应用语言学研究中被接受和被拒绝的词汇束的比较研究

Q1 Arts and Humanities Studies in English Language and Education Pub Date : 2023-05-31 DOI:10.24815/siele.v10i2.28119
Eri Kurniawan, Zahra Fadillah Haerunisa
{"title":"应用语言学研究中被接受和被拒绝的词汇束的比较研究","authors":"Eri Kurniawan, Zahra Fadillah Haerunisa","doi":"10.24815/siele.v10i2.28119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multi-word expressions referred to as lexical bundles are the important ‘discourse building blocks’ to construct and signal fluent writing, particularly in an attempt to produce high-quality research articles that can be accepted by reputable journals. A number of studies have reported the use of lexical bundles in various sections of research articles, including introductions as the holder of research rationale. In spite of that, attention is barely paid to the comparison between accepted and rejected manuscripts. With the intention to fill this gap, this study is aimed at investigating whether the manifestation of lexical bundles will differ between the introduction sections of accepted and rejected research articles in applied linguistics. A total of 15 introductions for each data group were analyzed under the frameworks of lexical bundles structures (Biber et al., 2004) and functions (Hyland, 2008). Findings reveal that noun phrase-based and research-oriented bundles were respectively detected as the most prevalent main structure and function in both accepted and rejected data sets. Closer inspection, however, evinced a greater frequency and richer variety of lexical bundles in accepted introductions. Even so, this study confirmed that the two datasets exhibit different subcategories of lexical bundles in numerous cases. Implicationally, the findings of this study may shed further light on the comprehension of lexical bundles use in preparing related future studies.","PeriodicalId":36412,"journal":{"name":"Studies in English Language and Education","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of lexical bundles in accepted and rejected applied linguistic research article introductions\",\"authors\":\"Eri Kurniawan, Zahra Fadillah Haerunisa\",\"doi\":\"10.24815/siele.v10i2.28119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Multi-word expressions referred to as lexical bundles are the important ‘discourse building blocks’ to construct and signal fluent writing, particularly in an attempt to produce high-quality research articles that can be accepted by reputable journals. A number of studies have reported the use of lexical bundles in various sections of research articles, including introductions as the holder of research rationale. In spite of that, attention is barely paid to the comparison between accepted and rejected manuscripts. With the intention to fill this gap, this study is aimed at investigating whether the manifestation of lexical bundles will differ between the introduction sections of accepted and rejected research articles in applied linguistics. A total of 15 introductions for each data group were analyzed under the frameworks of lexical bundles structures (Biber et al., 2004) and functions (Hyland, 2008). Findings reveal that noun phrase-based and research-oriented bundles were respectively detected as the most prevalent main structure and function in both accepted and rejected data sets. Closer inspection, however, evinced a greater frequency and richer variety of lexical bundles in accepted introductions. Even so, this study confirmed that the two datasets exhibit different subcategories of lexical bundles in numerous cases. Implicationally, the findings of this study may shed further light on the comprehension of lexical bundles use in preparing related future studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in English Language and Education\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in English Language and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i2.28119\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in English Language and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i2.28119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

被称为词汇束的多词表达是构建和标志流畅写作的重要“话语构建块”,特别是在试图写出高质量的研究文章时,可以被知名期刊接受。许多研究报告了在研究文章的各个部分中使用词汇束,包括作为研究基本原理持有人的介绍。尽管如此,很少有人注意到接受和拒绝的手稿之间的比较。为了填补这一空白,本研究旨在探讨词汇束的表现是否会在应用语言学被接受和被拒绝的研究文章的引言部分有所不同。在词汇束结构(Biber et al., 2004)和函数(Hyland, 2008)的框架下,对每个数据组共15个介绍进行了分析。结果表明,在接受和拒绝的数据集中,以名词短语为基础的和以研究为导向的束分别是最普遍的主要结构和功能。然而,更仔细的检查表明,在公认的介绍中,词汇束的频率更高,种类更丰富。即便如此,这项研究证实了这两个数据集在许多情况下表现出不同的词汇束子类别。本研究的结果可以为进一步理解词汇束的使用提供启示,为今后的相关研究做准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A comparative study of lexical bundles in accepted and rejected applied linguistic research article introductions
Multi-word expressions referred to as lexical bundles are the important ‘discourse building blocks’ to construct and signal fluent writing, particularly in an attempt to produce high-quality research articles that can be accepted by reputable journals. A number of studies have reported the use of lexical bundles in various sections of research articles, including introductions as the holder of research rationale. In spite of that, attention is barely paid to the comparison between accepted and rejected manuscripts. With the intention to fill this gap, this study is aimed at investigating whether the manifestation of lexical bundles will differ between the introduction sections of accepted and rejected research articles in applied linguistics. A total of 15 introductions for each data group were analyzed under the frameworks of lexical bundles structures (Biber et al., 2004) and functions (Hyland, 2008). Findings reveal that noun phrase-based and research-oriented bundles were respectively detected as the most prevalent main structure and function in both accepted and rejected data sets. Closer inspection, however, evinced a greater frequency and richer variety of lexical bundles in accepted introductions. Even so, this study confirmed that the two datasets exhibit different subcategories of lexical bundles in numerous cases. Implicationally, the findings of this study may shed further light on the comprehension of lexical bundles use in preparing related future studies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in English Language and Education
Studies in English Language and Education Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Measuring the English vocabulary acquisition of Japanese learners Linguistic economy and slang as used by Jordanians on Twitter A critical content analysis of writing materials covered in Indonesian high school English textbooks Savoring Sundanese food: A discourse analysis of Instagram’s powerful promotion of Bandung’s culture and culinary The dynamic influence of interactive feedback on elevating EFL students’ writing skills
×
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