Chapter Five Results and Discussion.........................35
5.1 General structural description of lexical bundles......................35
5.2 Structural comparison of four-word bundles in the two corpora......................39
Chapter FiveResults and Discussion
5.1 General structural description of lexical bundles
Based on the above criteria,lexical bundles retrieved from the English abstractcorpus of scientific journals(EASJC)and English abstract corpus of arts journals(EAAJC)by software Antconc 3.5.8.According to the extraction requirements of theabove lexical bundles,as long as the four-word lexical bundles with frequency morethan 5 texts are included in the following two tables.
As can be seen in Table 5-1,the most frequent word bundle in EAAJC is the extentto which,which occurs 13 times in 13 English abstracts.Next,in the context of,in thispaper we,in this article we and in this special issue occur 12,11,6 and 6 timesrespectively.The five lowest frequencies of word bundle are are more likely to,of therelation between,our understanding of the,the purpose of this and a wide range of,justreaching the extraction standard.
Chapter SixConclusion
6.1 Major findings
In this paper,the use of lexical bundles is described and compared between theEnglish abstract corpus of scientific journals(EASJC)and English abstract corpus ofarts journals(EAAJC)in terms of frequency,structures,and functions of lexical bundles.The main findings are as follows:
Firstly,the overall analysis based on the frequency shows that both of the art andscience authors rely on a limited range of lexical bundles.According to the extractioncriteria in Chapter 4,10 and 15 are extracted from the two corpora respectively inEAAJC and EASJC.This shows that both of them consciously use lexical bundles inEnglish abstract writing.However,from the perspective of TTR,the types of lexicalbundles used by science authors are not as rich as those used by the arts authors,whichalso indicates that the writing level of science authors should be further improved.
Secondly,there are also some differences found in the structural distribution oflexical four-word bundles in the English abstract corpus of scientific journals(EASJC)and English abstract corpus of arts journals(EAAJC)across the four broad categories:NP-based bundles,PP-based bundles,VP-based bundles,and other bundles.But for theuse of these four types of lexical bundles,their preferences are different.To sum up,both art authors and science authors use a large amount of PP-based bundles,whichaccount for 50%and 46%in EAAJC and EASJC,respectively.At the same time,compared to science authors,arts authors use more NP-based bundles and fewerVP-based bundles.But surprisingly,both of them underuse other lexical bundles.NP-based bundles and VP-based bundles can enrich the content of English abstractwriting,while PP-based bundles and other lexical bundles can complete the structure ofEnglish abstract writing.This suggests that authors should use lexical bundles rationallyin abstract writing,and pay attention to the integrity of abstract logic and structure whileclearly expressing their own opinions,so as to improve writing standards.
reference(omitted)
