The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.768-800
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2020
Received 01 Nov 2020 Revised 27 Nov 2020 Accepted 10 Dec 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.20..202012.768

A Corpus-Based Study of Lexical Bundles and Moves by English L1 and L2 Writers in Medical Journal Abstracts
Eun-Soo Kim ; Eun-Joo Lee**
Ewha Womans University
Ewha Womans University

** 1st author: Kim, Eun-Soo; corresponding author: Lee, Eun-Joo


Copyright 2020 KASELL
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Many English L2 writers in the field of medicine encounter difficulties when writing English-medium journal abstracts. Previous studies have shown a need to improve the quality of medical journal abstracts when reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, it is important to gain sensitivity to the use of lexical bundles commonly shared by community members. However, little research has been conducted to explore the characteristics of lexical bundles between English L1 and L2 writers in medical journal abstracts. This study aims to investigate the use of lexical bundles and those with keywords between native speakers of English (NSE) writers and Korean non-native speakers of English (NNSE) writers by examining essential items connected to the moves of medical journal abstracts. The study extracted three to nine-word lexical bundles occurring at least five times across five different texts from prestigious medical journals published in English-speaking countries and Korea, respectively. Types and tokens of lexical bundles, including those with keywords, extracted at 0.0001 were examined between the corpora in accordance with each item of medical journal abstracts. It was observed that lexical bundles related to signals of research objectives, there-patterns, and hedges were frequently used by NNSE writers. On the other hand, NSE writers prominently used lexical bundles to report items related to research methodology, results with statistical markers, and negative events. The findings of the study show that NNSE writers lack awareness of discipline-specific conventions and essential items to include in medical journal abstracts.


Keywords: lexical bundles, medical journal abstracts, a corpus-based analysis, English L2 writers, randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

Acknowledgments

The article is based on part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation


References
1. Abdollahpour, Z. and J. Gholami. 2018. Building blocks of medical abstracts: Frequency, functions and structures of lexical bundles. Asian ESP Journal 14(1), 87-116.
2. Anthony, L. 2018. AntConc (Version. 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
3. Appel, R. and P. Trofimovich. 2017. Transitional probability predicts native and non‐native use of formulaic sequences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 27(1), 24-43.
4. Biber, D. and F. Barbieri. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26(3), 263-289.
5. Cavalieri, S. 2014. Variation across disciplines: The case of applied linguistics and medicine. In M. Bondi and R. Lorés Sanz, eds., Abstracts in Academic Discourse: Variation and Change, 161-174. Berlin: Peter Lang.
6. Chen, Y.-H. and P. Baker. 2010. Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology 14(2), 30-49.
7. Cho, D. W. 2009. Science journal paper writing in an EFL context: The case of Korea. English for Specific Purposes 28(4), 230-239.
8. Cortes, V. 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.
9. De Angelis, C., J. M. Drazen, F. A. Frizelle, C. Haug, J. Hoey, R. Horton, … and H. Sox. 2004. Clinical trial registration: A statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. N Engl J Med 351, 1250–1251.
10. Esfandiari, R. and F. Barbary. 2017. A contrastive corpus-driven study of lexical bundles between English writers and Persian writers in psychology research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 29, 21-42.
11. Flowerdew, J. 2008. Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(1), 77-86.
12. Friginal, E. and S. S. Mustafa. 2017. A comparison of U.S.-based and Iraqi English research article abstracts using corpora. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25, 45-57.
13. Ghimire, S., E. Kyung, W. Kang and E. Kim. 2012. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials 13(77), 1-7.
14. Gledhill, C. 2000. The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes 19(2), 115-135.
15. Groves, T. and K. Abbasi. 2004. Screening research papers by reading abstracts: Please get the abstract right, because we may use it alone to assess your paper. BMJ 329(7464), 470-471.
16. Hackshaw, A. 2009. A concise guide to clinical trials. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
17. Haynes, R. B., C. D. Mulrow., E. J. Huth., D. G. Altman and M. J. Gardner. 1990. More informative abstracts revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine 113(1), 69-76.
18. Hays, M., M. Andrews, R. Wilson, D. Callender, P. G. O'Malley and K. Douglas. 2016. Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: A review and analysis. BMJ Open 6(7), 1-8.
19. Huckin, T. 2006. Abstracting from abstracts. In M. Hewings, ed., Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications, 93-103. London: Continuum.
20. Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
21. Hyland, K. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27(1), 4-21.
22. Jalali, Z. S. and M. R. Moini. 2014. Structure of lexical bundles in introduction section of medical research articles. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 98, 719-726.
23. Kim, E.-S. 2020. A Contrastive Corpus-based Analysis of Lexical Bundles between English L1 and English L2 Writers in Medical Journal Abstracts. Doctoral dissertation, Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
24. Kyung, E. J., H. S. Kim & E. Y. Kim. 2012. The quality of reports on randomized controlled trials abstracts from Korean science citation index journal and NEJM; Evaluation and comparison of adherence to the CONSORT statement. Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 22(2), 131-136.
25. Landis, J. R. and G. G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159-174.
26. López-Arroyo, B. and B. Méndez-Cendón. 2007. Describing phraseological devices in medical abstracts: An English/Spanish contrastive analysis. Meta 52(3), 503-516.
27. Lu, X. and J. Deng. 2019. With the rapid development: A contrastive analysis of lexical bundles in dissertation abstracts by Chinese and English L1 doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 39, 21-36.
28. Marco, M. J. L. 2000. Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: A genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes 19, 63-86.
29. Martín, P., J. Rey-Rocha, S. Burgess and A. I. Moreno. 2014. Publishing research in English-language journals: Attitudes, strategies and difficulties of multilingual scholars of medicine. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 16, 57-67.
30. Mbuagbaw, L., M. Thabane, T. Vanniyasingam, V. B. Debono, S. Kosa, S. Zhang, … and L. Thabane. 2014. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: A systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials 38(2), 245-250.
31. McIntosh, N. 1997. Abstract information and structure: Experience from an international pediatric meeting. European Science Editing 23(1), 3-6.
32. Millar, N., F. Salager-Meyer and B. Budgell. 2019. “It is important to reinforce the importance of…”: ‘Hype’ in reports of randomized controlled trials. English for Specific Purposes 54, 139-151.
33. Moher, D., S. Hopewell, K. F. Schulz, V. Montori, P. C. Gøtzsche, P. J. Devereaux, … and D. G. Altman. 2010. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340(c869), 1-28.
34. Nwogu, K. N. 1997. The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes 16(2), 119-138.
35. Omidian, T., H. Shahriari and A. Siyanova-Chanturia. 2018. A cross-disciplinary investigation of multi-word expressions in the moves of research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36, 1-14.
36. Packer, D. L., D. B. Mark, R. A. Robb, K. H. Monahan, T. D. Bahnson, J. E. Poole, ... and G. C. Flaker. 2019. Effect of catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug therapy on mortality, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac arrest among patients with atrial fibrillation: the CABANA randomized clinical trial. JAMA 321(13), 1261-1274.
37. Pan, F., R. Reppen and D. Biber. 2016. Comparing patterns of L1 versus English L2 academic professionals: Lexical bundles in telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21, 60-71.
38. Parker, C. C., N. D. James, C. D. Brawley, N. W. Clarke, A. P. Hoyle, A. Ali, ... and D. P. Dearnaley. 2018. Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): A randomised controlled phase 3 trial. The Lancet 392(10162), 2353-2366.
39. Pérez-Llantada, C. 2014. Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14, 84-94.
40. Saber, A. 2012. Phraseological patterns in a large corpus of biomedical articles. In A. Boulton, S. Carter-Thomas and E. Rowley-Jolivet, eds., Corpus-informed Research and Learning in ESP: Issues and Applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 45-81.
41. Salager-Meyer, F. 2006. Medical discourse: Structured abstracts. In K. Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 717-720.Boston, MA: Elsevier.
42. Schulz, K. F., D. G. Altman and D. Moher. 2010. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340(7748), 698-702.
43. Shin, W. J., Y. O. Kim, J. H. Oh, J. S. Chung and K. H. Kim. 2015. Is there any quality improvement in the randomized controlled trial abstracts in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology after the publication of the CONSORT abstract guidelines in 2008? Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 68(4), 420-422.
44. Swales, J. M. and C. B. Feak. 2009. Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
45. Van Bonn, S. and J. M. Swales. 2007. English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2), 93-108.
46. Wood, A. 2001. International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew and M. Peacock, eds., Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes, 71-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, Eun-SooGraduate Student, Department of English EducationEwha Womans University52 Ewhayeodaegil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, KoreaTel: (02)3277-2647E-mail: esk1209@naver.com

Lee, Eun-JooProfessor, Department of English EducationEwha Womans University52 Ewhayeodaegil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, KoreaTel: (02)3277-3788E-mail: eunlee@ewha.ac.kr