A Cross-cultural Study on the Discussion Sections of PhD Dissertations with a Focus on Academic Collocations

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Vida  Fathi Bonabi ¹ (Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)
Nesa  Nabifar ² (Assistant Professor, Department of ELT, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)
Saeideh  Ahangari ³ (Department of English Language and Literature, Azad University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran)

Received: 2022-08-11 Accepted : 2023-01-11 Published : 2024-04-26

Keywords: Academic Collocations, Cross-cultural Analysis, Discussion Sections, PhD Dissertations,

Abstract :

The present study aimed to examine the rhetorical structure of the discussion sections of English PhD dissertations authored by Iranian students in an EFL context, Indian ESL students and native (English speaking) PhD students at Applied Linguistics. To this end, 300 discussion sections were gathered from three contexts under study at the time frame of 2005 to 2020. Following Benson et al’s (1986) model, the researchers analyzed the discussion sections of the dissertations for both lexical and grammatical collocations and their different sub-classifications. The findings showed that the natives overused collocations in a significantly greater number in developing the PhD dissertations discussion section than those of EFL and ESL PhD students' dissertations. Moreover, despite variations, there were similarities between EFL and ESL PhD students' dissertations in terms of utilizing the sub-categories of collocations that can be considered as signs for standardization of academic writing by non-native speakers of English. The implications for researchers, teachers and students were discussed.

References:

Abdollahpour, Z., & Gholami, J. (2018).
Building blocks of medical abstracts:
frequency, functions, and structures of
lexical bundles. Asian ESP Journal,
14(1), 82-110.
AlHassan, L., & Wood, D. (2015). The effectiveness of focused instruction of formulaic sequences in augmenting L2
learners' academic writing skills: A
quantitative research study. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 17, 51-62.
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R.
(1986). Lexicographic description of
English (studies in language companion,
v. 14). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bian, X., & Wang, X. (2016). Chinese EFL
Undergraduate’s Academic Writing:
Rhetorical Difficulties and Suggestions.
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 20-29.
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written
university registers. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97-116.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic
prose. Language and Computers, 26,
181-190.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad,
S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of written and spoken English.
Harlow: Longman.
Chen, Y. H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing.
Language learning & technology, 14(2),
30-49.
Cobb, E. (2000). Testing EFL vocabulary.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45.
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published
and student disciplinary writing: examples
from history and biology. English for
Specific Purposes, 23, 391-423.
Cortes, V., & Csomay, E. (2015). Corpusbased research in applied linguistics:
Studies in honor of Doug Biber (Vol.
66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Cotos, E., Huffman, S., & Link, S. (2015).
Furthering and applying move/step constructs: Technology-driven marshalling
of Swalesian genre theory for EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 19, 52-72.
Cowie, A. P., & Howarth, P. (1996). Phraseological competence and written proficiency. British studies in applied linguistics, 11, 80-93.
De Cock, S. (2004). Preferred sequences of
words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian
Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), 2(1), 225-246.
Doró, K. (2014). Citation practices in EFL
undergraduate theses: a focus on reporting verbs. UPRT 2013: Empirical Studies in English Applied Linguistics, 32.
Durrant, P. & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what
extent do native and non-native writers
make use of collocations? International
review of applied linguistics 47, 157-77.
Ebeling, S. O., & Hasselgård, H. (2015).
Learners' and native speakers' use of recurrent word-combinations across disciplines. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies, Vol. 6. 87-106
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research
and language pedagogy. The UK: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ellis, N., & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2009).
Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics,
corpus linguistics, and education.
Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG
5(1), 61-78.
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom
principle and the open choice principle.
Text & Talk. 20(1). 29-62.
Evans, V., & Tyler A. (2003). The semantics
of English prepositions: Spatial scenes,
embodied meaning, and cognition.
Cambridge University Press.
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic
theory, 1930-1955. Studies in linguistic
analysis.
Gholami, L., & Gholami, J. (2020). Uptake in
incidental focus-on-form episodes concerning formulaic language in advanced
adult EFL classes. Language Teaching
Research, 24(2), 189-219.
Journal of language and translation, Volume 14, Number 2, 2024 9
Gläser, R. (1998). The stylistic potential of phraseological units in the light of genre analysis. Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and
applications, Oxford: OUP. 125-143.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of
Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herman, C. (2017). Looking back at doctoral
education in South Africa. Studies in
Higher Education. 42(8), 1437-1454.
Hung, M. & Chin, Y. (2018). The use of corpus and a collocation framework in the
comparison of the English tests of two
major college rntrance examinations in
Taiwan. Asian Journal of Language,
Literature and Culture Studies, 1-11.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses:
Social interactions in academic writing.
London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader:
Addressee features in academic articles.
Written communication, 18(4), 549-574.
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and
engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, Volume 23, Issue 2.
Pages 215- 239
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical
bundles and disciplinary variation. English for specific purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic
discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further
developments in the lexical approach.
Hampshire: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Liu, Y. & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic
structure of discussion sections in applied
linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 34, 97- 109
Liu, H., Huang, J., Pan, Y., & Zhang, J. (2018).
Barycentric interpolation collocation methods for solving linear and nonlinear highdimensional Fredholm integral equations.
Journal of Computational and Applied
mathematics, 327, 141-154.
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A phrasal
expressions list. Applied linguistics, 33
(3), 299-320.
McCarthy, P. & Wient, M. (2019). Who are
the top Ph.D. employers. Advancing
Australia’s knowledge economy. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.
McIntyre, D. (2015). Towards an integrated
corpus stylistics. Topics in Linguistics
16(1), 59-68
Nagao, M., & Mori, S. (1994). A new method
of n-gram statistics for large number of
n and automatic extraction of words and
phrases from large text data of Japanese.
In COLING 1994 Volume 1: The 15th
International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts
in applied linguistics and educational
technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse studies,
10(2), 231-250.
Salazar, D. (2014). Lexical Bundles in Native
and Non-native scientific writing. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre
set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for
specific purposes, 24(2), 141-156.
Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use
(Vol. 9). John Benjamins Publishing.
Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences:
Acquisition, processing, and use (Vol.
9). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Shin, D., & Chon, Y. V. (2019). A multiword
unit analysis: COCA multiword unit list
20 and collogram. Journal of Asia
TEFL, 16(2). 608.
Smadja, F. (1991). From n-grams to collocations an evaluation of Xtract. In
29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
279-284.
Tajalli, G. (1994). Translatability of English and
Persian collocations. Paper presented at
the second conference on translation.
Tabriz University, Tabriz.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language:
Pushing the boundaries. Oxford Applied
Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
12 A Cross-cultural Study on the Discussion Sections of Ph.D. …
Creative Commons License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike
International License
Wray, A. (2012). Formulaic sequences. The
encyclopedia of applied linguistics. 1-5.
Wiley Online Library.
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated
model. Language & Communication,
20(1), 1-28.
Xiao, R., & McEnery, T. (2006). Collocation,
semantic prosody, and near synonymy:
A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied
linguistics, 27(1), 103-1