1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Register Studies
  4. Volume 2, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores the differences between academic lectures and TED talks by comparing their respective frequent four-word lexical bundles, and the discourse functions of those bundles in these two registers. The results indicate that academic lectures use more varied lexical bundles at a higher frequency than TED talks do. The functional distributions of the bundles further reveal that referential bundles are prevalent in both registers. However, TED speakers use more lexical bundles to organize their discourse and to guide the audience through their talks, while academic lecturers use more stance bundles to show their intentions and to inform the audience about upcoming events. The distinctive characteristics of academic lectures and TED talks are revealed via the divergent sets of lexical bundles in the two registers; the two registers are also shown to differ greatly in terms of the use of lexical bundles for different functions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18003.liu
2020-10-23
2024-10-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.18003.liu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ädel, 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. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altenberg, B.
    (1998) On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp.101–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aston, G.
    (2015) Learning phraseology from speech corpora. In A. Leńko-Szymańska & A. Boulton (Eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning (pp.65–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Banerjee, S. , & Pedersen, T.
    (2003) The design, implementation, and use of the Ngram statistics package. In A. F. Gelbukh (Ed.), The Proceeding of the Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (pp.370–381). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. 10.1007/3‑540‑36456‑0_38
     https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36456-0_38 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D.
    (2010) What can a corpus tell us about registers and genres?In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp.241–254). London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203856949.ch18
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949.ch18 [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.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [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. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , Finegan, E. , & Quirk, R.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol.2). London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Byrd, P. , & Coxhead, A.
    (2010) On the other hand: Lexical bundles in academic writing and in the teaching of EAP. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 5, 31–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Caliendo, G. , & Compagnone, A.
    (2014) Expressing epistemic stance in university lectures and TED talks: a contrastive corpus-based analysis. Lingue e Linguaggi, 11, 105–122.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cettolo, M. , Girardi, C. , & Federico, M.
    (2012) Wit3: Web inventory of transcribed and translated talks. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT 2012) (pp.261–268). Retrieved fromhltshare.fbk.eu/EAMT2012/html/Papers/59.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Chang, Y. J. , & Huang, H. T.
    (2015) Exploring TED talks as a pedagogical resource for oral presentations: A corpus-based move analysis. English Teaching and Learning, 39(4), 29–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, Y. -H. , & Baker, P.
    (2010) Lexical bundles in L1 & L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Conrad, S.
    (2015) Register variation. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp.309–329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.018 [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. (2013) The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 33–43. 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cortes, V. , & Csomay, E.
    (2007) Positioning lexical bundles in university classroom discourse. In M. C. Campoy & M. J. Luzon (Eds.), Spoken corpora in applied linguistics (pp.57–76). Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Coxhead, A. , & Walls, R.
    (2012) TED Talks, vocabulary, and listening for EAP. TESOLANZ Journal, 20, 55–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Coxhead, A. , Dang, T. N. Y. , & Mukai, S.
    (2017) Single and multi-word unit vocabulary in university tutorials and laboratories: Evidence from corpora and textbooks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 66–78. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.11.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Csomay, E.
    (2013) Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 369–388. 10.1093/applin/ams045
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams045 [Google Scholar]
  22. Csomay, E. , & Cortes, V.
    (2010) Lexical bundle distribution in university classroom talk. In S. Gries , S. Wulff & M. Davies (Eds.), Corpus linguistics applications: Current studies, new directions (pp.153–168). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789042028012_011
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042028012_011 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dang, T. N. Y.
    (2018a) A hard science spoken word list. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 169(1), 44–71. 10.1075/itl.00006.dan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.00006.dan [Google Scholar]
  24. (2018b) The nature of vocabulary in academic speech of hard and soft-sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 69–83. 10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dang, T. N. Y. , & Webb, S.
    (2014) The lexical profile of academic spoken English. English for Specific Purposes, 33, 66–76. 10.1016/j.esp.2013.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dang, T. N. Y. , Coxhead, A. , & Webb, S.
    (2017) The academic spoken word list. Language Learning, 67(4), 959–997. 10.1111/lang.12253
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12253 [Google Scholar]
  27. De Chazal, E.
    (2014) Prepare English language students for academic listening. Retrieved fromhttps://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/prepare-english-language-students-academic-listening
  28. Deroey, K. L.
    (2013) Marking importance in lectures: Interactive and textual orientation. Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 51–72. 10.1093/applin/amt029
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt029 [Google Scholar]
  29. Durrant, P.
    (2017) Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation in university students’ writing: Mapping the territories. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 165–193. 10.1093/applin/amv011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv011 [Google Scholar]
  30. Flowerdew, J.
    (2003) Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329–346. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00017‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00017-0 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gardner, D. , & Davies, M.
    (2014) A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305–327. 10.1093/applin/amt015
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gebbia, J.
    (2016), February). Joe Gebbia: How Airbnb designs for trust [Video file]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ted.com/talks/joe_gebbia_how_airbnb_designs_for_trust
  33. 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]
  34. (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]
  35. (2012) Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kashiha, H. , & Chan, S. H.
    (2014) Discourse functions of formulaic sequences in academic speech across two disciplines. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies, 14(2), 15–27. 10.17576/GEMA‑2014‑1402‑02
     https://doi.org/10.17576/GEMA-2014-1402-02 [Google Scholar]
  37. Meyer, P.
    (2011), July). Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar [Video file]. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar?language=zh-tw
  38. Nation, I. S. P.
    (2006) How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. 10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59 [Google Scholar]
  39. Neely, E. , & Cortes, V.
    (2009) A little bit about: Analyzing and teaching lexical bundles in academic lectures. Language Value, 1(1), 17–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Nesi, H. , & Basturkmen, H.
    (2006) Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 283–304. 10.1075/ijcl.11.3.04nes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.3.04nes [Google Scholar]
  41. Oliveros, J. C.
    (2015) Venny. An interactive tool for comparing lists with Venn’s diagrams (Version 2.1) [computer software]. Available frombioinfogp.cnb.csic.es/tools/venny/index.html
  42. Oakey, D. J.
    (2009) Fixed collocational patterns in isolexical and isotextual versions of a corpus. In P. Baker (Ed.), Approaches to Corpus Linguistics (pp.142–160). London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Partington, A.
    (2014) The marking of importance in ‘Enlightentainment’ talks. In M. Gotti & D. S. Giannoni (Eds.), Corpus analysis for descriptive and pedagogical purposes (pp.143–166). Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Salazar, D.
    (2011) Lexical bundles in scientific English: A corpus-based study of native and non-native writing. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Barcelona, Spain.
  45. Scott, M.
    (1997) PC analysis of key words – and key key words. System, 25(2), 233–245. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(97)00011‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00011-0 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2016) WordSmith Tools (Version 7) [computer software]. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
  47. Simpson, R.
    (2004) Stylistic features of academic speech: The role of formulaic expressions. In U. Connor & T. A. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp.37–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/scl.16.03sim
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16.03sim [Google Scholar]
  48. Simpson, R. , & Mendis, D.
    (2003) A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 419–441. 10.2307/3588398
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588398 [Google Scholar]
  49. Simpson, R. , Briggs, S. L. , Ovens, J. , & Swales, J. M.
    (2002) The Michigan corpus of academic spoken English. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 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]
  51. Ted.com
    Ted.com (2020a) TED | About | Conferences. Retrieved1 April 2020, fromhttps://www.ted.com/about/conferences
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Ted.com
    Ted.com (2020b) TED | About | Programs & Initiatives | TED Talks. Retrieved1 April 2020, fromhttps://www.ted.com/about/programs-initiatives/ted-talks
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Ted.com
    Ted.com (2020c) TED | About | Programs & Initiatives | TED.com. Retrieved1 April 2020, fromhttps://www.ted.com/about/programs-initiatives/ted-com
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Thompson, P.
    (2006) A corpus perspective on the lexis of lectures, with a focus on economics lectures. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp.253–270). Frankfort: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Thompson, P. , & Nesi, H.
    (2001) Research in progress, The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) Corpus Project. Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 263–264.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Wang, Y.
    (2017) Lexical bundles in spoken academic ELF. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 187–211. 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.02wan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.02wan [Google Scholar]
  57. Watkins, J. , & Wilkins, M.
    (2011) Using YouTube in the EFL classroom. Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 113–119. 10.5746/LEiA/11/V2/I1/A09/Watkins_Wilkins
     https://doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/11/V2/I1/A09/Watkins_Wilkins [Google Scholar]
  58. Webb, S. , & Rodgers, M. P.
    (2009) Vocabulary demands of television programs. Language Learning, 59(2), 335–366. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00509.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00509.x [Google Scholar]
  59. Wingrove, P.
    (2017) How suitable are TED talks for academic listening?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 79–95. 10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.010
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  60. 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]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18003.liu
Loading
Functional variation of lexical bundles in academic lectures and TED talks
Register Studies 2, 176 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18003.liu
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18003.liu
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18003.liu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic lectures; discourse functions; lexical bundles; TED talks

Most Cited

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