Article published in:
Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast
Edited by Marie-Aude Lefer and Svetlana Vogeleer
[Benjamins Current Topics 87] 2016
► pp. 59–72

A lexical bundle approach to comparing languages

Stems in English and French

| Université catholique de Louvain, Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, Belgium
Contrastive studies of phraseology have tended to focus on figurative units, such as idioms and metaphors, and paid comparatively less attention to less colourful types of units such as collocations and lexical bundles, which are equally, if not more, worthy of study. This chapter tries to fill this gap by exploring the potential contribution of a lexical bundle approach to language comparison. Some guidelines are presented to help solve some of the methodological challenges posed by a cross-linguistic comparison of lexical bundles. The approach is illustrated with a study of lexical bundles in English and French with a particular focus on units that have a metadiscursive function. Two different genres are compared — parliamentary debates and newspaper editorials — in an attempt to tease out systemic differences between languages and genre effects.
Keywords: editorials, English/French, lexical bundles, parliamentary debates, phraseology
Published online: 20 July 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.87.04gra
References
Altenberg, B
1998 “On the Phraseology of Spoken English”. In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, A.P. Cowie (ed), 101–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, N
2005 Translation, Linguistics, Culture: a French-English Handbook. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bal, B
2010.“Analysis of Four-word Lexical Bundles in Published Research Articles Written by Turkish Scholars”. Applied Linguistics and English as a Second Language Theses. Paper 2. Available at http://​digitalarchive​.gsu​.edu​/alesl​_theses​/2 [Last accessed 11 August 2013].
Bestgen, Y
2014 “Inadequacy of the Chi-squared Test to Examine Vocabulary Differences between Corpora”. Literary and Linguistic Computing 29(2):164–170 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Cortes, V
2004 “If you Look at … Lexical Bundles in University Lectures and Textbooks”. Applied Linguistics 25:371–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Tracy-Ventura, N
2007 “Dimensions of Register Variation in Spanish”. In Working with Spanish corpora, G. Parodi (ed), 54–89. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Breivega K., Dahl, D. and Fløttum, K
2002.“Traces of Self and Others in Research Articles. A Comparative Pilot Study of English, French and Norwegian Research Articles in Medicine, Economics and Linguistics”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(2):218–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cartoni, B. and Meyer, T
2012.“Extracting Directional and Comparable Corpora from a Multilingual Corpus for Translation Studies”. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) , Istanbul, 21–27 May 2012. 2132–2137.
Cartoni, B., Zufferey, S., Meyer, T. and Popescu-Belis, A
2011 “How Comparable are Parallel Corpora? Measuring the Distribution of General Vocabulary and Connectives”. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora, 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , Portland, Oregon, 24 June 2011. 78–86.
Chen, Y.H. and Baker, P
2010 “Lexical Bundles in L1 and L2 Academic Writing”. Language Learning and Technology 14(2):30–49.Google Scholar
Cortes, V
2008 “A Comparative Analysis of Lexical Bundles in Academic History Writing in English and Spanish”. Corpora 3(1):43–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dayrell, C
2008 “Investigating the Preference of Translators for Recurrent Lexical Patterns: a Corpus-based Study”. Trans-Kom 1(1):36–57.Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. and Kinn, T
2006 Academic Voices. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Lefer, M.-A
2012 “Towards More and Better Phrasal Entries in Bilingual Dictionaries”. In Proceedings of the 15th EURALEX International Congress, R. Vatvedt Fjeld and J.M. Torjusen (eds), 682–692. Oslo: UiO.Google Scholar
2013 “Enriching the Phraseological Coverage of High-frequency Adverbs in English-French Bilingual Dictionaries”. In Advances in Corpus-Based Contrastive Linguistics, B. Altenberg and K. Aijmer (eds), 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P
2012 “Corpus Evidence and Electronic Lexicography”. In Electronic Lexicography, S. Granger and M. Paquot (eds), 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hervey, S. and Higgins, I
2002 Thinking French Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, K
2005 Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ilie, C
2003 “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates”. Journal of Language and Politics 2(1):71–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jablonkai, R
2010 “English in the Context of European Integration: a Corpus-driven Analysis of Lexical Bundles in English EU Documents”. English for Specific Purposes 29(4):253–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jantunen, J
2004 “Untypical Patterns in Translations. Issues on Corpus Methodology and Synonymity”. In Translation Universals. Do They Exist? A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki (eds), 101–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kajzer-Wietrzny, M
2012 “Interpreting Universals and Interpreting Style”. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland. Available at:https://​repozytorium​.amu​.edu​.pl​/jspui​/bitstream​/10593​/2425​/1​/Paca%20doktorska%20Marty%20Kajzer​-Wietrzny​.pdf [last accessed 11 August 2013].Google Scholar
Koehn, P
2005 “Europarl: a Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation”. Paper presented as MT Summit 2005.Google Scholar
Martínez Guillem, S
2009 “Argumentation, Metadiscourse and Social Cognition: Organizing Knowledge in Political Communication”. Discourse and Society 20(6):727–746. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nishina, Y
2007 “A Corpus-driven Approach to Genre Analysis: the Reinvestigation of Academic, Newspaper and Literary Texts”. ELR Journal 1(2). Available at: http://​ejournals​.org​.uk​/ELR​/article​/2007​/2 [last accessed 11 August 2013]
Paquot, M. and Granger, S
2012 “Formulaic Language in Learner Corpora”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32:130–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, B.E
2011 “Legislative Debates and Democratic Deliberation in Parliamentary Systems”. Paper presented at the Oslo-Yale International Workshop on Epistemic Democracy in Practice, Yale University, New Haven, 20–22 October 2011.
Scott, M
2008 WordSmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R. and Ellis, N.C
2010 “An Academic Formulas List (AFL)”. Applied Linguistics 31:487–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sultan, A.H.J
2011 “A Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse in English and Arabic Linguistics Research Articles”. Acta Linguistica 5(1):28–41.Google Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N., Biber, D. and Cortes, V
2007 “Lexical Bundles in Spanish Speech and Writing”. In Working with Spanish Corpora, G. Parodi (ed), 217–231. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T.A
2003 “Knowledge in Parliamentary Debates”. Journal of Language and Politics 2:93–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J.-P. and Darbelnet, J
1995 [1958] Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A
2002 Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R
2010 “Idioms, Word Clusters, and Reformulation Markers in Translational Chinese: Can “Translation Universals” Survive in Mandarin?” Proceedings of The International Symposium on Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies 2010 Conference (UCCTS2010). Available at: www​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/fass​/projects​/corpus​/UCCTS2010Proceedings​/papers​/xiao​.pdf [last accessed 11 August 2013].
Zarei, G.R. and Mansoori, S
2011 “A Contrastive Study on Metadiscourse Elements Used in Humanities vs. Non Humanities across Persian and English”. English Language Teaching 4(1): 42–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar