1887
Volume 23, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In a communicative approach to language teaching, students are presented with “authentic” language, which is thought to allow them to produce it in a nativelike way. The current study explores whether the lexical bundles in communicative Japanese junior high school textbooks are representative of conversational English. To do this, we use a corpus-based approach that compares the most frequent lexical bundles in the textbooks to those in an English reference corpus. The study finds that although lexical bundles are very frequent in the textbooks, and conform relatively well to English patterns at shorter lengths (3-word lexical bundles), they deviate considerably at longer ones (4-, 5- and 6-words). This has important implications for the communicative utility of the language in the textbooks.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.16024.nor
2018-10-29
2019-08-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthony, L.
    (2014) AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved fromwww.laurenceanthony.net/ (last accessedMay 2018)
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
    (2000) Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bednarek, M.
    (2012) “Get us the hell out of here”: Key words and trigrams in fictional television series. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 35–63. 10.1075/ijcl.17.1.02bed
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.1.02bed [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (1993) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2006) University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2009) A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311. 10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.08bib [Google Scholar]
  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. 10.1093/applin/25.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M.
    (2006) Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261. 10.1191/1362168806lr195oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168806lr195oa [Google Scholar]
  10. Breeze, R.
    (2013) Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(2), 229–253. 10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre [Google Scholar]
  11. Brysbaert, M., & New, B.
    (2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, J.
    (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen, L.
    (2010) An investigation of lexical bundles in ESP textbooks and electrical engineering introductory textbooks. InD. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language (pp.107–125). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Columbus 21 English Course
    Columbus 21 English Course (2013) Tokyo: Mitsumura Tosho.
  15. Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N.
    (2008) Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89. 10.1093/applin/amm022
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm022 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2012) The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61. 10.1017/S0267190512000074
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000074 [Google Scholar]
  17. Conrad, S., & Biber, D.
    (2004) The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cortes, V.
    (2004) Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423. 10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dickinson, P.
    (2012) Improving second language academic presentations with formulaic sequences. Bulletin of Niigata University of International and Information Studies Department of Information Culture, 15, 25–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, N. C.
    (1996) Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91–126. 10.1017/S0272263100014698
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014698 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001) Memory for language. InP. J. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Acquisition (pp.33–68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U.
    (2013) Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63(1), 25–51. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00736.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00736.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Erman, B., & Warren, B.
    (2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62. 10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gilmore, A.
    (2004) A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 59(4), 363–374. 10.1093/elt/58.4.363
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.4.363 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) Research into practice: The influence of discourse studies on language descriptions and task design in published ELT materials. Language Teaching, 48(4), 506–530. 10.1017/S0261444815000269
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000269 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gray, B., & Biber, D.
    (2013) Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109–136. 10.1075/ijcl.18.1.08gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.08gra [Google Scholar]
  27. Hagerman, C.
    (2009) English language policy and practice in Japan. Osaka Jogakuin University, Departmental Bulletin Paper, 6, 47–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hockey, B. A., Rossen-Knill, D., Spejewski, B., Stone, M., & Isard, S.
    (1997, September). Can you predict answers to Y/N questions? Yes, no and stuff. Paper presented at theEurospeech 97 Conference, Rhodes, Greece.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hyland, K.
    (2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. 10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D.
    (2010) Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Edinburgh: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Isobe, Y.
    (2011) Representation and processing of formulaic sequences in L2 mental lexicon: How do Japanese EFL learners process multi-word expressions. JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 38–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M.
    (2007) The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433–445. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00589.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00589.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Koprowski, M.
    (2005) Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks. ELT Journal, 59(4), 322–332. 10.1093/elt/cci061
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci061 [Google Scholar]
  34. Koya, T.
    (2004) Collocation research based on corpora collected from secondary school textbooks in Japan and in the UK. Dialogue, 3, 7–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuiper, K.
    (2004) Formulaic performance in conventionalised varieties of speech. InN. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp.37–54). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.9.04kui
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.9.04kui [Google Scholar]
  36. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lewis, M.
    (1993) The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Logan, G. D.
    (1988) Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527. 10.1037/0033‑295X.95.4.492
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  39. McAleese, P.
    (2013, October). Investigating multi-word items in a contemporary ELT course book. Paper presented at theJALT2012 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y.
    (2006) Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Meunier, F.
    (2012) Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111–129. 10.1017/S0267190512000128
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000128 [Google Scholar]
  42. Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R.
    (1998) Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–363. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00045
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00045 [Google Scholar]
  43. Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J.
    (1999) Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 40–80. 10.1017/S0272263199001023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199001023 [Google Scholar]
  44. Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrucio, J. S.
    (1992) Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. New Crown English Series (2013) Tokyo: Sanseido.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. New Horizon English Course
    New Horizon English Course (2013) Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki.
  47. Nguyen, H., & Ishitobi, N.
    (2012) Ordering fast food: Service encounters in real-life interaction and in textbook dialogs. JALT Journal, 34(2), 151–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Northbrook, J., & Conklin, K.
    (in press). Is what you put in what you get out?: Textbook-derived lexical bundle processing in beginner English learners, Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Nunan, D.
    (1991) Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ogura, F.
    (2008) Communicative competence and senior high school oral communication textbooks in Japan. The Language Teacher, 32(12), 3–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. One World English Course
    One World English Course (2013) Tokyo: Kyoiku Shuppan.
  52. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. InJ. C. Richards (Ed.), Language and Communication (pp.191–225). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Römer, U.
    (2004) Comparing real and ideal language learner input: the use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. InG. Aston, S. Bernardini & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora and Language Learners (pp.151–168). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.17.12rom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.17.12rom [Google Scholar]
  54. (2005) Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy: A Corpus-Driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.18 [Google Scholar]
  55. Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C.
    (2010) An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. 10.1093/applin/amp058
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058 [Google Scholar]
  56. Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R.
    (2015) The Idiom Principle revisited. Applied Linguistics36(5):549–569.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Statistic Brain Research Institute
    Statistic Brain Research Institute (2017) Television Watching Statistics. Retrieved fromhttps://www.statisticbrain.com/television-watching-statistics/ (last accessedJuly 2018).
  58. Stubbs, M., & Barth, I.
    (2003) Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings. Functions of Language, 10(1), 61–104. 10.1075/fol.10.1.04stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.10.1.04stu [Google Scholar]
  59. Sunshine English Course
    Sunshine English Course (2013) Tokyo: Kairyudo.
  60. Taguchi, N.
    (2007) Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 433–457. 10.1177/1362168807080962
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807080962 [Google Scholar]
  61. Total English New Edition (2013) Tokyo: Gakko Tosho.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Tsai, K. -J.
    (2014) Profiling the collocation use in ELT textbooks and learner writing. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 723–740. 10.1177/1362168814559801
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814559801 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tyler, A.
    (2010) Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 270–291. 10.1017/S0267190510000140
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000140 [Google Scholar]
  64. Van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2014) SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190. 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521 [Google Scholar]
  65. Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A.
    (2013) Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63(1), 91–120. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00729.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00729.x [Google Scholar]
  66. Wood, D.
    (2010) Lexical clusters in an EAP textbook corpus. InD. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language (pp.88–106). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Wray, A.
    (2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  68. Wray, A., & Fitzpatrick, T.
    (2008) Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language as a gauge of nativelike competence. InF. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp.123–147). Amsterdam/New York, NY: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.138.11wra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.138.11wra [Google Scholar]
  69. Yaoyu, W., & Lei, L.
    (2011) Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 42(2), 155–166. 10.1177/0033688211407295
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688211407295 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.16024.nor
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.16024.nor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): junior high school textbooks , lexical bundles , SLA and usage-based theories
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error