Abstract
Using the tools of corpus linguistics, this study identifies the basic means of knowledge construction in research articles in economics. The results suggest that discourse-signals realize conditional prediction and empirical hypothesis within the macro-speech acts of hypothesis, analysis/interpretation/generalization and prediction, with if being the most key of all connectors and cohesive devices. If-conditionals are described based on categories such as factual and theoretical conditionals, case-specifying and rhetorical conditionals. Given the vast array of forms and functions, the complexity of conditionals can be considered relatively high from the point of view of explicit knowledge. Turning to implications and applications of the research for an elective L2 writing-for-publication program intended for Ph.D. students and researchers in economics, however, it is clear that scholars in economics can use their domain expertise and L1 genre awareness in the L2 classroom. In this context, some recommendations are given for developing consciousness-raising tasks, activities and materials about if-conditionals. Materials are intended to promote semantic processing, noticing and/or reflecting based on nontechnical vocabulary and working explanations that are comprehensible to the learner and adequate to his/her background knowledge, needs and goals. They comprise grammaticality judgments, in-class comparison of well-formed examples for rule identification, explicit corrective (peer) feedback and discussion of multiple-choice items and gap-fills.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The HEM corpus of research articles was built and is currently held at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy (http://www.cla.unimo.it/cofin). The corpus spans the years 1999–2000 and comprises 2.7 m running words equally distributed across three modules—HEM-Economics, HEM-History and HEM-Marketing. All texts were downloaded from a panorama of prestigious international journals named by disciplinary specialists.
Strictly speaking, these (sub-)categories are not mutually exclusive and may overlap to different extents. Take, for example, procedure bundles in definitions, assumptions, parameter and variable setting: they readily combine with participant-oriented features, e.g. can be interpreted as, can be thought of as, I estimate the model using. More importantly, some lexical bundles may serve multiple functions, e.g. when there are (quantification signal; framing signal), results are consistent with the (resultative signal; procedure signal).
In line with research on variation across genres and disciplines (see, e.g., Hyland and Bondi 2006; Hyland 2008), I would express concern over the effectiveness of programs intended for doctoral students and scholars in separate disciplines or disciplines that are not cognates. Crucially, there is an urgent need for small, elective EAP ‘writing-for-publication’ (Hyland 2013: 68) programs that center on the development of disciplinary- and genre-specific grammar ability, use of lexico-grammar and knowledge of rhetorical structures. However, these courses are still in their infancy in Italian university language centers.
The logic of the argument is this. Written literacy instruction is to be seen as a support mechanism that can assist peripheral members of the disciplinary community appropriate expert practices. If keywords and key lexical bundles are ultimately motivated by the rationale for the genre and their use and selection are informed by epistemology of the discipline and underlying mechanisms of knowledge construction, they are also inseparable from how economists see and understand the world. Writing literacy skills are thus reconceptualized as a set of text-structural and lexico-grammatical choices that are effectively used in disciplinary practice. In this context, extensive discourse-analytic, corpus-based and corpus-informed investigation into disciplinary- and genre-specific conventions serves as a first step towards designing teaching materials and tasks. In the writing for publication class, these materials should presumably integrate guidelines that are not language-oriented or only address MA students (e.g. Neugeboren 2005), practice based on EAP textbooks intended for a wide audience in different disciplines (e.g. Swales and Feak 2012 [3nd ed.]), and teaching materials that cover common grammatical structure and vocabulary (as in traditional student grammars).
One anonymous reviewer expressed concern over our choice of Declerck and Reed’s (2001) categorization because it is a relatively old publication. Yet, to the best of our knowledge this extensive monograph still represents the most comprehensive empirical analysis of English conditionals to date.
For purposes of this paper, we define teacher language awareness as “explicit knowledge about language, and conscious perception and sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use” (www.lexically.net/la/la_defined.htm; see also van Lier and Corson 1997 (eds.): knowledge about language).
Highly engaged learners are assumed to be attentive learners, with a positive attitude towards (the) language/languages and what it represents/they represent. Additionally, they are willing to interact, to reflect on language with peers, and to provide corrective feedback themselves (Svalberg 2007, 2009).
With Ur (2012), we understand a task as a learning activity with two objectives: learning some aspect of language and providing an outcome that can be discussed and evaluated.
References
Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00353.x.
Andrews, S. J. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teacher. Language Awareness. doi:10.1080/09658410308667068.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). ‘If you look at…’: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/25.3.371.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.
Brandis, R. (1968). Principles of economics. Homewood: Irwin.
Cacchiani, S. (2011). Keywords and key lexical bundles as cues to knowledge construction in RAs in economics. In S. Goźdź-Roszkowski (Ed.), Explorations across languages and corpora PALC 2009 (Vol. 24, pp. 335–350). Frankfurt am Main DEU: Peter Lang.
Dancygier, B. (1998). Conditionals and prediction. Time, knowledge, and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declerck, R., & Reed, S. (2001). Conditionals. A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Graaf, R. (1997). Differential effects of explicit instruction in second language acquisition. Netherlands: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.
Ellis, N. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Investigating learning difficulty in terms of implicit and explicit knowledge. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 143–166). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gabrielatos, C. (2006). Corpus-based evaluation of pedagogical materials: If-conditionals in ELT coursebooks and the BNC. In 7th teaching and language Corpora conference. University Paris 7 Denis Diderot, 1–4 July 2006. http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/882. Accesesed 15 July 2016.
Gabrielatos, C. (2013). If-conditionals in ICLE and the BNC: A success story for teaching or learning? In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty years of learner corpus research: Looking back, moving ahead (pp. 155–166). Louvain la Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen. Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Special Purposes. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001.
Hyland, K. (2013). Writing in the university: Education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000036.
Hyland, K., & Bondi, M. (Eds.). (2006). Academic discourse across disciplines. Bern: Peter Lang.
Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1983). Gli atti del discorso economico: La previsione. Status illocutorio e modelli linguistici nel testo inglese. Parma: Edizioni Zara.
Neugeboren, R. H. (2005). The student’s guide to writing. London: Routledge.
Purpura, J. E. (1996). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. doi:10.1017/S0272263100014674.
Scott, M. (2010 [1997]). WordSmith tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R., & Vandervecken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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 pedagogical lexicography. London: Routledge.
Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004491.
Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2009). Engagement with language. Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness. doi:10.1080/09658410903197264.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic Writing for graduate students. Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Michigan: Michigan University Press.
Ur, P. (2012). Course in English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Lier, L., & Corson, D. (Eds.). (1997). Encyclopedia of language and education, 6: Knowledge about language. Amsterdam: Kluver.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cacchiani, S. If-Conditionals in Economics Research Articles: From Keywords to Language Teaching/Learning in the L2 Writing-for-Publication Class?. Corpus Pragmatics 2, 1–26 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0019-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0019-6