-

Öz

Benefiting from a corpus based design, this paper attempts to compare acknowledgments across three academic disciplines written by Turkish and Iranian authors in terms of the formulaic language employed. Studies into the academic register have commonly chosen the research article (RA) and its various sections as their object of investigation. Despite the multitude of studies carried out on RAs, there are still many aspects of this register which merit closer analysis. One relatively understudied section of the RA is the acknowledgments. The findings reveal a difference in the rate of multiword expressions used by the two groups of writers. It was found that Iranian authors were inclined to overuse a certain set of formulaic expressions; whereas, Turkish authors generally avoided using these expressions in their texts. Possible explanations for this observed difference are discussed in detail in the paper.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• lexical bundle, acknowledgments, corpus linguistics

Lexical Bundles in Research Article Acknowledgments: A Corpus Comparison

Öz

Bu çalışmada derlem yöntemi kullanılarak üç farklı akademik disiplinde, Türk ve İranlı araştırmacılar tarafından yazılmış olan teşekkür bölümleri, kullanılan kalıplaşmış dil açısından karşılaştırılmıştır. Akademik yazı türü üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, araştırma makalelerini ve alt bölümlerini yaygın olarak araştırma konusu yapmışlardır. Araştırma makaleleri üzerine yapılmış olan birçok çalışma bulunmasına rağmen, bu yazı türünün birçok yönü daha yakından araştırılmayı gerektirmektedir. Bilimsel makalelerin yetersiz araştırılmış bir bölümü de teşekkür bölümleridir. Sonuçlar, iki yazar grubunun sözcüksel öbekleri kullanma oranlarında farklılıklar olduğuna işaret etmektedir. İranlı yazarların belli bir grup sözcüksel öbeği aşırı kullanma eğiliminde olduğu, buna karşılık Türk yazarların genellikle bu tür ifadeleri yazılarında kullanmaktan kaçındıkları bulunmuştur. Gözlemlenen bu farkların olası sebepleri detaylı olarak makalede tartışılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sözcüksel öbek, teşekkür bölümü, derlem dilbilimi

Kaynakça

1. Aijmer, K. & Stenström, A. (Eds.) (2004). Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Biber, D. & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 9, 2-20.
2. Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
3. Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 275-311.
4. Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (2001). Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In S. Conrad, and D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multidimensional Studies, pp.108-124, London: Longman.
5. Biber, D. & Burges, J. (2000). Historical change in the language use of women and men: gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics, 28, 21–37.
6. Biber, D., Conrad, S., &Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
8. Brodkey, L. (1987). Academic Writing as Social Practice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

9. Carrio-Pastor, M. L. (2009). Contrasting specific English corpora: Language variation. International Journal of English Studies, Special Issue, 221-233.
10. Colson, J-P. (2008). Cross-linguistic phraseological studies: An overview. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 191-206), John Benjamins Publishing Company .
11. Conrad, S. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial Stance and the construction of Discourse (pp. 56 73), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Conrad, S. (2001). Variation among disciplinary texts: a comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In S. Conrad, and D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multidimensional Studies (pp.94-108), London: Longman.
13. Cronin, B. & Franks, S. (2006). Trading Cultures: Resource Mobilization and Service Rendering in the Life Sciences as Revealed in the Journal Article‟s Paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 1909–1918.
14. Cronin, B. & Overfelt, K. (1994). The scholar‟s courtesy: A survey of acknowledgment behavior. Journal of Documentation, 50, 165-196
15. Cronin, B., Mc. Kenzie, G. &Stiffler, K. (1992). Patterns of acknowledgment. Journal of Documentation, 48, 491-516 Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands.Coauthorship and sub-authorship collaboration in the twentieth century as manifested in the scholarly literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 855–871.
16. Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.2.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
17. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2004). Visible, less visible, and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in twentieth century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 160– 1
18. Crowley, S. (1991).A personal essay on freshman English.Pre/Text, 12, 155-176.
19. De Cock, S. (2000). Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing.In Mair, C., and Hundt, M. (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory (pp. 51-68), Amsterdam: Rodopi,.
20. Giles, C.L. & Councill, I. G. (2004). Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contribution through automatic acknowledgment indexing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, USA, 101, 17599-17604
21. Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Cowie, A.P. (ed.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.145-160), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Hyland, K. &Tse, P. (2004). “I would like to thank my supervisor”: Acknowledgments in graduate dissertations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 259-275
23. Hyland, K. (2008). Academic clusters: text patterning in published and postgraduate writing, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 40-62
24. Kachru, Y. (2008). Language variation and corpus linguistics. World Englishes, 27, 1–8
25. Laufer, B. (2000). Avoidance of idioms in a second language: The effect of L1-L2 degree of similarity. Studia Linguistica 54, 186-196.
26. Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35-48.
27. Martin-Martin, P., & Burgess, S. (2004). The rhetorical management of academic critisim in research article abstracts. Text, 24, 171-195
28. McCain, K.W. (1991). Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of researchrelated information in genetics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 491–516.
29. Ozturk, I. (2007). The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 25-38
30. Phillips, S. G. (2009). Authorship and writing practices in the health care industry. AMWA Journal, 24, 4-8
31. Romer, U. (2010). Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type: the construction of meaning in academic book reviews. English Text Construction,3, 95-119
32. Salager-Meyer, F.; Ariza, M. A. A.; Berbesi, M. P. (2009). “Backstage solidarity” in Spanish- and English-written medical research papers: Publication context and the acknowledgment paratext. Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 307-317
33. Schmitt, N. (2010).Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New York: Pelgrave Macmillan.
34. Uzun, L., & E. Huber (2002) (Eds.).Türkçede Bilgi Yapısı ve Bilimsel Metinler. Essen: Die Blaue Eule.
35. Williams, I. (2010). Cultural differences in academic discourse: Evidence from first-person verb use in the methods sections of medical research articles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 214-239
36. Citation Information: Tokdemir-Demirel, E. & Ahmadi, H.S. (2013). Lexical bundles in research article acknowledgments: a corpus comparison. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Hacettepe University Journal of Education], 28(2), 457-4