Corpus Linguistics Meets Academic Writing: Examples of Applications in the Romanian EFL Context

  • Mădălina ChitezEmail author
Part of the Multilingual Education book series (MULT, volume 29)


Corpus-based academic writing studies have been increasingly used to verify hypotheses regarding processes of university writing and learning. In the Romanian context, research in the areas of academic writing and corpus linguistics has been relatively scarce. Academic writing in Romanian is not explicitly taught, whereas academic writing in English is part of the curricula of a major or minor in English. The Romanian corpus linguistics field is mainly represented by the Romanian Academy Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence Institute (RACAI) whose activity consists of the creation of corpora to support natural language processing (NPL) investigations. There are only few learner and specialized corpora available for research. In the present chapter, the Romanian Corpus of Learner English (RoCLE) is used in order to exemplify the manner in which corpora can be used in academic writing classes. Three topics have been selected for exemplification: contrastive linguistics, academic phraseology, and move analysis. For each topic, a brief description of the theoretical background with relevance for the Romanian context is given, followed by examples of corpus-based analyses extracted from RoCLE. Based on the same examples, pedagogical recommendations indicate possible directions of corpus use in teaching academic writing.


Corpus linguistics Academic writing Academic writing teaching Genre-based corpus research Romanian corpora EFL 


  1. Ackermann, K., & Chen, Y. (2013). Developing the academic collocation list (ACL)—A corpus-driven and expert-judged approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andronescu, S. C. (1997). Tehnica scrierii academice. Bucuresti: Editura Fundatiei “Romania de Maine”.Google Scholar
  3. Aull, L. (2015). First-year university writing: A Corpus-based study with implications for pedagogy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbu-Mititelu, V., Irimia, E., & Tufiș, D. (2014) CoRoLa the reference corpus of contemporary Romanian language. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’14). Reykjavik, Iceland, 2014, 1235–1239.Google Scholar
  5. Bekar, M., Doroholschi, C. I., Kruse, O., & Yakhontova, T. (2015). Educational genres in Eastern Europe: A comparison of the genres in the humanities departments of three countries of three different universities in three different countries. Journal of Academic Writing, 5(1), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biber, D., Kim, Y.-J., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2009). A Corpus-driven approach to comparative phraseology: Lexical bundles in English, Spanish, and Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 17, 75–94.Google Scholar
  12. Bondi, M. (2009). Polyphony in academic discourse. Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  13. Bondi, M. (2014). Integrating corpus and genre approaches: Phraseology and voice across EAP genres. In M. Gotti & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.), Corpus analysis for descriptive and pedagogical purposes (pp. 43–62). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  14. Charles, M., Pecori, D., & Hunston, S. (Eds.). (2009). Academic writing: At the Interface of Corpus and discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  15. Chitez, M. (2014). Learner corpus profiles: The case of Romanian learner English. In M. Gotti (Series Ed.), Linguistic insights series (Vol. 173). Bern/Berlin/Bruxelles/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Oxford/Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. Chitez, M., & Kruse, O. (2012). Writing cultures and genres across Europe. In M. Castelló & C. Donahue (Eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies (pp. 33–51). Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  17. Chitez, M., Kruse, O., & Castelló, M. (2015a). The European writing survey (EUWRIT): Background, structure, implementation, and some results (Working papers in applied linguistics 9). Winterthur: ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences. online at:
  18. Chitez, M., Rapp, C., & Kruse, O. (2015b). Corpus-supported academic writing: how can technology help? In F. Helm, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL conference, Padova, Italy. Dublin, Ireland: Scholar
  19. Chitoran, D. (Ed.). (2013). Contrastive studies in English and Romanian. Bucharest: Bucharest University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cristea, C., & Forascu, D. (2006). Linguistics resources and technologies for Romanian language. Journal of Computer Science of Moldova, 14(40), 33–73.Google Scholar
  22. D’Angelo, L. (2012). Identity conflicts in book reviews: A cross-disciplinary comparison. In G. Maurizio (Ed.), Academic identity traits. A corpus-based investigation (pp. 79–94). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  23. De Cock, S., & Goossens. (2013). Quantity approximation in English and French business news reporting: More or less the same? In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in corpusbased contrastive linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 139–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dimitrova, L., Ide, N., Petkevic, V., Erjavec, T., Kaalep, H. J., & Tufiș, D. (1998). Multext-east: Parallel and comparable corpora and lexicons for six central and eastern European languages. In C. Boitet & P. Whitelock (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint 17th international conference on computational linguistics 36th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (COLING-ACL 1998) (pp. 315–319). Montreal: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Durrant, P. (2009). Investigating the viability of a collocation list for students of English for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ebeling, J., Ebeling, S. O., & Hasselgård, H. (2013). Using recurrent word combinations to explore crosslinguistic differences. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in corpusbased contrastive linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 177–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Firth, J. (1957). Papers in linguistics, 1934–1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Torodd, K. (2006). Academic voices. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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(3), 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Flowerdew, J., & Forest, R. W. (2015). Signalling nouns in academic English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frăţila (Pungă), L. (2006). Collocations in ecological discourse. B.A.S. British and American Studies, 12, 211–227 Available at: Scholar
  33. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gotti, M., & Giannoni, D. S. (Eds.). (2014). Corpus analysis for descriptive and pedagogical purposes: ESP perspectives (Linguistic insights series, Vol. 200) (Series editor: Maurizio Gotti). Bern/Berlin/Bruxelles/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Oxford/Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  35. Granger, S., & Bestgen, Y. (2014). The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. IRAL, 52(3), 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Granger, S., & Lefer, M.-A. (2013). Enriching the phraseological coverage of high-frequency adverbs in English–French bilingual dictionaries. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), Advances in corpusbased contrastive linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  38. Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). International Corpus of Learner English (Version 2). Handbook and CD-Rom. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
  39. Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English Corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 30–43). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  40. Halliday, M. A. K. (1992). Language a system and language as instance: The corpus as a theoretical construct. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics (pp. 61–77). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  41. Herteg, C., & Popescu, T. (2013). Developing students’ intercultural and collocational competence through analysing the business press. A corpus-based pedagogic experiment among Romanian MA students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hyland, K. (2009). Corpus informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement. In M. Charles, D. Pecorari, & S. Hunston (Eds.), Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (pp. 110–128). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  43. Ion, R., & Barbu-Mititelu, V. (2005). Towards ROMANCE FrameNet. The translation task. In Proceedings of international workshop ROMANCE FrameNet, EUROLAN 2005, Cluj-Napoca, România.Google Scholar
  44. Jarvis, S., & Paquot, M. (2012). Exploring the role of n-grams in L1 identification. In S. Jarvis & S. A. Crossley (Eds.), Approaching transfer through text classification: Explorations in the detection-based approach (pp. 71–105). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jarvis, S., Bestgen, Y., Crossley, S. A., Granger, S., Paquot, M., Thewissen, J., & McNamara, D. (2012). The comparative and combined contributions of n-grams, Coh-Metrix indices, and error types in the L1 classification of learner texts. In S. Jarvis & S. A. Crossley (Eds.), Approaching transfer through text classification: Explorations in the detection-based approach (p. 154177). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johansson, S. (2007). Seeing through multilingual corpora. On the use of corpora in contrastive studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krishnamurthy, R. (2006). Corpus Lexicography. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 250–254). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levitzky-Aviad, T., & Laufer, B. (2013). Lexical properties in the writing of foreign language learners over eight years of study: Single words and collocations. In C. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use. New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis (EUROSLA Monographs 2, pp. 127–148). Eurosla Monographs Series 2. European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
  51. Lundquist, L. (2007). Academic discourse as social control and system(s), seen through the use of demonstrative noun phrases in French scientific texts. In K. Fløttum (Ed.), Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 219–242). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
  52. Macoveiciuc, M., & Kilgarriff, A. (2010). The RoWaC corpus and Romanian word sketches. In D. Tufis & C. Forascu (Eds.), Multilinguality and interoperability in language processing with emphasis on Romanian. Bucharest: Romanian Academy Publishing House.Google Scholar
  53. Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A text-linguistic study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  54. Mauranen, A. (1994). Two discourse worlds: Study genres in Britain and Finland. Finlance, 13, 1–40.Google Scholar
  55. Mauranen, A. (2002). Will “translationese” ruin a contrastive study? Languages in Contrast, 2(2), 161–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McEnery, T., & Gabrielatos, C. (2006). English corpus linguistics. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 33–71). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mikhailov, M., & Cooper, R. (2016). Corpus linguistics for translation and contrastive studies. A guide for research. Oxford/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morley. J. (2005). Academic Phrasebank: An online writing resource, The University of Manchester. Available from
  59. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pavlenko, S., & Bojan, C. (2014). Eight reasons to attend an academic writing course. The impact of academic writing courses on partic-ipants. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai, Philologia, 59(3), 209–223.Google Scholar
  64. Römer, U. (2009). Corpus research and practice: What help do teachers need and what can we offer? In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 83–98). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2011). From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): The design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of upper-level student papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 6(2), 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Siepmann, D. (2005). Discourse markers across languages: A contrastive study of second level discourse markers in native and non-native text with implications for general and pedagogic lexicography (Routledge advances in corpus linguistics). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sinclair, J. (1966). Beginning the study of lexis. In C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, & R. H. Robins (Eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth (pp. 410–430). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  72. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres. Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1985). Argumentative text structure and translation. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.Google Scholar
  74. Trandabat, D., & Husarciuc, M. (2008). Romanian semantic role resource. In Proceedings of the sixth international language resources and evaluation (LREC’08), Marrakech, Morocco, May, 28 30, 2008, 2806 2810.Google Scholar
  75. Tufis D., & Irimia, E. (2006). RoCo-news: A hand validated journalistic corpus of Romanian. In proceedings of the fifth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC-2006), Genoa, Italy, 2006 (pp. 869–872).Google Scholar
  76. Tufis, D., Barbu-Mititelu, V., Bozianu, L., & Mihaila, C. (2006). Romanian WordNet: New developments and applications. In P. Sojka, K.-S. Choi, C. Fellbaum, & P. Vossen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd conference of the Global WordNet Association (pp. 337–344). Jeju: Masaryk University in Brno.Google Scholar
  77. Upton, T. A., & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20(4), 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries (Oxford applied linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Letters, History and Theology, Department of Modern Languages and LiteraturesWest University of TimișoaraTimișoaraRomania

Personalised recommendations