Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study employed a corpus analysis to describe differences in lexical bundle patterns between English for academic purposes (EAP) reading textbooks and lower-division university textbooks by focusing on three characteristics: (1) the frequency of occurrence of bundles, (2) the frequency of bundle structures (e.g., phrasal vs. clausal), and (3) the frequency of bundle discourse functions (e.g., stance, discourse organizers, and referential; see Biber et al., 2004Biber, 2006). Results revealed that the corpus representing lower-division university textbooks employed more passive bundles, intangible framing bundles, and text deixis bundles. On the other hand, the corpus representing EAP reading textbooks contained more prepositional phrase bundles, anticipatory bundles, and place bundles. A qualitative comparison also revealed that quantity bundles in the corpus representing lower-division university textbooks made reference to technical and academic calculations. These results show how the communicative purposes of EAP reading textbooks differ from introductory university textbooks, which can be used to inform EAP reading instruction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allan, R.
    (2016) Lexical bundles in graded readers: To what extent does language restriction affect lexical patterning?. System, 59, 61–72. 10.1016/j.system.2016.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, N. J.
    (2015) Academic reading expectations and challenges. InN. W. Evans, N. J. Anderson & W. G. Eggington (Eds.), ESL readers and writers in higher education (pp.109–124). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthony, L.
    (2018) AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available fromwww.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
  4. Bestgen, Y.
    (2020) Comparing lexical bundles across corpora of different sizes: The Zipfian problem. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 27(3), 272–290. 10.1080/09296174.2019.1566975
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2019.1566975 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D.
    (2006) University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers (Vol.23). John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., & Barbieri, F.
    (2007) Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263–286. 10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M.
    (2002) Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), 9–48. 10.2307/3588359
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588359 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Keller, D.
    (2020) Reconceptualizing register in a continuous situational space. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(3), 581–616. 10.1515/cllt‑2018‑0086
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0086 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2010) Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2011) Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language & Linguistics, 15(2), 223–250. 10.1017/S1360674311000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000025 [Google Scholar]
  13. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Block, D.
    (2003) The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Chen, L.
    (2010) An investigation of lexical bundles in ESP textbooks and electrical engineering introductory textbooks. InD. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp.107–125). New York/London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grabe, W.
    (2009) Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.
    (2014) Teaching reading for academic purposes. InM. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton & M. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp.189–205). Boston: National Geographic Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Egbert, J., & Johnson, A.
    (2017) Discipline-specific reading expectation and challenges for ESL learners in US universities. Reading in a Foreign Language, 29(1), 36–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hartshorn, K., Hart, J. M., & McMurry, B. L.
    (2019) Comparing language skill priorities among TESOL faculty and ESL students bound for English-medium universities. TESOL Journal, 10(3), e00438. 10.1002/tesj.438
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.438 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hsu, W.
    (2009) Measuring the vocabulary of college general English textbooks and English-medium textbooks of business core courses. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(2), 126–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hyland, K.
    (2008a) Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 41–62. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2008.00178.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00178.x [Google Scholar]
  24. (2008b) 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]
  25. Johns, A. M.
    (1981) Necessary English: A faculty survey. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 51–57. 10.2307/3586373
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586373 [Google Scholar]
  26. LaFlair, G., Egbert, J., & Miller, D.
    (2012) Structural compression and elaboration across levels of ESL reading textbook series. Paper presented atAAAL, Boston, Massachusetts.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Miller, D.
    (2011) ESL reading textbooks vs. university textbooks: Are we giving our students the input they may need?. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 32–46. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009030199
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030199 [Google Scholar]
  29. Northbrook, J., & Conklin, K.
    (2019) Is what you put in what you get out? – Textbook-derived lexical bundle processing in beginner English learners. Applied Linguistics, 40(5), 816–833. 10.1093/applin/amy027
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy027 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pan, F., Reppen, R., & Biber, D.
    (2016) Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 60–71. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S.
    (2001) Approaches and methods in language leaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667305
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305 [Google Scholar]
  32. Trotzke, A., & Kupisch, T.
    (2020) Formal linguistics and language education: Bridging the gap. InA. Trotzke. & T. Kupisch. (Eds.), Formal linguistics and language education: New empirical perspectives (pp.1–8). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑39257‑4_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39257-4_1 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C.
    (2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61(2), 569–613. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00622.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilson, A.
    (2013) Embracing Bayes factors for key item analysis in corpus linguistics. InM. Bieswanger, & A. Koll-Stobbe (Eds.), New approaches to the study of linguistic variability (pp.3–11). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Wood, D. C., & Appel, R.
    (2014) Multiword constructions in first year business and engineering university textbooks and EAP textbooks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 15, 1–13. 10.1016/j.jeap.2014.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.03.002 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics; EAP textbook; lexical bundle; university textbook
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