介绍和比较两种关键词汇束分析技术

Tove Larsson, Taehyeong Kim, Jesse Egbert
{"title":"介绍和比较两种关键词汇束分析技术","authors":"Tove Larsson,&nbsp;Taehyeong Kim,&nbsp;Jesse Egbert","doi":"10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Multiword units, specifically lexical bundles, have been found to be important building blocks in language production and processing. We also know that using the text rather than the full corpus as the unit of analysis increases the linguistic validity of the results, given that written language is produced through texts (e.g., Egbert &amp; Biber, 2019). However, researchers wishing to look at which bundles are characteristic of, or <em>key</em> to, a population (e.g., students from a specific first-language background) are currently out of luck if they are interested in using the text as the unit of analysis. The present paper introduces two methods designed for looking at key lexical bundles using texts as the unit of analysis: <em>text dispersion keyness</em> and <em>mean text frequency keyness</em>. We subsequently compare the results from these methods to existing <em>whole-corpus frequency keyness</em>. The results show that the techniques produce similar lists, but that mean text frequency keyness produced the largest number of content generalizable bundles (i.e., bundles that can be generalized across texts in the corpus). By contrast, text dispersion keyness helped us obtain the largest number of content distinctive bundles (i.e., bundles that clearly distinguish the target corpus from the reference corpus). Text dispersion keyness also produced the highest number of bundles that were both content generalizable and distinctive. Researchers may therefore wish to make a choice among these methods based on the objectives of their analysis.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":101075,"journal":{"name":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introducing and comparing two techniques for key lexical bundles analysis\",\"authors\":\"Tove Larsson,&nbsp;Taehyeong Kim,&nbsp;Jesse Egbert\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Multiword units, specifically lexical bundles, have been found to be important building blocks in language production and processing. We also know that using the text rather than the full corpus as the unit of analysis increases the linguistic validity of the results, given that written language is produced through texts (e.g., Egbert &amp; Biber, 2019). However, researchers wishing to look at which bundles are characteristic of, or <em>key</em> to, a population (e.g., students from a specific first-language background) are currently out of luck if they are interested in using the text as the unit of analysis. The present paper introduces two methods designed for looking at key lexical bundles using texts as the unit of analysis: <em>text dispersion keyness</em> and <em>mean text frequency keyness</em>. We subsequently compare the results from these methods to existing <em>whole-corpus frequency keyness</em>. The results show that the techniques produce similar lists, but that mean text frequency keyness produced the largest number of content generalizable bundles (i.e., bundles that can be generalized across texts in the corpus). By contrast, text dispersion keyness helped us obtain the largest number of content distinctive bundles (i.e., bundles that clearly distinguish the target corpus from the reference corpus). Text dispersion keyness also produced the highest number of bundles that were both content generalizable and distinctive. Researchers may therefore wish to make a choice among these methods based on the objectives of their analysis.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101075,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100245\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772766125000667\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772766125000667","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多词单位,特别是词汇束,是语言产生和处理的重要组成部分。我们也知道,使用文本而不是完整的语料库作为分析单位可以增加结果的语言有效性,因为书面语言是通过文本产生的(例如,Egbert &;Biber, 2019)。然而,如果研究人员想要研究群体的特征或关键(例如,来自特定第一语言背景的学生),如果他们对使用文本作为分析单位感兴趣,目前就不太走运了。本文介绍了两种使用文本作为分析单元来查看关键词汇束的方法:文本分散关键度和平均文本频率关键度。我们随后将这些方法的结果与现有的全语料库频率关键度进行比较。结果表明,这些技术产生了相似的列表,但这意味着文本频率关键字产生了最多数量的内容泛化束(即,可以在语料库中的文本之间泛化的束)。相比之下,文本分散键值帮助我们获得了最多数量的内容特色束(即明确区分目标语料库和参考语料库的束)。文本分散键值也产生了最多的内容概括和独特的束。因此,研究人员可能希望根据他们的分析目标在这些方法中做出选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Introducing and comparing two techniques for key lexical bundles analysis
Multiword units, specifically lexical bundles, have been found to be important building blocks in language production and processing. We also know that using the text rather than the full corpus as the unit of analysis increases the linguistic validity of the results, given that written language is produced through texts (e.g., Egbert & Biber, 2019). However, researchers wishing to look at which bundles are characteristic of, or key to, a population (e.g., students from a specific first-language background) are currently out of luck if they are interested in using the text as the unit of analysis. The present paper introduces two methods designed for looking at key lexical bundles using texts as the unit of analysis: text dispersion keyness and mean text frequency keyness. We subsequently compare the results from these methods to existing whole-corpus frequency keyness. The results show that the techniques produce similar lists, but that mean text frequency keyness produced the largest number of content generalizable bundles (i.e., bundles that can be generalized across texts in the corpus). By contrast, text dispersion keyness helped us obtain the largest number of content distinctive bundles (i.e., bundles that clearly distinguish the target corpus from the reference corpus). Text dispersion keyness also produced the highest number of bundles that were both content generalizable and distinctive. Researchers may therefore wish to make a choice among these methods based on the objectives of their analysis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信