Highlights

Abstract

Keywords

۱٫ Introduction

۲٫ Core vocabulary

۳٫ Data and method

۴٫ A single-word vs multi-word approach

۵٫ Discourse functions

۶٫ Differences and similarities across the L1 groups

۷٫ Discussion and conclusion

Author statement

References

Vitae

Abstract

Core vocabulary items (e.g. thing, way) are often viewed as the enemy of effective academic writing, and style guides and textbooks often advise against using them. However, their bad reputation seems to stem from a single-word perspective that ignores the rich phraseological units that such items tend to figure in. In this study, we focus on the core vocabulary lemma thing to investigate the extent to which a phraseological approach can redeem its reputation. We look at learner essays from ten different first-language backgrounds from the International Corpus of Learner English and compare these to reference corpora from the endpoints of the informal-formal continuum: the Spoken BNC2014 and the Corpus of Academic Journal Articles. The results show that a phraseological approach indeed provides a more nuanced view of the core lemma thing: it is used in a wide variety of multi-word units, many of which common in academic writing. Although some signs of novice production are evident in the learners’ writing, their use is closest to that of the expert academic writers. The paper concludes with a discussion of the role of phraseology in vocabulary lists used in teaching and assessment.

۱٫ Introduction

The notion of core (or basic) vocabulary is widely used in applied language studies. The first core vocabulary list, West’s General Service List (GSL), was compiled as early as 1953 and has since proved its usefulness for both teaching and testing purposes. The rationale that underpinned the GSL was that a lexical repertoire consisting of the most basic 2,000 words of English would be a good basis for learning English as a foreign language. Although the list is now dated, interest in core vocabulary has continued unabated and several new core vocabulary lists have been compiled, among them the New General Service List (NGSL) (Brezina & Gablasova 2015), which relies on the frequency of words in large electronic corpora of speech and writing. However, while lists of core words have proved their worth, they suffer from one major weakness: they include only single words. They thus disregard the wide range of productive multi-word units that these high-frequency words tend to generate, many of which “are as frequent as or more frequent than single items which everyone would agree must be taught” (O’Keeffe et al., 2007: 46).

Although core vocabulary is seen in a very positive light for general language purposes, it is commonly regarded as the enemy of effective academic writing. The acquisition of academic writing skills is seen as involving a major “vocabulary shift” (Swales & Feak 2004: 18), i.e. the replacement of high-frequency, informal words by less frequent, formal alternatives. Most academic vocabulary lists purposely exclude the 2,000 core words of the GSL. The bad reputation of core vocabulary in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) seems to relate to the single-word-based approach to core words and may not be justified in the case of an approach that takes multiword units into account.