Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article titled "Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers" explores the use of lexical bundles in various spoken and written registers within a university setting. The study aims to investigate the prevalence and functions of lexical bundles in different types of university discourse.

One potential bias in this article is the focus on university registers, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other contexts. While it is acknowledged that lexical bundles are important building blocks of discourse, it is not clear why studying their use specifically in university settings is significant or relevant.

The article claims that previous research has shown that lexical bundles are especially prevalent in university classroom teaching, serving three major discourse functions: stance expressions, discourse organizers, and referential expressions. However, no specific references or citations are provided to support these claims. This lack of evidence weakens the credibility of the article's assertions.

Furthermore, the article states that lexical bundles are even more prevalent in non-academic university registers than they are in instructional registers. This claim is surprising and contradicts previous research which suggests that lexical bundles are more common in speech than in writing. Again, no evidence or data is presented to support this claim, leaving readers skeptical about its validity.

The article also mentions that lexical bundles are very common in written course management such as course syllabi. However, it does not explore why this might be the case or provide any analysis on the implications of this finding. This omission limits the depth and completeness of the study's findings.

Additionally, there is a lack of exploration of counterarguments or alternative perspectives on the use of lexical bundles. The article presents a one-sided view by focusing solely on their prevalence and functions without considering potential drawbacks or limitations associated with their use.

Another issue with this article is its promotional tone towards Elsevier Ltd., who published it. The copyright statement at the end emphasizes Elsevier's ownership rights without providing any justification for why this information is relevant to the study or its findings. This inclusion seems unnecessary and potentially biased towards promoting the publisher.

Overall, this article lacks sufficient evidence, fails to consider alternative perspectives, and presents unsupported claims. It would benefit from a more balanced approach that explores potential biases, provides stronger evidence for its assertions, and considers counterarguments and limitations associated with the use of lexical bundles in university discourse.