Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 25:2 (2020) ► pp. 215–229

Methodological issues in contrastive lexical bundle research

The influence of corpus design on bundle identification

| Huazhong University of Science and Technology
| Northern Arizona University
| Northern Arizona University
This study explores the influence of corpus design when comparing lexical bundle use across groups, examining how the number of texts and average length of texts can impact conclusions about group differences. The study compares the use of lexical bundles by L1-English versus L2-English writers, based on analysis of two sub-corpora of academic articles that are matched for discipline, writer expertize, time of publication, and audience. However, the two sub-corpora differ with respect to the number of texts and the average length of texts. Three experiments examined the influence of differences in corpus composition. The results show that differences in the number of words and number of texts across sub-corpora can have a strong effect on claimed differences in bundle use across groups. This effect is found even when the texts in the corpora are closely matched for their register and topic.
Keywords: corpus design, lexical bundle type distribution vs. token distribution, topic variation
Published online: 28 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19063.pan
References

References

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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B.
(1998) On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (pp. 101–122). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D.
(2006) University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
(2004) If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson.Google Scholar
Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P.
(2010) Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology, 14(2), 30–49.Google Scholar
[ p. 228 ]
Ellis, N. C., & Simpson-Vlach, R.
(2009) Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 61–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C.
(2008) Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 375–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
(2008) Disentangling the phraseological web. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lu, X., Kisselev, O., Yoon, J., & Amory, M.
(2018) Investigating effects of criterial consistency, the diversity dimension, and threshold variation in formulaic language research: Extending the methodological considerations of O’Donnell et al. (2013). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(2), 158–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahlberg, M., Wiegand, V., Stockwell, P., & Hennessey, A.
(2019) Speech bundles in the 19th-century English novel. Language and Literature, 28(4), 326–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D., & Biber, D.
(2015) Evaluating reliability in quantitative vocabulary studies: The influence of corpus design and composition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(1), 30–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M., Römer, U., &. Ellis, N. C.
(2013) The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1): 83–108. CrossrefGoogle 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, 60–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N.
(2004) Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M.
(2015) WordSmith Tools (Version 6.0) [Computer software]. Lexical Analysis Software. https://​lexically​.net​/wordsmith​/downloads/
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C.
(2010) An academic formulas list (AFL). Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M.
(2007) An example of frequent English phraseology: Distribution, structures and functions. In R. Facchinetti (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics 25 Years on (pp. 89–105). Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 229 ]
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Freitas, Ana Luiza Pires de
2020. The spread of Brazilian science through the advancement of written proficiency in English: a matter that cannot be postponed. Jornal Brasileiro de Doenças Sexualmente Transmissíveis 32 Crossref logo
Wang, Ying & Josep Soler
2021. Investigating predatory publishing in political science: a corpus linguistics approach. Applied Corpus Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 100001 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.