Key Lexical Chunks in Applied Linguistics Article Abstracts

Document Type: Research Paper

Author

Semnan University

Abstract

In any discourse domain, certain chunks are particularly frequent and deserve attention by the novice to be initiated and by the expert to maintain a sense of community. To make a relevant contribution to the awareness about applied linguistics texts and discourse, this study attempted to develop lists of lexical chunks frequently used in the abstracts of applied linguistics journals. The abstracts from all the issues of 30 applied linguistics journals which were published before August 1, 2013 were collected. These abstracts which generated a corpus of 2,750,000 words were submitted to the program AntConc for chunk extraction. The long list of chunks in the output was shortlisted based on frequency and inclusiveness of shorter chunks. These were classified into textual and content n-grams. The article also presents the frequent chunks which serve as starting points in bringing up different aspects of research reports. The practical value of the results is briefly discussed at the end of the article.

Keywords


Anthony, L. (2012). AntConc Program (Version 3.3.5) [Computer Software]. Retrieved June 6th, 2013 from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/

Biber, D., & F. Barbieri. (2006). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263-286.

Bloch, J. (2010). A concordance-based study of the use of reporting verbs as rhetorical devices in academic papers. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 219-244.

Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2012). Experimental and Intervention Studies on Formulaic Sequences in a Second Language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 83-110.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.

Croft, W., & A. Cruise. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, A. (2007). An introduction to applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Del Saz, M.M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural. Sciences English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 245-318.

Ellis, N. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (Eds.). The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63-103). Oxford: Blackwell.

Farjami, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of the lexical make-up of applied linguistics article abstracts. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 5(2), 27-50.

Ferguson, C.A. (1994). Dialect, register and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In D. Biber and E. Finegan (Eds.). Sociolinguistic perspective on register (pp.15-30). New York: Oxford University Press.

Flowerdew, J. & M. Peacock, (Eds.). 2001. Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (2005). Rethinking communicative language teaching: A focus on access to fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 325-53.

Gobet, F. (2005). Chunking models of expertise: Implications for education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 183-204.

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1966). Lexis as linguistic level. Journal of Linguistics, 2(1), 57-67.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Hartley, J. (2003) Improving the Clarity of Journal Abstracts in Psychology: The Case for Structure. Science Communication 24(3), 366–79.

Hawes, T., & Thomas, S. (1997). Tense choices in citations. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(3), 393-414.

Hinkel, E. (2004).Tense, aspect and the passive voice in L1 and L2 academic texts. Language Teaching  Research, 8(1), 5-29.

Huckin, T. (2001). Abstracting from abstracts. In M. Hewings (Ed.). Academic Writing in Context (pp. 93-103). Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21.

Jalilifar, A. R. (2010). The status of theme in applied linguistics articles. The Asian ESP Journal, 6(2), 7-39.

James, C. (2007). What is applied linguistics? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 17-32.

Kuhi, D., & Behnam, B. (2011). Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguists: A comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication, 28(1), 97-141.

Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Theory into practice. London: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching Collocations. London: Language Teaching Publications.

Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-309.

Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280-302.

Malaskova, M. (2012). Hedges as writer protective devices in applied linguistics and literary criticism research articles. Discourse and Interaction, 5(1), 31-47.

Martin, P. M. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences.  English for Specific Purposes, 22(1), 25-43.

Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal expression list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299-320.

Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nattinger, J. R., & J. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pho, P. Z. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250.

Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 141-156.

Santos, M. B. (1996). The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics. Text, 16(4), 481-499.

Shin, D., & P. Nation. (2008). Beyond single words: The most frequent collocations in spoken English. ELT Journal 62(4), 339–48.

Simpson-Vlach, R., & N. C. Ellis. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics 31, 487–512.

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tseng, F. (2011). Analysis of move structure and verb tense of research article abstracts in applied linguistics. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 27-39.

Ventola, E. (1994). Abstracts as an object of linguistic study, in S. Cmejrkova, F. Danes & E. Havlova (Eds.). Writing vs. speaking: Language, text, discourse, communication. Proceedings of the conference held at the Czech Language Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, 14-16 October, 1992 (pp. 333-52). Tubingen: G. Narr.

Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385.