Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 23:3 (2018) ► pp.311–334

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

“What are you talking about?”

An analysis of lexical bundles in Japanese junior high school textbooks

 | University of Nottingham
 | University of Nottingham
Published online: 29 October 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16024.nor
Abstract
In a communicative approach to language teaching, students are presented with “authentic” language, which is thought to allow them to produce it in a nativelike way. The current study explores whether the lexical bundles in communicative Japanese junior high school textbooks are representative of conversational English. To do this, we use a corpus-based approach that compares the most frequent lexical bundles in the textbooks to those in an English reference corpus. The study finds that although lexical bundles are very frequent in the textbooks, and conform relatively well to English patterns at shorter lengths (3-word lexical bundles), they deviate considerably at longer ones (4-, 5- and 6-words). This has important implications for the communicative utility of the language in the textbooks.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Lexical bundles in second language learning
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Analysis and results
    • 4.1Overview of lexical bundles
    • 4.2Analysis of frequent lexical bundles
      • 4.2.1Three-word lexical bundles
      • 4.2.2Four-word lexical bundles
      • 4.2.3Five-word lexical bundles
      • 4.2.4Six-word lexical bundles
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (69)
References
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed May 2018)
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (2000). Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (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. Essex: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breeze, R. (2013). Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(2), 229–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, L. (2010). An investigation of lexical bundles in ESP textbooks and electrical engineering introductory textbooks. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language (pp. 107–125). London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Columbus 21 English Course. (2013). Tokyo: Mitsumura Tosho.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 45–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2004). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 201, 56–71.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
Dickinson, P. (2012). Improving second language academic presentations with formulaic sequences. Bulletin of Niigata University of International and Information Studies Department of Information Culture, 151, 25–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Memory for language. In P. J. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 33–68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2013). Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63(1), 25–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 59(4), 363–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Research into practice: The influence of discourse studies on language descriptions and task design in published ELT materials. Language Teaching, 48(4), 506–530. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2013). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagerman, C. (2009). English language policy and practice in Japan. Osaka Jogakuin University, Departmental Bulletin Paper, 61, 47–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hockey, B. A., Rossen-Knill, D., Spejewski, B., Stone, M., & Isard, S. (1997, September). Can you predict answers to Y/N questions? Yes, no and stuff. Paper presented at the Eurospeech 97 Conference, Rhodes, Greece.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Edinburgh: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Isobe, Y. (2011). Representation and processing of formulaic sequences in L2 mental lexicon: How do Japanese EFL learners process multi-word expressions. JACET Kansai Journal, 131, 38–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433–445. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koprowski, M. (2005). Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks. ELT Journal, 59(4), 322–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koya, T. (2004). Collocation research based on corpora collected from secondary school textbooks in Japan and in the UK. Dialogue, 31, 7–18.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. (2004). Formulaic performance in conventionalised varieties of speech. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwon, Y. -E., & Lee, E. -J. (2014). Lexical bundles in the Korean EFL Teacher Talk Corpus: A comparison between non-native and native English teachers. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(3), 73–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McAleese, P. (2013, October). Investigating multi-word items in a contemporary ELT course book. Paper presented at the JALT2012 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo, Japan.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meunier, F. (2012). Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 111–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 40–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrucio, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
New Crown English Series. (2013). Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
New Horizon English Course. (2013). Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nguyen, H., & Ishitobi, N. (2012). Ordering fast food: Service encounters in real-life interaction and in textbook dialogs. JALT Journal, 34(2), 151–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Northbrook, J., & Conklin, K. (in press). Is what you put in what you get out?: Textbook-derived lexical bundle processing in beginner English learners, Applied Linguistics.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogura, F. (2008). Communicative competence and senior high school oral communication textbooks in Japan. The Language Teacher, 32(12), 3–8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
One World English Course. (2013). Tokyo: Kyoiku Shuppan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Language and Communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Römer, U. (2004). Comparing real and ideal language learner input: the use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. In G. Aston, S. Bernardini & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora and Language Learners (pp. 151–168). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R. (2015). The Idiom Principle revisited. Applied Linguistics 36(5):549–569.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Statistic Brain Research Institute (2017). Television Watching Statistics. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed July 2018).
Sunshine English Course. (2013). Tokyo: Kairyudo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2007). Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 433–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Total English New Edition. (2013). Tokyo: Gakko Tosho.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsai, K. -J. (2014). Profiling the collocation use in ELT textbooks and learner writing. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 723–740. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2010). Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 301, 270–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63(1), 91–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, D. (2010). Lexical clusters in an EAP textbook corpus. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language (pp. 88–106). London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, A., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2008). Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language as a gauge of nativelike competence. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 123–147). Amsterdam/New York, NY: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yaoyu, W., & 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
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Li, Ni, Brent Wolter, Lianrui Yang & Anna Siyanova-Chanturia
2025. The effects of textbook frequency, congruency, and word class on the processing of L2 collocations by Chinese EFL learners. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12:1 DOI logo
Mo, Junhua & Peng Bi
2025. Evaluation of Vocabulary Use in EFL Textbooks: Evidence From Curriculum Words. English Teaching & Learning 49:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Song, Yingming & Jiajin Xu
2025. Variation in phrase frame structure and function in argumentative writing by EFL learners across different L1 backgrounds. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 35:1 ► pp. 380 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Jinfen & Fan Ye
2025. Two decades of research on ELT textbook content: A bibliometric and content analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching DOI logo
Hoang, Hien & Peter Crosthwaite
2024. A comparative analysis of multiword units in the reading and listening input of English textbooks. System 121 ► pp. 103224 ff. DOI logo
Ardi, Priyatno, Yacinta Dinda Oktafiani, Nugraheni Widianingtyas, Olga V. Dekhnich & Utami Widiati
2023. Lexical Bundles in Indonesian EFL Textbooks: A Corpus Analysis. Journal of Language and Education 9:2 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Szudarski, Paweł
2023. Collocations, Corpora and Language Learning, DOI logo
Szudarski, Paweł
2025. Vocabulary and Corpora. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
王, 昊
2023. Linguistic and Cultural Content in Foreign Language Textbooks: A Review Study. Modern Linguistics 11:06 ► pp. 2463 ff. DOI logo
Northbrook, Julian, David Allen & Kathy Conklin
2022. ‘Did You See That?’—The Role of Repetition and Enhancement on Lexical Bundle Processing in English Learning Materials. Applied Linguistics 43:3 ► pp. 453 ff. DOI logo
Borro, Ilaria & Silvia Scolaro
2021. Optimal and appropriate input in a second language: The potential of (modified-)elaborated input in distance and classroom learning. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 8:2 ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Bi, Peng
2020. Revisiting genre effects on linguistic features of L2 writing: A usage‐based perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:3 ► pp. 429 ff. DOI logo
Northbrook, Julian & Kathy Conklin
2019. Is What You Put in What You Get Out? —Textbook-derived Lexical Bundle Processing in Beginner English Learners. Applied Linguistics 40:5 ► pp. 816 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue