that�in�PROFCORP.�First�of�all,�out�of�the�44�tokens�for�implementation�in�STUCORP�17�are�used�as�headings�or�sub-headings,�whereas�only�three�out�of�133�tokens�of�implementation�in�PROFCORP�were�used�in�this�way.�However,�this�is�not�surprising�as,�in�accordance�with�the�assignment�guidelines,�students�are�expected�to�discuss�various�implementation�issues�of�their�proposed�recommendations.�Of�the�remaining�27�tokens,�though,�only�three�can�be�classified�as�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’,�with�24�of�the�tokens�belong-ing� to� the� ‘Proposing�a�Solution’� category.�This� is�quite�a�different�distribution�pattern�to�those�in�PROFCORP�where�half�of�the�130�tokens�of�implementation could�be�classified�as�‘Evaluating�a�Solution’.�

Most�of�the�24�tokens�in�the�‘Proposing�a�Solution’�category�are�found�in�the�Body�section,�elaborating�on�implementation�of�the�proposal:

The actual implementation is briefed as follows: firstly, the Department announces all FYP topics proposed by the lecturers.

Of�the�three�tokens�for�implementation which�are�involved�in�evaluation,�all�em-ploy�the�interpersonal�marker�‘we’,�which�was�never�used�to�introduce�an�evalu-ation�in�PROFCORP.�Moreover,�only�one�of�these�phrases�with�implementation�resembles�the�second�type�of�lexico-grammatical�patterning�with�a�two-way�sig-nalling�verb�discussed�in�the�previous�section,�as�given�below:

...we suggest that the implementation of a formal laboratory safety course is a necessity to alleviate the current situation.

Given� that� one� of� the� main� objectives� of� these� recommendation� reports� is� to�persuade�the�reader�of�the�value�of�the�project,�it�would�seem�that�students�are�unaware� of� highlighting� the� benefits� of� their� proposal� through� the� two� causa-tion-related�lexico-grammatical�patternings�which�were�very�much�in�evidence�

Page 140: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�8.� STUCORP:�Solution�element� 127

in�the�PROFCORP�analysis.�However,�by�searching�on�implement*�in�STUCORP�I�found�that�in�a�few�cases, students�did�attempt�to�give�a�positive�evaluation�of�their�proposed�plan,�but�in�a�very�clumsy�way.�To�illustrate�this�point�I�will�take�the� following� typical� sentence� from� STUCORP,� which� although� grammatically�correct,�is�‘student�writing’�and�not�‘proper�writing’,�as�one�of�my�students�put�it.�

� (a) Implementing our proposed changes is also highly welcome for students and outside firms and we can have a more effective curriculum preparing students for their future.

We�can�see�that�the�above�is�a�rather�wordy,�long,�complex�sentence.�In�fact,�Hin-kel’s�(2002)�corpus-based�research�of�students’�academic�writing�has�revealed�this�same�overuse�of�phrase�level�coordinators�such�as�‘and’�and�‘but’.�

A�change�in�the�sentence�structure�of�the�above�example�to�either�of�the�two�following�alternatives,�modelled�on�structures�prevalent�in�PROFCORP,�gives�us�the�following:

� (b) Implementation of our proposed changes, which would also be highly welcomed by students and outside firms, would ensure a more effective curriculum to prepare students for their future.

� (c)� With the implementation of our proposed changes… our curriculum would be more effective.

Now,�if�we�compare�the�student�writing�in�(a)�with�the�suggested�reformulations�in�(b)�and�(c),�we�can�see�that�the�student�writing�is�more�reminiscent�of�spoken�rather�than�formal�written�language.�By�way�of�example,�Halliday�(2002)�gives�the�following�sentence�as�an� instance�of�written� language�with� its� spoken�“transla-tion”,�so�to�speak.�

� � Investment in a rail facility implies a long term commitment.�(written)

If you invest in a facility for the railways you will be committing [funds] for a long time.�(spoken�equivalent)

Halliday�(2004)�has�remarked�that�a�corpus�of�written�language�is�set�up�lexically,�and�is�therefore�much�easier�to�analyse.�On�the�other�hand,�spoken�language�tends�to�favour�the�grammatical�over�the�lexical�with�long�clause�complexes�occurring�in�speech,�as�in�Halliday’s�example�above,�and�also�in�my�example�of�student�writ-ing.�Because�of�its�grammatical�intricacy,�Halliday�maintains�that�a�corpus�of�spo-ken�language�is�more�difficult�to�analyse�than�a�corpus�of�written�data.�This�is�an�extremely�interesting�observation,�which�has�been�borne�out�by�the�above�data�in�STUCORP.�It�also�suggests�that�the�distinctions�between�writing�and�speak-ing�may�not�be�so�clear-cut�in�cases�of�learner�corpora�of�written�data�and�that�in�

Page 141: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

128� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

some�instances�where�learner�corpora�display�features�of�spoken�language,�they�could�be�viewed�more�as�a�‘hybrid’�corpus�of�written�and�spoken�language.�

Conclusion

The�most�striking�observations�regarding�the�lexico-grammatical�patternings�of�the�key�words�for�the�Solution�element�in�STUCORP�is�that�they�rely�quite�heav-ily�on�the�metalanguage�of�the�rubrics�and�guidelines�for�the�project,�as�has�been�noted�in�several�places�in�the�foregoing�analysis.�Students�did�demonstrate�writ-ing�proficiency,�though,�in�their�use�of�topic-like�sentences�and�overall�summary�conclusions.�

There�was�also� far�more� interpersonal�use�of� the�pronoun� ‘we’,� e.g.�we will�provide recommendations�…�in�the�student�reports,�which�was�not�in�evidence�in�PROFCORP�with�a�similar�proposition�being�expressed�by�the�impersonal�pas-sive,�e.g.�it is recommended / proposed that�….�However,�due�to�the�different�eth-nographic�situations�in�which�the�STUCORP�and�PROFCORP�reports�are�con-structed�(see�Chapter�3)�these�different�registers�are�entirely�appropriate.�

Page 142: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

chapter�9

General conclusions and implications for pedagogy

In�this�concluding�chapter�I�will�first�consider�the�major�findings�revealed�by�the�analysis�of�PROFCORP�in�light�of�the�general�objectives�outlined�at�the�end�of�Chapter�2.�I�will�then�summarise�the�main�similarities�and�differences�between�PROFCORP�and�STUCORP�from�a�discourse-based�perspective�and�also�at�the�sentence-level� to�highlight� specific� features�of�apprenticeship�writing.�Finally,� I�will�discuss�the�pedagogic�applications�of�these�findings.

Some principal findings from PROFCORP

It�is�now�well�established�in�the�literature�that�language�is�made�up�of�interlocking�phraseological�units,�i.e.�lexico-grammatical�patterns�(see�Hoey�1991,�2005;�Sin-clair�1991;�Hunston�2001;�Hunston�&�Francis�2000;�Stubbs�1996),�although�what�proportion�of�language�constitutes�these�units�is�open�to�debate.�Where�this�book�has�attempted�to�advance�the�field�of� lexico-grammatical�patterning�is� through�examining� this� language� phenomenon� within� a� discourse-based� framework� of�notions�and�functions�for�a�specific�rhetorical�pattern,�namely�the�Problem-Solu-tion�pattern.�A�review�of�some�of�the�key�findings�in�PROFCORP,�which�seek�to�answer�the�questions�posed�in�Chapter�2,�follows.

As�far�as�the�Problem�element�is�concerned,�phrases�signalling�this�element�have� been� shown� to� be� heavily� involved� in� causal� relations,� most� notably� the�Reason-Result�and�Means-Purpose�relation.�What�is�most�significant�about�the�markers�of�these�causal�relations�is�not�that�they�are�typically�some�type�of�con-nective,�e.g.�‘As�a�result…’,�‘Therefore…’,�but�are�overwhelmingly�lexical�in�nature�in�the�form�of�explicit�and�implicit�causative�verbs.�Another�significant�finding�is�that�prepositions,�especially�‘with’�and�‘from’,�also�seem�to�be�acting�as�signals�of� causality,� as� does� the� more� mitigating� phrase� ‘associated� with’� (as� shown� in�Chapter�7).�

It�has�also�been�suggested�that�the�status�of�a�lemma�can�change�depending�on�whether�it�enters�into�a�causal�relation�or�is�non-causation�based.�For�example,�problem,�a�Vocabulary�3� item�which� is�viewed�as�a�common�A-Noun,�has� this�

Page 143: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

130� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

function�mainly�in�causation-related�phrases�(see�Chapter�7).�Another�keyword�signal�impacts investigated�in�Chapter�5�seems�to�be�functioning�as�a�synonym�of�problems�in�causation-related�phrases,�but�changes�its�status�to�one�of�hyponym�in�relation�to�problems�when�it�occurs�in�non-causation�phrases.�These�prelimi-nary�findings� indicate� that�more� research� into� looking�at�how�discourse-based�notional� categories� affect� the� status� and� the� relationship� of� a� lexical� item� with�other�items�would�be�worth�pursuing.

In�the�analysis�of�key�words�for�the�Solution�element,�the�systemic�functional�category�of�grammatical�metaphor�noun�(e.g.�implementation)�was�found�to�be�in-strumental�in�signalling�the�Solution�element�in�PROFCORP.�Such�nouns,�which�are�a�feature�of�formal�scientific�writing,�were�found�to�occur�in�different�lexico-grammatical�patterns�depending�on�their�overall�function�in�the�discourse.�

Aspects�which�concern�genre�analysts,�such�as�intertextuality�(the�linguistic�traces�of�other�texts)�and�interdiscursivity�(rhetorical�conventions�borrowed�from�other�texts),�have�also�been�touched�on�(Flowerdew�2008a).�It�was�suggested�in�Chapter�5�that�‘associated�with’�was�used�as�a�hedging�device�for�expressing�cau-sality�in�view�of�the�fact�that�this�verb�phrase�with�a�negative�semantic�prosody�was�found�to�occur�in�texts�from�all�23�companies,�thus�indicating�it�was�a�rhe-torical�feature�of�this�particular�genre,�and�possibly�of�science�writing�in�general.��

Examination� of� the� keyword� signals� from� a� grammatical� basis� within� the�broad�function�of�‘Proposing�a�Solution’�has�uncovered�the�intertextuality�of�the�PROFCORP�documents�and� their� relationship� to�other� related�documentation�through� such� phrases� as� recommendations made in…� and� the� use� of� a� specific�body�or�organization�with�a�keyword�verb�in�the�present�perfect,�e.g.�The EIA has recommended that ….

Such�ethnographic�considerations�alert�us�to�the�fact�that�in�order�to�fully�and�accurately�“interpret”�the�lexico-grammatical�patternings,�the�role�that�contextual�features,�outlined�in�Chapter�2,�play�in�shaping�the�discourse�has�also�to�be�taken�into� account.� For� this� reason,� Widdowson� (1998,� 2002)� maintains� that� corpus�data�are�but�a� sample�of� language,�as�opposed� to�an�example�of�authentic� lan-guage,�because�it�is�divorced�from�the�communicative�context�in�which�it�was�cre-ated;�‘the�text�travels�but�the�context�does�not�travel�with�it’.�This�is�an�important�observation�and�can�create�dilemmas�for�the�analyst�in�corpus�interpretation.�

This�is�where�I�see�the�value�of�working�with�small-scale�specialized�corpora�such�as�the�kind�investigated�in�this�book�and�also�those�reported�on�in�Ghadessy�et�al.�(2001)�where�the�analyst�is�probably�also�the�compiler�and�does�have�famil-iarity�with�the�wider�socio-cultural�dimension�in�which�the�discourse�was�cre-ated�(Flowerdew�2004a).�It�also�means�that�ultimately�doing�small-scale�corpus�linguistics�is�different�from�doing�large-scale�corpus�linguistics.�Investigations�of�large-scale�corpora�can�give�us�valuable�insights�into�broad-based�collocational�

Page 144: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�9.� General�conclusions�and�implications�for�pedagogy� 131

and�colligational�patterning:�for�example,�a�trawl�through�the�246�tokens�of��‘rec-ommendations’�in�the�Applied�Science�component�of�the�BNC�reveals�that�‘rec-ommendations’�frequently�occurs�with�the�verb�‘make’�but�in�three�very�different�lexico-grammatical�patternings:�

� � To highlight the salient points, the following recommendations are made.

We have made various recommendations for strengthening…

This document makes several specific recommendations on pay.

Finer�tunings�of�lexico-grammatical�patternings�I�have�referred�to�as�lexical�colli-gations.�But�which�grammatical�company�that�the�collocation�‘recommendations�+�make’�keeps�for�a�particular�context�may�only�be�available�to�an�analyst�who�is�familiar�with�the�socio-contextual�features�of�a�small�corpus�and�not�recoverable�from�the�concordance�lines�drawn�from�a�large-scale�corpus.

Corpora�are�thus�delimited�by�ethnographic�considerations�such�as�intertex-tuality,� interdiscursivity�and�registerial�constraints,� involving�choices� like� inter-personal�‘we’�vs.�impersonal�passive,�or�technical�vs.�non-technical�lexis,�as�well�as� text-type� (Problem-Solution� pattern,� in� this� case),� which� themselves� are� all�factors�in�determining�the�specific�lexico-grammatical�patternings.

Expert vs. apprentice writing

Investigation�of�the�lexico-grammatical�patterning�of�key�words�for�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements�in�STUCORP�has�uncovered�areas�where�students�show�themselves�to�be�proficient�and�areas�where�they�are�deemed�less�proficient.

The�analyses�in�Chapters�7�and�8�have�led�me�to�conclude�that�students�seem�to�be�quite�adept�at�structuring�their�overall�argument�within�the�Problem-Solu-tion�based�pattern.�They�show�mastery�of� lexico-grammatical�patterning�at� the�macrostructure�level�for�using�topic-like�sentences�for�introducing�the�problems,�e.g.�There are several problems…,�and�then�enumerating�these�in�follow-up�sup-porting�sentences,�e.g.�The first problem is… (Chapter�7). The�analyses�also�show�that� the� development� of� the� argument� unfolds� quite� logically.� This� is� apparent�from�Tables�4-1�and�4-2�showing�the�keyword�Inscribed�and�Evoking�items�for�the�pattern�and�also�the�investigation�of�the�key�word�need� in�Chapter�7.�First,�students� establish� the� existence� of� a� problem. Moreover,� this� Problem� element�is�very�often�focused�on�some�kind�of�shortcoming,�which�explains�why�insuffi-cient�surfaces�as�a�keyword�Evoking�item,�e.g.�… number of available computers in barns becomes really insufficient. Then�either�there�is�a�kind�of�prefacing�statement�to�Hoey’s�Recommended�Response� stage� (see�Chapter�1),� e.g.�…the number of

Page 145: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

132� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

machines cannot meet the need of students;�or,�we�have�a�Recommended�Response,�e.g.�Therefore, there is a need to provide more payphones.�

However,�students’�use�(or�possibly�overuse?)�of�topic�sentences�can�be�ex-plained�by� the� fact� that� the�course�materials� in� the�first�year�overtly� teach� this�signalling�aspect�of�writing.�Also,� the�report�writing�guidelines� for� this�project�contain�several�expository-type�exercises�for�structuring�the�content�of�the�report,�which�provide�students�with�the�basic�macrostructure�(see�Appendix�3-1).�It�thus�appears�that�student�have�assimilated�into�their�reports�the�metalanguage�given�in�the�writing�rubrics�and�guidelines,�which�has�been�shown�to�permeate�the�dis-course�of�the�STUCORP�reports,�one�very�common�overused�patterning�being�variations�of��‘solutions�to�the�problem’.�The�influence�of�input�material�here,�in�the�form�of�writing�guidelines,�is�therefore�an�important�consideration�in�analyses�of�learner�corpora.�Other�researchers�(see�Milton�2000;�McEnery�&�Kifle�2002)�have�also�noted�the�influence�of�coursebook�material,�specifically�the�expressions�of�doubt�and�certainty,�on�student�writing.�

Sentence-level� formal� errors� have� been� exposed,� one� such� error� being� the�misuse�of�‘It’,�which�is�specifically�related�to�the�interlanguage�of�Hong�Kong�Chi-nese�learners�of�English;�for�instance,�the�substitution�of�existential�‘there’�by�‘It’,�e.g.�It is no need to explain.�However,�what�seems�to�distinguish�apprentice�writers�from�professional�writers�is�not�so�much�these�sentence-level�formal�errors,�but�rather�other�types�of�deficiencies�related�to�expressing�causal�relations,�as�sum-marized�below.�

Although�students’�writing�may�be�grammatically�correct�for�the�most�part,�this� corpus-based� analysis� has� uncovered� several� areas� where� students’� writing�‘doesn’t�sound�quite�right’,�for�want�of�a�better�expression,�or�unidiomatic�because�they�lack�the�necessary�lexico-grammar�for�expressing�their�ideas.�In�many�cases,�students�seem�to�be�circumventing�their�lack�of�appropriate�patterns�by�using�what�language�means�they�have�at�their�disposal�and�coming�up�with�phrases�where�the�essential�meaning�can�be�understood,�but�‘we�wouldn’t�express�it�like�this�is�Eng-lish’,�such�as�in�the�phrase�…have a very good policy against the problem.

Sentences�such�as�the�one�above�would�seem�to�arise�from�the�fact�that�the�student�writing�was�found�to�be�wanting�especially�in�the�area�of�verbs,�with�stu-dents�exhibiting�a�very�narrow�range�of�these�verbs,�confusing�cause/effect�with�result/effect�verbs�and�displaying�inadequate�command�of�ergative�verbs�for�the�Problem�element.�The�verbs�used�for�expressing�the�Solution�element�were�also,�on�occasions,� registerially� inappropriate,� e.g.�get rid of.�Grammatical�metaphor�nouns�(e.g.� implementation),�which�are�a� feature�of� formal�science�writing�and�predicted�certain�‘two-way’�signalling�verbs�in�PROFCORP�linking�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements,�of�the�pattern:�implementation of�+�Solution�would allevi-ate� +� Problem,� were� largely� absent� in� STUCORP.� Lack� of� familiarity� with� this�

Page 146: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�9.� General�conclusions�and�implications�for�pedagogy� 133

pattern,�and�indeed�others�involving�nominalizations,�could�largely�explain�why�students�writing� resembled�more� spoken� language� in�places�with� ‘and’�used� to�join�clause�complexes.�

In�sum,�the�types�of�deficiencies�observed�in�student�writing�are�not�so�much�sentence-level�formal�errors,�but�rather�indicate�the�lack�of�an�appropriate�gram-mar� system� and� vocabulary� range� which� play� a� role� in� the� co-construction� of�meaning�through�the�blending�of�collocational�and�colligational�features�of�lan-guage�in�the�type�of�discourse�under�investigation�in�this�book.�This�is�the�kind�of�student�writing�de�Beaugrande�(2001:�10)�is�singling�out�when�he�writes�‘Our�ma-jor�problem�is�not�so�much�bad English�or�incorrect English,�as�is�often�lamented,�but�rather�insufficient English’.

Pedagogic implications and applications of findings

Most�of�the�language�exercises�in�coursebooks�on�technical�writing�focus�on�sen-tence-level� grammar� errors� such� as� use� of� tenses� and� formation� of� the� passive�voice.�While�not�denying�the�value�of�such�exercises,�the�analyses�in�Chapters�5,�6,�7�&�8�have�demonstrated�that�more�language�work�needs�to�be�devised�on�lexico-grammatical�patterning�in�order�to�bring�apprentice�writers�up�to�the�level�of�pro-fessional�writers.�It�is�not�just�a�question�of�using�the�passive�voice�correctly,�but�as�the�analyses�have�revealed,�using�appropriate�lexicogrammatical�patternings�with�consideration�of�various�contextual�and�situational�features�of�the�discourse�for�the�notions�and�functions�one�wishes�to�convey:�causality�and�proposing�/�evalu-ating�a�solution�being�the�respective�categories�under�investigation�in�this�book.�Such� examples� would� be� the� combination� of� appropriate� nominalizations�with�the�passive�voice�or�the�juxtaposition�of�prepositions�with�grammatical�metaphor�nouns�e.g.�With the implementation of…to�signal�the�Solution�and�Evaluation�ele-ments,�particularly�in�a�concluding�section�of�the�text.�

The�findings�and�implications�for�pedagogy�derived�from�applied�linguistics�work�in�phraseology�(Groom�2005;�Hunston�2003;�Jones�&�Haywood�2004;�Sin-clair�(ed.)�2004;�Wray�1999,�2000)�are�now�beginning�to�filter�through�into�the�teaching�community�(see�Flowerdew�2001,�2002;�Tribble�2001;�Willis�2003).�In�a�state-of-the-art�article�on�ESP,�Belcher�(2006)�remarks�on�the�increasingly�main-stream�role�that�corpora�are�now�playing�in�enhancing�ESP�literacy.�Needless�to�say,�one�of�the�major�challenges�for�textbook�writers�in�the�next�few�years�will�be�how� to� exploit� and� “translate”� corpus-based� findings� of� discourse-based� phra-seological�units�into�comprehensible�input�for�learners.�In�any�case,�Widdowson�(1998,�2002)�views�the�transference�of�corpus�data�to�pedagogy�as�problematic�due�to�the�decontextualised�nature�of�corpus�data�and�questions�how�such�data�

Page 147: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

134� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

can�be�transformed�from�samples�to�examples�of�language,�i.e.�how�can�students�authenticate�the�corpus�data�to�suit�the�socio-cultural�and�linguistic�parameters�of�their�local�environment?�However,�other�linguists�would�seem�to�disagree�that�this�is�a�major�hurdle�to�be�overcome,�with�Sinclair�(2002)�proposing�some�kind�of�‘pedagogic�processing’�stage�to�make�the�data�intelligible�to�learners�and�McCar-thy�(2002)�objecting�on�the�grounds�that�Widdowson�underestimates�the�ability�of�students�to�change�samples�into�examples.�Again,�this�is�where�I�see�the�value�of�exploiting�small� ‘localised’�expert�corpora�for�pedagogic�purposes;� the�more�the� corpus�draws�on�contextual� features� from� the� students’�own� socio-cultural�environment,�the�easier�it�should�be�for�the�teacher�to�act�as�a�kind�of�mediating�‘ethnographic�specialist�informant’�of�the�raw�corpus�data,�thereby�authenticating�the�data�for�classroom�use�to�fit�the�students’�reality.�

Another�way�forward�in�this�area�is�the�compilation�of�local�learner�corpo-ra,�similar�to�the�one�described�in�this�book,�as�advocated�by�Mukherjee�(2006),�Mukherjee�&�Rohrbach�2006)�‘…the�exploration�of�learner�data�by�the�learners�themselves�will�motivate�many�more�learners�to�reflect�on�their�language�use�and�thus�raise�their�foreign�language�awareness’.�See�Nesselhauf�(2003,�2004b)�for�a�review�of�the�applications�of�learner�corpora�to�language�teaching�and�useful�sug-gestions�for�the�exploitation�of�learner�corpora�in�data-driven�learning�(DDL).�

Based�on�the�deficiencies�uncovered�through�a�comparison�of�PROFCORP�and� STUCORP,� below� I� outline� a� few� suggestions� for� DDL� exploiting� various�search�engines,�with�reference�to�some�of�the�points�raised�in�the�literature�on�the�corpus-based�approach.�

Applications�of�corpora�in�data-driven�learning:�Some�critical�points

I�have�noted�the�importance�of�a�lexico-grammatical�orientation�to�corpus�analy-sis�in�this�book,�and�would�like�to�reiterate�the�application�of�this�perspective�to�DDL,�an�approach�that�is�inherent�in�the�tasks�proposed�by�Gavioli�(2005)�with�their�focus�on�collocation,�colligation,�semantic�prosody�and�semantic�preference.�However,�this�approach�is�not�without�its�problems,�which�are�also�raised�in�Gav-ioli’s�book�and�summarized�by�Meunier�(2002).

Despite� their�advantages,�DDL�activities�have� some�drawbacks:� they�are� time-consuming�(because�of�the�interaction,�negotiation�and�research�procedure�ad-opted�by�the�students)�and�also�require�a�substantial�amount�of�preparation�on�the�part�of�the�teacher,�who�has�to�predefine�the�forms�that�will�be�focused�on�and�make� sure� that� interesting� teaching�material� is�provided.�The�various� learning�strategies�(deductive�vs.�inductive)�that�students�adopt�can�also�lead�to�problems.�

Page 148: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�9.� General�conclusions�and�implications�for�pedagogy� 135

Some�students�hate�working�inductively�and�teachers�should�aim�at�a�combined�approach�(see�Hahn�2000�for�a�combined�approach).�� (Meunier�2002:�135)

In� the� exposition� of� some� lexico-grammatical� concordance� activities� below,� I�would� like� to� take� up,� in� particular,� two� other,� not� necessarily� drawbacks,� but�rather�considerations,�of�a�DDL�approach.�One�issue�relates�to�Widdowson’s�point�that�students’�need�to�authenticate�the�corpus�data�to�fit�the�contextual�environ-ment� of� their� own� writing.� In� this� regard,� I� will� come� back� to� a� finding� from�Chapter�8,�namely�the�lack�of�grammatical�metaphor�nouns,�e.g.�implementation,�in�student�writing�(see�Mohan�&�Huxur�2001).�I�suggested�that�in�a�recommenda-tion�report�proposing�modifications�to�the�existing�curriculum,�student�writing�could�be�reformulated�along�the�following�lines,�linking�the�solution�and�evalua-tion�via�an�implicit�causative�verb�instead�of�‘and’.

� � Student�writing: Implementing our proposed changes is also highly welcome for students and

outside firms and we can have a more effective curriculum preparing students for their future.

� � Reformulation: We would like to suggest that implementation of our proposed changes, which

would be highly welcomed by students and outside firms, would ensure a more effective curriculum to prepare students for their future.

The�students�writing�needs� to�undergo� several�pedagogic�processing� stages� for�reformulation�into�a�more�professional�type�of�discourse.�First,�students�need�to�be�reminded�of� the�given�and�new�paradigm�operating� in�this�extract.� In�their�context�of�writing,�these�proposed�changes�‘are�highly�welcome�for�students�and�outside�firms’�refers�to�information�already�mentioned�in�a�previous�sub-section,�while�the�Evaluation�element�of�the�proposed�changes�is�new�information�for�the�reader.�Thus,�it�would�be�most�appropriate�to�assign�the�information�previously�mentioned�to�a�relative�clause.�Then,�Just The Word,�a�collocations�search�engine�which�provides�an�interface�for�the�BNC,�was�used�for�a�search�on�implementa-tion.�This�gave�the�results�shown�in�Figure�9-1�below.

However,� the� collocations� for� implementation� only� provide� ‘frames’� so� the�teacher�would�have�to�sensitise�students�to�‘authenticating’�the�corpus�data�to�fit�their�writing�environments�for�it�to�be�appropriate�from�both�a�lexico-grammati-cal�and�pragmalinguistic�point�of�view.�First,�students�have�to�be�alerted�to�the�fact�that�when�‘implementation’�collocates�with�‘lead�to’�or�‘result�in’,�these�verbs�tend�to�be�followed�by�something�negative,�whereas�‘provide’�and�‘ensure’�usually�have�a�positive�semantic�prosody.�(This�type�of�information�can�be�gleaned�by�looking�at� the� concordance� output.)� Second,� concordance� samples� have� to� be� changed�

Page 149: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

136� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

into�‘examples’�to�fit�the�students’�writing�environment�through�mitigation�mark-ers�such�as�‘we�would�like�to�suggest...’�and�the�use�of�‘would’�instead�of�‘will’.

The�same�type�of�search�could�be�conducted�for�‘problem’,�which�would�throw�up�those�two-way�signalling�verbs,�e.g.�alleviate, minimize, relieve,�for�linking�the�Problem�and�Solution�elements,�which�were�found�to�be�lacking�in�student�writ-ing.�But�again,�the�concordance�output�would�probably�have�to�be�‘authenticated’�for�the�writing�context.

Milton�(2006:�125)�mentions� that�such�kind�of�programs�as� the�one�shown�above�‘would�turn�the�notion�of�appropriation�around�and�point�learners�to�re-sources�where,�as�in�Bakhtin’s�(1981)�concept,�they�would�be�the�ones�appropriat-ing�the�usage�of�more�experienced�writers�of�the�L2’.�The�example�of�implementa-tion�shows�that�students�need�to�both�‘appropriate’�and�‘authenticate’�the�corpus�data�for�their�own�writing�purposes.�

While�examining�the�collocations�shown�in�Figure�9-1,�students�could�be�en-couraged�to�browse�the�other�collocations�on�their�own,�in�the�spirit�of�Bernar-dini’s� (2002,�2004)�philosophy�of� ‘The� learner�as� traveller’,� alighting�on�aspects�which�were�of�potential�interest�to�them�in�a�type�of�discovery�or�serendipitous�learning.�Although�this�type�of�incidentalist�learning�has�been�criticized�by�Swales�(see�Swales�2004;�Lee�&�Swales�2006)�and�may�be�rather�time-consuming�and�lead�students�down�a�few�blind�alleys,�some�exploratory�work�shows�that�this�trial-and-error�approach�does�seem�to�have�a��motivational�appeal�(Flowerdew�2008c).�

Another�consideration�concerns�the�interpretation�of�the�corpus�data�by�stu-dents,�an�issue�which�does�not�seem�to�have�been�discussed�much�in�the�litera-

Figure 9-1. Collocation�search�for�‘implementation’�in�Just The Word

Page 150: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�9.� General�conclusions�and�implications�for�pedagogy� 137

ture�on�pedagogic�applications.�As�Hunston�(2002:�65)�notes�‘Concordance�lines�present�information;�they�do�not�interpret�it.�Interpretation�requires�the�insight�and�intuition�of�the�observer’.�The�‘interpretation’�of�the�data�by�the�analyst�can�be�seen�as�paralleling�the�inductive�learning�approach�commonly�associated�with�DDL�in�which�learners�extrapolate�rules�from�their�‘readings’�of�the�concordance�lines.�Carter�and�McCarthy�(1995)�expand�on�this�exploratory�approach,�term-ing�it�the�‘three�Is’�(illustration-interaction-induction),�with�‘illustration’�meaning�examining�corpus�data�and�‘interacting’�discussing�and�exchanging�opinions�on�the�data.

With� this� consideration� in� mind,� I� would� like� to� examine� ergative� verbs,�which�have�been�shown�to�be�another�area�of�difficulty�for�students.�In�the�sen-tence�below�‘with’�can�be�seen�as�a�causative�marker,�followed�by�the�effect�in�the�second�part�of�the�sentence.

With a very crowded schedule, students’ level of motivation was decreased.

Those�change-of-state�verbs�such�as�‘decrease’,�‘increase’�and�‘develop’,�which�have�three� possible� voices� (active;� passive;� middle� (or� ergative),� pose� particular� dif-ficulty�for�students�both�in�terms�of�grammatical�complexity�and�search�strate-gies.�As�noted�in�Chapter�7,�Celce-Murcia�(2002:�147)�notes�that�advanced�level�students� tend� to�overpassivise�such�verbs,�using� the�passive� in�cases�where� the�ergative�should�be�used,�e.g.�Over the period of the study the learners’ VOT values for … were decreased,�a�similar�misuse�to�the�example�given�from�STUCORP.

However,�students�have�been�found�to�have�difficulties�in�working�out�induc-tively�the�various�usage�patterns�of�such�ergative�verbs�from�truncated�concor-dance�lines�in�a�corpus�of�reports.�Prompting�was�required�from�the�class�teacher�to�encourage�students�to�look�at�the�wider�context�in�order�to�notice�that�it�was�the�subject�that�determined�the�voice,�thus�following�Sinclair’s�principle�of�language�viewed�as�‘extended�units�of�meaning’.�In�this�regard,�Celce-Murcia’s�observes�that�‘With� the�verbs� increase� and�decrease [the�ergative]� tends� to�be�used�when� the�inanimate�subject� is�objectively�or�subjectively�measurable�(rather�than�an�ani-mate�agent/dynamic�instrument�subject)�−�both�of�which�favor�active�voice�−�or�a�patient�subject�−�for�the�passive�voice’�(p.�146).�With�oral�prompting�from�the�teacher,� students� were� able� to� articulate,� in� their� own� words,� this� phraseologi-cal�tendency,�by�examining�selected�concordance�output�generated�by�the�Word�Neighbours�concordancing�software�shown�in�Figure�9-2�(see�Milton�2006;�Flow-erdew�2008c).

The�above�example�shows�that�a�purely�inductive�approach�to�interpretation�of�corpus�data�may�sometimes�be� too�sophisticated� for�students.�Although�de-ductive�vs.�inductive�approaches�are�usually�presented�as�diametrically�opposed,�

Page 151: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

138� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

I�would�like�to�suggest�that�rather,�they�could�be�seen�on�a�cline,�with�the�teacher�providing�hints�on�the�rule�in�cases�where�students�did�not�have�enough�knowl-edge�to�interpret�the�concordance�lines�by�themselves.�While�Flowerdew�(2008c)�reports�discussion�activities�where�hints�are�given�orally,�Milton�(2004,�2006)�de-scribes�a�writing�tutor�program�where�various�types�of�clues�(grammatical,�lexical,�links�to�suitable�corpora)�can�be�inserted�by�the�tutor.�Thus,�it�may�be�necessary�for� some�kind�of� intermediary� stage� to� facilitate� interpretation�of� concordance�output�when�a�more�inductive�approach�is�used.�

This�discussion�of�some�critical�points�in�DDL�has�highlighted�the�fact�that�raw�corpus�data�may�have�to�undergo�a�‘pedagogic�processing’�stage�with�some�kind�of�intervention�on�the�part�of�the�teacher.�As�I�have�suggested,�this�may�in-volve�‘authenticating’�the�data�to�fit�the�students’�context�of�writing�as�Widdowson�advocates,�or�may�involve�providing�various�types�of�clues,�either�verbal�or�writ-ten,�to�aid�students’�in�the�interpretation�of�concordance�lines.

Overall conclusions

In�the�Festschrift�volume�in�honour�of�John�Sinclair�(Baker,�Francis�&�Tognini-Bonelli� 1993)� and� the� Festschrift� volume� in� honour� of� Michael� Hoey� (Scott� &�Thompson�2001),�even�though�these�volumes�are�published�eight�years�apart,�we�can�still�see�the�predominant�role�that�linguistic�patterns�play�in�the�disentangling�of�corpus�data.�If�we�consider�patterns�/�patternings�as�a�‘headword’�subsuming�‘entries’�such�as�phraseology,�collocation�and�colligation,�we�can�see�this�notion�is�like�a�leitmotif�running�through�many�articles�in�both�these�volumes�(cf.�Francis�1993;�Hunston�2001).�

You�can�select�a�word/phrase�and�right-click�to�get�definitions,�pronunciation,�translations,�similar�words,�more�contexts,�etc.

Search results for has decreased by (VERB VERB PREP) Text type

1 In�spite�of�this,�coniferous�output�has�decreased�by�nearly�8�million�m3�and�non-coniferous�output�by�nearly�10�million�m3�…more

Reports�ir-97-099.txt

2 On�the�average�the�number�of�iterations�needed�to�solve�the�prob-lems�has�decreased�by�1:62%�and�the�average�time�was�cut�by�8.33%�…more

Reports�WP-95-113.txt

Figure 9-2. Context�search�for�‘has�decreased’�in�Word Neighbours

Page 152: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Chapter�9.� General�conclusions�and�implications�for�pedagogy� 139

This�book�has�explored�some�of�the�central�notions�of�patterns�expounded�in�these�volumes�with�specific�reference�to�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�in�a�pro-fessional�and�apprentice�corpus.�Moreover,�an�attempt�has�been�made�to�exam-ine� the� lexico-grammatical� patterning� of� the� Problem-Solution� pattern� from� a�more�textlinguistic�perspective,�outlined�in�Chapter�2.�Categories�from�systemic�functional�grammar,�such�as�Inscribed�and�Evoking�lexis,�grammatical�metaphor�nouns�and�Theme/Rheme�patterning,�have�been�a�useful�aid�for�analysis�of�the�data.�At� the�same�time,� recurring�patterns�have�also�provided�evidence� for� the�discursive�practices�of�the�particular�genres�under�investigation.�Comparisons�of�certain�features�in�STUCORP�with�PROFCORP�and�the�BNC�have�revealed�key�areas�where�students’�deficiencies�in�writing�lie.�It�is�hoped�that�this�corpus-based�lexico-grammatical�analysis�of�the�Problem-Solution�pattern�in�two�corpora�has�made�a�contribution�to�this�ever-developing�field�and�suggested�some�worthwhile�avenues�for�future�exploration.�

Page 153: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 154: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

App

endi

ces

App

endi

x 3-

1. R

epor

ts in

PRO

FCO

RP

Title

* File

nam

e (C

onsu

ltant

)W

ords

1.B a

ckfil

ling�

of�S

outh

�Tsin

g�Yi

�and

�Nor

th�o

f�Lan

tau�

MBA

’s1_

ERM

�(ERM

,�HK

�Ltd

.)�2

,548

2.C

entr

alise

d�In

cine

ratio

n�Fa

cilit

y�fo

r�Spe

cial

�Was

tes

2_�E

RM�4

,609

3.Is

land

�Eas

t�Tra

nsfe

r�Sta

tion:

�Dre

dgin

g�of

�the�

WEN

T�Fa

irw

ay3_

ERM

�1,6

344.

Lant

au�a

nd�A

irpor

t�Rai

lway

4_ER

M�5

,265

5.M

ain�

Dra

inag

e�C

hann

els�f

or�N

gau�

Tam

�Mei

,�Yue

n�Lo

ng�a

nd�K

am�T

in�(J

an.�1

995)

5_ER

M�4

,118

6.M

ain�

Dra

inag

e�C

hann

els�f

or�N

gau�

Tam

�Mei

,�Yue

n�Lo

ng�a

nd�K

am�T

in�(J

une�

1996

)6_

ERM

�5,3

117.

Nat

ural

�Gas

�Sup

ply�

to�B

lack

�Poi

nt�P

ower

�Sta

tion

7_ER

M�2

,409

8.Pr

opos

ed�A

viat

ion�

Fuel

�Rec

eivi

ng�F

acili

ty�at

�Sha

�Cha

u8_

ERM

�6,4

529.

Recl

amat

ion�

and�

Serv

icin

g�of

�Tue

n�M

un�A

rea�

38�fo

r�Spe

cial

�Indu

strie

s9_

ERM

�2,1

9510

.Re

loca

tion�

of�H

ong�

Kong

�Oxy

gen�

Site

�from

�Junk

�Bay

�to�K

wan

�O�In

dust

rial�E

stat

e0_

ERM

�1,6

1211

.C

entr

al�a

nd�W

an�C

hai�R

ecla

mat

ion�

Dev

elop

men

t�(Ph

ase�

I)1_

MAU

�(Mau

nsel

l)�2

,587

12.

Prop

osed

�Ext

ensio

n�to

�the�

Hon

g�Ko

ng�C

onve

ntio

n�an

d�Ex

hibi

tion�

Cen

tre

2_M

AU�2

,340

13.

Cen

tral

�and

�Wan

�Cha

i�Rec

lam

atio

n�D

evel

opm

ent�(

Phas

e�II

)3_

MAU

�3,2

1914

.Lo

w-le

vel�R

adio

activ

e�W

aste

�Sto

rage

�Fac

ility

4_M

AU�4

,916

15.

Lant

au�P

ort�D

evel

opm

ent�S

tage

�I:�C

onta

iner

�Ter

min

als�1

0�an

d�11

5_M

AU�4

,119

16.

New

�Airp

ort�M

aste

r�Pla

n6_

MAU

11,9

47

Page 155: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

142� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

(con

tinue

d)

17.

New

�Airp

ort�M

aste

r�Pla

n�(E

IA�su

mm

ary)

7_M

AU2,

720

18.

Tseu

ng�K

wan

�O�D

evel

opm

ent�–

�Roa

ds,�B

ridge

�and

�Sub

way

s8_

MAU

1,89

219

.Ts

eung

�Kw

an�O

�Dev

elop

men

t�–�Im

prov

emen

ts�to

�Yin

g�Yi

p�Ro

ad9_

MAU

�940

20.

Prop

osed

�Rec

lam

atio

n�at

�Sha

m�T

seng

1_A

XS�

(Axi

s)1,

976

21.

Four

�Pot

entia

l�Hou

sing�

Dev

elop

men

t�Site

s2_

AX

S1,

779

22.

Disc

over

y�Ba

y�D

evel

opm

ent

3_A

XS

6,57

123

.Pr

opos

ed�R

ecla

mat

ion�

and�

Relo

catio

n�of

�Uni

ted�

Floa

ting�

Doc

k4_

AX

S4,

436

24.

Shiu

�Win

g�St

eel�M

ill�T

uen�

Mun

�Are

a�38

5_A

XS

3,70

725

.Th

e�H

ong�

Kong

�Gol

f�Cen

tre

6_A

XS

5,74

326

.A

dditi

onal

�Tre

atm

ent�a

nd�W

ater

�Tra

nsfe

r�Fac

ilitie

s�for

�Met

ropo

litan

�Are

a1_

BIN

�(Bin

nie)

1,18

027

.In

vest

igat

ion�

and�

Dev

elop

men

t�of�M

arin

e�Bo

rrow

�Are

as2_

BIN

1,79

028

.K

am�T

im�B

ypas

s3_

BIN

1,69

529

.W

an�C

hai�E

ast�a

nd�N

orth

�Poi

nt�S

ewer

age

4_BI

N6,

324

30.

Rout

e�2�

Tai�L

am�T

unne

l�and

�Yue

n�Lo

ng�A

ppro

ach�

-�Sou

ther

n�Se

ctio

n1_

CES

�(CES

)4,

753

31.

Rout

e�3�

Tai�L

am�T

unne

l�and

�Yue

n�Lo

ng�A

ppro

ach�

-�Nor

ther

n�Se

ctio

n2_

CES

3,97

032

.Sh

ek�O

�Qua

rry�

Cas

ting�

Basin

3_C

ES3,

541

33.

Tai�P

o�D

evel

opm

ent:�

Form

atio

n�an

d�Se

rvic

ing�

of�A

rea�

124_

CES

2,25

634

.Pe

rman

ent�S

ite�fo

r�mid

-str

eam

�ope

ratio

n�of

�Sto

necu

tter’s

�Isla

nd1_

MO

T�(M

ott�M

cDon

ald)

5,42

135

.Ro

ute�

5�Se

ctio

n�be

twee

n�Sh

ek�W

ai�K

ok�a

nd�C

hai�W

an�K

ok2_

MO

T1,

882

36.

Stra

tegi

c�Sew

age�

Disp

osal

�Sch

eme�

(Sta

ge�I)

3_M

OT

4,57

537

.D

redg

ing�

of�th

e�A

ncho

rage

�Are

a�fo

r�Sto

necu

tter’s

�Isla

nd�N

aval

�Bas

e4_

MO

T2,

543

38.

Gre

en�Is

land

�Rec

lam

atio

n�Pu

blic

�Dum

p1_

SWK

�(Sco

tt,�W

ilson

,�Kirk

part

ick)

3,02

539

.Re

stor

atio

n�of

�Nor

th-W

est�N

ew�T

errit

orie

s�Lan

dfills

2_SW

K6,

733

40.

Tuen

�Mun

�Por

t�Dev

elop

men

t�Stu

dy3_

SWK

4,45

341

.A

gree

men

t�No.

�CE�

52/9

4�W

est�o

f�Sul

phur

�Cha

nnel

�Mar

ine�

Borr

ow�A

rea

4_SW

K1,

512

42.

Impr

ovem

ent�t

o�C

astle

�Pea

k�Ro

ad�fr

om�S

iu�L

am�to

�So�

Kwun

�Tan

1_FR

A�(P

eter

�Fra

enke

l)4,

413

Page 156: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 143

(con

tinue

d)

43.

PWP�

Item

�454

th:�L

ung�

Che

ung�

Road

�Fly

over

2_FR

A4,

127

44.

Recl

amat

ion�

Wor

ks�fo

r�Dist

rict�O

pen�

Spac

e�an

d�G

IC�F

acili

ties�

1_M

OU

�(Mou

chel

)3,

506

45.

Rest

orat

ion�

of�S

huen

�Wan

�Lan

dfill

2_M

OU

2,93

146

.Ea

st�K

owlo

on�S

ewer

age�

Impr

ovem

ents

�and

�Pol

lutio

n�C

ontr

ol�

1_PH

H�(P

HH

�Con

sulta

nts)

4,18

047

.Lu

ng�C

heun

g�Ro

ad�a

nd�C

hing

�Che

ung�

Road

�Impr

ovem

ents

2_PH

H4,

400

48.

Lant

au�P

ort�a

nd�W

este

rn�H

arbo

ur�D

evel

opm

ent�S

tudi

es1_

APH

�(APH

�Con

sulta

nts)

6,65

749

.O

utly

ing�

Isla

nds�R

efus

e�Tr

ansf

er�F

acili

ties�S

tudi

es1_

ASP

�(Asp

inal

l)5,

755

50.

Tolo

�Har

bour

�Effl

uent

�Exp

ort�S

chem

e1_

BAL�

(Bal

four

s)6.

911

51.

Sheu

ng�S

hui�S

laug

hter

�Hou

se1_

ECL�

(Env

iro-C

hem

�Eng

.)1,

386

52.

Prop

osed

�Ext

ensio

n�to

�Tse

ung�

Kwan

�O�L

andfi

ll�St

age�

I�Ext

ensio

n1_

EPD

�(Env

ir.�P

rote

ctio

n�D

ept.)

5.44

053

.O

zone

�Dep

letio

n�–�

the�

late

st�fi

ndin

gs1_

FOE�

(Frie

nds�o

f�Ear

th)

2,36

754

.So

uth�

East

�New

�Ter

ritor

ies�(

SEN

T)�L

andfi

ll1_

GV

L�(G

reen

�Val

ley�

Land

fill)

3,18

955

.La

ntau

�Por

t�Dev

elop

men

t�Sta

ge�I

1_H

AL�

(Hal

crow

)3,

476

56.

Hun

g�H

om�B

y-pa

ss1_

HIG

�(Hig

hway

s)4,

479

57.

Shen

zen�

Rive

r�Reg

ulat

ion�

Proj

ect

1_LE

A�(L

ead)

4,22

658

.Po

rt�D

evel

opm

ent�S

trat

egy�

1991

1_PL

A�(P

lann

ing�

Dep

t.)3,

212

59.

Min

gai�D

yein

g�an

d�Pr

intin

g�Fa

ctor

y�Li

mite

d1_

PRO

�(Pro

duct

ivity

�Cou

ncil)

2,84

360

.D

esig

n�an

d�C

onst

ruct

ion�

of�S

mith

field

�Ext

ensio

n1_

PYP�

(Pyp

un)

1,90

0To

tal n

umbe

r of r

unni

ng w

ords

226,

97

*�The�

nam

e�of

�the�

Con

sulta

nts�i

s�giv

en�in

�bra

cket

s�afte

r�the

�firs

t�file

.

Page 157: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

144� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

App

endi

x 3-

2. R

epor

ts in

STU

CO

RP

Title

* File

nam

e (t

opic

)W

ords

1.I m

prov

ing�

com

pute

r�Fac

ilitie

s1_

CS�

(CC

ST)

1,86

8�2.

Com

pute

r�bar

ns�in

�the�

HK

UST

2_C

S3,

091

3.In

form

atio

n�re

port

�on�

CC

ST�co

mpu

ter�b

arns

3_C

S2,

814

4.C

ompu

ter�b

arns

4_C

S2,

740

5.In

vest

igat

ion�

into

�the�

usag

e�of

�com

pute

rs�in

�CC

ST�co

mpu

ter�b

arns

5_C

S3,

879

6.In

stal

ling�

com

pute

r�ter

min

als�i

n�U

ST�c

ampu

s6_

CS

2,35

57.

Situ

atio

n�in

�com

pute

r�bar

ns7_

CS

3,69

58.

Serv

ice�

prov

ided

�in�co

mpu

ter�b

arns

8_C

S1,

862

9.U

sage

�of�m

odem

�line

s�in�

UST

9_C

S3,

346

10.

Prin

ting�

serv

ice�

in�C

S�la

bora

rory

10_C

S3,

100

11.

CC

ST�fa

cilit

ies

11_C

S2,

183

12.

Dia

l-up�

serv

ice

12_C

S2,

361

13.

Inte

rnet

�serv

ices

�afte

r�gra

duat

ion

13_C

S2,

987

14.

Com

pute

risat

ion�

of�sp

orts

�faci

litie

s�boo

king

�syst

em14

_CS

1,65

415

.O

n-lin

e�bo

okin

g�sy

stem

�for�s

port

s�fac

ilitie

s15

_CS

2,57

816

.C

hem

ical

�Eng

inee

ring�

desig

n�pr

ojec

t1_

CO

U�(C

ours

es)

3,07

017

.Re

view

�of�C

hem

ical

�Eng

inee

ring�

degr

ee2_

CO

U3,

516

18.

Org

anisa

tion�

of�st

udy�

tour

�for�C

PEG

�stud

ents

3_C

OU

2,40

519

.Fi

nal�y

ear�p

roje

cts

4_C

OU

3,52

720

.O

pini

on�o

n�co

mpu

lsory

�H&

SS�co

urse

s5_

CO

U2,

405

21.

Prop

osal

�for�e

stab

lishm

ent�o

f�a�H

uman

ities

�self-

lear

ning

�cent

re6_

CO

U3,

013

22.

Revi

ew�o

f�con

tinuo

us�a

sses

smen

t�sch

eme

7_C

OU

3,51

3

Page 158: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 145

(con

tinue

d)

23.

Inve

stig

atio

n�of

�spor

ts�fa

cilit

ies

1_SP

O�(S

port

s�Fac

ilitie

s)2,

646

24.

Phys

ical

�edu

catio

n�pr

ogra

mm

es2_

SPO

2,73

425

.Sp

orts

�pro

gram

me

3_SP

O2,

239

26.

Stud

ent�p

artic

ipat

ion�

in�p

hysic

al�e

duca

tion�

prog

ram

me

4_SP

O2,

972

27.

Usa

ge�o

f�spo

rts�f

acili

ties

5_SP

O1,

483

28.

Spor

ts�fa

cilit

ies�i

n�U

ST6_

SPO

3,93

829

.C

onst

ruct

ing�

a�w

ater

�spor

ts�ce

ntre

7_SP

O2,

344

30.

Puto

nghu

a�co

urse

s1_

LAN

�(Lan

guag

e�C

ours

es)

1,76

631

.D

eman

d�on

�Put

ongh

ua�co

urse

s�in�

UST

2_LA

N3,

588

32.

Nee

d�fo

r�Put

ongh

ua�co

urse

s3_

LAN

3,79

633

.At

titud

es�to

war

ds�la

ngua

ge�st

udy

4_LA

N3,

413

34.

Lang

uage

�skill

s5_

LAN

2,46

135

.C

ater

ing�

serv

ice

1_C

AT�(C

ater

ing�

serv

ices

)1,

968

36.

Surv

ey�o

n�ca

terin

g�se

rvic

es2_

CAT

1,65

637

.Re

sear

ch�o

n�ca

terin

g�se

rvic

es3_

CAT

2,49

238

.Ev

alua

tion�

of�n

oodl

e�sh

op4_

CAT

3,10

639

.C

ours

e�re

gist

ratio

n�sy

stem

1_RE

G�(C

ours

e�re

gist

ratio

n)3,

276

40.

Stud

ents’

�attit

ude�

tow

ards

�pre

sent

�cour

se�re

gist

ratio

n�sy

stem

2_RE

G4,

871

41.

Cou

rse�

regi

stra

tion

3_RE

G2,

851

42.

Inve

stig

ate�

the�

curr

ent�c

ours

e�re

gist

ratio

n�an

d�ad

d/dr

op�p

roce

dure

4_RE

G4,

533

43.

Intr

oduc

ing�

new

�stud

ent�c

redi

t�car

d1_

CRE

�(Cre

dit�c

ards

)2,

270

44.

Cre

dit�c

ards

2_C

RE2,

722

45.

Inve

stig

atio

n�of

�cred

it�ca

rd�u

sage

3_C

RE3,

564

46.

Feas

ibili

ty�o

f�usin

g�Sm

artc

ard�

in�H

KU

ST�c

ampu

s4_

CRE

2,59

547

.Su

rvey

�on�

stud

ents’

�and

�lect

ures

’�atti

tude

s�tow

ards

�chea

ting

1_C

HE�

(Che

atin

g)4,

200

48.

Aca

dem

ic�d

ishon

esty

2_C

HE

2,56

5

Page 159: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

146� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

(con

tinue

d)

49.

Ass

ignm

ent�c

opyi

ng�in

�UST

3_C

HE

2,59

350

.U

G��h

all�s

ecur

ity1_

SEC

�(Sec

urity

)3,

341

51.

Secu

rity�

in�h

alls

2_SE

C2,

975

52.

Secu

rity�

and�

illeg

al�u

se�o

f�loc

kers

3_SE

C1,

585

53.

Prop

osal

�for�s

uper

stor

e1_

STO

�(Sto

re)

2,91

654

.Es

tabl

ishm

ent�o

f�con

veni

ence

�stor

e2_

STO

3,03

055

.C

onve

nien

ce�st

ore

3_ST

O3,

088

56.

Prop

erty

�theft

1_TH

E�(Th

eft)

3,77

557

.Ev

alua

tion�

of�la

b�se

curit

y2_

THE

2,13

258

.Th

efts�f

rom

�labo

rato

ries

3_TH

E2,

159

59.

Inve

stig

atio

n�on

�effe

cts�o

f�inc

reas

ing�

tuiti

on�fe

e1_

FEE�

(Tui

tion�

fee)

2,88

460

.Su

rvey

�on�

incr

easin

g�tu

ition

�fee

2_FE

E3,

032

61.

Hal

l�pla

ces

1_H

AL�

(Hal

l�pla

ces)

1,91

562

.Cu

rren

t�situ

atio

n�on

�hal

l�pla

ces�f

or�U

G�st

uden

ts2_

HA

L1,

893

63.

Serio

usne

ss�o

f�exi

sten

ce�o

f�por

nogr

aphy

�in�U

ST�n

etw

ork

1_IN

T�(I

nter

net)

2,26

564

.Po

rnog

raph

y�on

�the�

inte

rnet

2_IN

T4,

763

65.

Inve

stig

atio

n�in

to�la

bora

tory

�acc

iden

ts1_

LAB�

(Lab

�safe

ty)

2,99

566

.St

anda

rd�o

f�lab

orat

ory�

safe

ty2_

LAB

3,41

967

.In

telle

ctua

l�pro

pert

y�rig

hts

1_LA

W�(C

opyr

ight

�law

s)2,

813

68.

Cop

yrig

ht�la

ws

2_LA

W3,

215

69.

Inve

stig

atio

n�of

�libr

ary�

faci

litie

s1_

LIB�

(Lib

rary

)3,

902

70.

Uni

vers

ity�li

brar

y2_

LIB

2,58

771

.Te

leph

one�

faci

litie

s�in�

UG

�hal

ls1_

PHO

�(Tel

epho

nes)

3,04

872

.Pa

ypho

nes�o

n�ca

mpu

s2_

PHO

2,64

173

.Fi

nanc

ial�c

ondi

tion�

of�U

ST�st

uden

ts1_

SPE�

(Spe

ndin

g)2,

584

74.

Inco

me�

and�

expe

nditu

re�o

f�UST

�stud

ents

2_SP

E2,

353

Page 160: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 147

(con

tinue

d)

75.

Phot

ocop

ying

�serv

ice

1_C

OP�

(Pho

toco

pyin

g)1,

925

76.

Awar

enes

s�of�e

nviro

nmen

tal�p

rote

ctio

n1_

ENV

�(Env

ironm

ent)

2,52

977

.D

ifficu

lties

�in�fi

ndin

g�a�

job

1_JO

B�(J

ob�h

untin

g)3,

083

78.

Com

paris

on�o

f�ser

vice

s�pro

vide

d�by

�pag

ing�

com

pani

es1_

PAG

�(Pag

ers)

2,48

479

.U

sage

�of�s

tude

nt�u

nion

�prin

t�sho

p1_

PRI�(

Prin

ting)

3,37

980

.A

dvan

tage

s�and

�disa

dvan

tage

s�of�S

U�co

mpu

lsory

�mem

bers

hip

1_ST

U�(S

tude

nt�U

nion

)3,

398

Tota

l num

ber o

f run

ning

wor

ds22

8,70

4

*�The�

topi

c�are

a�is�

give

n�in

�bra

cket

s�afte

r�the

�firs

t�file

nam

e.��

NB:

�Com

pute

r�bar

ns�m

entio

ned�

in�ti

tles�1

–8�re

fer�t

o�co

mpu

ter�l

abor

ator

ies�w

here

�50–

100�

netw

orke

d�co

mpu

ters

�are

�inst

alle

d.�S

tude

nts�u

se�th

ese�

faci

litie

s�to�

com

plet

e�ho

mew

ork�

assig

nmen

ts.

Page 161: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

148� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Appendix 3-3. Guidelines for Project

Stages�of�the�Project

Stage 1: Planning a study–� nature�of�an�investigation�–� identifying�a�problem�or�need–� scope�of�an�investigation–� choosing�a�topic

Stage 2: Methods of data collectionPrimary�sources–� making�observations–� interviewing–� designing�a�survey�questionnaire

Secondary�sources�Stage 3: Writing a report–� documenting�activities�(writing�a�progress�report�on�data�collection)–� discussing�data�(reporting�and�interpreting�data)–� types�of�reports�(information,�feasibility,�recommendation)�

Scope�of�an�Investigation

When�you�are�planning�your�research�project,�there�are�many�questions�that�you�may�need�to�consider.�These�may�include:

1.� Is�there�a�problem?�What�evidence�do�I�have�that�this�problem�exists?�How�serious�is�the�problem?

2.� What�possible�solutions�are�there�to�an�existing�problem?�Are�these�solutions�technically,�economically�and�socially�feasible?

3.� Is�there�a�need�for�a�new�development?�What�is�the�evidence�that�this�need�exists?4.� How�can�an�existing�need�be�met?�Can�it�be�met�in�a�way�that�is�technically,�economically�

and�socially�feasible?

Obviously,� the�majority�of� research�projects�will�not�attempt� to�consider�all� these�questions�fully.�Instead,�projects�tend�to�concentrate�on�answering�one�or�two�questions.

Page 162: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 149

App

endi

x 4-

1. 1

00 m

ost f

requ

ent w

ords

acr

oss 4

cor

pora

FREQ

UEN

CY

Num

STU

CO

RP

(228

, 704

)PR

OFC

OR

P (2

26,0

97)

BNC

(1,0

80,0

72)

CO

BUIL

D (c

. 7.3

m)

1TH

E19

,644

THE

19,8

26TH

E66

,619

THE

309,

497

2O

F9,

571

OF

9,29

2O

F32

,535

OF

155,

044

3TO

6,53

1A

ND

8,03

0A

ND

28,6

23A

ND

153,

801

4IN

5,10

7TO

6,39

2TO

26,4

62TO

137,

056

5A

ND

5,10

2BE

4,16

1A

21,6

48A

129,

928

6IS

3,61

1IN

3,78

1IN

20,9

65IN

100,

138

7ST

UD

ENTS

3,42

9W

ILL

3,01

9IS

9,79

9TH

AT67

,042

8TH

AT3,

235

A2,

802

FOR

9,54

7I

64,8

499

A2,

916

FOR

2,49

5TH

AT8,

469

IT61

,379

10FO

R2,

542

IS2,

358

WA

S8,

167

WA

S54

,722

11A

RE2,

080

ARE

1,69

7IT

7,86

5IS

49,1

8612

IT1,

777

FRO

M1,

680

ON

7,27

7H

E42

,057

13W

E1,

744

ON

1,66

6BE

7,16

9FO

R40

,857

14BE

1,74

1N

OIS

E1,

552

WIT

H7,

063

YOU

37,4

7715

NO

T1,

551

AT1,

535

AS

6,50

4O

N35

,951

16TH

IS1,

537

CO

NST

RUC

TIO

N1,

476

I6,

216

WIT

H35

,844

17TH

EY1,

493

THAT

1,41

3BY

5,88

5A

S34

,755

18FR

OM

1,49

0W

ITH

1,39

8AT

5,60

2BE

29,7

9919

ON

1,47

5A

S1,

350

ARE

4,96

1H

AD

29,5

9220

HAV

E1,

408

BY1,

266

HE

4,88

9BU

T29

,572

21A

S1,

365

SITE

1,08

6FR

OM

4,68

3TH

EY29

,512

22BY

1,23

5IM

PAC

TS1,

080

BUT

4,34

1AT

28,9

58

Page 163: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

150� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

(con

tinue

d)

23C

AN

1,21

8A

REA

1,04

1H

AVE

4,29

5H

IS26

,491

24TH

EIR

1,19

2W

ATER

958

THIS

4,26

2H

AVE

26,1

1325

MO

RE1,

043

THIS

930

NO

T4,

221

NO

T25

,419

26W

ERE

1,03

4EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

849

YOU

4,04

5TH

IS25

,185

27W

ITH

972

WH

ICH

845

HIS

4,00

0A

RE23

,372

28W

ILL

969

QU

ALI

TY84

4W

HIC

H3,

703

OR

22,4

4529

WA

S95

5W

ORK

S74

8A

N3,

618

BY21

,916

30M

OST

876

IMPA

CT

745

HA

D3,

580

WE

20,9

6431

THER

E87

2RO

AD

738

THEY

3,48

6SH

E20

,958

32TI

ME

855

NO

T73

4O

R3,

395

FRO

M20

,933

33A

LSO

825

BEEN

716

WER

E3,

283

ON

E20

,354

34RE

SPO

ND

ENTS

819

IT71

5W

ILL

3,10

7A

LL20

,022

35TH

EM81

5W

OU

LD70

5A

LL2,

995

THER

E19

,145

36A

BOU

T77

4M

EASU

RES

702

WE

2,98

5H

ER18

,916

37SO

ME

758

AN

694

ON

E2,

929

WER

E18

,547

38C

OU

RSES

734

DU

RIN

G68

0H

AS

2,76

1W

HIC

H18

,344

39C

OM

PUTE

R70

6O

R67

7TH

EIR

2,71

3A

N17

,446

40O

R68

8SH

OU

LD64

6TH

ERE

2,59

8SO

17,4

3341

OU

R67

4H

AVE

643

SAID

2,55

8W

HAT

16,4

3442

CO

URS

E64

9H

AS

615

BEEN

2,54

0TH

EIR

16,1

6043

NU

MBE

R62

5PR

OPO

SED

614

SHE

2,48

5IF

16,0

0844

ON

E59

9LE

VEL

S60

9H

ER2,

447

WO

ULD

14,6

8745

HK

UST

586

MIT

IGAT

ION

581

WO

ULD

2,33

8A

BOU

T14

,547

46W

HIC

H58

6D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

572

IF2,

168

NO

14,3

8647

ON

LY57

8ST

UD

Y54

0U

P2,

087

SAID

14,1

6348

SYST

EM56

2A

IR50

9M

ORE

2,08

2U

P13

,552

Page 164: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 151

(con

tinue

d)

49A

LL56

1M

ON

ITO

RIN

G50

4C

AN

2,07

9W

HEN

13,5

0150

SO55

3TH

ESE

501

WH

O1,

984

BEEN

13,4

1751

THA

N55

3TR

AFF

IC49

2M

Y1,

949

OU

T13

,361

52H

ALL

546

WA

S48

6SO

1,92

3TH

EM13

,322

53U

SE54

2W

AST

E48

2N

O1,

908

DO

12,9

4354

AT53

7W

ITH

IN47

7W

HEN

1,90

2M

Y12

,761

55SH

OU

LD53

5M

ARI

NE

467

OU

T1,

880

MO

RE12

,718

56O

THER

522

EXIS

TIN

G46

3IT

S1,

833

WH

O12

,708

57ST

UD

ENT

510

ARE

AS

450

INTO

1,65

3M

E11

,697

58PR

OBL

EM48

7W

ERE

445

OTH

ER1,

586

LIK

E11

,564

59Q

UES

TIO

NN

AIR

E48

5A

NY

439

THEN

1,55

7V

ERY

11,4

8360

SERV

ICE

452

ALL

426

SOM

E1,

548

CA

N11

,271

61FA

CIL

ITIE

S45

1N

O42

5TW

O1,

540

HA

S11

,241

62M

AY44

1A

SSES

SMEN

T42

2O

NLY

1,53

2H

IM11

,110

63A

N43

7RE

CO

MM

END

ED42

0TI

ME

1,52

9SO

ME

10,5

3764

DO

437

POTE

NTI

AL

409

WH

AT1,

516

INTO

10,4

1465

DAT

A42

8SE

NSI

TIV

E39

0A

BOU

T1,

511

THEN

10,2

6566

IF42

8O

THER

387

CO

ULD

1,49

4N

OW

10,2

4667

FIG

URE

426

OPE

RATI

ON

380

FIRS

T1,

478

THIN

K10

,007

68O

UT

424

DES

IGN

373

THA

N1,

429

WEL

L9,

654

69ST

UD

Y41

4D

RED

GIN

G36

0M

R1,

424

KN

OW

9,54

970

LIBR

ARY

408

ALS

O35

9YO

UR

1,41

7TI

ME

9,48

171

WO

ULD

408

LAN

DFI

LL35

6M

E1,

414

CO

ULD

9,21

472

HO

WEV

ER40

6D

UST

355

THEM

1,41

4PE

OPL

E9,

083

73TH

ESE

396

INTO

353

NEW

1,39

9IT

S9,

061

74Q

UES

TIO

NN

AIR

ES39

1FA

CIL

ITY

345

ALS

O1,

372

OTH

ER8,

904

Page 165: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

152� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

(con

tinue

d)

75W

HO

384

AC

TIV

ITIE

S33

9SH

OU

LD1,

366

ON

LY8,

889

76IN

FORM

ATIO

N37

5BA

Y33

9O

VER

1,32

2IT

’S8,

848

77U

ST37

5RE

QU

IRED

337

OU

R1,

316

WIL

L8,

834

78TW

O37

1H

ON

GO

KON

G33

0A

FTER

1,27

5TH

AN

8,31

579

PEO

PLE

367

CO

NTR

OL

328

LIK

E1,

227

YES

8,23

480

DIF

FERE

NT

366

THER

E32

6TH

ESE

1,21

5JU

ST8,

190

81SU

RVEY

361

OU

T32

2D

O1,

203

BEC

AUSE

8,12

882

PRO

VID

ED35

5M

AY31

9U

S1,

188

TWO

7,33

483

STA

FF35

4U

SE31

1H

IM1,

184

OV

ER7,

285

84RE

SULT

353

REC

LAM

ATIO

N30

9A

NY

1,16

4D

ON

’T�

7,25

385

UN

IVER

SITY

349

USE

D30

5M

AY1,

164

GET

7,24

186

NEE

D34

7PR

OJE

CT

301

WEL

L1,

160

SEE

7,21

687

BUT

345

REC

EIV

ERS

301

NO

W1,

151

AN

Y7,

029

88YE

AR

345

NEW

299

VER

Y1,

114

MU

CH

6,79

589

CA

RD34

0RE

QU

IREM

ENTS

297

MO

ST1,

091

WAY

6,79

190

BEC

AUSE

339

VIS

UA

L29

5W

HER

E1,

079

THES

E6,

791

91IN

TERV

IEW

333

EIA

293

PEO

PLE

1,05

6H

OW

6,75

892

EAC

H33

2SU

CH

290

BETW

EEN

1,02

8D

OW

N6,

755

93U

SERS

332

AIR

PORT

283

BAC

K1,

015

EVEN

6,60

994

MA

NY

331

LAN

D28

1YE

AR

1,01

4FI

RST

6,41

095

USE

D33

1C

AN

279

MA

DE

984

DID

6,22

096

HA

D33

0SI

GN

IFIC

AN

T27

8SU

CH

953

BAC

K6,

201

97PU

TON

GH

UA

328

CO

NSI

DER

ED27

7JU

ST93

1G

OT

6,19

098

HA

S32

4D

ISPO

SAL

268

MA

NY

898

OU

R6,

189

99V

ERY

322

HIG

H26

6TH

OSE

895

NEW

6,12

710

0W

HEN

317

HO

WEV

ER26

4W

ORK

885

GO

6,02

9

Page 166: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 153

Appendix 4-2. Keyword list in a PROFCORP report

1_ecI008.kws (keyness)

N Word Freq. ECL.txt

% Freq. Corpus % Key-ness

P

1 SLAUGHTERHOUSE 21 1.52 � � 1 269.2 00000000000012 IMPACTS 16 1.15 � � 5 188.2 0.0000000000013 MITIGATION 12 0.87 � � 0 158.4 0.0000000000014 ENVIRONMENTAL 18 1.30 � 54 156.9 0.0000000000015 MEASURES 13 0.94 � 83 � 95.7 0.0000000000016 WASTEWATER � 7 0.51 � � 0 � 92.4 0.0000000000017 BPP � 7 0.51 � � 0 � 92.4 0.0000000000018 NOISE 12 0.87 � 78 � 87.9 0.0000000000019 STUDY 15 1.08 216 0.02 � 87.6 0.00000000000110 OPERATIONS 11 0.79 � 68 � 81.6 0.00000000000111 WASTES � 7 0.51 � � 3 � 80.2 0.00000000000112 SEIA � 6 0.43 � � 0 � 79.2 0.00000000000113 GUIDELINES � 8 0.58 � 13 � 77.7 0.00000000000114 PROPOSED 11 0.79 100 � 73.8 0.00000000000115 EPD � 5 0.36 � � 0 � 66.0 0.00000000000116 WILL 29 2.09 � � 3,107 0.31 � 62.2 0.00000000000117 RECOMMENDED � 7 0.51 � 22 � 60.4 0.00000000000118 MANAGEMENT 10 0.72 139 0.01 � 59.0 0.00000000000119 ODOUR � 5 0.38 � � 2 � 57.6 0.00000000000120 EMS � 5 0.38 � � 2 � 57.6 0.00000000000121 WASTE � 7 0.51 � 37 � 53.9 0.00000000000122 IMPACT � 9 0.65 126 0.01 � 53.0 0.00000000000123 BLOOD � 8 0.58 � 81 � 52.0 0.00000000000124 TREATMENT � 8 0.56 � 85 � 51.3 0.00000000000125 ENSURE � 9 0.65 165 0.02 � 48.3 0.00000000000126 AREA 11 0.79 370 0.04 � 46.5 0.00000000000127 CONSTRUCTION � 8 0.58 119 0.01 � 46.2 0.00000000000128 SURROUNDING � 6 0.43 � 39 � 43.9 0.000000000001

Page 167: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

154� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Appendix 4-3. Keyword list in a STUCORP report

1 cs0006.kws (keyness)

N Word Freo. 1_CS.txt Freq. Corpus % Keyness P

1 COMPUTER 53 2.84 281 0.03 377.9 0.0000000000012 BARNS 29 1.55 � � 4 341.4 0.0000000000013 COST 22 1.16 � � 0 277.4 0.0000000000014 STUDENTS 35 1.87 326 0.03 212.9 0.0000000000015 PRINTERS 13 0.70 � � 3 148.4 0.0000000000016 SOFTWARE 17 0.91 � 66 130.4 0.0000000000017 COMPUTERS 16 0.66 � 48 129.9 0.0000000000018 PACKAGES 12 0.64 � � 8 124.3 0.0000000000019 TONER � 8 0.43 � � 0 100.8 0.00000000000110 FACILITIES 16 0.86 132 0.01 100.8 0.00000000000111 HKUST � 7 0.37 � � 0 � 88.2 0.00000000000112 DIAL-1N � 6 0.32 � � 0 � 75.6 0.00000000000113 STUDENT 10 0.54 � 52 � 71.4 0.00000000000114 SERVER � 7 0.37 � � 7 � 68.6 0.00000000000115 HARDWARE � 7 0.37 � 22 � 56.2 0.00000000000116 PROBLEMS 12 0.64 244 0.02 � 55.3 0.00000000000117 COST 12 0.64 247 0.02 � 55.0 0.00000000000118 UTILIZATION � 5 0.27 � � 3 � 52.4 0.00000000000119 ‘INSUFFICIENT � 6 0.32 � 15 � 50.5 0.00000000000120 NEED 14 0.75 527 0.05 � 48.4 0.00000000000121 FEASIBILITY � 5 0.27 � � 6 � 47.9 0.00000000000122 SERVERS � 5 0.27 � � 6 � 47.9 0.00000000000123 TRAYS � 5 0.27 � � 7 � 46.7 0.00000000000124 INADEQUATE � 6 0.32 � 23 � 46.1 0.00000000000125 HELPERS � 4 0.21 � � 1 � 45.4 0.00000000000126 TELEPHONE � 7 0.37 � 6 � 43.3 0.000000000001

Page 168: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 155

Appendix 4-4. Key Technical Vocabulary in PROFCORP

A. Environmental Study

EIA� � � (28)�� Environmental�Impact�AssessmentIEIA� � (2)� � Initial�Environmental�Impact�AssessmentDEIA� � (2)� � Detailed�Environmental�Impact�AssessmentSEIA� � (2)� � Supplementary�Environmental�Impact�AssessmentCEIA� � � � Conceptual�Environmental�Impact�AssessmentIAR�� � � � Initial�Assessment�ReportEDS�� � � � Expanded�Development�StudyEIS� � � � � Environmental�Impact�StudyEISA� � � � Environmental�Impact�and�Safety�Assessment

B. Environmental rules and regulations

EMA� � (6)� � Environmental�Monitoring�and�AuditHKPSG� � (4)� � Hong�Kong�Planning�and�Standards�GuidelinesAQO� � (2)� � Air�Quality�ObjectivesASR�� � (2)� � Area�Sensitivity�RatingLWCS� � (2)� � Livestock�Waste�Control�SchemeWPCO� � (2)� � Water�Pollution�Control�OrdinanceANL� � � � Allowable�Noise�LevelsNCO� � � � Noise�Control�OrdinanceTMP� � � � Turfgrass�Management�PlanEMS� � � � Environmental�Management�SystemWQOs� � � � Water�Quality�ObjectivesEMP� � � � Environmental�Monitoring�PlanSMP� � � � Sewerage�Master�Plan

C. Areas/zones

SIA� � � (2)� � Special�Industries�Area�MBAs� � � � Marine�Borrow�AreasCWA� � � � Cargo�Working�AreaCBAs� � � � Container�Back-up�AreasGIA�� � � � General�Industries�AreaCDA� � � � Comprehensive�Development�AreaMCZs� � � � Mariculture�ZonesFCZs� � � � Fish�Culture�ZonesSSSI�� � � � Site�of�Special�Scientific�InterestCMPs� � � � Contaminated�Mud�Pits

D. Installations

NSR(s)� � (9)� � Noise�Sensitive�Receiver(s)ASR(s)� � (2)� � Air�Sensitive�ReceiversPHIs� � � � Potentially�Hazardous�InstallationsSSR� � � � � Secondary�Surveillance�RadarSBC�� � � � Sub-Marine�Power�Cable

Page 169: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

156� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

LTPs� � � � Large�Thermal�Power�StationGRS�� � � � Gas�Receiving�Station

E. Gases / Metals causing environmental damage

TSP�� � (7)� � Total�Suspended�ParticulatesRSP�� � (3)� � Respirable�Suspended�ParticulatesLFG�� � (3)� � Landfill�GasCFCs� � � � ChlorofluorocarbonsSS� � � � � Suspended�Solids

Leachate�� (6)� � ferricHydrogen�sulphide� copperCarbon�dioxide� � zincChloride�� � � TBT�� TributyltinOxides� � � � LPG�� Liquefied�Petroleum�GasNitrogen�� � � methanogenicOzone� � � � nitrousHalons� � � � AmmoniaMethane

F. Mitigation Measures

LTF�� � � � Leachate�Treatment�Facility�CIF� � � � � Centralised�Incineration�FacilityRTFs� � � � Refuse�Transfer�FacilitiesLRWF� � � � Low-level�Radioactive�Waste�Storage�FacilitySTW� � � � Sewage�Treatment�WorksVFPW� � � � Village�Flood�Protection�WorksMDC� � � � Main�Drainage�Channel�(works)BPP�� � � � By-Product�PlantPPVL� � � � Pillar�Point�Valley�LandfillKTIPS� � � � Kwun�Tong�Intermediate�Pumping�StationGRIPD� � � � Green�Island�Reclamation�Public�Dump

G. Measurements

DBa�� � (8)� � Decibel�scaleHa� � � (3)� � hectares�Ug/m3� � (3)� � (measure�of�TSPs�in�air)�Cu� � � � � cubic�metres��Mgl�� � � � milligramVph�� � � � vehicles�per�hourKg.Km.

H. Technical Vocabulary (misc.)

Bund� � (2)� � soil�wall�built�across�slope�to�retain�waterSousa� � (2)� � type�of�dolphin�(white)Cantilever� � � type�of�barrier

Page 170: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 157

Penaeid� � � � type�of�shrimpBenthic� � � � living�on�the�floor�of�the�seaPhytoplankton� � microscopic�plants�which�float�in�the�seaGrab-dredged�� (2)� Stormwater� � (5)Trailer-dredged� � Groundwater� � (4)WashwaterCofferdamFung�Shui

Appendix 4-5. Key Technical Vocabulary in STUCORP

Computer-related

Internet� � (7)� � encryption�Modem(s)� (5)� � e-mailDial-in� � (3)� � AspenDial-up� � (2)� � SybaseDot-matrix� (3)� � SupernetServer(s)�� (3)� � SunSparc� � � � � Visual�Basic

PCs�� � (2)MS_DosISPsPPP�(fast�modem�pool)

University Departments / Service Centres

UST�� � (22)�� University�of�Science�and�Technology�HKUST� � (50)�� Hong�Kong�University�of�Science�and�Technology�CCST� � (16)�� Centre�for�Computing�Services�and�TelecommunicationsSAO�� � (8)� � Student�Affairs�OfficeARR� � (5)� � Admissions,�Registration�and�Records�OfficeSHO� � (2)� � Student�Housing�OfficeSEPO� � (2)� � Safety�and�Environmental�Protection�OfficeEMO� � (2)� � Estates�Management�OfficeCS� � � (6)� � Computer�ScienceCPEG� � (2)� � Computer�EngineeringEEE�� � � � Electrical�and�Electronic�EngineeringSAC�� � (2)� � Self-Access�CentreSU� � � � � Students’�UnionHSS�� � � � Humanities�and�Social�Science

Page 171: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

158� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Appendix 4-6. List of key-key words in PROFOCORP

N Word Of 60 As %

1 IMPACTS 50 83.332 CONSTRUCTION 47 78.333 NOISE 44 73.334 MITIGATION 43 71.675 ENVIRONMENTAL 43 71.676 QUALITY 39 65.007 SITE 34 56.678 AREA 32 53.339 WILL 30 50.0010 MEASURES 30 50.0011 MONITORING 29 48.3312 EIA 28 46.6713 PROPOSED 28 46.6714 WATER 27 45.0015 HONGOKONG 27 45.0016 RECOMMENDED 27 45.0017 MARINE 27 45.0018 IMPACT 26 43.3319 BE 26 43.3320 RECEIVERS 24 40.0021 ASSESSMENT 23 38.3322 TRAFFIC 23 38.3323 DREDGING 22 36.6724 LEVELS 22 36.6725 SENSITIVE 22 36.6726 WORKS 21 35.0027 ROAD 20 33.3328 RECLAMATION 20 33.3329 WASTE 20 33.3330 DUST 20 33.3331 VISUAL 15 25.0032 SEDIMENT 15 25.0033 THE 15 25.0034 CONTAMINATED 14 23.3335 DISPOSAL 14 23.3336 AIR 14 23.3337 STUDY 14 23.3338 EPD 14 23.3339 EXISTING 13 21.67

Page 172: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 159

(continued)

40 DESIGN 12 20.0041 SEWAGE 12 20.0342 BAY 12 20.0043 CONTRACTOR 11 18.3344 PHASE 11 18.3345 LOCATED 11 18.3346 TUENOMUN 10 16.6747 DEVELOPMENT 10 16.6748 OPERATIONAL 10 16.6749 POLLUTION 10 16.6750 EMISSIONS 10 16.6751 SEDIMENTS 10 16.6752 LANDFILL 10 16.6753 OPERATION 10 16.6754 POTENTIAL 10 16.6755 ODOUR � 9 15.0056 DURING � 9 15.0057 TREATMENT � 9 15.0058 LANDAU � 9 15.0059 RESIDENTIAL � 9 15.0060 AREAS � 8 13.3361 REQUIREMENTS � 8 13.3362 LANDSCAPE � 8 13.3363 RECOMMENDATION � 8 13.3364 PROJECT � 8 13.3365 ISLAND � 8 13.3366 ADJACENT � 8 13.3367 FACILITIES � 8 13.3368 ACTIVITIES � 8 13.3369 DBA � 8 13.3370 PREDICTED � 8 13.3371 OPERATIONS � 7 13.3372 ECOLOGICAL � 7 13.3373 HARBOUR � 7 13.3374 TSP � 7 13.3375 LEACHABLE � 6 13.3376 ALIGNMENT � 6 13.3377 DETAILED � 6 10.0078 IMPLEMENTATION � 6 10.0079 NSRS � 6 10.0380 DREDGED � 6 10.0081 STANDARDS � 6 10.0082 CONTRACT � 6 10.0083 EMA � 6 10.00

Page 173: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

160� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

(continued)

84 SEWERAGE � 6 10.0085 GAS � 6 10.0086 TSINGOYI � 6 10.0087 EFFLUENT � 6 10.0088 MATERIAL � 6 10.0089 STORMWATER � 5 � 8.3390 CONTAINER � 5 � 8.3391 TSEUNGOKWANOO � 5 � 6.3392 DISCHARGE � 5 � 8.3393 ROADS � 5 � 8.3394 DISCHARGES � 5 � 8.3395 CHANNEL � 5 � 8.3396 FACILITY � 5 � 8.3397 ROUTE � 5 � 8.3398 WASTES � 5 � 8.3399 OPTIONS � 5 � 8.33100 AUDIT � 5 � 8.33101 MINIMISE � 5 � 8.33102 PLAN � 5 � 8.33103 PORTAL � 5 � 8.33104 PORT � 5 � 8.33105 OXYGEN � 5 � 8.33106 DEDGERS � 5 � 8.33107 CONCENTRATIONS � 5 � 8.33108 BARRIERS � 5 � 8.33109 WOULD � 5 � 8.33110 PONDS � 5 � 8.33111 PLANT � 5 � 8.33112 BLASTING � 5 � 8.33113 SCHEME � 5 � 8.33114 DISCOVERY � 5 � 8.33115 DRAINAGE � 5 � 8.33116 RIVER � 5 � 6.67117 CONTAMINATION � 4 � 6.67116 TERMINAL � 4 � 6.67119 JETTY � 4 � 6.67120 COMPLIANCE � 4 � 6.67121 RESTORATION � 4 � 6.67122 GROUNDWATER � 4 � 6.67123 MANAGEMENT � 4 � 6.67124 ECOLOGY � 4 � 6.67125 REDUCE � 4 � 6.67126 SEAWALL � 4 � 6.67127 PUMPING � 4 � 6.67

Page 174: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 161

(continued)

128 FISH � 4 � 6.67129 FILL � 4 � 6.67130 ENSURE � 4 � 6.67131 FISHERIES � 4 � 6.67132 SILT � 4 � 6.67133 SUSPENDED � 4 � 6.67134 STREAM � 4 � 6.67135 CONTROL � 4 � 6.67136 MODELLING � 4 � 6.67137 INDIRECT � 4 � 6.67138 METALS � 4 � 6.67139 HKPSG � 4 � 6.67140 SPOIL � 4 � 6.67141 SHOULD � 4 � 6.67142 SCENARIOS � 4 � 6.67143 KOWLOON � 4 � 6.67144 ASSOCIATED � 4 � 6.67145 APPROXIMATELY � 4 � 6.67146 PFNGOCHAU � 4 � 6.67147 VEGETATION � 4 � 6.67148 YUENOLONG � 4 � 6.67149 WATERS � 4 � 6.67150 PHASES � 4 � 6.67151 ORDINANCE � 4 � 6.67152 VICTORIA � 4 � 6.67153 TUNNEL � 4 � 6.67

Page 175: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

162� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Appendix 4-7. List of key-key words in STUCORP

N Word Of 80 As %

1 STUDENTS 69 86.252 RESPONDENTS 51 63.753 HKUST 50 62.504 QUESTIONNAIRE 33 41.255 STUDENT 24 30.006 UST 22 27.507 QUESTIONNAIRES 19 23.758 INTERVIEW 17 21.259 THE 17 21.2510 CCST 16 20.0011 COURSES 15 18.7512 SURVEY 14 17.5013 DATA 14 17.5014 USERS 13 16.2515 WE 13 16.2516 COURSE 12 15.0017 HONGOKONG 12 15.0018 UNDERGRADUATE 12 15.0019 COMPUTER 11 13.7520 FIGURE 11 13.7521 CAN 11 13.7522 SEMESTER 10 12.5323 HALL 10 12.5024 CAMPUS 10 12.5025 STAFF 10 12.5026 USE 10 12.5027 SYSTEM 10 12.5028 FACILITIES 10 12.5029 OPINIONS 10 12.5030 SPORTS � 9 11.2531 BARNS � 9 11.2532 OBSERVATION � 9 11.2533 UNIVERSITY � 9 11.2534 SERVICE � 9 11.2535 LECTURERS � 9 11.2536 INTERVIEWS � 8 10.0037 PROBLEM � 8 10.0038 SAO � 8 10.0039 FEASIBILITY � 0 10.00

Page 176: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Appendices� 163

(continued)

40 STUDY � 8 10.0041 SITUATION � 8 10.0042 SERVICES � 8 10.0043 BARN � 7 � 8.7544 PRINTERS � 7 � 8.7545 RESIDENTS � 7 � 8.7546 QUOTA � 7 � 8.7547 LIBRARY � 7 � 8.7548 COMPUTERS � 7 � 8.7549 INTERNET � 7 � 8.7550 PROVIDED � 7 � 8.7551 REGISTRATION � 7 � 8.7552 ACADEMIC � 7 � 8.7553 SECURITY � 6 � 7.5054 THEIR � 6 � 7.5055 CS � 6 � 7.5056 PRINTING � 6 � 7.5057 WERE � 6 � 7.5058 DEPARTMENT � 6 � 7.5059 FEE � 6 � 7.5060 FEASIBLE � 6 � 7.5061 USUAGE � 6 � 6.2562 CARD � 6 � 6.2563 MATERIALS � 5 � 6.2564 HELPERS � 5 � 6.2565 HOURS � 5 � 6.2566 MACHINES � 5 � 6.2567 BOOKING � 5 � 6.2568 OUR � 5 � 6.2569 TIME � 5 � 6.2570 FOOD � 5 � 6.2571 ARR � 5 � 6.2572 UTILIZATION � 5 � 6.2573 HOMEWORK � 5 � 6.2574 THEY � 5 � 6.2575 SCIENCE � 5 � 6.2576 USING � 5 � 6.2577 SCHOOL � 5 � 6.2578 RESOURCES � 5 � 6.2579 SHOP � 5 � 6.2580 INSUFFICIENT � 5 � 6.2581 RECOMMENDATIONS � 5 � 6.2582 IS� � 5 � 6.2583 PRINTER � 5 � 6.25

Page 177: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

164� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

(continued)

84 LANGUAGE � 5 � 6.2585 ASSISNMENTS � 5 � 6.2586 TERTIARY � 4 � 6.2587 QUESTIONS � 4 � 5.0088 CENTER � 4 � 5.0089 CENTRE � 4 � 5.0090 RANDOM � 4 � 5.0091 COPY � 4 � 5.0092 SOLUTIONS � 4 � 5.0093 PHOTOCOPYING � 4 � 5.0094 LABORATORY � 4 � 5.0095 PERIOD � 4 � 5.0096 LEARNING � 4 � 5.0097 SOLUTION � 4 � 5.0098 JOB � 4 � 5.0099 THAT � 4 � 5.00100 EMAIL � 4 � 5.00101 PASSWORD � 4 � 5.00102 PRICE � 4 � 5.00103 SPORT � 4 � 5.00104 CANTEEN � 4 � 5.00105 DEPRTMENTS � 4 � 5.00106 MONEY � 4 � 5.00107 HK � 4 � 5.00108 UG � 4 � 5.00109 PROBLEMS � 4 � 5.00110 BELONGINGS � 4 � 5.00111 UNDERGRADUATES � 4 � 5.00112 HALLS � 4 � 5.00113 STOLEN � 4 � 5.00114 USED � 4 � 5.00115 MOST � 4 � 5.00116 NEED � 4 � 5.00117 PUTONGHUA � 4 � 5.00118 CARDS � 4 � 5.00

Page 178: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

References

Ädel,�A.�2006.�Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.�Aijmer,�K.�&�Altenberg,�B.�(eds.)�1991.�English Corpus Linguistics.�London:�Longman.Aston,� G.� &� Burnard,� L.� 1998.� The BNC Handbook� [Edinburgh� Textbooks� in� Applied�

Linguistics].�Edinburgh:�EUP.Aston,�G.,�Bernardini,�S.�&�Stewart,�D.�(eds.)�2004.�Corpora and Language Learners.�Amsterdam:�

John�Benjamins.Baker,�M.�1988.�Sub-technical�vocabulary�and�the�ESP�teacher:�An�analysis�of�some�rhetorical�

items�in�medical�journal�articles.�Reading in a Foreign Language 4(2):�91–105.Baker,�M.,�Francis,�G.�&�Tognini-Bonelli,�E.�(eds.)�1993.�Text and Technology: In Honour of John

Sinclair.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Baker,�P.�2006.�Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis.�London:�Continuum.Barlow,�M.�2005.�Computer-based�analyses�of�learner�language.�In�Analysing Learner Language,�

R.�Ellis�&�G.�Barkhuizen�(eds.),�335–357.�Oxford:�OUP.Barnbrook,�G.�1996.�Language and Computers [Edinburgh�Textbooks�in�Empirical�Linguistics].�

Edinburgh:�EUP.Barton,� D.� 2000.� Researching� literacy� practices:� Learning� from� activities� with� teachers� and�

students.� In� Situated Literacies,� D.� Barton,� D.� Hamilton� &� R.� Ivanič� (eds.),� 167–179.�London:�Routledge.

Becker,� A.� L.� 1965.� A� tagmemic� approach� to� paragraph� analysis.� College Composition and Communication 16:�237–242.

Belcher,� D.� 2006.� English� for� Specific� Purposes:� Teaching� to� perceived� needs� and� imagined�futures�in�worlds�of�work,�study�and�everyday�life.�TESOL Quarterly�40(1):�133–156.

Benson,�M.,�Benson,�R.�&�Ilson,�R.�1986�[1997].�The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English. Revised�edn. Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.

Bernardini,�S.�2002.�Exploring�new�directions�for�discovery� learning.�In�B.�Kettemann�&�G.�Marko�(eds.),�165–182.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.

Bernardini,�S.�2004.�Corpora� in� the�classroom:�An�overview�and�some�reflections�on�future�developments.�In�J.�Sinclair�(ed.),�15–36.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.

Bhatia,�V.�2004.�Worlds of Written Discourse.�London:�Continuum.Bhatia,�V.�K.�2008.�Towards�critical�genre�analysis.� In�V.�K.�Bhatia,� J.�Flowerdew�&�R.� Jones�

(eds.).Bhatia,�V.�K.,�Flowerdew,� J.�&� Jones,�R.� (eds.)�2008.�Advances in Discourse Studies.�London:�

Routledge.Bhatia,�V.�K.,�Langton,�N.�&�Lung,�J.�2004.�Legal�discourse:�Opportunities�and�threats�for�corpus�

linguists.�In�U.�Connor�&�T.�Upton�(eds.),�203–231.Biber,�D.�1990.�Methodological�issues�regarding�corpus-based�analysis�of�linguistic�variation.�

Literary and Linguistic Computing�5(4):�257–269.

Page 179: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

166� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Biber,�D.,�Conrad,�S.�&�Reppen,�R.�1998.�Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use.�Cambridge:�CUP.

Biber,�C.,�Connor,�U.�&�Upton,�T.�2007.�Discourse on the Move.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Blommaert,�J.�2005.�Discourse.�Cambridge:�CUP.Bowker,�L.�&�Pearson,�J.�2002.�Working with Specialized Language Corpora: A Practical Guide to

Using Corpora.�London:�Routledge.�British National Corpus (BNC). http://info.ox.ac.uk/bnc/.Bruthiaux,�P.�1996.�The Discourse of Classified Advertising: Exploring the Nature of Linguistic

Simplicity.�New�York�NY:�OUP.Burnard,�L.�2002.�A�retrospective�look�at�the�British�National�Corpus.�In�B.�Kettemann�&�G.�

Marko�(eds.),�51–70.Burnard,�L.�&�McEnery,�T.�(eds.)�2000.�Rethinking Language Pedagogy from a Corpus Perspective.�

Frankfurt:�Peter�Lang.Camiciottti,�G.�&�Tognini-Bonelli,�E.�(eds.)�2004.�Academic Discourse – New Insigths into Evalu-

ation.�Bern:�Peter�Lang.Carter,�R.�1992.�Vocabulary:�Applied Linguistic Perspectives.�London�and�New�York:�Routledge.Carter,�R.�&�McCarthy,�M.�1995.�Grammar�and�the�spoken�language.�Applied Linguistics�16:�

141–158.Celce-Murcia,� M.� 2002.� On� the� use� of� selected� grammatical� features� in� academic� writing.�

In� Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages,� M.� Schleppegrell� &� C.�Colombi�(eds.),�143–157.�Mahwah�NJ:�Lawrence�Erlbaum.

Coffin,�C.,�Hewings,�A.�&�O’Halloran,�K.�(eds.)�2004.�Applying English Grammar: Functional and Corpus Approaches.�Milton�Keynes:�The�Open�University.

Collins Bank of English Thesaurus. 1998.�London:�HarperCollins.Collins COBUILD Dictionary.�1987.�London:�HarperCollins.Connor,� U.� &� Upton,� T.� (eds.)� 2004.� Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus

Linguistics.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Connor,�U.,�Precht,�K.�&�Upton,�T.�2002.�Business�English:�Learner�data�from�Belgium,�Finland�

and�the�U.S.�In�S.�Granger�et�al.�(eds.),�175–194.Coulthard,�M.�(ed.)�1994.�Advances in Written Text Analysis.�London:�Routledge.Cowie,� A.� P.� (ed.)� 1998.� Phraseology. Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford:� Clarendon�

Press.Cowie,� A.� P.� &� Howarth,� P.� 1996.� Phraseological� competence� and� written� proficiency.� In�

Language and Education [British�Studies�in�Applied�Linguistics�11],�G.�Blue�&�R.�Mitchell�(eds.),�80–93.�Clevedon:�Multilingual�Matters.

Crombie,�W.�1985.�Process and Relation in Discourse and Language Learning.�Oxford:�OUP.De�Beaugrande,�R.�2001.�Large�corpora,�small�corpora,�and�the�learning�of�“language”.�In�M.�

Ghadessy�et�al.�(eds.),�3–28.Devitt,� A.� 1991.� Intertextuality� in� tax� accounting:� Generic,� referential� and� functional.� In�

Textual Dynamics of the Professions,�C.�Bazerman�&�J.�Paradis�(eds.),�306–335.�Madison�WI:�University�of�Wisconsin�Press.

Dictionary of Ecology and Environment.�1995.�3rd�edn.�Teddington:�Peter�Collin.�Downing,�A.�&�Locke,�P.�1992.�A University Course in English Grammar.�New�York�NY:�Prentice�

Hall.Fairclough,�N.�1995.�Critical Discourse Analysis.�London:�Longman.Fang,�X.�&�Kennedy,�G.�1992.�Expressing�causation� in�written�English.�RELC Journal�23(1):�

62–80.

Page 180: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� References� 167

Firth,� J.� R.� 1957.� A� synopsis� of� linguistic� theory,� 1930–1955.� Studies in Linguistic Analysis.�Special�Volume,�Philological�Society,�1–32.�

Flowerdew,�J.�1996.�Concordancing�in�language�learning.�In�The Power of CALL,�M.�Pennington�(ed.),�97–113.�Houston�TX:�Athelstan.�

Flowerdew,�J.�(ed.)�2002.�Academic Discourse. London:�Longman.Flowerdew,�J.�2003a.�Signalling�nouns�in�discourse.�English for Specific Purposes�22:�329–346.Flowerdew,�J.�2003b.�Register�specificity�of�signalling�nouns�in�discourse.�In�P.�Leistyna�&�C.�

Meyer�(eds.),�35–46.Flowerdew,�J.�2006.�Use�of�signalling�nouns�in�a�learner�corpus.�International Journal of Corpus

Linguistics�11(3):�345–362.Flowerdew,� L.� 1998a.� Corpus� linguistic� techniques� applied� to� textlinguistics.� System� 26(4):�

541–552.Flowerdew,� L.� 1998b.� Integrating� expert� and� interlanguage� computer� corpora� findings� on�

causality:�Discoveries�for�teachers�and�students.�English for Specific Purposes Journal 17(4):�329–345.

Flowerdew,� L.� 2000.� Investigating� referential� and� pragmatic� errors� in� a� learner� corpus.� In�Rethinking Language Pedagogy from a Corpus Perspective,�L.�Burnard�&�T.�McEnery�(eds.), 145–154.�Frankfurt:�Peter�Lang.

Flowerdew,�L.�2001.�The�exploitation�of�small�learner�corpora�in�EAP�materials�design.�In�M.�Ghadessy�et�al.�(eds.),�363–379.

Flowerdew,�L.�2002.�Corpus-based�analyses�in�EAP.�In�J.�Flowerdew�(ed.),�95–114.Flowerdew,� L.� 2003.� A� combined� corpus� and� systemic-functional� analysis� of� the� Problem-

Solution�pattern�in�a�student�and�professional�corpus�of�technical�writing.�TESOL Quarterly�37(3):�489–511.

Flowerdew,�L.�2004a.�The�argument�for�using�specialized�corpora�to�understand�academic�and�professional�language.�In�U.�Connor�&�T.�Upton�(eds.),�11–33.

Flowerdew,� L.� 2004b.� The� problem-solution� pattern� in� apprentice� vs.� professional� technical�writing:�An�application�of�appraisal�theory.�In�G.�Aston,�S.�Bernardini�&�D.�Stewart�(eds.),�125–135.

Flowerdew,� L.� 2005.� An� integration� of� corpus-based� and� genre-based� approaches� to� text�analysis�in�EAP/ESP:�Countering�criticisms�against�corpus-based�methodologies.�English for Specific Purposes�24:�321–332.

Flowerdew,�L.�2008a.�Corpus�and�context�in�professional�writing.�In�V.�Bhatia,�J.�Flowerdew�&�R.�Jones�(eds.).�

Flowerdew,�L.�2008b.�Determining�discourse-based�moves�in�professional�reports.�In�Exploring Discourse through Corpora,�A.�Ädel�&�R.�Reppen�(eds.).�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.

Flowerdew,�L.�2008c.�Corpus�linguistics�for�academic�literacies�mediated�through�discussion�activities.�In�The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other Media Interactions,�D.�Belcher�&�A.�Hirvela�(eds.). Ann�Arbor�MI:�University�of�Michigan�Press.

Flowerdew,�L.�2008d.�Using�corpus�data�to�have�a�closer�look�at�the�experiential�function.�In�New Developments in the Study of Ideational Meaning: From Language to Multimodality,�C.�Jones�&�E.�Ventola�(eds.).�London:��Equinox.

Francis,�G.�1986.�Anaphoric Nouns [Discourse�Analysis�Monographs�11]. Birmingham:�English�Language�Research,�University�of�Birmingham.

Francis,�G.�1991.�Nominal�group�heads�and�clause�structure.�Word 42(2):�145–156.�

Page 181: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

168� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Francis,�G.�1993.�A�corpus-driven�approach�to�grammar�–�Principles,�methods�and�examples.�In�M.�Baker,�G.�Francis�&�E.�Tognini-Bonelli�(eds.),�137–156.

Francis,� G.� 1994.� Labelling� discourse:� An� aspect� of� nominal-group� lexical� cohesion.� In� M.�Coulthard�(ed.),�83–101.�

Fries,�P.�2001.� Issues� in�modeling� the� textual�metafunction:�A�constructive�approach.� In�M.�Scott�&�G.�Thompson�(eds.),�83–107.

Fries,�P.�2007.�New�information�in�Problem-Solution�texts.�Paper�given�at�the�American�Asso-ciation�for�Applied�Linguistics�Conference,�Costa�Mesa,�California,�23�April.

Gavioli,�L.�2002.�Some�thoughts�on�the�problems�of�representing�ESP�through�small�corpora.�In�B.�Kettemann�&�G.�Marko�(eds.),�293–303.

Gavioli,�L.�2005.�Exploring Corpora for ESP learning.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Ghadessy,�M.,�Henry,�A.�&�Roseberry,�R.�(eds.)�2001.�Small Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and

Practice.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Gisborne,�N.�2000.�Relative�clauses�in�Hong�Kong�English.�World Englishes�19(3):�357–372.Gledhill,�C.�1995.�Collocation�and�genre�analysis.�The�phraseology�of�grammatical� items� in�

cancer�research�abstracts�and�articles.�Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik�1:�1–26.Gledhill,� C.� 2000.� The� discourse� function� of� collocation� in� research� article� introductions.�

English for Specific Purposes 19(2):�115–135.Goodman,�A.�&�Payne,�E.�1981.�In�English for Academic and Technical Purposes,�L.�Selinker,�E.�

Tarone�&�V.�Hanzeli�(eds.), 23–39.�Rowley�MA:�Newbury�House.Grabe,�W.�&�Kaplan,�R.�1996.�Theory and Practice of Writing.�London:�Longman.Granger,�S.�1998a.�Prefabricated�patterns�in�advanced�EFL�writing:�Collocations�and�formulae.�

In�A.�Cowie�(ed.),�145–160.Granger,�S.�(ed.)�1998b.�Learner English on Computer.�London:�Longman.Granger,�S.,�Hung,�J.�&�Petch-Tyson,�S.�(eds.)�2002.�Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language

Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Green,�C.�1996.�The�origins�and�effects�of�topic-prominence�in�Chinese-English�interlanguage.�

International Review of Applied Linguistics�34(2):�119–134.Green,�C.,�Christopher,�E.�&�Lam,�J.�2000.�The�incidents�and�effects�on�coherence�of�marked�

themes�in�interlanguage�texts:�a�corpus-based�enquiry.�English for Specific Purposes�19(2):�99–113.

Groom,� N.� 2005.� Pattern� and� meaning� across� genres� and� disciplines:� An� exploratory� study.�English for Specific Purposes�4(3):�257–277.

Haan� de,� P.� 1992.� The� optimum� corpus� sample� size.� In� New Directions in English Language Corpora,�G.�Leitner�(ed.),�1–19.�Berlin:�Mouton�de�Gruyter.

Halliday,�M.�A.�K.�1994.�An Introduction to Functional Grammar.�2nd�edn. London:�Edward�Arnold.

Halliday,� M.� A.� K.� 1998.� Things� and� relations:� Regrammaticising� experience� as� technical�knowledge.�In�J.�R.�Martin�&�R.�Veel�(eds.),�185–235.

Halliday,�M.�A.�K.�2002.�Problems�of� the�spoken� language�corpus.�Paper�presented�at�AILA�Conference,�Singapore,�20�December.

Halliday,�M.�A.�K.�2004.�The�spoken�language�corpus:�A�foundation�for�grammatical�theory.�In�Advances in Corpus Linguistics,�K.�Aijmer�&�B.�Altenberg�(eds.),�11–38.�Amsterdam:�Rodopi.

Halliday,�M.�A.�K.�&�Hasan,�R.�1976.�Cohesion in English.�London:�Longman.Harris,�J.�1986.�Certain�features�of�organisation�above�the�sentence�in�English�written�discourse:�

Metastructure� and� the� problem-solution� and� comparison-contrast� patterns.� In� Talking

Page 182: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� References� 169

about Text�[Discourse�Analysis�Monographs],�M�Coulthard�(ed.),�146–172.�Birmingham:�University�of�Birmingham.

Hinkel,�E.�2002.�Second Language Writers’ Text.�Mahwah�NJ:�Lawrence�Erlbaum.Hoey,�M.�1983.�On the Surface of Discourse. London:�George�Allen�&�Unwin.Hoey,� M.� 1986.� Overlapping� patterns� of� discourse� organisation� and� their� implications� for�

clause�relational�analysis�of�problem-solution�texts.�In�Studying Writing,�C.�R.�Cooper�&�S.�Greenbaum�(eds.), 187–214.�London:�Sage.

Hoey,�M.�1991.�Patterns of Lexis in Text.�Oxford:�OUP.Hoey,� M.� .1993.� A� common� signal� in� discourse:� How� the� word� reason is� used� in� texts.� In�

Techniques of Description: Spoken and Written Discourse,�J.�McH.�Sinclair,�M.�Hoey�&�G.�Fox�(eds.),�67–82.�London:�Routledge.

Hoey,� M.� 1997.� From� concordance� to� text� structure:� new� uses� for� computer� corpora.� In�PALC’97. Practical Applications in Language Corpora,�B.�Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk�&�J.�Melia�(eds.),�2–23.�Lodz:�Lodz�University�Press.

Hoey,� M.� 1998.� Some� text� properties� of� certain� nouns.� In� Proceedings of the� Colloquium on Discourse Anaphora and Reference Resolution.�Lancaster�University,�UK.

Hoey,�M.�2001.�Textual Interaction.�London:�Routledge.Hoey,�M.�2005.�Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language.�London:�Routledge.Hoey,�M.�&�Winter,�E.�1986.�Clause�relations�and�the�writer’s�communicative�task.�In�Functional

Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives,�B.�Couture�(ed.),�120–141.�London:�Frances�Pinter.

Hunston,�S.�1993.�Evaluation�and�ideology�in�scientific�writing.�In�Register Analysis: Theory and Practice,�M.�Ghadessy�(ed.),�57–73.�London:�Frances�Pinter.

Hunston,�S.�1994.�Evaluation�and�organisation�in�a�sample�of�written�academic�discourse.�In�Advances in Written Text Analysis,�M.�Coulthard�(ed.),�191–218.�London:�Routledge.

Hunston,�S.�2001.�Colligation,�lexis,�pattern,�and�text.�In�G.�Thompson�&�M.�Scott�(eds.),�13–33.

Hunston,�S.�2002.�Corpora in Applied Linguistics.�Cambridge:�CUP.Hunston,�S.�2003.�Pattern�grammar,�language�teaching,�and�linguistic�variation.�In�R.�Reppen�

et�al.�(eds.),�167–183.Hunston,�S.�&�Francis,�G.�2000.�Pattern Grammar. A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical

Grammar of English.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Hunston,� S.� &� Thompson,� G.� (eds.)� 2000.� Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the

Construction of Discourse.�Oxford:�OUP.Hyland,�K.�1998.�Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Hyland,�K.�&�Milton,�J.�1997.�Qualification�and�certainty�in�L1�and�L2�students’�writing.�Journal

of Second Language Writing�6(2):�183–205.ICE HK.�(http://www.hku.hk/english/research/icehk/index.htm)Ivanič,�R.�1991.�Nouns�in�search�of�a�context:�A�study�of�nouns�with�both�open-�and�closed-

system�characteristics.�International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 2:�93–114.

Johansson,�S.�1991.�Times�change,�and�so�do�corpora.�In�K.�Aijmer�&�B.�Altenberg�(eds.),�305–314.

Jones,� M.� &� Haywood,� S.� 2004.� Facilitating� the� acquisition� of� formulaic� sequences:� An�exploratory�study�in�an�EAP�context.�In�N.�Schmitt�(ed.),�269–292.

Jordan,�M.�P.�1984.�Rhetoric of Everyday English Texts.�London:�Allen�&�Unwin.Kennedy,�G.�1998.�An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London:�Longman.

Page 183: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

170� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Kettemann,� B.� &� Marko,� G.� (eds.)� 2002.� Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis.�Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz 19–24 July, 2000.�Amsterdam:�Rodopi.

Knowles,�G.�&�Don,�Z.�2005.�The�notion�of�a�“lemma”.�International Journal of Corpus Linguis-tics�9(1):�69–81.

Lea,�M.�&�Street,�B.�1999.�Writing�as�academic� literacies:�Understanding� textual�practice� in�higher�education.�In�Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices,�C.�Candlin�&�K.�Hyland�(eds.),�62–81.�London:�Longman.

Lee,�D.�2001.�Genres,�registers,�text�types,�domains,�and�styles:�Clarifying�the�concepts�and�nav-igating�a�path�through�the�BNC�jungle.�Language Learning and Technology�5(3):�37–72.

Lee,�D.�&�Swales,�J.�2006.�A�corpus-based�ESP�course�for�NNS�doctoral�students:�Moving�from�available�specialized�corpora�to�self-compiled�corpora.�English for Specific Purposes�25(1):�56–75.

Leech,�G.�1991.�The�state�of�the�art�in�corpus�linguistics.�In�English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik,�K.�Aijmer�&�B.�Altenberg�(eds.),�8–29.�London:�Longman.

Leistyna,�P.�&�Meyer,�C.�(eds.)�2003.�Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use.�Amsterdam:�Rodopi.

Lin,�L.�2002.�Overuse,�underuse�and�misuse:�Using�concordancing�to�analyse�the�use�of�It�in�writing�of�Chinese�learners�of�English.�In�Corpus Studies in Language Education,�M.�Tan�(ed.),��63–76.�IELE�Press.

Lorenz,� G.� 1998.� Overstatement� in� advanced� learners’� writing:� Stylistic� aspects� of� adjective�intensification.�In�Learner English on Computer,�S.�Granger�(ed.),�53–66.�London:�Long-man.

Louw,� W.� 1993.� Irony� in� the� text� or� insincerity� in� the� writer?� In� M.� Baker,� G.� Francis� &� E.�Tognini-Bonelli�(eds.),�157–176.

Marco,�M.�J.�L.�1999.�Procedural�vocabulary:�Lexical�signaling�of�conceptual�relations�in�dis-course.�Applied Linguistics�20(1):�1–21.

Martin,�J.�R.�2000.�Beyond�exchange:�APPRAISAL�systems�in�English.�In�Evaluation in Text,�S.�Hunston�&�G.�Thompson�(eds.), 142–175.�Oxford:�OUP.

Martin,� J.� R.� 2003.� Sense� and� sensibility:� Texturing� evaluation.� In� Language, Education and Discourse,�J.�Foley�(ed.),�270–304. London:�Continuum.

Martin,� J.�R.�&�Veel,�R.� (eds.)�1998.�Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science.�London:�Routledge.

Mauranen,�A.�2003.�The�corpus�of�English�as�lingua�franca�in�academic�settings.�TESOL Quar-terly�37(3):�513–527.

McCarthy,�M.�1991.�Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge:�CUP.McCarthy,�M.�2002.�Comment�on�Widdowson’s�keynote�lecture�‘Corpora�and�Language�Teach-

ing� Tomorrow’.� Fifth� Teaching� and� Language� Corpora� Conference,� Bertinoro,� Italy,� 29�July.

McEnery,�T.�&�Kifle,�N.�2002.�Epistemic�modality�in�argumentative�essays�of�second-language�writers.�In�J.�Flowerdew�(ed.),�182–195.

McEnery,�T.�&�Wilson,�A.�2001.�Corpus Linguistics [Edinburgh�Textbooks�in�Empirical�Linguis-tics].�2nd�edn.�Edinburgh:�UEP.

McEnery,�T.,�Xiao,�R.�&�Tono,�Y.�2006.�Corpus-Based Language Studies.�London:�Routledge.Meunier,�F.�2002.�The�pedagogical�value�of�native�and�learner�corpora�in�EFL�grammar�teach-

ing.�In�S.�Granger�et�al.�(eds.),�119–141.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Meyer,�C.�2002.�English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction.�Cambridge:�CUP.

Page 184: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� References� 171

Milton,� J.� 2000.� The� Description� of� a� Written� Interlanguage:� Institutional� Influences� on� the�acquisition�of�English�by�Hong�Kong�Chinese�Students�(A�Computational�and�Corpus-Based�Methodology).�PhD�disseration,�Lancaster�University.

Milton,�J.�2004.�From�parrots�to�puppet�masters:�Fostering�creative�and�authentic�language�use�with�online�tools.�In�Distance Education and Language: Evolution and Change,�B.�Holm-berg,�M.�Shelly�&�C.�White�(eds.),�242–257.�Clevedon:�Multilingual�Matters.

Milton,� J.� 2006.� Resource-rich� web-based� feedback:� Helping� learners� become� independent�writers.�In�Feedback in Second Language Writing,�K.�Hyland�&�F.�Hyland�(eds.),�123–139.�Cambridge:�CUP.

Mohan,�B.�&�Huxur,�G.�2001.�A�functional�approach�to�research�on�content-based�language�learning:�Recasts� in�causal�explanations.�The Canadian Modern Language Review�58(1):�133–155.

Moon,�R.�1998.�Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English. Oxford:�Clarendon�Press.Mudraya,�O.�2006.�Engineering�English:�A�lexical�frequency�instructional�model.�English for

Specific Purposes�25(2):�235–256.Mukherjee,�J.�2006.�Corpus�linguistics�and�language�pedagogy:�The�state�of�the�art�−�and�be-

yond.�In�Corpus Technology and Language Pedagogy,�S.�Braun,�K.�Kohn�&�J.�Mukherjee�(eds.),�5–24.�Frankfurt:�Peter�Lang.

Mukherjee,� J.� &� Rohrbach,� J.� 2006.� Rethinking� applied� corpus� linguistics� from� a� language-pedagogical�perspective:�New�departures�in�learner�corpus�research.�In�Planing and Gluing Corpora: Inside the Applied Corpus Linguist’s Workshop,�B.�Kettemann�&�G.�Marko�(eds.).�Frankfurt:�Peter�Lang.

Nesselhauf,�N.�2003.�The�use�of�collocations�by�advanced�learners�of�English�and�some�implica-tions�for�teaching.�Applied Linguistics�24(2):�223–242.

Nesselhauf,�N.�2004a.�Collocations in a Learner Corpus.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Nesselhauf,�N.�2004b.�Learner�corpora�and�their�potential�for�language�teaching.�In�J.�Sinclair�

(ed.),�125–152.O’Halloran,�K.�&�Coffin,�C.�2004.�Checking�overinterpretation�and�underinterpretation:�Help�

from�corpora�in�critical�linguistics.�In�C.�Coffin�et�al.�(eds.),�275–297.�Partington,�A.�1998.�Patterns and Meanings.�Using Corpora for English Language Research and

Teaching. Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Partington,�A.�2001.�Corpus-based�description�in�teaching�and�learning.�In�Learning with Cor-

pora,�G.�Aston�(ed.),�63–84.�Houston�TX:�Athelstan.�Partington,�A.�2004.�Utterly�content�in�each�other’s�company.�International Journal of Corpus

Linguistics�9(1):�131–156.Pawley,�A.�&�Syder,�F.�H.�1983.�Two�puzzles�for�linguistic�theory:�Nativelike�selection�and�na-

tivelike�fluency.�In�Language and Communication,�J.�Richards�&�R.�Schmidt�(eds.),�191–226.�London:�Longman.

Phillips,�M.�1989.�Lexical Structure of Text�[Discourse�Analysis�Monographs 12].�Birmingham:�English�Language�Research,�University�of�Birmingham.

Pravec,�N.�2002.�Survey�of�learner�corpora.�ICAME Journal�26:�8–14.Proctor,�M.�1988.�Discourse�organisation�patterns�and�their�signals.�In�Applied Text Linguistics�

[Exeter�Linguistic�Studies�13],�A.�Turney�(ed.),�23–54.�Exeter:�University�of�Exeter.Rayson,�P.,�Leech,�G.�&�Hodges,�M.�1997.�Social�differentiation�in�the�use�of�English�vocabu-

lary:�Some�analyses�of�the�conversational�component�of�the�British�Nation�Corpus.�Inter-national Journal of Corpus Linguistics�2:�133–150.

Page 185: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

172� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

Renouf,� A.� 1996.� The� ACRONYM� project:� Discovering� the� textual� thesaurus.� In� Synchronic Corpus Linguistics. Papers from the sixteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 16),�C.�Percy,�C.�Meyer�&�I.�Lancashire�(eds.).��Amsterdam:�Rodopi.

Reppen,�R.�Fitzmaurice,�S.�&�Biber,�D.�(eds.)�2003.�Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Varia-tion.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.

Schmidt,�H.-J.�2000.�English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells.�Berlin:�Mouton�de�Gruyter.Schmitt,�N.�(ed.)�2004.�Formulaic Sequences.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Scott,�M.�1996–1999.�WordSmith�Tools�3.1.�Oxford:�OUP.Scott,�M.�1997.�PC�analysis�of�key�words�–�and�key�key�words.�System 25(2):�233–245.Scott,�M.�2000a.�Focusing�on�the�text�and�its�key�words.�In�Rethinking Language Pedagogy from

a Corpus Perspective,�L�Burnard�&�T.�McEnery�(eds.),�103–121.�Frankfurt:�Peter�Lang.Scott,�M.�2001a.�Comparing�corpora�and�identifying�key�words,�collocations,�and�frequency�

distributions�through�the�WordSmith Tools suite�of�computer�programs.�In�M.�Ghadessy�et�al.�(eds.),�47–67.

Scott,�M.�2001b.�Mapping�Key�Words�to�Problem and�Solution.� In�G.�Thompson�&�M.�Scott�(eds.),�109–127.

Scott,�M.�&�Thompson,�G.�(eds.)�2001.�Patterns of Text: In Honour of Michael Hoey.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.

Scott,�M.�&�Tribble,�C.�2006.�Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.

Seidlhofer,�B.�2001.�Closing�a�conceptual�gap:�The�case�for�a�description�of�English�as�a�lingua�franca.�International Journal of Applied Linguistics�11(2):�133–159.

Simpson-Vlach,� R.� &� Leicher,� S.� 2006.� The MICASE Handbook: A Resource for Users of the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English.�Ann�Arbor�MI:�The�University�of�Michigan�Press.

Sinclair,�J.�McH.�1986.�Basic�computer�processing�of�long�texts.�In�Computers in English Lan-guage Teaching and Research,�G.�Leech�&�C.�Candlin�(eds.),�185–203.�London:�Longman.

Sinclair,�J.�McH.�(ed.)�1987.�Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Comput-ing.�London:�Collins.

Sinclair,�J.�McH.�1991.�Corpus, Concordance, Collocation.�Oxford:�OUP.Sinclair,�J.�McH.�1992.�The�automatic�analysis�of�corpora.�In�Directions in Corpus Linguistics.

Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82 Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991,�J.�Svartvik�(ed.),�379–397.� Berlin:�Mouton�de�Gruyter.

Sinclair,�J.�Mc.H.�2001.�Preface.�M.�Ghadessy�et�al.�(eds.),�vii–xv.Sinclair,�J.�McH.�2002.�Corpora�and�language�teaching�tomorrow.�Keynote�lecture�delivered�at�

Fifth�Teaching�and�Language�Corpora�Conference,�Bertinoro,�Italy,�29�July.Sinclair,�J.�McH.�(ed.)�2004.�How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching.�Amsterdam:�John�Ben-

jamins.Sinclair,�J.�McH.�2005.�Corpus�and�text�−�Basic�principles.�In�Developing Linguistic Corpora,�M.�

Wynne�(ed.),�1–21.�Oxford:�The�Oxford�Text�Archive.Sinclair,�J.�McH.�&�Renouf,�A.�1988.�A�lexical�syllabus�for�language�learning.�In�Vocabulary and

Language Teaching,�M.�McCarthy�&�R.�Carter�(eds.),�140–160.�London:�Longman.Stubbs,�M.�1996.�Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford:�Blackwell.Stubbs,�M.�2001a.�On�inference�theories�and�code�theories:�Corpus�evidence�for�semantic�sche-

mas.�Text�21(3):�437–465.

Page 186: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� References� 173

Stubbs,� M.� 2001b.� Computer� assisted� text� and� corpus� analysis:� Lexical� cohesion� and� com-municative�competence.�In�The Handbook of Discourse Analysis,�D.�Tannen�et�al.�(eds.),�304–320.�Oxford:�Blackwell.

Stubbs,�M.�2001c.�Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics.�Oxford:�Blackwell.Swales,�J.�M.�2002.�Integrated�and�fragmented�worlds:�EAP�materials�and�corpus�linguistics.�In�

Academic Discourse,�J.�Flowerdew�(ed.),�150–164�London:�Longman.Swales,�J.�M.�2004.�Research Genres.�Cambridge:�CUP.The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations.�1997.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Thompson,�G.�&�Hunston,�S.�2000.�Evaluation:�An�introduction.�In�S.�Hunston�&�G.�Thompson�

(eds.),�1–27.Thompson,�G.�&�Scott,�M.�(eds.)�2001.�Patterns of Text: In Honour of Michael Hoey.�Amsterdam:�

John�Benjamins.Titscher,�S.�et�al.�(eds.)�2000.�Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis.�London:�Sage.Tognini-Bonelli,�E.�2001.�Corpus Linguistics at Work.�Amsterdam:�John�Benjamins.Tognini-Bonelli,�E.�2004.�Working�with�corpora:�Issues�and�insights.�In�C.�Coffin�et�al.�(eds.),�

11–24.Tribble,�C.�2001.�Small�corpora�and�teaching�writing.�In�M.�Ghadessy�et�al.�(eds.),�381–406.Tribble,�C.�2002.�Corpora�and�corpus�analysis:�New�windows�on�academic�writing.� In�Aca-

demic Discourse,�J.�Flowerdew�(ed.),�131–149.�London:�Longman.Trimble,�L.�1985.�English for Science and Technology: A Discourse Approach. Cambridge:�CUP.Widdowson,�H.�G.�1998.�Context,�community�and�authentic�language.�TESOL Quarterly�32(4):�

705–716.Widdowson,�H.�G.�2002.�Corpora�and�language�teaching�tomorrow.�Keynote�lecture�delivered�

at�the�Fifth�Teaching�and�Language�Corpora�Conference,�Bertinoro,�Italy,�29�July.Widdowson,�H.�G.�2004.�Text, Context, Pretext.�London:�Blackwell.Wilkins,�D.�1976.�Notional Syllabuses.�Oxford:�OUP.Williams,�G.�1998.�Collocational�networks:�Interlocking�patterns�of�lexis�in�a�corpus�of�plant�

biology�research�articles.�International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3(1):�151–171.Williams,�G.�2002.�In�search�of�representativity�in�specialised�corpora.�International Journal of

Corpus Linguistics�7(1):�43–64.Willis,�D.�2003.�Rules, Patterns and Words. Grammar and Lexis in English Language Teaching.�

Cambridge:�CUP.Winter,�E.�O.�1971.�Connection�in�science�material:�A�proposition�about�the�semantics�of�clause�

relations [C.I.L.T.�Papers�and�Reports�7].�London:�Centre�for�Information�on�Language�Teaching�and�Research�for�British�Association�for�Applied�Linguistics.

Winter,�E.�O.�1977.�A�clause-relational�approach�to�English�texts:�a�study�of�some�predictive�lexical�items�in�written�discourse.�Instructional Science 6(1):�1–92.

WordSmith�Tools,�3.0 (1996–1999).�Designed�and�developed�by�Mike�Scott.�Oxford:�Oxford�English�Software,�UK.�

Wray,� A.� 1999.� Formulaic� language� in� learners� and� native� speakers.� Language Teaching 32:�213–231.

Wray,�A.�2000.�Formulaic�sequences�in�second�language�teaching:�Principles�and�practice.�Ap-plied Linguistics 21(4):�463–489.

Yang,� H.� 1986.� A� new� technique� for� identifying� scientific/technical� terms� and� describing�scientific�texts.�Literary and Linguistic Computing 1(2):�93–103.

Page 187: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 188: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

AÄdel,�A.� 102Aston,�G.� 53

BBaker,�M.� 37Baker,�P.� 13,�18Barlow,�M.� 97Belcher,�D.� 133Bernardini,�S.� 136Bhatia,�V.�K.� 14,�15,�16,�18Biber,�D.� 13,�25Blommaert,�J.� 18Bowker,�L.� 43Burnard,�L.� 53

CCarter,�R.� 34,�137Celce-Murcia,�M.� 100,�137Coffin,�C.� 17,�18Connor,�U.� 14Cowie,�A.� 10Crombie,�W.� 54,�62,�85

DDe�Beaugrande,�R.� 133de�Haan,�P.� 24Devitt,�A.� 88�

FFairclough,�N.� 18Fang,�X.� 58Firth,�J.�R.� 8Flowerdew,�J.� 7,�10,�24,�Flowerdew,�L.� 3,�10,�35,�54,�69,�

130,�136Francis,�G.� 7,�8,�105,�106Fries,�P.� 85,�86

GGavioli,�L.� 90,�134Gisborne,�N.� 107Gledhill,�C,� 91,�124Goodman,�A.� 43

Grabe,�W.� 14,�15Granger,�S.� 97Green,�C.� 111,�112

HHalliday,�M.�A.�K.� 17,�20,�39,�

54,�70,�87,�127Harris,�J.� 6Hasan,�R.� 54,�70Hinkel,�E.� 109,�127Hoey,�M.� 1,�2,�34,��39,�48,�58,�

105,�138Howarth,�P.� 10Hunston,�S.� 15,�34,�55,�88,�137Hyland,�K.� 19,�68,�102

IIvanič,�R.� 7

JJohansson,�S.� 40Jordan,�R.� 5,�6,�7

KKaplan,�W.� 14,�15Kennedy,�G.� 25,�27,�58Kifle,�N.� 132Knowles,�G.� 31

LLee,�D.� 23Leech,�G.� 26Lin,�L.� 104,�111Lorenz,�G.� 102Louw,�B.� 32,�58

MMarco,�M.�J.�L.� 54Martin,�J.�R.� 33,�34,�35Mauranen,�A.� 40McCarthy,�M.� 2,�5,�134,�137McEnery,�T.� 13,�14,�25,�132Meunier,�F.� 134,�135Meyer,�C.� 25,�26

Milton,�J.� 97,�102,�136,�138Mohan,�B.� 135Moon,�R.� 65Mudraya,�O.� 40Mukherjee,�J.� 134

NNesselhauf,�N.� 97,�134

OO’Halloran,�K.� 17,�18

PPartington,�A.� 14,�34Payne,�E.� 43Pearson,�J.� 43Pravec,�R.� 97Proctor,�M.� 4,�5,�8,�34

RRenouf,�A.� 29,�31,�71

SSchmidt,�H.-J.� 7,�104,�107Scott,�M.� 8,�39,�40,�105Seidlhofer,�B.� 40Sinclair,�J.�McH.� 10,�24,�25,�31,�

32,�55,�65,�134,�137,�138Stubbs,�M.� 10,�16,�55,�56,�68Swales,�J.� 14,�53,�136

TTognini-Bonelli,�E.� 18,�26,�

31,�138Tribble,�C.� 15,�18,�40

WWiddowson,�H.� 15,�16,�18,�130,�

134,�135,�138Wilkins,�D.� 76Williams,�G.� 26,�38Winter,�E.� 4,�5,�6

YYang,�H.� 38,�42

Author index

Page 189: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)
Page 190: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

Aabbreviation� 27,�28,�29,�43,�48

see also Latin�abbreviations�27–29

aboutness� 39academic�writing� �54,�97,�127ACRONYM�project� 29,�71adjective� 10,�34,�38,�55,�78,�82,�

83,�90,�93,�104,�108,�118,�119,�120,�121,�123,�125

anaphora� 28,�69,�70�see also anaphoric�noun� 7,�

104,�105,�106,�108anticipatory�‘It’� 111A-Noun� 34,�70,�105,�106,�129Applied�Science�component� �

53,�68,�72,�80,�81,�90,�94,�98,�103,�106,�111,�113,�122,�131

Appraisal�system� 33,�34apprentice�writers� 49,�50,�51,�

57,�98,�131,�132associated with� 68,�69,�74,�94,�

129,�130audience� 21,�23authenticity� 15,�130,�134,�135,�

136,�138

BBank�of�English� 17,�46,�90BNC�(British�National�Corpus)� ��

� 8,�83,�84,�89,�101,�102,�135see also�Applied�Science�

component� 53,�68,�72,�80,�81,�90,�94,�98,�103,�106,�111,�113,�122,�131

core�written�component� 35,�36,�40,�56

Ccataphoric� 70,�78,�102,�104,�105,�

106,�116,�118causation� 60,�61,�62,�63,�64,�71,��

� 73,�84,�94,�99,�105,�107,�110,��� 113,�126,�129,�130

see also cause-consequence� �2,�6,�11

cause-effect� 54,�59,�76cause-reason� 58,�59,�60,�64,�

66,�69,�100,�107,�113�cause� 56,�60,�64,�65,�72,�99,�

100,�107,�113,�121,�132CDA� 17,�18,�19classificatory�framework� 53,�55,�

57,�75,�76,�115clause�relations� 1–6,�54COBUILD� 35,�36,�67coherence� 7,�46,�84,�91,�93,�110cohesion� 54,�85,�86colligation� 8,�9,�32,�56,�65–69,�

79,�86,�111collocation� 8,�9,�10,�32,�38,�39,�

48,�55–60,�65,�69,�88,�103,�107,�120,�121,�124,�135,�138

Concord 32,�38,�46,�47,�49concordance� 11,�14–19,�106,�131,�

135,�137Condition-Consequence� 59,�

64,�83,�103,�conjuncts� 5,�54connector� 4,�8,�36,�105connotation� 32,�34,�35,�43,�49�context� 5,�7,�15,�16,�18,�34,�36,��

� 37,�101see also contextual�features� �

7,�10,�15,�16,�18,�21,�68,�80,�95�121,�130–134

corpus� 8,�12,�14,�15,�20–30,�38,��� 97,�98,�102,�104,�105,�109,��� 112,�113,�127,�128,�130–135see also Bank�of�English� 17,�

46,�90BNC�(British�National�

Corpus)� 8,�83,�84,�89,�101,�102,�135

corpus�compilation� 24corpus,�general� 8,�22,�25,�35,�

36,�39,�40

corpus,�learner� 97,�127,�128,�132,�134

corpus,�reference� 8,�10,�22,�40,�53

corpus,�specialised� 8,�11,�24,�25,�26,�32,�53,�55,�90,�130

International�Corpus�of�Learner�English�(ICLE)� �97

Professional�corpus�(PROFCORP)� 8,�21,�50

Student�corpus�(STUCORP)� �22,�49

critical�discourse�analysis� 17,�18,�19

Ddata-driven�learning� (DDL)�

134–137deictic� 7,�8,�104delexical�verbs� 79,�80delicacy� 25,�55,�74,�78determiner� 69,�105,�107,�119

EEnglish�as�a�lingua�franca� 40epistemic� 56,�102ergative�verbs� 100,�132,�137error,�type�of� 97,�100,�132ethnographic�considerations� �

19,�130,�131,�134evaluation� 2,�33–38,�56,�61,�69,�

71,�76,�78,�80,�81,�92,�94,�94,�95,�103–106,�110,�116,�118,�120,�121,�126,�127,�135

evoking�items� 34,�37,�48,�93,�126

existential�‘there’� 59,�60,�66,�74,�101,�132

Fformulaic� 15,�72,�74,�103,�113,�

125

Subject index

Page 191: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

178� Corpus-based�Analyses�of�Problem-Solution�Pattern�

frequency� 8,�10,�15,�25,�33–42,�49,�51,�63,�72,�84,�89,�92,�123

Ggeneral�corpus� 25,�35,�36,�39,�40genre� 10,�13–20,�39,�40,�44,�130Grounds-Conclusion� 54,�57,�

62,�64,�70,�84,�85,�89,�91,�98,�103,�111,�121,�122,�124,�125

Hhedging� 19,�68,�76,�94,�130however� 3,�8,�9,�10,�11,�19hyphenation� 29,�30hyponym� 29,�35,�71,�130

IICE� 40ICLE� 97ICE-HK� 40idiom� 65inductive�approach� 134–138inscribed�items� 34,�81interlanguage� 97,�111,�132interpersonal� 34,�56,�76,�80,�

109,�113,�116,�122,�126,�128,�131interpretation� 7,�10,�14–20,�35,�

37,�130,�136,�137,�138intertextuality� 79,�80,�88,�89,�

92,�95,�123,�130,�131

Kkey� 37,�39,�40–50,�55,�73,�77,�98,�

112,�115,�117,�126,�130,�131keyness� 10,�39,�40,�44,�71key-key�word� 33,�44,�45,�47,�49,�

50,�57,�63,�98,�110,�115key�word� 10,�29,�33,�41,�50,�58,�

66,�71,�75,�77,�83,�86,�91,�93,�94,�95,�113,�115,�131

LLatin�abbreviations� 27–29learner�corpus� 97,�127,�128,�

132,�134lemma� 31,�32,�56,�60,�71,�72,�120lemmatization� 31,�32lexico-grammatical�patterning� �

14,�54,�55,�57,�64,�72,�73,�77,�78,�80,�92,�93,�99,�105,�106,�109,�118,�122,�124,�126,�131,�134

lexis� 6,�7,�35,�39,�40,�42,�43,�46,�47,�48,�49,�86

MMeans-Result� 59,�64,�66,�70,�

98,�103,�108metadiscourse� 7,�102metalanguage� 50,�101,�128,�132minimise� 55,�58,�60,�65,�66,�69,�

70,�73,�77,�83,�94,�101,�109modals� 56,�58,�60,�86,�101,�

102,�109multilayering� 3,�9,�48,�99

Nnative�speaker� 19,�22,�43,�97,�

100,�124non-native�speaker� 21,�22,��

� 109,�113see also NNS� 97

nominal� 54,�61,�62,�68,�69,�75,�76,�77,�80,�87,�92,�95,�106,�110,�115

nominalisation� 17,�88,�122,�123notional� 54,�76,�130nouns� 36,�38,�90,�95

see also A-nouns� 34,�70,�105,�106,�129,�130,�132

grammatical�metaphor�nouns�94,�95,�122,�124

multi-word�nouns� 27shell�nouns� 7,�105,�107signaling�nouns� 7,�105

Oopen�class�vs.�closed�class� 67overpassivise� 100,�137

Ppassive� 18,�65,�70,�77,�78,�79,�

80,�82,�84,�86,�87,�88,�89,�90,�91,�93,�95,�99,�100,�116,�117,�121,�122,�124,�125,�128,�131,�133,�137

pedagogy� 129,�133–138phraseology� 8,�36,�55,�56,75,�

133,�138pollution� 10,�11,�19,�35,�46,�55polysemy� 65postmodification� 61,�86,�88,�

89,�101,�125

premodification� 60,�61,�64,�69,�71,�81,�83,�90,�93,�104,�105,�106,�109,�120,�121,�123,�125

preposition� 58,�64,�61,�67,�69,�70,�86,�93,�94,�95,�99,�101,�107,�125,�129,�133

prosody� 16,�32,�34,�37,�43,�55,�58,�68,�94,�99,�100,�135

RReason-Result� 57,�58,�60,�64,�

69,�70,�72,�73,�84,�94,�95,�98,�99,�107,�109,�111,�129

reduce� 11,�45,�60,�65,�66,�69,�70,�73,�77,�83,�94,�101

reference�corpus� 8,�10,�22,�40,�53

register� 7,�101,�128,�131,�132repetition� 18,�40,�63,�118representativeness� 21,�24,�25,�

26,�32,�33retrospective� 7,�104,�108Rheme� 8,�57,�58,�61,�66,�67,�69,�

70,�76,�79,�85,�86,�88,�101,�102,�119,�120,�124,�139

rhetorical�13,�15,�51,�86,�89,�103,��� 129,�130see also New�Rhetoric� 19,�88

Sscheme� 46,�70semantic�prosody� 16,�34,�37,�48,�

55,�58,�94,�99,�100,�130,�134semantic�relations� 4,�53,�54,�

76,�107sentence�boundary� 102,�105shell�nouns� 7,�105,�107signaling�nouns� 7,�105size�of�corpus� 21,�23,�24,�25,�26,�

30,�32,�40specialised�corpus� 8,�11,�24,�25,�

26,�32,�53,�55,�90,�130style� 26,�30,�40,�84,�125superordinate� 34,�35,�41,�48,�50,�

71,�75,�90,�93synonym� 2,�6,�32,�46,�65,�71,�

90,�108,�111,�130systemic-functional�grammar� �

17,�20,�33,�130

Page 192: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

� Subject�index� 179

Tthematisation� 79,�94,�119Theme� 8,�53,�57,�58,�61,�66,�67,�

69,�70,�76,�79,�85,�86,�88,�91,�102,�119,�120,�124

token� 27,�40type� 27

Uunhedged� 109unidiomatic� 107,�132

Vverbs,�ergative� 100,�132,�137verbs,�delexical� 79,�80verbs,�two-way�signalling� 70,�

73,�132,�136vocabulary�1�&�2�items� 4,�5vocabulary�3�items� 6,�7,�34,�

36,�37vocabulary,�sub-technical� 37–

40,�42,�44,�48,�49,�50,�64,�65

vocabulary,�technical� 38,�39,�42,�43,�45,�61,�63

Wword�boundaries� 27wordlist� 27,�28,�35,�36,�42,�44WordSmith� 30,�38,�46writers,�apprentice� 49,�50,�51,�

57,�98,�131,�132

Page 193: [Lynne Flowerdew] Corpus-based Analyses of the Pro(BookFi.org)

In the series Studies in Corpus Linguistics (SCL) the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication:

30 Adolphs, svenja:CorpusandContext.Investigatingpragmaticfunctionsinspokendiscourse.ix,152pp.+index.Expected February 2008

29 Flowerdew, lynne:Corpus-basedAnalysesoftheProblem–SolutionPattern.Aphraseologicalapproach.2008.xi,179pp.

28 BiBer, douglas, Ulla Connor and Thomas A. Upton:DiscourseontheMove.Usingcorpusanalysistodescribediscoursestructure.2007.xii,290pp.

27 sChneider, stefan:ReducedParentheticalClausesasMitigators.AcorpusstudyofspokenFrench,ItalianandSpanish.2007.xiv,237pp.

26 JohAnsson, stig:SeeingthroughMultilingualCorpora.Ontheuseofcorporaincontrastivestudies.2007.xxii,355pp.

25 sinClAir, John Mch. and Anna MAUrAnen:LinearUnitGrammar.Integratingspeechandwriting.2006.xxii,185pp.

24 Ädel, Annelie:MetadiscourseinL1andL2English.2006.x,243pp.23 BiBer, douglas:UniversityLanguage.Acorpus-basedstudyofspokenandwrittenregisters.2006.

viii,261pp.22 sCott, Mike and Christopher triBBle:TextualPatterns.Keywordsandcorpusanalysisinlanguage

education.2006.x,203pp.21 GAvioli, laura:ExploringCorporaforESPLearning.2005.xi,176pp.20 MAhlBerG, Michaela:EnglishGeneralNouns.Acorpustheoreticalapproach.2005.x,206pp.19 toGnini-Bonelli, elena and Gabriella del lUnGo CAMiCiotti (eds.):StrategiesinAcademic

Discourse.2005.xii,212pp.18 röMer, Ute:Progressives,Patterns,Pedagogy.Acorpus-drivenapproachtoEnglishprogressiveforms,

functions,contextsanddidactics.2005.xiv+328pp.17 Aston, Guy, silvia BernArdini and dominic stewArt (eds.):CorporaandLanguageLearners.

2004.vi,312pp.16 Connor, Ulla and Thomas A. Upton (eds.):DiscourseintheProfessions.Perspectivesfromcorpus

linguistics.2004.vi,334pp.15 Cresti, emanuela and Massimo MoneGliA (eds.):C-ORAL-ROM.IntegratedReferenceCorporafor

SpokenRomanceLanguages.2005.xviii,304pp.(incl.DVD).14 nesselhAUF, nadja:CollocationsinaLearnerCorpus.2005.xii,332pp.13 lindqUist, hans and Christian MAir (eds.):CorpusApproachestoGrammaticalizationinEnglish.

2004.xiv,265pp.12 sinClAir, John Mch. (ed.):HowtoUseCorporainLanguageTeaching.2004.viii,308pp.11 BArnBrook, Geoff:DefiningLanguage.Alocalgrammarofdefinitionsentences.2002.xvi,281pp.10 AiJMer, karin:EnglishDiscourseParticles.Evidencefromacorpus.2002.xvi,299pp.9 reppen, randi, susan M. FitzMAUriCe and douglas BiBer (eds.):UsingCorporatoExplore

LinguisticVariation.2002.xii,275pp.8 stenströM, Anna-Brita, Gisle Andersen and ingrid kristine hAsUnd:TrendsinTeenageTalk.

Corpuscompilation,analysisandfindings.2002.xii,229pp.7 AltenBerG, Bengt and sylviane GrAnGer (eds.):LexisinContrast.Corpus-basedapproaches.2002.

x,339pp.6 toGnini-Bonelli, elena:CorpusLinguisticsatWork.2001.xii,224pp.5 GhAdessy, Mohsen, Alex henry and robert l. roseBerry (eds.):SmallCorpusStudiesandELT.

Theoryandpractice.2001.xxiv,420pp.4 hUnston, susan and Gill FrAnCis:PatternGrammar.Acorpus-drivenapproachtothelexical

grammarofEnglish.2000.xiv,288pp.3 Botley, simon philip and tony Mcenery (eds.):Corpus-basedandComputationalApproachesto

DiscourseAnaphora.2000.vi,258pp.2 pArtinGton, Alan:PatternsandMeanings.UsingcorporaforEnglishlanguageresearchandteaching.

1998.x,158pp.1 peArson, Jennifer:TermsinContext.1998.xii,246pp.