Derlem Tabanlı Bir Çalışma: Türk Öğrencilerinin Akademik Yazılarında Sözcük Öbekleri Kullanımı

Year 2022, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 329 - 341, 31.12.2022

Serpil Uçar , Elham Zarfsaz

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, lisans öğrencilerinin akademik yazılarındaki sözcük öbeklerini yapısal ve işlevsel olarak belirlemektir. Araştırmanın derlemi, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi ve İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı bölümlerindeki 80 Türk ve 50 İngiliz lisans öğrencilerinin tartışmacı makalelelerinden derlenmiştir. Sonuçlar, Türk lisans öğrencilerinin anadili İngilizce olan öğrencilere göre daha az çeşitli ve daha sınırlı sayıda sözcük öbeği kullandığını göstermiştir. Yapısal sınıflandırma bakımından, Türk öğrenci yazıları aynı kategoride daha fazla sözcük öbeği kullanma eğiliminde olmalarına rağmen, anadili İngilizce olan öğrencilerin akademik yazılarında daha fazla –of- parçası içeren isim sözcük öbekleri kullanılmıştır. İşlevsel sınıflandırma ile ilgili olarak, ana dili İngilizce olan öğrenciler, ana dili İngilizce olmayan öğrencilere göre çok daha fazla gönderimsel sözcük öbekleri kullanmışlardır. Anadili İngilizce olan öğrenciler ayrıca Türk öğrencilere göre söylem belirleyici sözcük öbeklerini ve tutum sözcük öbeklerini daha çok kullanmışlardır.

Keywords

derlem tabanlı çalışma, sözcük öbekleri, akademik yazma

A Corpus-Based Study: The Employment of Lexical Bundles in Turkish Students’ Academic Writing

Abstract

The aim of this study was to reveal the structures and the functions of lexical bundles in the argumentative papers of university students. The research corpora included 50 argumentative papers of English and 80 argument-papers of Turkish students. The students were from English Language Teaching and English Language and Literature departments. The findings revealed that Turkish students used less varied and more restricted number of bundles than English native students. Regarding the taxonomy of structure, native students employed slightly more NP phrase with of- phrase fragment in their writing although Turkish students tended to employ more bundles in the same category. Regarding the functional taxonomy, English native students used much more referential bundles than non-native students. More stance bundles and discourse markers were also employed by native students compared to non-native students.

Keywords

corpus-based study, lexical bundles, academic writing

References

• Ädel, A. & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non- native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81-92.
• 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.
• Allen, D. (2009). Lexical bundles in learner writing: An analysis of formulaic language in the ALESS learner corpus. Komaba Journal of English Education, 1, 105-127.
• Altenberg, B. (1998). On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word- combinations.
• A.P. Cowie (Ed.), in Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications (pp.101-122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Biber, D. (2010). Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 159–191). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Biber, D. & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26 (3), 263-286. Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. H. Hasselgard and S. Oksefjell (Eds.), in Out of corpora (pp. 181-190). Amsterdam: Rodopi
• Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25 (3), 371-405. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England: Longman
• Butler, C. (1997). Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: some implications for Functional Grammar. C. Butler, J. Connolly, R. Gatward, and M. Wismans (Eds), in A fund of ideas: Recent development in Functional Grammar (p. 60-77). Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use.
• Chen, Y. H. & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14 (2), 30-49.
• Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23 (4), 397-423.
• Cortes, V. (2006). Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example from a writing intensive history class. Linguistics and Education, 17 (4), 391-406.
• Erman, B. & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text- Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 20 (1), 29-62
• Gitsaki, C. (1999). Teaching English collocations to ESL students. NUCB Journal of Language Culture and Communication, 1 (3), 27-34.
• Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. A.P. Cowie (ed.), in Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (pp. 145-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Howarth, P. (1998b). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. A.P. Cowie (Ed.), in Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications (pp. 161-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27 (1), 4-21.
• Jones, M., & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences. N. Schmitt (Ed.), in Formulaic sequences acquisition, processing and use, (pp.269-292). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Juknevičienė, R. (2009). Lexical bundles in learner language: Lithuanian learners vs. native speakers. Kalbotyra, 61, 61-72.
• Karabacak, E. & Qin, J. (2013). Comparison of lexical bundles used by Turkish, Chinese, and American university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 622-628.
• Li, J. & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18 (2), 85-102.
• Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
• Oktavianti, I. N., & Sarage, J. (2021). Lexical Bundles in Students' Argumentative Essays: A Study of Learner Corpus. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 6(2), 509-534.
• Öztürk, Y. (2014). Lexical bundle use of Turkish and native Englih writers: A corpus based study. Unpublished MA thesis. Eskişehir: Anadolu University Graduate School of Educational Sciences.
• Salazar, D., 2010. Lexical bundles in Philippine and British scientific English. Philipp. J. Linguist. 41, 94--109.
• Scott, M. 1999. Wordsmith Tools. Software. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Simpson-Vlach, R. & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31 (4), 487-512.
• Ucar, S. (2017). A Corpus-Based Study on the Use of Three-Word Lexical Bundles in the Academic Writing by Native English and Turkish Non-Native Writers. English Language Teaching, 10(12), 28-36.
• Wei, Y. & Lei, L. (2011). Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC journal, 42 (2), 155-166.