Scarica Linguaggi Settoriali Inglese - Biber, Douglas e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!
Chapter 3 - Vocabulary use in classroom teaching and textbooks
A note on methodology One key research issue for vocabulary analyses is to decide what to count as a word. Usually analyses are based on “lemmas”, the base form for each word; for example: eat, eats, ate, eating and eaten are all realizations of a single lemma, which is eat. Vocabulary use in university registers Classroom reaching and textbooks are similar in their overall purposes and topics. The primary situational difference between the two is that classroom teaching is spoken and produced in real time, while textbooks are written and therefore carefully planned, revised and edited. However, it turns out that this situational difference has a strong influence on word choice. Further analysis shows that the greater diversity in word choice in textbooks is due mostly to the use of specialized vocabulary. Both registers are similar in using relatively few high-frequency word types. But the registers differ dramatically in their reliance on rare word types, with textbooks using a much larger set of these specialized words than classroom teaching. In contrast, many common words occur with extremely high frequencies in classroom teaching.
- Textbooks use a much greater range of different word types than classroom teaching
- Common words occur with extremely high frequencies in classroom teaching
- Textbooks use a wide range of word types that occur with low frequencies
- Textbooks and classroom teaching both use a relatively small set of common words The majority of the different word types are nouns, especially for rare word types. these nouns include some everyday words that generally are not the normal topic of discussion in teaching or textbooks. Most of these nouns have more specialized meanings like globalization or locus. Textbooks use an especially large number of different word types functioning as sounds. There are a smaller number of different verbs in either register, and adverbs show the least diversity of the four content word classes. In the classroom teaching text there are several less common word conveying specialized information. However, there is an even greater reliance on common content words, and many of these are extremely high frequency words, as again, look, see or make. Most of the word types that a student encounters in classroom teaching are also used in textbooks. In contrast, textbooks rely on many specialized word types that are not found in the corresponding classroom teaching sessions. Many of these nouns are rare words with highly specialized meanings, like agglomeration, dialect or chromatography. There also colloquial nouns used in classroom teaching that would usually not be considered appropriate in a textbook, as cop, buzz or bug. Textbooks authors have extensive time for producing their texts, including the initial writing as well as revision and editing. In contrast, instructors in classroom teaching usually pre-plan their discourse, but the actual spoken text is created as it is produced in the classroom. As a result, instructors in classroom teaching rely on a relatively small set of words, but they use a few words with extremely high frequencies; their speech also tends to rely on clauses than elaborated nonsense phrases. In contrast, the extended production opportunities for textbook authors allow there use of a much larger stock of words, including the selection of words with specific rather than general meanings. Textbook authors are also motivated by a stylistic preference for varied vocabulary; they also employ elaborated noun phrase constructions to convey information. Vocabulary across academic disciplines In addition to the overall differences between classroom teaching and textbooks, there are also important differences in word use across academic disciplines.
Business and engineering have much less diversity in word choice than natural science, social science and humanities. These differences are much more pronounced in textbooks than in classroom teaching. Humanities textbooks are especially noteworthy with an extremely large set of word types. In particular, these differences seem to reflect the range of subject areas included under each of these academic disciplines. Business and engineering are professional disciplines, training students in specific skills and methods. As a result, the set of topics covered in these general disciplines is somewhat more constrained than in the sciences and humanities. Natural science might be characterized as a discipline of discovery, identifying and describing entities that had not been previously considered. As a result, natural science employs a large set of highly technical words; most of these words do not have commonplace synonyms, because they refer to entities, characteristics or concepts that are not normally discussed in everyday conversation. Conclusion Classroom teaching was found to use a relatively small set of different word types, but to rely heavily on a few of those words, which therefore occur with extremely high frequencies. Textbooks, in contrast, were found to use a larger set of different word types, but none of those individual word types occur with extremely high frequencies.
This use of thing to signal informational packaging is commonly combined with an evaluative adjective, which reflects the instructor’s stance towards a topic. The construction the ADJECTIVE thing is + that-clause emphasizes the evaluative stance indicated by the adjective while focusing on the information provided in the clause after the copula is. Semantic classes of verbs Verbs can also be grouped into major semantic classes. There are interesting differences across registers in their reliance on particular verb classes. The most obvious difference is between the spoken and written registers. Verbs are much more common in the spoken registers than the written registers. This frequency difference is largely due to an extremely hearty reliance on two semantic domains in the spoken registers: activity verbs and mental verbs. Variation in the verb phrase Another perspective on the use of verbs in university registers is to consider variation in the marking of tense, aspect, and voice. Past tense is the marked choice in all university registers. There are differences across academic disciplines in the extent to which they use present and past tense. There is an absence of past tense verbs in engineering textbooks. In contrast, the style of discourse common in education textbooks, which incorporate relatively frequent past tense verbs to report past events, often in association with personal narratives. Humanities textbooks also use past tense verbs to report past events, but these tend to be historical recounts rather than personal narratives. Such historical recounts are often used to introduce a topic. The historical background to the topic is presented with past tense verbs, while the switch to present tense verbs marks the transition to the more informational discourse of the topic. A related grammatical distinction is the marking of verb aspect. Simple aspect is the preferred option, in both spoken and written registers. When marked aspect is used, progressive aspect is somewhat more common than perfect aspect, especially in the spoken registers. In comparison to the other spoken university registers, progressive verbs are most common in lab sessions. Lab sessions rely on task-focused language, where participants are actually performing actions and observing events at the same time that they are talking about those actions and events. Active voice is the unmarked choice in all university registers. All spoken registers use active voice verb phrase. In contrast, the written university registers show a greater reliance on passive voice. Surprisingly, there is little variation across registers within speech or within writing: passive voice is extremely rare in all spoken university registers, while it occurs with moderate frequencies in all written registers, regardless of the particular settings or typical communicative purposes. There are some interesting differences across academic disciplines in the extent to which they use passive voice verb phrase. Engineering textbooks show the most frequent use of passive voice. Discourse connectors Discourse connectors are devices used to bridge between turns (in speech) and sentences, indicating the logical relations among the parts of a discourse, and providing an interpretative framework for the listener/ reader. There are two major classes of discourse connectors:
- discourse markers, are restricted primarily to spoken discourse ( ok, well, now);
- linking adverbs, which are found in both spoken and written registers, and they have greater inherent
meaning than discourse markers ( thus, therefore, however). Discourse markers in spoken university registers Discourse markers rarely occur in written university registers, but they are common in all spoken university registers. The discourse marker so is the most common, especially in office hours and study groups. The discourse marker ok is also very common, again in office hors and also in classroom management. Although these forms do not have precise meanings, they serve to structure the overall discourse. Ok is often used as a simple response, indicating that the speaker has understood and accepted the preceding utterance. In other cases, it marks a transition to the next step in the discussion, initiating a new sub-topic.
In contrast, t6he discourse marker well almost always marks a response to some previous utterance, rather than initiating a new sub-topic. Beginning the response with well often indicates that the information in the utterance is somehow counter to the expectations raised by the preceding utterance. The form so often functions more like a linking adverbial than a discourse marker. This use is prevalent in academic office hours, where so has a resultative meaning. The discourse marker now is considerably less common than the other forms, but is it the only form that occurs more commonly in classroom teaching than in the other spoken registers. In classroom teaching, now is commonly used to initiate a new topic, usually as the next step in a logical progression. In many cases, now and ok could be used interchangeably for this function. However, now more consistently marks the introduction of a major new topic, but it’s also used as a discourse marker in textbooks. By adopting this spoken feature in textbook language, authors seem to be suggesting to the student reader that the material is not too difficult if they just follow along step by step. Linking adverbials in written university registers Linking adverbials can be considered as a parallel system to discourse markers. Both sets of features function to connect propositions in discourse. However, linking adverbial are primarily characteristic of the written registers. The linking adverbial therefore, for example, that is are used occasionally in classroom teaching. Liking adverbials are relatively common in the written university registers. Linking adverbials are much less frequent in absolute terms than discourse markers and they have more specified meanings and functions. Textbooks show by far the greatest use of these devices, although they are also surprisingly common in course syllabi. In contrast, institutional writing has a much lower use of these forms. The more frequent use of linking adverbials in textbooks reflects the primary purposes of informational presentation in this register: contrasting arguments ( however ), exemplifying a concept (for example, that is) , and presenting logical inferences (thus, therefore ). Business and engineering textbooks show the greatest reliance on linking adverbials. In both disciplines linking adverbials are most common in technical discourse that explains the derivation or application of mathematical formulas or procedures. Dependent clauses Deponete clauses are often considered to be a type of linguistic complexity, and as a result, they have been associated with writing rather than speech. However, dependent clauses overall being more common in the spoken university registers than in the written registers. Relative clauses are much more common in the written registers, while adverbial clauses and complement clauses are much more common in the spoken registers. Relative clauses Relative clauses have two primary functions: to specify the reference of the head noun, or to provide elaborating information. In many cases, a single relative clause will sere both functions. There are also frequent “reduced” (nonfinite) relative clauses in the written registers; these clauses often have passive voice verbs. Although relative clauses are a major feature distinguishing between spoken and written registers, they are also relatively common in some spoken registers. In particular, the academic classroom registers - classroom teaching and class management talk - use relative clauses to a greater extent than the interpersonal academic registers. Many of the relative clauses in classroom teaching are “sentence relatives”. These are actually a type of adverbial clause rather than a post-nominal modifier. That is, sentence relatives provide a comment on a whole proposition, rather than modifying a particular head noun. Sentence relatives are often used for clarification. The more frequent use of relative clauses in the written university registers is related to the general reliance on noun phrase structures in those registers. Prepositional phrases are another fearer that occurs commonly with noun phrases in informational, written prose. Similar to relative clauses, prepositional phrases are commonly used to modify a head noun, identifying the reference or providing elaboration information. However, prepositional phrases are actually much more common than relative clauses.
Chapter 5 - The expression of stance in university registers
A framework for the study of stance Stance can be expressed to differing extents through grammatical devices, value laden word choice, and paralinguistic devices. Grammatically marked stance is overt, where a distinti grammatical structure is used to express stance with respect to some other proposition. Two common grammatical devices used to mark stance are adverbials and complement clause constructions. Stance adverbials express the attitude or assessment of the speaker/writer with respect to the proposition contained in the matrix clause. With complement clauses, the matrix clause verb expresses a stance with respect to the proposition in the complement clause. Affective or evaluative word choice differs from grammatical stance marking in that it involves only a single proposition. Value-laden words, the existence of a stance is inferred from the use of an evaluative lexical item, usually an adjective, main verb or noun. In contrast, grammatical stance marking involves the expression of stance relative to some other proposition. Such lexical expressions of stance depend on the context and shared background for their interpretation. There is nothing in the grammatical structure of these expressions to show that they mark stance. Rather, stance is embedded in these structures, depending on the addressees’s ability to recognize the use of value- laden words. In contrast, grammatical stance marking includes two distinct grammatical components, one presenting a personal stance, and the other presenting a proposition that is framed by that stance. In addition to grammatical stance and value-laden word choice, stance can be conveyed through paralinguistic devices. In speech, paralinguistic devices include pitch, intensity and duration, which can be coupled with other modifications of articulation (such as hissing or whispering). Paralinguistic devices can also be accompanied by non-linguistic indicators of stance, such as body position, facial expressions and gestures. In writing, the resources for paralinguistic marking of stance are much more limited, including italics, bold face or underlining. Writers can also use manner of speaking adverbs to suggest a paralinguistic stance. While value-laden word choice and paralinguistic devices can also reflect underlying attitudes or feelings, they are less explicit and they do not overtly express an evaluative frame for some other proposition. Attribution of stance Stance structure with a 1st person subject are the most overt expressions of speaker/author stance. In contrast, stance expressions that are attributed to the addressee (2nd person or to 3rd person) are excluded from the study. Although such structures express some kind of attitude or evaluation, they do not necessarily reflect the personal stance of the speaker/writer. In between these two extremes are a number of grammatical stance devices with no explicit attribution; in many cases, the normal inference is that these devices express the stance of the speaker/writer. These devices include modal verbs, stance adverbials and extra posed complement clauses. Stance features included in the present study Grammatical stance adverbs have two main elements: the stance marker and the proposition that the stance marker frames. Grammatical stance devices come from different structural levels: they can be words, phrases or clauses. Three major structural categories are: modal verbs (and semi-modals), stance adverbs and stance complement clauses. Distribution and functions of stance features In general, stance is overtly marked to a greater extent in the spoken registers than the written registers. Modal verbs are used much more frequently than the other markers of stance, but stance adverbs and stance complement clauses also occur more commonly in the spoken registers than in the written registers. The use of stance features sometimes cuts across the spoken/written distinction, instead being associated with particular communicative purposes. For example, the directive registers in both spoken and written modes make extensive use of stance features especially modal verbs. Modal verbs as stance markers
Modal verbs are by far the most common grammatical device used to mark stance in university registers. Modals are especially common in the spoken registers, but they also show a strong association with directive purposes, whether in speech or in writing. Prediction/volition modals (as will, would) are the most common modal class, although the possibility/ permission/ability modals (as can, could) are also very common in the spoken registers. In textbooks, the possibility modals are actually the most common class, although modals overall are less common than in the spoken registers. The necessity/obligation modals (as must, should) are the least common class overall. However, institutional writing is especially interesting in this regard. Prediction/volition modals are especially common in class management and written course management, accounting for the exceptionally frequent use of modal verbs overall in those two registers, the modal will is especially common, but the modal would is also extremely common in the spoken registers. In most cases, the modal will is used to announce future class actions/events. In contrast, the modal would is used with a counterfactual future meaning, describing future events/actions that would occur, but with no necessary implication that those events actually will happen. Most instances of would in classroom management occur with a first person subject and have a specific directive function. The directive force is very polite and indirect. In textbooks, the possibility/permission/ability modals are by far the most common class, with can and may being especially common. The modal may is one of two modal verbs that occurs more commonly in writing than in speech. Although both can and may tend to occur with inanimate subjects, they differ in their typical functions: the modal can often express both ability and possibility meanings, while may usually express only possibility meanings. The obligation/necessary modals are especially prevalent in institutional writing. The modal must is one of two moral verbs that are more common in writing than speech. Must can be used to convey two major kinds of meaning: personal obligation and logical necessity. The first meaning expresses our personal responsibility to carry out some action, while the second meaning expresses a logical conclusion based on evidence available to the speaker/writer. Stance adverbs across registers Four major semantic classes of stance adverbs are distinguished here: certainty, likelihood, attitude and style. Stance adverbs are generally much more common in the spoken registers than in the written registers. Epistemic stance adverbs are the most common; certainty adverbs ( actually) are especially common, but likelihood adverbs ( probably) are also very common. Style adverbs are relatively rare overall, but they are the only adverb category that his more common in writing than in the spoken registers. Attitude adverbs are the least common overall; classroom management is the only register with a moderately frequent use of them. Certainty adverbs are common in all spoken university registers. They are used mostly by instructors, to identify information as factual and beyond dispute. Certainty stance adverbs are also used to emphasize the expected activities of students and the instructor. Likelihood adverbs are used for similar purposes, indicating events and actions that are likely to occur (or should be done). Likelihood adverbs are especially common in office hours, where they are used to suggest actions and events that would be desirable or likely. Style adverbs, in textbooks and course packs, are used to indicate that a statement describes the usual case, rather than an invariable fact. The class of attitudinal adverbs are usually used by instructors to mark personal attitudes. Stance complement clauses across registers
- A Stance verb + that- clause In general, these stance constructions are much more common in the spoken university registers than in the written registers. Certainty verbs and likelihood verbs are the two most common classes controlling that- clauses. Certainty verbs are common than likelihood verbs controlling that -clauses in the teacher-centered academic registers, while likelihood verbs + that -clauses are more common in the student-centered academic registers.
In classroom teaching, instructors are motivated by several different purposes relating to stance, including: conveying information; indicating the extent to which information is known or doubtful; providing historical contexts and conveying personal attitudes about course content. Modal verbs are the most common stance feature in classroom teaching, but they are the least explicit in terms of their stance meanings. The most common modal verbs in classroom teaching are often used for functions other than expressing the core stance meanings. The modal can usually indicates someone’s ability to carry out an action, rather than expressing core stance meanings relating to epistemic possibility or personal permission. Epistemic meanings, relating to certainty and likelihood, are usually expressed in classroom teaching using stance adverbs and complement clauses.
- B Study groups At one level, study groups are a genuinely student-centered academic register. However, even study groups are to a large extent controlled by instructors, who have helped to establish the parameters of discussion in their earlier classroom teaching. As a result of these mixed characteristics, two kinds of stance features are especially prevalent in study groups: communication verbs, used to report what instructors said in class; and likelihood epistemic markers, indicating a lack of certainty about course content.
- C Textbooks and course packs Textbooks and course packs contain relatively few markers of stance in comparison to the spoken academic registers. When stance is overt in these registers, is typically expresses either epistemic meanings or the perspective that information is presented from. Although no individual feature is especially common, a wide range of different stance devices is used to express these meanings, including epistemic devices and perspective or point of view devices. However, in many cases, textbook languages packaged as a simple reporting of information, often with no indicators of personal stance. Management/advising adverbs The management/advising registers are different from the academic registers in the expression of stance. First of all, both spoken and written management registers rely on the relatively dense use of stance features. And second, stance in these registers usually expresses directive rather than epistemic or attitude meanings. For example, modals are used in the management registers to describe obligations and future intentions. Complement clause construction also commonly express directive rather than epistemic meanings in the management registers.
- A Classroom management Classroom management talk occurs when an instruct discusses course requirements and student expectations. Thus stance in this register focuses on human behavior, what the instructor will do and what students should do. Modals are common in this register expressing prediction/intention meanings, obligation meanings and ability or permission meanings. Stance adverbs are also common in this register, especially certainty adverbs. These are often used for emphasis to identify points of information that students should pay special attention to. Verbs of desire and effort are commonly used controlling a to- clause. In many cases, these describe the desires of efforts of the instructor.
- B Office hours Office hours serve a dual purpose: individual tutoring on academic content and student advising. A wide range of stance devices are used for directive functions in office hours. Many of these are explicit in meaning, including obligation modals as should or have to. However, other features are more indirect, even though the directive force is usually clearly understood by students. For example, the modals will and can are often used to indirectly express directives in office hours. Desire verbs controlling to- clauses are also commonly used for directive functions in office hours. similar to the use of modals, these constructions can be explicit and direct, or they can function as indirect instructions to carry out some action. Students, as well as instructors, commonly use desire verbs controlling to- clauses during office hours. In many cases, these constructions simply express the desires and needs of the student. In other cases, students express their own needs/desires as an indirect attempt to issue a directive to the instructor.
- C Written course management Written course management is similar to classroom management and office hours in being highly directive, but these texts are in some ways more explicit in the expression of this function. Obligation modals are
probably the most explicit directive devices. These modals they commonly occur together with the 2nd person pronounced you to express strong directives in written course management. In addition, indirect stance expressions are also commonly used, such as the modal will in constructions that state the requirements, rules and consequences associated with a course. These are usually impersonal statements. In fact, these constructions often occur with a passive voice main verb, so neither the instructor nor the student are explicitly identified. Of all university registers, course syllabi are probably the most marked for rheumatoid arthritis dense use of stance expressions, with the least concern for politeness. The modal will is the most common device used to state explicit rules and expectations in course syllabi.
- D Institutional writing Overall, institutional university writing has fewer expressions of stance than course syllabi. There are relatively few epistemic stance features, and few indications of personal attitudes in this register. However, the stance of obligation is commonly expressed to describe the rules, requirements and expectations of student life at the university. these stance features are performed mostly by modal verbs and to- clauses, expressing meanings related to obligation, permission, desire and ability. It is common to use passive voice with students as the grammatical subject. In these statements, the university understood to be the authority functioning as the agent, setting the expectations and requirements, and encouraging students to behave in specified ways.
Textbooks and academic prose are at the opposite extreme from classroom teaching in the overall use of lexical bundles. Textbooks authors do not incorporate more lexical bundles in their writing. Reasons for this absence might be that textbook authors tend to use fuller expressions, preferring full clauses rather than phrasal lexical bundles, perhaps reflecting the fact that textbooks authors are free of the real-time production constraints of face-to-face teaching. Discourse functions of lexical bundles in university classroom teaching and textbooks In some cases, even a single occurrence of a bundle can be considered multifunctional. For example, bundles like take a look and let’s take a look function at the same time as directives and topic introducers. In other cases, a single bundles serves different functions depending on the context. For example, bundles like the beginning of the and at the end of can function as a time reference, place reference, or text deictic reference. In general, however, most bundles have a primary function. Three primary functions are distinguished for lexical bundles in these registers: 1 stance expressions, 2 discourse organizers and 3 referential expressions. Stance bundles express attitudes or assessments of certainty that frame some other proposition. Discourse organizers reflect relationships between prior and coming discourse. Referential bundles make direct reference to physical or abstract entities, or to the textual context itself, either to identify the entity or to single out some particular attribute of the entity as especially important. Each of these categories has several sub-categories associated with more specific functions and meanings. Stance bundles Stance bundles provide a frame for the interpretation of the following proposition, conveying two major kinds of meaning: epistemic and attitude/modality. Epistemic stance bundles comment on the knowledge status of the information in the following proposition: certain, uncertain or probable/possible ( I don’t know if, I don’t think so ). Attitudinal/Modality stance bundles express speaker attitudes towards the actions or event described in the following proposition ( I want you to, I’m not going to). Stance bundles can be personal or impersonal. Personal stance bundles are overtly attributed to the speaker/ writer; impersonal express similar meanings without being attributed explicitly to the speaker/writer ( It is possible to, can be used to). Epistemic stance bundles Personal epistemic bundles: most epistemic stance bundles are personal —> I don’t know what (especially in classroom teaching). Although epistemic stance bundles can express certainty or uncertainty, most of these bundles express only uncertainty. Several lexical bundles in classroom teaching combine epistemic stance with other functions. Imprecisions bundles like stuff like that, also serve an epistemic function combined with referential identification. Impersonal epistemic bundles: in contrast, usually express degrees of certainty rather than uncertainty ( are more likely to be). Attitudinal/Modality stance bundles Attitudinal/Modality stance bundles are also usually personal, expressing speaker attitudes toward the actions or events described in the following proposition. Four major subcategories are distinguished here:
- Desire bundles: include only personal expressions of stance, which frame self-motivated whites and
desires, or inquire about another participant’s desires. Several lexical bundles that express personal desire in classroom teaching are also used to initiate new topics —> what I want to do / I would like to.
- Obligation/directive bundles: most of these bundles are personal stance expressions, but they differ from
other personal bundles in that they have a second person pronoun ( you) rather than first pronoun as subject. However, they are still clearly understood as personal expressions of stance, directing listener to carry out actions that the speaker wants to have completed. In some cases, these bundles include verbs of desire with a first person pronoun, directly conveying the speaker’s desire that the addressee carry out some action ( I want you to ). In other cases, the directive force of these bundles can be very indirect ( you might want to). Some directive bundles are used for topic introduction ( take a look at). A few obligation/ directive stance bundles are impersonal, with no personal pronoun at all, even though they still clearly direct the reader to carry out some action.
- Intention/prediction bundles : many of these bundles are overtly personal, expressing the speaker’s own
intention to perform some future action. In most cases, these are expressions of joint action, use to announce the proposed plan of a class session (w hat we’re going to). Other bundles in this category are impersonal, expressing predictions of future events that do not entail the volition of the speaker. These bundles are usually used when explaining a logical or mathematical process that involves several steps.
- Ability bundles: a few stance bundles express ability in classroom teaching. These bundle often co-occur
with a 2nd person pronoun, identifying skills and tasks that students should accomplish. Discourse organizing bundles —> serve two major functions:
- topic introduction/focus: in classroom teaching provide overt signals to the student that a new topic is
being introduced. Many of these are expressions of intention or desire, but they have the more specialized function of announcing the instructor’s intention to begin a new topic. Sometimes two 4-word bundles occur together, one effect creating a long 5-word or 6-word bundles. The use of these longer bundles for procedural instructions, identifying the major steps in the procedure. It can occur with both first and second person pronouns. The first person plural pronoun we as subject seems to invite student participation, although the “we” often refers to the instructor rather than a collective enterprise. Bundles with “if we look” are more genuine attempts to encourage student participation. The ones with second person pronouns also invite student participation, although the instructor is usually intending collective consideration of the topic. Finally, bundles with WH - question structure provide the most overt attempt to directly engage students in a new topic.
- topic elaboration/clarification: the discourse markers you know and I mean are used in sequence as a
lexical bundle, usually when the speaker believes that additional explanation or clarification is required. The bundles as well as the and on the other hand are used for explicit comparison and contrast. These two discourse organizing bundles are considerably more common in textbooks than in classroom teaching. Identification/focus bundles These bundles are common in classroom teaching, focusing on the noun phrase following the bundle as especially important. As a result, indemnification/focus bundles were classified as “referential” rather than “discourse organizers”. For example, the bundle those of you who identifies the subgroup of students who are in focus. In most cases, these bundles have a discourse organizing function and often are used after a lengthy explanation to emphasize or summarize the main point. In other cases, are used to introduce a discussion by stating the main point first and then giving the details —> one of the things. Referential bundles —> identify an entity or single out some particular attribute of an entity as especially important. Four major subcategories are distinguished: identification/focus, imprecision indicators, specification of attributes and time/place/text reference.
- Imprecision bundles: indicates imprecise reference. These have two specific functions, either to indicate that a specified reference is not necessarily exact, or to indicate that there are additional references of the same type that could be provided ( _and things like that).
- Bundles specifying attributes:_ are those which identifies specific attributes of the following head sound. Some of these bundles specify quantities or amounts ( have a lot of, a little bit of). The bundle a little bit about usually has the more specialized function of introducing a topic, apparently to minimized the expectations required from students. other bundles in this category describe the size and form of the following head noun ( the seize of the ). In contrast, some specifying bundles identify abstract characteristics as the nature of the ; but are also used to establish logical relationships in a text ( _on the basis of).
- Time/place/text-deixis bundles:_ refer to particular places, times or actions in the text itself. Text deixis bundles are common only in the written registers, where they make direct reference to figures and graphs contained in the text itself. Many of these bundles are multi-functional, referring to time, place, and/or text deixis, depending on the particular context ( in the United States, at the end of the hall). Register variation in the functional exploitation of lexical bundles The four registers are strikingly different in their reliance on particular functional types. Three general patterns emerge from this analysis:
- stance bundles are extremely common in both classroom teaching and conversation;
Lexical bundles in non-academic written registers Lexical bundles are much more prevalent in course management and institutional writing than in the academic written registers. Course management writing uses a greater number of different bundles than any of the spoken university registers. In written course management, over half of all bundles are stance bundles; referential bundles are also relatively common. Discourse organizers are less common than the other functional types in course managemte writing (although this category is still very common in comparison with other registers). In contrast, over 2/3 of all bundles in institutional writing are referential. Stance bundles in non-academic written registers Spoken classroom management and written course management are similar in that they both rely heavily on stance lexical bundles. However, these two registers tend to rely on different functional subcategories: both registers use obligation bundles, but spoken classroom management also relies heavily on desire bundles, while written course management relies on intention/prediction bundles. Most of them are used for directive purposes, regardless of their subcategory. The obligation bundles in written course management are different from those usually found in spoken classroom management; they are usually clausal, with you as the grammatical subject, but the main verb is either passive or an adjectival predicate. These bundles function to explicitly spell out the requirements of a course ( you are responsible for). Intention/prediction bundles are also common in written course management; some of these introduce the topics and organization of a course ( we will look at). However, intention/prediction bundles more often have directive functions in classroom management, introducing requirements and expectations ( homework will be assigned). Classroom management and written course management use different sets of lexical bundles, having different structural characteristics, for very similar purposes. Directive functions are dominant in both registers, and they both use lexical bundles as direct expressions of obligation. Both registers also commonly use lexical bundles for indirect directives, but they prefer different bundles types: desire bundles in spoken classroom management versus intention/prediction bundles in written course management. In speech, the instructor expresses directives by telling students what he/she “wants” or “would like”; in writing, the instructor expresses directives by identifying events that will occurs in the future, usually with a passive voice verb and no indication of the agent. Stance bundles in institutional writing are relatively rare, but when they do occur, they are almost always obligation bundles. These bundles are usually impersonal, referring to the addressee as generic “students” or not at all. Referential and discourse organizing bundles in non-academic written registers Referential bundles are especially common in institutional wiring, and also relatively common in written course management. Place bundles are dominant in institutional writing, giving the need to refer repeatedly to offices and other institutions on campus. Many of these word sequences are names or titles of an institution, rather than lexical bundles in the normal sense. Time bundles are also relatively common in both course management and institutional writing. Many of these refer to specific times that are especially relevant to university life, for example referring to class periods or semesters. Imaginable framing attributes are proportionally more prevalent in syllabi and other written course management materials, being used to introduce courses content and the conceptual organization of a course. Finally, discourse organizing bundles are also relatively common in course managements, where they indicate the overall organization and goals of a course. Discourse organizers are less common in institutional writing. these mostly incorporate conditional clauses: the bundle identifies a common circumstance that a student might encounter, and the following prose provides a description of the action that the student should take under those circumstances. Lexical bundles across academic-disciplines Natural science and social science show the greatest reliance on lexical bundles, while humanities is at the opposite extreme with comparatively few different lexical bundles. Two factors are relevant: technical content and stylistic preferences. Natural science textbooks convey dense technical content, and thus use
specific terms and expressions to refer to that content, aiming to achieve an explicit conveyance of meaning. It is likely that this reliance on a specific set of technical terms contributes to the dense use of lexical bundles. In contrast, humanities textbooks are more concerned with the critical discussion of ideas and interpretations. In addition, humanities authors value stylistic variation, often expressing the same idea in multiple ways for the sake of a more highly valued style. Such stylistic variation would contribute to the overall lesser reliance on lexical bundles. Discourse organizing bundles are distributed fairly evenly across disciplines. When they do occur in textbooks, they usually function as an overt cue that further elaboration, clarification, or a point of contrast is being provided. Stance bundles are not especially common in textbooks, although they are more important than discourse organizers. Stance bundles are most common in business and several stance functions are almost never expressed with lexical bundles in textbooks. Instead, in textbooks we find stance boundless being used for three main functional categories: epistemic, ability and importance. Two fo these functional categories are restricted primarily to textbooks. Epistemic stance bundles are most common in social science, and they are also relatively common in business and humanities. Engineering and natural sciences are based on the “laws” of nature, which are often treated as if they do not have exceptions, resulting in a lesser need for epistemic lexical bundles. In contrast, the social sciences are based on typical patterns of behavior; epistemic stance bundles are crucially important in telling the reader how interpret statements about these patterns. In addition, much discussion in the social sciences and humanities compares different points of view and the likelihood that one or another is preferable. Epistemic bundles are important in such interpretative discourse, helping students to distinguish the knowledge status of different propositions. Ability stance bundles are generally more important than epistemic bundles in university textbooks, but they are especially important in engineering and natural science. Most of these are passive constructions, referring to the abilities of the researcher or the student reader to carry out technical calculations or processes. Ability bundles are also important in humanities textbooks, where they identify the interpretative processes that students should be learning. Finally, stance bundles signaling importance are especially relevant in social science textbooks. Social science textbooks use the most bundles expressing both certainty and importance. These bundles provide overt signals to the reader of the points that they should pay special attention to. Referential bundles are by far the most common functional category in all disciplines. Referential bundles are especially important in natural science and, to a slightly lesser extent, social science. There are striking differences in the specific functions of these bundles across disciplines. The quantity/mathematical bundles in engineering textbooks often identify the mathematical status of the following noun phrase. These bundles are used to identify the relations among the components and variables used in mathematical equations. In contrast, intangible referential bundles are predominant in humanities textbooks. These bundles provide an interpretive referential frame for the following head noun, pointing out a particular abstract attribute as important ( in the context of). Natural science textbooks differ from the other disciplines in that they exhibit a frequent use of place/ location lexical bundles. These also have a discourse framing function, but they are much more concrete in meaning, identifying the physical location of a referent, or the physical relationship of one referent to some other referent. Postscript: the theoretical status of lexical bundles in university registers Lexical bundles should be regarded as basic linguistic construct with important functions for the construction of discourse in university registers. However, with respect to both structure and function, lexical bundles differ dramatically from other linguistic features. These frequent sequences of words turn out to be readily interpretable in both structural and functional terms. Although they are not the kinds of grammatical structures recognized by traditional linguistic theory, most lexical bundles do have well-defined structural correlates: they usually consist of the beginning of a clause or phrase plus the first word of an embedded structure. The rame functions as a kind of discourse anchor for the “new” information in the slot, telling the listener/ reader how to interpret that information with respect to stance, discourse organization or referential status. The patterns of use for lexical bundles are strikingly different form those found for traditional lexico- grammatical features. The contrast is especially notable for classroom teaching. With respect to lexico-
