Article published In:
Pedagogical LinguisticsVol. 2:1 (2021) ► pp.30–63
Comparing lexical bundle use in EAP reading textbooks to lower-division university textbooks
This study employed a corpus analysis to describe differences in lexical bundle patterns between English for academic purposes (EAP) reading textbooks and lower-division university textbooks by focusing on three characteristics: (1) the frequency of occurrence of bundles, (2) the frequency of bundle structures (e.g., phrasal vs. clausal), and (3) the frequency of bundle discourse functions (e.g., stance, discourse organizers, and referential; see Biber et al., 2004; Biber, 2006). Results revealed that the corpus representing lower-division university textbooks employed more passive bundles, intangible framing bundles, and text deixis bundles. On the other hand, the corpus representing EAP reading textbooks contained more prepositional phrase bundles, anticipatory it bundles, and place bundles. A qualitative comparison also revealed that quantity bundles in the corpus representing lower-division university textbooks made reference to technical and academic calculations. These results show how the communicative purposes of EAP reading textbooks differ from introductory university textbooks, which can be used to inform EAP reading instruction.
Keywords: lexical bundle, EAP textbook, university textbook, corpus linguistics
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background and core research questions
- 2.1Using lexical bundles to compare registers
- 2.2Lexical bundles in university textbooks
- 2.3Lexical bundles and multi-word constructions in EAP reading textbooks compared to university textbooks
- 2.4The present study
- 3.Method
- 3.1Corpora
- 3.1.1EAP reading textbook corpus
- 3.1.2The lower-division university textbook corpus
- 3.2Bundle extraction
- 3.3Bundle analysis
- 3.1Corpora
- 4.Results
- 4.1Bundle types and tokens
- 4.2Structural frequency of bundles
- 4.2.1Phrasal bundles
- 4.2.2Clausal bundles
- 4.3Frequency of discourse functions
- 4.3.1Stance bundles
- 4.3.2Discourse organizers
- 4.3.3Referential bundles
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References
Allan, R.
(2016) Lexical bundles in graded readers: To what extent does language restriction affect lexical patterning?. System, 591, 61–72. 
Anderson, N. J.
(2015) Academic reading expectations and challenges. In N. W. Evans, N. J. Anderson & W. G. Eggington (Eds.), ESL readers and writers in higher education (pp. 109–124). Routledge.
Anthony, L.
(2018) AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from [URL]
Bestgen, Y.
(2020) Comparing lexical bundles across corpora of different sizes: The Zipfian problem. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 27(3), 272–290.
Biber, D.
(2006) University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol. 231). John Benjamins Publishing.
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F.
(2007) Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
(2019) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
(2004) If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M.
(2002) Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48.
Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Keller, D.
(2020) Reconceptualizing register in a continuous situational space. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(3), 581–616.
Biber, D., & Gray, B.
(2010) Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20.
(2011) Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language & Linguistics, 15(2), 223–250.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
(2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Block, D.
(2003) The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cortes, V.
(2004) Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423.
Chen, L.
(2010) An investigation of lexical bundles in ESP textbooks and electrical engineering introductory textbooks. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 107–125). New York/London: Continuum.
Grabe, W.
(2009) Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.
(2014) Teaching reading for academic purposes. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton & M. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 189–205). Boston: National Geographic Learning.
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Egbert, J., & Johnson, A.
(2017) Discipline-specific reading expectation and challenges for ESL learners in US universities. Reading in a Foreign Language, 29(1), 36–60.
Hartshorn, K., Hart, J. M., & McMurry, B. L.
(2019) Comparing language skill priorities among TESOL faculty and ESL students bound for English-medium universities. TESOL Journal, 10(3), e00438.
Hsu, W.
(2009) Measuring the vocabulary of college general English textbooks and English-medium textbooks of business core courses. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(2), 126–149.
Hyland, K.
(2008a) Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41–62.
(2008b) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21.
Johns, A. M.
(1981) Necessary English: A faculty survey. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 51–57.
LaFlair, G., Egbert, J., & Miller, D.
(2012) Structural compression and elaboration across levels of ESL reading textbook series. Paper presented at AAAL, Boston, Massachusetts.
Miller, D.
(2011) ESL reading textbooks vs. university textbooks: Are we giving our students the input they may need?. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 32–46.
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S.
(2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press.
Northbrook, J., & Conklin, K.
(2019) Is what you put in what you get out? – Textbook-derived lexical bundle processing in beginner English learners. Applied Linguistics, 40(5), 816–833.
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, 211, 60–71.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S.
(2001) Approaches and methods in language leaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trotzke, A., & Kupisch, T.
(2020) Formal linguistics and language education: Bridging the gap. In A. Trotzke. & T. Kupisch. (Eds.), Formal linguistics and language education: New empirical perspectives (pp. 1–8). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C.
(2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61(2), 569–613.
Wilson, A.
(2013) Embracing Bayes factors for key item analysis in corpus linguistics. In M. Bieswanger, & A. Koll-Stobbe (Eds.), New approaches to the study of linguistic variability (pp. 3–11). Peter Lang.
Wood, D. C., & Appel, R.
(2014) Multiword constructions in first year business and engineering university textbooks and EAP textbooks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 151, 1–13.