Disciplinary differences in lexical bundles use: A cautionary tale from methodological variations

IF 3.1 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of English for Academic Purposes Pub Date : 2024-06-04 DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101399
Betty Samraj
{"title":"Disciplinary differences in lexical bundles use: A cautionary tale from methodological variations","authors":"Betty Samraj","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Lexical bundles use in academic discourse has been explored across numerous dimensions including discipline, genre, register, student proficiency, and language, among others. These studies have resulted in claims about the nature of these different discourses or their authors, and they have been used in EAP instructional practices. Recent studies on methodological considerations in frequency-based lexical bundles research have pointed to variability in results that stem from changes in criteria used in lexical bundle extraction and corpus composition. Following this, the current study explores the impact of methodological variation in lexical bundle extraction from sets of research articles in Linguistics and Biology, with a focus on the extent of disciplinary variation uncovered in lexical bundles use and function. Experiments with varying frequency thresholds and range specifications as well as corpus composition show that results about lexical bundles use in different disciplinary discourses could be more sharply differentiated when certain variables are used, underscoring the variableness in results and the need for caution in interpreting the findings of lexical bundles research. This paper also evaluates claims made in previous lexical bundles studies using the findings from this study. Finally, previous pedagogical applications of lexical bundles research in academic discourse are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000675/pdfft?md5=22461e28fddab06d2ff420a282a3594c&pid=1-s2.0-S1475158524000675-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000675","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lexical bundles use in academic discourse has been explored across numerous dimensions including discipline, genre, register, student proficiency, and language, among others. These studies have resulted in claims about the nature of these different discourses or their authors, and they have been used in EAP instructional practices. Recent studies on methodological considerations in frequency-based lexical bundles research have pointed to variability in results that stem from changes in criteria used in lexical bundle extraction and corpus composition. Following this, the current study explores the impact of methodological variation in lexical bundle extraction from sets of research articles in Linguistics and Biology, with a focus on the extent of disciplinary variation uncovered in lexical bundles use and function. Experiments with varying frequency thresholds and range specifications as well as corpus composition show that results about lexical bundles use in different disciplinary discourses could be more sharply differentiated when certain variables are used, underscoring the variableness in results and the need for caution in interpreting the findings of lexical bundles research. This paper also evaluates claims made in previous lexical bundles studies using the findings from this study. Finally, previous pedagogical applications of lexical bundles research in academic discourse are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
词束使用的学科差异:从方法论差异中汲取警示
人们从学科、体裁、语域、学生水平和语言等多个维度探讨了学术话语中的词组使用。这些研究得出了关于这些不同话语或其作者性质的结论,并被用于 EAP 教学实践中。最近对基于词频的词束研究方法的研究指出,由于词束提取和语料库构成标准的变化,研究结果也存在差异。据此,本研究探讨了从语言学和生物学研究文章中提取词束的方法变化所产生的影响,重点是在词束的使用和功能方面发现的学科差异程度。使用不同频率阈值和范围规格以及语料组成进行的实验表明,当使用某些变量时,不同学科话语中词束使用的结果会有更明显的差异,这突出了结果的可变性,以及在解释词束研究结果时需要谨慎的必要性。本文还利用本研究的结果评估了以往词汇捆绑研究的主张。最后,还讨论了词汇捆绑研究在学术话语中的教学应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of English for Academic Purposes provides a forum for the dissemination of information and views which enables practitioners of and researchers in EAP to keep current with developments in their field and to contribute to its continued updating. JEAP publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges in the linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic description of English as it occurs in the contexts of academic study and scholarly exchange itself.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board From general critical questions to scheme-relevant critical questions in the instruction on argument evaluation for EFL graduate students: A two-cycle action research Analyzing engagement strategies in argument chain: A comparison between high- and low-scoring EFL undergraduate argumentative essays Evaluating English-medium instruction in higher education: EMI-QE
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1