Volume 6, Issue 4 (12-2021)
IJREE 2021, 6(4): 106-127 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rajaeian P, Rabbani Yekta R. Comparing Lexical Bundles in Hard Science Lectures; A Case of Native and Non-Native University Lecturers. IJREE 2021; 6 (4)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-605-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-605-en.html
Department of English for Foreign Language, Payame Noor University (PNU)
Abstract: (2663 Views)
Researchers stated that learning and applying certain set of lexical bundles of native lecturers by non-native lecturers would help students improve their proficiency through incidental vocabulary input. The present study shed light on the lexical bundles in hard science lectures used by Native and Non-native lecturers in international universities with the main purpose of analyzing the structural and functional similarities and differences in their usage. The secondary purpose was to finalize and present a list of explored lexical bundles employed by Native lecturers in these lectures which could be helpful for students and also Non-Native lecturers. The corpus of this study consists of five and a half hours of three different native university lecturers’ lectures and about five and a half hours of three different non-native university lecturers’ lectures who were teaching hard science (nuclear physics and electronic engineering). The data were analyzed using n-gram tool in lextutor.ca website which is a free online software to analyze the lexical bundles of more than two corpora and compare them. Functional and structural analysis gave the following results. Findings showed that lexical richness of both Native and Non-Native lecturers was not good enough to expose students to rich environments to help them improve their English proficiency. In light of structural classification, the results revealed that dependent clause fragments in addition to verb structure phrases were the most widespread and Noun phrase + of-phrase fragments were the least employed structures of the identified lexical bundles in the lectures of Non-Native and Native lecturers. In terms of structural analysis, it was concluded that stance bundles were the most frequent function bundles used by both groups. Therefore, there were both similarities and differences in the structural and functional classifications of lexical bundles in the lectures of native and non-native lecturers.
References
1. Ädel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by
2. native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English
3. for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81-92. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004]
4. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: Benjamin. [DOI:10.1075/scl.23]
5. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263-286. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003]
6. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgard, & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora (pp. 181-190). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
7. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at ...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405. [DOI:10.1093/applin/25.3.371]
8. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written
9. English. London: Longman.
10. Chen, L. (2008). An investigation of lexical bundles in electrical engineering
11. introductory textbooks and ESP textbooks. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.
12. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2004). The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56-71. doi: 10.1515/9783484604674.56 [DOI:10.1515/9783484604674.56]
13. Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001]
14. Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397-423. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001]
15. Crossly, S. A., & Salsbury, T. (2011). The development of lexical bundle accuracy and production in English second language speakers. IRAL, 49(1) 1-26. [DOI:10.1515/iral.2011.001]
16. Dang, T. (2018). The nature of vocabulary in academic speech of hard and soft-sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 69-83. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.004]
17. Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143 - 188. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0272263102002024]
18. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2004.12.006]
19. 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, 29, 21-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.002]
20. Fitriati, S, & Wahyuni, S. (2019). Lexical bundles in WhatsApp conversation between native and non-native speakers of English. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 188. [DOI:10.2991/eltlt-18.2019.61]
21. Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2010). Customising a general EAP dictionary to meet learner needs. In Granger, S. & M. Paquot (eds) (2010) eLexicography in the 21st century: New challenges, new applications. Louvain-la-Neuve, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 87-96.
22. Heng, C. S., Kashiha, H., & Tan, H. (2014). Lexical bundles: Facilitating university "Talk" in
23. group discussions. English Language Teaching, 7(4), 1-10. doi:10.5539/elt.v7n4p1 http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n4p1 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v7n4p1]
24. Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001]
25. variation. English For Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
26. Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41-62. [DOI:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x]
27. Hyland, K. (2012). Bundles in Academic Discourse. Annual Review of [DOI:10.1017/S0267190512000037]
28. Applied Linguistics, 32, 150-169. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0267190512000037]
29. Jalali, H., Eslami Rasekh, A., & Tavangar Rizi, M (2008). Lexical bundles and
30. intradisciplinary variation: The case of applied linguistics. Iranian Journal of Language
31. Studies, 2(4), 447-484.
32. Kashiha, H., & Heng, C. S. (2013). An exploration of lexical bundles in academic lectures: Examples from hard and soft sciences. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 10(4), 133-161. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288655820_An_exploration_of_lexical_bundles_in_academic_lectures_Examples_from_hard_and_soft_sciences
33. Kashiha, H., & Heng, C. S. (2014). Discourse functions of formulaic sequences in academic speech across two disciplines. Journal of Language Studies, 14(2), 15-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1402-02 [DOI:10.17576/GEMA-2014-1402-02]
34. Kazemi, M., Katiraei, S., & Rasekh, A. E. (2014). The impact of teaching lexical bundles on improving Iranian EFL students' writing skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(6), 864-869. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.493]
35. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.
36. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
37. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
38. 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. http://journal.asiatefl.org/main/main.php?inx_journals=41&inx_contents=61&main=1&sub=2&submode=3&PageMode=JournalView&s_title=Lexical_Bundles_in_the_Korean_EFL_Teacher_Talk_Corpus_A_Comparison_Between_Non_native_and_Native_English_Teachers
39. Lorenna, M., Fitriati, S., & Widhiyanto. (2020). The comparison of lexical bundles in EFL teachers' talk between non-native and native English teachers. English Educational Journal, 10(1), 69-75. doi: 10.15294/EEJ.V10I1.33830
40. Malik, M. A., Fazal, H., & Moavia, H. (2019). Formulaic language in social sciences: A functional analysis of lexical bundles in native and non-native academic discourse. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 3(1), 234-249. https://pssr.org.pk/issues/v3/1/formulaic-language-in-social-sciences-a-functional-analysis-of-lexical-bundles-in-native-and-non-native-academic-discourse.pdf [DOI:10.35484/pssr.2019(3-I)17]
41. Neely, E., & Cortés, V. (2009). A little bit about: analyzing and teaching lexical bundles in academic lectures. Language Value, 1(1), 17-38. https://www.e-revistes.uji.es/index.php/languagevalue/article/view/4731
42. Nesi, H., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 283-304. doi: [DOI:10.1075/ijcl.11.3.04nes]
43. Rezoug, F., & Vincent, B. (2018). Exploring Lexical Bundles in Algerian Corpus of Engineering. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(4), 47-77. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1207967.pdf
44. Salazar, D. (2014). Lexical bundles in native and non-native scientific writing: Applying a corpus-based study to [DOI:10.1075/scl.65]
45. language teaching (Vol. 65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
46. Schnur, E. (2014). Phraseological signaling of discourse organization in academic lectures: a comparison of lexical bundles in authentic lectures and EAP listening materials. Year Book of Phraseology Journal, 5(1), 95-122. [DOI:10.1515/phras-2014-0005]
47. Shin, Y. K. (2019). Do native writers always have a head start over nonnative writers? The use of lexical bundles in college students' essays. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 40(3), 1-14. https://af.booksc.org/book/75169883/e44527 [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2019.04.004]
48. Tang, E. (2011). Non-native teacher talk as lexical input in the foreign language classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 45-54. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.1.45-54 [DOI:10.4304/jltr.2.1.45-54]
49. Üstünlüoglu, E. (2007). University students' perceptions of native and non-native teachers. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13(1), 63-79. [DOI:10.1080/13540600601106096]
50. VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher's guide to second language acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
51. Vidal, K. (2003). Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 56-89. [DOI:10.1093/applin/24.1.56]
52. VO, S. (2019). Use of lexical features in non-native academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44(3), 1-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2018.11.002]
53. West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English Words: with Semantic Frequencies
54. and a Supplementary Word-List for the Writing of Popular Science and Technology.
55. London: Longman.
56. Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
57. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511519772]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
