Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 47:1 (2024) ► pp.101–122

Sentence initial lexical bundles in Chinese and New Zealand PhD theses in the discipline of General and Applied Linguistics

ORCID logo | University of Waikato
ORCID logo | Ministry of Education
ORCID logo | University of Waikato
Lexical bundles are recurrent multiword combinations and often function as discourse building blocks. Lexical bundles have been analysed in university students’ writing to detect linguistic errors, measure writing competence, and investigate the divergence between L1 and L2 writing. Few studies, however, have focused on the high-stakes genre of PhD thesis and investigated the bundle productions of the same genre within the same level and discipline. This paper compares sentence initial lexical bundles in the corpora of English theses written by Chinese and New Zealand PhD students in the discipline of General and Applied Linguistics. Forty-six bundles from a Chinese corpus and forty-two bundles from a New Zealand corpus were generated. Among them, 94% of sentence initial bundles were identified as metadiscursive bundles. Chinese and New Zealand doctoral students showed considerably different preferences in their bundle selection. The paper examines the possible impact of these preferences and suggests there is a need to extend the metadiscourse knowledge of doctoral students in terms of lexical bundles.
Keywords: corpus analysis, lexical bundles, metadiscourse, L2 academic writing, PhD thesis, disciplines
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Corpus collection
    • 2.2Bundle identification
    • 2.3Bundle analysis
  • 3.Sentence initial bundles in thesis writing
    • 3.1Bundle distribution
    • 3.2Interactive bundles
      • 3.2.1Transition bundles
      • 3.2.2Frame bundles
      • 3.2.3Code gloss bundles
      • 3.2.4Endophoric bundles
    • 3.3Interactional bundles
      • 3.3.1Attitude bundles
      • 3.3.2Hedge bundles
      • 3.3.3Booster bundles
      • 3.3.4Self-mention bundles
      • 3.3.5Directive bundles
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion and implications
  • References
Published online: 21 September 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.21018.li
References (46)
References
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ädel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (2), 81–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9 (2), 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 (1), 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (2015). Corpus-based and corpus-driven analysis of language variation and use. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 193–224). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26 (3), 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In G. N. Leech, T. McEnery, A. Wilson, & P. Rayson (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25 (3), 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Bouziri, B. (2021). A tripartite interpersonal model for investigating metadiscourse in academic lectures. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bychkovska, T., & Lee, J. J. (2017). At the same time: Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 university student argumentative writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30 (Supplement C), 38–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14 (2), 30–49.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23 (4), 397–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12 (1), 33–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Situating lexical bundles in the formulaic language spectrum. In V. Cortes & E. Csomay (Eds.), Corpus-based research in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of Doug Biber (Vol. 661, pp. 197–216). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coxhead, A., & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (3), 129–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dechert, H. W. (1984). Second language production: Six hypotheses. In H. W. Dechert, D. Mohle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 211–230). Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Esfandiari, R., & Barbary, F. (2017). A contrastive corpus-driven study of lexical bundles between English writers and Persian writers in psychology research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29 1, 21–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franken, M. (2014). The nature and scope of student search strategies in using a web derived corpus for writing. The Language Learning Journal, 42 (1), 85–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (2018). Tracking the third code: A cross-linguistic corpus-driven approach to metadiscursive markers. In A. Čermáková & M. Mahlberg (Eds.), The corpus linguistics discourse: In honour of Wolfgang Teubert (pp. 185–204). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4 (3), 257–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that …”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21 1, 367–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20 (3), 207–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.Google Scholar
(2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), 266–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18 (1), 41–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 1, 150–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (1 ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Participation in publishing: The demoralizing discourse of disadvantage. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 13–33). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 46 1, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (2), 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, L., Franken, M., & Wu, S. (2018). Chinese postgraduates’ explanation of the sources of sentence initial bundles in their thesis writing. RELC Journal, 50 (1), 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, X., & Deng, J. (2019). With the rapid development: A contrastive analysis of lexical bundles in dissertation abstracts by Chinese and L1 English doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 39 1, 21–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, F., Reppen, R., & Biber, D. (2016). Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21 1, 60–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearson, H. (2020). Attitude verbs. In D. Gutzmann, L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann, & T. E. Zimmerman (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. John Wiley & Sons Inc.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14 1, 84–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1989). Clear and coherent prose: A functional approach. Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
Wei, Y., & Lei, L. (2011). Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 42 (2), 155–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. M., & Bizup, J. (2014). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (11th ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar
Witten, I. H., Wu, S., Li, L., & Whisler, J. L. (2013). The book of FLAX: A new approach to computer-assisted language learning (2nd ed.). University of Waikato.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50 (1), 23–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar