Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Corpus-based Research on Academic Writing: Effects of discipline, register, and writer expertise
Edited by Ute Römer-Barron, Viviana Cortes and Eric Friginal
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 95] 2020
► pp. 169–182

Lexical bundles across disciplines

A look at consistency and variability

 | Northern Arizona University
 | Laureate International Universities
This chapter reports on a study that examined over 700 four-word lexical bundles (Biber et al., 1999) identified from a multi-disciplinary corpus of over 25 million words from introductory courses across nine disciplines. Two types of bundles were identified: cross-disciplinary (occurring in at least four of the nine disciplines), and discipline-specific (occurring in only one or two disciplines). Results indicate that these bundle types typically serve different functions. The cross-disciplinary bundles function as discourse frames providing sign posts for readers, while discipline-specific bundles are often content-specific. Analyses also identified bundles with variable slots that could be completed with various fillers. The chapter concludes with ideas and examples for teaching lexical bundles that can enhance teaching and promote fluency for learners.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Bundles shared across disciplines
    • 3.2Bundles with a productive variable slot
    • 3.3Nuanced meanings of variable slot fillers
    • 3.4Pedagogical applications
  • 4.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 20 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.95.07rep
References (21)
References
Ädel, Annelie & Erman, Britt. 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
Altenberg, Bengt. 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications, Anthony Cowie (ed.), 101–122. Oxford: OUP.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, 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
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Chen, Yu-Hua & Baker, Paul. 2010. Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology 14(2): 30–49.Google Scholar
Cortes, Viviana. 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
Gray, Bethany & Biber, Douglas. 2015. Phraseology. In The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics, Douglas Biber & Randi Reppen (eds), 123–145. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, Eli. (ed.) 2018. Teaching Essential Units of Language: Beyond Single-word Vocabulary. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27(1): 4–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nekrasova, Tatiana M. 2009. English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning 59: 647–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesi, Hilary & Basturkmen, Helen. 2006. Lexical bundles and discourse signalling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 283–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, Matthew B., Römer, Ute & Ellis, Nick 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fan, Pan, Reppen, Randi & Biber, Douglas. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2014. Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14: 84–94 85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reppen, Randi. 2018. Teaching lexical bundles: Which ones and how? In Hinkel (ed.), 186–200.Google Scholar
Römer, Ute. 2009. English in academia: Does nativeness matter? Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 20(2): 89–100.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2018. WordSmith (Version 7.0). Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Staples, Shelley, Egbert, Jesse, Biber, Douglas & McClair, Alyson. 2013. Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12(3): 214–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

He, Mengyu & Leng Hong Ang
2023. Profiling a microeconomics noun collocation list: A corpus-based approach. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 41:2 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Kashiha, Hadi
2023. Beyond words in evaluation: Formulaic language in critical reviews of research articles across disciplines. Russian Journal of Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.