Volume 34, Issue 9 (12-2023)
Studies in Medical Sciences 2023, 34(9): 535-551 |
Back to browse issues page
Research code: A-10-3712-2
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Gholami J, Goodarzi R, Abdollahpour Z. A REVIEW OF LEXICAL BUNDLES IN RESEARCH ARTICLES ACROSS HARD SCIENCES DISCIPLINES INCLUDING MEDICAL SCIENCES. Studies in Medical Sciences 2023; 34 (9) :535-551
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-6010-en.html
URL: http://umj.umsu.ac.ir/article-1-6010-en.html
Department of English Language, Sarab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab, Iran , j.gholami@urmia.ac.ir
Full-Text [PDF 452 kb]
(1058 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (1812 Views)
Table 1. Description of the corpus
Table 2. The top 10 most frequent lexical bundles across different hard-science disciplines
Full-Text: (306 Views)
Introduction
Individuals who speak English as a second language need to develop a high competence in it due mainly to the fact that it constitutes the most frequently used international language in academic and occupational settings. A number of researchers have stated that most universities prompt their students to publish their papers in quality journals owing to the impact of these publications on their international rank (1-3). Consequently, the researchers have experienced diverse difficulties due to the necessity of publishing their articles in the above-mentioned journals. As Belcher (2007) pointed out, the researchers’ situation is further exacerbated because of the lack of access to important resources and the lack of peer support (4, 5).
The development of writing skills in academic settings depends on the learners’ ability to use the LBs in an efficacious way (6). Moreover, the learners’ knowledge of second language vocabulary can provide information on their stage of writing ability development (7). It can be argued that the learners’ capability to take advantage of LBs in their writing tasks has an advantageous impact on their ability to form discourse pieces that are characteristic of various scientific disciplines (8). LBs are regarded as the constitutes of academic texts that reflect the writers’ competence in their relevant field of knowledge (9-11). This issue highlights the fact that the instructors who provide English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students with writing instruction should provide their learners with adequate information on the LBs which are integral parts of the texts in their pertinent disciplines.
Literature Review
English for Medical Purposes and LBs:
As some researchers pointed out English for Medical Purposes (EMP) has been developed due mainly to the fact that the information on medicine-related professions has been widely disseminated (12). EMP refers to the field of knowledge that provides people with medicine-related jobs with English instruction. This field of knowledge makes an effort to deal with the unique English-related needs of professionals in medicine-related fields. Moreover, it endeavors to make these professionals familiar with the underlying topics in medicine-related fields. Lastly, it tries to enable these professionals to develop the specific English-related skills that are essential to their field (13). The relevant research has focused on the instruction of medical vocabulary since it fulfills a consequential role in medical texts. The medical students’ knowledge of the aforementioned vocabulary items empowers them to express their intentions effectively in English and improves the comprehension of their sources that have been written in English. Furthermore, this kind of knowledge has a beneficial impact on the learners’ understanding of the content of the lectures that are given in English (14). It can be argued that the medical students’ lack of knowledge of the etymology of the medical vocabulary may hinder their understanding of various words in medicine-related texts (15). This issue highlights the fact that EMP instructors need to provide their learners with information on the morphology of medicine-related vocabulary in their relevant academic settings (16).
The concept of LB has fulfilled an important role in Applied Linguistics and EAP research since its development (6, 17, 18). LBs constitute an underlying aspect of communication and refer to the co-occurring sets of words whose co-occurrence frequency has been supported by statistical evidence (17, 19). In other words, LBs refer to the groups of words which are frequently used with each other and provide information on their users’ social, academic, and occupational identity (e.g., in the present study, it is possible that) (20, 21).
The importance of LBs stems from their functions in the discourse of various academic fields (22-24). Biber et al. (1999) noted that LBs constitute 21% of academic texts (17). Moreover, as they noted, 17% of these LBs recur throughout these texts. This issue highlights the importance of LBs in the above-mentioned texts, shows that their appropriate use reflects the writes’ expertise in their relevant field of knowledge and highlights their partnership in the relevant community of discourse (20, 22). Nonetheless, the multi-word structure of LBs tends to have a detrimental impact on language learners’ acquisition and use of various LBs in their writing tasks (25-27). These difficulties stem from the learners’ lack of knowledge about their relevant register and their inability to use the pertinent words of their register in an appropriate way (28). As Hyland (2012) pointed out, the importance of LBs stems from the fact that they enable the writers to use the language accurately and fluently (29). Moreover, they highlight the fact that their users are experts in their relevant disciplines.
Biber et al. (2004) stated that LBs can be classified into four main categories including the LBs that involve noun phrases (e.g., the results of this), prepositional phrases (e.g., in the present study), verb phrases (e.g., play a role in), and dependent clauses (e.g., it should be noted that) (22). Consequently, LBs involve either clauses or phrases. As it is pointed out, LBs can be used to organize discourse (e.g., on the other hand), highlight stance (e.g., were more likely to), and demonstrate references (e.g., there was no significant) (22).
The research on LBs has become a major line of research in first and second language studies. Biber et al. (2009) pointed out that, the interest in LBs stems from their role in the learners’ writing ability (30). Nonetheless, as Hyland (2012) stated, the relevant research studies of LBs have disregarded the examination of their discipline-related variability (31). For instance, the results of the study that was conducted by Cortes (2004) indicated that the types and functions of the LBs that were used in the fields of biology and history differed (22). Likewise, Hyland (2008) noted that many of the LBs were characteristic of specific fields and their forms and functions varied greatly from discipline to discipline (32). In this regard, based on their research of a sizeable corpus of spoken English, Simpson-Vlach and Ellis (2010) created a list of LBs that were employed in the hard and soft sciences (33). Similarly, Garboswski (2015) examined the functions of the LBs that were utilized in pharmacy-related textbooks and protocols (34). The results of this study highlighted the existence of differences between the above-mentioned texts due mainly to their topics.
In addition, the results of the study that was carried out by Durant (2017) highlighted the fact that the language learners’ use of LBs was the most noticeable aspect of the variation among different fields of knowledge (35). Likewise, the findings of Kwary et al.’s (2017) study showed that the learners used the largest and the smallest numbers of LBs in the physical sciences and health sciences respectively (36).
Furthermore, Chen's (2019) study's findings demonstrated that advanced English language learners were competent in using a wide range of LBs when completing essay-writing tasks (37). Likewise, Yin and Li (2021) carried out a study to determine the formal and functional characteristics of the language learners’ LBs in the fields of accounting and finance (38). The results of this study indicated that there were some overlaps and differences between the forms and functions of LBs in the above-mentioned fields.
Evidence suggests that LBs or subject-specific vocabulary have significant roles in evaluating students' academic writing (39) and promoting academic discourses (40, 41). Therefore, due to the formulaic structure of scholarly writing and the challenges learners have in employing these sequences effectively, learners need to be acquainted with the sequences accompanying the communicative functions of scholarly writing (42). It would seem appropriate to publish an updated review given the rising use of bundles in RAs. Accordingly, the present study reviews the highly frequent four-word bundles in a variety of hard sciences fields including medical sciences.
The study made an effort to provide answers to the following query:
What is the most frequently employed list of the general academic four-word lexical bundles in hard sciences research articles?
Methodology
The search generated 100 empirical RAs that have
been done to extract top-frequency four-word LBs in a variety of hard-science fields. The collected RAs were published from 2008 to 2021. Selecting the articles were based on the following inclusion criteria: 1- they had to be investigating LBs in different sections of research articles of the hard sciences fields; 2- they were empirical studies; and 3- they adhered to Swales’ (2004) IMRD framework including Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion.
Different databases including Elsevier, John Benjamin’s, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Oxford University Press, etc., comprised the sources of the RAs corpus (see Table 1 for a complete description of the corpus). To retrieve appropriate RAs, the main keywords “English for Medical Purposes”, “hard sciences”, “lexical bundles”, and “research articles” were used. The articles were individually double-checked by two researchers. Following this, inter-rater reliability was determined and the results revealed 91% agreement between the two raters in terms of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fifteen RAs were excluded and a final list of 85 RAs was prepared for the evaluation. This amount seemed reasonable given that we sought to analyze in depth a substantial number of high-quality empirical studies.
The last step was synthesizing findings: Finally, we synthesized our findings to answer our research question. This identified a list of the general academic 4-word LBs in the various sections of hard sciences RAs. We also discussed implications for teaching academic writing in hard sciences including medical sciences or for future research in this area.
Individuals who speak English as a second language need to develop a high competence in it due mainly to the fact that it constitutes the most frequently used international language in academic and occupational settings. A number of researchers have stated that most universities prompt their students to publish their papers in quality journals owing to the impact of these publications on their international rank (1-3). Consequently, the researchers have experienced diverse difficulties due to the necessity of publishing their articles in the above-mentioned journals. As Belcher (2007) pointed out, the researchers’ situation is further exacerbated because of the lack of access to important resources and the lack of peer support (4, 5).
The development of writing skills in academic settings depends on the learners’ ability to use the LBs in an efficacious way (6). Moreover, the learners’ knowledge of second language vocabulary can provide information on their stage of writing ability development (7). It can be argued that the learners’ capability to take advantage of LBs in their writing tasks has an advantageous impact on their ability to form discourse pieces that are characteristic of various scientific disciplines (8). LBs are regarded as the constitutes of academic texts that reflect the writers’ competence in their relevant field of knowledge (9-11). This issue highlights the fact that the instructors who provide English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students with writing instruction should provide their learners with adequate information on the LBs which are integral parts of the texts in their pertinent disciplines.
Literature Review
English for Medical Purposes and LBs:
As some researchers pointed out English for Medical Purposes (EMP) has been developed due mainly to the fact that the information on medicine-related professions has been widely disseminated (12). EMP refers to the field of knowledge that provides people with medicine-related jobs with English instruction. This field of knowledge makes an effort to deal with the unique English-related needs of professionals in medicine-related fields. Moreover, it endeavors to make these professionals familiar with the underlying topics in medicine-related fields. Lastly, it tries to enable these professionals to develop the specific English-related skills that are essential to their field (13). The relevant research has focused on the instruction of medical vocabulary since it fulfills a consequential role in medical texts. The medical students’ knowledge of the aforementioned vocabulary items empowers them to express their intentions effectively in English and improves the comprehension of their sources that have been written in English. Furthermore, this kind of knowledge has a beneficial impact on the learners’ understanding of the content of the lectures that are given in English (14). It can be argued that the medical students’ lack of knowledge of the etymology of the medical vocabulary may hinder their understanding of various words in medicine-related texts (15). This issue highlights the fact that EMP instructors need to provide their learners with information on the morphology of medicine-related vocabulary in their relevant academic settings (16).
The concept of LB has fulfilled an important role in Applied Linguistics and EAP research since its development (6, 17, 18). LBs constitute an underlying aspect of communication and refer to the co-occurring sets of words whose co-occurrence frequency has been supported by statistical evidence (17, 19). In other words, LBs refer to the groups of words which are frequently used with each other and provide information on their users’ social, academic, and occupational identity (e.g., in the present study, it is possible that) (20, 21).
The importance of LBs stems from their functions in the discourse of various academic fields (22-24). Biber et al. (1999) noted that LBs constitute 21% of academic texts (17). Moreover, as they noted, 17% of these LBs recur throughout these texts. This issue highlights the importance of LBs in the above-mentioned texts, shows that their appropriate use reflects the writes’ expertise in their relevant field of knowledge and highlights their partnership in the relevant community of discourse (20, 22). Nonetheless, the multi-word structure of LBs tends to have a detrimental impact on language learners’ acquisition and use of various LBs in their writing tasks (25-27). These difficulties stem from the learners’ lack of knowledge about their relevant register and their inability to use the pertinent words of their register in an appropriate way (28). As Hyland (2012) pointed out, the importance of LBs stems from the fact that they enable the writers to use the language accurately and fluently (29). Moreover, they highlight the fact that their users are experts in their relevant disciplines.
Biber et al. (2004) stated that LBs can be classified into four main categories including the LBs that involve noun phrases (e.g., the results of this), prepositional phrases (e.g., in the present study), verb phrases (e.g., play a role in), and dependent clauses (e.g., it should be noted that) (22). Consequently, LBs involve either clauses or phrases. As it is pointed out, LBs can be used to organize discourse (e.g., on the other hand), highlight stance (e.g., were more likely to), and demonstrate references (e.g., there was no significant) (22).
The research on LBs has become a major line of research in first and second language studies. Biber et al. (2009) pointed out that, the interest in LBs stems from their role in the learners’ writing ability (30). Nonetheless, as Hyland (2012) stated, the relevant research studies of LBs have disregarded the examination of their discipline-related variability (31). For instance, the results of the study that was conducted by Cortes (2004) indicated that the types and functions of the LBs that were used in the fields of biology and history differed (22). Likewise, Hyland (2008) noted that many of the LBs were characteristic of specific fields and their forms and functions varied greatly from discipline to discipline (32). In this regard, based on their research of a sizeable corpus of spoken English, Simpson-Vlach and Ellis (2010) created a list of LBs that were employed in the hard and soft sciences (33). Similarly, Garboswski (2015) examined the functions of the LBs that were utilized in pharmacy-related textbooks and protocols (34). The results of this study highlighted the existence of differences between the above-mentioned texts due mainly to their topics.
In addition, the results of the study that was carried out by Durant (2017) highlighted the fact that the language learners’ use of LBs was the most noticeable aspect of the variation among different fields of knowledge (35). Likewise, the findings of Kwary et al.’s (2017) study showed that the learners used the largest and the smallest numbers of LBs in the physical sciences and health sciences respectively (36).
Furthermore, Chen's (2019) study's findings demonstrated that advanced English language learners were competent in using a wide range of LBs when completing essay-writing tasks (37). Likewise, Yin and Li (2021) carried out a study to determine the formal and functional characteristics of the language learners’ LBs in the fields of accounting and finance (38). The results of this study indicated that there were some overlaps and differences between the forms and functions of LBs in the above-mentioned fields.
Evidence suggests that LBs or subject-specific vocabulary have significant roles in evaluating students' academic writing (39) and promoting academic discourses (40, 41). Therefore, due to the formulaic structure of scholarly writing and the challenges learners have in employing these sequences effectively, learners need to be acquainted with the sequences accompanying the communicative functions of scholarly writing (42). It would seem appropriate to publish an updated review given the rising use of bundles in RAs. Accordingly, the present study reviews the highly frequent four-word bundles in a variety of hard sciences fields including medical sciences.
The study made an effort to provide answers to the following query:
What is the most frequently employed list of the general academic four-word lexical bundles in hard sciences research articles?
Methodology
The search generated 100 empirical RAs that have
been done to extract top-frequency four-word LBs in a variety of hard-science fields. The collected RAs were published from 2008 to 2021. Selecting the articles were based on the following inclusion criteria: 1- they had to be investigating LBs in different sections of research articles of the hard sciences fields; 2- they were empirical studies; and 3- they adhered to Swales’ (2004) IMRD framework including Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion.
Different databases including Elsevier, John Benjamin’s, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Oxford University Press, etc., comprised the sources of the RAs corpus (see Table 1 for a complete description of the corpus). To retrieve appropriate RAs, the main keywords “English for Medical Purposes”, “hard sciences”, “lexical bundles”, and “research articles” were used. The articles were individually double-checked by two researchers. Following this, inter-rater reliability was determined and the results revealed 91% agreement between the two raters in terms of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fifteen RAs were excluded and a final list of 85 RAs was prepared for the evaluation. This amount seemed reasonable given that we sought to analyze in depth a substantial number of high-quality empirical studies.
The last step was synthesizing findings: Finally, we synthesized our findings to answer our research question. This identified a list of the general academic 4-word LBs in the various sections of hard sciences RAs. We also discussed implications for teaching academic writing in hard sciences including medical sciences or for future research in this area.
Table 1. Description of the corpus
| Publisher | Journal Title | No. of articles | Year |
| Elsevier | Journal of English for Academic Purposes | 18 | 2008-2021 |
| English for Specific Purposes | 16 | 2008-2021 | |
| John Benjamins | International Journal of Corpus Linguistics | 7 | 2008-2021 |
| Oxford University Press | Applied Linguistics | 7 | 2008-2021 |
| Sage | Language Teaching Research | 6 | 2008-2021 |
| Sage Open | 9 | 2008-2021 | |
| Springer | Educational Studies in Mathematics | 3 | 2008-2021 |
| Taylor & Francis | Journal of World Languages | 5 | 2008-2021 |
| Language Studies | 2008-2021 | ||
| Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies | 9 | 2008-2021 | |
| TESOL Asia (Australia) and the English Language Education Journal group | Asian ESP Journal | 3 | 2008-2021 |
| University of Murcia Press | International Journal of English Studies | 2 | 2008-2021 |
| Total | 85 | - |
Results
The current study endeavored to determine the top-frequency general LBs across different hard-science disciplines to enable the syllabus designers to take advantage of them in the development of instructional materials (see Table 2) (22, 24, 34, 43-45). Additionally, it offered a list of the general academic 4-word bundles in the various sections of hard sciences RAs (24, 25, 34, 43, 46-48). (see Appendix A for the complete list of the LBs).
The current study endeavored to determine the top-frequency general LBs across different hard-science disciplines to enable the syllabus designers to take advantage of them in the development of instructional materials (see Table 2) (22, 24, 34, 43-45). Additionally, it offered a list of the general academic 4-word bundles in the various sections of hard sciences RAs (24, 25, 34, 43, 46-48). (see Appendix A for the complete list of the LBs).
Table 2. The top 10 most frequent lexical bundles across different hard-science disciplines
| Study | lexical bundles (Tokens) | discipline |
| Abdollahpour & Gholami (2018) | this study was to 220, of this study was 216, the aim of this 114, the purpose of this 107, aim of this study 100, purpose of this study 97, in this study we 62, the objective of this 58, study was to evaluate 54, objective of this study 53 | Medical sciences |
| Cortes (2004) | at the same time 144, in the absence of 111, the end of the 107, on the other hand 80, as a function of 88, as well as the 73, on the basis of 71, in the case of 62, at the end of 60, on the one hand 50 | Biology |
| Grabowski (2015) | the dose should be 434, with other medicinal products 392, ability to drive and 368, to drive and use 364, drive and use machines 362, date of first authorization 361, be used with caution 350, should be used with 320, dose should be reduced 319, every one or two 298 | English pharmaceutical texts |
| Hyland (2008a) | on the other hand, 726, at the same time 337, in the case of 334, the end of the 258, as well as the 253, at the end of 252, in terms of the 251, on the basis of 247, in the present study 225, is one of the 209 | Electrical engineering & microbiology and business & applied linguistics. |
| Jalilifar et al. (2017) | at the end of the198, in the case of the 151, as a result of the 137, on the other hand the 134, on the basis of the 114, due to the fact that 108, one of the most important 102, it should be noted that 100, at the same time the 98 | Sciences (Agricultural science, General Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, and Computer science) |
| Qi & Pan (2020) | of this study was to 352, the aim of this 205, aim of this study 189, the primary outcome was 187, were randomly assigned to 145, the purpose of this 127, the primary endpoint was 117, were included in the 102, were more likely to 82, study was to investigate 71 | Medical sciences |
| Yin & Li (2021) | are more likely to 349, we find that the 229, we find that the 192, the extent to which 144, in table panel a 124, is consistent with the 115, results are consistent with 103, are less likely to 99, more likely to be 97, is positive and significant 95 | Biology |
Note: The superscript numbers indicate the frequency of each bundle
As shown in Table 2, a few instances of four-word LBs are distributed across different disciplines (e.g., as well as, at the end of, on the basis of). This finding highlights the fact that, in each discipline, the experts utilize unique LBs due mainly to the fact that these LBs constitute a major aspect of their communicative competence in their relevant field (24).
Discussion
A bulk of studies have highlighted that various feature of the language are characteristic of specific fields of knowledge. The findings of these researches suggest that there is a need to make learners in various disciplines familiar with the relevant features of their discipline-specific discourse (24). As it is noted, the particular sequences of words in our produced language are related to our values and show our group membership (49). Likewise, other researchers pointed out that, our utilized LBs reflect our membership in certain discourse communities (50). Members of a given academic community use domain-specific LBs to create specialized discourse that is only understood by members of that community and may be difficult for members of other disciplinary domains to understand (48) .
It can be concluded that LBs vary from discipline to disciple in academic writing (25, 32, 51). Consequently, the hard sciences instructors have to make their learners aware of the differences among various disciplines in terms of their LBs and need to provide them with information on the most frequent LBs in their pertinent field of knowledge.
Clausal bundles, according to Biber et al. (1999), are composed of VP-based bundles that integrate significant clauses, while phrasal bundles are mainly comprised of NPs and PPs. Previous studies (25, 27, 30, 32, 52, 53) have provided evidence that discussion comprises a considerably higher proportion of clausal statements (e.g., I want you to), which are defining elements of conversations (30). On the other hand, a significant portion of the LBs in academic genre are phrasal such as at the end of, on the basis of. The findings of the current review article are in line with those of previous studies. It is argued that compressed phrasal bundles are more favored compared to elaborated clausal bundles in the academic genre since “they are more economical; they allow for faster, more efficient reading; they are equally comprehensible to the expert reader” (27). As their writing skills advance, writers are thought to switch from clausal to phrasal structures (27, 52). Higher proficiency research authors were shown to depend mainly on phrasal than clausal structures (54, 55).
Functional analysis of the corpus revealed that hard sciences RAs showed a strong preference for referential bundles than stance expressions and discourse organizers which is consistent with some previous studies (20, 24, 25, 34, 50, 52). Biber et al. (2004) found that whereas academic writing and textbooks contain more referential bundles (e.g., one of the most), conversations typically rely on stance bundles (e.g., I don't know what). The reason for these discrepancies, according to Conrad and Biber (2005) (56), is that spoken language places more emphasis on interpersonal interactions while academic writings place a greater emphasis on conveying essentially factual information. Referential bundles serve an ideational purpose by assisting writers in organizing their experiences and choosing their points of view (25).
Our analysis demonstrates that a bulk of empirical studies have just descriptively investigated LBs in the academic genre. It is high time to convert these empirical studies into pedagogical activities through explicit genre-based instruction and engage learners in discipline-specific writing tasks to create field-specific genre literacy. Bundles are extremely challenging for L2 learners to learn (57), hence it is important to concentrate on and teach these sequences in academic writing classes.
The retrieved list of bundles can be used as a reference list of highly frequent general LBs when teaching academic writing, especially for novice researchers and graduate students in hard sciences, as well as resource developers and academic writing course instructors in EMP (22, 24, 34, 47, 48, 58). The extracted list of LBs in different hard and soft sciences can be seen as a crucial aspect of ‘essayist literacy’ (59). We think that corpus-driven bundle lists will be useful for introducing novice students to the reading and writing of discipline-specific genre in hard sciences. The EAP community would be able to further adjust and enhance academic vocabulary teaching and learning with the use of these lists (60). Academic Writing instructors should instruct students to apply previously taught or encountered sequences of LBs again in subsequent speaking or writing tasks to promote their efficient retrieval (61). The review revealed that to date, numerous studies have been conducted on lists of discipline-specific LBs in various hard and soft sciences RAs, but no study has specifically focused on their instructions. Further research must be done, with an emphasis on teaching the list of LBs in EAP courses and assisting students in mastering both general and discipline-specific bundles.
Conclusion
This study strived to determine the top-frequency LBs in the articles of various fields of hard sciences including medical sciences. It also offered a list of the general academic 4-word lexical bundles in hard sciences RAs. The review of the related literature highlighted the fact that formulaic sequences constituted an integral part of academic writing. Furthermore, based on the results, the genre was a determining factor in the writers’ use of LBs that were characteristic of their discipline(24). The EAP instructors should take account of the specific LBs in their relevant discipline and need to make their learners familiar with their discipline-specific vocabulary to help them to develop satisfactory academic writing competence (62).
A few limitations of this study should be pointed out and remedied in future studies. First, we only examined a limited number of hard-science disciplines’ research articles, thus our findings cannot be generalized to other disciplines. Since there is a dearth of research in this area, lexical bundles in other fields deserve further study. Second, because our corpus only contained 85 RAs, its findings should be interpreted with caution, and more studies are required to support our findings.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their deepest gratitude to all healthcare personnel at Urmia University of Medical Sciences.
Source of funding
No Funding for This Research.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data availability
The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Discussion
A bulk of studies have highlighted that various feature of the language are characteristic of specific fields of knowledge. The findings of these researches suggest that there is a need to make learners in various disciplines familiar with the relevant features of their discipline-specific discourse (24). As it is noted, the particular sequences of words in our produced language are related to our values and show our group membership (49). Likewise, other researchers pointed out that, our utilized LBs reflect our membership in certain discourse communities (50). Members of a given academic community use domain-specific LBs to create specialized discourse that is only understood by members of that community and may be difficult for members of other disciplinary domains to understand (48) .
It can be concluded that LBs vary from discipline to disciple in academic writing (25, 32, 51). Consequently, the hard sciences instructors have to make their learners aware of the differences among various disciplines in terms of their LBs and need to provide them with information on the most frequent LBs in their pertinent field of knowledge.
Clausal bundles, according to Biber et al. (1999), are composed of VP-based bundles that integrate significant clauses, while phrasal bundles are mainly comprised of NPs and PPs. Previous studies (25, 27, 30, 32, 52, 53) have provided evidence that discussion comprises a considerably higher proportion of clausal statements (e.g., I want you to), which are defining elements of conversations (30). On the other hand, a significant portion of the LBs in academic genre are phrasal such as at the end of, on the basis of. The findings of the current review article are in line with those of previous studies. It is argued that compressed phrasal bundles are more favored compared to elaborated clausal bundles in the academic genre since “they are more economical; they allow for faster, more efficient reading; they are equally comprehensible to the expert reader” (27). As their writing skills advance, writers are thought to switch from clausal to phrasal structures (27, 52). Higher proficiency research authors were shown to depend mainly on phrasal than clausal structures (54, 55).
Functional analysis of the corpus revealed that hard sciences RAs showed a strong preference for referential bundles than stance expressions and discourse organizers which is consistent with some previous studies (20, 24, 25, 34, 50, 52). Biber et al. (2004) found that whereas academic writing and textbooks contain more referential bundles (e.g., one of the most), conversations typically rely on stance bundles (e.g., I don't know what). The reason for these discrepancies, according to Conrad and Biber (2005) (56), is that spoken language places more emphasis on interpersonal interactions while academic writings place a greater emphasis on conveying essentially factual information. Referential bundles serve an ideational purpose by assisting writers in organizing their experiences and choosing their points of view (25).
Our analysis demonstrates that a bulk of empirical studies have just descriptively investigated LBs in the academic genre. It is high time to convert these empirical studies into pedagogical activities through explicit genre-based instruction and engage learners in discipline-specific writing tasks to create field-specific genre literacy. Bundles are extremely challenging for L2 learners to learn (57), hence it is important to concentrate on and teach these sequences in academic writing classes.
The retrieved list of bundles can be used as a reference list of highly frequent general LBs when teaching academic writing, especially for novice researchers and graduate students in hard sciences, as well as resource developers and academic writing course instructors in EMP (22, 24, 34, 47, 48, 58). The extracted list of LBs in different hard and soft sciences can be seen as a crucial aspect of ‘essayist literacy’ (59). We think that corpus-driven bundle lists will be useful for introducing novice students to the reading and writing of discipline-specific genre in hard sciences. The EAP community would be able to further adjust and enhance academic vocabulary teaching and learning with the use of these lists (60). Academic Writing instructors should instruct students to apply previously taught or encountered sequences of LBs again in subsequent speaking or writing tasks to promote their efficient retrieval (61). The review revealed that to date, numerous studies have been conducted on lists of discipline-specific LBs in various hard and soft sciences RAs, but no study has specifically focused on their instructions. Further research must be done, with an emphasis on teaching the list of LBs in EAP courses and assisting students in mastering both general and discipline-specific bundles.
Conclusion
This study strived to determine the top-frequency LBs in the articles of various fields of hard sciences including medical sciences. It also offered a list of the general academic 4-word lexical bundles in hard sciences RAs. The review of the related literature highlighted the fact that formulaic sequences constituted an integral part of academic writing. Furthermore, based on the results, the genre was a determining factor in the writers’ use of LBs that were characteristic of their discipline(24). The EAP instructors should take account of the specific LBs in their relevant discipline and need to make their learners familiar with their discipline-specific vocabulary to help them to develop satisfactory academic writing competence (62).
A few limitations of this study should be pointed out and remedied in future studies. First, we only examined a limited number of hard-science disciplines’ research articles, thus our findings cannot be generalized to other disciplines. Since there is a dearth of research in this area, lexical bundles in other fields deserve further study. Second, because our corpus only contained 85 RAs, its findings should be interpreted with caution, and more studies are required to support our findings.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their deepest gratitude to all healthcare personnel at Urmia University of Medical Sciences.
Source of funding
No Funding for This Research.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data availability
The datasets during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Type of Study: Review article |
Subject:
Medical Information
References
1. Flowerdew L. A genre-inspired and lexico-grammatical approach for helping postgraduate students craft research grant proposals. Engl Spec Purp 2016;42:1-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2015.10.001]
2. Li Y, Flowerdew J. Teaching English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP): A review of language teachers' pedagogical initiatives. Engl Spec Purp 2020;59:29-41. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.002]
3. Zeng Z, Chau F-t, Chan H-y, Cheung C-y, Lau T-y, Wei S, et al. Recent advances in the compound-oriented and pattern-oriented approaches to the quality control of herbal medicines. Chinese Med 2008;3(1):1-7. [DOI:10.1186/1749-8546-3-9] [PMID] []
4. Hyland K. ESP and writing. The handbook of English for specific purposes. 2012:95-113. [DOI:10.1002/9781118339855.ch5]
5. Belcher DD. Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. J Second Lang Writ 2007;16(1):1-22. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001]
6. Kim S, Kessler M. Examining L2 English University students' uses of lexical bundles and their relationship to writing quality. Assess Writ 2022;51:100589. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2021.100589]
7. Frank SL, Ernst P. Judgements about double-embedded relative clauses differ between languages. Psychol Res 2019;83(7):1581-93. [DOI:10.1007/s00426-018-1014-7] [PMID] []
8. Esfandiari R, Barbary F. A contrastive corpus-driven study of lexical bundles between English writers and Persian writers in psychology research articles. J Engl Acad Purp 2017;29:21-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2017.09.002]
9. Coxhead A, Byrd P. Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose. J Second Lang Writ 2007;16(3):129-47. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.002]
10. Li J, Schmitt N. The development of collocation use in academic texts by advanced L2 learners: A multiple case study approach. Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication. 2010:22-46. [Google Scholar]
11. Santos T. Professors' reactions to the academic writing of nonnative‐speaking students. Tesol Q 1988;22(1):69-90. [DOI:10.2307/3587062]
12. Piroozan A, Boushehri E, Fazeli R. A review of English for medical purposes for Iranian EFL learners. J Adv Engl Lang Teach 2016;4(2):pp. 24-9. [Google Scholar]
13. Maher J. The development of English as an international language of medicine. Appl Linguist 1986;7(2):206-18. [DOI:10.1093/applin/7.2.206]
14. Hwang Y, Lin S. A study of medical students' linguistic needs in Taiwan. Asian ESP J 2010;6(1):35-58. [Google Scholar]
15. Džuganová B. English medical terminology-different ways of forming medical terms. Jahr: Europski časopis za bioetiku. 2013;4(1):55-69. [Google Scholar]
16. Le CNN, Miller J. A corpus-based list of commonly used English medical morphemes for students learning English for specific purposes. Engl Spec Purp 2020;58:102-21. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2020.01.004]
17. Cortes V. Lexical bundles in freshman composition. Using corpora to explore linguistic variation. Torossa 2002;9:131-45. [DOI:10.1075/scl.9.09cor]
18. Nattinger JR, DeCarrico JS. Lexical phrases and language teaching: Oxford University Press; 1992. [Google Scholar]
19. Granger S, Meunier F. Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective: John Benjamins Publishing; 2008. [DOI:10.1075/z.139]
20. Biber D, Barbieri F. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. Engl spec Purp 2007;26(3):263-86. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003]
21. Wray A, Perkins MR. The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Lang Commun 2000;20(1):1-28. [DOI:10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00015-4]
22. Biber D, Conrad S, Cortes V. If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Appl Linguist 2004;25(3):371-405. [DOI:10.1093/applin/25.3.371]
23. Bestgen Y, Granger S. Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. J Second Lang Writ 2014;26:28-41. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.004]
24. Hyland K. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. Engl spec Purp 2008;27(1):4-21. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001]
25. Cortes V. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. Engl spec Purp 2004;23(4):397-423. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001]
26. Gené-Gil M, Juan-Garau M, Salazar-Noguera J. Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Lang Learn J 2015;43(3):286-303. [DOI:10.1080/09571736.2015.1053278]
27. Staples S, Egbert J, Biber D, McClair A. Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. J Engl Acad Purp 2013;12(3):214-25. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2013.05.002]
28. Gilquin G, Granger S, Paquot M. Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. J Engl Acad Purp 2007;6(4):319-35. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.007]
29. Hyland K, Jiang F. Academic lexical bundles: How are they changing? Int J Corpus Linguistics 2018;23(4):383-407. [DOI:10.1075/ijcl.17080.hyl]
30. Biber D. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. Int J Corpus Linguistics 2009;14(3):275-311. [DOI:10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib]
31. Hyland K. Bundles in academic discourse. Ann Rev Appl Linguist 2012;32:150-69. [DOI:10.1017/S0267190512000037]
32. Hyland K. Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. Int J Appl Linguist 2008;18(1):41-62. [DOI:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x]
33. Simpson-Vlach R, Ellis NC. An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Appl Linguisti 2010;31(4):487-512. [DOI:10.1093/applin/amp058]
34. Grabowski Ł. Keywords and lexical bundles within English pharmaceutical discourse: A corpus-driven description. Engl Spec Purp 2015;38:23-33. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.004]
35. Ruan Z. Lexical bundles in Chinese undergraduate academic writing at an English medium university. RELC J 2017;48(3):327-40. [DOI:10.1177/0033688216631218]
36. Kwary DA, Artha AF. The academic article word list for social sciences. Mextesol J 2017;41(4):1-11. [Google Scholar]
37. Hao Y, Lee KS, Chen S-T, Sim SC. An evaluative study of a mobile application for middle school students struggling with English vocabulary learning. Comput Hum Behav 2019;95:208-16. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.013]
38. Wang X, Liu Y-l, Ying B, Lin J. The effect of learning adaptability on Chinese middle school students' English academic engagement: The chain mediating roles of foreign language anxiety and English learning self-efficacy. Curr Psychol 2023;42(8):6682-92. [DOI:10.1007/s12144-021-02008-8]
39. del Mar Sánchez-Pérez M. Predicting content proficiency through disciplinary-literacy variables in English-medium writing. System 2021;97:102463. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2021.102463]
40. Corson D. The learning and use of academic English words. Lang Learn 1997;47(4):671-718. [DOI:10.1111/0023-8333.00025]
41. Gardner D, Davies M. A response to "To what extent is the Academic Vocabulary List relevant to university student writing?". Engl Spec Purp 2016;43:62-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2016.03.001]
42. Huettner J. Academic writing in a foreign language: An extended genre analysis of student texts: Peter Lang; 2007. [Google Scholar]
43. Abdollahpour Z, Gholami J. Building blocks of medical abstracts: Frequency, functions and structures of lexical bundles. Asian ESP J. 2018;14(1):82-110. [Google Scholar]
44. Jalilifar A, White P, Malekizadeh N. Exploring nominalization in scientific textbooks: A cross-disciplinary study of hard and soft sciences. Int J Engl Stud 2017;17(2):1-20. [DOI:10.6018/ijes/2017/2/272781]
45. Yin X, Li S. Lexical bundles as an intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary mark: A corpus-based study of research articles from business, biology, and applied linguistics. Appl Corpus Linguist 2021;1(1):100006. [DOI:10.1016/j.acorp.2021.100006]
46. Qi H, Pan F. Lexical bundle variation across moves in abstracts of medical research articles. South African Linguistics Appl Lang Stud 2020;38(2):109-28. [DOI:10.2989/16073614.2020.1763814]
47. Jalali ZS, Moini MR. Structure of lexical bundles in introduction section of medical research articles. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014;98:719-26. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.473]
48. Omidian T, Shahriari H, Siyanova-Chanturia A. A cross-disciplinary investigation of multi-word expressions in the moves of research article abstracts. J English Acad Purp 2018;36:1-14. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2018.08.002]
49. Fitzpatrick T, Wray A. Breaking up is not so hard to do: Individual differences in L2 memorization. Can Modern Lang Rev 2006;63(1):35-57. [DOI:10.3138/cmlr.63.1.35]
50. Ädel A, Erman B. Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. Engl Spec Purp 2012;31(2):81-92. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004]
51. Frumuselu AD. Subtitled television series inside the EFL classroom: long-term effects upon colloquial language learning and oral production: Universitat Rovira i Virgili; 2015. [Google Scholar]
52. Pan F, Reppen R, Biber D. Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. J English Acad Purp 2016;21:60-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.003]
53. Salazar D. Lexical bundles in native and non-native scientific writing. Lexical Bundles in Native and Non-native Scientific Writing 2014:1-221. [DOI:10.1075/scl.65]
54. Chen Y-H, Baker P. Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. 2010. [Google Scholar]
55. Ortega L. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Appl Linguist 2003;24(4):492-518. [DOI:10.1093/applin/24.4.492]
56. Conrad SM, Biber D. The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica 2005. [DOI:10.1515/9783484604674.56]
57. Yorio CA. Conventionalized language forms and the development of communicative competence. Tesol Q 1980:433-42. [DOI:10.2307/3586232]
58. Abdollahpour Z, Gholami J. Rhetorical structure of the abstracts of medical sciences research articles. Prensa Med Argent 2018;105(2):1-5. [DOI:10.47275/0032-745X-114]
59. Lillis TM. Student writing: Access, regulation, desire: Psychology Press; 2001. [DOI:10.4324/9780203186268] []
60. Малмстрем П. Hans Malmström, Diane Pecorari, Philip Shaw."Words for what? Contrasting university students' receptive and productive academic vocabulary needs". Engl Spec Purp 2018;50:28-39. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.002]
61. Hatami S. Teaching formulaic sequences in the ESL classroom. TESOL J 2015;6(1):112-29. [DOI:10.1002/tesj.143]
62. Shirazizadeh M, Amirfazlian R. Lexical bundles in theses, articles and textbooks of applied linguistics: Investigating intradisciplinary uniformity and variation. J English Acad Purp 2021;49:100946. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100946]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
