ACADEMIC WRITING REVISITED: A PHRASEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS HIGH-STAKE GENRES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LEXICAL BUNDLES | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 34، شماره 4، خرداد 2016، صفحه 87-114 اصل مقاله (194.26 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2016.3615 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Hassan Jalali* 1؛ Gholam Reza Zarei2 | ||
| 1Isfahan UNiversity of Technology | ||
| 2Isfahan University of Technology | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Lexical bundles are frequent word combinations that commonly appear in different registers. They have been the subject of much research in the area of corpus linguistics during the last decade. While most previous studies of bundles have mainly focused on variations in the use of these word combinations across different registers and a number of disciplines, not much research has been done to explore some high-stakes written academic genres of one single disciplinary area. This more qualitative study aimed at finding the way in which target bundles in the discipline of applied linguistics, as identified in research articles, were used by two groups of EFL postgraduate students (master-level and doctoral students) as novice discourse community members in the same discipline. Surprisingly enough, the study, contrary to some findings of the previous research, found that in many cases, postgraduate students were able to use target bundles as published writers did. The study, therefore, revealed little if any difference between the three groups of writers in their actual use of lexical bundles. Notwithstanding this, there were some remarkable discrepancies between the three groups with regard to some structural and functional classes of bundles. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| lexical bundles؛ research articles؛ doctoral dissertations؛ master theses؛ applied linguistics | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Anthony, L. (2007). AntConc 3.2.1w: Freeware corpus analysis toolkit. [On-line]. Available: http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/ Biber, D. (2006a). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: Benjamin. Biber, D. (2006b). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-106. Biber, D, & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263-286. Biber, D, & Conrad, S., (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgard, & S. Oksefjell, (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson, (pp.181–189). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V., (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In: A. Wilson, P. Rayson, and T. McEnery, (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Biber, D, Conrad, S, & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at …: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405. Biber, D, Johansson, S, Leech, G, Conrad S, & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson. Conklin, K, and Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers? Applied linguistics, 29(1), 72-89.Conrad, S. (1996). Academic discourse in two disciplines: Professional writing and student development in biology and history. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Northern Arizona University, Arizona.Cortes, V. (2001). Lexical bundles in context: A new taxonomy. Unpublished Manuscript, Northern Arizona University, Arizona. Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical bundles in academic writing in history and biology. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Arizona. Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 397–423. Cortes, V. (2006). Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example form a writing intensive history class. Linguistics and Education, 17, 391-406. Cortes, V. (2008). A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish. Corpora, 3, 43-58. Gibbs, R, Bogadanovich, J, Sykes. J, & Barr, D. (1997). Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37,141–54. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). Functions of language (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). It is interesting to note that… : A comparative study of anticipatory 'it' in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 367-383. Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge. Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 3-26. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2001a). Brining in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written communication, 18(4), 549-574. Hyland (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mentions in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151. Hyland, K. (2005) Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–191. Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied linguistics, 28(2), 266-285. Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21. Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 41-62. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139. Jones, M, & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences (pp. 269-292). John Benjamins: Philadelphia. Levy, S.A. (2003). Lexical bundles in professional and student writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Pacific, California. Nattinger,J. & DeCarrico, J.(1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ruiying, Y, & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385. Ruiying, Y, & Allison, D. (2004). Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 264-279. Scott, M. (2008). Wordsmith Tools 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 58-78. Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 463-489. Wray, A., and Perkins, R. M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1-28. Yorio, C. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam & K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan (pp. 55–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,701 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,996 |
||