Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 8:1 (2022) ► pp.1–30

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

“Please let me know”

Lexical bundles in business emails by business English learners and working professionals

 | University of Cincinnati
 | University of Cincinnati
 | University of Cincinnati
Published online: 8 March 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20019.xia
Abstract
Lexical bundles are frequently recurring word sequences (e.g. as can be seen) that function as building blocks of discourse. This corpus-based study examined the use of four-word lexical bundles in business emails written by three groups of writers: intermediate business English learners, advanced business English learners, and working professionals. The prominent structural and functional characteristics of lexical bundles expressed in business emails were identified and compared across the three groups. The results showed that lexical bundles were related to the extent to which formality and politeness were expressed in written business communications. The advanced business English learners and working professionals used more structural and functional characteristics of lexical bundles that are characteristic of written conventions than did intermediate business English learners. Both intermediate and advanced learner groups used functionally different lexical bundles from those produced by the working professionals.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Business emails
    • 2.2Lexical bundles
  • 3.The current study
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Corpus data
    • 4.2Lexical bundle identification
    • 4.3Lexical bundle classification
    • 4.4Statistical analysis
  • 5.Results and discussion
    • 5.1Structural analysis of lexical bundles in the BEL‑B, BEL‑C, and WP corpora
    • 5.2Functional analysis of lexical bundles in the BEL‑B, BEL‑C, and WP corpora
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (47)
References
Aimoldina, A., Zharkynbekova, S., & Akynova, D. (2016). Investigating pragmatic failures in business letters of Kazakhstani professionals. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39 1, 65–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer software]. Waseda University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baron, N. S. (2002). Who sets e-mail style? Prescriptivism, coping strategies, and democratizing communication access. Information Society, 18 (5), 403–413. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bestgen, Y. (2013). Inadequacy of the chi-squared test to examine vocabulary differences between corpora. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29 (2), 164–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Comparing lexical bundles across corpora of different sizes: The Zipfian problem. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 27 (3), 272–290. 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., & 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., Stig, J., Geoffrey, L., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Beckner, C. (2015). Usage-based theory. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press.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 1, 38–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, C. S. C. (2019). Long-term workplace communication needs of business professionals: Stories from Hong Kong senior executives and their implications for ESP and higher education. English for Specific Purposes, 56 1, 68–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Y. H. (2009). Investigating lexical bundles across learner writing development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster University.
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
(2016). Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: Lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics, 37 (6), 849–880.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conrad, S. M., & Biber, D. (2005). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20 1, 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
Evans, S. (2014). Teaching business correspondence: Lessons from the globalised workplace. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 102–120.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2012). Exploiting a corpus of business letters from a phraseological, functional perspective. ReCALL, 24 (2), 152–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forsberg, F., & Bartning, I. (2010). Can linguistic features discriminate between the communicative CEFR-levels? : A pilot study of written L2 French. In I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 133–157). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freytag, V. (2019). Exploring politeness in business emails. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geertzen, J., Alexopoulou, T., & Korhonen, A. (2013). Automatic linguistic annotation of large scale L2 databases: The EF-Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCamDat). In R. T. Miller, K. I. Martin, C. M. Eddington, A. Henery, N. Marcos Miguel, A. M. Tseng, A. Tuninetti, & D. Walter (Eds.), Selected proceeding of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum: Building bridges between disciplines (pp. 240–254). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gimenez, J. C. (2006). Embedded business emails: Meeting new demands in international business communication. English for Specific Purposes, 25 (2), 154–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grabowski, Ł. (2015). Phrase frames in English pharmaceutical discourse: a corpus-driven study of intra-disciplinary register variation. Research in Language, 13 (3), 266–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S. (2018). Formulaic sequences in learner corpora: Collocations and lexical bundles. In A. Siyanova-Chanturia, & A. Pellicer-Sánchez (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 228–247). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Handford, M. (2010). The language of business meetings. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, Y., Murakami, A., Alexopoulou, T., & Korhonen, A. (2018). Dependency parsing of learner English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23 (1), 28–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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
(2018). The essential Hyland: Studies in applied linguistics. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Incelli, E. (2013). Managing discourse in intercultural business email interactions: A case study of a British and Italian business transaction. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34 (6), 515–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A., Karhunen, P., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2018). “English As Corporate Language” in the multilingual reality of multinational companies. Multilingua, 37 (4), 331–351. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2013). “What language does global business speak?” – The concept and development of BELF. Ibérica, 26 (1), 17–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kankaanranta, A., & Planken, B. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge of internationally operating business professionals. Journal of Business Communication, 47 (4), 380–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Z., & Volkov, A. (2017). “To whom it may concern”: A study on the use of lexical bundles in email writing tasks in an English proficiency test. TESL Canada Journal, 34 (3), 54–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Millot, P. (2017). Inclusivity and exclusivity in English as a business lingua franca: The expression of a professional voice in email communication. English for Specific Purposes, 46 1, 59–71. 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, 21 1, 60–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qian, D. D., & Pan, M. (2019). Politeness in business communication: Investigating English modal sequences in Chinese learners’ letter writing. RELC Journal, 50 (1), 20–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.6.3) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ren, C., & Lu, X. (2021). A multi-dimensional analysis of the Management’s Discussion and Analysis narratives in Chinese and American corporate annual reports. English for Specific Purposes, 62 1, 84–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Römer, U. (2009). English in academia: Does nativeness matter? Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 20 (2), 89–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & McClair, A. (2013). Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12 (3), 214–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, S. (2005). Communication for business: A practical approach (4th ed.). Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vergaro, C. (2004). Discourse strategies of Italian and English sales promotion letters. English for Specific Purposes, 23 (2), 181–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, M. (2016). Signalling intertextuality in business emails. English for Specific Purposes, 42 1, 26–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yates, J. A., & Orlikowski, W. (2002). Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communicative norms. Journal of Business Communication, 39 (1), 13–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, W. (2012). Polite requestive strategies in emails: An investigation of pragmatic competence of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 43 (2), 217–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Granger, Sylviane & Magali Paquot
2025. Learner Corpora of Language for Specific Purposes. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gritsenko, Elena & Olivier Kamou
2025. BEYOND CONVENTIONALIZED FORMULAE: A LEXICAL BUNDLE APPROACH TO ANALYZING (IM)POLITENESS. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija 2. Jazykoznanije 24:4 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Paquot, Magali & Hubert Naets
2025. Phraseological sophistication as a multidimensional construct. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 11:1 ► pp. 217 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
Xia, Detong & Matt Kessler
2025. Making Arguments at Lower Proficiencies: Move–Bundle Connection in Korean University Students’ English Argumentative Writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 35:3 ► pp. 1219 ff. DOI logo
Xia, Detong & Hye K. Pae
2025. Understanding “the” in L2 writing: Article use in formulaic sequences among beginning and intermediate Chinese learners of English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 75 ► pp. 101512 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Nan & Zhou Tang
2024. Multi Source Collection Method of Service QoS Data for Intelligent Business English Teaching System. In e-Learning, e-Education, and Online Training [Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, 545], ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Xia, Detong, Mark A. Sulzer & Hye K. Pae
2024. Phrase-frames in business emails: a contrast between learners of business English and working professionals. Text & Talk 44:5 ► pp. 693 ff. DOI logo
Warren, Martin
2023. Researcher commentary on Warren (2013): The prevalence and forms of intertextuality. English for Specific Purposes 71 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Xia, Detong, Yudi Chen & Hye K. Pae
2023. Lexical and grammatical collocations in beginning and intermediate L2 argumentative essays: a bigram study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 61:4 ► pp. 1421 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