Research on grammar patterns

Empirical evidence on the value of grammar patterns is also scarce in view of the increasing attention being paid to multi-word units in teaching English as a second/foreign language (Howarth, 1998). Rather, research on grammar patterns is typically descriptively linguistic in nature. The dominant number of studies utilizes corpora as research tools for investigating correspondences between pattern distribution and word form (Hunston, 2003), distributions of patterns across disciplines and genres (Charles, 2007; Groom, 2005), and comparisons of pattern use by apprentice and expert writers (Romer, 2009).

To relate distribution of patterns in general corpora to their linguistic context, Hunston (2003) compared the frequency of two complementation patterns (that-clause and wh-clause) in the large general corpus Bank of English. She interpreted the distribution of these two patterns in combination with the different word forms of 26 verb lemmas. The results suggested that the patterns tend to co-occur differentially with different word forms. For instance, the wh-clause generally occurs most frequently with the base form, while the that-clause occurs most frequently with the -ed form. However, not all of the 26 verbs studied followed this general observation. As Hunston (2003) pointed out, the findings tested the hypothesis that word forms comprising a lemma tend to appear in different grammatical contexts, which further empirically supported the interdependence of lexical grammar.

Some researchers chose to explain frequency of patterns in a discipline-oriented manner with a focus on academic prose; however, these studies usually centered on a limited number of patterns (one or two) and related frequency to purposes that texts in different disciplines serve and the semantic group of core words in the specific patterns. Groom (2005) compared

distribution of it v-link ADJ that- (e.g., “It is clear that the problem of evidence continues to vex new historicist criticism.”) and it v-link ADJ to-inf (e.g., “It is important to compare

unemployment rates on a consistent basis.”) in four multi-million word corpora representing two different genres (research articles and book reviews) and two different disciplinary discourses (History and Literary Criticism). These two patterns were selected since use of it as a

grammatical subject distinguishes the highly personal and subjective presentation of knowledge, which are valued in academic discourse (Hewings & Hewings, 2002). The researcher concluded that the choice of patterns is associated with different communicative priorities and

epistemological percepts of the written genres and disciplinary discourses (Groom, 2005). Adopting a similar research design, Charles’ (2007) findings were consistent with Groom’s (2005) conclusion. Charles (2007) chose to investigate disciplinary variation using the

pattern nouns followed by a complement clause (e.g., “the argument that the Justices exhibit strategic behavior. . .”), since this pattern has been frequently used in academic discourse as a stance marker. Two corpora representing politics/international relations (190,000 words) and materials science (300,000 words) were selected for the analysis. The result indicates that the Noun that pattern (Noun is capitalized to indicate the key word of the pattern.) is over three times as frequent in the politics/international relations corpus as in the materials science corpus. With consideration of the source of the proposition in the complement clause, Charles (2007) attributed this difference in distribution to the fact that many nouns in the politics corpus refer to

propositions put forward by political entities, which tend to be rare in materials science. Adopting the notion by pattern grammar that nouns in a pattern can be divided into semantic groups, the researcher found that writings in the politics corpus primarily use ARGUMENT nouns (e.g., argument, assertion) to demonstrate their stance toward others’ research. By

contrast, EVIDENCE nouns (e.g., evidence, observation) appeared more frequently in materials science for evaluating the writers’ own research.

Another line of research on grammar patterns is designed to uncover the differences between novice and expert (or native and nonnative) writers’ use of grammar patterns in

academic discourse. For instance, Romer (2009) explored the use of the introductory it pattern (e.g., it is essential for EFL learners to come to grips with connotations, attested example), which is very common in academic discourse and causes problems for EFL learners (see Groom, 2005; Hewings & Hewings, 2002; Oakey, 2002). Romer’s (2009) study analyzed four corpora, including three apprentice corpora and one expert corpus consisting of published research articles in different disciplines. The three apprentice corpora represent texts produced by upper- intermediate language learners, advanced language learners, and unpublished English native speaker college students. Therefore, comparison between these corpora revealed proficiency development from a low to high level and from nonnative to native speakers’ use of grammar patterns under investigation.

Although all above studies approach grammar patterns from different perspectives, all of the researchers pointed out that their findings yielded pedagogical implications and contributed to teaching grammar patterns to some extent. First, teaching the grammatical contexts with which complementation patterns are associated can help students produce patterns in a more accurate and native-like manner (Hunston, 2003). Pedagogical implications also included the

suggestion that drawing students’ attention to different pattern uses between novice and expert

academic writers and across disciplines/genres can help students become more accepted writers in their communities of practice (Charles, 2007; Groom, 2005; Romer, 2009).

Despite the claimed pedagogical implications, empirical findings that contribute to real language learning are still difficult to find. It seems that all current studies concerning grammar patterns provide a very narrow scope of patterns by investigating a small number of typical patterns or problematic patterns to students, such as it-introductory clause, that-clause, and wh- clause. In addition, none of the mentioned studies set the effectiveness of teaching grammar patterns as their primary research goal. Therefore, questions such as how to teach grammar patterns effectively or what are the factors influencing the effectiveness of teaching grammar patterns still remain empirically unanswered.

In summary, the promising achievements of corpus-driven research, the eloquently argued importance of pattern grammar, and thorough discussion on pedagogical considerations in teaching grammar patterns have sufficiently prepared researchers and teachers for teaching vocabulary knowledge in terms of patterns, evaluating teaching effectiveness, and generating pedagogical implications for teaching grammar patterns. Conversely, available empirical efforts have not sufficiently addressed the issue of practical teaching of patterns, and instead, assumed a widespread and uncritical acceptance of pattern grammar. Therefore, the current researcher intends to evaluate PAT GRAM designed as a vehicle for complementing classroom instruction by serving as a reference tool for learners. More specifically, this research project investigated the effectiveness of PAT GRAM in teaching grammar patterns of academic words. In addition,

because the current version of PAT GRAM only covers verbs, the scope of the research is restricted to the effectiveness of PAT GRAM in teaching vocabulary knowledge in terms of patterns of academic verbs.