Recurrent Formulas and Moves in Writing Research Article Conclusions among Native and Nonnative Writers

Hadi Kashiha


For years, writing academic research articles (RAs) has gained abundant attention from scholars. This is obviously motivated by the fact that writing RAs is an important endeavor through which writers are able to communicate with members in their discourse community with an owned academic voice to perpetuate an identity. This voice is facilitated through the frequent and efficient use of formulaic sequences such as lexical bundles. This study aims to investigate the use of lexical bundles in two different corpora of 200 RA conclusions written by native and Iranian non-native writers. The comparison is premised on the notion that there may be linguistic differences between the two groups of writers and the comparison could serve to highlight how communicative purposes could be conveyed by the bundles in the moves and steps of the conclusions differently. Findings demonstrated that native writers relied more on the use of lexical bundles in writing conclusions. Structurally, the majority of the bundles found in the two corpora were noun or prepositional phrases. While native authors were more inclined to the use of dependent clauses, the bundles found in the L2 corpus contained more verb phrases. Further analysis of the bundles in the moves and steps of the conclusions revealed some marked variations between the two groups. Most of these expressions in the L2 corpus were used in more than one move or step, while in the native corpus, a group of lexical bundles were found to belong to only one move or step of a move.


Keywords: formulaic language; lexical bundles; move; RA conclusion; native and non-native writing



Full Text:



Adel, 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.

Aktas, R. N. & Cortes, V. (2008). A comparative corpus-based study of shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 7, 3-14.

Bamberg, B. (1983). What makes a text coherent? College Composition and Communication. 34(4), 417-429.

Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 14(3), 275-311.

Biber, D. (2010). Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp 159-191). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Biber, D. & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263-286.

Biber, D. Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.). Out of corpora (pp 181-190). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Biber, D. Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at . . .: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics. 25, 371-405.

Biber, D. Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.

Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum. 1, 1-14.

Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the result sections of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes. 13, 47–59.

Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes. 23(4), 397-423.

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.

Firth, J. R. (1951). Modes of meaning. Essays and Studies (The English Association), 118-149.

Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes. 27 (1), 4-21.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2003). A corpus-based investigation of scientific research articles: Linking move analysis with multidimensional analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Karabacak, E. & Qin, J. (2013). Comparison of lexical bundles used by Turkish, Chinese, and American university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 70, 622-628.

Kashiha, H. & Chan, S. H. (2013). An exploration of lexical bundles in academic lectures: examples from hard and soft sciences. The Journal of Asia TEFL. 10(4), 133-161.

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.

Jespersen, O. (1917). Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A.F. Host.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach (Vol. 1, p. 993). Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, M. (2009). The idiom principle in L2 English: Assessing elusive formulaic sequences as indicators of idiomaticity, fluency, and proficiency. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag.

McCulley, G. (1985). Writing quality, coherence, and cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English. 19(3), 269-282.

Nesi, H. & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 11(3), 283-304.

Pawley, A. & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native like selection and native like fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.). Language and Communication (pp 191-225). Longman. London.

Sandoval, M. (2010). Stance-taking strategies in the written discourse of research papers conclusion sections. Paper presented at the First International TESOL Convention, Clark Freeport Zone, Philippines.

Schmid, H. J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.

Yang, R. & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes. 22, 365-385.

Yeganehjoo, M., & Yap, N. T. (2012). Lexical access in production of idioms by proficient L2 learners. 3L; Language, Linguistics and Literature, The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(1), 87-104.


  • There are currently no refbacks.




eISSN : 2550-2247

ISSN : 0128-5157