Essay Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/Analysis-Of-Italian-Students--Academic- 👈

1. ANALYSIS OF ITALIAN STUDENTS' ACADEMIC WRITING
Partrizia Giampieri
Msc. Applied Linguistics
Aston University
Birmingham, UK
Abstract
For many Italian students, reaching expert-like academic writing standards can be very challenging.
Students are often confronted with difficulties due to influences of their native language, and to a
lack of exposure to a second target language. This project research is aimed at exploring whether it
is possible to address students' academic writing needs and how. To this aim, an in-depth analysis of
Italian essays was carried out, in order to bring to the surface the most recurring writing
shortcomings, which were, amongst others, mostly grammatical.

2. Table of Contents
Introduction page 3
Academic writing patterns and conventions page 4
1.1 Literature findings in academic writing page 4
1.2 The research phases page 7
1.3 Writing patterns in Italian students' essays vis-à-vis literature findings page 8
1.4 Concluding remarks on academic writing patterns page 11
Issues in academic writing page 12
2.1 Recurrent mistakes in Italian academic writing page 12
2.1.1 Type of mistakes page 12
2.1.2 Mistake frequency page 18
2.2 Concluding remarks on writing issues page 20
Reference List page 22

3. INTRODUCTION
Despite an increasing number of Italian universities offering programmes in English (Maraschio &
De Martino, 2012; Solly, 2008), researchers argue that Italian students are still provided with poor
prior teaching on EAP (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2010; Fortanet-Gómez & Räisänen, 2008).
EAP (English for Academic Purposes) emerged from ESP (English for Specific Purposes) and
focusses on promoting the students' learning on courses within higher education institutions (Scott,
2001). EAP is in fact aimed at equipping them with the necessary communicative skills, in order to
participate in academic contexts (Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002:2).
By analysing academic writing in depth, it is generally assumed that one of its hallmarks is clarity
(Bennet, 2009:48), substantiated by short sentences of ideally 20 words (Dunleavy, 2003:114-115)
and a clearly identifiable Subject-Verb-Object component (ibid.). Therefore, academic literacy
entails having “clear and stable views of what is appropriate” (Silva, 1990:17) in a specific
academic context. Furthermore, notwithstanding its informal and objective style, academic writing
should not be reduced to a mere avoidance of the first person, or to an extended use of the passive
voice (Sharpling, 2002:87ff), as otherwise claimed (Allison, 1997:53; White, 2000:133). Academic
literacy implies in fact developing schemata for academic discourse (Randaccio, 2013); using the
technical language of the discipline, as well as coherence and cohesive devices to unfold the
writer's argumentation (Bennet, 2009). The complexity of academic writing is claimed by several
scholars (Thompson, 2001; Berman&Cheng, 2001; Bennet, 2009), who suggest that the ability to
write well at academic level is not naturally acquired; on the contrary, it can only be learned by
means of formal instructions (Myles, 2002:1). For instance, it is claimed that explicit corrective
feedbacks on students' grammar mistakes are of paramount importance for the improvement of
academic writing competencies (ibid:14ff).
In addition, it is argued that L2 (second language) students find it more problematic to write
fluently than their native-speaking peers (Berman & Cheng, 2001; Ellis et al.2008). This occurs for
several reasons (Berman & Cheng, 2001; Myles, 2002:1ff). For instance, L2 students are likely to
find academic lexical bundles or multi-word sentences hard to learn (Biber et al.2004; Hyland,
2008:7; Ellis et al.2008). As a matter of fact, it is claimed that only repeated exposure to language
patterns can improve learning in the long run (Nunan, 1991:148).
Researchers also claim that students are prone to transfer their writing skills, either good or
deficient, from their L1 (first language) to L2 (Randaccio, 2013:17; Friedlander, 1990:109-10).
Therefore, skills or strategies which were never acquired in students' L1, could never be transferred
to L2. One way to improve learning, in these cases, would be by a repeated exposure to L2 forms
(Nunan, 1991), and consciousness raising activities (Willis & Willis, 1996; Ellis, 2002). These are
3

4. aimed at helping students to note the gap (Tomlinson, 1998) with their interlanguage system
(Selinker, 1972). In this way, can implicit language knowledge be fostered (Ellis, 2002).
Other pitfalls for L2 students are claimed to be writing conventions, which, most of the times, are
culturally determined (Mauranen, 1993; Thompson, 2001:74). For this reason, they increase the
possibilities for non-native speakers (NNS) to make mistakes, or to write texts which do not comply
with English academic standards (Thompson, 2001).
Nonetheless, there is a general assumption that, at expert level, EAP is a field of expertise where
NS-NNS distinctions can become “blurred” (Gabrielatos, 2005:6; Kosem, 2010:50). As a matter of
fact, both categories of students can be defined as “learners of academic writing in general” where
“their writing can be compared with that of experts” (Gabrielatos & McEnery, 2005:313).
This paper has been written with a view to bringing to the fore the most recurring issues in Italian
academic writing. Therefore, it is aimed at exploring whether literature findings on academic
writing patterns share a common ground with those used by Italian students.
On these grounds, the research project carried out can be considered feasible, relevant and useful
for the academic community.
ACADEMIC WRITING PATTERNS AND CONVENTIONS
Before giving an in-depth account of the students' writing issues and of their academic writing
styles, relevant literature findings must be drawn on.
This paragraph will hence provide a comprehensive literature review on academic writing patterns
in order to compare them, at a later stage, with those emerged in the students' essays. Then, it will
be possible to bring writing issues to the fore.
1.1 Literature findings in academic writing
According to literature, academic writers use many devices to convey their arguments and to
interact with the reader; in particular, they use metadiscourse resources (Hyland & Tse, 2004).
Metadiscourse can be defined as the ways writers deploy interactional devices to acknowledge the
presence of the reader, and to show their expertise in the field of interest (Hyland, 2010). One of
such mechanism is hedging. Hedging is a device used by writers to withhold their complete
commitment to a proposition, or to present a claim with caution (Hyland, 2011:199ff). In other
words, hedges soften the impact of the writer's statements, and signal his or her anticipation of the
reader's possible opposition (Hyland, 1995:33-34). Information is presented as an opinion, rather
than a fact (Hyland, 2011:199, quoting Hyland, 1998). Hedging may take the form of lexical verbs
4

5. (such as: appear, suggest, propose), which are the most prominent according to Hyland (1995:36);
modal auxiliary verbs (such as: may, can, could etc.), and adjectival, adverbial and nominal modal
expressions (such as: probable, probably, probability etc.). There are also many other forms, such
as the admission to lack of knowledge; reference to a model, theory or methodology; reference to
limiting conditions etc. (Hyland, 1994:240; Hyland, 1995:35ff).
Other devices used in academic writing are boosters. Differently from hedges, boosters express
certainty, or mark the writer's involvement with the topic (Hyland, 2011:199). They also serve the
purpose of expressing solidarity with the readers (ibid.). Therefore, they are used to underpin shared
information or shared knowledge. Words like: sure, certainly, definitely, prove etc. are some clear
examples of boosters (Hyland, 2011:198ff).
Strictly connected with boosters are attitude markers, which convey the writer's appraisal, or his/her
surprise; agreement or frustration, rather than commitment (Hyland & Tse 2004:168; Hyland,
2010:129; Hyland, 2011:199). Examples of attitude markers are: unfortunately, I agree,
surprisingly, etc.
Researchers argue that academic conventions and metadiscourse devices vary heavily across
disciplines (Hyland & Tse, 2007; Hyland, 2010). According to the academic conventions followed,
a distinction could in fact be made between soft and hard sciences. Literature reports that hedges,
boosters and attitude markers are particularly used in soft disciplines. This is mainly due to the fact
that soft-knowledge fields are more interpretative (Hyland, 2011:205). Consequently, the writer's
claims have to be expressed more cautiously than in hard-knowledge studies (ibid.). Therefore, soft-
knowledge writers have to “work harder (..) to persuade them (the readers)” (Hyland, 2010:137,
emphasis added). It was not by chance, but for reasons of uniformity, that the students who
participated in the project were in arts and humanities.
Other metadiscourse devices which, according to literature, abound in soft disciplines are: self
mentions, reader pronouns, personal asides and questions (although mostly rhetorical). According
to some researchers, self mention (expressed by first person pronouns and possessive adjectives) is
the key mechanism used by writers to promote their competent identity, and to gain accreditation
for their statements (Hyland & Tse, 2004:172). Some other scholars claim instead that the author's
voice should be avoided (Allison, 1997), or used very cautiously in view of the different
conventions between subjects (Crème & Lea, 2008:132). Reader pronouns, as well as the inclusive
we, express peer solidarity and, at the same time, anticipate possible objections (Hyland, 2011:200).
They are aimed at guiding the reader through the flow the writer's argument and have, for this
reason, a “Machiavellian purpose” (ibid.:209). Personal asides allow the writer to interrupt a stated
claim and to offer a personal point of view (Hyland, 2011:201). Briefly, they are aimed at
5

6. enhancing the reader-writer interaction.
Finally, questions, although mostly rhetorical, are considered key devices used to involve readers in
the development of a claim and to stimulate their curiosity. In other words, they are aimed at
establishing, or reinforcing, a peer relationship (Hyland, 2011:202).
As it can be clearly inferred, appeals to sharedness and peer solidarity are frequent in soft sciences.
According to literature, there are in fact many devices that writers use to remark their shared or
informed knowledge. These are mainly adverbs or expressions such as obviously, well known etc.
(Hyland, 2011:201).
Also reformulations and exemplifications act as useful interactional devices, as they are mostly
aimed at creating a “coherent, reader-friendly prose” (Hyland, 2007:266). Reformulations are ways
to re-state or re-elaborate a concept, and are introduced by: or, put another way, etc.
Exemplifications are used instead to cite examples, or to better explain a claim or an argument
(such as, like, e.g., etc.) (ibid.:270-271).
According to literature, few are the metadiscourse devices which cannot be found in soft-science
writing. These are, for instance, directives. As a matter of fact, directives in the soft disciplines are
mostly used for textual reference (e.g. see/refer to table 3) (Hyland, 2011:201; ibid.:211).
In literature, reader pronouns, personal asides, questions and directives are referred to as
engagement devices; whereas hedges, boosters, attitude markers and self mention as stance devices
(Hyland, 2011). This distinction is mainly due to the writer's attitude. With engagement, the writer
tries to build a connection with the reader. For this reason, he or she often intervenes, in order to
participate in the unfolding argument. With stance, the writer is instead more prone to express his or
her personal evaluations (Hyland, 2008; Hyland, 2011).
Another useful device at the writer's disposal, is the passive voice. The passive voice confers a more
formal, objective and informational style, which is the hallmark of academic prose (White,
2000:133; Biber & Conrad, 2004:374). According to Conrad & Biber (2009), for instance, the
“passive voice is much more common in academic writing than in conversation and fiction”
(ibid.:46). Sharpling (2002) claimed instead that academic prose cannot be merely reduced to
“using the passive voice at all times” (ibid.:88). Contrasting though they might seem, these claims
are actually complimentary, as they point out that the passive voice is one of the multifaceted
devices of academic prose, whose use may vary with time and across disciplines (Bennet, 2009:48-
50).
Finally, although with some divergences, researchers suggest avoiding long complicated sentences
and writing short, clear sentences, of an ideal length of 20 words (Dunleavy, 2003:114-117; Bennet,
2009:47-48).
6

7. In the next paragraph light will be shed on the differences between the students' writing patterns
and those outlined in literature. It goes without saying that the research findings will strictly refer to
the corpus of the essays collected. As a matter of fact, a corpus “can only tell us what is or is not
present” (Bennet, 2010:3).
1.2 The research phases
Before the research project could start, a preparatory phase took place with the view to informing
the students about the research project and to obtaining, if they agreed, their informed consent.
To this aim, students from four different universities were involved, in particular: students from one
school of social and political science, at master's level, and students from three schools of language
mediation (interpreting and translation studies: two at bachelor's and one at master's level). Two
schools were located in Northern Italy, and two others in the centre. As it can be clearly inferred,
the collected essays pertained to the field of arts and humanities. The reason lay in the fact that
academic writing and conventions, as well as metadiscourse devices, vary heavily across disciplines
(Hyland & Tse, 2007; Hyland, 2010); uniformity was hence at stake. Given my geographical
proximity, I could only collect the essays of the students located in the centre of Italy. The essays of
the students in the north of Italy were collected and forwarded to me by their lecturers.
The participation in the project and in all the activities which followed, was entirely based on the
students' free will. Students were thoroughly informed about the aim of the project (i.e. exploring
ways to improve their academic writing skills), and assured of their anonymity. Furthermore, they
were informed that they could abandon the project at any time.
After the preparatory acknowledgement phase, the students' essays were collected. The gathered
corpus was composed of 38 essays. Each essay counted approximately 400 words. Topics related to
the student's personal experience on everyday situations, such as: “advantages and disadvantages of
living in a small town”; “advantages and disadvantages of our technological society” etc. Topics
had been chosen in order to analyse the students' academic writing; their word choices; their ability
to bear on the subject; the flow of their discourse and how they connected sentences and phrases
together.
At first, the students' essays were analysed in order to underpin academic writing patterns, if any,
and with a view to comparing them with literature findings. Then, recurring issues were pinned
down for further analysis. The students' writing patterns and shortcomings were entered in an excel
file, for evaluation purposes. In the next paragraph, the students' writing patterns will be outlined
and compared with those in literature.
7

8. 1.3 Writing patterns in Italian students' essays vis-à-vis literature findings
In this section, the Italian students' writing patterns will be underpinned.
Fig.1 shows the most relevant patterns.
For the purposes of this research, some writing devices were grouped. This was the case, for
instance, of: boosters and attitude markers; reformulations and exemplifications; questions and
personal asides. The reason for this choice was mainly organisational, being such devices almost
identical, or serving the same (or a similar) metadiscourse function.
From Fig.1 above, it becomes apparent that boosters and attitude markers were the most preferred
devices. Some representative examples are reported here below (spelling, syntax or grammar errors,
if any, have been left intentionally):
essay_1: a wonderful story
essay_4: very interesting, but it has terrible implications
essay_11: what has been painfully apparent
In his research on academic hedging, Hyland claimed that “lexical verbs constituted the greatest
range of items” (1995:36). In contrast to his findings, Italian students clearly preferred auxiliary
modals to lexical verbs. As a matter of fact, Fig.1 shows that 87% used modals; whereas “only”
50% used other hedging mechanisms. This last category encompasses: lexical verbs; personal
opinions; adverbial, adjectival or nominal modal expressions.
If only lexical verbs were considered, these would count for 32% (see Fig.1a), which is still far
from the 55.7% claimed by Hyland (ibid.).
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fig. 1 Students' academic writing patterns
boosters / attitude
markers 90%
hedging: modals 87%
reformulations / exempli-
fications 58%
inclusive “w e” 53%
hedging:other devices
50%
author's voice 42%
reader pronouns 32%
questions / personal
asides 32%
shared know ledge (26%)
active voice (“people
say”) 13%
passive voice 13%

9. Fig.1a represents the varieties of hedging devices, other than modals, in Italian students' writing.
Given the fact that the same phrase encompassed more hedging categories, the sum of the hedging
devices other than modals is higher than 50%. As a matter of fact, 50% represents the percentage of
students who used at least once other hedging devices. Therefore, the above values should be
interpreted as follows: 87% of students used modal devices; 32% used lexical verbs (such as: seem,
suppose, think); 18% used expressions such as: in my opinion, to me; 13% used adverbial or
adjectival modal expressions, such as likely, possible. This distribution is better represented in the
excerpts below:
essay_3: in my opinion this is a key point as I think
essay_34: and it's probably for this reason that (…) this latter seems to be
Only in a few cases were modals used incorrectly, either for grammar mistakes (as in 1. here below)
or for an improper use (lack) of hedging devices (as in 2.):
1)essay_30: and I have could to weight the advantages
2)essay_15: a correct use of them increase the own personal culture (“could” before “increase”
would make this sentence smoother and cautious)
Italians were also prone to explain their points of view and re-phrase their statements, in order to
make concepts clearer for their readers. Reformulations and exemplifications were in fact used in
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Fig. 1a: Hedging devices in students' writing
Modals 87%
Lexical verbs 32%
Personal opinion
18%
Adverbs/Adjectives
13%

10. 58% of their essays:
essay_16: here by “well-being” is meant
essay_24: when you live in Milan, for example,
What was also apparent, was an overwhelming use of devices aimed at conferring a sense of
togetherness. In this respect, the inclusive we (personal pronouns and adjectives) accounted for
53%.
Students also displayed a certain acknowledgement of the reader's presence, who was often referred
to. Reader pronouns accounted in fact for 32%.
The author's voice, aimed at conveying the writer's own views, accounted for 42%:
essay_9: we all should be worried (...) our century is
essay_16: we have to be very careful with any answer we give
essay_22: you may go there and ask
essay_24: when you live in a big city, you forget what silence is.
essay_1: my personal experience in sport. I started
essay_2: the first point I would like to focus on is
What was probably at stake, was the students' endeavour and willingness to convey their points of
view, while remarking their clear intentions to create an understanding with their readers (Hyland,
2011:204). In other words, students were not only personally involved in the topic, but they also
urged for sharedness and approval. This became manifest in references to shared knowledge (26%):
essay_9: it's normal to be scared about what could happen
essay_21: if we consider the well-known NASA
Other interesting writing devices were questions and personal asides, used to involve the reader or
to convey personal points of view:
essay_24: are you a fashion-addicted?
10

11. essay_16: . Far away is this time.
essay_22: seeing a doctor or a psychologist – as soon as possible – is
As argued by scholars, questions were only rhetorical. Most of the times, in fact, they were
answered immediately, or used to present the writer's claim (Hyland, 2011:207).
On the contrary, directives were practically absent (ibid.:211). As a matter of fact, they were only
used in two essays:
essay_9: imagine someone..
essay_35: if you aren't fond of thrillers, don't start
1.4 Concluding remarks on academic writing patterns
In the light of the patterns outlined in paragraph 1.1, it can be easily inferred that Italian students
interacted intensively with their readers. By doing so, they mostly acted in “Machiavellian” ways
(Hyland, 2011:209). As a matter of fact, they used devices to make the reader follow their points of
view, but, at the same time, they cared for the reader's needs and expectations.
Students also displayed an extended use of hedging devices, in order to soften the impact of their
claims. At the same time, however, they showed a great deal of personal involvement in their
statements. This was confirmed by an almost nonexistent passive voice (13%). As claimed in
literature, the passive voice is a form of hedging, which shows a certain detachment to an
argumentation (Hyland, 1995). When students were not aimed at conveying their full commitment,
they preferred resorting to people or someone as phrase subjects:
essay_9: someone says
essay_15: individuals who
essay_16: people tend to think
Speculatively, this could be the consequence of a lack of fluency in the use of the passive voice, or
of the students' unawareness of its central role in academic prose.
In conclusion, what mainly emerged from the outlined analysis, was the urge to increase the passive
voice, and the consequent call for a reduced use of the personal pronoun. However, it could not go
unnoticed that the proposed topics revolved around the students' personal lives and points of view.
This probably justified an extended use of the author's voice.
The argumentation which follows will give an in-depth account of the students' most recurrent
11

12. mistakes.
ISSUES IN ACADEMIC WRITING
In this paragraph the students' most recurrent writing shortcomings will be brought to the fore. Two
different approaches will be outlined: one highlighting the type of mistakes made; the other
considering their frequency of occurrence. In this way, will it be possible to fully understand the
underlying reasons for the student's mistakes.
2.1 Recurrent mistakes in Italian academic writing
The most recurring writing issues will be now brought to the fore. In the 38 essays, 719 mistakes
were found. Amongst these, 542 were classified as grammar or lexical, showing mostly cohesion,
collocation and punctuation mistakes. The remaining 177 were classified as non-grammar/non-
lexical, and contained, for instance, non-academic words; sentences incomplete or obscure due to
L1 influences, etc. Phrases were considered incomplete when the Subject-Verb-Object unit was not
clearly identifiable (Dunleavy, 2003:114), or when a missing adjunct, for instance, compromised
the phrase unit. Phrase were considered obscure when the meaning of a phrase was not
straightforward (Dunleavy, 2003), and its clarity was compromised.
It would be tempting to jump to premature conclusions and state that the grammar mistakes made
by students at bachelor's level outnumbered those at master's level. This, however, was not the case.
Both categories of students made the same types of mistakes. What was instead different, was their
frequencies. Students from some schools showed a better language proficiency than others. This
contributed to reducing the numbers of mistakes they made, but not the type.
2.1.1 Type of mistakes
The first analysis which follows, brings to the fore whether essays contained certain types of
mistakes or not, irrespective of their frequency. For example, if essay_1 showed 10 cohesion
mistakes, this was not relevant, at this stage. The first analysis only revealed that student_1 made
cohesion mistakes, which was counted as 1 in the data collection and filing. In this way, was it
possible to know how many students made the same mistakes.
12

13. Fig.2 shows the most recurring mistakes in the corpus of the 38 collected essays. In particular, it
highlights that: 79% of students (30 out of 38) made cohesion mistakes; 74% (28 students out of
38) made mistakes in punctuation and collocations. The same percentage also referred to students
who wrote phrases obscure or incomplete, probably because of influences of L1 (named Itanglish in
this research). 66% (25 students out of 38) wrote plural nouns instead of singular and vice-versa;
61% (23 students) wrote non-academic words; 55% wrote long sentences; 53% made mistakes in
conjunctions or transitions; 45% made spelling mistakes, and 42% forgot phrase subjects or placed
them wrongly.
For the purposes of this research, sentences were considered long when they exceeded 30 words
and too long when they exceeded 40 words (Dunleavy, 2003:114ff). 30 was still considered a
feasible limit. As suggested by Dunleavy (2003:115), in fact, when a sentence is between 20 and 40
words, students should starting assessing whether it could be split into two. Sentences were
considered obscure when the Subject-Verb-Object unit, if not the whole phrase, was unclear.
Sentences were incomplete when some parts (excluding the subject, which was considered apart)
were missing, such as adjuncts. Incomplete sentences, as it will be outlined, were mostly the result
of collocation mistakes.
According to literature, cohesion “is concerned with the way in which parts of written texts fit
together” (Crème & Lea, 2008:158). Cohesion depends not only on logical connections (Bennet,
2009:46-47), but also on the writer's evaluation of his or her own claims (Thompson & Zhou,
2000:121). The students' cohesion mistakes, however, were mainly referable to logical connections.
The value of 79% could in fact be disaggregated in mistakes in: 1)definite articles (which were the
most recurrent); 2)possessive adjectives and 3)other types. Here follows some excerpts:
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fig. 2 Students' recurrent mistakes in academic writing
Cohesion 79%
Punctuation 74%
Collocations 74%
Itanglish 74%
Nouns (s/p) 66%
Non-EAP 61%
Sentences too long 55%
Conjunctions/Trasitions
53%
Spelling 45%
Subject 42%

14. 1a)essay_24: the sounds of the nature
1b)essay_31: the governments should help
2)essay_2: the Italian economy (...) which are their features?
3)essay_27: restaurants should provide special places for both smokers and non-smokers. In fact,
this law is not respected (no previous mention to which law)
Some possible reasons for cohesion mistakes, were probably due to influences of L1 (Randaccio,
2013:17-18). In particular, as claimed by scholars, article use is considered difficult or hard to retain
for students (Pica, 1983; Williams, 1995). For this reason, scholars claim that a good way to learn it
is by developing article usage in communicative contexts (Pica, 1983). Therefore, it could be
possible that a repetitive exposure to the use of the definite article in communication-oriented
classes could help students to develop fluency.
Punctuation mistakes accounted for 74%, (i.e. 28 essays out of 38 contained wrong or no
punctuation marks). This was probably due to interferences of the students' L1 (Randaccio,
2013:19), or to a lack of knowledge in the students' L1. It is in fact claimed that if writing skills are
not acquired in learners' L1, they can never be transferred to L2 (Friedlander, 1990:110).
Here are some clarifying excerpts.
(the words underlined highlight where a punctuation mark would be required or should be
removed):
essay_5: in addition to that China is deeply
essay_6: it is a good administration which was
essay_10: , which has been ruled since December 2011, by
essay_30: on the other hand I
As it can be clearly inferred, the use of punctuation marks was not fully mastered. In this respect,
literature abounds in examples on how to help students to write more fluently at academic level
(Crème & Lea, 2008:160ff; Zemac & Rumisek, 2003; Bailey, 2003; Swales & Feak 2012:27ff).
Amongst the numerous examples, are those related to transitions, where specific punctuation rules
apply (Conrad & Biber, 2009:85; Zemach & Rumisek, 2003:83ff). Punctuation marks before and
after transitions were in fact forgotten most of the times:
14

15. essay_29: , therefore finding a job is
Collocations, defined as “words which are frequently used together” (Tomlinson, 1998:33), were
another issue at stake. In this respect, students made frequent mistakes in: nouns, adjectives or
verbs followed by prepositions:
essay_2: get out from the crisis (...) regarding to the impact of
essay_9: in according with the
essay_30: a big city is not sure by night
From the excerpts above, it was self-evident that many mistakes were due to L1 influences. In
essay_30, for example, sure was used instead of safe. This was probably due to the fact that the two
adjectives could be translated in much the same way in Italian. Therefore, L1 influences played,
unfortunately, a pivotal role in the word choice.
In some other cases, little prior knowledge of collocates prevented students from completing their
sentences, or from choosing correct word pairs:
essay_5: as far as the Chinese veto, (“is concerned” is missing)
For this reason, incomplete sentences were also due to collocation mistakes.
Literature suggests using corpora, and in particular concordance lines, in order to foster students'
awareness. Learners can in fact use corpora to note what occurs and what does not occur. In this
respect, researchers claim that “searching for absence may be as relevant and as rewarding as
searching for presence” (Swales, 2006:27). The reason lies in the fact that “increased awareness
will lead to increased proficiency” (Tomlinson, 1998:42).
Some other phrases were obscure. This happened when the clarity of the Subject-Verb-Object unit
was compromised. Most of the times, influences of L1 prevented students from writing clear,
straightforward sentences:
essay_6: as a consequence of global economic crisis, which it may Europeans countries, including
Italy, the national government decides to delete those provinces
essay_8: chieftaincy has been contending unsuccessfully with these
essay_16: the first sense of this sentence is this one according to me
15

16. One of the major L1 influences were very long phrases. The longest sentence was composed of 79
words; whereas the average word count was 49:
essay_10: despite the condemnation of the United Nations Security Council, as a result of the third
nuclear test that took place in February, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is now
threatening to perform new atomic tests, in order to obtain economic aids and the status of nuclear
country.
Also some non-academic words were used, such as: 1)informal verbs or expressions;
2)contractions, and 3)incorrect pronouns:
1)essay_12: to sum up
1)essay_25: I totally agree with
2)essay_25: I don't (...) I can't
3)essay_15: persons that have been
Literature abounds in advice on how to avoid non-academic words (Conrad & Biber, 2009; Swales
& Feak, 2012). Therefore, it would be advisable to suggest that students refer to literature, before
engaging in academic writing. This would partly compensate for their academic shortcomings.
Although quite relevant in their value (66%), the majority of the mistakes in nouns were either due
to 1)oversight (no agreement with the subject); 2)uncertainty or lack of knowledge (or, again,
oversight?); 3)incorrect use of nouns after superlatives and 4)influences of L1 (or lack of
knowledge?):
1)essay_6: they have different economy
2)essay_15: examined in different way
2)essay_18: have negative effect on children
3)essay_5: one of the world's biggest oil supplier
4)essay_28: by reducing our wastes
4)essay_11: a mean to protest against (...) with regards to the past
As it can be clearly inferred, mistakes in nouns and in the use of (in)definite articles were strictly
connected.
A prolonged exposure to the target language (Nunan, 1991; Ellis et al.2008) is claimed to tackle the
16

17. students' shortcomings, in these cases.
Conjunctions and transitions were another relevant source of mistakes, although to a lesser degree
(53%). Mistakes could be pinned down as follows: 1)lack or redundancy; 2)wrong position in a
phrase; 3)wrong selection; 4)interference of L1:
1)essay_4: there have also been further negative impacts, the traditional.. (“for instance” before
“the traditional” would make the phrase smoother)
2)essay_15: could be also global
3)essay_2: this system can rely on the connection with the local economy, as well as this can mean
4)essay_30: besides of this people
Surprisingly, students also made spelling mistakes (45%), which confirmed a certain absence of
care for details:
essay_1: keep on traing
essay_29: in addiction a big city
essay_35: accomodate
essay_37 fourty
In some other cases (42%), subjects were: 1)missing (in particular: subject fillers, as in 1a.);
2)written twice, or 3)wrong:
1a)essay_14: on the one hand is possible to
1a)essay_36: as could seem
1b)essay_4: who had more one child had to (those who had..)
2)essay_6: which it may
3)essay_36: The ones who like (those who..)
Other less relevant mistakes concerned the use of: auxiliaries; the third person s; the possessive
case; comparatives and superlatives; ing forms; past-tense verbs; adjectives instead of nouns and
vice-versa; nouns instead of verbs and vice-versa, etc.:
essay_3: which would made up by
essay_9: equipments' production
17

18. essay_14: such economics sectors
essay_15: that have been being
essay_16: as happy or sad than love
essay_19: on 11st
of March
essay_19: the improve of
2.1.2 Mistake frequency
Insofar, the most recurring mistakes have been underpinned in order to bring to the fore how, and in
what areas, the students' academic writing needs could be catered for. To this aim, Fig.2 highlighted
the most relevant mistakes made by students. As it could be clearly noticed, these were mostly
grammar.
The previous paragraph revealed figures indicating how many students made the same mistake, out
of a total of 38 students/essays. In other words, mistakes were only counted as being present or not,
irrespective of their frequencies.
In order to provide a more exhaustive account of the students' academic writing issues, hence to
suggest more effective ways to address them, another analysis is now called on. This will be aimed
at providing a more in-depth account of the mistake frequency and distribution on each category.
The focus of the analysis will hence shift from students/essays to mistake frequency. What is here
referred to as “mistake frequency”, is the result of the sum of all mistakes in each category (e.g.
cohesion), divided by the number of phrases containing mistakes (i.e. 719). Fig.3 reveals for
instance that cohesion mistakes accounted for 14%, being made 103 times, out of a total of 719
phrases (103/719). Punctuation accounted for 10%, as they were made 76 times (76/719), and so
on.
18
Fig. 3 Mistake frequency
Cohesion 14%
Itanglish 13%
Punctuation 11%
Collocation 10%
Nouns (s/p) 8%
Non-EAP 7%
Spelling 5%
Subject 5%
Conjunctions/Transistions
5%
Others 22%

19. As it can be clearly noticed, the data gathered by this second in-depth analysis parallel the first one.
The most recurrent mistakes were in fact (Fig.3): cohesion (14%); Itanglish (i.e. L1 influences on
writing processes: 13%); punctuation (11%), and collocations (10%), followed by nouns, non-
academic words, spelling, subject mistakes etc. Under “others” were scattered mistakes, which
were outlined above, such as: auxiliaries; the third person s; the possessive case; comparatives and
superlatives; ing forms; past-tense verbs; adjectives instead of nouns and vice-versa; nouns instead
of verbs and vice-versa, etc. They will not be discussed further, because they were not
representative in view of their low frequency. For example, past tense verbs accounted for less than
4%; the possessive case for 2%; the third person -s for 1%; auxiliaries for less than 1% etc.
The chart here below summarises the most relevant figures; whereas Fig.2 is reported once more
for comparison purposes:
Mistake category % of students
who made mistakes
(out of 38 students/essays)
mistake distribution
amongst categories
(out of 719 wrong phrases)
Cohesion 79% 14%
Itanglish 74% 13%
Punctuation 74% 11%
Collocations 74% 10%
Nouns s/p 66% 8%
Non-academic words 61% 7%
Conjunctions/Transitions 53% 5%
Spelling 45% 5%
Subject 42% 5%
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fig. 2 Students' recurrent mistakes
Cohesion 79%
Punctuation 74%
Collocations 74%
Itanglish 74%
Nouns (s/p) 66%
Non-EAP 61%
Sentences too long
55%
Conjunctions/Trasitions
53%
Spelling 45%
Subject 42%

20. Either by counting the percentage of mistakes made by students in the first analysis, or by
considering the frequency of mistakes by category, it can be inferred that the research results
remained unvaried. As a matter of fact, the Italian students' shortcomings resulted in being of the
same type, in both cases. Cohesion, punctuation and collocation mistakes, together with influences
of L1, played in fact a pivotal role.
2.2 Concluding remarks on writing issues
It is now possible to draw some conclusions based on the data analysed above. The most striking
evidence is that the majority of mistakes were of grammatical nature. In particular, mistakes in
cohesion, collocation and punctuation/transitions were the most frequent, together with recurrent
Itanglish words or expressions (mostly: obscure, incomplete phrases), and sentences too long.
These issues could be the result of the fact that, as argued by Friedlander (1990:109-10), students
did not master certain grammar rules in their L1. As a consequence, they were unable to transfer
knowledge into L2. This probably happened with punctuation mistakes. In addition to that, L1
interference played a pivotal role in some other linguistic aspects and writing processes (Randaccio,
2013:19). As a consequence, L1 influence led sometimes to cohesion mistakes, which were
probably due to little prior knowledge of cohesion devices. L1 influence led also to sentences
obscure, incomplete, and too long.
Mistakes in collocations were mostly referable to the students' lack of knowledge of formulaic
expressions or word collocates. Collocations, as claimed in literature, are hard to learn, especially
for NNS (Ellis et al.2008). A possible way for students to learn collocations could be found in a
focussed analysis of concordance lines in specialised corpora (Hyland & Tse, 2007).
A poor care for details played also an important role, leading to spelling mistakes; erroneous plural
(or singular) nouns; subjects “forgotten” etc. It could however be debatable whether these were
actually careless mistakes, or ascribable instead to a wider category of influences of L1, or to poor
language knowledge.
In conclusion, the above-outlined analysis highlighted the possibility to cater for the students' needs
with a threefold approach.
Firstly, it highlighted that it was necessary to tackle the students' grammar shortcomings. This could
be carried out by helping students to notice the mistakes they personally made, which would help to
raise their consciousness and foster learning. In this respect, literature on course and materials
design abounds in examples and ways to teach authentic grammar (see the next chapter). Therefore,
designing materials on punctuation, transitions and, possibly, collocations was called on. In much
the same way, noticing activities were also called for, in order to raise the students' consciousness
20

21. and help them to reduce influences of L1, to avoid non-academic expressions, or to increase the use
of the passive voice. Corrective actions on “connecting devices” (Crème & Lea, 2008:158), or
“cohesive devices” (Zemach & Rumisek, 2003:82), was also necessary, in order to address the
students' cohesion mistakes (in particular those in the definite article).
Secondly, the analysis highlighted that the students' language exposure needed improvements, in
order to increase their vocabulary. Ellis et al.(2008) claimed in fact that “The acquisition of
linguistic knowledge and its fluent use, like other skills, is affected by frequency of exposure and
practice” (ibid.:389). Prolonged exposure could hence help students to improve their knowledge of
collocates. This could however be carried out only over an extended period of time, which was not
possible in this research project.
Thirdly, students needed to be called for more preciseness and accuracy, which would both reduce
spelling mistakes and, possibly, other careless mistakes.
21

22. Reference List
Allison, B. (1997). The student’s guide to preparing dissertations and theses. Kogan Page.
Bailey, S. (2003). Academic Writing: A Handbook for International Students. London: Routledge.
Bennet, G. R. (2010). Using Corpora in the Language Learning Classroom: Corpus Linguistics for
Teachers. Michigan ELT.
Bennet, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, vol. 8. 43-54.
Berman, R. & Cheng, L. (2001). English academic skills: Perceived difficulties by undergraduate
and graduate students, and their academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
vol. 4(1-2):25-40.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at. . .: Lexical bundles in university teaching
and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, vol. 25 (3):371–405.
Conrad, S., Biber, D. (2009). Real Grammar: a corpus-based approach to English. Pearson-
Longman.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2010). Meeting the challenges of European student mobility: Preparing
Italian Erasmus students for business lectures in English. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 29.
268-280.
Crème, P. and M.R. Lea. (2008). Writing at University: A Guide for Students. Third edition.
Maidenhead: MacGraw-Hill House.
Dunleavy, P. (2003). Authoring a PhD: How to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or
dissertation. Palgrave.
Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar Teaching—Practice or Consciousness-Raising? In Richards, J.C. and
Renandya W. A. (eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 167–174.
Ellis, N.C., Simpson-Vlach, R., Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic Language in Native and Second
Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
42(3):375-396.
Fortanet-Gómez, I., Räisänen A., C. (2008). The state of ESP teaching and learning in Western
European higher education after Bologna. In Fortanet-Gómez, I., Räisänen A., C. (eds.), ESP in
European Higher Education: Integrating language and content. AILA Applied Linguistic Series, 4.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 11-52.
Friedlander A. (1990). Composing in English: effects of a first language on writing in English as a
second language, in Kroll B. (ed.) Second Language Writing. Research insights for the
classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 109-125.
Gabrielatos, C. (2005). Corpora and language teaching: just a fling or wedding bells? TESL-EJ vol.
8(4).
22

23. Gabrielatos, C. and McEnery, T. (2005). Epistemic modality in MA dissertations. In Fuertes
Olivera, P.A. (ed.), Lengua y sociedad: Investigaciones recientes en lingüística aplicada.Lingüística
y Filología, 61. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. 311-331.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes,
vol. 13(3):239-256.
Hyland, K. (1995). The Author in the text: hedging scientific writing. Hong Kong papers
inlinguistics and language teaching, vol. 18. 33-42.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Hyland, K. & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, vol.1. 1–12.
Hyland, K. & Tse P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics,
vol. 25(2). Oxford University Press. 156-177.
Hylan, K. & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”? Tesol Quarterly, vol.41 (2):235-253.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a Gloss: Exemplifying and Reformulating in Academic Discourse.
Applied Linguistics, vol. 28(2). Oxford University Press. 266–285.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific
Purposes, vol. 27 (1):4–21.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing. Nordic Journal of
English Studies, vol 9 (2):125-143.
Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplines and discourses: social interactions in the construction of knowledge.
In Starke-Meyerring, D., Paré, A., Artemeva, N., Horne, M., and Yousoubova, L. (eds.), Writing
in the knowledge society. West Lafayette, IN: Parlour Press. 193-214.
Kosem, I. (2010). Designing a model for a corpus-driven Dictionary of Academic English. PhD
thesis, Aston University.
Maraschio, N. and De Martino D. (2012). Fuori l'Italiano dall'università? Inglese,
internazionalizzazione, politica linguistica. (Italian out of Universities? English,
internationalisation and linguistic politics). Roma-Bari: Academia della Crusca, Editori Laterza.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural Differences in Academic Discourse – Problems of a Linguistic and
Cultural Minority. In: Löfman, L., Kurki-Suonio, L., Pellinen, S., and Lehtonen, J. (eds.), The
comptetent intercultural communicator. Helsinki, Finland: AFinLA Yearbook. 157-174.
Myles J. (2002). Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis
in Student Texts. TESL-EJ, vol. 6 (2).
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching methodology. A Textbook for teachers. London: Prentice Hall
23

24. International. 143-166.
Pica, T. (1983). The article in American English: what the textbooks don't tell us. In: Wolfson, N.
and Judd, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 222-
233.
Randaccio, M. (2013). Writing skills: theory and practice. QuaderniCIRD vol. 7. Trieste: EUT.
Scott, M. (2001). Is an ELT training good enough for EAP? EL Gazette (September).
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL; International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, vol. 10(3). Walter De Gruyter Company. 209-231.
Sharpling G.P. (2002). Learning to teach English for academic purposes: some current training and
development issues. ELTED, vol. 6. 82-94.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in
ESL. In Kroll B. (ed.) Second Language Writing. Research insights for the classroom, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 11-23.
Solly, M. (2008). Implementing the Bologna process in Italy: A distinctive approach to language
learning in domain-specific contexts. In Fortanet-Gómez, I., Räisänen A., C. (eds.), ESP in
European Higher Education: Integrating language and content. AILA Applied Linguistic Series 4.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 199-211.
Swales, J. M. (2006). Corpus linguistics and English for Academic Purposes. In Macià, E. A.,
Cervera, A. S. and Ramos, C. R. (eds.) Information technology in Languages for Specific Purposes.
Issues and prospects. New York: Springer. 19-33.
Swales, J. M., Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic Writing for graduate students, Third Edition, Essential
skills and tasks. MI: Michigan ELT.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied
Linguistics, vol. 22 (1). Oxford University Press. 58–78
Thompson, G. and Zhou, J.L. (2000). Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of
evaluative disjuncts. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial Stance
and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 121-141.
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
White, B. (2000). Dissertation skills for business and management students. Thompson Learning.
Williams, J. (1995). Focus on form in communicative language teaching: research findings and the
classroom teacher. TESOL Journal, vol. 4(4):12-16.
Willis, D. and Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities in the language classroom. In
Willis, J. and Willis, D. (eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
24

25. Zemach E. D. and Rumisek L. A. (2003). Academic Writing: from paragraph to essay. Macmillan
Publishers Limited.
25