Cover not available

Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 47:1 (2024) ► pp.101–122

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Sentence initial lexical bundles in Chinese and New Zealand PhD theses in the discipline of General and Applied Linguistics

ORCiD logo with link | University of Waikato
ORCiD logo with link | Ministry of Education
ORCiD logo with link | University of Waikato
Published online: 21 September 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.21018.li
Abstract
Lexical bundles are recurrent multiword combinations and often function as discourse building blocks. Lexical bundles have been analysed in university students’ writing to detect linguistic errors, measure writing competence, and investigate the divergence between L1 and L2 writing. Few studies, however, have focused on the high-stakes genre of PhD thesis and investigated the bundle productions of the same genre within the same level and discipline. This paper compares sentence initial lexical bundles in the corpora of English theses written by Chinese and New Zealand PhD students in the discipline of General and Applied Linguistics. Forty-six bundles from a Chinese corpus and forty-two bundles from a New Zealand corpus were generated. Among them, 94% of sentence initial bundles were identified as metadiscursive bundles. Chinese and New Zealand doctoral students showed considerably different preferences in their bundle selection. The paper examines the possible impact of these preferences and suggests there is a need to extend the metadiscourse knowledge of doctoral students in terms of lexical bundles.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Corpus collection
    • 2.2Bundle identification
    • 2.3Bundle analysis
  • 3.Sentence initial bundles in thesis writing
    • 3.1Bundle distribution
    • 3.2Interactive bundles
      • 3.2.1Transition bundles
      • 3.2.2Frame bundles
      • 3.2.3Code gloss bundles
      • 3.2.4Endophoric bundles
    • 3.3Interactional bundles
      • 3.3.1Attitude bundles
      • 3.3.2Hedge bundles
      • 3.3.3Booster bundles
      • 3.3.4Self-mention bundles
      • 3.3.5Directive bundles
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion and implications
  • References
References (46)
References
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ädel, A., & Erman, B. (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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (2015). Corpus-based and corpus-driven analysis of language variation and use. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 193–224). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In G. N. Leech, T. McEnery, A. Wilson, & P. Rayson (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune. Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouziri, B. (2021). A tripartite interpersonal model for investigating metadiscourse in academic lectures. Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bychkovska, T., & Lee, J. J. (2017). At the same time: Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 university student argumentative writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30(Supplement C), 38–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Situating lexical bundles in the formulaic language spectrum. In V. Cortes & E. Csomay (Eds.), Corpus-based research in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of Doug Biber (Vol. 661, pp. 197–216). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coxhead, A., & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 129–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dechert, H. W. (1984). Second language production: Six hypotheses. In H. W. Dechert, D. Mohle, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 211–230). Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Esfandiari, R., & Barbary, F. (2017). A contrastive corpus-driven study of lexical bundles between English writers and Persian writers in psychology research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 291, 21–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franken, M. (2014). The nature and scope of student search strategies in using a web derived corpus for writing. The Language Learning Journal, 42 (1), 85–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S. (2018). Tracking the third code: A cross-linguistic corpus-driven approach to metadiscursive markers. In A. Čermáková & M. Mahlberg (Eds.), The corpus linguistics discourse: In honour of Wolfgang Teubert (pp. 185–204). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that …”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 211, 367–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266–285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Bundles in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 150–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (1 ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Participation in publishing: The demoralizing discourse of disadvantage. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 13–33). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscursive nouns: Interaction and cohesion in abstract moves. English for Specific Purposes, 461, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuo, C.-H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, L., Franken, M., & Wu, S. (2018). Chinese postgraduates’ explanation of the sources of sentence initial bundles in their thesis writing. RELC Journal, 50(1), 37–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, X., & Deng, J. (2019). With the rapid development: A contrastive analysis of lexical bundles in dissertation abstracts by Chinese and L1 English doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 391, 21–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pan, F., Reppen, R., & Biber, D. (2016). Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 211, 60–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pearson, H. (2020). Attitude verbs. In D. Gutzmann, L. Matthewson, C. Meier, H. Rullmann, & T. E. Zimmerman (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. John Wiley & Sons Inc.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 141, 84–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1989). Clear and coherent prose: A functional approach. Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wei, Y., & Lei, L. (2011). Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 42(2), 155–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. M., & Bizup, J. (2014). Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (11th ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witten, I. H., Wu, S., Li, L., & Whisler, J. L. (2013). The book of FLAX: A new approach to computer-assisted language learning (2nd ed.). University of Waikato.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 23–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue