Cover not available
Part of
Applications of Pattern-driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics
Edited by Joanna Kopaczyk and Jukka Tyrkkö
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 82] 2018
► pp. 57–80

Chapter 3
Fine-tuning lexical bundles

A methodological reflection in the context of describing drug-drug interactions

| University of Opole
This chapter has two major aims. First, it attempts to extend earlier research on recurrent phraseologies used in the pharmaceutical field (Grabowski 2015) by exploring the use, distribution and functions of lexical bundles found in English texts describing drug-drug interactions. Conducted from an applied perspective, the study uses 300 text samples extracted from DrugDDI Corpus originally collected in the Drugbank database (Segura-Bedmar et al. 2010). Apart from presenting new descriptive data, the second aim of the chapter is to reflect on the ways lexical bundles have been typically explored across different text types and genres. The problems discussed in the chapter concern the methods used to deal with structurally incomplete bundles, filter out overlapping bundles, and select, for the purposes of qualitative analyses, a representative sample of bundles other than the most frequent ones. This chapter is therefore meant to help researchers fine tune the methodologies used to explore lexical bundles depending on the specificity of the research material, research questions and scope of the analysis.
Keywords: corpus-driven approach, lexical bundles, pharmaceutical texts, drug-drug interactions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology: What we know about and usually do with lexical bundles
  • 3.Lexical bundles approach: Is there any area for improvement?
    • 3.1How to deal with structurally incomplete and/or overlapping lexical bundles?
    • 3.2How to select a representative sample of bundles from a corpus?
  • 4.Corpus and context: Lexical bundles describing drug-drug interactions
    • 4.1Corpus description
    • 4.2Procedure and analysis
    • 4.3Results
  • 5.Discussion of findings
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.82.03gra
References (60)
References
Adolphs, Svenja. 2006. Introducing Electronic Text Analysis. A Practical Guide for Language and Literary Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Appel, Randy & Trofimovich, Pavel. 2015. Transitional probability predicts native and non-native use of formulaic sequences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication: 29 Jan 2015. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Babbie, Earl. 2013. The Basics of Social Research. Belmont MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2014. ’Who are you and why are you following us?’ Wh- questions and communicative context in television dialogue. In Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics, Vol. 3, John Flowerdew (ed.), 49–70. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, Ferraresi, Adriano & Gaspari, Federico. 2010. Institutional academic English in the European context: A web-as-corpus approach to comparing native and non-native language. In Professional English in the European context: The EHEA challenge, Angeles Linde Lopez & Rosalia Crespo Jimenez (eds), 27–53. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006. University Language. A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Federica Barbieri. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26: 263-286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan & Cortes, Viviana. 2004. If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3): 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bogusławski, Andrzej. 1976. O zasadach rejestracji jednostek języka. Poradnik Językowy 8: 356–364.Google Scholar
. 1989. Uwagi o pracy nad frazeologią. In Studia z polskiej leksykografii współczesnej, Vol. 3, Zygmunt Saloni (ed.), 13–29. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku.Google Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(2): 229–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canning, John. 2013. An Introduction to Statistics for Students in the Humanities. <[URL]> (16 December 2014).
Chen, Yu.-Hua & Baker, Paul. 2010. Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology 14(2): 30–49. <[URL]> (10 December 2014).
Cortes, Viviana. 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 Corpus-based Research in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of Doug Biber [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 66], Viviana Cortes & Eniko Csomay (eds), 197–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
DrugDDI Corpus. <[URL]> (5 December 2014).
Dunning, Ted. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1): 61–74.Google Scholar
Fletcher, William. 2002–2007. KfNgram. Annapolis MD: USNA. <[URL]> (20 November 2011).
Forsyth, Richard. 2015a. Formulib: Formulaic Language Software Library. <[URL]> (30 November 2015)
. 2015b. Formulib: Formulaic Language Software Library. User notes. <[URL]> (2 November 2015)
Gallicano, Keith & Drusano, George. 2005. Introduction to drug interactions. In Drug Interactions in Infectious Diseases, Stephen Piscitelli & Keith Rodvold (eds), 1–11. Totowa: Humana Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaspari, Federico. 2013. A phraseological comparison of international news agency reports published online: Lexical bundles in the English-language output of ANSA, Adnkronos, Reuters and UPI. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, Vol. 13. <[URL]> (14 April 2016)
Gledhill, Christopher. 2000. Collocations in Science Writing. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2011. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-Based Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, Łukasz. 2014. On lexical bundles in Polish patient information leaflets: A corpus-driven study. Studies in Polish Linguistics 9(1): 21–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Keywords and lexical bundles within English pharmaceutical discourse: A corpus-driven description. English for Specific Purposes 38: 23–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, Łukasz & Jukneviciene, Rita. 2016. Towards a refined inventory of lexical bundles: an experiment in the Formulex method. Kalbu Studijos/Studies About Languages 29: 58–73.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 2014. A lexical bundle approach to comparing languages. Stems in English and French. In Genre- and Register-related Discourse Features in Contrast, Marie-Aude Lefer & Svetlana Vogeleer (eds). Special issue of Languages in Contrast 14(1): 58–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grochowski, Maciej. 1981. O wyróżnianiu jednostek opisu semantyki leksykalnej. Studia Minora Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Brunensis, 29: 31–37. <[URL]> (8 December 2015).
Huang, Shiew-Mei, Lesko, Lawrence & Temple, Robert. 2008. An integrated approach to assessing drug-drug interactions: A regulatory perspective. In Drug-Drug Interactions, 2nd edn, A. David Rodrigues (ed.), 665–685. New York NY: Informa Healthcare.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27: 4–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionescu, Corina & Caira, Mino. 2005. Drug Metabolism: Current Concepts. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jukneviciene, Rita. 2009. Lexical bundles in learner language: Lithuanian learners vs. native speakers. Kalbotyra 61(3): 61–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koester, Almut. 2010. Building small specialized corpora. In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Michael McCarthy & Anne O’Keeffe (eds), 66–79. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna. 2012. Long lexical bundles and standardisation in historical legal texts. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies 47(2–3): 3–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The Legal Language of Scottish Burghs (1380–1560). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Dilin. 2012. The most frequently-used multi-word constructions in academic written English: A multi-corpus study. English for Specific Purposes 31: 25–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard & Tono, Yukio. 2006. Corpus-Based Language Studies. An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moon, Rosamund. 2007. Corpus linguistic aspects of phraseology. In Phraseologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenoessischer Forschung Vol. 2, Harald Burger (ed.), 1045–1059. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Myles, Florence & Cordier, Caroline. 2017. Formulaic sequence(fs) cannot be an umbrella term in SLA: Focusing on psycholinguistic FSs and their identification. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(1): 3–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakes, Michael. 1998. Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, Matthew Brook. 2011. The adjusted frequency list: A method to produce cluster-sensitive frequency lists. ICAME Journal 35: 135–169 <[URL]> (9 December 2015).
Rayson, Paul & Garside, Roger. 2000. Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora, Vol. 9 (WCC ’00), 1–6. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. <[URL]> (10 December 2015)
Rieger, Burghard. 2001. Computing granular word meanings. In Computing with Words, Paul Wang (ed.), 147–208. New York NY: Wiley. (cited in Stubbs & Barth 2003: 81).Google Scholar
Rowland, Malcolm. 2008. Introducing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic concepts. In Drug-Drug Interactions, 2nd edn, A. David Rodrigues (ed.), 1–29. New York NY: Informa Healthcare.Google Scholar
Rowntree, Derek. 2000. Statistics Without Tears. An Introduction for Non-Mathematicians. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Salazar, Danica. 2011. Lexical Bundles in Scientific English: A Corpus-Based Study of Native and Non-native Writing. PhD dissertation. University of Barcelona. <[URL]> (10 March 2013).
. 2014. Lexical Bundles in Native and Non-native Scientific Writing [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 65]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert., Grandage, Sarah & Adolphs, Svenja. 2004. Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psycholinguistically valid? In Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use [Language Learning & Language Teaching 9], Norbert Schmitt (ed.), 127–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2008. WordSmith Tools 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Segura-Bedmar, Isabel, Martinez, Paloma, & de Pablo-Sanchez, Cesar. 2010. Extracting drug-drug interactions from biomedical texts. BMC Bioinformatics 11(Suppl 5): P9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, Rita & Ellis, Nick. 2010. An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics 31(4): 487–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael & Barth, Isabel. 2003. Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings. Functions of Language 10(1): 65–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. <[URL]> (10 January 2015)
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, David. & Appel, Randy. 2014. Multi-word constructions in first year business and engineering university textbooks and EAP textbooks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 15: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, David. 2015. Fundamentals of Formulaic Language: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison & Perkins, Michael. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication 20: 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zumrík, Miroslav
2021. Lexical Bundles in the Corpus of Slovak Judicial Decisions. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 72:2 ► pp. 705 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. 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.