Discourse Functions of Formulaic Sequences in Academic Speech across Two Disciplines

Hadi Kashiha, Chan Swee Heng

Abstract


Formulaic sequences play a crucial role in building academic discourse. From among the variety of formulaic expressions, lexical bundles have been shown to serve particular facilitative functions in academic discourse. Defined as strings of word forms that commonly co-occur in natural discourse, lexical bundles are characterized statistically by their frequency of occurrence and they contribute significantly to fluency in speech and writing. While previous research had focused on the use of these expressions in academic research articles across disciplines or on the difference between spoken and written registers, little research has been carried out to find out the language use of academic lectures from different disciplines in terms of the use of these bundles, orally. Taking into account this consideration, the present study aimed to investigate how lexical bundles are used by academic lecturers from different disciplinary communities. With the aim of comparing their language selection, the most frequent four-word lexical bundles in academic lectures of two disciplines, namely politics and chemistry were identified and categorized. The procedure adopts Biber et al.’s (2004) functional categorization of lexical bundles to investigate the communicative purposes that lexical bundles convey in the lectures of the two groups and to see whether there were any disciplinary differences with regard to the bundles used. Based on the findings, there were some marked variations found across the two disciplines in terms of discourse functions of the lexical bundles. It seemed that academic lectures rely heavily on the use of specific word combinations to fulfill those functions related to their discipline.

 

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1402-02


Keywords


academic lecture; discourse function; formulaic sequences; lexical bundles; spoken discourse

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent Word Combinations In Academic Writing By Native And Non-Native Speakers Of English: A Lexical Bundles Approach. English for Specific Purposes.31(2) 81-92.

Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Inquiry and The Cultures Of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Biber, D., &Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical Bundles In University Spoken and Written Registers. English for Specific Purposes. 26(3), 263-286.

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.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If You Look at…: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks. Applied Linguistics. 25, 371-405.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Chen, Y.-H., & Baker, P. (2010).Lexical Bundles in L1 and L2 Academic Writing.Language Learning and Technology. 14(2), 30-49.

Conrad, S. M. (1996). Investigating Academic Texts with Corpus-Based Techniques: An Example from Biology. Linguistics and Education. 8, 299-326.

Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical Bundles in Published and Student Academic Writing in History and Biology. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Arizona University.

Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical Bundles in Published and Student Disciplinary Writing: Examples from History and Biology. English for Specific Purposes.23(4), 397-423.

Cortes, V. (2006). Teaching Lexical Bundles in The Disciplines: An Example From a Writing Intensive History Class. Linguistics and Education. 17(4), 391-406.

Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle. Text. 20(1), 29-62.

Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated Patterns and the Emergence of Structure in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning. 24(2), 287-297.

Haswell, R. (1991). Gaining Ground in College Writing: Tales of Development and Interpretation. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press.

Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing. Applied Linguistics. 23(2), 215-39.

Hyland, K. (2008). As Can Be Seen: Lexical Bundles and Disciplinary Variation.English for Specific Purposes. 27, 4-21.

Kashiha, H., & Chan, S.H. (2014).Structural Analysis of Lexical Bundles in University Lectures of Politics and Chemistry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. 3(1), 224-230.

Kaur, N. (2013). A Case Study Of Tertiary Learners’ Capability In Lexical Knowledge. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. 13(1), 113-126.

Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.

Nesi, H., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical Bundles and Discourse Signalling in Academic Lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 11(3), 283-304.

Reppen, R. (2004). Academic Language: An Exploration of University Classroom and Textbook Language. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.). Discourse in the professions (pp. 65-86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Peters, A. (1983). The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and The Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Yeganehjoo, M., & Yap, N. T. (2012). Lexical access in production of idioms by proficient L2 learners. 3L: Language Linguistics Literature®, Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. 18(1), 87-104.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021