Corpus-based bundle analysis to disciplinary variations: Relocating the role of bundle extraction criteria

IF 3.2 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS English for Specific Purposes Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.004
Xia Liu , Shuangling LI , Wenzhang Fan , Qimeng Dang
{"title":"Corpus-based bundle analysis to disciplinary variations: Relocating the role of bundle extraction criteria","authors":"Xia Liu ,&nbsp;Shuangling LI ,&nbsp;Wenzhang Fan ,&nbsp;Qimeng Dang","doi":"10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Previous lexical bundle research has stimulated heated discussions on disciplinary variations and disciplinary specificity-generality spectrum. The current study explores whether (and how) bundle extraction criteria (i.e. frequency, dispersion, and bundle length) may affect the conclusions on disciplinary variations and specificity-generality. Focusing on eight disciplines, it used an 11-million corpus of academic journal articles with a balanced design (the same number of texts and similar average text length for each subcorpus). The results indicated a clear picture of disciplinary variations and a strong tendency towards disciplinary specificity. More importantly, the results suggested that different methodological criteria played an important part, especially concerning the analysis of disciplinary specificity or generality. The choice of ‘4-word’ bundles over ‘3-word’ bundles, in particular, would tend to be associated with a result of a higher degree of disciplinary specificity. Regarding disciplinary variations, it was found that the effect from different choices of bundle extraction criteria was relatively smaller. Only the choice on different dispersion requirements could predict the significant differences between certain disciplines. These findings provide support for disciplinary variations and new perspectives on the disciplinary specificity-generality debate.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47809,"journal":{"name":"English for Specific Purposes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English for Specific Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889490622000746","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Previous lexical bundle research has stimulated heated discussions on disciplinary variations and disciplinary specificity-generality spectrum. The current study explores whether (and how) bundle extraction criteria (i.e. frequency, dispersion, and bundle length) may affect the conclusions on disciplinary variations and specificity-generality. Focusing on eight disciplines, it used an 11-million corpus of academic journal articles with a balanced design (the same number of texts and similar average text length for each subcorpus). The results indicated a clear picture of disciplinary variations and a strong tendency towards disciplinary specificity. More importantly, the results suggested that different methodological criteria played an important part, especially concerning the analysis of disciplinary specificity or generality. The choice of ‘4-word’ bundles over ‘3-word’ bundles, in particular, would tend to be associated with a result of a higher degree of disciplinary specificity. Regarding disciplinary variations, it was found that the effect from different choices of bundle extraction criteria was relatively smaller. Only the choice on different dispersion requirements could predict the significant differences between certain disciplines. These findings provide support for disciplinary variations and new perspectives on the disciplinary specificity-generality debate.

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
基于语料库的学科变异束分析:重新定位束提取标准的作用
以往的词汇束研究引发了对学科变异和学科特殊性-普遍性谱的热烈讨论。目前的研究探讨是否(以及如何)束提取标准(即频率,分散和束长度)可能会影响学科变化和特异性-普遍性的结论。它专注于八个学科,使用了一个平衡设计的1100万学术期刊文章语料库(每个子语料库的文本数量相同,平均文本长度相似)。结果显示出学科差异的清晰图景和学科特异性的强烈倾向。更重要的是,结果表明不同的方法标准发挥了重要作用,特别是在学科特殊性或一般性分析方面。特别是,选择“4个单词”的捆绑包而不是“3个单词”的捆绑包,往往与更高程度的学科特异性有关。在学科差异方面,不同束提取标准选择的影响相对较小。只有对不同分散要求的选择才能预测某些学科之间的显著差异。这些发现为学科差异提供了支持,并为学科特殊性-普遍性之争提供了新的视角。
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
5.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: English For Specific Purposes is an international peer-reviewed journal that welcomes submissions from across the world. Authors are encouraged to submit articles and research/discussion notes on topics relevant to the teaching and learning of discourse for specific communities: academic, occupational, or otherwise specialized. Topics such as the following may be treated from the perspective of English for specific purposes: second language acquisition in specialized contexts, needs assessment, curriculum development and evaluation, materials preparation, discourse analysis, descriptions of specialized varieties of English.
期刊最新文献
Genre learning from the EAP class to undergraduate research symposiums Verbal-visual skill-building and perceptional changes in English presentation Guiding and engaging the audience: Visual metadiscourse in PowerPoint slides of Three Minute Thesis presentations Lexical coverage in science popularization discourse: The case of popular science news from Scientific American
×
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