Abstract Numerous studies have compared the use of lexical bundles between L1 and L2 academic writing or between students and expert writing. However, the results of these studies are mixed due to differences in the control of potentially confounding variables (e.g. discipline, the level of expertise). It is still unclear whether the L1 background, or the level of expertise (i.e. student versus expert) accounts for the differences in the use of lexical bundles. To clarify this issue, the present study compared L1-L2 differences in the use of lexical bundles in master’s theses and research articles by controlling discipline (i.e. applied linguistics), the level of expertise, and the research paradigm (i.e. quantitative texts). The study shows that L2-English academic writers employ more bundle types and tokens than L1-English academic writers regardless of levels of expertise. Structurally, both L1 and L2 academic writers use proportionally more phrasal bundles as their levels of expertise increase. Functionally, L1 academic writers use proportionally more participant-oriented bundles than L2 academic writers regardless of levels of expertise. Our findings also indicate that both L1 background and the level of expertise affect the structural differences in lexical bundles. In addition, the L1 background matters to the functional differences in lexical bundles.

中文翻译：

---

比较学生和专家写作中词汇束中的L1-L2差异

摘要大量研究比较了L1和L2学术写作之间或学生与专家写作之间的词汇束用法。但是，由于对潜在混杂变量（例如，学科，专业水平）的控制差异，这些研究的结果参差不齐。尚不清楚L1的背景或专业水平（即学生还是​​专家）是否解释了词法组合用法的差异。为了澄清这个问题，本研究通过控制学科（即应用语言学），专业水平和研究范式（即定量文本），比较了硕士论文和研究文章中词汇束用法的L1-L2差异。研究表明，无论专业水平如何，L2-英语学术作家使用的捆绑类型和令牌都比L1-英语学术作家更多。从结构上讲，随着专业水平的提高，一级和二级学术作者都按比例使用更多的短语集。从功能上讲，无论专业水平如何，一级学术作者比二级学术作者使用更多的面向参与者的捆绑软件。我们的发现还表明，L1的背景和专业水平都会影响词汇束的结构差异。此外，L1背景与词汇束中的功能差异有关。不论专业水平如何，第一级学术作家使用的面向参与者的捆绑软件要比第二级学术作家所使用的捆绑软件成比例。我们的发现还表明，L1的背景和专业水平都会影响词汇束的结构差异。此外，L1背景与词汇束中的功能差异有关。不论专业水平如何，第一级学术作家使用的面向参与者的捆绑软件要比第二级学术作家所使用的捆绑软件成比例。我们的发现还表明，L1的背景和专业水平都会影响词汇束的结构差异。此外，L1背景与词汇束中的功能差异有关。