ILM FAN YANGILIKLARI KONFERENSIYASI
IYUL
ANDIJON,2025
53
ANALYZING THE INTERPLAY OF GENERAL ACADEMIC AND DISCIPLINE
SPECIFIC LEXEMES IN EDUCATIONAL BOOKS
Zokirova Elinura Jasurovna
Qarshi State University
Abstract:
Academic language proficiency is a cornerstone of successful content
comprehension across disciplines. This study investigates the relationship between general
academic lexemes (GALs) and discipline-specific lexemes (DSLs) in educational textbooks
across three domains: biology, economics, and linguistics. Using corpus-based analysis, the
study identifies patterns in lexical density, frequency, and co-occurrence of GALs and DSLs in
representative chapters. Results show that while GALs provide structural and cognitive
scaffolding for learners, DSLs are essential for developing conceptual understanding within a
field. The paper emphasizes the pedagogical need for balanced lexical exposure and explicit
instruction on both lexeme types
.
Keywords
: academic vocabulary, discipline-specific terminology, educational lexicon, corpus
linguistics, textbook analysis
Academic literacy requires mastery of both general and discipline-specific vocabulary. While
general academic lexemes (e.g., analyze, assume, context) are transferable across fields,
discipline-specific lexemes (e.g., mitochondria in biology, inflation in economics) are tightly
bound to particular knowledge domains. Students navigating academic texts must interpret both
types of vocabulary simultaneously, often without explicit instruction.
Research shows that failure to grasp either type can hinder comprehension, reduce engagement,
and negatively affect academic performance, particularly for second language learners and
novices in a field. Despite this, educational materials rarely clarify the roles or boundaries of
GALs and DSLs.
As educational systems increasingly emphasize subject-area literacy, especially in STEM and
academic writing contexts, understanding the nature of vocabulary used in instructional
materials becomes critically important. Learners are not only expected to comprehend
discipline-specific content, but also to engage with it using general academic discourse markers
and organizational patterns.
However, a significant challenge remains:
textbooks often assume implicit knowledge of
general academic vocabulary
, making them inaccessible to many learners, especially non-
native speakers and those from linguistically diverse backgrounds. Without explicit focus on
the interaction between GALs and DSLs, students may struggle with both content acquisition
and academic expression.
By investigating how these lexemes co-occur, this study contributes to a more nuanced
understanding of academic literacy and offers practical implications for
textbook authors
,
educators
, and
curriculum developers
. The ultimate goal is to promote more inclusive and
effective academic language instruction across disciplines.
This study aims to investigate how general academic and discipline-specific lexemes interact in
educational books across multiple disciplines. It seeks to answer:
ILM FAN YANGILIKLARI KONFERENSIYASI
IYUL
ANDIJON,2025
54
1.
What is the relative frequency and distribution of GALs vs. DSLs across different
subjects?
2.
How do they function together to facilitate conceptual understanding?
A mixed-method corpus linguistics approach was used:
Corpus Construction
: A mini-corpus of educational textbooks in three disciplines—
Biology, Economics, and Linguistics—was compiled (one chapter each, ~10,000 words per
field).
Lexical Identification
:
o
GALs were identified using the Academic Word List (AWL; Coxhead, 2000).
o
DSLs were manually extracted based on domain-specific glossaries and expert
consultation.
Tools Used
: AntConc software for concordancing, word frequency counts, and
collocation analysis.
Data Analysis
: Lexemes were categorized, tagged, and quantified. Qualitative
contextual analysis was conducted to determine the function and interdependence of GALs and
DSLs.
Across all three textbooks, GALs made up
8–11%
of running words, while DSLs varied
significantly by discipline:
Biology
: ~18% DSLs
Economics
: ~14% DSLs
Linguistics
: ~12% DSLs
Key findings:
GALs often appeared as
sentence frames
(e.g., it is assumed that, the results indicate)
and functioned as
organizational and explanatory scaffolds
.
DSLs were
semantic content carriers
—used for naming, classification, and concept
specification (e.g., GDP, morpheme, osmosis).
High-frequency GALs (analyze, derive, define, occur) collocated with DSLs in
instructional phrases
(e.g., define GDP, analyze phonemes), indicating
functional
dependency
between lexeme types.
Discipline variation
: Biology leaned more on nominalization (oxidation, metabolism),
while economics favored abstract verbs (predict, allocate).
The interplay between general and specific lexemes is not merely additive but
synergistic
.
GALs provide readers with the
meta-language
for engaging with subject content, allowing for
logical sequencing, hypothesis formulation, and argumentation. DSLs, in contrast, are
anchored to disciplinary knowledge
and are essential for knowledge construction.
This co-dependence suggests that academic vocabulary instruction should not isolate GALs
from DSLs. Rather, effective pedagogy must:
Teach GALs in discipline-embedded contexts.
Provide glossaries and practice tasks that integrate both lexeme types.
Encourage
metalinguistic awareness
of how different lexemes function.
ILM FAN YANGILIKLARI KONFERENSIYASI
IYUL
ANDIJON,2025
55
Moreover, for
non-native speakers and novice learners
, GALs can act as
cognitive access
points
into disciplinary language. Without command of these terms, learners may fail to
understand even well-defined DSLs.
Importantly, textbook authors and curriculum designers should ensure a
balanced lexical load
,
avoiding jargon-heavy explanations without academic structuring.
The study confirms that both general academic and discipline-specific lexemes play essential,
interconnected roles in educational discourse. While DSLs carry conceptual weight, GALs
organize and mediate that content for learners. Pedagogically, this means educators and
materials developers must focus on integrative vocabulary strategies that reflect the real lexical
ecology of academic texts.
Future research may extend to cross-linguistic comparisons, textbook corpora across grade
levels, and the effectiveness of vocabulary-focused interventions in STEM and humanities
education.
The evidence presented in this study highlights the
linguistic interdependence
of general
academic and discipline-specific lexemes in educational texts. Rather than treating these as
separate vocabulary categories, educators and material designers should recognize how they
interact to construct meaning
and facilitate subject comprehension.
The research underscores the need for:
Vocabulary integration strategies
, where GALs and DSLs are taught in context;
Corpus-informed textbook development
, using real usage data to balance complexity
and accessibility;
Cross-disciplinary collaboration
between subject specialists and language instructors
to align terminology instruction with cognitive development.
Conclusion, this study advocates for a
pedagogical shift
: one that treats academic vocabulary
not as a static list of words, but as a
dynamic system of communicative tools
embedded
within the discourse practices of each discipline. Supporting learners in navigating this system
is key to equitable and effective education in the 21st century.
References:
1.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
2.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “Academic Vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly,
41(2), 235–253.
3.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge
University Press.
4.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in Secondary Content Areas: A
Language-Based Pedagogy. University of Michigan Press.
5.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2020). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge
University Press.
