Function word frames in English argumentative writing by Thai students

Abstract

Lexical bundles and lexical phrases (p-frames) are multi-word sequences that have been widely researched. However, function word frames (FWFs) — p-frames with fixed function words and variable content words — remain underexplored in argumentative writing. Thai students struggle with function words because their first language (L1) lacks grammatical equivalents for these frames. Based on Nation’s (2001) function word list, the p-frame classification by Gray and Biber (2013) , the discourse function taxonomy by Hyland (2008) , and the semantic taxonomy used by Biber (2006) , the analysis showed that L1 English speakers (L1 group) use 88 FWF types (59 unique) and Thai students (L2 group) use 82 (53 unique), with 29 common to both. Thai students commonly used the * in the (which is an indication of a directive style), and L1 group preferred I * that it (which is a personal statement). Both groups primarily used research-oriented FWFs, with Thai students favouring text-oriented types and L1 group preferring participant-oriented and multifunctional ones. Both groups frequently used nouns in FWFs, especially abstract/process ones; L1 group also preferred quantity nouns. L1 group employed verbs more, especially mental and relational ones; Thai students used more mixed-category constructions, especially intra-noun and noun-adjective. Conversely, Thai students favoured activity verbs for experiential expression. Adjectives and adverbs are limited. The resulting issues (e.g., word-class confusion) appear in the fillers — noun-adjective or noun-verb combinations. Overall, variations in FWF discourse functions and filler semantics reveal distinct functional constraints and developmental semantic gaps in Thai learners’ phraseological competence compared to L1 group.