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 (Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)
Saeideh Ahangari ³ (Department of English, Sarab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab, 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 pro-cessing 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). Corpus-based 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 speak-ers: 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.
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). Lan-guage, 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 high-dimensional 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. Mel-bourne: 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 real-izations of rhetorical structure and au-thorial 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 collo-cations an evaluation of Xtract. In 29th Annual Meeting of the Associa-tion 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.
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), 103-129.