Collocations in Science Writing

7/23/2019 Collocations in Science Writing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/collocations-in-science-writing 1/300

Christopher Gledhill (2000). Collocations in Science Writing.

Collocations in Science Writing

Christopher Gledhill (2000).

Language in Performance Series No. 22,T!ingen" Gunter Narr #erlag

2$0pp.

%S&N '2''*+*$.

1



Language in Performance Series No. 22, Tübingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 270.

Preface.

This !oo- is !ased on m doctoral research (/++2/++). %t as moti1ated ! adesire to reach out from the Language Stu!ies "nit (ston) and tal- ith the peoplein the la!s opposite. The !oo- is dedicated to the hard or- of the cancerresearchers at ston and &irmingham 3ni1ersities" 4omini5ue rmspach6oung,7illiam 8raser, Sall 8reeman, 9ohn Gardiner, nd Genscher, :elen ;ulligan,7illiam %rin, Peter Lam!ert, <ichard Leis, Peter <. Loe, 4a1id Poner,

;ichael Tisdale, 6aru-o 7ang and <ichard 7heelhouse. The all enthusiasticall participated in the sur1e and ere -ind enough to allo me to use their pu!lications in m te=t corpus.

The research presented here as inspired ! the or- of numerous linguists at&irmingham 3ni1ersit, some of hom de1eloped the 1er first computer!asedanalses of te=ts. t the time % completed the thesis, there ere no introductor !oo-s on corpus linguistics, large teams of le=icographers ere needed to create a20 million ord corpus, and there ere no ma>or collections of specialist te=ts. Thesituation has e1ol1ed considera!l since then, although specialist corpora are stillrare. t 00 000 ords (including /0 research articles), the corpus % use in this !oo- is still a reasona!le si?e, at least for the moment. Phraseolog is one of themost e=citing !ranches of linguistics to !e in1ol1ed in at the present time, especiallin the fields of discourse and genre analsis. % hope that this !oo- ill inspire furtheror- in this particular area.

% ould li-e to e=tend m than-s to all famil, friends and fello linguists hosehelp and ideas ha1e helped me ith m or-, especiall 4enis ger, Chris&eedham, ;eriel &loor, ;alcolm Coulthard, &e1erl 4ereian-a, Ton 4udle@1ans, Noel and 9anet Gledhill, Gill 8rancis, Liu :aitao, Tim 9ohns, <. . (Ton)Lodge, 9ac- ;artin, CAline ;onti!eller, <ainer Schul?e, Christina SchBffner, Peter<oe, 9eanPierre #idalenc and 4a1id and 9ane 7illis. % ould also li-e to than-;i-e :oe, 8ran- noles, Patricia Thomas and 9ohn Sinclair as ell as the toanonmous readers ho -indl read the manuscript and suggested ideas at 1ariousstages. The are not responsi!le for an errors and omissions. ;i-e Scott at

Li1erpool 3ni1ersit deser1es m particular than-s as he introduced me to te=tanalsis ! #icroconcor! and Wor!list (his program Wor!smit$ has no replacedthese programs and is a1aila!le from D=ford 3ni1ersit Press). !o1e all, % ouldli-e to than- Tom &loor, m teacher and super1isor, for his ideas and suggestions onthe final !oo-. :is goodnatured intellectual rigour has enhanced and encouragedthe or- of the man linguists ho ha1e graduated from ston o1er the ears.

2




CONTENTS

Section Page

I. Introduction 1 Aims /

2 Underlying assumptions

!efinitions of Collocation $

II. "anguage and

Science

/+

1 T#e Terminology of Science 20

2 T#e !iscourse of Science 2$

T#e $esearc# Article %enre '

'./ Titles'.2 !stracts'.' %ntroductions'.* ;ethods and <esults Sections'. 4iscussion Sections

*0*/****E

&. T#e !iscourse Community *$

*./ The 4iscourse of Cancer <esearch*.2 Te=tograph of the Pharmaceutical Sciences4epartment*.' 4etails of the Sur1e

*$

/*

III. Collocations and t#e

Corpus

1 C#oice in t#e %rammar of Te'ts E*

2 T#e "e'ico(grammar $'

Corpus "inguistics $+

& Corpus Analysis and "anguages for Specific

Purposes

/

) T#e Status of Corpus E*idence '

+ T#e Corpus and t#e !iscourse Community +0

E./ The Language #ie of the Pharmaceutical SciencesCorpus +/

E.2 The 4esign Criteria of the Corpus +/

E.' Choice of ;aterial in the Corpus +'

E.* Corpus Tpolog +

E. Te=t nalsis ++

I,. Collocations and t#e

$esearc# Article

1. Collocations of Salient -ords in t#e

P#armaceutical Sciences Corpus

//0

3




2. T#e P#raseology of Salient Items //

2./ 8T@<2.2 N42.' 4%42.* 8D<2. :#@2.E %N2.$ %S2. NDT2.+ D82./0 T:T2.// T:@<@

2./2 7S2./' 7@

//E//E//+/2//22/2*/'*/'+/*2/*+/

/$/E0

. T#e P#raseology of $esearc# Article Sections /E'

'./ Titles /E'

'.2 !stracts /E

'.' %ntroductions /E

'.* ;ethods sections /$+

'. <esults sections /$

'.E 4iscussion sections /+'

,. P#raseology and t#e!iscourse of Science

1. Collocations and t#e T#eory of P#raseology 20/

2. P#raseology and Scientific Style 20'

. T#e "e'ico(grammar of t#e Scientific $esearc#

Article

20$

&. T#e $ole of %rammatical Items in Collocation 2/E

). Ne $esearc# !irections 22/

,I. Appendi' A /re0uency "ist 22

,II. Appendi' Te'ts Used in t#e P#armaceutical Sciences Corpus 22$

,III. Appendi' C Salient -ord "ists 2'+/. Salient 7ords in Titles2. Salient 7ords in !stracts'. Salient 7ords in %ntroductions*. Salient 7ords in ;ethods sections. Salient 7ords in <esults sectionsE. Salient 7ords in 4iscussion sections

2'+2*/2*'2*2*$2*+

I. $eferences 2/

4




I. Introduction

1. Aims

The aim of this !oo- is to e=plore the language of science riting. Themethod is to descri!e scientific research articles on the !asis of a computerheld te=t archi1e (a corpus). 7hile man features of language ha1e !eenidentified in scientific te=ts, % e=amine one phenomenon in particular"collocation. Collocation is a process ! hich ords com!ine into largerchun-s of e=pression. Some collocations in1ol1e ords hich seldom occurin other com!inations (for e=ample" Fau!urn hair, Francid !utter, Fups anddons). Dthers are turns of phrase made up of ords that commonl occurin man com!inations (Fof course, Fso !e it, Fas a matter of fact). Thesee=pressions are all related in phraseolog, roughl defined here as Fthe

preferred a of saing things in a particular discourse (a formula adaptedfrom enned /+*). ; use of the term differs from le=icologists such as4o!ro1ols-i> (/++2) and :oarth (/++). The notion comes instead fromrecent research in discourse analsis (;oon /++a and /++!) and happensto correspond to the e1erda use of the term in @nglish to denote s-ilfulmaster of linguistic formulations (e.g. Fin the phraseolog of diplomaticcircles). 7hate1er ords e use to tal- a!out these e=pressions, it is clearthe are a -e part of the riting process, and it is impossi!le for a riter to

!e fluent ithout a thorough -noledge of the phraseolog of the particularfield he or she is riting in.

The more specific aim of this !oo- is to demonstrate the role of

collocations in scientific @nglish. lthough much research has !een carriedout to esta!lish the range of these e=pressions in @nglish and in otherlanguages, there remains a great deal to !e said a!out the phraseolog ofscience, in particular the differences !eteen the tpical collocations of thelanguage as a hole and the -inds of e=pressions that are used in 1erspecialist riting. %ntuiti1el, most @nglish spea-ers are a!le to guess thate=pressions such as Fups and dons and Fso !e it are rare in science riting.Some e=pressions or ords are seen as more central or stlisticall tpical inthe language than others, a concept critical to 1oca!ular studies and -nonas centralit (Carter /++). 7hat distinguishes scientific @nglish from other

5




1arieties of the language is that it is de1oid of such idiomatic e=pressions.This appears to !e a propert it shares ith informational and administrati1e

prose. These te=ts are said to !e restricted to a limited Fneutral stle. Somelinguists identif parts of the grammatical sstem such as the passi1e as moretpical of science riting, and from this claim that science riting is arestricted form of the general language (or Fsu!language). Dthersconcentrate on terminolog and point to the processes of naming terms indifferent specialisms" for them, terminolog is central to scientific acti1itand stle is not an issue of importance. &oth of these approaches impl thatscience riting uses a selection of pareddon, neutral features of thelanguage.

%n this !oo- % intend to demonstrate that science riting is not stlelessand neutral, and that hile scientific te=ts ma !e de1oid of traditionalidioms, the emplo a sstem of e=pression hich is as Fidiomatic (i.e.distincti1el fluent) as an other discourse. ;ost spea-ers are familiar iththe stereotpical features of specialised science riting. 8or e=ample, 1er!sare e=pressed in the passi1e (t$e t$ermostat bea%er &as fille! &it$ t$e buffer

solution, Co'(transferase brains &ere $omogeni)e! in *0(m#(Tris) and thete=t is stren ith arcane sm!ols and terminolog (ranging from the rather

poetic technical 1er! elute, elute!, eluting, elution to compound nominalssuch as a!iose tissue liorotein liase and 2,2+,+(Tri$-!ro-(/,(

met$-lene!io-bi$en-l...). 7hile these are of course tpical and o!1iousfeatures of specialised scientific language, % e=plore the e=tent to hichscience riting has e1ol1ed its on distinct phraseolog. The folloingsample (from a paper pu!lished in Tetra$e!ron Letters) demonstrates the

pro!lems in1ol1ed in ho e descri!e science riting"

lthough there are se1eral procedures for the preparation of chiral prrolidinesand prrolidinomes, the ma>orit of these e=hi!it poor enantiomeric e=cesses,lac- 1ersatilit, suffer lo ields or some com!ination thereof. :erein, edescri!e an efficient asmmetric sstem of su!stituted prrolidines and prrolidinomes that should find general applica!ilit to a 1ariet of modernsnthetic challenges. (9. Gardiner, /++2 FTotal snthesis of4idehdrodideo=thmidine d*T).

This te=t has some predicta!le features of scientific prose and at the sametime has a 1er distincti1e stle that one ould not necessaril associate ithscience riting, or e1en ith natural, ellformed @nglish. The cohesi1ede1ices t$ereof and $erein stri-e the reader as archaic or legalistic rather thantechnical, hile some perfectl recognisa!le @nglish ords ha1e ta-en on aspeciali?ed meaning in no1el com!inations (e$ibit ecesses, lac% ersatilit-,

suffer lo& -iel!s, fin! general alicabilit-). %t is clear that e1en this short

6




e=tract is made up of a mi= of different stles (technical, archaic, legal,e=positor) and ma-es use at the same time of a uni5ue adaptation of thenormal collocations of @nglish. The differences in stle run much deepertherefore than the usual emphasis on technical terms and 1er! forms mightsuggest. The @nglish of science not onl undergoes a shift in 1oca!ular andgrammar !ut also in its discourse features and phraseolog.

Dne particular aim of this !oo- is to demonstrate that there are consistentdifferences !eteen the collocations of General @nglish and Scientific@nglish, a feature that is sometimes forgotten hen science riting is simplseen as a limited grammar or a te=t dominated ! technical terms. notherspecific goal is to esta!lish the phraseolog of different parts of the scientificte=t (the Title, the !stract and so on), and also to esta!lish ho far the aresta!le across a series of different te=ts ith different authors. 7hile technicalauthors are often assumed to rite in a standard formal stle that e=tendsacross a 1ariet of tpes of @nglish, the analsis of collocations ma re1ealmuch deeper tendencies that are particular to the research article genre.Collocations are smptomatic of strong con1entions in specialist riting,although the means ! hich the !ecome esta!lished are difficult to e=plain.8or e=ample, it is highl unli-el that the author of the sample a!o1e had toe=plicitl learn that the e=pression suffer fe& -iel!s is an accepta!lecom!ination in his field. Ne1ertheless, such phraseological -noledge must

!e ac5uired at some stage for the e=pression to !e used across the corpus, in a1ariet of specialist te=ts on chemistr. %n the sur1e % carr out in this !oo-,it emerges that scientists are rarel aare of ho consistent their phraseologis, although the are concerned ith other features of their language.

7hile collocational patterns are not often consciousl identified !indi1idual riters, the are relati1el eas to demonstrate on the !asis of acomputerheld corpus. :oe1er, one of the more difficult issues raised inthis !oo- is the function of collocational e=pressions in the scientific te=t as ahole and in the scientific communit at large. Linguists such as Stu!!s(/++E) ha1e noted that a choice of e=pression often re1eals a rhetorical orideological stance, and this is an important issue in the analsis of scientific

te=ts. 8or e=ample in >ournalism people ith cancer can !e referred to eitheras a atient , a sufferer or a ictim. %n more technical riting, the scientistdistinguishes !eteen atients, controls and sub1ects. nd morefundamentall, if there is a consistent phraseolog of science riting, onemight onder hat purpose it ser1es in the practice of science, and hatrelation e=ists !eteen the language of science and the underling ideologof science riting. The perspecti1e % ish to e=plore in this !oo- not onlidentifies the tpical a of saing things !ut also places these e=pressions inrelation to each other in terms of 1alues. % shall argue that hile collocations

7




are useful units of e=pression, their relati1e 1alue depends on their positionithin the o1erall phraseological sstem. The use of the passi1e 1oice andtechnical terms implies certain !elief sstems that are perpetuated in scienceriting, and % hope to !e a!le to put these sstems in conte=t from a

phraseological perspecti1e.Throughout this !oo-, % ish to pursue three !asic research aims. The first

is a practical one" to pro1ide a method of descri!ing language in a relia!leand o!>ecti1e manner. This is mainl achie1ed ! the use of a computerheldarchi1e of te=ts (the corpus) collected specificall for the purpose oflinguistic analsis, and also ! the use of softare hich calculates ordfre5uencies (the ordlist program) and collects ord patterns (aconcordancer). :oe1er, % also tr to demonstrate that the specialist corpusre5uires a conte=tual !asis, in particular one that ta-es account of the

processes of production of the corpus (as the propert of a communit ofscientists, as ell as a te=t in relation to other scientific te=ts). Thus hile themethodolog of this !oo- follos the corpus linguistic approach of Sinclair(/++/), its theoretical !asis also dras on theories of discourse and genre especiall those of :allida (/+) and Sales (/++0). The practicalapplications of such a method include the elldocumented a!ilit to use thecorpus as a tool for language teaching, as ell as the possi!ilit of using acorpus as an editing tool and as a source of specialist information. Dne

simple application as suggested ! one of m specialist informants" heanted to -no hat information to include in !stracts and ho to e=presshimself hen riting them, !ecause he felt that he needed to follo accepted

practice. lthough the field % ha1e chosen is 1er highl specialised, % alsoish to demonstrate that the methodolog is sound and applica!le to otherspecialist genres.

The second aim of this !oo- is a theoretical one" to esta!lish a notion ofcollocation ithin a theor of language, in particular to discuss the role ofcollocations ithin te=ts. 7hile collocations ha1e !ecome a central issue inthe stud of 1oca!ular and le=icolog (Carter /++), their role in discourseand genre analsis has not et !een full e=plored. lthough man studies

concei1e of collocations as le=ical units hich are self contained, ith agrammatical structure dependent on one le=ical item H i.e. less restrictedforms of idioms, a num!er of studies ha1e emerged recentl in hich thecollocational properties of ords are seen as parts of a ider sstem (fore=ample, 8rancis /++', :unston and 8rancis /++). %t is possi!le to list thecollocational properties of ords in corpus analsis, !ut it is also necessar toe=plain ho these e=pressions are related to each other in a particularlanguage or discourse. % intend to demonstrate that hile science riting ma

!e 1er hea1il constrained in certain respects, it also allos for considera!le

8




choice of e=pression. This sstem of choice appears to !e an important aspectof the discourse of science, and a discussion of choice is seen as rele1ant tothe theor of language in general (;cCarth /+*, :allida /++/).

The third aim of this !oo- is more methodological. % hope to refine certain practices in corpus linguistics, nota!l ! designing a corpus on the !asis of aspecific discourse communit (the Pharmaceutical Sciences 4epartment atston 3ni1ersit) !ut also ! re1ieing the methods ! hich collocationsare identified in te=ts. The latter is particularl necessar, !ecause at present

H and despite the idespread use of the term in man or-s !ased on corpusanalsis H there is no clear notational con1ention for sm!olising instances ofcollocation. %n order to simplif matters, % use a triangular !rac-et con1entionI J for statistical collocations (the node and its collocates identified ! ordlist programs) and a curl !rac-et con1ention K for le=ical clusters (familiesof ords or phrases usuall present in the conte=t of a ord and often ithsimilar meanings). %n concordances, node ords are signalled in !old, hilecollocates are underlined. ;ore fundamentall, although most collocationalanalsis is usuall !ased on the patterns of le=ical ords (content ords), %consider grammatical items to !e central to the phraseolog of m corpus.Grammatical items enter into collocational relations ith longer phrases (a

process similar to Fcolligation, discussed !elo) and also form collocational patterns amongst themsel1es (as shon ! <enouf and Sinclair /++/). 7hile

the fundamental phraseolog of the corpus is re1ealed ! statistical analsis,m analsis depends on a further laer of interpretation. % argue that it isnecessar to relate superficial collocational patterns to the general

phraseolog of the te=t, most nota!l ! in1o-ing a sstem of alternati1ee=pressions and grammatical metaphor (:allida /++). % aim to sho thatthis contri!utes to a more sophisticated means of conducting corpus analsis,in hich the te=tual properties of collocational patterns are more carefullrelated.

2. Underlying Assumptions

This !oo- !elongs to the &ritish tradition of applied linguistics. Theoreticallinguists are preoccupied ith smmetr and structure in language. Thedescri!e sstems of sound, netor-s of meaning or models of snta=. %ncontrast, applied linguists attempt to relate theories of language to other fieldsith the aim of !ringing fresh insights !ac- into the discipline. ppliedlinguistics is not a!out a1oiding theor hoe1erM it is a!out testing theoreticalmodels and engaging ith the practical and political pro!lems surroundinglanguage and discourse in areas such as industr, commerce and education.

9




pplied linguistics in1ol1es research in first and second language learningand ac5uisition, translation, dictionar!uilding, the stud of terminolog andspecialist languages as ell as the critical description of political,administrati1e and scientific discourse. 7or- in applied linguistics also tendsto address contemporar language. pplied linguists tend to allo linguisticmodels to emerge through the discussion of data rather than to present themodel as the main o!>ect of en5uir. This preoccupation ith data is ofteninterpreted as Fstamp collecting, !ut % hope to sho here that a useful modelof language can emerge dialecticall, through the gradual process ofdemonstration and discussion of e=amples.

The or- presented here has !een particularl influenced ! the researchof applied linguists !ased at &ritish uni1ersities (sometimes -non as the&irmingham school, !ut also as the neo8irthian school !ecause of theinfluence of 9. <. 8irth). This includes the or- of 9. Sinclair on thecomputational analsis of language, !ut also that of G. 8rancis, S. :unston,T. 9ohns, <. ;oon and 4. 7illis on le=ical patterns, and T. &loor, ;.Coulthard and T. 4udleH@1ans on specific 1arieties of @nglish. The termFneo8irthian implies a ider group than this (;. :allida, 9. Sales, G.;ers, ;. :oe, ;.Stu!!s, P. ;eara, ;. ;cCarth, and others). 7hile theiror- is 1er often di1erse, a num!er of common concerns ha1e emerged"

•

n interest in discourse (language in action, language in relation to its users).• n emphasis on the close relationship !eteen 1oca!ular and grammar.• preoccupation ith authentic nonin1ented data.• preference for computers in the analsis of large archi1es of language.

%n section %% these themes are in1estigated in a re1ie of traditional andapplied theories of the language of science. Section %%% then e=plores:allidas notion of le=icogrammar and sets out the design criteria of thete=t corpus. Section %# then pro1ides a statistical and linguistic analsis ofthe corpus. This leads me to discuss in section # the implications of a

phraseological approach to genre and discourse analsis in general.

<ather than !uild a general corpus of scientific te=ts % ha1e opted to focuson the language of cancer research. D1er the period of m doctoral research(/++2/++), % conducted a sur1e of pharmacologists and cancer researchersat ston 3ni1ersit, in &irmingham (3). There are fi1e main reasons forselecting cancer research as a corpus topic and the group at ston in

particular"

• Cancer research is possi!l one of orlds !iggest medical researchacti1ities, ser1ed ! a large selection of the most prestigious scientific >ournals.

10




• Cancer is one of the most emoti1el reported and elldocumented diseasesin the popular press. The discourse of cancer research is -e tounderstanding the relationship !eteen the reporting of a scientific !rea-through in the technical literature and its ider reporting in >ournalism.The fact that cancer is an important topic in pu!lic discourse should !e >ustification itself for our attention.

• The field offers an interesting insight into the relationship !eteen languageand science. Cancer research articles are ritten in a 1er highl refined@nglish. The riting is integrated into a high degree of a!stract pharmaceutical -noledge ith a comple= graphic sstem ofcommunication.

•

Cancer is not a narro specialism or a single research application !utinstead in1ol1es a !road seep of acti1ities ranging from theoreticalchemistr to organisation management (!iolog, chemistr, drug snthesis,genetics, patient care).

• The cancer research department at ston is an important research centre forthe 3.. ser1ing the National Cancer %nstitute (the &ritish 1ersion, also !ased in the region) and it has an a!o1ea1erage output of research ith anum!er of high profile !rea-throughs reported in the media o1er the /++0s.s such it offers an ideal conte=t for a discussion of cancer research riting.

@1en ithin this 1er specific field, the comple=it and degree ofspecialisation in1ol1ed in cancer studies means that the corpus ould !e

meaningless ithout an account of its conte=t. The corpus in turn mustrepresent a reasona!l homogeneous linguistic communit. The specificlinguistic practices of a professional group are at the heart of the genreanalsis approach (Sales /++0), although the ha1e recei1ed little attentionin mainstream corpus linguistics. Dn the other hand, genre analsis has onlrecentl !egun to use computer!ased corpora. ; hpothesis is that andistincti1e Fstle or phraseolog % disco1er can !e attri!uted to a !roadcommunit of scientists in pharmacolog and cancer research and contri!uteto a description of the research article genre. Section %% in particular e=ploresthese themes and discusses in detail the conte=t of the corpus.

. !efinitions of Collocation

collocation is a familiar recurrent e=pression. 8or man linguists,collocations are related to a range of commonl recognised multiord

phrases in language, including catchphrases, clichAs, fi=ed e=pressions,formulae, free and !ound collocations, idioms, le=ical phrases, turnsof

phrase and so on. Collocation has !een defined in 1arious as, anddefinitions depend on the specific aims of the o!ser1er. Phraseologists and

11




dictionar ma-ers, for e=ample, e=amine the a le=ical ords !eha1e incertain com!inations. The ad>ecti1es strong and o&erful can thus !e seen toha1e a similar meaning !ut a different range of use ith certain nouns" strong

argument, o&erful argument 1ersus strong tea 3o&erful tea, 3strong car

o&erful car . Dnce such a restriction is identified for a pair of ords, e aredealing ith some form of collocation.

:oe1er, as the ord Ffamiliar suggests in m or-ing definition, thereis more to collocation than the com!ination of to or more ords. %n thefolloing discussion, % attempt to snthesise three different as ofcategorising and defining the notion of collocation" :allidas statistical

tetual 1ie, the semantic s-ntactic tradition in le=icolog, and the!iscoursal r$etorical model from discourse analsis. % then go on to proposean o1erall model of phraseolog hich ser1es as a !asis for the analsiscarried out in the rest of the !oo-. %n the corpus analsis sections of this

!oo-, :allidas statistical definition is specificall ta-en as the first andsimplest stage of m analsis, !ut is then supplemented ! further stages ofinterpretation in order to determine the structural and rhetorical significanceof the collocations identified in the corpus.

8rom a statistical 3 te'tual perspecti1e, it is generall agreed that no onelinguistic definition of collocation is entirel relia!le hen it comes to

finding e=pressions sstematicall in large num!ers of te=ts. 8or this practical reason, collocations ha1e often !een defined statisticall in corpus !ased studies, especiall if the analst is attempting to find e=amples oftpical stle. The first stage of analsis to !e used in this !oo- thereforefollos :allida, ho frames collocation in terms of statistical pro!a!ilitand cooccurrence"

Collocation is the sntagmatic association of le=ical items, 5uantifia!le,te=tuall, as the pro!a!ilit that there ill occur at n remo1es (a distance ofn le=ical items) from an item , the items a, b, c .... n gi1en item thusenters into a range of collocation, the items ith hich it is collocated !eing

ranged from more to less pro!a!le. (:allida /+E/"2$E).#an <oe summarises this 1ie in terms of e=pression or Fusage"

collocation isO that linguistic phenomenon here! a gi1en 1oca!ularitem prefers the compan of another item rather than its Fsnonms !ecauseof constraints hich are not on the le1el of snta= or conceptual meaning !ut on that of usage. (1an <oe /++0"*E).

12




collocate can thus simpl !e seen as an ord hich cooccurs ithin anar!itraril determined distance or san of a central ord or no!e. Collocationis thus considered to !e the fre5uenc ith hich collocates cooccur ithone node relati1e to their fre5uenc of collocation ith other nodes. 8rom the

point of 1ie of man corpus linguists, all that separates collocation frommere ord cooccurrence is the statistical le1el at hich the researcher ishapp to sa that the cooccurrence is not accidental. This approach is alsoFte=tual in that it relies solel on the a!ilit of the computer program toanalse large amounts of computerreada!le te=ts. Sinclair (/++/"E) shosthis ! noting that the independent pro!a!ilit of 4set+ collocating ith 4off+

in the Co!uild corpus is >ust one in a million (/ instances of 4set+

multiplied ! E instances of 4off+ from a total of $.' million ords). 6et theactual fre5uenc of collocation is around 0 instances (that is" $0 in amillion). The e=pression 4set off+ can thus !e considered a significantcollocation ithout considering other semantic or le=ical considerations(/+$!"/').

This perspecti1e essentiall emphasises collocation as cooccurrence(ords hich fre5uentl com!ine) and recurrence (com!inations hichfre5uentl occur in language). The notion of statistical collocation is integralto :allidas theor of discourse and the theor is discussed in section %%%. %tis sufficient to note here that a statistical 1ie of language allos the linguist

to identif patterns that ould not normall !e recognised using traditionalcategories. The te=tual 1ie of collocation also emphasises the fact thatcollocations are not disem!odied le=ical units inserted into the !od of a te=tithout modification, !ut are the result of reformulations and paraphraseshich ha1e de1eloped throughout the length of a te=t. te=tual collocation isli-el to ha1e a specific te=tual function or ma occur in a rather restrictedset of conte=ts. These e=pressions can !e seen to !e couched seamlessl inthe surrounding te=t, and in man of the e=amples e see !elo, thecollocational patterns of a specific phrase are moti1ated or triggered ! other

phrases hich appear to !e at some distance (a phenomenon o!ser1ed !Phillips /+ and :oe /++/). This is hat is meant ! Flongrange

collocation.

%n contrast, the semantic 3 syntactic tradition defines collocation as a morea!stract relationship !eteen ords, ithout reference to fre5uenc ofoccurrence or pro!a!ilit, shifting the emphasis therefore from the te=tual cooccurrence of an e=pression to its potential for le=ical com!ina!ilit. 7hile:allidas approach to collocation is appropriate to a discussion of discourseand register, stle is not the main concern in le=icolog. %nstead the emphasisis on dictionar ma-ing and terminolog, and collocations are tpicall seen

13




either as units of meaning (le=ical items or idioms) or units of grammar(phrases). %t is for this reason that collocation is usuall seen as a ratherrestricted categor of e=pression and is also tpicall limited to the le=icalrelation !eteen content ords. The standard definition is gi1en ! &enson"

Collocations are fi=ed recurrent com!inations of ords in hich eachord !asicall retains its meaning. (&enson /++").

:oarth (/++E) has presented a snthesis of the mainstream ideas ofle=icolog and phraseolog studies, ta-ing particular account of the <ussian

perspecti1e (4o!ro1ols-i> /++2). :e notes that the Fcomposite unit is

traditionall classified according to to measures (/++E" 'E*E)"

FCommuta!ilit The e=tent to hich the elements in the e=pression can !ereplaced or mo1ed. s in the free collocation ma%e a !ecision here ma%e

can !e replaced ! a series of dele=ical 1er!s reac$, ta%e etc., hile in therestricted collocation s$rug one+s s$oul!ers there is no alternati1e to the1er! s$rug .

F;oti1ation The e=tent to hich the semantic origin of the e=pression isidentifia!le, as in the figurati1e idiom moe t$e goalosts to change there5uired conditions for successO, as opposed to the opa5ue idiom s$oot t$e

bree)e to chatterO.

8i=ed e=pressions are characterised ! the relationship !eteen theircomponent ords and the o1erall meaning of the phrase. Cruse (/+E) thusdistinguishes collocation as Fsntagmaticall simple i.e. an e=pressioncomposed of one ord in its normal sense ith another restricted ord (as in"table a resolution, ten!er one+s resignation) and idiom as Fsemanticallsimple i.e. as a single choice of meaning ith an unpredicta!le or noncompositional se5uence of ords (let t$e cat out of t$e bag, sill t$e beans).%n :oarths le=ical continuum model (/++E"'2''), collocations are placedon a sliding scale of meaning and form from relati1el unrestricted

(collocations) to highl fi=ed (idioms)"

8ree collocation blo& a trumet Fto pla the trumpet

<estricted collocation blo& a fuse Fto destro a fuse, or (idiomatic)Fget angr

8igurati1e idiom blo& -our o&n

trumet Fto !oast, sell oneselfe=cessi1el

Pure idiom blo& t$e gaff Fto re1eal a concealed truth

14




The pro!lem commonl encountered ith these classifications (as can !eseen in the am!iguous e=ample of to blo& a fuse) is that is difficult todetermine hat is meant ! Fsntacticall fi=ed, Funmoti1ated or Fopa5ue.

%n addition to the notion of the collocational continuum, one of the mostinfluential ideas to emerge from the field of le=icograph in1ol1es;elQu-sR theor of le=ical functions. ;elRu- defines collocation as ansemantic function operating !eteen to or more ords in hich one of theords -eeps its Fnormal meaning (;elRu- /++"/2). 8ontenelle e=plainsthis a!stract relationship"

O the concept of collocation is independent of grammatical categories" therelationship hich holds !eteen the 1er! argue and the ad1er! strongl- isthe same as that holding !eteen the noun argument and the ad>ecti1e

strong . (8ontenelle /++*"*').

8or e=ample, se1eral restricted collocations in @nglish ha1e the a!stractfunction of Fintensifier (coded ! ;elRu- as Fmagn)" star% na%e!, utter

foolis$ness, iing $ot . The 1oca!ular as a hole is therefore organised intoa grammar of intensit, of 5uantit (a sec% of !ust, a ri!e of lions), ofoperation (to len! suort, to !eal a blo&), of function (&ar is raging,

silence reigns) and so on (;elRu- /++"'E*/). & !ringing disparatecollocational patterns into a !road theor of meaning, ;elRu- has argued fora uni1ersal tpolog of le=ical functions hich are realised ! a delimitednum!er of underling le=ical functions in @nglish and other languages.

%n le=icolog and phraseolog studies, idioms are seen as the primee=amples of semantic and sntagmatic units, and ha1e a correspondingl

pri1ileged status (:oarth /++"/E+). Dn the other hand, collocationsemerge as less tid and eas to categorise, !eing seen as increasingl lessfi=ed and also more diffuse H largel of course !ecause the are often definedin terms that ma-e idioms generall appear to !e ideal units. Collocationsalso tend to !e defined as a su!categor of other items. ;elRu-, for e=ample,sees them as a 1er specific categor" FCollocations H no matter ho one

understands them H are a su!class of hat are -non as set $rases(;elRu- /++"2'). pproaching the issue from a different perspecti1e, 1ander 7ouden (/++$) has argued that collocation should !e seen as the centralterm in le=icolog. :e points out that regardless of the a collocations aredefined, analsts find more instances of collocation than of idiom in actualte=ts, and proposes that the notion of Fcolloca!ilit re5uires !etter definitionthan the more peripheral idea of Fidiomaticit. Li-e man linguists in thegenerati1e field (for e=ample, !eillA /++), he sees sntagmatic 1aria!ilitas -e to the notion of a fi=ed e=pression, and suggests that man features oflanguage are idiomatic in this sense"

15




% ill use the term CDLLDCT%DN as the most general term to refer to alltpes of fi=ed com!inations of le=ical items. %n this 1ie idioms are aspecial su!class of collocations, to it those collocations ith a noncompositional, or opa5ue semantics. n idiom might e1en !e defined as angrammatical form hose meaning is not deduci!le from its structure. %n this1ie all morphemes are idioms. (1an der 7ouden /++$"+).

;a--ai (/++2) has similarl argued that collocations and idioms can !e seenas e=tended forms of ords. >ellmer ma-es a similar point"

:ighl distincti1e collocations !eha1e in important respects li-e oneordle=emes. The are often semanticall identical or almost identical ithsingle ords. (>ellmer /+*)

#an der 7ouden further ma-es the point that idioms and collocations share anum!er of properties, not least of hich the a!ilit to contain analogieshich are not carried on into the rest of the language sstem"

...O ou cannot predict that the meaning of slee li%e a log ill denote anintense form of sleeping, !ut after ou ha1e learned hat it means, ou seethat li%e a log is an intensifier. The essence of collocation is that the

assignment of li%e a log to the meaning F1er does not feed othercom!inations. So e1en though e ha1e a meaning for it, that meaning isonl 1alid in a certain collocation ...O (1an der 7ouden /++$"*).

8rom this discussion, it emerges that the distinction !eteen idiom andcollocation is difficult to >ustif on purel semantic or sntagmatic grounds.%nstead, collocation constitutes a general sstem of a!stract relations hichunderpin much phraseolog in the language, and range from relati1el free torelati1el fi=ed e=pression. different perspecti1e, although still ithin ourFsemantic sntactic frameor-, relates collocational patterns to the idergrammatical sstem, as in the or- of Sinclair (/++/). 8or e=ample, <enouf

and Sinclair (/++/) ha1e noted that the meaning of a le=ical item can !e predicted ! the presence of grammatical items and the se5uence in hichthe are arranged. Thus in e=pressions such as an 5 of , is often a 5uantit,or in too 6 in t$e , 6 and U are often time e=pressions (such se5uences aretermed collocational frameor-s). Lou (/++') has noted that clusters ofle=ical collocations often share a similar semantic profile or Fsemantic

prosod. Thus the NP su!>ects of the phrasal 1er! set in !elong in1aria!l toa semantic field ith negati1e associations (t$e ba! &eat$er, gangrene, t$e

rot, !eression ... sets in). ccording to this perspecti1e, the grammatical patterns of cooccurrence are an intrinsic meaning of an e=pression, and an

16




item hich is inserted into the pattern can !e reinterpreted in terms of thee=isting collocational frameor- (e.g. a caco$on- of musicians collecti1eO ,t$e Labour art- $ae set in negati1e connotationO).

%n a largescale stud of 1er! complementation, :unston and 8rancis(/++) similarl ma-e a specific lin- !eteen the grammatical form of ane=pression (its underling ord class pattern) and its meaning, claiming thatthe pattern is part of the meaning of the e=pression. :unston and 8rancisidentif a num!er of collocations hich share specific grammatical patternsand et also displa a closel related meaning. :ere is one e=ample"

...sense and pattern tend to !e associated ith each other, such that a particular sense of a 1er! ma !e identified ! its pattern. The 1er! recoer

has to main senses" Fto get !etter folloing an illness or period ofunhappiness, and Fto get !ac- something that as lost. The first of thesesenses has the pattern F# from n (e.g. 8e is recoering from a %nee in1ur-)...O and F# (e.g. 9t too% $er t$ree !a-s to recoer ), hilst the second hasthe pattern F# n (e.g. Police... recoere! stolen goo!s). (:unston and8rancis /++"/).

This can !e seen to !e an e=tension of the general principle ofdele=icalisation, in hich le=ical items merge into grammatical forms,effecti1el !ecoming grammatical collocations (grammatical ords

collocating ith le=ical ords). The e=pressions created ! grammaticalcollocation and colligation depend in turn on a notion of e=tended meaning,as argued ! <enouf (/++). The e=tended meaning of a ord or e=pressionis !uilt up o1er time ! its collocational tendencies ithin different te=ts.Thus hile le=icologists concei1e of collocation as a le=ical unit ande=amine the !eha1iour of component ords ithin this larger le=ical item,8irthian and :allidaan linguists see collocation as a specific grammatical

pattern, associated ith a particular meaning. The or- of Lou, <enouf,:unston, 8rancis and others has !een much influenced ! Sinclairs notion ofthe Fidiom principle. Sinclair (/++/) argued that meaning is organisedthrough language not ! filling le=ical items into grammatical conte=tfreeslots, !ut in a sstem here structure maps onto meaning 1er closel. :eemphasises the importance of sntagmatic se5uences as single functionalchoices, and argues that neither indi1idual ords nor deep sntacticstructures correspond to natural choice in language"

The principle of idiom is that a language user has a1aila!le to him or her alarge num!er of semipreconstructed phrases that constitute single choices,e1en though the might appear to !e analsa!le into segments. To somee=tent, this ma reflect the recurrence of similar situations in human affairsMit ma illustrate a natural tendenc to econom of effort or it ma !e

17




moti1ated in part ! the e=igencies of realtime con1ersation. (Sinclair/+$c" '20)

8rom the Fsemantic sntactic perspecti1e, e ha1e seen that the notion ofcollocation has !een e=tended from traditional restricted collocations andidioms (curr- faour, stri%e a c$or! ) to less con1entional notions such asgrammatical collocation (lin-ing grammatical items ith le=ical items, as in

phrasal 1er!s refer to, ans&er for ) and dele=ical 1er!s ($ae a brea%, ta%e a

!ecision). ;an of these patterns can !e seen to o!e underling le=icalrelationships. The notion has recentl !een applied to a much ider categorof e=pression folloing orin corpus analsis, including semantic prosod(clusters of semanticall related ords" us$ t$roug$ a reform, a ro1ect, a

la&...O), collocational frameor-s (le=ical and grammatical collocation" not

onl-... but also, fin! ma%e it eas-, !ifficult, $ar!, imossibleO to V clause)and colligation (collocation !eteen grammatical categories, e.g. the set ofnouns that can introduce NP complement clauses" t$e i!ea, coniction, belief,

t$oug$t t$at ). These patterns demonstrate the close correlation !eteensnta= and semantics and are seen as a confirmation of :allidas (/+)notion of a le=icogrammar" a theor of le=is and grammar as an interrelatedcontinuum rather than as separate le1els.

So far e ha1e seen collocations as Fstatistical te=tual cooccurrences onthe one hand or as Fsemantic sntactic patterns on the other. :oe1er, it is possi!le not onl to e=amine the internal sntagmatic properties of ane=pression, !ut also the pragmatic role of the e=pression in te=t anddiscourse. third tendenc therefore is to e=amine collocations in terms of

performance, in other ords from a discoursal 3 r#etorical point of 1ie.8rom this perspecti1e, idioms such as to get t$e sac%, to be fire! can !econtrasted stlisticall ith less mar-ed e=pressions" to be !ismisse!, to lose

one+s 1ob. The difference !eteen these e=pressions lies in their emphasis orrhetorical effect, as ;oon (/+$) and 8ernando (/++E) ha1e argued. 8rom adiscourse analsts perspecti1e, ;oon feels >ustified in arguing that sntactic

and semantic constraints on fi=ed e=pressions are not as important asrhetorical function"

%n general, studies of fi=ed e=pressions ...O concentrate on their tpologicaland sntagmatic properties. ttention is gi1en to such things as the degreeof their le=ical and sntactic fro?enness, or their transformation potential"and e1en the primar characteristic of idioms, their noncompositionalit asle=ical units, ma !e seen as a matter of the interpretation of a sntagm.:oe1er, it is their paradigmatic properties hich are of importance in

18




relation to interaction. 8i=ed e=pressions represent meaningful choices onthe part of the spea-er riter. (;oon /++*"//$).

8illmore and t-ins (/++*) and a and 8illmore (/+++) ha1e similarl5uestioned the need for a distinction !eteen idiom and collocation on thegrounds of sntactic and semantic fro?enness. 8illmore, a and DConnoremphasised the fact that collocations are culturall salient items hich needto !e learnt as part of the language. ccording to their ell-non definition,fi=ed e=pressions are"

O phenomena larger than ords, hich are li-e ords in that the ha1e to

!e learned separatel as indi1idual facts a!out pieces of the language, !uthich also ha1e grammatical structure andO interact in important as iththe rest of the language. (8illmore, a and DConnor /+"0/)

%n a similar approach, Pale and Sder ha1e !een influential in the area oflanguage learning theor, and ere among the first to emphasise thatcon1ersational gam!its in natural speech ere speech acts organised aroundfi=ed e=pressions of the tpe it+s eas- to tal% (a reprimand for somecriticism) , s$e+s bus- rig$t no& (dening access ! telephone) and 9 t$oug$t

-ou+! neer as% (e=pressing relief after permission has !een granted)(/+'"'0$). The pointed out that these e=pressions are effecti1el social

institutions, and ha1e specific cultural functions in the language"

le=icali?ed sentence stem is a unit of clause length or longer hosegrammatical form or le=ical conte=t is holl or largel fi=edM its elementsform a standard la!el for a culturall recogni?ed concept, a term in thelanguage. lthough le=icali?ed in this sense, most such units are not trueidioms !ut rather are regular formmeaning pairings. (Pale and Sder/+'"/+//+2).

This theme as similarl e=amined ! 6orio, hose analsis of a spo-encorpus found fe traditional idioms, !ut instead proposed that sentence stems

are -e to understanding con1entionalised fluenc in language. 6orioconcludes that grammatical accurac must !e matched ! a -noledge ofsuch idiomatic e=pressions"

%diomaticit, or nati1eli-e 5ualit in ritten language, appears to !e a propert characteri?ed primaril ! the presence of collocations and orsentence stems rather than ! actual idioms. ...O Olthough fluenc is possi!le ithout grammatical accurac, idiomaticit is not. %diomaticitthen !ecomes an e=cellent indicator of !ilingual sstem proficienc and, assuch, it deser1es to !e further studied and understood. (6orio /++"E)

19




Nattinger and 4eCarrico (/++2) e=amined shorter stretches of language thanthe sentence stem, and related -noledge of phraseolog to a sstem ofrhetorical e=pressions (/++2"22). 8olloing Coulmas (/+$+), the situatedcollocations ithin a continuum of increasing rhetorical force" from lo tohigh impact. Nattinger and 4eCarrico identified collocations as unmar-edchoices of e=pression Fcooccurring le=ical itemsO that ha1e not !eenassigned particular pragmatic functions ! pragmatic competence (/++2"'E).This Funmar-ed sense of the term collocation is an interesting departurefrom the perspecti1es e ha1e seen a!o1e and clearl delimits thesntagmatic definition of collocation from a discoursal one. Nattinger and4eCarrico then contrast unmar-ed collocations ith le=ical phrases, definedas Fmar-ed collocations, in that the ha1e recognised pragmatic functions.Le=ical phrases are split into to groups (/++2"'*2)"

• Le=ical units hich do not allo paradigmatic or sntagmaticreformulation" polords" for t$e most art, as it &ere and institutionalised phrases $o& are -ou: &$at, me &orr-:

• Grammatical frameor-s ith !oth fi=ed and free features" short range phrasal constraints" a NP ;time< ago, long range sentence !uilders" 9 t$in%

=t$at> ;roosition clause 5<, t$e '?@(er ;roosition clause 5<, t$e '?@(

er ;roosition clause 6<.

The le=ical phrase is proposed as an addition to the traditional distinction !eteen idiom and collocation, and emphasises te=tual function rather thaninternal form"

Le=ical phrases are parts of language that often ha1e clearl defined roles inguiding the o1erall discourse. %n particular, the are the primar mar-ershich signal the direction of discourse, hether spo-en or ritten. 7henthe ser1e as discourse de1ices, their function is to signal, for instance,hether the information to follo is in contrast to, in a!!ition to or is an

eamle of information that it to proceed. (Nattinger and 4eCarrico

/++2"E0)

ccording to 7inters (/+$$) theor of clause relations, information indiscourse is fre5uentl managed le=icall. Nattinger and 4eCarrico sho thatthis operates at a phrasal le1el ! the use of glo!al topic mar-ers (let+s loo%

at ), shifters (AB, no&) and summarisers ( so t$en), as ell as at a local le1el ! the use of e=emplifiers ($o& about 5:), relators (it $as to !o &it$ 6 ),5ualifiers (t$e catc$ is t$at), asides (&$ere &as 9:) and so on. Suche=pressions are tpical of the spo-en language, !ut e see !elo that science

20




riting has de1eloped a sophisticated sstem for similar functions (includingasides and topic shifters), al!eit ith different linguistic e=pressions. 7hilesuch features ma not !e statisticall significant across the corpus, andtherefore do not usuall figure in corpus!ased analses of register, Nattingerand 4eCarrico claim that such phraseolog has a significant role to pla inthe rhetorical construction of the te=t. These claims are supported ! relatedstudies on the pragmatic function of idioms in te=ts (Popiel and ;c<ae /+,Lu?on;arco /+++)

The Fdiscourse rhetorical approach is not concerned ith le=is andgrammar as such. %nstead, the suggestion is that collocations and idioms can

!e distinguished on the !asis of a rhetorical or te=tual function (as argued ! Nattinger and 4eCarrico) or pragmatic mar-ing (as argued ! ;oon). 7eha1e seen a!o1e that most idioms such as sell li%e $ot ca%es (to sell 5uic-l)and ull a fast one (to decei1e ! stealth) are more mar-ed stlisticall thantheir tpical paraphrases, not >ust for emphasis, !ut often ith 1er specificinformation and a limited conte=t of possi!le use. ;oon has suggested thatman such idioms and metaphors are deli!eratel used in speech and ritingto !ring in shades of e1aluation or >udgement in comparison ith theirunmar-ed e5ui1alents (thus t$e trial rogresse! at a snail+s ace ouldsignal su!>ecti1e feeling more e=plicitl than t$e trial rogresse! slo&l-).&ut as ;oon points out, these Fprototpical idioms are rarel found in

authentic te=ts. %n practice, the most commonl recurring e=pressions areli-el to !e Fle=ical phrases or Fsentence stems and it is orth noting thatapart from Nattinger and 4eCarricos or-, these ha1e recei1ed much lessattention from le=icologists.

normal te=t rarel mo1es in a clearcut a from unmar-ed to mar-ede=pression, ith idioms and collocations 1isi!l demarcated. %t is morerealistic to picture a te=t as a se5uence of different tpes of discourse signal,and hile most of these e=pressions are idiomatic in that the ha1e specificrhetorical or pragmatic roles to pla, the are not mar-ed as such ithin thenormal reading of the te=t. Thus hile le=ical phrases ma appear to !eidioms from a traditional le=icological point of 1ie, in their normal conte=t

the are simpl part of the accepted phraseolog. 7hen something isFmar-ed or pragmaticall unusual, e can assume that it stands out from thee=pected stle. %ndeed, a -noledge of the e=pected phraseolog is central to

!eing a!le to step out of it in order to create some supplementar rhetoricaleffect. 8or e=ample, Pale and Sders sentence stems ha1e 1er specificand sophisticated rhetorical functions in spo-en @nglish" the are naturalcandidates for the categor of idiom. &ut it does not ma-e sense to suggestthat the are permanentl mar-ed e=pressions, especiall hen e considerthat the are commonl used in normal spo-en discourse.

21




To gi1e another e=ample, the &ritish @nglish greetings 8o& !o -ou !o:, 8o& are -ou: 8o& !o:, 8o&+s it going:, 8o& goes it: Wotc$aD etc. 1arfrom unmar-ed to mar-ed in different conte=ts. The nati1e spea-er -nos thecore items (depending on dialect) and -nos implicitl their rhetorical 1aluein the phraseological sstem. 8o& !o -ou !o: is felt to !e the standard

prototpical form, !ut this does not mean that it is the unmar-ed, neutralchoice used in the ma>orit of circumstances. The corollar of this is that

prototpical e=pressions do not correspond to tpical e=pressions. %naddition, a notion of hat constitutes Fcollocation or Fidiom ma alsodepend on an appropriate register or stle and part of the meaning of anidiomatic phrase is its specific conte=t of use in hich it is deemed to !eappropriate (a pragmatic dimension rather than a strictl te=tual one). Thusfrom a discourse perspecti1e, idioms (as relati1el mar-ed e=pressions) andcollocations (as relati1el unmar-ed e=pressions) might not !e fi=edcategories, !ut ma !e percei1ed differentl in different conte=ts.Collocations can !e said to ha1e a less fi=ed pragmatic set of uses thanidiomsM hile le=ical phrases, ith their specific rhetorical roles, occup a

position somehere in!eteen. 8rom this !asic premise, e can postulate ashifting rhetorical continuum !eteen the usual phraseolog of collocationand other more unusual e=pressions (including original e=pressions hich

!rea- ith collocational con1ention or stlisticall mar-ed idioms !elonging

to another discourse).

Collocation emerges throughout this discussion as a poerful !ut alsoe=tremel di1erse concept. s 1an der 7ouden (/++$) notes, the termcollocation itself either refers to the a!stract relationship !eteen ords orthe e=pression as a hole. Ne1ertheless, it is clear that although there aredifferences in application and methodolog, all of the approaches e ha1esummarised a!o1e con1erge on an important and recognisa!le phenomenon,the Ffamiliar recurrent e=pression. %nstead of arguing the case for onespecific 1iepoint, % attempt to see each as compati!le and rele1ant atdifferent points in m analsis. Since the main purpose of this !oo- is to

analse a large corpus of te=ts, % argue !elo that the Fstatistical te=tual perspecti1e is the most appropriate approach to !e adopted in the first stagesof corpus analsis. :oe1er, the Fsemantic sntactic perspecti1e !rings toour analsis of collocation the important notion of the a!stract relationship

!eteen ords, and the idea that the e=pression e=ists as a meaningful unit ofchoice ithin the grammar. The Fdiscoursal rhetorical 1ie e5uall informsus of the role that the e=pression has ithin a running te=t and reminds us tointerpret the e=pression as part of a sstem of stlistic alternati1es. 4espitedifferences of methods, each approach leads us to reconsider the relationship

22




!eteen ords ithin the collocational e=pression and to re1ise thetraditional notion of phraseolog.

% intend to use the term p#raseology to refer specificall to the rhetoricalor pragmatic use of an e=pression. The term then stands in contrast to:allidas Fle=icogrammar hich refers strictl to the cline !eteen le=ison the one hand and grammatical sstems on the other (:allida /+). Theterm also contrasts ith the notion of Fcollocational continuum in le=icolog(:oarth /++), hich refers to collocations as the !ecome less li-e phrasesand more li-e ords. The Fdiscoursal rhetorical approach claims that the

pragmatic 1alue of a particular e=pression constitutes an important aspect ofa theor of phraseolog. :oe1er, fe studies of idiom or collocation ha1eta-en this perspecti1e, and e1en feer ha1e attempted to account for sstemsof phraseolog in scientific te=ts. ; assumption in the analsis !elo is thatalthough m collocational e=pressions are originall deri1ed from the corpuson a statistical !asis, the can !e also usefull descri!ed in terms of theirte=tual, rhetorical or pragmatic function. Thus a le=icogrammatical analsisof a specific discourse can !e supplemented ! an analsis of phraseolog.

further issue at this point concerns the notion of grammatical item (aclosed class or functional ord) and le=ical item (an open class or contentord). %n the corpus analsis !elo, % suggest that grammatical items areuseful starting points for the analsis of longer stretches of collocation and

phraseolog. 7e ha1e seen in the discussion a!o1e that grammatical itemsha1e usuall !een left out of collocational studies. ;an studies of te=tualcollocation such as Phillips (/+) or Smad>a (/++') go further and eliminateFstopords, largel !ecause grammatical items are too fre5uent in thecorpus and are reasona!l thought to Fcollocate ith anthing. There is alsoa similar tendenc in le=icolog, in hich grammatical items are usuallconsidered onl as collocations of le=ical items (as ith prepositional and

phrasal 1er!s). :oe1er, as mentioned a!o1e, important or- ! corpuslinguists such as :unston and 8rancis (/++) on the patterns of grammar, and<enouf and Sinclair (/++/) on consistent grammatical features of collocationhas shon that grammatical items are fundamental to a theor of

phraseolog. The Fdiscoursal rhetorical approach has also !rought intofocus man pre1iousl ignored com!inations of grammatical items hichfunction as recognisa!le e=pressions. 8or e=ample, man of Nattinger and4eCarricos le=ical phrases contain, ironicall, 1er fe le=ical items" 1ust

because, to be at it, as is, t$at+s it t$en, it+s all oer, $e+s out of it . Thesee=pressions are considered to !e le=icalised, although the function more li-eutterances than single le=ical items. 8olloing on from this perspecti1e, theanalsis % set out !elo focuses on grammatical items as the -e elements inlonger stretches of phraseolog. %n section %%%, % specificall address the role

23




of collocation in specialised te=ts and set out more full :allidas conceptof the le=icogrammar.

The notion that grammatical items are closed class ords ill ser1e as m !asic ruleofthum! in order to identif these items. :oe1er, % also ish toe=plore the possi!ilit that high fre5uenc items (such as au=iliar 1er!s is

and $as) pla an important role in the formation of collocations and fi=ede=pressions, and assume therefore that such high fre5uenc items are for the

purposes of m analsis Fgrammatical. This fre5uenc!ased approach tole=is is consistent ith Sinclairs 1ie, and allos for a more nuancedanalsis of ords hich are often considered to !e at the intersection

!eteen grammar and le=is.

24




II. "anguage and Science

This chapter sets the scene for the corpus design in section %%% and dataanalsis in section %#. The aim here is to >ustif m specific o!>ect of en5uir(science riting in cancer research) and m methodolog (an approachithin discourse analsis). % set out here the theoretical !asis for a corpus

analsis of cancer research articles. % e=plain !riefl the relationship !eteenscience and language from the point of 1ie of terminolog and then fromlinguistics (especiall genre analsis). %n order to put the research articlegenre in conte=t, % then discuss a specific discourse communit" thePharmaceutical Sciences 4epartment, ston 3ni1ersit.

The language of science is a fruitful and elldocumented area ofresearch, most nota!l in philosoph, sociolog and linguistics. The role oflanguage in science as the o!>ect of en5uir of philosophers concerned ithhermeneutics and the reflecti1e function of science (Gadamer, 7ittgensteinand 8oucauld) as ell as theories of -noledge and scientific epistemolog(&achelard, Piaget and uhn). %n sociolog there has !een much research on

the discourse of science in relation to science polic and the pu!licunderstanding of science. There is particular interest in the as in hichtechnical issues are affected ! economics, politics and personal agendas(e1les /++ sets out a comprehensi1e histor of the discourse of cancerresearch). 8or the most part, research on science riting in linguistics has

!een the realm of applied linguistics, in particular the di1ergent fields ofterminolog and discourse analsis. The to approaches can !e summarisedas follos"

/) Terminolog centres on the theoretical relationship !eteen the specialistsu!>ect and language. The o!>ect of en5uir is that of Languages for SpecialPurposes (LSP), defined in terms of specialist topic rather than stle or otherlinguistic characteristics (Sager et al. /+0, Sager /++0). The field ofterminolog has a strong rationalist tradition, deri1ed from its origins in thecreation of industrial and scientific standards. Terminologists are oftenscientists themsel1es, including proofreaders, editors, a!stractors,translators, termographers (!uilders of term !an-s and inde=es) andinformation scientists (te=tengineers).

25




2 ) 4iscourse analsis discusses the acti1it of science riting and the role oflanguage use among specialists. pplied research on scientific discourse is-non as @nglish for Specific Purposes (@SP" Sales /+/!,/++0), ith theemphasis !eing on the pro!lems associated ith the use of a specific nationallanguage (@nglish) in international science. %n applied linguistics, @SP andF@nglish for cademic Purposes ha1e !ecome idel recognised fields ofresearch, ith dedicated academic >ournals ( Englis$ for Secific Puroses,

ESPecialist, Fac$srac$e, 'nglais !e Scialit). ;an specialist areas ha1ecome under scrutin, especiall in the medical sciences and areas such asdoctorpatient dialogue and the popularisation of science. The field hasse1eral theoretical traditions, and applications tend to centre on languageteaching.

The historical distinctions !eteen terminolog and discourse analsis are !eond the scope of this !oo-, !ut hat is of interest here is the a in hichlanguage is seen either in relation to the su!>ect matter (the secial language"a terminological perspecti1e) or in relation to the scientific acti1it (the

secific language" a discourse perspecti1e). %n the folloing sections, %e=plain these to positions.

1. T#e Terminology of Science

Scientific and technical terminolog is often cited as a poerful factor forchange in language. To ta-e a !asic e=ample, the num!er of ne chemicalscreated in @nglish (recognised ! the international standards organisationssuch as %3PC) far outstrips the num!er of ords commonl recognised inthe language as a hole. %n organic chemistr alone, there are $0 000compounds and four million standard terms (including affi=es) and a further'0 000 terms in inorganic chemistr (Sager et al. /+0"2'0). This count doesnot include the man other terms that are created a! $oc ithin te=ts, asThomas (/++') points out.

Terminologists create and define specialist terms, most often ith legalstatus, for e=ample in the statutor use of patents. 8rom the point of 1ie oflinguistics, the naming of terms is an attempt to fi= semantic uni1ersals andsituate semantic relations ithin a paradigm or hierarch. The notion of

paradigm distinguishes a terminolog- (a collection of terms related ! anunderling sstem, most usuall ithin a specific discipline) from adictionar. The technical notion of term and its underling concet istherefore distinguished from the le=ical &or! or name. The -e area ofterminolog hoe1er is the definition, Fthe 1er!al description of a concept

26




(Picht and 4ras-au /+"E). Sstems of definitions present a comple= areaof research and Picht and 4ras-au summarise the dnamics of definition interms of internal or e=ternal dimensions. Logical definitions of internal orintensional characteristics (an entits shape, colour and other Findependent

properties) can !e placed alongside an analogical definition of e=ternalcharacteristics or etension (the terms associated purpose or functions)(/+"*$). The matter is complicated ! the fact that an esta!lished conceptin one discipline can !e interpreted differentl in another. 8or e=ample, theiron chloride molecule FeCl H is important for electricians as ell as te=tiletechnologists, !ut has a different definition (e=tension) in !oth fields (Sageret al. /+0"$2). s e note in our sur1e !elo, !iochemists, micro

!iologists and pharmacologists ha1e a 1er different perspecti1es of thecentral concept of cancer .

&eond the mechanical stoc-piling of terms, the process of creatingterminolog itself has an impact on the rest of the language sstem. %n ama>or oron the notion of nomenclature, Cahn (/+$+) noted that all ordsin the general language could potentiall !e pressed into ser1ice in scienceand technolog using con1entional resources such as con1ersion. 8ore=ample the noun clone can !ecome a technical 1er! to clone and then !e reintroduced into the general language. Scientific deri1ation also adapts themorpholog of the language in order to create su!>ectspecific neologisms.

The deri1ational sstems of Gree- and Latin are full emploed in @nglishand pro1ide a comple= sstem of fine distinctions. %n chemistr the form ic

indicates more o=gen !onds, as in sul$uric aci! (:2SD*), and contrastsith ate, used to refer to sul$ate SD* ith a 1alenc2 ion. These can inturn !e contrasted ith Ious, hich indicates a decreased num!er of o=gen

!onds as in sul$urous aci! (:2SD') (Scott /++/"2$22$).Le=ical deri1ation ta-es the form of compounding, in hich ords are

>u=taposed ! lea1ing a space or hphen !eteen indi1idual elements.Compounding in1ol1es the formation of comple= nominals, and this processof term creation has had profound effects on the snta= of @nglish, as noted

! :uddleston (/+$/), Lac-strom et al. (/+$2, /+$') and more recentl !

:allida (/++). :uddleston noted that scientific @nglish has four ma>ornominal categories" ad>ecti1al compounds (comressie force), 1er!al nouns(air(con!itioning, to&n lanning ), de1er!al compounds (!ust collection),and operation compounds (a grammatical reformulation, for e=ampletemerature c$ange from a c$ange of temerature). Sager et al. (/+0"2E2E+) similarl identified the comple= semantic interactions !eteen the noun

phrase head and its modifier. The esta!lished ten dominant categories ofle=ical collocation in @nglish"

27




/) head compared ith the modifier et$ane(t-e interaction.

2) head made of a specified material oil film.

') head has a ne propert lo& octane.

*) head has a specific use cutting tool.

) head is associated ith its product or origin malt beer.

E) head operates on the modifier" en)-me reactiator.

$) head operates as specified ! the modifier sli!ing %e-.

) head is part of the modifier e!estal ca.

+) head is identified ! the modifier gol! stan!ar!.

/0) head Fta-es place at the modifier c-to%ine tumour.

7e can see that collocational sstems in scientific terminolog are particularl comple=. Terminologists ha1e demonstrated that there is anunderling grammar at sta-e in science riting, a 1ie hich ser1es tocounteract the fol-1ie of terminolog as simpl the classification of termsand ta=onomies. :oe1er, although this is an important and difficult field ofresearch, terminolog still tends to prioritise the comple= nature of nominalsand le=ical collocations. ;ore recent or- has hoe1er concentrated on

semitechnical terms, ords such as anal-sis, effect, transformation (&a-er,8rancis and Tognini&onelli /++'), on general ords !orroed ! hardscience such as c$arm, strange, u, !o&n (Pa1el /++' a !) and thecollocational properties of 1er!s and 1er! complementation in scienceriting (Thomas /++', Pearson /++). These de1elopments in terminologdo not hoe1er address the concept of discourse or 1aring stle ithin theresearch article genre, since terminolog is onl concerned ith the specialistsu!>ect matter. Terminolog is essentiall a!out managing the terms andconcepts of a scientific discipline, and the issue of stle is, perhapsreasona!l, a matter of less importance. s a conse5uence, research interminolog therefore centers on attempts to delimit the FLanguage for

Special Purposes, either ! seeing LSP as a sstem of terms, or ! seeingLSP as a 1er a!stract and specialised language 1ariet.

& limiting the meaning of LSP to a sstem of terms, Picht and 4ras-aurepresent a traditional !ut also fairl idespread 1ie of language andscience. Picht and 4ras-au see the difference !eteen the LSP and thegeneral language as a continuum of abstraction"

4epending on the pragmatic function and the conte=t of situation, includingan epistemological factor, the same topic ithin a special field lends itselfto discussion at different le1els of a!straction. (Picht and 4ras-au /+")

28




Contrar to the commonsense 1ie that terminolog tends to !e a!outFspecificit, Picht and 4ras-au note that a!straction implies an increasedle1el of conceptual generalit. Thus hile FCologne Cathedral indicates aspecific real orld o!>ect (denoted ! a name), the concept CT:@4<L isa!stracted aa from outside reference to a generic idea (denoted ! a term).!straction is reflected in the characteristic nominal stle of the LSP, hilethe general language has Fa ?ero le1el of a!straction (folloing 3re /+$/,the claim that this corresponds to a loer le=ical densit). Picht and4ras-au further characterise the LSP as Fmonofunctional, in that it cannot !eunderstood ! the la person, is restricted to e=clusi1e groups and is seen as anonessential 1ariet in the ider communit (/+"/0//). The implicationof this is that the terminological sstem is snonmous ith the LSP and thatthe difference !eteen an LSP and an e1en more a!stract artificial language

(a nonlinguistic form of representation in1ol1ing alge!ra and chemicalformulae) is one of degree. This use of the term LSP is similar to that of

sublanguage, a concept also originating from the field of terminolog(Lehr!erger /+2) !ut also idel used in corpus linguistics (&arn!roo-/++E).

:oe1er an alternati1e 1ie has emerged, in hich the central concept of the

term has !een challenged, and the Fspecial nature of the LSP has !eeneroded, largel !ecause of the increasing tendenc for sciences to !ecomeinterdisciplinar. The emphasis has turned instead to F-noledge!an-srather than Fterm!an-s (Papegaai> and Schu!ert /+, Thomas /++'). ;anterminologists see the LSP as a 1ariet of the general language, its differenceling in functionalit rather than a!straction or degree of specialism.

8olloing the functional linguists :>elmsle1, &hler and :allida, Sager,4ungorth and ;c4onald (/+0) consider the function of terminolog andthe LSP ithin a sstem of discourses. Science riting is defined not >ust interms of conceptual a!straction, !ut in terms of its relation to different tpesof discourse, and to different structures of -noledge. 8irstl, concetual

!iscourse is concerned ith reference !eond the en1ironment of the te=tinto the a!stract conceptual orld of scientific -noledge. Percetual

!iscourse on the other hand, in1ol1es reference to the immediate phsical andtemporal conte=t of the te=t itself. 8inall, metalinguistic !iscourse

(including e=trate=tual comment) is said to untpical of scientific te=t and isa resource that appears to fade aa as the language !ecomes increasinglgraphic and conceptual. Sager et al. also ma-e an interesting distinction

!eteen the LSP and register (in the :allidaan sense). :allida usesregister to refer to the traditional Fmodes of discourse such as the language

29




of narratie, t$e language of transaction, t$e language of eosition hichare not tpes of te=ts !ut rhetorical e1ents hich emerge in a long stretch ofrunning te=t or dialogue (/+"'/). Sager et al. instead point out that hileregister is a useful term for forms of interaction !eteen different discoursecommunities (!eteen >ournalists and non>ournalists, for e=ample), the LSPe=ists and e1ol1es ithin the discourse of a specific scientific communit(/+0"*).

lthough terminolog is often seen as the analsis of fi=ed concepts,Sager et al. emphasise the changing and dnamic nature of scientific patternsof thought. Science inno1ates and forms ne paradigms, ma-ing a highdemand on the terminological resources of language (/+0"=1iii). Thedistinguish !eteen conceptualisation, the attempt to fi= and define concepts,and reconceptualisation hich in1ol1es the changing functional perspecti1eof concepts and terms from discipline to discipline and te=t to te=t. The termFsun, for e=ample, is conceptualised differentl in different discourses"

a 6ou cant see that !ird !ecause of the sun ( ercetual ) ! The sun is a star. (concetual )c The Germanic ord Fsun is a noun (metalinguistic).

<econceptualisation can also !e seen in the changes of e=pression that ta-e place ithin the same te=t. &roadl spea-ing, this functionalist approachleads to a 1ie of language as not onl the encoding of -noledge !ut as a

primar tool in the negotiation of claims and the de1elopment of scientific paradigms. 8rom a similar perspecti1e, &A>oint (/+"'E) sets out to5uestion the fi=edness of terminolog and conceptualisation. :e in1erts theterminologists traditional metaphor of the Fconstellation of concepts toma-e the o!ser1ation that as ones 1iepoint changes, so the conceptualconstellations undergo a shift in perspecti1e. &A>oint e=amines thecharacteristics of scientific and technical ords that are often claimed to holdtrue ! terminologists (/+"')"

•

Scientific terms follo a chain of definition from LGP ords to LSP terms.• Scientific terms en>o an a!sence of am!iguit in conte=t and out ofconte=t.

• Scientific terms a1oid figurati1e or metaphorical meanings.• Scientific terms ha1e origins that can !e definitel traced.

&A>oint as-s hether such terms as %e- i!ea ointer, bone tissue or bacterial

culture can !e considered unam!iguous out of conte=t, can e1er !e traced !ac- to original definitions or usages, or can !e held as unmetaphorical.&A>oint challenges the underling assumption that greater precision can !e

30




defined out of conte=t, a point that appears to contradict man scientists, professional translators and terminological commissions (such as the 9nternational Stan!ar!s Arganisation). :is -e point, hoe1er, is that the process of terminological definition is circular, and this touches at the heartof the rational nature of naming and nomenclature in science. Thesecomments are echoed ! Godman and Pane (/+/"2*), ho point out thatthe 1er idea of an idealised -noledge structure is e=posed to the same flu=and uncertaint that is pre1alent in the general language. Thus the meaning ofa term is dependent on its position relati1e to other terms and its use in thete=t, rather than a fi=ed a!stract definition. &A>oints position is ell-nonand has led to a greater emphasis on te=tual e1idence in terminolog. Thomas(/++') and Pearson (/++) in particular ha1e demonstrated that a corpus ofte=ts is useful in order to gain conte=tual information a!out specific terms, amethodolog also e=ploited in e=periments ith automatic translation(Schu!ert /+E). lthough their aims are different to those pursued in this

!oo- (the are interested in the definition or translation of terms rather thanthe stle of science riting), their methods demonstrate that the concept ofcollocation is more esta!lished in terminological or- than in other areas oflinguistics.

This discussion leads us to e=amine the scientific te=t itself and its role in the

formation of terminolog. The Canadian linguist Pa1el (/++' a !) hasemphasised the role of the research article in the formation of terminolog.She postulates that terminological change is contrar to stereotpesunplanned and opportunistic, and largel emerges from the processes ofscientific riting itself. Dther linguists (such as Linstrom!erg /++/) ha1enoted that metaphor is a -e feature of science riting. %n addition, #idalenc(/++$) points out that the Fnatural language philosophers preferred simplemetaphors such as ristotles su!stitutions and comparisons or ustinsspeech acts. Salager;eer (/++0a"'*) argues that metaphors can !ecomedominant in specific research areas. She reports that $0W of head nouns inmedical terminolog tend to !e metaphorical collocations in1ol1ing

structures (nere roots, ab!ominal &alls) hile the rest in1ol1e processes,functions and relations (migrator- ain, e$icles of infection). %n addition,terminologists such as och (/++/) and Pa1el see the particular choice of ametaphor as 1ital in the longterm chances of sur1i1al of a specific term, aneo4arinian notion e1o-ed ! such riters as Ca1alliSfor?a and 8elman(/++) on the cultural e1olution of discourse and Chesterman (/++$) in hisdiscussion of collocations and memes as translation units.

Pa1el specificall e=amines the effects of interdisciplinar research in theterminolog of fractal science. Since fractal imager is largel adapted as

31




metaphor from e1erda language, its terminolog is particularl transparentto none=perts. Pa1el and &oileaus (/++*) !oo- of fractal terms not onlcontains definitions !ut also tpical collocations and snonms of the mainentries. Pa1el and &oileau thus 1er clearl identif semantic criteria asconsistent features of sntactic patterns (similar to the Fsemantic sntactic

perspecti1e discussed a!o1e). 8or e=ample, compound noun phrases displainclusion (N V N X article(cluster ), ad>ecti1e V noun phrases e=hi!it gradualFsuperordinates (c$iral c$emical comoun! ), intransiti1e N V # collocationssho specialisation in the 1er! (t$e ro!uct cr-stallises) and # V N patternstpicall displa an empirical measure or directionalit (consere scale)(/++'!" ). The interpret these patterns as significant constraints in theformation of ne terminolog, and argue for their inclusion in dictionariesand term!an-s. s &A>oint and Thoiron point out, it is more interesting forthe none=pert to -no the tpical processes and agents in1ol1ed ith acertain term than to -no hich grammatical categor it !elongs to"

Sagissant par e=emple, du domaine de limmunologie, il est plusintAressant pour le traducteur ou le rAdacteur de connaYtre les diffArentsacteurs du processus de dAfense immunitaire, ainsi 5ue leur mode defonctionnement, 5ue de sa1oir Z 5uelle catAgorie grammaticale ilsappartiennent. (/++2")

Thus the role of the terminologist has mo1ed from pro1iding definitions and !asic grammatical features to setting out a phraseolog of meaning. &esidesconstituting patterns of particular importance in the conceptualisation offractal imager, Pa1el considers the role of these collocations ithin the te=t.:er claim is that ne formulations effecti1el reconstruct the terminological-noledge structure of science. s ne phrases !ecome neologisms andaccepted terms, these in turn !ring along their on suite of associatedmetaphors, sometimes from different disciplines. Pa1el refers to thesemetaphors as LSP collocations (/++'a"2+). She recalls the e=ample of thetheatre in one model of artificial intelligence (namel" Schan- and !elson

/+$$), here terms such as Fscripts, Factors, Fthematic roles, Fframes andFprops help to conceptualise the !rain as Fa theater of mental representations(/++'a"2). Such terms not onl permit analog in creating a ne conceptualspace, !ut more importantl the !ring along the phraseological patternsfrom their original conte=t. These terms are initiated, negotiated and finallaccepted ! the ider scientific communit"

...ne turns of phrase generate meaning, condense into sta!le e=pressionsof those meanings and !ecome first snonmous neologisms, and thenterms that gi1e !irth to ne terms. (/++'a"2+)

32




Thus fi=ed collocations are instances of esta!lished terminolog, to !econtrasted ith e=pressions hich represent ne claims and are morenegotia!le, or Fup for gra!s. <e1ersing the process, as scientific metaphorsand ne collocations (such as F!lac- hole, Fprimal soup, Fgene pool) aredisseminated into popular culture, the ne term implies an accompaning

!elief sstem. This to andfro of concepts, ith attendant !elief structures, isencapsulated ! hat Pa1el terms the t$ematic roosition (/++'a"'0). Theterm therefore comes ith its on intellectual !aggage, and can !e seen toinfect the -noledge structure of science as ell as reflect it"

...languages are seen not onl as social tools that human communities ha1ecreated and are continuall refining for communication purposes, !ut alsoas agents that constantl condition indi1idual !eha1iour ! 1irtue of socialinteraction in historicall, geographicall, and culturall defined settings.(Pa1el /++'a"2')

Pa1els empirical and theoretical o!ser1ations on the le=icon of fractalscience are a useful glimpse into the or- that has !een carried out in thefield of terminolog. Terms are no longer seen as >ust highl technical ordsith fi=ed meanings. @1en in the traditional 1ie, terminolog is seen ascontingent and dependent on the con1entions of specific disciplines. %tappears that terms need to !e grounded in their su!>ectspecific and te=tualconte=t >ust as much as the re5uire precise definition. %n addition, generalords and fi=ed phrases can !e e5uall used as specialist terms, and termscan !e interchanged !eteen e=perts and the communit at large. Pa1elsLSP collocations pro1ide us ith a metaphor for e=pressions ith some1alue" the are created in te=ts and compete for the attention of readers andscientists. The concept of the collocation also turns out to !e a usefulintermediar !eteen the ord and the te=t. The also appear to !ring alongtheir on conceptual paradigms. The concept of a dnamic terminologtherefore pro1ides us ith a useful lin- !eteen the rational approach of

terminolog and the empirical perspecti1e of discourse analsis.

2. T#e !iscourse of Science

@1en 4escartes, that great and passionate ad1ocate of method and certaint,is in all his ritings an author ho uses the means of rhetoric in amagnificent fashion. There can !e no dou!t a!out the fundamental functionof rhetoric ithin social life. &ut one ma go further, in 1ie of theu!i5uit of rhetoric, to defend the primordial claims of rhetoric o1er against

33




modern science, remem!ering that all science that ould ish to !e of practical usefulness at all is dependent on it. (Gadamer /+$E"E)

The terminological approach to language suggests that the a in hich aspecialist su!>ect matter is reflected in language is central to theunderstanding of science. The discourse approach leads us in a fundamentalldifferent direction" to e=amine the relationship !eteen scientific te=ts andthe goals and practices of scientists in their or-ing en1ironment, in otherords the discourse of science. The term discourse is used to impl thathile stle, le=is and grammar are important tangi!le features of scienceriting, the also function as pragmatic choices ithin a specific discourse.The term Fdiscourse of science therefore emphasises the role of rhetoric inscience and sees linguistic interaction, especiall the pri1ileged genre of theresearch article, as a central mechanism in the de1elopment of scientificideas.

4iscourse analsis is concerned ith a num!er of issues, not least ofhich the means ! hich te=ts are formed, and the role te=ts pla ithinspecialist disciplines and in the ider social conte=t. <ather than seeinglanguage as a 1ehicle for scientific a!stractions, discourse analsis 1ieslanguage as a !arometer of the social and professional conte=t from hich itemerges, changing as the social 1aria!les, te=tual con1entions or topic

change. Sales (/++) has recentl argued that to e=amine the conte=t ofscience is to understand the or-ing practices of research, including theorld outside the la!orator. Scientific te=ts are ritten specificall !scientists interpreting data, attending conferences, su!mitting articles torefereed >ournals, -eeping up ith the specialist literature. &ut these te=ts arealso ultimatel a result of scientific programs of research !ac-ed ! charities,corporations and go1ernments. @1en the most mathematical scientific paperlea1es traces of human in1ol1ement at e1er stage of its production andrepresents thousands of choices of presentation, e=pression and content. Theastronom >ournal Celestial #ec$anics, for e=ample, is dominated !mathematical argumentation and alge!raic formulae, punctuated ! the

occasional Fbut+ and Fan! also+ . 6et the titles and a!stracts in this >ournal areritten in natural @nglish" clearl language has an important persuasi1efunction in the efficient presentation of arguments and data, e1en here thescientists might claim that Fthe facts spea- for themsel1es.

The conte=t of the scientific te=t is clearl important, !ut an emphasis onconte=t still implies that language is peripheral and used in a mechanistic orrepresentational a. The information 1ie of language, posited !rationalist theorists such as @scarpit (/+$E) implies that language isunchanged from one conte=t to the ne=t" science transcends language, andlanguage simpl pro1ides a uni1ersal conduit hich ma !e !passed in

34




fa1our of other sstems. Language is thus seen as an encoding and decodingde1ice for atomistic information. &ut this 1ie is incompati!le ith hat e-no a!out ritten te=ts in scientific communities. %n one of the !est -nonstudies of science riting, Latour and 7oolgar (/+E) demonstrated thesu!>ecti1it of science" ho scientists need to !e persuaded of scientificinno1ation and ere concerned as much ith the status and relia!ilit of theirinformants as ith the conceptual 1alidit of their findings. This as the oneof first studies to assert the -e role of the academic research article in thedissemination of scientific ideas. :oe1er, the distorting effect that sciencehas on language is not >ust e1idence of the importance of form o1er content.:allida (/++) has argued that scientific acti1it creates ne forms oflanguage o1er time, and this is necessar in order to e=press ne meaningsand to propagate ideas outside the scientific communit. :allida and ;artin(/++') ha1e proposed that not onl do the social e=ternal factors in1ol1ed inthe production of te=ts ha1e to !e ta-en into consideration, !ut something ofthe sm!olic (semiotic) status of the te=t plas a role in the creation ofscientific -noledge. This is the approach tpicall adopted ! neo8irthianlinguists in their analsis of scientific te=ts (including ;ers /++0, #entola/++/, ;auranen /++/, :allida and ;artin /++'). The 8irthian approach tolanguage differs from mainstream descripti1e linguistics in that it interpretslanguage as a function of societ and sees language as fundamental in the

construction of human -noledge. This is clearl a model that addresses theconcerns of the @SP researcher as ell as the terminologist.%n his stud of the processes of reediting in science, ;ers (/++0) pointed

out that in most fields ranging from the philosoph of science, to culturalstudies and the sociolog of science, there is a constructi1ist consensus thatlanguage or societ effecti1el creates -noledge. 8rom the perspecti1e ofepistemolog, scientific truth cannot !e anthing !ut Frooted in its culture,and language is seen to pla an important role in framing scientific thought.<elati1ist and hermeneutic philosoph (7ittgenstein /+$, :eidegger /+EE,Gadamer /+$E) re>ects the idea that language can represent conceptual truth1alues, instead claiming that -noledge is contingent and su!>ecti1e ithin

the historical frames of reference of natural language. The natural language philosophers (ustin /+E2, Searle /+E+ and Grice /+$) also came to re>ecttruth 1alues, and instead esta!lished a frameor- for the fields of pragmaticsand discourse analsis (#erschueren /+++). The sa meaning ascon1entionalised in language rather than referentiall encoded in it, andargued that the criterion for good science is not its a!ilit to e=press truth1alues !ut the e=tent to hich it can !e understood ithin natural language. similar 1ie of language use as ela!orated ! LA1iStrauss (/+E2) and&arthes (/+EE) in the semiotic construction of social mtholog. Semiotics

35




emerged from Saussures theor of meaning as a relationship ithin astructural code rather than as the propert of e=ternal truth or realit. 8romthis !ac-ground 8oucauld (/+$2) as to 5uestion the a certain areas ofscience (pschiatr and clinical medicine) regulate -noledge in relation toother disciplines and esta!lish their on coherence as institutions.%mportantl, 8oucauld sa discourse as central to scientific practice.

%f the 8irthian linguistic approach shares this perspecti1e, it is in the ideathat language is the place not onl for the construction of con1entionalmeanings, !ut also as the medium for the !inding of social relations. s 8irthsas"

7e must apprehend language e1ents in their conte=ts as shaped ! thecreati1e acts of spea-ing persons. (8irth /+$"/+0)

7hile collocation and conte=tual meaning ha1e !een the trademar-s of8irths approach, his ideas ha1e also !een influential in theories of scientificte=t, especiall in the or- of ;. :allida. 7hereas other approaches(cogniti1e, sociological, ethnocultural) see language as a reflection of mental

processes or social conte=t, :allida sees discourse as a social conte=t in andof itself. :allida claims that the influence of scientific riting e=tends ell

!eond the confines of discourse communities. :e sees science as a discoursehich competes ith others for attention and dominance in industrialisedsocieties. :allida and ;artin (/++') propose a mar=ian 1ie of science,characterising scientific discourse as part of an authoritati1e sstem of socialcontrol, as did 8oucauld in his go1ernmentalist theor, as ell as man

philosophers in the conte=t of science such as Godle, Gu!a and Lincoln andSa1illeTroi-e. :allida and ;artin ha1e dran attention to the per1asi1eeffects of scientific practices on our e1erda language and to the alienatingeffect of science on those ho ha1e not !een trained to handle the discourse.:allida distances himself hoe1er from constucti1ism" Fthe unreal choice

!eteen language eresses realit- and language creates realit- (:allida/++/"+). %nstead, language is seen as a scientific tool for getting at realit.

:is aim is therefore not to den scientific 1alues, !ut to decode scientificdiscourse and ma-e the discourse accessi!le in education, a goal shared !other neo8irthian linguists (for e=ample, 4rur /++/, 4ereian-a /++*).

te=t is !ound therefore to !e a discourse, it cannot !e disassociated fromits conte=t (as in formal grammars) and cannot !e considered to !e simpl agrammatical realisation of a set of propositions (as suggested !te=tgrammarians such as de &eaugrande and 4ressler /+/"+). :allidaemphasises discourse as the product of simultaneous interaction andcommunication"

36




s performers and recei1ers, e simultaneousl !oth communicate throughlanguage and interact through languageM and as a necessar condition for !oth of these e create and recognise discourse... (:allida /+$$"/E).

functionalist account of the language of science does not ma-e adistinction !eteen a Fspecial language (LSP) or the general language. Theconcept of Fspecial is seen as 5uestiona!le, and :allida refers to the !roadcategor of register as ell as Frestricted languages hich appear to ha1elimited social functions (games, greetings, recipes). s far as :allida and;artin (/++') are concerned, the essential difference is simpl !eteenscientific discourse and other, competing discourses, although science riting

has a superior cultural position. Similarl, the socalled monofunctionaltheor (Picht and 4ras-au /+), hich characterises the LSP as a languageof a!straction, falls foul of much research in the conte=t of science. 8ore=ample, Godle (/++') o!ser1es that the terminological sstem of chemistris often redundant and ar!itrar (not to sa am!iguous), ith characteristicsthat differ from one specialism to another and !eteen different countries. %nchemistr, for e=ample there is de!ate a!out hether metals should !e theFheads of noun phrases or the other a round (thus meaning that 1alenc isreflected in modifiers). %n addition, editors and riters ma-e considera!leefforts to e=plain local con1entions and much of the chemical research article(especiall %ntroduction sections) can !e seen as a reformulation for the

!enefit of outsiders. This -ind of e1idence challenges the image of precisionand uni5ueness that is imagined in a theor of a!straction. %t appears insteadto support the o!ser1ations of uhn, 8oucauld, e1les, norrCetina andothers that scientific -noledge is pragmaticall conflictual and plannedrather than inherentl consensual and selfe1ident.

4iscourse analsts therefore re>ect the term Fspecial in LSP, and referinstead to terms such as *ariety (<ichards and Schmidt /+'). 1ariet iscommonl seen as a tpe of language hich 1aries ithin a general sstem,and there is no implication that it is limited in function to a specialism or set

apart from hat is considered to !e the general language sstem. s such itser1es as a generic term. ;uch oron scientific riting hoe1er has !eenconducted on the !asis of the LSP (as e ha1e seen in terminolog). Dtherterms ha1e come to !e used for specific te=ts including Fregister (:allida/+EE, &i!er /++E), Fgenre (Sales /++0), Fte=t tpe (de &eaugrande and4ressler /+/"), Fsu!language (Lehr!erger /+2, ;c@ner and 7ilson/++E) and Fspecial te=t unit (Sager et al. /+0). s might !e e=pected, noneof these terms is e=actl interchangea!le and each carries ith it a different1ie of the relation !eteen the general language and the specific 1ariet.

37




Sager et al.s Fspecial te=t unit demonstrates the pro!lems that emergehen linguists attempt to pin don the 1aria!le features of te=ts. %n thisfunctionalist model, the primar functions of te=ts are !ro-en don intocategories" status and topic. FStatus is determined ! the -noledgestructure hich a te=t aims to represent and modif. Fspect is su!categorof status" the use to hich the te=t is to !e put (administrati1e, pedagogical,descripti1e...) (Sager et al. /+0"/02). F;ode is a also su!categor ofFstatus, representing formalit and planning in1ol1ed in the te=t. FTopicin1ol1es participants -noledge and le1el of reference (from specialised to

popular) and also includes Ffield (from the 1er !road field of phsics to thenarroer field of nuclear phsics). Sager et al. (/+0"/20) claim that thesedimensions manifest themsel1es in 1arious prototpical categories or secial

tet units"

• @ssa focuses on the producers appreciation of realit.• Schedule essentiall topiccentred and listli-e.• <eport tailored to the recei1ers needs.• ;emo tailored to the recei1ers status.• 4ialogue interacti1e and fle=i!le.

8or Sager et al. (/+0"/2), te=ts are primaril categorised according tointentions" informati1e, e1aluati1e, directi1e and phatic. ;ost o!ser1ers

ould recognise that purpose accounts for man differences in form. &ut asith man te=tual categories de1ised ! linguists, Fspecial te=t units do notcorrespond to real te=ts. %n realit, there is no a of e=clusi1el fi=ing a te=tinto one or another categor. 8or e=ample, research articles in particular can

!e seen to correspond to the first three ST3s e see here (essa, scheduleand report).

7hile Sager et al.s approach pro1ides us ith an intuiti1el smmetricalsstem, more conte=tdependent models ha1e !een ad1anced. Sales theorof genre analsis has !een of the more influential models of scientificdiscourse, !ased on the earl or- of Latour and 7oolgar and on &achelardand 8oucaulds conceptions of practice in science. 7or-ing in @nglish forSpecific Purposes (@SP), an area hich is largel concerned ith trainingspecialists in language teaching (principall in @nglish), Sales (/++0) isrecognised as a ma>or initiator of ethnographic approaches to the stud ofspecialist discourse.

Sales proposed that the linguist should attend to the practices of thelanguage user, in particular ! analsing te=ts from the point of 1ie of thespecialist and ! respecting the terms and 1alues of the specialist communit.n te=t that has a 1alue among the scientists or professional group in

38




5uestion is termed a genre. The linguistic characteristics of the genre are seenas secondar to its status in relation to other genres and its 1alue depends onthe institutional frameor- of the scientists or specialists concerned. Thesegroups are in turn defined as discourse communities" F...sociorhetoricalnetor-s that form in order to or- toards sets of common goals.(/++0"+). Thus hile speech communities are defined ! the language thespea- (ith different registers and dialects), discourse communities aredefined ! hat the are tal-ing a!out (ith different genres and >argons).The discourse communit alas consists of indi1iduals ith differentinterests and specialisms, !ut the group is also defined ! a common aimsand the fact that all mem!ers are aare of the central issues and de!ates that

preoccup the communit as a hole, e1en if the do not actuall ascri!e tothem all. Political parties, trade unions, professional associations, commercialcompanies, go1ernment organisations, campaigning lo!!ies, and 1oluntarinterest groups are therefore all considered to !e discourse communities.Successful discourse communities e1ol1e efficient mechanisms of interactionand control. These mechanisms include Fcontrol of technical 1oca!ular andthe esta!lishment of a professional Fhierarch of e=pertise (Sales /++0"'2).The te=ts used ! the group, its genres, are central mechanisms of interactionithin the sstem and are seen as F...the properties of discoursecommunities... classes of communicati1e e1ents hich tpicall possess the

features of sta!ilit, rhetoricalO mo1e recognition and so on. (/++0"+). %nother ords, a genre is a particular language practice, a te=t tpe ith a1aria!le !ut implicitl recognised set of linguistic features. Scientificcommunities recognise a comple= sstem of genres" te=t !oo-s, re1iearticles, peerre1ie articles, research >ournals, grant proposals, la! reports,calls for papers, conferences, seminars, nesletters and so on. 3nli-e otherdefinitions of genre hich e encounter !elo (&i!er /++*, for e=ample),Sales notion of genre implies that there is a discourse communit !ehind itregardless of linguistic or functional definitions of the te=t.

The language of the genre is seen as 1er hea1il constrained, at leastfrom the point of 1ie of rhetorical structure and effect (Sales places less

emphasis on grammar and 1oca!ular). Sales claims that his analsis ofte=tual genres ultimatel stems from Propps (/+2) F;orpholog of the8ol-tale. 8ol-tales or- !ecause their readers are familiar ith con1entionalrhetorical e1ents, so readers e=pect a !amsel in !istress (a con1entional plotde1ice) or t$e coule lie! $ail- eer after (a con1entional ending). The

point is that these e1ents ha1e con1entionalised (ar!itrar) ording, and arehighl restricted in content and outcome. <esearch articles in science ha1esimilar de1ices, hich Sales terms Fmo1es (descri!ed !elo). Sales thussees the genre as means to an end, fulfilling a definite set of communicati1e

39




purposes (entertaining the audience or selling scientific ideas) and,importantl, oing its e=istence to a more or less loose set of rhetoricalstructures and la!els hich ha1e !een agreed ! the group (fair tales ith aseries of protagonists, re1ie articles ith ac-noledgements and methods).%t is not necessar for the speech communit or the discourse communit to

!e consciousl aare of the e=act linguistic features of the genre, !utgenerall genres are intuiti1el recognised and agreed concepts. Salescontrasts genre ith register (/++0"*/) hich he defines as a linguisticdefinition of a certain te=t. ccording to this 1ie, register is a linguisticcategor hile genre is a social institution.

Sales approach has !een influential, !ut it is so different from that of otherlinguists that the !asic terminolog and the theories underling the differentterms ha1e !ecome confused. The originalit of Sales analsis is thatgenres are defined in relation to other genres, not >ust ! a series of internallinguistic features or e=ternal social functions. This differentiates genre fromsu4language used as a te=tual categor ! se1eral corpus linguists, including&arn!roo- (/++E), ;c@ner and 7ilson (/++E) and Pearson (/++). s theterm su!language itself is deri1ed from terminolog rather than discourseanalsis, man of these or-s are oriented to a linguistic description ofterminolog, or tend to analse 1er !road categories of te=t rather than

specific te=t tpes. &arn!roo- (/++E" /22) descri!es a su!language asha1ing"

/. limited su!>ect matter.2. le=ical, sntactic and semantic restrictions.'. Fde1iant rules of grammar.*. high fre5uenc of certain constructions.. unusual features of te=t structure.E. the use of special sm!ols.

This definition com!ines features of the LSP or Fspecial language and theFartificial language (Fthe use of special sm!ols) as ell as !ringing otherimportant characteristics into the picture (such as unusual features of te=tstructure and Fde1iant grammar).

<ather confusingl, Sales 1ie of genre also differs from the or- of&i!er and 8inegan (/++*) here the term register is seen as a socialcon1ention, and con1ersel genre is seen as a regular set of interrelatedlinguistic features. 7e ha1e also seen that register can !e usefull defined asthe te=t tpes used to communicate !eteen the discourse communit and thegeneral speech communit, a concept that is more in line ith :allidas1ie of register discussed !elo (Sager et al. /++). Since &i!ers concept of

40




register seems at odds ith :allidas discoursal notion of the term, it isappropriate at this stage to simpl adopt Sales notion of genre and:allidas concept of register, noting that these terms are used differentloutside the field of discourse analsis.

The claim ad1anced in this !oo- is that discourse analsis pro1ides a moreaccurate account of the conte=t and grammatical features of language1arieties than the register approach adopted elsehere (&i!er /++*, fore=ample). %n Sales analsis, and unli-e &i!ers (/+E) concept of registeror &arn!roo-s (/++E) use of the term Fsu!language, the principle is that thesame grammatical feature ma function differentl in different conte=ts. ne1idence to suggest that certain features function differentl in the generallanguage and the specialist 1ariet tends to undermine &i!ers 1ie ofregister, hich places a high premium on identifing differing distri!utionsof linguistic features and grammatical categories. &i!ers Fmultifactorialapproach has !een to analse large groups of grammatical features (from atagged corpus, such as passi1es and relati1e clauses) and to correlate theirrelati1e fre5uenc ith certain intuiti1e internal functions of the te=tsin1ol1ed (such as a!straction, narrati1e structure). This has led to importantor- on specialist te=ts (&i!er, Conrad and <eppen /++). :oe1er, thisapproach does not account for the fact that the same grammatical features

ma !e present in to te=t corpora !ut function differentl, in hich caselinguistic cluster analsis is incapa!le of accounting for these features of thegenre. Sales therefore calls to attention the 1er specific means ! hichspecialist discourse appropriates e=isting linguistic features and changes theirnature. :e calls this the discourse coherence of a linguistic feature, and the

principle is deri1ed from 8irths theor of meaning.Sales (/+/c) fist demonstrated discourse coherence in his analsis of

the past participle in technical @nglish. :e found that participles functionmostl to !ring the readers attention to nonlinguistic te=t (a ta!le, figure orillustration as in t$e cure s$o&n, t$e list gien) or are used idiomaticall as

premodifiers (as in a gien reaction) in a similar a to classifiers as in a

certain reaction. :e argued that these uses are particular to scientificdiscourse, and ha1e de1eloped a uni5ue function ithin the research articlegenre. % ha1e similarl noted (Gledhill /++!) that num!ers are usedthroughout pharmaceutical research articles as Fpronomials, replacingreferences to long chemical names. This has conse5uences for the rest of the

pronomial sstem of the te=t (especiall the range of anaphora, as noted !Lidd et al. /+$), and presuma!l implies that pronouns ha1e a different

profile of use in chemistr te=ts. These e=amples certainl fit &arn!roo-sdescription of Funusual features of te=t structure and perhaps also Fle=ical,

41




sntactic and semantic restrictions. The point is hoe1er that in thestatistical analsis of register and su!language, these features ould !ecounted and assumed to !e similar to usage in the general language.

The fact that feer pronouns ould !e used in a chemistr te=t might !eincorrectl interpreted in a statistical count as an a!sence of referentialcohesion (an important feature of &i!ers /++E approach to register analsis).nd although % find !elo that there are significantl more prepositions inthe Pharmaceutical Sciences Corpus in relation to the general language (seeppendi= /), it does not follo that the functions of prepositions in general@nglish are replicated in the corpus. %n one of the first corpus studies ofscientific te=ts, Sampson and :aigh (/+) found that noun phrases,

prepositional phrases, past participles and nonstandard as clauses are morecommon in technical riting than in fiction. &ut it is significant that theargued against characterising these features as Ftelltale constructions(/+"2/). ll of this is of course predicated on the analsis of single,isolated grammatical features or categories. No stud has so far !een appliedto the relati1e interaction of ords !eteen genres, and it seems that there ise1en more scope for differences !eteen the collocations of scientific@nglish and General @nglish. ; preference for Sales Fgenre thereforereflects a concern for the conte=tual analsis of certain features, and suggeststhat e1en if a feature is e5uall fre5uent in to different 1arieties, its

functions and distri!ution of use are not necessaril the same. This point ista-en up again in our discussion of the corpus analsis of grammatical items.

nother reason for adopting the genre analsis approach, is that Sales hasesta!lished a tradition of analsing research article sections, not >ust researcharticles as a hole. Such attention to Fsu!genres has onl !een tentati1ele=plored in recent corpus or- (&i!er, Conrad and <eppen /++). &efore theintroduction of large corpora, Sales (/++0"/'*) shoed that rhetoricalsections (%ntroductions, ;ethods and so on) ha1e consistent and predicta!lerhetorical structures of their on. 7hile the model is ell -non and has inman respects !een surpassed ! later or- (Sales /++), it remains the

first characterisation of science riting that emphasises differences inording and stle rather than the assumption that the te=t has a consistentsstem of e=pression throughout. Sales oras folloed ! a num!er ofstudies e=tending his concepts to the entire research article genre and alsoe=amining different le=icogrammatical features from the point of 1ie ofFdiscourse coherence. %n order to gi1e a !road picture of the research article,% summarise some of these studies !elo, separating those studies hiche=amine the research article as a hole from those hich e=plore specificsections. Since m main method is to analse the role of collocation from one

42




section to the ne=t, it is important to set out here a picture of the generallinguistic properties of each part of the research article in turn. To a1oidconfusion su!sections of the te=t (-non as rhetorical sections) arehenceforth indicated ! an initial capital letter" Title !stract %ntroduction ;ethods <esults 4iscussion.

T#e $esearc# Article %enre

Sales or- remains the most detailed analsis of the inner or-ings of theresearch article genre. %n the conte=t of the massi1e flo of ritten data inscience, Sales sees refereed >ournals as the Ftraffic officers (/++/"+*) ofscientific information" articles are channelled to the appropriate >ournals onthe !asis of ho original or significant the are percei1ed to !e in thediscourse communit. %n the case of the research article each specialism hasits on con1entions regarding graphic and te=tual format as ell as de1icesfor academic accreditation and citation (Sales /++0"E). 4espite thesedifferences, Sales claims that there is a fundamental underling rhetoricalsstem.t the discourse le1el, Sales identifies a stereotpical rhetorical structurethat is analogous to the -noledge structures of Schan- and !elsons

(/+$$) scripts and #an 4i>- and intschs (/++) te=tual macrostructure. %n particular, Sales (/+/a, /++0) proposes that the rhetorical structure of%ntroductions in research articles from a series of different specialisms can !echaracterised ! a macrostructure of one glo!al purpose" to create a researchspace (the C<S model). This aim is realised in o!ligator and optionalstages in the argumentation of the te=t that Sales terms ;o1es (o!ligator)and Steps (optional) (/++0"/'$). Since mo1es are rhetorical in nature therepresent a summar of man different pathas that the argument of a te=tcan go through. The first mo1e, for e=ample, Festa!lish a territor is made upof a series of steps hich introduce specific areas of the research field asimportant and rele1ant to the stud, as ell as stating the general topic of the

stud and items of pre1ious literature.The linguistic features of mo1e / include time references to pre1ious

research (ad>uncts of time such as recentl-, and use of the present perfect),e1aluati1e statements of importance or interest to the field (it is &ell(%no&n

t$at ) (/++0"/**) or, specificall in step 2 statements of amount or 5ualit ofe1idence esta!lished in the field (/++0"/*). %n step ' the linguisticresources consist of a specification of pre1ious findings folloed ! atemporal 5ualification, reporting phrases (&as foun! to be) or reporting 1er!s( s$o&, !emonstrate, suggest ), and !i!liographic attri!ution (/++0"/*+). The

43




second mo1e, Festa!lish a niche, in1ol1es opening up the e=isting -noledgestructure to ea-nesses, either ! claiming ne factors that e=pose the oldmodel, or ! enhancing the e=isting model in some a. The linguisticcharacteristics of mo1e 2 in1ol1e references to the negati1e effects of

pre1ious methods ith grammatical negati1es or con>unctions of ad1ersit( 8o&eer, fe&) and le=ical negati1es ( fails to, is inconclusie) (/++0"/).n ea-er or marginal steps are characterised ! pointers such as it is of

interest t$at, a %e- roblem is (/++0"/E).The third mo1e Foccup the niche carries the topic on to occup the gap

esta!lished in the first to The linguistic features of mo1e ' in1ol1e a lac- ofreference to pre1ious research, e=plicit metalinguistic references to theresearch te=t (t$e resent aut$ors, in t$is aer ) and pre1alent use of the

present tense (/++0"/E0). & stating the aims of the ne research ande=ploring methods, mo1e ' ta-es the rhetorical direction into the Fpresentresearch ith increasing e=plicitness (/++0"/*/). %t is noticea!le that the%ntroduction includes man topics that are reformulated in the rest of theresearch article (especiall methods and findings). Since this is also a tpicalfunction of !stracts and 4iscussion sections, the research article emergesnot as a linear te=t de1eloping its argument from one point to the ne=t, !ut asa series of more or less detailed recapitulations, differentiated ! a change inrhetorical emphasis. 7e ha1e seen in the pre1ious section that the concept of

reconceptualisation and reformulation is a also -e issue in the de1elopmentof terminolog.

num!er of other linguistic studies ha1e !een carried out on the researcharticle as a hole. Some or- has !een carried out on the distri!ution ofle=ical items in research articles (%nman /+$, Lo1e /++'). ;ost research on%;<4 sections has hoe1er concentrated on rhetorical mo1e analsis orthemerheme patterns (Nogu /++, Nogu and &loor /++/). %n a differentdirection, t-inson (/++2) has traced the historical de1elopment of thescientific paper and the e1olution of the %;<4 sections (the core sections ofthe research article) from letters to editors in the E!inburg$ #e!ical @ournal .

;an studies ha1e esta!lished that grammatical features (most often1er!al tense, 1oice, or modalit) are associated ith specific rhetoricalfunctions, such as statements a!out the use of the passi1e or authorialcomment. Ger!ert (/+$0) for e=ample, analsed 2* 1er!s in @nglish technicalriting, and found that the present represents a limited set of meanings(scientific las, processes and repeated actions, definitions, descriptions,o!ser1ations and material properties). The perfect aspect is used to indicaterele1ance to the research process. Dster (/+/) found that nonfinite 1er!stend to !e used for attri!ution and definition as premodifiers (tumor(!erie!

44




factors in...) or in nonfinite clauses (lii! mobili)ation in sul-ing fatt-aci!s.). Sager et al. (/+0"2/) found that hen nonfinites are in endofsentence position (tpicall a clause position reser1ed for ne information),the signal a result ( ...leaing all t$e gears eose! ). 7ingard (/+/)analses 1er! usage in / medical te=ts, shoing that up to *0W of 1er!soccur in the passi1e, and that hile the present indicati1e is the most fre5uent1er! form (2*0W), E*$W of 1er! uses are nonfinite ($00W of hichare past participles modifing noun phrases). :anania and -htar (/+)o!tain different results from 20 ;Sc theses shoing a preponderant use ofthe past tense in ;ethods sections (usuall in con>unction ith the passi1e).;alcolm (/+$) ma-es an important distinction !eteen rhetoricalconstraints on grammar and rhetorical choice. n authors use of the presenttense for generalisations, the past for specific e=periments and the present

perfect for footnotes are all constraints and unmar-ed choices. Dn the otherhand, a num!er of mar-ed choices are a1aila!le for tal-ing a!out the or- ofothers. 7riters use the simple present or the past in descri!ing pre1iousresearch as either specific or theoretical, and use the present or the present

perfect to distance themsel1es from pre1ious research (/+$"'*0). %naddition, Gunaardena (/++) discusses the multifunctionalit of tensessuch as the Fretrospecti1e present and the Finclusi1e present. Tenses cannotsimpl !e seen in terms of deictic time reference !ut also in terms of

authorial e1aluation of the information he or she is setting out.The semantics of 1er!s and the use of modal 1er!s in Fhedging ha1e alsoattracted a considera!le amount of research. Thompson and 6iun (/++/) fore=ample classif reporting 1er!s in research articles, distinguishing !eteenauthors stance (here e1aluation ranges from praising to negati1e) andriters stance (here statements are accepted as fact or nonfact). %. .7illiams (/++E) analses le=ical 1er!s in a corpus of eight te=ts andesta!lishes differences in phraseolog across to tpes of medical researcharticle. :e found that in different rhetorical sections, reporting 1er!s are moreasserti1e in clinical te=ts hile more tentati1e in empirical te=ts.%nterestingl, ithin the conte=t of m pre1ious discussion of Fdiscourse

coherence, he reflects on the differences of le=ical choice in differentresearch specialisms"

...O the differences in the communicati1e purpose and its te=tual reali?ation !eteen medical research tpes has !een much greater than pre1iouslassumed ...O (%. . 7illiams /++E"/+).

%n corpus linguistics, research articles ha1e tended to !e su!sumed ingeneral categories of scientific te=t (including popularisation). &arn!roo-(/++E) notes that su!languages as such ha1e not !een analsed in great detail,

45




largel !ecause scientific te=ts are treated as hole units and placed togetherin order to arri1e at co1erage of se1eral fields (ith the assumption that theare all related ! degree of specialism).

:oe1er, there has !een much corpus analsis of research articles in thefields of terminolog (Thomas /++', Pearson /++E) and there is a groingamount of corpus!ased discourse analsis. %n a corpus analsis of ele1ente=ts on oceanograph, &an-s (/++*!) analses the distri!ution of the

passi1e, personal pronouns, modal 1er!s and le=ical hedging (in 1er!s andad1er!s) across rhetorical sections. :e finds that there are phraseologicaldifferences !eteen modals such as can and ma- and that a high proportion(E+W) of modalised mental process 1er!s are used in the passi1e (it is

beliee! t$at...). :e also notes that the le=ical hedging of 1er!s ith ad1er!s(pro!a!l, generall) is so idespread toards the latter part of articles(<esults and 4iscussion sections) that their effect is at times redundant.;ers (/++) has argued that such hedging is o!ligator hen the authore=presses some imposition on the communit (claims, denials, coining ofne terms, apologising for speculation). ;ore recentl, #arttala (/+++) hascompared hedging de1ices in a 0 te=t corpus of popular science andtechnical research articles. ll of this e1idence of Fhedging suggests that acon1entional 1oice has !ecome entrenched in science riting, a point that issupported ! oron collocations and phraseolog.

Corpus analsis on le=ical collocation in research articles has also !eenunderta-en, either ta-ing a phraseological perspecti1e or concentrating ontpical NP complements of 1er!s. Uam!rano (/+$) analses the

phraseological patterns common to !stracts and 4iscussion sections,including phrases identifing general pro!lems, concerns of the researcharticle (t$is article aer stu!- etc. s$o&s suggests inestigates etc.),findings (in1ol1ing nominal comparati1es ith s$o&) and implications(in1ol1ing a high degree of modalit" t$e ossibilit- t$at, t$e fact t$at ).;aster (/++/) finds that inanimate nouns ( s$uttle, article) are more li-el to

!e the su!>ects of acti1e 1er!s than passi1es, and such 1er!s are more li-elto !e 1er!s of causal processes (cause, affect, reent ) than reporting 1er!s

( s$o&, in!icate, suggest ) (a distinction echoed in the PSC the researcharticle corpus, as descri!ed later). Dther or- concentrates on the clause

patterns associated ith certain families of nouns (4u!ois /+/, 8rancis andramer4ahl /++/).

small num!er of studies address the use of grammatical items andcohesi1e de1ices. Thman (/+/) proposes that the description of nonlinear(simultaneous) e1ents in scientific riting has led to changes in the use ofspecific cohesi1e de1ices, such as the classifing and defining function oft$is. T$is is idel used in the process of reformulation, a point noted in the

46




corpus stud !elo. 8rom a more phraseological perspecti1e, !raham(/++/) distinguishes !eteen the use of because of , signalling gi1eninformation, and because (a signal of ne information). Jecause of is the

preferred e=pression in scientific riting (*/W of the occurrences) asopposed to EW in spo-en discourse, suggesting that reformulation of gi1endata is an important function of scientific te=ts.

&i!er, Conrad and <eppen (/++) carried out a cluster analsis ofgrammatical features on a corpus of 20 different scientific research articles.3sing &i!ers (/++') concept of multidimensional analsis, &i!er et al.(/++"/$) demonstrate that ecolog articles ha1e relati1el more impersonalfeatures (con>uncts, agentless passi1es, past participle postnominal clausesand ad1er!ial su!ordinators) and more narrati1e features (past tense 1er!s,snthetic negation, present participle clauses) than a similar corpus ofresearch articles in histor and a corpus of general fiction. 7hen differentrhetorical sections in their corpus are analsed on the %mpersonal Nonimpersonal scale, the find perhaps suprisingl that 4iscussions are the mostimpersonal, folloed ! ;ethods, <esults and %ntroductions. Theire=planation (that 4iscussions frame other researchers orin the passi1e"/++"/E) is interesting, although multidimensional analsis places muchemphasis on features of science riting that are elldocumented in theliterature (passi1e 1er!s, tense, past participles). There seems to !e little

scope in their or- for the analsis of less salient features such as hedging(the use of modals) or to(clauses in science riting, as these are characterisedin their statistical analsis as tpical of other registers. Ne1ertheless, this isthe first parallel analsis of a !atter of linguistic features ithin the researcharticle genre. &i!er et al.s (/++) stud underlines the fact that much or-on research articles as a hole has concentrated on the linguistic features of1er!s, the o1erhelming ma>orit dealing ith tense and 1oice (the passi1e).This is perhaps not surprising, in that tense and 1er! form are -e elements insignalling the attitudes of the author.

;an other aspects of scientific discourse ha1e !een carried out in theconte=t of specific rhetorical sections. !rief sur1e of each rhetorical

section is set out !elo.

.1 Titles

#er fe studies ha1e concentrated on research article Titles in their onright. part from o!ser1ations of their highl condensed nominal stle, littleis -non a!out the relationship !eteen the Title and the rest of the researcharticle. Generall spea-ing, Titles are seen as sources for -eords in the

47




information sciences. 8or e=ample, 4iodato (/+2) has studied the relati1efre5uenc of Title ords in 0 chemistr, histor, mathematics and

philosoph papers. :er findings indicate that $00W of all Title ords occurin the !stracts and the first paragraphs of articles. She finds that chemistr

papers are the onl papers to ha1e an increase in the amount of Title ordsthroughout the paper, ith the largest increase in the final reference sections.The implication is that Titles are a good indicator of su!>ectmatter, !ut4iodato has little to sa a!out the role of the Title in sta-ing out the researcharticles claims.

%n a rare analsis of research article Titles as a su!genre, 9aimeSis[(/++') e=amines a corpus of 2 000 >ournal Titles from si= fields of medicine(all donloaded from the electronic inde=ing ser1ice ;@4L%N@). 9aimeSis[is particularl interested in grammatical change o1er time. She finds thatfrom /+0 to /++0 the num!er of Titles ith acti1e clauses (e.g. ?ietar- fis$

oil !ela-s ubert- in female rats) rose from steadil 0W to *0W. She o!ser1esthat these Titles are used in dnamic areas of science (de1elopmental

!iolog) and in high prestige >ournals ith consistentl high scores on theimpact factor scale (7illiams /++E, see section ' !elo for an e=planation ofFimpact factors). 9aimeSis[ also finds that the tpes of 1er!s in1ol1ed inthese acti1eclauses (contribute to, is reKuire! for, contains) do not gi1eempirical facts or findings as such, !ut o!lige the author to >ustif the no1el

results elsehere in the article. The Title effecti1el !ecomes a promissornotice of results. The point here is that linguistic change reflects the changingrole of the Title in terms of its en1ironment. Titles ha1e to Fcompete forreaders attention, and the use of Titles to suggest (if not carr) significantresults corresponds to the groing use of graphic a!stracts in chemistr andin other fields. This also implies the increasing independence of the Title and!stract as Fstandalone te=t tpes, a concept introduced ! GlBser (/++/).9aimeSis[ is careful to note that the occurrence of acti1e 1er!s has onl

!ecome pre1alent in a restricted field" other fields ha1e significantl not !eenaffected ! the trend. These o!ser1ations re5uire more e=tensi1e comparati1eor-, !ut do pro1ide an interesting picture of the Title as a -e element in the

framing of scientific claims. lthough Titles do not normall set out a propositional argumentation as such (unless the contain a full clause, as9aimeSis[ has demonstrated), the clearl ha1e a function in situating theresearch article in a ider frameor- and one might assume that Titles 1arin am!ition, from setting out 1er specific technical points to e1o-ing or5uestioning the general status Kuo.

48




.2 A4stracts

The !stract is considered to !e one of the most important sections in theresearch article genre. The !stract represents the main ideas of the te=t, andis often seen as an independent te=t in its on right. !stracts are routinelreproduced ithout the main article in a!stracting inde=es. s a result, moreresearch on !stracts has !een underta-en than on other sections, largel inthe information sciences and in fields such as te=tlinguistics. ;ost linguisticstudies find that !stracts are highl polished and condensed te=ts, ith ahigh fre5uenc of relati1e clauses and nominal em!edding hich ma-es them

particularl difficult for nonspecialists to read. Not surprisingl, !stractsare seen as prototpical scientific te=ts, a fact that ma artificiall o!scure therole of those sections of the research article hich tend to !e more accessi!le(%ntroduction and 4iscussion sections).

;ost or- centres around the processes in1ol1ed in summarisation, andtends to concentrate on !stracts produced ! a third part (either

professional a!stractors or students). &a-er et al. (/+0) ha1e analsed therole of professional a!stractors at the C$emical 'bstracting Serice (CS).The a!stracting !usiness is said to !e immense" CS alone emplos o1er 2

000 inde=ers (;etanoms-i" personal communication). The si?e of the !usiness is reflected in the num!er of guidelines designed for a!stractors(7eil et al. /+E', &or-o and Chatman /+E', Cle1eland and Cle1eland /+',Cremmins /+2 and ;emet /+E). hurshid (/+$+), Pols-aa (/+E) and<aa (/+E) ha1e all e=amined inde=ing a!stracts from the 1iepoint ofinformation science, usuall e=amining the most successful strategies forcreating informati1e a!stracts. Tpical of this -ind of stud, &u=ton and;eados (/+$) set out the common points of information contained inchemistr !stracts. <ush et al. (/+$/), Polloc- and Uamora (/+$) andSharp (/++) also discuss the possi!ilit of producing automatic a!stracts.utomatic a!stracting has !een influenced ! #an 4i>- and intschs (/++')

propositional te=tgrammar and de &eaugrande and 4resslers (/+/) studieson summaries formed ! the matching of te=tual patterns. Gopni- (/+$2) setout an e=hausti1e te=tgrammar of technical !stracts from this perspecti1e.She sets out propositional Fmacrorules hich resem!le Sales (/++0)rhetorical mo1es and steps.

;uch linguistic oron !stracts concentrates on the 5ualit ofsummaries produced ! students (8ran- /+$/, 8l\ttum /+, Sherrard /++).;ees (/++0) find that none=pert summarisers delete the rong informationand construct propositions on false premises !ecause the lac- !ac-ground

49




-noledge of a specialist field. Gi!son (/++2) and 4rur (/++/) ha1e !othdemonstrated that nonauthor !stracts hich are percei1ed to !e successfultend to ha1e topical sentence themes as opposed to te=tual and interpersonalthemes. 4rur (/++/) finds that rather than simplifing te=ts, summariserstend to render themes more a!stract and technical (/++/"*'E). The successfulsummariser also reduces the num!er of relational and em!edded material1er!s from the original te=t, introducing more material processes at the ran-of clause (/++/"**$" i.e. from 9t is t$oug$t t$at t$e temerature rises to T$e

increase! temerature...). This is mirrored ! increasing le=ical densit anduse of grammatical metaphor in successful summaries (4rur /++/"**).Similarl, Salager;eer (/++0!) finds that unsuccessful !stracts are

particularl difficult to read, partl !ecause the omit important mo1es(conclusions or urose) or order them in une=pected as (results !efore

urose, conclusion !efore results) and partl !ecause the F1alua!lesignposts of discourse signalling and cohesi1e de1ices are usuall a!sent in!stracts (/++0!"'$).

There has also !een much descripti1e linguistic oron a tpolog of!stracts. Generall, to main forms are recognised. The informati1e!stract introduces the main ideas and e=plains the essential points of theoriginal article. The indicati1e !stract on the other hand reformulates thearticle, folloing the progression of the article as closel as possi!le.

%nformati1e !stracts in particular are said to use mar-edl differente=pressions and terms than the original te=t (Cle1eland and Cle1eland/+'"*). GrBt? (/+) claims that most !stracts in the sciences follo therhetorical structure of the original te=t closel and ser1e as indicati1e!stracts. :oe1er, GlBser (/++/) has argued that the !stract is a separategenre rather than a rhetorical section, and points to its condensed presentationof content and lac- of deictic reference or stlistic de1ices. @ndres

Niggemeer (/+) suggests that authors do not follo >ournals instructionson !stract and %;<4 sections in an case. She argues that the categoriessuggested ! >ournals do not cater for the needs of the reader, and thatauthors tend to structure !stracts and other sections according to their on

specific o!>ecti1es. This is an interesting o!ser1ation, suggesting thatrhetorical sections are less clear cut than Sales and others ha1e assumed,and that scientists impose their on rhetorical goals rather more freel thanmight ha1e e=pected. @ndresNiggemeer proposes conceptual te=t tpessituated around topical poles, such as the oerie& and mo!el buil!ing

!stract 1ersus the ractice oriente! and t$eor-(!escritie !stract(/+"*). These are the modes of discourse successfull adopted ! authorsrather the -inds of te=t re5uested ! >ournals.

50




4escripti1e studies of !stracts ha1e also compared the linguistic featuresof different tpes of !stracts, and a smaller num!er ha1e compared the!stract ith the rest of the te=t. &ernier (/+) and Cra1en (/+E) ha1e setout the sntactic features of hat the call the Fterse literature. :arris (/+)e=amines authorial comment and stance in scientific !stracts, and Sastri(/+E) analses prepositions in chemical !stracts. ing (/+$E) sets out thetpical 1oca!ular profile of author !stracts. 4ron!erger and ronit?(/+$) and <eder and nderson (/+0) studied the reada!ilit of inde=inga!stracts as a function of 1oca!ular. %n a rare piece of comparati1e or-8idel (/+E) analsed 1oca!ular differences !eteen inde=inga!stracts and4iscussion sections of the original article. %n an similar comparati1e stud,

Nogu (/++) analsed cohesion, thematic progression and Sales sstemof mo1es in / medical research articles, compared ith their !stracts and

popularised >ournalistic 1ersions. :e finds that !stracts ha1e to o!ligatormo1es (in!icating consistent obserations stating researc$ conclusions) andse1en optional mo1es (corresponding to Salager;eers mo1es of urose

and met$o!s" resenting bac%groun! information reie&ing relate!

researc$ !escribing !ata(collection !escribing eerimental roce!ure

$ig$lig$ting oerall researc$ outcomes elaining secific researc$

outcomes) (/++"/$/). !stracts do not include the mo1es !escribing t$e

!ata(anal-sis roce!ure and in!icating non(consistent outcomes (/++"/E/).

Nogu also finds that !stracts ha1e a much loer densit of sentences permo1e (2.02) compared to research articles (* sentencesmo1e) hich isreflected in the comple= clause structures and a greater sense of em!eddingor Fcompaction in the !stract (/++"/0).

%n a computer!ased analsis of technical !stracts, ret?en!acher (/++0)e=amines a corpus of 20 !stracts ith their original academic researcharticles in German (a total corpus of 000 ords). :e confirms the generalfinding that !stracts ha1e a highl nominal stle, ith a significantl highernounpersentence ratio, more F1er!al su!stanti1es in German (hich areusuall mar-ed ! the e5ui1alent of noun suffi=es ness, it- etc. in @nglish),and more nominal compounds than the original article (/++0"EE$). The

main articles are found to ha1e a significantl higher range of finite 1er!s,hile !stracts ha1e relati1el more passi1e forms. %nterestingl, !stractstended to use as man modal 1er!s as the main articles. Dnl of the 20articles ere found to ha1e more modal 1er!s than their !stracts, a findingthat suggests an affinit !eteen ith 4iscussion sections, here results arefre5uentl summarises, reformulated and represented. !stracts are found toha1e a slightl loer ord per sentence ratio than the main te=ts, (2'. to2*.E2) hich is still high in comparison ith other German genres (/++0"E),

presuma!l !ecause !stracts ma-e relati1el more use of em!edded clauses

51




rather than longer clause comple=es. lso, ret?en!acher finds that !stractstend to use nominal groups and finite 1er!s as attri!uti1e elements of clauses,a tpical construction in German (/++0"/0/). ret?en!acher also finds that!stracts ha1e relati1el more geniti1e attri!utes (part of the general nominalstle in German) and definite articles, hile the main te=ts ha1e relati1elmore infiniti1es, anaphoric reference, and personal deictic reference.

%n the first of a series of large corpus!ased analses of !stracts, Salager;eer (/++2) analses 1er! tense and 1oice usage and modalit in *!stracts (from *+ research papers, 2/ re1ies and /* case reports). Shefinds that the acti1e past tense is the most fre5uent 1er! form (/W across alltpes) and corresponds ith the rhetorical mo1es of urose, results,

met$o!s and case resentation. The past passi1e is particularl pre1alent inthe met$o!s mo1e, indicating that this is an o!ligator form of e=pression. %nthe urose and conclusion mo1es on the other hand, Salager;aer findsthat the choice of tense is more open to rhetorical interpretation" the presentma !e used to state !asic truths, !ut also to emphasise that pre1ious researchis rele1ant to the stud. The present perfect also has a multiple function ofreference to ast eeriments, intro!ucing a toic as ell as !istancing t$e

aut$or from t$e fin!ings (/++2"/0E). The past tense is found to !e much less pre1alent in mo1es of statement of t$e roblem and !ata s-nt$esis, here thefunction of the past is to indicate the unde1eloped nature of pre1ious

findings. 8inall, modalit is also found to !e mo1erelated, ith the mostfre5uent modal, ma-, indicating a high pro!a!ilit of claims in theconclusionM can !eing associated ith data snthesis, and s$oul! used in

preference to other modals in the recommen!ation mo1e (/++2"/0). Such aconsistent use of 1er!s for rhetorical purposes (in tense or modal form)further supports Sales o!ser1ations a!out the controlled nature of scientificdiscourse, !ut also suggests that tenses and 1er! forms impl a much moresophisticated set of interpretations than as pre1iousl thought.

. Introduction Sections

The %ntroduction section has !een a pri1ileged area of linguistic analsissince the earl or- of Sales (/+/a). 6et %ntroductions are sometimes seenas redundant parts of the research article, since specialists claim that thetend to s-ip them. %ronicall, the interest in research article %ntroductionstherefore lies in the fact that the appear ha1e a primaril rhetorical purpose,often lin-ed ith the need to pro1ide academic 1alidit to the article as ellas a useful !ac-ground for readers ho are nonspecialists (ina et al./+'). 8or a 1ariet of reasons, therefore, %ntroductions are seen as ha1ing a

52




relati1el freer stle than other research article sections and are alsoconsidered to pro1ide the riter ith a certain degree of stlistic freedom.

part from Sales (/++0) analsis of %ntroductions set out a!o1e, 7est(/+0) has studied the use of t$at nominals hich are relati1el morefre5uent in the %ntroduction section as opposed to the other rhetoricalsections. :anania and -htar (/+) found the present to !e the usual tensein the %ntroduction, associated ith the functions of introducing !ac-ground,esta!lishing assumptions and the purpose of the research. Gunaardenas(/++) analsis of /0 !iolog and !iochemistr articles shos that the

present perfect is particularl pre1alent in %ntroduction and 4iscussionsections, here !oth sections relate shared e=perience as ell as report pastresearch. %n their analsis of / medical research articles, Nogu and &loor(/++/) found that %ntroduction and 4iscussion sections ha1e o1erlappingthematic structures (associated ith e=planation and argumentation) hile;ethods and <esults sections ha1e relati1el constantl changing themestructures (associated ith description). 8inall, the similarit !eteen%ntroduction and 4iscussion sections has !een often noted, especiall interms of phraseolog and use of modal 1er!s (Salager;eer /++2, 7illiams/++E, Gledhill /++E).

.& 5et#ods and $esults Sections

;ethods and <esults sections are the most inaccessi!le parts of the researcharticle to the nonspecialist. :oe1er, for the e=pert reader these sectionsusuall constitute the first port of call, especiall in the e=perimentalsciences. 7hile fe studies ha1e concentrated on these sections in their onright, a small num!er of comparati1e analses ha1e !een carried out.Generall spea-ing, ;ethods sections are found to !e predicta!le andrepetiti1e, and generall set out procedures as ell as detailed findings. %t isell -non that ;ethods account for the 1ast ma>orit of passi1e 1er!s,especiall in chemistr (:ania and -htar /+). %ronicall, findings are not

alas full set out in <esults sections, hich are generall limited toreformulating the ;ethods and summarising 5uantitati1e o!ser1ations andstatistics. @1aluation and interpretation are reser1ed instead for the4iscussion section. Practices 1ar considera!l from one >ournal to the ne=t,and sometimes these sections are com!ined or accompanied !supplementar sections -non as F;aterials and ;ethods, F@=perimentalor F<esults4iscussion.

8or Sales (/++0), ;ethods sections constitute the core science of theresearch article. %n most cases, especiall in structural chemistr, the

53




;ethods section is the linear 1ersion of the la!orator !oo-, a listing of procedural formulae ith details of techni5ues, !rand names in1ol1ed,temperatures, measures, amounts used, reaction speed, molecular si?e (mml,mh?, mmo) and so on. Sales claims that these sections are Fhighla!stracted reformulations of final outcomes in hich an enormous amount ista-en for granted (/++0"/2/). Sales points out that this seems to !elie theempirical ideal in hich massi1e detail ensures the possi!ilit of replication.The ;ethods section carefull legitimises the rest of the article, and inSales 1ie constitutes a rhetorical section >ust as much as an other. ;oregenerall, the passi1e is commonl said to ena!le a distancing ofresponsi!ilit of actions from the actual protagonists, as e discuss later interms of grammatical metaphor (Sager et al. /+0"20+, Sales /++0"/20).

8e studies of <esults are conducted ithout reference to other sections,and according to Sales !oth ;ethods and <esults sections are Fmutuallinterdependent (/++0"/2/). The literature usuall points to linguisticsimilarities !eteen !oth. damsSmith (/+*) analses authorial comment(in terms of modalit items such as ossible, first person references, mar-ersof analog such as li%e, similar ) and finds that the distri!ution of these itemsthroughout %;<4 sections decreases in the ;ethods and <esults sections andincreases again in the 4iscussion section. She also finds that past and passi1e1er! forms follo this pattern, and her results on the distri!ution of the

passi1e in ;ethods @=perimental sections are echoed ! &an-s (/++).7est (/+0) has also demonstrated that t$at nominalisation is e=tremel rarein ;ethods and <esults sections, hile relati1el fre5uent in %ntroduction and4iscussion sections. This is corro!orated ! &rett (/++*) in his analsis of<esults sections in geograph research articles. 8inall, :eslot (/+2) and7ingard (/+/) ha1e shon that the simple present tense is more fre5uent in%ntroduction and 4iscussion sections, and the simple past tense more fre5uentin ;ethods and <esults sections. The other comple= tenses (continuous

progressi1e) are rare. ccording to most of these studies, ;ethods and<esults sections tend to !e concei1ed as the most Fscientific sections of theresearch article, i.e. the most remo1ed from general prose and other 1arieties.

:oe1er, &i!er et al.s (/++) o!ser1ations of relati1el high amounts of%mpersonal features in 4iscussion and ;ethods sections (ith 4iscussionsscoring 1er highl on the %mpersonal scale) ser1es as a arning not to ta-esingle features as indicati1e of a!solute similarit !eteen to sections. %t is

possi!le that superficial similarities (especiall in 1er! form) do notcorrespond to deeper differences in rhetorical structure" <esults sections dealith the same themes as ;ethods, !ut set them out in fundamentall differentas. Some of these differences ma !ecome clearer in our discussion ofcollocation in section %%%.

54




.) !iscussion Sections

There ha1e !een a num!er of studies of 4iscussion sections (;cinla /+',:op-ins and 4udle@1ans /+), largel from the point of 1ie ofrhetorical structure. Some comparati1e studies ha1e emphasised thesimilarit of grammatical features ith %ntroduction sections (Gnut?mannand Dlden!urg /++2). Dn the !asis of a 20te=t corpus, 4u!ois (/++$)e=amines a tpolog of clauses (esta!lishing semantic categories such asmetatet, met$o!olog-, conclusion, comment ), rhetorical mo1e analsis andhedging. She argues that the rhetorical functions of 4iscussion sections are1er different to %ntroductions, since the 4iscussions pro1ide a detailedsnthesis of results and their e1aluation as 1ia!le elements of a ne model.Sales (/++0) suggested that 4iscussion sections are the mirror images of%ntroduction sections, loo-ing out from the research into the ider orld.Thus %ntroductions snthesise past research and e1aluate old models inardstoards the Fcore scientific acti1it (;ethods<esults), hile the 4iscussionsection does the re1erse, returning the product of scientific research to thediscourse communit. This does not e=plain h grammatical features areshared, although as ith ;ethods and <esults sections, e ha1e seen that

superficial similarities of single grammatical forms are not alas indicati1eof deeper rhetorical differences.

&. T#e !iscourse Community

%n the pre1ious sections, % ha1e set out an introduction to the theor of theterminolog and discourse of science. %n this section % e=amine these theoriesin the conte=t of a cancer research la!orator. %n the first part, % e=plain theconte=t of cancer research and set out a !asic e=planation of cancer ith a1ie to defining the discourse of cancer research itself. % then conduct a

sur1e of cancer researchers, designed in part to pro1ide a conte=t for thecorpus set out in sections %%% and %#. Gi1en that man of m informants ha1ethemsel1es contri!uted their te=ts to the corpus, an light the can shed onthe riting process and their use of research articles is rele1ant to this stud.

8rom this point, in order to differentiate their opinions, researchers arereferred to ! their italicised initials (as listed in the preface). <esearch

papers ha1e !een gi1en a code indicating hich >ournal the come from (e.g.TL, &;9, C</), ith a num!er hen there is more than one article from

55




that >ournal. These correspond to the titles and !i!liographic data listed inGledhill (/++!) and in ppendi= 2O.

&.1 T#e !iscourse of Cancer $esearc#

ma>or linguistic moti1ation for studing pharmaceutical and cancerresearch is that these fields in1ol1e a high degree of a!stract

pharmaceutical -noledge. The interaction !eteen a -noledge structureand the language in hich it is couched is of particular interest to the

phraseologist. %n this section therefore % attempt to esta!lish the discourse ofcancer from the point of 1ie of the scientists themsel1es. This is a onesided1ie of discourse, in that it is seen as engendered ! scientists for scientists(ith no participation ith patients, or pu!lic !odies, for e=ample).

Cancer research is perhaps one of the !est funded and most influentialresearch acti1ities in medicine. The nature and reputation of the disease isemoti1e and dramatic, and this is reflected in the large amount of charit fundraising and pu!licit that is generated for medical research in this area. re1ie of the Science Citation %nde= (SC% /++') re1eals that cancer researchis the most important single specialist topic in medicinal research. The SC%lists >ournals in terms of their importance, largel measured ! citations and

crosscitations in other periodicals. The SC% lists o1er 000 >ournals, andmedicinal applications of !iochemistr account for to thirds of the first /00on the list. Df the first E00 >ournals on the SC% list, / ('W) ha1e canceror oncolog in their title. Dther diseases on the other hand ha1e on a1erageonl one >ournalspecific title in this list (to for %4S, one each for rthritisand <heumatism, :eart disease, Lepros, Schi?ophrenia, inter alia). Thusmedical science is one of the !iggest areas of scientific research, and cancerresearch in turn can !e seen to !e one of medicines most prominentacti1ities, at least according to the /++' listing. Cancer research appears to !ean enormous research programme, and the amount of mone in1ested in thedisease, at least in the 7est, reflects an increased aareness of the effects of

cancer on an aging population. s noted ! e1les (/++), in the same athat space e=ploration as gi1en an artificial !oost in merica in the /+0sand /+E0s, cancer as not a ma>or area of medical research until it en>oed

political !ac-ing during the /+$0s in Ni=ons F7ar on Cancer. Cancer istherefore at the centre of glo!al scientific acti1it, and the discourse of canceris 1er highl politicised.

;ost cancer researchers agree that the pro!lem ith the pu!lic perceptionof cancer is that it is not one !ut man diseases. Cancer research co1ers a

!road seep of specialisms (drug snthesis, 1irolog, !iochemistr,

56




population genetics, patient care etc.). #arious research acti1ities(chemotherap, meta!olism studies, causal nutrition studies) contri!ute tosolutions leading to the ultimate medical goal" the cure for cancer.Dther researchers, ! the >ournals the read and pu!lish in, tend toardsthe description of the pro!lem (such as oncogenesis, cancer epidemiologand 1irolog) hile others loo- at the sideeffects and longterm issuesassociated ith the treatment of cancer (to=icolog, palliati1e care). Thiscomple=it poses an o!1ious pro!lem for terminologists, and also e=plainsho difficult it is to consider the Pharmaceutical Sciences 4epartment as aclearldefined discourse communit. %n Sales terms (/++0"'2), thediscourse communit is fragmented and has differentiated goals. %nterminologists terms, cancer is a distri!uted concept, occuping a series ofrelati1e positions rather than a central role in and of itself. 8rom m sur1e ofthe Pharmaceutical Sciences 4epartment , to defining features of thediscourse communit emerged"

/) Scientists situate themsel1es in a netor- of professional relationships.The e=tent to hich indi1idual researchers associate themsel1es ith

cancer research or chemistr is a comple= issue. The chemists in m sur1ee=plained their approach to the pro!lem in terms of com!ating diseaseith target drugs, groth inhi!itors and anti1iral agents, hile the molecular

!iologists tal-ed in terms of finding ne approaches to the disease !understanding such processes as cell death, replication and differentiation.Since cancer researchers often commission structural analses from chemists,the to research programmes can !e seen to !e sstematicall interrelatedand one might esta!lish from the !eginning a professional ser1icerelationship here the oncologists (or-ing in io) re5uire functionaland structural analses of pharmaceutical su!stances from the chemists(or-ing in itro).

2) Scientists situate their research in a rhetorical relationship to cancer.The idea that there are some researchers Fclose to cancer research

ith others at the peripher is onl a partial picture. %n the sur1e this !ecame an 5uestion of ho the researchers >ustified themsel1es to anoutsider. %n m sur1e, onl fi1e informants declared themsel1escancer researchers. %t emerges therefore that a communit of cancerresearchers can not !e defined ! institutional or social arrangements alone,and that it necessar to refer to a notion of the scientific model of the diseaseitself. %n order to gi1e an insight into ho the core phraseolog of cancerresearch is formulated, % ha1e set out !elo an introduction to the science

!ehind the disease. The te=t re1eals the dialectic hich e=ists in the iderresearch communit regarding the nature of cancer as a medical and scientific

57




pro!lem. The te=t is !ased on m discussions ith e=pert informants (mostnota!l, #T ) and on an influential recent introduction to the su!>ect !Thomas and 7a=man (/++). The -e terms hich tpicall occur in thecorpus ha1e also !een italicised"

T$e science of cancer.

ll cancers ha1e in common a genetic 1irus. This is promulgated ! a potentiallmalignant part of a gene" the oncogene. The 1irus produces defects in the ascells are reproduced and de1eloped according to their predetermined function inthe metabolism (the undiseased process !eing termed !ifferentiation). Cancer is

the phsical effect (! roliferation or tumour gro&t$) of a !rea-don in thisgenetic process (carcinogenesis) and in particular the oereression of theoncogene. The cause of malignanc- in the oncogene can ta-e place at an place ithin the cell or in its immediate en1ironment. This comple=it accountsfor a ide 1ariet of specialist research, going !eond the field of genetics andin1ol1ing the organic chemistr of compounds that come into contact ith thecell. 8or e=ample, malignanc in1ol1es gro&t$ factors attaching themsel1es tothe surface of the cell, and also the actiation of oncogenes in the cell nucleushere Fras roteins are a!le to transform 4N ithin the nucleus.

!o1e the le1el of the cell, the causes of these changes !ecome lessidentifia!le as the phsiological sstem !ecomes more comple=. 8or e=emple,genetic changes ha1e !een -non to !e caused in !reast cancer ! steroids and

eti!e groth factors. These are comple= chemical proteins such as %inases,often descri!ed as a cloud of to=icit. There is hoe1er no consensus on themolecular origin of malignanc (Thomas and 7a=man /++" E). The onlgeneralisation appears to !e that diet is ! far the largest cause of groth factoracti1it, folloed ! to!acco consumption, 1iral infection and en1ironmentalinfluences (such as electronic radiation). <ecentl, de!ate o1er the causes ofcancer has !een hampered ! empirical pro!lems. lthough man humantumours are -non to !e caused ! 4Nrelated 1iruses (for e=ample,immuno!eficienc- 1irus is associated ith %4Srelated tumours), most scientificresearch has concentrated on simpler animal N' 1iruses (/++/").

&ecause of the uncertain nature of malignanc, $armaceutical resonses tocancer are 1aried. Generall, interention in the genetic processes is not regardedas 1ia!le (/++/"/*), since genetic !rea-don is acti1ated ! e=ternal factors.%nstead, it is the actual moment of actiation and the conse5uent production ofcancerous genes (eression) that is the target of pharmaceutical cancer research.There has generall !een particular emphasis on the stud of processes >ust onthe surface of the cell, here gro&t$ factors interact ith a cells chemicalrecetors. Dther researchers are interested in the transfer of chemical informationachie1ed ! chemical s-nt$esis. 6et another group of researchers are interestedin the possi!le staration of the tumors on metabolic s-stem. & de1elopingcompounds that can target cells and replace recetors or gro&t$ factors, areceptor can !e de1eloped that destros the incoming gro&t$ factor ! in$ibition

58




(a tumor necrosis factor , for e=ample destros carcinogenic recetors). Gi1enthat there are o1er 2 million receptors on one cell, there is considera!le scope forspecialism in different tpes of inhi!itors.

This is the e1erda language of cancer research. & introducing the centralterminolog of cancer in this a, it is possi!le to !uild up a -noledgestructure of the field. %t is also of no surprise to find much of the !asic

phraseolog of this te=t ithin our te=t corpus, especiall in %ntroductionsand e=planator sections of the research articles. Such an account e=plainsh seemingl innocuous semitechnical e=pressions such as actiation,

eression, in$ibition appear to !e in1ol1ed in much of the recurrent

phraseolog in the corpus.The -noledge structure of cancer appears to !e oriented into to

semantic planes. 8irstl, research can !e situated as a spatial metaphor to the parts of a cell the researcher is most concerned ith, such as the molecular processes ithin and surrounding the cell. Secondl, research can centre onthe description of the effects of the disease, or causalit and chemicalinter1ention against the disease. <esearch can thus !e entitoriented (aroundthe o!>ect of the cell ) or e1entoriented (around the chemical processes andider effects of the disease). 8or e=ample, man of researchers in the PS4ere concerned ith inhi!ition at the surface of the cell, and this 1ie of thedisease ma not correspond e=actl to other researchers in other departmentsor institutes. s a conse5uence, our te=t corpus tends to co1er a much

!roader range of issues than are of current concern to the PS4 researchers,although it can also !e seen to represent a reasona!le range of research5uestions that ha1e !een formulated a!out the disease in general.

Gi1en the scope and the immense acti1it in1ol1ed in cancer studies, it iseas to see ho scientists need to !e 1er specialised in order to claim ane=pertise or centralit in their on particular field. The PharmaceuticalSciences 4epartment can therefore onl represent one tin fragment of alarger research programme. %n this conte=t, it ould !e useful to discussthe dnamics of the discourse of cancer research, and in particular the as

indi1iduals and groups of researchers gain attention and claim rele1ance insuch a 1ast discipline.

&.2 A Te'tograp#y of t#e P#armaceutical Sciences !epartment 6PS!7

This section descri!es some of the pro!lems encountered hen one considersthe e=tent to hich a corpus can !e F!ased on a 1er specific discoursecommunit.

59




The Language Studies 3nit at ston 3ni1ersit, here % as !ased, issituated con1enientl near the Pharmaceutical Sciences 4epartment. %t asthis connection that led me to contact the PS4 ith an initial 5uestionnairea!out ho the scientists used language professionall. The fact thatresearchers in the pharmaceutical sciences ere easil accessi!leand interested in the role of language in their oras a considera!lead1antage in !uilding the corpus. The researchers ga1e free access to rittenresearch and pu!licit material, including departmental listings and presscuttings. The ere also happ to tal- a!out their te=ts and their use oflanguage, and to see that their acti1ities aroused interest in other parts of theuni1ersit. The ethos of the discourse communit is, % !elie1e, an importantmethodological step in !uilding 1er specialised te=t corpora. This has alsorecentl !een a -e feature of the approach ad1ocated ! Sales (/++), inhich a te=tograph is !ased on dialogue and mutual e=change of ideas inorder to !etter understand the constraints on the production of te=ts and theconte=t of use of specific te=t tpes.

None of the PS4 had time to underta-e more than one formalinter1ie (usuall lasting one hour)M so % decided to sur1e as manresearchers as possi!le in order to get a !road 1ie of research. The sur1e istherefore 1er different to the 1er close longitudinal stud ofthe tpe underta-en ! ;ers (/++0). @1en though the fourteen people

inter1ieed included onl a third of the academic staff in the PS4, theresearch acti1ities of the department can !e considered to !e reasona!lco1ered.

The main fields of e=pertise in the Pharmaceutical Sciences 4epartmentin1ol1e medicinal applications of chemistr to a num!er of ma>or diseases(including rheumatism, %4S and tu!erculosis). :oe1er, the largest groupin the department is the Cancer <esearch Group, hich maintains its onidentit. t the time m sur1e as carried out, the PS4 had a large outputof research ith a num!er of high profile !rea-throughs in the press.ccording to its promotional literature, the department is or-ing toardsFad1ances in the understanding of disease in the meta!olism (the sum of all

the chemical reactions in the li1ing cell and hence the organism) andFtargeting of disease ! the de1elopment of highl specialised sntheticcompounds (the artificial production of organicall functional drugs).This conceptual difference is represented in an institutional di1ision !eteendepartmental sections. %n /++2 the si?e of these groups (not including

postdoctoral or-ers and technicians) as as follos"

Section I8 !rug !e*elopment (Pharmaceutical Sciences %nstitute" /' academic staff, E in the sur1e).

60




Section II8 Cancer $esearc#9 To'icology and 5icro4iology. (/+ academic staff and in the sur1e).

Section III8 P#armacology

( academic staff / in the sur1e).

This raises the potential distinction !eteen the discourse communit and acommunit thron together from the point of 1ie of an institution (adifficult discussed in Sales /++). Generall spea-ing, institutionalcommunities do not necessaril correspond to the notion of discoursecommunities (defined ! Fhat the tal- a!out and social netor-ing rather

than ! socioeconomic grouping). n e=tensi1e sur1e of 20 000 academics ! &oer (/++*) has suggested that man researchers in &ritish uni1ersitiesha1e a greater sense of identification ith their discipline than ith theiron institution. s e ha1e seen a!o1e, simpl !ecause a researcher isor-ing on a Fcure for cancer does not mean that he or she defines their onspecialism as Fcancer research. The sur1e re1eals !elo that the researchgoals of m informants ere not fi=ed to cancer research er se and thatresearchers did not alas respond to the 5uestion Fare ou or-ing oncancer research].

8or e=ample, the structural chemists (S8, &8, 9G) had recentl on asu!stantial grant from the Cancer <esearch Campaign et during the sur1ethe distanced themsel1es from cancer research er se. Such issues asfunding or research group mem!ership is therefore not a clear guide to anindi1idual or groups perception of communit, at least as the presentthemsel1es to outsiders. To complicate things further, one informant admittedthat there as an unofficial polic of understating in1ol1ement in cancerresearch !ecause of potential animal rights protests. %n another e=ample, the

pharmacist WF felt o!liged to sitch his research to 4N molecules from hismore original oron a specific inhi!itor !ecause of departmental polic.4id WF feel he !elonged to the communit of Fcancer researchers] :isanser to this as not clearcut. Such institutional matters of polic and

presentation presuma!l constitute an area of tension in the department, andsuggest that a corpus of te=ts on Fcancer research is not a trul accuratedescription of the -ind of te=ts and genres that the scientists see as 1alid andcentral to their professional or-.

%t might !e possi!le to determine hich te=ts to include in a specialisedcorpus ! referring to statistical measures of importance or centralit, such asthe impact factor. Such a measure ould presuma!l separate the choice ofte=ts from the personal and su!>ecti1e feelings of the researchers. smentioned a!o1e, the impact factor (%8) in the Science Citation %nde= is astatistical measure of the num!er of references that ha1e !een made to a

61




single research article or >ournal in a general sample of the literature(sometimes man thousands of >ournals). %t is significant that !oth indi1idualscientists and research >ournals are increasingl >udged on their impact factorscores. %n a sur1e of %8 scores, 7illiams (/++E) found that these scores areoften ta-en into account hen e1aluating a persons research acti1it anddepartmental funding. The sstem is selfperpetuating in that >ournals hichscore highl on the SC% league ta!le conse5uentl attract more researcharticle su!missions and, in return, recei1e higher %8 scores. This in turninfluences the need to produce persuasi1e and ell edited research articles.7hile % ha1e used %8s to >ustif the inclusion of some papers in m corpus,the are not necessaril as relia!le and as o!>ecti1e as the seem. s reported

!elo, some researchers ere sceptical a!out the accurac and relati1e 1alueof citations as measure of successful research, and had alternati1e as ofassigning importance and prestige to specific >ournals and research articles.

%n an en1ironment here pharmacists and others are competing forresearch funding from cancer research organisations at the same time ascancer researchers Fproper, the percei1ed rele1ance of a specialism mustha1e a conse5uential effect on a researchers place in the hierarch of his orher field. %t is noticea!le in the corpus that !stracts and %ntroductions oftenmention cancer research as rele1ant applications, e1en hen the main focusof the te=t is on a relati1el distant topic, such as crstal structure in

inorganic chemistr. The issues of fieldcentralit and representati1eness arediscussed later in section %%% (corpus design).

&. !etails of t#e Sur*ey

5uestionnaire as prepared and inter1ies arranged ith fourteenresearchers from the Pharmaceutical Sciences department. The aim as togather information on to main areas" the discourse communit (* 5uestions)and the use of te=ts in that communit (E 5uestions).

Sur1e 5uestion /). 7hat is our title and position ithin thePharmaceutical Sciences department] The sur1e in1ol1es a ide range ofscientists" the chief academic administrator ( PL), three professors( #T , W9 and 'G), to senior tutors ( L, BW ), one senior lecturer ( PL), fi1electurers ( ?P,WF, @G, SF 6W ) and three research fellos ( ?', 8#, W ).

Sur1e 5uestion 2). 7hat is our specialism, the main field to hich ouould sa ou !elong]

62




The smmetrical a the scientists fit into the departments research groupsas not echoed ! researchers opinions a!out their on specialism. ll themem!ers of the Cancer <esearch Group descri!ed themsel1es first asmicro!iologists, and stated that their general e=pertise as in cancer research( #T, BW, 6W meta!olic effects of cancer, PL cellular properties of tumourscompared to other diseases, 'G chemotherap and cellular deli1er of drugs).nother three micro!iologists ere interested in cancer and hoits treatment affected their on discipline, citing e=pertise in en?molog( PL), cell differentiation ( ?P ) and de1elopmental !iolog ( L). Dn theother hand, the pharmacists and chemists also cited cancer as the first ofman applications of the snthetic molecules the are designing. WF is ane=pert on the snthetic production of organic compounds that are part of thechain structure of 4N, as ell as cclic compounds that caninhi!it carcinogenic factors. SF, W9 and W are each interested in the lin-

!eteen groth inhi!ition and a specific famil of compounds (phosphates). @G is concerned ith the snthesis that ta-es place !eteen medicalcompounds and their target sites. ?' is interested in the structural ela!orationof chemical chains, ith long term medical applications.

The perceptions of researchers a!out each other also made this a comple=issue, W descri!ing the Fpure chemist WF as a cancer researcher. s noteda!o1e, these differing perceptions arise from the comple=it of the pro!lem,

and from the seeming impossi!ilit, ithin the field, of concei1ing of canceras a unitar entit or process.

Sur1e 5uestion ') :o ould ou descri!e our field of research in termsof a) its aims], !) its main concepts or o!>ects of research], c) itsmethods]

This 5uestion specificall aimed at eliciting Fthe common purpose, a centralconcept of Sales (/++0) definition of discourse communit. Themicro!iologists and pharmacists di1ided neatl into to groups on this. Thecancer researchers and micro!iologists stated in general terms the desire for

F!etter understanding of disease, in1ol1ing the comple= mechanisms of !iochemistr a!o1e and !elo the le1el of the cell. 8or e=ample, 6W statedthat the aim of chemotherap is to find the most effecti1e -iller of tumourcells at the same time as the most efficient targeting drug to a1oidfurther damage. Similarl PL and L stated that the aim of their researchas to understand ho intracellular mechanisms in1ol1ing control genesallo for cell targeting. The pharmacists had much more specific aims hichre5uired comple= >ustifications, in1ol1ing a description of specific

phenomena rather than an understanding of the hole sstem. 7hile

63




the ere -een to mention possi!le applications and diseases, their methodsdiffered more distinctl from their aims than those of the other researchgroups.

The sur1e 5uestion suggests that informants state the aimsand methodolog of the research discipline. :oe1er, it is hard to see hothese cannot also include claims of centralit and indi1idual originalit, andthis is ho most respondents ansered it. The phrasing of most of themethods (items such as ne, no1el, de1elopment, accuratel) and some ofthe aims (WF, #T ) emphasise at least some implicit claim of indi1idualoriginalit ithin the conte=t of an esta!lished research paradigm.

Sur1e 5uestion *) :o does our on specialism relate to those of ourcolleagues inside and outside the uni1ersit]

This raises the distinction !eteen an institutional communit 1ersus aider discourse communit (Fa discipline) and attempts also to esta!lish theFcommon mechanisms of interaction said to define the discourse communit.Generall spea-ing, the scientists constitute much more of a discoursecommunit ithin the institution than their e5ui1alents ould do in the socialsciences or the humanities (!oth areas here research is often percei1ed asindi1idual acti1it).

There ere clear areas here researchers claimed the or-ed 1erclosel, and all of these ere lin-ed to the production of ritten genres. ;ostimportantl, all researchers ere in1ol1ed ith >oint pu!lications (notnecessaril ithin the same research group). ;uch research in chemistr is

pu!lished in series (SF s contri!ution to the corpus is FPart $ of his findings)and an >oint series of pu!lications must contri!ute significantl to a sense oflongterm common purpose. ;ost researchers also cooperated on official

polic documents ithin the department hich ultimatel determined hichresearch group the ere or-ing in.

Dutside the uni1ersit, research appears to !e conducted in loosegroupings, 1er often of an institutional nature (compare this ith generati1e

or functionalist schools in linguistics, for e=ample). 'G noted thatresearchers ould !e aare of related groups elsehere hich ould

!e regarded as soft competitors e=changing research papers andcommunications, coordinating some grant proposals, at other timescompeting for them. W' stated that for cancer research there ere nationaland international or- groups that e=change results and negotiate areas ofspecialism in order to a1oid duplication. #T also noted that if e=citingla!orator results occurred, colleagues ould telephone other researchcentres to find out hether the had !een replicated or could !e e=plained. %n

64




pharmac the degree of specialisation meant that the num!er of outsidegroups ould !e e=tremel small, and WF suggested that there might !earound /0 people in the orld ho might !e considered e=perts on his onspecialist compound. Dn the other hand, the cancer researchers associatedthemsel1es ith national charities i.e. ith their on source of funding, hilethe pharmacists loo-ed to German and 3S for related research groups inuni1ersities and industrial sites, and recognised that these countries had alarge num!er of fields hich ere ne and could offer them some -ind ofe=change.

Sur1e 5uestion ) 7hat are the main sources of information for ourresearch]

<esearchers in the sciences notoriousl s-im and scan their te=ts, oftenusing them inde=icall (as e see !elo). The range of sources is thereforeider and more li-el to !e dri1en ! inde=es, !oth the !asis of traditionalinde=es or on computer. Te=t !oo-s appear to !e gi1en much less priorit,although the are o!1iousl important for teaching (not a priorit in thePS4). <esearch articles, inde=es and electronic inde=es ere cited as primarinformation sources. <esearchers ere as-ed to select fi1e >ournals of generalinterest and fi1e that the considered essential to their on field. The foundthis rather difficult, presuma!l !ecause of the sheer num!er of possi!le

responses. mong the >ournals researchers mentioned, Nature, the Jritis$ #e!ical @ournal (&;9), the Lancet and the 9nternational @ournal of

Cancer (%9C) ere mentioned ! o1er fi1e researchers. Science,

P$armaceutica 'cta 8eletica (P:), the Jritis$ @ournal of P$armacolog-

(&9P), Cancer C$emot$era- an! P$armacolog- (CCP), Cancer esearc$

(C<), @ournal of t$e C$emistr- Per%in Transactions (9CPT) and @ournal of

t$e 'merican C$emical Societ- (9DCS) ere all mentioned morethan once.

<esearchers also mentioned e=tensi1e use of the electronic Title and!stract data!ases #E?L9NE, SC9, 9n!e #e!icus and '?AN9S . Someclaimed that these ere !eginning to replace traditional F>ournal loalties

since a rele1ant title ma !e found in an inde= hich co1ers hundreds of >ournals, all from the researchers office. PL suggested that regional andspecialised >ournals ould flourish since their co1erage could !e mademore idel a1aila!le through pu!lication in inde=es.

Sur1e 5uestion E) %n a gi1en research >ournal, hat criteria determine hicharticles are of interest]

There are central research articles and peripheral ones, and researchersclearl adopted different reading strategies once a decision of rele1ance had

65




!een ta-en. Nstrands dnamic reading model (/+) proposes that suchdecisions are pro!a!ilistic, !ased on factors that are gi1en differenteightings hich change according to ho far along the decision ma-ing

process the reader has gone. <esearchers ere as-ed to demonstrate ith a >ournal at hand hich articles ould attract their attention" @G proposed thathe read around ten papers per hour from as man >ournals.Dther researchers stated that the read from one morning a ee- to Fe1erspare moment, in the li!rar or on the train, and hen the occasionall hadto chec- for specific information in the la!.

e terms in Titles, as ell as compounds in formulae, recognisa!lediagrams and data formats are the first entr points and the first clues. Therespondents stated that specialist entities (a term % use later !ut first emploed

! WF hen tal-ing of specific compounds, cell lines, diseases etc.) ere themain criteria, folloed ! or in com!ination ith a!stract properties or

processes (sta!ilit, e=pression, total snthesis). &oth entitiesand processes ere infera!le from titles, figures and reaction schemas, asmentioned in the introduction. Neither had to !e e=actl in the researchersfirst list of ma>or concepts. nother moti1ation for reading papers ascuriosit, to catch up ith related fields, or according to PL -eep up to dategeneral science % should -no. ?P stated that a halfrele1ant termould fish out a su!set to pro1ide a rele1ant connection. W9 states certain

preliminar 5uestions that the researcher !rings to the >ournal"/. 7hat things does it deal ith]2. :as anone done this !efore]'. re there surprising results]*. 4o % !elie1e it or not]

ccording to W9 these ould then lead to specific parts of the researcharticle. %n #T s case, surprising results ma !e indicated ! the num!er ofanimals used in the stud and other methodological details. PL suggested that

!elief in the data as an important criterion" ould the drug or- ith real

patients] 'G stated that the main criterion for him as hether the paperoffered a ne model or alternati1e methodologies, not >ust pro1iding positi1eor negati1e data. Se1eral mentioned the @ournal of t$e C$emical Societ-sinstructions for authors (/++'" =ii), hich gi1es detailed rules on hat is to

!e defined as Fne. mong other rules" a compound is ne if it has not !een prepared !efore, if it has !een prepared !ut as not ade5uatel purified oras purified !ut not ade5uatel characterised. Thus no1elt must !e >udgedin terms of claims against increasingl specific areas of otherscientists research.

66




The criteria of rele1ance are presuma!l different in electronic inde=eshere an initial stage of filtering precedes the processing of titles. ?P ga1esample figures of the -inds of titles he gets from the electronic inde=;edline. Df '00 titles from a E month period, he estimates that /0 ill !ealread -non, /00 useless and perhaps ' or * on his specific area. The

process of narroing don in an automatic inde= (from the general -e ordcancer for e=ample to bacteriolog-, or cac$eia) appears to !e morerestricti1e than reading entire titles in a >ournal here an entire proposition(sometimes in the form of an acti1e clause) must !e processed. %n the >ournal,there is a chance that the title can !e rele1ant (!ecause of originalit or

peculiarit) ithout mentioning an specific -eords. This pro!lem has !een addressed ! the SC%s Permuterm inde=, (SC% /++') hich acceptsnot onl one ord input !ut also entire phrases. Permuterm uses ahierarchical structure of -e ords and their phraseological or terminologicalsnonms (cancer, tumor groth, metastasis, oncolog), folloed ! su!>ectspecific collocations (such as a!ance!, anoreia, associate!, clinical ). Somesemistop ords (such as methods, analsis) are consulted onl hen -eterms are identified. s in Phillips (/+) stud, high fre5uenc ords (fullstop ords) are eliminated from the search, hile other interesting middlerange terms are also eliminated (e.g. studies, consisting, shon). Thisclassification of ords implies a redundanc of high fre5uenc items in

inde=ing. :oe1er, the possi!ilit of high fre5uenc items !eing associatedith rhetorical and phraseological patterns in the corpus does not appear toha1e !een e=plored.

Sur1e 5uestion $) 7hat information do ou deri1e from titles, a!stracts, andother sections of the research article]

This re1ealed perhaps some of the most interesting discussion ith thee=pert informants. To reading patterns emerged" !rosing and consulting.7hile bro&sing in1ol1es s-imming the te=t for rele1ant details, consulting

in1ol1es hat % term the Finde=ical function" researchers use a num!er ofdifferent entrpoints (graphics, -eords, !i!liographic references) to

approach the te=t. The te=t therefore !ecomes nonlinear, and is structuredaccordingl to allo for this. ;ost generall, inde=ical reading ta-es place inthe la!, hen a straightforard fact is re5uired from a te=t !oo- or an inde=.The fact that some technical research articles are used in this a constitutesa ma>or difference ith research articles in the humanities, for e=ample, andimplies radical differences in the a the te=t is organised. ;ost chemistrte=ts for e=ample esta!lish temporar codes for rele1ant chemicalcompounds hich allo the researcher to loo- directl at diagrams and then

>ump straight into the te=t. The information deri1ed from different parts of

67




the article therefore depends on the e=pectations and e=pertise of theresearchers and on the graphic properties of the te=t itself. %t follos that notone part of a chemistr te=t can assume that the reader has read the pre1ioussections, and much of m corpus is made up of repetiti1e, !ut linguisticallinteresting recapitulations. %t appears that the more e=perienced researchersha1e more moti1ation to !rose or read articles all the a through" #T

claimed that he alas chec-ed the entire article, PL claimed that he !rosed Fmore than the oungsters, hile the (ounger) pharmacistsclaimed that the read onl partiall.

4iscussing ho he dealt ith titles and a!stracts in >ournals, ?P said thatthe decision to read on depended on hether the title as at the peripher orclose to his field and ho much he could deri1e from the !stract. %f a titleor !stract is on the peripher, 4P loo-ed up the rest of the paper onl ifthere as not enough e1idence in the !stract. %f there as sufficiente1idence in the !stract, he as content to ta-e it at face 1alue and to mo1eon elsehere. %f papers ere closer to his field, ?P ould Fglide through thearticle, focusing on the ma>or findings if he couldnt e=plain them from the!stract. Similarl, PL claimed that familiarit ith a field meant that theamount of attention and reading time could !e reduced in the restof the article" Fif ou are cle1er enough ou can infer the hole article fromthe a!stract. Thus partial reading is not indicati1e of irrele1ance or lac- of

effort !ut simpl the researchers confidence in imposing a coherent readingof the te=t. The -ind of information researchers e=pected in !stracts andother sections closel resem!le Salesian mo1es. PL claimed that an!stract had four main elements in relation to the main article"

/. %nform the reader hat it is a!out,2. Tell the reader hat ou do in the paper,'. Sa hether ou1e succeeded in doing that, and*. (Fa !it of a lu=ur) Gi1e future possi!ilities.

The role of the %ntroduction in the reading process appears to !e am!iguous.

Gi1en the graphic nature of pharmaceutical research articles, their inde=icaluse, and the relati1el !asic nature of the information in the %ntroduction, thissection might appear to !e redundant. <esearchers spo-e of the %ntroductionin terms of formall proposing and >ustifing current research. Dthers saidthat the e=pected to find the de1elopment of ideas presented elsehere. ?L

stated that the 4iscussion section as the most important section for thereader, as it summarised the current research as ell as suggesting or

predicting an e=tension to the research model.The pharmaceutical scientists (SF, WF ) confirm our discussion a!o1e

regarding the linguistic properties of ;ethods and <esults sections. The

68




claimed that there as an o1erlap !eteen them, as ;ethods sections startoff as la! !oo- transcriptions com!ining a template of measurements, hilethe <esults Freordered the measurements. This corresponds ith anune=pected smmetr in m corpus" all of the F@=perimental sectionsoccurred in chemistr >ournals, and these often replaced ;ethods and <esultssections in these >ournals (especiall in the shorter Fcommunications papers).Presuma!l the e=perimental data for the pharmacists can stand alone, hilethe shape of the data and medical applications can !e treated separatel in the4iscussion section. %n contrast, the micro!iologists ( PL, #T ) sa <esultsand 4iscussion sections as distinct from ;ethods. %ndeed, in the corpus allthe >oint <esults4iscussion sections occur in micro!iolog and cancer

>ournals. PL stated that this as !ecause e=perimental data are seen as anFe=tension to the research model (as 'G implied a!o1e) and thus inmicro!iolog actual results should !e interpreted and integrated in theconte=t of medical applications.

This implied distinction !eteen applied !iochemistr and theoreticalchemistr ma !e an o1ersimplification, !ut an distinction !eteen theseto essentiall different positions means that not all of the rhetorical sectionsare e5ui1alent, e1en if the ha1e the same su!title in different >ournals. s faras the corpus is concerned, this forces us to donpla some of thedistinctions to !e made !eteen such sections as ;ethods <esults and

4iscussion sections. %n practical terms, % as also o!liged to e=clude a smallnum!er of h!rid sections (most nota!l <esults 4iscussion sections) fromthe main 7ordlist comparison, since the to sections ere completelmerged in some >ournals.

Sur1e 5uestion ) t hat le1els do ou rite or otherise contri!ute to thefield]

Naturall, the most e=perienced researchers contri!uted in numerous as( #T cites !oo-s, re1ie articles such as the TPS article, !oo- re1ies, or-in progress papers, ?P cites seminars, industrial reports, internationalor-shops), hile e1erone as in1ol1ed ith grant proposals, internal

pro>ect reports and research articles (considered to !e at the same le1el of prestige). This 5uestion as accompanied ! a re5uest to donate a pu!lishedresearch paper for use in the corpus. 8or a discussion of the different tpes ofresearch article o!tained, see section %%%, E.*, !elo.

Sur1e 5uestion +) 4etails of riting up.

a) t hat point of research does the riting of an article occur]

69




#T suggested that cancer research pu!lication as essentiall Fnesoriented in the sense that as soon as a coherent stor emerges from the datathen it is orth pu!lishing. @G (hose chemical processes actuall use themetaphor Fstories as a technical term) stated the same" riting upoccurs hen a !loc- of information constitutes a stor. This as also thecase not >ust for positi1e results !ut also for Fhalfpositi1e results, herethere is a significant contradiction or difficult to relate to the discoursecommunit. s a chemist, @G rites dataoriented communications hich, heclaims, ta-e a da to rite !ut o1er a month to edit and redraftafter discussions ith colleagues. WF suggested that some riting up ta-es

place !efore e=perimentation. This is presuma!l ena!led ! the serialisationof papers, and the templateli-e nature of e=perimental sections. Presuma!lresearchers >udge their on Fnesorthiness in much the same a asthe decide to read others research papers, ! centralit to a percei1ed

pro!lem, originalit, and so on. 4epartmental factors must also pla a part,and these ma include peere=pectations, contractual o!ligation and interinstitutional competition for drug patents, hich appear to !e a particularlfierce area of competition in the pharmaceutical sciences.

!) 7ho is responsi!le for riting up and for editing]SF and WF stated that if a research article is >ointl ritten in a team, as

are most of the papers in the corpus, different researchers ta-e responsi!ilitfor different sections, ith the central sections (note the use of the termFcentral) such as the @=perimental or ;ethods sections !eing !uilt up

! man indi1iduals o1er time. This does not appl to the more e=periencedresearchers, ho either pu!lish alone or, as #T and 'G admitted, arrange fortheir research assistants to do the main riting up hile the edit andcorrect.

c) :o is the riting related to the research acti1it, and here is it stored]<esearch articles are not onl read in nonlinear fashion,

their production appears to !e nonlinear as ell. ;ers (/++0) suggests that

a paper is !uilt and redrafted ! se1eral riters from the Fmiddle out toardsthe %ntroduction and 4iscussion sections. 4ifferent mem!ers of the PS4conferred that the record reaction details of sntheses and othermeasurements o1er a period of months in the la! !oo- ith its 1arioussections"

/. Title (of e=treme importance to a1oid confusion of data)2. 4ate (to a1oid repetition and to measure stages of progress)'. <eaction name*. Structural formulae (materials in1ol1ed listed in shorthand codes)

70




. <eagents (catalsts and added materials for snthesis)E. Procedure$. Structural analsis of final product (in molecular percentages). Specific measurement details (ield, melting point, optical rotation,

refracti1e inde=, elemental analsis...)+. Purit (chec-ing contamination)/0. Proof of structure (! !lot analsis, N;< spectroscop etc.)

This template pro1ides the shape of the ;ethods, <esults and @=perimentalsections. 7hen transferred to the ord processor, this list forms the !ac-!oneof the research article that can !e fleshed out ! adding e=planations of

unfamiliar procedures.

Sur1e 5uestion /0) 7hat procedures e=ist to ensure the 5ualit of researchriting]

This 5uestion attempted to raise issues of editing as ell as peerre1ie.ll the researchers referred to the instructions for authors included in most

>ournals. T$e @ournal of t$e C$emical Societ- =Per%in Transactions>

stipulates the format and the constitution of the research article, especiallconcentrating on the @=perimental section and on the organisation of material(reaction schemes, the use of italics for positiondefining prefi=es, hphensfor chemical !onds etc.) as ell as setting out rules for the authentication

of no1el compounds, this !eing the primar o!>ecti1e of the specialism.Contri!utions are generall >udged on criteria of"

/. Driginalit of scientific content and2. ppropriateness of the length and 5ualit to content of ne science. ( Per%in

Transactions, /++'" 1ii)

@choing the -ind of reediting e=amined elicited ! ;ers (/++0), theresearchers confirmed that research articles ha1e to undergo on a1erage threeor four rerites !efore the final 1ersion is accepted. #T stated that editorsgenerall correct structural aspects of papers, tone don claims and 5uestion

the Fgeneralisa!ilit of e=perimental data. Dther researchers mentioned pro!lems stle. #T, PT 'G and WF all stated that the ma>orit of editingdeals ith changes of emphasis and poor stle, hile PL as alsoconcerned that corrections of his on stle appeared to !e ar!itrar and goFunpunished in other pu!lications. lthough Fgrammar and Fstle arementioned ! almost all the researchers as areas that consistentl re5uirecorrection, the ere hard pressed to cite actual e=amples. ?P as aareof standard procedures of politeness and for professional attac-, including thedamning" it is rat$er surrising to fin! t$at faile! to fin! - folloed ! a

71




proposed e=planation, Fif oure feeling charita!le. PL suggested thatse1eral clichAd phrases should !e a1oided, such as t-ical results s$o& t$at

and reliminar- eeriments &ere con!ucte! . Se1eral researchers claimedthat their main pro!lem in editing remained ata !asic grammatical le1el, andthere is some e1idence that repeated structures are seen as poor stle ( PL

e=plored the possi!ilit of eliminating the passi1e, for e=ample, andreplacing it ith the imperati1e, as in coo-ing instructions^). 4espite thesereser1ations, it seems hoe1er that this phraseolog resem!les some of themost fre5uent and consistent e=pressions in the corpus. %n addition, SF andothers ere surprised ! m 5uestions on repetition in articles. 7hile theare aare of general stlistic constraints and general rhetorical functions, theresearchers ere often unaare of the role of reformulation and paraphrase intheir te=ts. % as-ed WF and SF to tal- through their papers in terms of themain message in each section, and the agreed that an important function ofthe 1arious sections as not onl to demonstrate methods and e1aluatefindings, !ut also to reord and ree=plore concepts that had alread !eenintroduced elsehere in the article.

72




III. Collocations and t#e Corpus.

%n the first part of this !oo-, % ha1e demonstrated some of the comple=ities ofthe terminolog and discourse of cancer research. %n this section, % set out thetheoretical and technical notions of phraseolog and collocation on the !asis

of 8irths theor of meaning. This prepares the a for an analsis ofcollocations in research articles in section %#. s collocational analsisre5uires large amounts of authentic te=tual data, the final sections of thissection set out the design features of a representati1e corpus of cancerresearch articles" the Pharmaceutical Science Corpus (PSC).

1. C#oice in t#e %rammar of Te'ts.

%t is relati1el straightforard to descri!e the linguistic features of scientificte=ts. The computer ena!les us to identif large num!ers of regular

e=pressions, and a elldesigned corpus analsis should !e a!le toautomaticall recognise gi1en linguistic features as the tpical stle of aspecific genre or tpe of te=t. The main issue hoe1er is not our a!ilit tospot longterm patterns, !ut the e=tent to hich e are a!le to identifrelationships !eteen these e=pressions and their relati1e 1alue hen used ina real te=t and ! a real scientist. nd although Choms-an and generati1etheories of language ha1e pro1en to !e 1alua!le models of potentiale=pression, mainstream linguistics does not pro1ide us ith the conceptualapparatus necessar for a description of stle ithin a particular discourse. %

propose here that the analsis of collocation presents an ideal opportunit forsuch discourse analsis. :oe1er, it is important to !e a!le to situate isolatede=amples of collocation ithin a !roader sstem and to e=plain theirsignificance ithin the discourse of science. 7hat is needed therefore is alinguistic account of choice of e=pression, and it is for this reason that mandescripti1e studies refer to 8irths ideas on language. s 8irth as also thefirst linguist to place the term Fcollocation ithin a theor of meaning, ano1er1ie of his theories of language, and their de1elopment in :allida andSinclairs or- are central to a theor of collocation in general.

73




part from the concept of collocation, as noted in the o1er1ie (section%.'), the main contri!ution of 8irth has !een to argue that there are manle1els of meaning"

....the complete meaning of a ord is alas conte=tual, and no stud ofmeaning apart from a complete conte=t can !e ta-en seriousl. (8irth/+'"'$).

:ere Fconte=t refers to te=tual conte=t (cote=t) in the first instance, !ut alsoto semantic -noledge and ;alinos-is Fconte=t of situation. The point isargued in similar terms ! 7ittgenstein, ho not onl conflates meaning

ith use, !ut also lin-s our understanding of an instance ith our -noledgeof the hole sstem"

The meaning of a ord is its use in the language...To understand a sentencemeans to understand a language. To understand a language means tounderstand a techni5ue. (7ittgenstein, /+$, _/++)

8irths Fpolsstemic principle is therefore !ased on the structuralist ideathat Fif a ne term is added to the sstem this changes the meaning of all theothers (:allidas reformulation" /+E/"2*$). 8irth suggested, for e=ample,that the meaning of the nominati1e case in a to case language ould !e

5ualitati1el different to its meaning in a fourcase sstem (/+$"/+0,22$).lthough the linguistic form of the nominati1e is the same in !oth sstems,its underling meaning is altered. The same is presuma!l also true !eteen1arieties of the same language. &ecause the distri!ution of grammaticalresources 1aries from one 1ariet to the ne=t, the underling meaning of agi1en grammatical feature changes according to the sstem it is currentlengaged in. & primaril defining linguistic terms as functions, 8irth thusappeared to undermine the usual practice of linguistics hich as to see formas the primar !asis of definition.

%n the case of science riting, e ha1e seen that the underling meaningof the passi1e, of forms of nominalisation and the use of modal 1er!s ise=tended and modified ! their use in the specialist language, and that theseuses (and therefore meanings) are often at one remo1e from their e5ui1alentsin other 1arieties of @nglish. &oth :allida and others (for e=ample, &an-s/++$), e=plain man of these functions in terms of a!straction, hedging andgrammatical metaphor (discussed !elo). These functionla!els cut acrossthe !oundaries of form. nd as e ha1e seen in section %%.', 8irths

polsstemic principle underpins Sales concept of Fdiscourse coherence.This perspecti1e leads us to distrust the notion of su!language and othercharacterisations of te=ts hich rel on single grammatical features, or

74




ascri!e to a single feature a functional role hich remains constant across aseries of genres or registers (as in &i!ers /+E multifactorial techni5ue).

pro!lem ith all functional grammars lies in the e=tent to hich it is possi!le to map discourse functions to language forms. :allida approachesthis pro!lem from 8irths perspecti1e of Fmodes of meaning. :allida(/+) suggests that choices of e=pression are not isolated and simple !utin1ol1e simultaneous decisions in1ol1ing three !asic metafunctions. Thenotion of metafunction emerged from :allidas oron intonation and1aria!le emphasis of mood and theme in spo-en @nglish. :allida noted thatintonation in the spo-en language is used to great effect in @nglish, andallos the same sentence to !e modified according to its propositionalmeaning, thematic focus and rhetorical force (:allida uses the termsi!eational, tetual, interersonal ). The ritten language clearl re5uiresthese functions as ell, !ut must e=press its Fintonation ith differentresources" for e=ample, ! a more comple= form of snta= (hpota=is,em!edding) or ! signalling emphasis graphicall (! capitals, e=clamationmar-s, italics, paragraphing, punctuation etc.).

:allida proposes that language 1arieties realise the three metafunctionsin different as. This can !e demonstrated using a single e=ample from thediscourse of science"

/. This protein is thought to !e a ma>or factor in !reast cancer.

The ideational function corresponds to the traditional 1ie of transiti1it asan e=pression of participant, process and circumstance (:allida and :asan/++"E). %n the e=ample sentence, the su!>ect of the 1er! t$is rotein is aFparticipant !ut is not felt to !e the agent or initiator of some action theusual function of the grammatical su!>ect. %nstead, t$is rotein represents aFto-en hich is attri!uted a 1alue e=pressed in rest of the clause (a ma1or

factor in breast cancer ). %deation is therefore a purel semantic relationithin the clause.

The te=tual function ta-es a different perspecti1e, and in1ol1es the a

the message is presented in the surrounding discourse. 8or e=ample, sciencetends to organise its messages ! constant reformulation. %n the sentencea!o1e, t$is is used to encapsulate and refocus a pre1ious discourse topic (a

rotein I a !ac-ards reference to a comple= chemical compound). This is ale=ical reformulation and tends to in1ol1e a more general ord or a neformulation ith some degree of e1aluation (T$is unusual orientation

in!icates t$at ..., T$is surrising result romte! us to ... ). Thus hile theideational function emphasises grammatical roles ithin the message, thete=tual function relates the message to the running te=t. The te=tual function

75




is tpicall seen in the use of the passi1e. 8rom a thematic point of 1ie, the passi1e effecti1el Fsa1es ne information in the message until the end ofthe sentence. lthough this is seen as a prototpical feature of scienceriting, the same process occurs in other genres, especiall nes reporting(;cCarth and Carter /++*).

8inall, the interpersonal metafunction in1ol1es the clause as a rhetorical proposal hich can !e su!>ecti1el asserted or 5ualified. %n science riting,the interpersonal function is realised ! 1arious impersonal de1ices hicheffecti1el o!scure the direct in1ol1ement of the scientists or e=press somedegree of Fpolite hesitation in order not to o1erstate the claims of the author,as pointed out ! ;ers (/++). ;odalit in science in1ol1es inanimatesu!>ects (results suggest t$at ), the hedging of data using modals (it ma- be

t$e case t$at ), the use of mental or 1er!al process nouns (pro>ecting nounssuch as belief, suggestion) and, as might !e e=pected, the generalised use ofthe passi1e (cell gro&t$ &as anal-se! ). %n the a!o1e e=ample, the sentencecan !e seen to ha1e the same propositional meaning as T$is rotein is a

ma1or factor in breast cancer, !ut incorporates a further degree of modalitin the form of a mental process 1er! (t$oug$t ). This is further modalised ! a

passi1e (is t$oug$t to be) in contrast to a more direct alternati1e F&e beliee

t$is rotein to be a ma1or factor....Thus from :allidas point of 1ie, a specific grammatical form can !e

treated to different -inds of interpretation ithin the same o1erall frameor-.The passi1e emerges as a simultaneous colla!oration of three differentchoices" a a of placing the agent or medium (an ideational function) in theFne position of the clause (a te=tual function) at the same time as a1oidingthe e=pression of personal in1ol1ement (an interpersonal function). lthoughthe metafunctions are often discussed in terms of clauses, the are not tied togrammar alone and ha1e pro1ided a frameor- for le=ical studies of idiom(8ernando /++E) and the analsis of scientific te=ts (7i-!erg /++0,;auranen /++').

The concept of 1aluerelated choice is at the heart of :allidas sstemicgrammar. s :allida puts it"

The sstem of a1aila!le options is the Fgrammar of the language, and thespea-er, or riter, selects ithin this sstem" not in acuo !ut ithin theconte=t of speech situations. Speech acts thus in1ol1e the creati1e andrepetiti1e e=ercise of options in social and personal situations and settings.(:allida /+$E"/*2)

The term Fsstemic therefore indicates choice ithin a sstem. The conceptof choice does not impl free e=pression ith infinite possi!ilities, !utinstead indicates a continuous spectrum from a tpical to a more mar-ed

76




e=pression. :allida (/++/,/++2) therefore proposes that choices infunctional grammar operate on a pro!a!ilistic !asis. :e suggests that closedsstems in language oscillate !eteen e5uipro!a!le sstems (past 1s. non

past tense, singular 1s. plural) and sstems hich are s-eed (affirmati1e 1s.negati1e polarit in the clause, passi1e or acti1e 1oice). @5ual pro!a!ilities inthe sstem are li-el to indicate a largel redundant choice, hereas s-eed

pro!a!ilities assign a high le1el of emphasis on the infre5uent or mar-edchoice.

%n a pilot stud designed to demonstrate this hpothesis, :allida and9ames (/++') e=amined 2 high fre5uenc 1er!s in an earl 1ersion of theCo!uild corpus (20 million ords). The found that clause polarit isdistri!uted at a ratio of roughl +0W /0W hile the primar tenses aredistri!uted roughl e5uall (0W 0W). These pro!a!ilities are thenassumed to 1ar according to 1ariet of language. %n science te=ts, &ar!er(/+E2) o!ser1ed that of /$$0 1er!s o!ser1ed in astronom, !iochemistr andelectronics, +W are in the simple present and //W in other tenses. The pasttense is therefore mar-ed in scientific articles, !ut in the language as a hole(here it is e5uipro!a!le) it represents an unmar-ed choice. &ar!er alsofound that the acti1e passi1e 1oice as slightl less s-eed than normal atEW 'W and thus represents a less mar-ed choice. %n :allidas model ofregister therefore, ords and grammatical constructions ha1e an inherent

pro!a!ilit attached to a specific discourse or register. s :allida sas"Ffre5uenc in the corpus is the instantiation ... of pro!a!ilit in the grammar.(/++2"EE). Such a sstem of pro!a!ilit in the grammar has importantimplications for the interpretation of statistical results in the corpus, asSinclair notes (/++'c"/E$).

Ne1ertheless, these pro!a!ilities are not fi=ed properties of specific1arieties" e still ha1e to account for Sales Fdiscourse coherence, and the

possi!le recasting of sta!le grammatical features into ne roles. 7hen:allida refers to the register of science, his definition a1oids e=plicitreference to grammatical form as a constant feature, and he instead prioritisesthe fa1oured status of certain forms from the point of 1ie of the sstem as a

hole"

Science ritingO is @nglish ith special pro!a!ilities attachedM a form of@nglish in hich certain ords, and more significantl, certain grammaticalconstructions, stand out as more highl fa1oured, hile otherscorrespondingl recede and !ecome less highl fa1oured than in other1arieties of @nglish. (:allida /++'"*)

77




This 1ie is not far remo1ed from @n-1ist, ho pro1ided a definition of stlethat is tailormade for corpus linguists, !eing statistical in nature as ell asincorporating the idea of register change"

The stle of a te=t is a function of the aggregate of the ratios !eteen thefre5uencies of its phonological, grammatical and le=ical items, and thefre5uencies of the corresponding items in a conte=tuall related norm... pastconte=tual fre5uencies change into present conte=tual pro!a!ilities, againsthose aggregate the te=t is matched. (@n-1ist /+E*"2)

%t is perhaps useful then to concei1e of a register as a 1ariet of language in

hich all the resources of language are still a1aila!le !ut are mar-ed for useas Fcentral or Fperipheral. This notion is perhaps more fle=i!le than that ofthe Fsu!language (see Chapter Dne), hich does not distinguish !eteen thecore or peripheral features !ut situates the su!language as a &$ole in relationto other su!languages.

%n support of the :allidaan perspecti1e, man studies ha1e shon thatthe grammatical features of registers are historicall contingent and open tofree 1ariation (t-inson /++2). There is no such thing therefore as a

prototpical language of science or a fi=ed set of grammatical features, !utinstead a series of 7ittgensteinian Ffamil resem!lances, features hichcome into focus or fade aa as the register mo1es in time. <egisters are thusinclusi1e of the hole language sstem, and an linguistic resource, nomatter ho marginal, ma undergo a re1i1al ithin a specific discourse.:allida and ;artin e=pand on this idea in their discussion of the historicalde1elopment of science riting. The claim that as a societ changes itssstem of selfe=pression, e=isting linguistic resources ta-e on ne roles(/++'"+). :allida points to the fact that hene1er there has !een ma>orsocial, political, or technological uphea1al, there ha1e !een shifts in the useof language. Thus nominal e=pressions ere introduced in medie1al Latin todeal ith the philosophical and administrati1e tas-s of the ne rittenlanguage. The renaissance and the industrial re1olution ere in turn

landmar-s for linguistic change in the ma>or languages of science, particularl 8rench (Lodge /++E).:allida and ;artin sho that the same processes are still e1ol1ing in

technical and scientific @nglish, in particular in the role of nominals. ;artin(/++/) points out that an important function of compound nominals (fore=ample, cancer atient, cell gro&t$) is to state a specific argumentation asFgi1en or Funderstood. 8or e=ample, the grammatical relations !eteenFcancer and Fpatient, and !eteen Fcell and Fgroth are not e=pressed. %t isonl in an e=tended grammatical paraphrase or reformulation that therelations !ecome more salient ( atients &it$ suffering from cancer , gro&t$

78




from t$e cell t$e cell as it is gro&n). :allida has shon that scientific te=tssstematicall construct compound nominals ! !uilding the nominal up

piece ! piece until se1eral e=plicit grammatical relations are finall hidden.The folloing e=ample demonstrates ho compound nominals are tpicallformed ithin in a single te=t (:allida /++2"$0$/)"

:o glass crac-s ... The stress needed to crac-glass ...

s a crac- gros ...

The crac- has ad1anced ... ill ma-e slo crac-sgro

The rate at hich crac-sgro ...

The rate of crac-groth ...

7e can decrease thecrac- groth rate ...

Glass fracture grothrate ...

lthough nominalisation of this tpe allos information to !e reformulatedith greater fle=i!ilit ithin the clause, the underling propositions in thecompound !ecome increasingl difficult to interpret or deconstruct. Dnceformed, compounds ma tend to !ecome idiomatic and to some e=tent

!eond interpretation on the !asis of indi1idual elements. 7hile the lareader ma !e a!le to guess the meaning of a nominal such as glass fracture

gro&t$ rate, it ould !e impossi!le to meaningfull e=plain the term and therelations !eteen each element ithout reference to the original te=t. %n other

ords, as :allida states, the meaning of the compound is Finstantial,couched in the te=t itself. This corresponds to the creation of ne terms andcollocations H and e can see in this e=ample a clear case of collocation andterminolog !eing created as a natural product of a te=t. :allida terms thisFlogogenesis (/++2"$0) and it seems that fe or-s on terminolog, ith thee=ception of Pa1el (/++'a), ha1e emphasised the primaril te=tual creation ofterminolog.

s % ha1e noted a!o1e, the terminolog of science is often seen asrationall planned ! groups of e=perts rather than emerging from a singlete=t. :allida and Pa1el ha1e shon hoe1er that te=ts are instrumental interminological inno1ation. %n addition, the compound nominal pattern has

!een recognised for some time as an important feature of scientific @nglish.Such is the per1asi1e nature of @nglish phraseolog that languages hich donot normall fa1our the >u=taposition of nominal elements ithout a

preposition or other relational mar-er (including 8rench and other Latinatelanguages) are !eginning to adopt this pattern from @nglish, most usuall intheir technical and scientific terminolog (&auer /+$+). Similarl, Stu!!s(/++E) has pointed out a parallel e1olution in @nglish 1er!s, namel theincreasingl ergati1e use of 1er!s such as 4t$e ban% close! and 4t$e factor-

s$ut !o&n. Stu!!s claims that the ergati1e function is smptomatic of a

79




general discourse in @nglish hich o!scures the nature of agenc. :isconclusion is that ideolog is implicit in linguistic choice, to the e=tent thatthe selection of e1en one feature from a set of alternati1es is indicati1e ofsome rhetorical intent. 7e should note that it is onl since the ad1ent oflargescale corpus analsis that such grammatical tendencies ha1e !een opento sstematic e=amination.

:allida sees Fergati1e 1er!s and nominalisation as instances of a moregeneral process in scientific discourse" grammatical metap#or.Traditionall Fmetaphor is associated ith a le=ical transfer or allusion.Grammatical metaphor consists instead of the transfer of information fromone grammatical role to another. :allida uses the folloing e=ample" F t$e

fift$ !a- sa& t$em arrie at t$e summit as opposed to Ft$e- arrie! at t$e

summit on t$e fift$ !a-. %n the first e=ample, t$e fift$ !a- !ecomes thegrammatical su!>ect !ut functions semanticall as a metaphorical o!ser1er.Se1eral linguists ha1e o!ser1ed the effects of grammatical metaphor inscience riting. &an-s (/++*!) e=amines the use of researchoriented 1er!sith inanimate su!>ects, as in T$e current meter at mi!(!et$ ;...< roi!e!

!ata... ;T$is< $otogra$ic tec$niKue &ill ro!uce un!erestimates of

abun!ance. &an-s compares these mar-ed e=pressions ith the generallanguage here inanimate su!>ects are the pri1ileged su!>ects of e1ents(Water flo&s rather than a mar-ed e1ent" Geoff flo&s...). :e concludes that

grammatical metaphor is a ma>or linguistic resource for o!scuring agencand authorial responsi!ilit in scientific riting.8rom these o!ser1ations, e can conclude that the traditional

preoccupation ith the passi1e, the 5uintessential feature of impersonal stlein scientific riting, has to some e=tent o!scured other fundamental featuresof language hich are e5uall central to scientific thin-ing. @rgati1ee=pression of 1er!s and nominal reformulation are !oth realisations of acommon function in science, the Fimpersonal stle identified ! &i!er et al.(/++). &ut the also ha1e a fundamental role in the te=tual e=pression ofideas, a point that is difficult to identif from a statistical ordcount.lthough the passi1e is an easil identifia!le feature of ritten science, it is

clearl onl part of a ider sstem and e need to !ear this in mind in ouranalsis of the corpus.

% ha1e mentioned at se1eral points that reformulation is a -e process in thede1elopment of scientific ideas. 7hile collocations ha1e not usuall !eenanalsed in terms of their role in the te=t, a num!er of studies ha1e arguedthat le=ical items and the le=ical sstem as a hole ma ha1e an importantrole to pla in our understanding of te=t and te=t structure. :allida and:asans model of co#esion, defines te=t as a series of e=plicit relations that

80




distinguish it from a random string of sentences (/+$E"E$). The essence ofthe cohesion model is that grammatical reformulations (such as elision,su!stitution and pronomial reference) as ell as le=ical items are seen to ha1ea role to pla outside the traditional sntactic !oundaries of the sentence"either ! signalling lin-s outside the te=t (e=ophora) or !ac-ards andforards !eond the le1el of the sentence (endophora). Le=ical cohesionin1ol1es reiteration and reformulation of items throughout the te=t, the use ofsnonms or superordinate ords and a !road form of collocation(/+$E"2$). (:allida and :asans collocations are items hich Fshare thesame le=ical en1ironment such as !octor and clinic, i.e. a paradigmaticrelationship as ell as a sntagmatic one /+$E"2E). Thus grammaticalreformulation and le=ical items not onl ha1e sntactic relations ithin thesentence, the also represent choices that are cohesi1e in nature and ser1e tosignal relations ithin the ider de1elopment of a te=t.

Dn the !asis of 7inters (/+$$) oron le=ical signalling, :oe (/+')analsed the distri!ution of le=ical cohesion in te=t. :e found that le=icalcohesion as of ider importance in the te=t and of greater comple=it thanthe other more traditional categories of cohesion, such as con>unction. :eargued that the role of le=is as crucial in te=tual organisation, so much sothat almost e1er le=ical choice in the te=t could !e seen as anFencapsulation or Fprospection of ideas in the surrounding cote=t (terms

proposed ! Sinclair /+/, /++'!). 7ords are therefore not simpl selectedas collocations or sntactic constituents in the clause, the are constrainedand interpreted ithin the running te=t. This o!ser1ation clearl contradictsthe traditional 1ie of riting, hich sees Fdiscourse mar-ers as the mainelements in the organisation of the te=t (:oe /+'"/$E). :oe proposedinstead a Fnonlinear 1ie of discourse. 7hile signalling of all tpes clearlaids the e=plicit formation of a coherent te=t, :oe argued against thetraditional 1ie that te=ts are set out in an implicit dialogue !eteen riterand interpreter, and instead predicts that discourse is !uilt up of incompleteand unfinished te=ts (/+'"/$$)"

7e are all contri!uting to one intero1en discourse, of hich our oncontri!utions are !ut incomplete fragments. (/++/a"/+)

This militates against the 1ie of a te=t as a unit here e1er semanticsignifier and signal plas an e5ual and necessar role. :oes conclusion isthat te=ts ma ma-e use of fi=ed e=pressions in order to allo the reader to

predict content and argumentation (/++/a"/*). :e points to clo?e testinghere informants successfull fill in le=ical gaps and reconstruct coherentte=t (he calls this the @abber&oc%- principle, since the onl clues lieeffecti1el in identifing the tpical mem!ers of meaningful grammatical

81




frameor-s). This ma also e=plain the o!ser1ations % set out in the sur1e,hich suggest that researchers read Finde=icallM that is, the are a!le tosuccessfull predict and !pass much of the linear detail of the researcharticles the ha1e to process. s an e=tended reformulation, the researcharticle need not !e read from !eginning to end for all purposes. Lund5uist(/++, /++2) appears to pro1ide e1idence for this ! shoing that none=perts ho read scientific te=ts tend to rel hea1il on le=ical netor-s toesta!lish longrange lin-s, hile e=perts do not need e=plicit signalling andare thus a!le to s-ip and s-im through the te=t and esta!lish a meaningful !ut

partial reading of the te=t (/++"/*/).:oe1er, ;ers (/++/) has argued cohesi1e sstems are in fact specific to

different registers, and ta-e on different functions in the research articlegenre. %n his analsis of cohesion in science riting, ;ers (/++/"/') pointsout that a reliance on le=ical netor-s is not enough for none=pert readers.;ers underlines the difficult in1ol1ed in deciding ho cohesi1e le=icalrepetitions reall are, especiall in terms of snonms ( ?N' 1s. genome) andsuperordinates (molecule 1s. ro!uct of transcrition). :e argues (/++/")that !ac-ground -noledge of the scientific paradigm is essential for annetor-s to !e !uilt up, and this accounts for the differing forms of cohesi1ede1ices used in scientific and popularised te=ts. s ith :oe, he suggeststhat phraseolog ma !e the -e to understanding cohesi1e relations"

Some cohesi1e de1ices depend on the reader recognising collocations, andusing them to unpac- dominance relations in noun phrases. (;ers"/++/"/*)

This o!ser1ation !rings us !ac- to :allidas oron grammatical metaphorand the reasons h scientific te=ts are ritten in such a specific stle. %temerges from our discussion a!o1e that scientific research articles are notonl a series of arguments lin-ed ! progressi1e reformulation, the are alsononlinear inde=es, alloing scientists to approach the te=t from se1eralentrpoints and to use fi=ed e=pressions and le=ical cues to orient their aaround the te=t. 8rom a traditional perspecti1e, these 1er specific properties

of science riting might !e considered irrele1ant to the stlistics and snta=of the te=t, !ut in a :allidaan grammar the are considered to !edetermining features in the le=icogrammar and phraseolog of the genre.

s ith man aspects of :allidas ritings, our discussion has led us toan e=amination of specific e=amples and then on to a proliferation of moretheories. s de &eaugrande has pointed out, :allida ma-es no attempt toreduce grammar to a uniform minimal structure, !ut instead FhisO grammarena!les an analsis in hich richness and multiplicit steadilincrease(/++/" 2). % ha1e set out here some of the theor that has !eeninspired ! the or- of :allidas oron choice in te=t. This leads us no

82




to discuss :allidas notion of le=icogrammar and then mo1e on toSinclairs related notion of the idiom principle.

2. T#e "e'ico(grammar

%n the %ntroduction, % set out some of the theoretical issues surrounding thenotion of collocation, and suggested that collocations can !e analsed interms of three increasingl comple= standpoints" statistical tetual ,

semantic s-ntactic and !iscoursal r$etorical . % argued that these three perspecti1es are compati!le and !ring considera!le 1alue to the notion ofcollocation. The statistical te=tual approach insists on collocation as a

product of ongoing discourse and see-s data hich is unconstrained !theor and categories hich ma !e Fselfselecting. The semantic sntacticapproach on the other hand demonstrates the need to restrict the analsis ofcollocation to meaningful e=pressions and the need to esta!lish the internalcohesi1e properties of each phrase. 8inall, the Fdiscoursal rhetorical

perspecti1e underlines the te=tual function of collocation as ell as the ideathat collocations operate in a sstem of alternati1e choices of e=pression. %t isnot surprising that the three approaches lend themsel1es naturall to a threestage methodolog (data analsis, data selection, interpretation), and %

attempt to set this out m corpus methodolog, !elo.

7hile % demonstrated that there are se1eral as of identifing collocation,the still remain a!stractions and far remo1ed from actual processes of datacollection and analsis. :ere % argue for a particular focus, the analsis ofgrammatical items in the corpus. This is !ased on the !elief that an untaggedcorpus needs to !e analsed in a sstematic a. %n addition, some research,especiall Sinclair (/++/) indicates that grammatical items can pro1ide auseful a of initiall approaching a large mass of data. Grammatical itemsappear to !e e=cellent indicators of general phraseolog, et the ha1e notrecei1ed as much attention in general le=icolog or corpus linguistics as their

le=ical counterparts.The iron a!out grammatical items is that although the happen to !e

e=tremel fre5uent and therefore from a :allidaan perspecti1e, e=tremelimportant H the also happen to !e too fre5uent. So much so that the areusuall sstematicall eliminated from statistical counts, especiall in largescale te=tual analses, here the researchers are forced to concentrate onle=ical collocation (Phillips /+, Smad>a /++'). 7or-ers in informationretrie1al and automatic a!stracting term them Fstop ords and happildescri!e ho the are a!le to automaticall e=tract them from an inde= or

83




data !ase (Luhn /+E, 6ang /+E, Bllgren /+a and /++!, 7il!ur andSirot-in /++2). Pre1ious studies ha1e claimed that high fre5uenc items aresta!le in use and meaning across different tpes of language, and the re1erseassumption is that if a ord is sta!le it is a Fgrammatical item or a Ffunctionord. Sager et al. (/+0"2'), for e=ample associate a descending tpe to-en ratio (a measure of the densit of different ord forms) ith increasingle1els of specialism in technical te=ts, that is" the most fre5uent ords in thelanguage account for proportionall less of the total 1oca!ular of LSP te=ts.The assume from this that high fre5uenc ords are of little use in theanalsis of specialist te=ts. Phillips also characterises grammatical items asnoise, distinguishing them from Fcarriers of local meaning in te=t (/+"EE).There are o!1ious >ustifications for this in an automatic analsis of semanticstructure in te=t. The assumption of redundanc has also !een applied tohighfre5uenc items, e1en in collocational studies such as the JJ9 dictionar(&enson et al. /+E) hich eliminates common ords (such as big, cause andma%e). nd the influential le=icologists Thoiron and &A>oint ha1e stated thathigh fre5uenc ords can collocate ith Falmost an ords in the language(/++2"$).

6et if e are to adopt a sstemic approach to discourse, it is important tosee grammatical items as full part of the le=ical sstem as a hole. 7hile:allida proposes a theor of grammar and Sinclair or-s on le=is, !oth

1ie le=is as the !edroc- of grammar and !oth see grammar and le=is interms of a continuum rather than a categorical di1ide. :allida in fact termsthe complete grammatical sstem a Fle=icogrammar, here grammar is ahea1il constrained and a!stract form of 1oca!ular rather than a separatelinguistic le1el"

Grammar and 1oca!ular are not to different thingsM the are the samething seen ! different o!ser1ers. There is onl one phenomenon here, notto. &ut it is spread along a continuum. t one end are small, closed, often !inar sstems, of 1er general application, intersecting ith each other !uteach ha1ing, in principle, their on distinct reali?ation ...O t the other endare much more specific, loose, more shifting sets of features, reali?ed notdiscretel !ut in !undles called F7ords, li-e benc$ reali?ing Ffor sittingon, F!ac-less, Ffor more than one, Fhard surfaceM the sstem netor-sformed ! these features are local and transitor rather than !eing glo!aland persistent (:allida /++2"E')

Sinclairs theor of le=is is em!odied in the idiom principle. %t is a pro1ocati1e theor of collocation, in that it esches man of the assumptionsof mainstream corpus linguistics. Sinclair does not 1ie tagging (mar-ing upof the corpus) as essential, and analses ord forms ithout reference to the

84




lemma or !ase ord. Thus goes and &ent are analsed separatel from the !ase form go, as though the are separate le=ical items. s e ha1e seen inthe pre1ious chapter, Sinclair holds collocation to !e a purel statistical andsntagmatic feature of language" collocations do not ha1e to !e fullgrammatical, and are not necessaril limited to the !oundaries of the phraseor the clause. nd as ith Nattinger and 4eCarricos approach, this featurealone ma-es Sinclairs idea of collocation a 1er different notion to themainstream 1ie in le=icolog and phraseolog studies.

The starting point of the idiom principle is that the collocational !eha1iourof a ord is not an issue of indi1idual item selection, !ut depends on theunsta!le and shifting nature of the ord as a hole unit and the indeterminatenature of its grammatical class, at least in a historical perspecti1e. Sinclair

points to ord !lends as clear instances of items that ha1e lost their status asseparate ords in @nglish (because, of course, ma-be, anot$er , altoget$er,

alrig$t etc.). ;an of these e=pressions represent the -ind ofgrammaticalisation o!ser1ed in the de1elopment of pidgin languages" thegradual formation of grammatical ords from !ound le=ical phrases(Traugott and :eine /++/). 8or e=ample, To- Pisin uses the le=ical b-e an!

b-e and finis from @nglish as grammatical particles of aspect. 7ords aretherefore not fi=ed in position !ut ma !e used along a continuum from pure1oca!ular items to features of grammar. This degree of continuum from one

categor to another is also e1ident in in le=ical paradigms. :ence suppletionis seen in forms such as &ent (originall deri1ed from the 1er! to &en! ),hich historicall drifted into the paradigm for the 1er! to go. Thecon>ugation paradigm of a 1er! ma !e a cogniti1e realit, !ut itsconstituents are historicall contingent and unrelated.

This -ind of longterm change suggests that the upper le1el !oundar !eteen the le=ical item and the phrase is in constant flu=. &ut there is alsoe1idence for hat might !e seen as the de1elopment of largerthanordle=ical items in the contemporar language. Nattinger and 4eCarrico(/++2"2*) and 7illis (/++'") refer to holophrastic phrases" prefa!ricatedchun-s of language hich lead a clichAd or marginal e=istence, including

&annabe, allgone, &atsu: Similarl, high fre5uenc content ords (such asthe dele=ical 1er!s get, ma%e, set , ta%e) also depend on complements or

particles to !e full le=ical semantic units ( get een, get on, ma%e for, ma%e

&a-, set u, set off, ta%e lace, ta%e art etc.). Sinclair has suggested that theman com!inations in hich these ords enter must form a large part of thetotal le=icon (rather than a simple count of single le=ical items), and thatman te=ts ma !e characterised as !eing largel Fdele=icali?ed(/+$c"'2'). This modifies somehat the traditional 1ie of le=ical densit(3re /+$/), hich relies on a count of le=ical forms and does not normall

85




ta-e account of grammatical items as part of longer or meaningfule=pressions.

Dn the !asis of such e1idence, it is possi!le to dismantle the traditional1ie of the strictl delimited ordclass. Sinclair and his coor-ers on theCo!uild dictionar ha1e consistentl emphasised the uni5ue nature of singlegrammatical items, and their main argument has !een that high fre5uencitems tend to ha1e uni5ue le=ical properties in comparison ith the rest oftheir traditional ord class. 8or e=ample, the 1er fre5uent preposition of

does not share the properties of other canonical prepositions in ad>unct phrases or as the indirect complements of 1er!s (Sinclair /++/). Some highfre5uenc le=ical ords are also seen to !e Fgrammaticalised, to such ane=tent that no to le=ical ords could !e seen to ha1e e=actl the samecollocational properties. t the heart of this 1ie is the notion of the Fpattern(:unston and 8rancis" /++)" the idea that grammatical items and le=icalitems are chosen in tandem ith a specific formula in mind rather thanselected indi1iduall or Fcompositionall.

Dn the !asis of a large scale corpus stud of nominals in @nglish, 7illis(/++') has shon ho classes of ord merge into one another and ho somesu!sets of the noun ha1e 1er different properties to the traditional class as ahole. 8or e=ample, onl a su!set of all nouns modif the semantics ofdele=icalised 1er!s ( gie a smile, ta%e a c$ance) or are in1ol1ed in pro>ecting

clause structures after t$at (t$e belief t$at, t$e argument t$at ). This su!setdiffers from those nouns hich can ta-e infiniti1e 1er! forms (a !ecision to,

t$e claim to) or comple= nominals ith of (be$aiour of, arrial of ). Thusnouns do not all share the same collocational properties, and these Ffamiliesare more specific and consistent than the notion of Fa!stract noun, hich issometimes assumed to !e a catchall for nouns hich !ecome in1ol1ed incomple= phraseolog. (% ha1e also suggested that the distri!ution of thesenominals !eteen the different categories of noun is different in otherlanguages Gledhill /+++).

7illis also notes the rhetorical role of nouns in structures such as sentencestems" t$e (main imortant ot$er ) t$ing is t$at... t$e =Kuestion roblem

!ifficult-> is t$at... :e argues that the main feature of these e=pressions is notthe famil of noun in1ol1ed, !ut the fact that each entails (or collocates ith)a further e=pression in the pro>ected dependent clause, in this case a signal ofsome solution to a pro!lem (/++'"). <hetorical functions collocatetherefore ith specific nominal phrases. %n a similar stud, 8rancis (/++')has discussed the preempti1e properties of hat she calls semiidiomatic

phrases as in ut a brae face on it , Fsemiprepac-aged idioms ith clearcommunicati1e goals (not t$e foggiest faintest i!ea) or prefacing items(such as is a case of ) here a current discourse topic is compared to one

86




familiar to the reader (/++'"/*'E). lten!erg (/++/) has similarl arguedthat man collocations e=tend !eond the traditional !ounds of the phrase,and are therefore not analsed in mainstream le=icolog. :e points to thecogniti1e su!sstem of Famplifier collocations such as absolutel- hichoccurs ith superlati1e ad>ecti1es, and erfectl- hich collocates ith

positi1e and negati1e ad>ecti1es. The correspondence !eteen grammaticalform and semantic or discourse functions hardl seems to fit into a traditional

paradigm of phrase structure snta= or feature!ased semantics.7hile the nature of the ordclass and the ord!oundar has !een

reassessed on the !asis of corpus or-, so has the relationship !eteengrammatical collocation and more fundamental sntactic structures.%rammatical collocation traditionall in1ol1es the collocation ofgrammatical items ith a limited set of le=ical items (:oarth /++"/*). %nher oron the Co!uild corpus, 8rancis demonstrates ho a highfre5uenc

pronoun (it ), a con>unction (t$at ), an ad>ecti1e ( ossible) and a noun (reason)each ha1e their on le=icogrammar, and interact ith increasingl delimitedforms of snta= (/++'"/*0). 8rancis finds that it is li-el to occur as agrammatical e=traposed form in ad>ecti1al complement clauses" t$e- often

fin! it !ifficult to elain &$- or t$e- often fin! elaining &$- !ifficult .7hereas a descripti1e grammar might present this as a general pattern,8rancis points out that the structure is limited to >ust to main 1er!s fin! and

ma%e (+W of all occurrences of e=traposed it ). The structure in turncollocates ith a 1er restricted set of ad>ecti1es (related to the concepts ofease and pro!a!ilit) and to to specific e=pressions ma%e it clear li%el-

t$at . 8rancis also finds consistent patterns (/++'"*E) for the ad>ecti1e ossible, hich mostl occurs ith superlati1es in the frame as 5 as ossible

or after &$et$er if... Similarl, t$at in NP complement clauses (as in t$e

i!ea t$at, t$e a!antage t$at, t$e c$ance t$at ) has a limited series ofstructures that can !e classified semanticall, such as illocutionar processes(allegation t$at, contention t$at ) and thought processes folloed ! results(anal-sis t$at, realisation t$at ) (/++'"/*+). 7hen used in NP complementclauses, the noun reason has to patterns" introducing an e1ent (t$e reason

$e fell... t$e reason 9 !i! t$is...) and an e=pression of contrast ith thecollocation 4for t$e simle reason t$at... hich introduces an e=planationrather than an e1ent ( for t$e simle reason t$at $e &as !run%, for simle

reason t$at it &as a goo! i!ea) 8rancis (/++'"/*$) concludes thatgrammatical items and sntactic structures (such as e=traposition,complement structures and so on) operate selecti1el ith a limited set ofle=ical items. :ence 1er fre5uent grammatical structures map ontoconsistent patterns of meaning. s ith :oes 1ie of le=ical cohesion,8rancis claims that collocations are chosen as a strateg of communication

87




rather than simpl to e=press comple= ideas in a succinct form. s Sinclair puts it Fgrammar is part of the management of the te=t rather than the focus ofthe meaningcreation. (/++/").

The analsis of grammatical collocation has demonstrated that the !oundar !eteen grammatical and le=ical items is a relati1e one. Sinclairand other corpus linguists ha1e long argued that linguistic !eha1iour is notopenl accessi!le to introspection and can onl !e properl e=amined on the

!asis of authentic te=t analsis. Nati1e spea-ers are tpicall unaare of thecollocational structures that are sstematicall found in computer!asedcorpora, and are certainl not a!le to guess the relati1e pro!a!ilit of onestructure compared ith the ne=t. 8or e=ample, enned (/+*) has reportedthat E'W of the use of at is limited to /0 collocations, ith at least !eing themost fre5uent. Similarl, rishnamurth (/+$"$0) reports that mancommon items ha1e 1er restricted collocations, such as the $0W cooccurrence of refer ith to, hile /00W of the uses of encruste! are as anad>ecti1e rather than a 1er!, and bac%sli!ing as a noun rather than a 1er!.Carter (/++" /+$) has noted that these 1er consistent collocational

properties and pro!a!ilities are significant e1idence of le=icogrammaticalcompetence, and lead to a more pro!a!ilistic 1ie of a nati1e spea-ersmental le=icon.

:oe1er, not all linguists are happ ith the corpus!ased analsis of

grammatical items. ;oon (/+$) has suggested that an emphasis on conte=t,especiall ith high fre5uenc ords, has led to an o1era!undance ofmeaning distinctions here, in le=icograph at least, the analsts runs theris- of Flosing the semantic integrit of the ord. (/+$" /02). She arguesthat the collocational analsis of grammatical items can not re1eal much ifthe item happens to collocate ith others at a distance, especiallgrammatical ords hich e=press discourse or clause functions (an!, but,

$o&eer ) or collocations hich appear to re5uire 5uite a large cote=t such as( so ... as) as ae (/++0"//) notes.

7hile this is an important consideration, ;oons point is aimed atdelimiting e=amples and esta!lishing essential meanings for entries in a

dictionar. %f e are considering the le=icogrammar of a particular stle orregister, the corpus e1idence, as e ha1e summarised it a!o1e, appears tostrongl fa1our the discussion of grammatical items and grammaticalcategories in relation to collocation. 7hile discourse analsts ma !etempted to conduct corpus analsis on the !asis of le=ical items, the notion ofthe le=icogrammar suggests that phraseolog is of e5ual importance in themeaningcreation of the te=t. nd as e ha1e seen, an analsis ofgrammatical items can !e used to Ftral for the fundamental phraseolog ofthe te=t. Grammatical items are the starting point, !ut grammatical

88




collocation is not >ust simpl a!out the grammatical items themsel1es. Thetheor of le=icogrammar implies that grammatical items are simplconsistent elements in longerrange fundamental phraseolog.

7e ha1e seen so far that a statistical analsis of collocation ma !e asufficient !asis for esta!lishing the !asic collocational properties of ords.7e ha1e seen that grammatical collocation is an important feature of thegeneral language, at least in @nglish, and that certain studies ha1e posited afundamental role for collocation as a !ridge !eteen the notion of the ordand the te=t. :oe1er in practice, as % ha1e noted in the %ntroduction, thestatistical notion of collocation needs to !e restricted (in terms of the internalcohesion of the e=pression) and also re5uires a more conte=tual interpretation(in terms of its place in the general discourse). These issues are ell -nonin the field of corpus linguistics and lead us to a ider discussion ofapproaches to corpus analsis and the identification of collocations inspecific te=t archi1es.

. Corpus "inguistics

Corpus linguistics in1ol1es the collating of linguistic features from acomputerheld archi1e of te=ts, here the corpus is representati1e of some

part of the language. The use of computers for data collection has not onlentailed a massi1e increase in corpus si?e (from thousands to millions ofords), !ut also a transformation in theories of linguistic description.&urnard (/++2"2) states that this approach is so different from other tpes oflinguistics that it necessaril entails the Fde1elopment of ne, pragmaticallderi1ed linguistic models. Leech (/++2) similarl emphasises that mancorpus analsts share a set of core assumptions hich are not idespread inmainstream theoretical linguistics" an interest in the empirical, 5uantitati1edescription of language in use. ccording to Leech, the main ad1antage ofthe computerheld corpus is that there is a sense of e=hausti1e or Fcompleteuse of data, as opposed to highl selecti1e use of data in other linguistic

fields (/++2"//2). second ad1antage is the a1aila!ilit of Ftest corpora to5uantitati1el test findings or-ed out on other archi1es of te=ts. corpus

!ased model of linguistic !eha1iour is therefore falsifia!le !ecause it can !etested against fresh data. t the same time, the te=t corpus can !edistinguished from a te=t archi1e or referencetool such as the Trsor !e la

langue franMaise. The corpus allos for openended linguistic analsis (thearchi1e limits the format of searches) and permits linguistic inter1ention(especiall tagging) of the te=ts in the corpus. Corpus linguistics has !uilt upa reputation in such di1erse areas as speech recognition modelling (Church

89




and ;ercer /++'), ord association tests (Church and :an-s /++0), naturallanguage processing (especiall the application of sntactic notation" Leechand 8ligelstone /++2), general le=icograph (Clear /+$, Sinclair /+$),semantic la!elling for dictionaries and language research (#ossen et al./+E), machine translation (Schu!ert /+E), the de1elopment ofterminological -noledge !an-s (hmad et al. /++/) and the de1elopment oflanguage teaching materials and slla!uses (7illis /++0, 9ohns and ing/++').

Generall spea-ing, there are three different schools in @nglishspea-ingcorpus linguistics. 8irstl, there has !een much corpus!ased or- incomputational linguistics and terminolog, ith a long tradition of statisticalmodelling (&utler /+a, Da-es /++E). Secondl, descripti1e linguistics hasconcentrated on the tagging and parsing of corpora, usuall ithin agenerati1e frameor- (the Lancaster school" ;c@ner and 7ilson /++E).Similarl, corpora are also tagged for te=t tpe analsis (&i!er, Conrad and<eppen /++). third tradition in1ol1es the de1elopment of corpora forapplications such as language learning (as emphasised ! &arn!roo- /++E) ordictionar!uilding (in a continuation of the Co!uild pro>ect" Sinclair and<enouf /++/) as ell as the statistical analsis of te=ts in authorship studies(Dppenheim /+). The third approach usuall entails an emphasis onstatistical properties of the te=ts rather than parsing procedures. Since % ha1e

adopted a 1ie of collocation from Sinclairs and :allidas perspecti1e, thethird approach is particularl rele1ant to m methods of corpus design andanalsis.

The &ron corpus of one million ords as one of the first electronicstores of te=ts for the analsis of @nglish, ith the underling aim to !e asrepresentati1e of the general language as possi!le (učera and 8rancis /+E$).The LondonDslo&ergen corpus (LD&, S1art1i- and `uir- /+0, S1art1i-/++2a!, Leech /++/) as also !uilt up to one million ords and as one ofthe first to attempt co1erage of different language 1arieties, including /tpes of ritten te=t H although the te=ts ere artificiall curtailed, ith ama=imum length of 2 000 ords. Ne1ertheless, LD& constituted for some

time a ma>or source of data for the stud of te=t tpes (&i!er /+E et seK.).7hile the first generation of corpora ere de1eloped for general linguisticdescription, the second generation aimed at ma=imum co1erage of thelanguage for the purposes of dictionar!uilding. These included, in the 3,&irminghams Jan% of Englis$ (once -non as the Co!uild corpus" Sinclair/++/) and the Jritis$ National Corus (&NC) of D=ford 3ni1ersit andLongman (&urnard /++2). These corpora 5uic-l !uilt up the num!er of te=tsto hundreds of millions of ords ! accessing the electronic press and othernetor-s that !ecame a1aila!le in the earl /++0s. lthough !oth corpora

90




had at one point o1er to !illion ords (Sinclair /++'a, <undell and Stoc-/++2), each corpus has recentl !een limited to a selection of >ust o1er /00million ords. nother nota!le corpus pro>ect, the Cam!ridge LanguageSur1e, attempted to !uild up corpora and de1elop softare in order tocompare se1en ma>or languages ith particular emphasis on de1elopingagreed codings (tags) for semantic, functional and sntactic categories(t-ins, Clear and Dstler /++2). These le=icographic corpora ha1e no !een

>oined ! a third generation of more fragmented te=t collections, includingdialect corpora, spo-en corpora, restricted language corpora and otherspecialist te=t collections (S1art1i- /++2"/2, &i!er, Conrad and <eppen/++).

s corpora gro in si?e and comple=it, Frepresentati1eness or an idea ofhat proportion of te=ts should !e included in the corpus has pro1en to !e ama>or stum!ling !loc-. %n his comparison of three ma>or @nglish languagecorpora (&ron, LD&, and Co!uild), L>ung (/++/) points out that ithin themost fre5uent / 000 items of each corpus, 20* ords are not shared. Suchdifferences seem to undermine the claims of the corpus!uilders that theircorpora are representati1e of the language in general. L>ung further notes1er important genre differences !eteen the corpora, especiall Co!uild,ith its large num!er of high fre5uenc a!stract nouns dealing ith domainsof !eha1iour, geometric shape and politics the -inds of le=ical

preoccupations to !e found in >ournalism (/++/"2*+). &ecause of the idea1aila!ilit of >ournalistic te=ts in the initial ears of corpus analsis,linguists pointed out that the data in large corpora ere suscepti!le to stlistic

!ias (<undell and Stoc- /++2). 7hile 5uantitati1e representation is a pro!lem, there are also artificial !arriers to inclusion hich ar!itraril restrictthe nature of the corpus. 8or e=ample, &urnard (/++2) noted that his oncorpus, the &NC had a notranslations polic hich eliminated suchinfluential te=ts as the &i!le. Similarl, Collins and Peters (/+) ha1e5uestioned the moti1ation !ehind the te=t categories of se1eral corpora. Thenote for instance that LD& gi1es as much eighting to belles lettres,

biogra$ies and essa-s as to t$e Press or learne! an! scientific &ritings.

Ne1ertheless, genres are ! their 1er nature une5ual, and it is perhapsunreasona!le to descri!e the hole language on the !asis of e5uallrepresented te=ttpes. Dne might argue that the spo-en language anddialogue should ma-e up the 1ast ma>orit of an general language corpus,since the corpus ma ish to represent e=posure (from an indi1iduals pointof 1ie) rather than te=tual 1ariet. The other possi!ilit is that eachrecognised register or genre should ha1e an e5ual footing !ecause thelanguage sstem is not holl represented in the more fre5uentlencountered 1arieties. These are clearl fundamental 5uestions !ut ith 1er

91




fe straightforard solutions. %t is for this reason that it ma !e prudent notto scale don the corpus, !ut to fa1our the analsis of specialised genres.:oe1er, as noted a!o1e in terms of the discourse communit, e1en the5uestion of representati1eness of a single su!>ect matter (cancer research)appears to !e a comple= issue.

&. Corpus Analysis and "anguages for Specific Purposes

7hereas corpus linguistics has tended to fa1our the construction of largescale te=t collections for the analsis of the Fgeneral language, much lessor- has !een carried out on corpora of specific language 1arieties. ;c@nerand 7ilson (/++E) mention that there has !een some oron spo-en andritten 1ariation, !ut 1er little oron specific te=t tpes. General corporatend to include sections of technical te=ts for comparati1e purposes, !utunderstanda!l these ha1e !een 1er !road in scope, largel !ecause it has

!een felt necessar to collect a !road range of su!>ect specialisms. Ne1ertheless, in the field of Englis$ for Secific Puroses as mentioneda!o1e in Chapter Dne, a num!er of linguists ha1e carried out studies on 1erspecific corpora, including ;ers (/++), ret?en!acher (/++0), &an-s(/++*a), Salager;eer (/++2), 7illiams (/++E), 4u!ois (/++$) and &i!er,

Conrad and <eppen (/++). small num!er of studies ha1e so far dealt ithgrammatical collocation and genre analsis (Gledhill /++a and /++!), orsstematic analsis of clusters of grammatical features in technical te=ts(especiall &i!er, Conrad and <eppen /++).

There are a num!er of studies hich ha1e specificall targetedcollocations in science ithin the field of terminolog (Thomas /++', &a-er,8rancis and Tognini&onelli /++', Pearson /++). These studies follo thetradition in terminolog hich distinguishes !eteen collocations in thegeneral language and those in the LSP, a notion hich is idespread !uthich has also !een idel criticised (&loor and &loor /+). The position issummed up tersel ! Sager et al. (/+0"2'/)" the potential for collocation in

the general language is freer than in the special language. &enson et al.(/+E) ha1e !een the principal proponents of this 1ie and ha1e argued thatLGP and LSP collocations can !e distinguished in terms of their sntactic

!eha1iour. 8or e=ample, in compound nominals in the LGP, head nouns !ecome more specific as in cabinet res$uffle and !rug us$er and theattri!uti1e nature of the second element can !e reinforced ! reformulatingith 4of+ or other grammatical items" a res$uffle of t$e cabinet , a us$er of

!rugs, a booster for bra%es. :oe1er in LSP compounds such as measles

accine, 1et engine, $ouse arrest such deconstruction is not possi!le. :e

92




claims that LSP nominal groups must ha1e a genericspecific internalstructure that distinguishes them from their LGP counterparts (mo1ing fromspecific to generic). The lac- of reformulati1e potential of a multiord termtherefore suggests a sstematic means of distinguishing !eteen fi=ed LSPterms and looser LGP phrases. :oe1er, this tpe of distinction reinforcesthe traditional 1ie that the LSP is merel a series of grammaticalrestrictions, and seems to ar!itraril assign LSP or LGP status to items hichma ha1e 1er different distri!utions (for most o!ser1ers bra%e booster

appears to !e an LSP item, regardless of grammatical muta!ilit).Thomas (/++') pro1ides a more te=t!ased account of LSP phraseolog

hen she descri!es the tpes of collocation that occur in a computer !asedterminological term !an-. She finds that in the search for collocational nodesto prioritise as dictionar entries, LSP phrases ma use similar resources tothe LGP !ut their predicti1e collocational elements 1ar in position from theLGP as the e=pression mo1es from left to right. Thomas notes thatcollocational 1aria!ilit, here the node ord is highl predicti1e of the leftor right collocate, affects the le=icographers choice of !ase ord. Sinclairsimilarl refers to this phenomenon as a statistical pro!lem of Fup or dondirection of colloca!ilit (/+$c"''0). Contrar to the impression that LSPstle is Fhighl nominal, Thomas notes that LSP 1er! phrases ha1e a Fhighrange of functions and occurrence including transiti1es (occlude, induce),

intransiti1es (phaseseparate, hdrogen!ond), phrasal intransiti1es(denatures into, localises in) and are particularl pre1alent in passi1e phrases(is snthesised in, are conser1ed) (/++'"E0). ;ore generall, fre5uent 1er!sin the LGP !ecome highl predicti1e of o!>ect nouns in the LSP ( to boot a

comuter, to create a file) (/++'"). Sager et al. similarl note that thecolloca!ilit of 1er!s is limited to phrasal units hile nominal groups ha1eta-en o1er the function of representing mental categories, conceptual

phenomena and operations (/+0"E). The note a tendenc for grammaticalthemes or su!>ects and descripti1e predicates, and the predominant pattern ofnoun V copulaO V Propert of V Propert (material shape design)(/+0"/). The also note in1ersion in declarati1e sentences here a past

participle (such as 'ttac$e! to t$e 5 is a 6...) introduces elements at thethematic !eginning of the sentence.

4espite the rarit of corpus oron scientific te=ts, linguists andstlisticians ha1e identified a 1ast range of grammatical and le=ical propertiesof 1irtuall e1er imagina!le 1ariet of language. ;uller (/+E, /+$$) hasnota!l esta!lished a ell -non methodolog of ord counts to esta!lishdifferent authors stles (Dppenheim /+, Potter /++0"*//). mong corpusanalses of stle, 9ohansson (/+2) reports on the untagged analsis of fourtpes of riting from the LD& corpus here he analses the relati1e

93




fre5uenc of function ords. 8o= (/++') has analsed the fre5uenc of t$enfolloing sentence su!>ects as a characteristic of the language of laenforcement. Choue-a et al. (/+') studied collocation in the language of the

Ne 6or- Times. &utler (/++') studied discontinuous collocationalframeor-s in Spanish maga?ines and found that prose articles can !e shonto !e different to inter1ies. :e found that frameor-s contain more te=tualinformation in the former and interpersonal, discursi1e phrases in the latter.8inall, Collot (/++/) has e=amined the use of comparati1e constructions inemail communication. s noted a!o1e, ith some e=ceptions (&utler /++',&an-s /++*!, Gledhill /++E and 7illiams /++E) the focus of or- e1en insuch a large area as stlistics or register studies has !een on grammaticalcategories rather than on collocation and phraseolog.

). T#e Status of Corpus E*idence

%n this section % e=amine the philosoph underling different approaches tocorpus data, in particular in relation to the notion of item selection (hichle=ical or grammatical features to identif) and item identification (the use oftags or other methods).

s can !e seen from our discussion of the idiom principle, Sinclair and his

colleagues assume that there should !e as little human in1ol1ement as possi!le in the construction and analsis of a corpus. ll grammaticale1idence should come from real e=amples analsed as automaticall as

possi!le as opposed to in1ented ones analsed introspecti1el. Sinclairdistinguishes in this respect !eteen the natural !ut untid feel of e=amplesta-en from a corpus ith the grammatical !ut odd nature of e=amples used intheoretical grammars. lthough contro1ersial, his main point has !eenconceded ! man generati1e linguists, ho no use corpora if not to elicitdata, then at least to chec- their hpotheses (&lac-ell /+$, ;c@ner and7ilson /++E). The principal research method of the Co!uild research groupof the /+0s (Sinclair /+/ et seK., 8o= /++', 8rancis /+, Clear /+$,

rishnamurth /+$, <enouf /+$a!, :unston and 8rancis /++) andresearchers ho ere influenced ! the approach (;iall /++2, Gledhill /++Eas ell as or-ers in Co!uilds successor pro>ect, the &an- of @nglish) has

!een to esche the traditional categories of linguistic analsis to the pointhere the analse ra data that has had no prior linguistic treatment (orFtagging). Dn the other hand, man corpus linguists (Leech and 8ligelstone/++2, Garside, Leech and Sampson /+$, ;c@ner and 7ilson /++E) arein1ol1ed in or- that changes the format of the te=ts that the are or-ingith, hether it is ! transcri!ing prosodic mar-ers from spo-en te=ts or !

94




implementing automatic tagging (mar-ing of ord class and sntacticfunction).

lthough Sinclairs Fstatistical te=tual 1ie of collocation has !eeninfluential, it is not generall accepted ! corpus or-ers outside the 8irthianor :allidaan tradition. 3nli-e the main thrust of Sinclairs or-, thema>orit of corpus research is conducted on tagged or mar-edup corpora,and can !enefit from the use of predefined categories. search ! a parseror a tagged corpus analser can !e initiated ! as-ing the computer forFnominals folloed ! con>unctions (categor tags) or Findirectcomplements (functional tags) and so on. %n other ords, hereas Sinclairsapproach has !een to see collocation in all recurrent le=ical forms, otherslimit the -ind of e=pressions that the computer counts as accepta!le. Thetagging approach is instead used in sstems for automated parsing orcollocation retrie1al (in terminolog, the information sciences and ina!stracting), here the need to cut don on com!inatorial possi!ilities isconsidera!le (Sparc-9ones /+$/, Choue-a et al. /+', 8rohman /++0,hmad et al. /++/, &a?elli, Pa?ien?a and #elardi /++2, &usch /++2).

Tagged corpora are also used idel to test the hpotheses of formal andgenerati1e grammars (;c@ner and 7ilson /++E pro1ide an o1er1ie ofthese studies). These approaches traditionall pri1ilege the Fsemantic sntactic 1ie of collocation % proposed a!o1e, largel !ecause the use data

to confirm rather than to define instances of collocation. tpical stud !egins ith a definition of collocational relation !eteen ords using ale=icalist model and as proceeds to classif an fi=ed e=pressions ithin theframeor- of that model (for e=ample, ;elRu- /+, 8ontenelle /++*).8urthermore, since idiomaticit is seen as a structural or formal functional

pro!lem ithin the generati1e frameor-, corpus data ha1e also !een used todemonstrate the tpical grammatical profile of fi=ed e=pressions (<ingle/+2, !eillA /++). %n these studies the fi=ed e=pressions are ta-en asFgi1en and deri1ed from e=isting studies on idiomaticit. nnotated corporacan of course !e used to capture the -inds of com!ination that Sinclair isinterested in, !ut the generall tend to rel on an automatic parser hich has

alread di1ided and mar-ed the te=t up into sntactic categories andfunctions. s a conse5uence, these approaches concei1e of collocations

!eteen e=isting grammatical classes or functions (for e=ample" noun V 1er!)and do not therefore initiate searches for the -inds of grammatical collocationidentified ! Sinclair and his colleagues (discussed a!o1e).

s an e=ample of a collocationretrie1al approach, Smad>a (/++',/++) hasimplemented a program that initiall finds collocations on a statistical !asisand then uses a Fsntactic filter to eliminate nonphrases. :e tests the results

95




of the automatic sstem against four generallaccepted principles ofcollocation"

Principle / Collocations are ar!itrar (/++'"/*E).Collocations are com!ined as a le=ical choice hich ma not ha1e an

semantic or sntactic e=planation. This can !e seen !eteen languages,here ordtoord translations ha1e different distri!utions. (enfoncer la

orte to !rea- don the door, enfoncer un clou to hammer a nail in).

Principle 2 Collocations are domaindependent (/++'"/*E)Collocations ha1e a 1er specific distri!ution in terms of technical >argon

and terminolog.

Principle ' Collocations are recurrent (/++'"/*$)Collocations can !e accounted for statisticall, that is the are not

accidents of occurrence or independent 1aria!les and are esta!lished as arecognisa!le part of the language (a point also made ! Church and :an-s/++).

Principle * Collocations are cohesi1e le=ical clusters (/++'"/*$)Collocations are internall consistent ith elements hich are predicti1e

of others. lthough this is unli-e :allidas te=tual definition of cohesion,there is a sense of unit and Fte=ture that :allida and :asan (/+$E) refer toithin collocations such as $ea- tra!ing, or agree to.

Smad>a (/++') suggests that at present his sstem is good at identifingFsmall collocations (especiall phrases hich conform to Principles ' and *).The tpes of collocation that Smad>as sstem is a!le to identif are listed

!elo"

Tpe / Predicti1e collocation.%n this tpe of collocation, one or more elements in the phrase ma predict

the others, !ut not necessaril the other a round (ma%e and !ecision fore=ample). These collocations are usuall fle=i!le in that the ma undergotransformations or reformulation ithout distur!ing !asic meaning (Smad>a/++'"'++) and correspond to Coies (/+/) and &ensons (/++) restrictedcollocations.

Tpe 2 <igid noun phrases.These are Fimportant concepts in a domain. (Smad>a /++'"/*) such as

stoc% mar%et and ?o& @ones and ha1e !een pre1iousl studied ! Choue-a et

96




al. (/+') in their stud of the Ne 6or- Times corpus and ! &urnard(/++2"/) ho terms them Fte=toriented cooccurrences.

Tpe ' Phrasal templates.These are collocations hich include 1er free elements ithin a restricted

structure (such as Stoc%mar%et ;5< rose &as u fell ;number< =oints> to

at ;number<). These correspond to <enouf and Sinclairs (/++/) collocationalframeor-s and Nattinger and 4eCarricos (/+2) phrasal constraints.

Smad>a (/++E) claims an identification rate of around $0W. 7hile apparentlsuccessful, this means that '0W of the terms identified ! the 5tract sstemare not 1alid collocations. The essential pro!lem here is that analsts such asSmad>a predefine a collocation as a 1alid grammatical phrase, hereasSinclair and others are prepared to accept collocations hich are notconstituents of the same phrase or e1en the same clause. nother difficultith Smad>as approach is the concept of the nonphrase and the means !hich it is possi!le or desira!le to eliminate com!inations encountered in thecorpus. Nonphrases according to Smad>a (/++'/++E) are com!inationshich can not !e analsed ! a parser and theor identification is thereforedependent on the 5ualit of the parser rather than the 5ualit of the initialdata.

8rom a statistical perspecti1e, >ellmer (/+*"/E') has also argued thatrestrictions are necessar !ecause statistical analsis ma thro up eitherrandoml recurrent ord com!inations (hence alt$oug$ $e, $all to ma occur

!ut are not accepta!le phrases) or unusual grammaticall restricted se5uences( green i!eas, -ester!a-+s eening ). :e claims that 1alid phraseological unitsare onl to !e found at the intersection of the to ( last nig$t, tr- to).:oe1er, >ellmer (/++0) gi1es much more scope to grammaticalcollocation than other linguists or-ing on tagged corpora. 8or e=ample, hefinds e1idence to suggest that certain grammatical classes are more

producti1e in collocation. rticles and prepositions are in1ol1ed in thegreatest relati1e num!er of collocations although their collocates are hard to

predict. Singular and mass nouns are similarl highl collocational, !ut aremore predicta!le in that the ha1e 1er strong patterns immediatel !eforefunction ords and tend to !e premodified in limited as (/++0"/E$). %naddition, 1er!s ha1e the highest rate of cooccurrence ith closedclassitems, indicating the important role of phrasal 1er!s in @nglish, a point alsonoted ! the Co!uild group (rishnamurth /+$). These findings arecommensurate ith man of Sinclairs findings. The also ser1e to shohoe1er that the Fstatistical te=tual approach is an ideal, and much or-

97




!eing carried out from Sinclairs perspecti1e does in fact e=ploit taggedcorpora.

Perhaps one of the more hotl contested points has !een o1er the e=tent tohich it is necessar to mar- up the corpus grammaticall. TheFcollocationalists and folloers of Sinclair argue that since the do notimpose traditional grammatical categories, onl their approach can achie1eoriginal insights a!out language"

%f ...O the o!>ecti1e is to o!ser1e and record !eha1iour and ma-egeneralisations !ased on o!ser1ations, a means of recording structures must !e de1ised hich depends as little as possi!le on theor. The more

superficial, the !etter. (Sinclair /+$!"/0$)

Con1ersel, Leech and 8ligelstone (/++2) and others consider that thecounting of concordance items is at !est Fa tri1ial facilit and that the onlsignificant data can come from annotated corpora. arts is of the opinion thatithout some degree of sntactic classification, a corpus is useless"

...O as e1erone -nos, the comparison of corpora containing >ust ra te=tcannot go !eond linguisticall rather tri1ial o!ser1ations. (/++2"/0)

Se1eral corpus linguists ha1e de!ated the relati1e success of automatic

parsing and tagging (&re--e /++/). Souter (/++0) calculated the range anddistri!ution of 22 sntactic structures found ! a Fcomponence parser(componence rules are sntactic and functional phrase structure algorithms"such as Su!>ectNGPdet head). :e found that >ust o1er $0W of these rulesare used onl once in his corpus. :e concludes that if these results ere

pro>ected to an e1en !igger corpus, Fa comprehensi1e grammar for @nglishcould !e as openended as its 1oca!ular. (/++0"/+*). Dn the other hand,&riscoe (/++0) has dismissed this -ind of argument. :e claims that althoughFall grammars lea- slightl, there is no e1idence for a group of de1iant oruni5ue grammatical constructs, arguing that the e=istence of e1en largenum!ers of uni5ue grammatical constructs does not in1alidate theapplica!ilit of a general underling generati1e sntactic principle.Con1ersel, Church and ;ercer (/++'"*) state that parsers are useful forunderstanding Fho did hat to hom, !ut are less useful for predictingli-el usage in authentic language. The other disad1antage of parsers is thatthe ha1e, according to Church and ;ercer Flittle success in ord class orord sense disam!iguation (/++'"+).

The !enefits of tagging and parsing can not !e dismissed lightl. Clearlan sstem hich categorises linguistic e1idence ould !enefit from acomputational a of counting and sorting the data (;c@ner and 7ilson

98




/++E, &arn!roo- /++E). %n this light, some tag sets ha1e attempted toincorporate Fdiscourse items. S1art1i- (/++'"2*) has proposed a /$0 tagsstem ith la!els such as greeting, fluenc- !eice, $e!ge and so on.Linguists ho impose tags on a te=t in such a Fmanual fashion are faced iththe difficult tas- of lemmatisation, hether to treat forms such as be, is, are

as one or different ord tpes. Lemmatisation is particularl criticised !Sinclair (/++/) and 8rancis (/++') ho point out that it is a redundant

process !ecause collocational patterns tend to re1eal differences !eteenord tpes" the collocations of be are different to the collocations of is andthis distinction is effecti1el eliminated if !oth are counted as the samele=ical item. There is also some statistical e1idence in support of this.6oumans, in his analsis of the F1elocit or rate of change of fre5uenc ofne ords in te=ts found that lemmatisation does not significantl changethe cur1es of tpe to-en ratios (/++/"$EE). 7hate1er the accurac oftagging and parsing, % hope to demonstrate !elo that the 5ualit of analsisrelies >ust as much on the depth of preparation of material as on the formulaeused to arri1e at automatic analsis.

The fact remains that manual analsis of unrefined concordances can stillre1eal much interesting data. This is especiall true of features of discoursehich do not ha1e categorical forms (such as e1aluation, modalit,grammatical metaphor, discourse anaphora and so on.) as the or- of Stu!!s

(/++E) and others has demonstrated.

Dne of the more fundamental de!ates that ha1e !een conducted in corpuslinguistics centres on Sinclairs claim that corpus or- must attempt toaccount for the naturalness of authentic data rather than a theoretical searchfor an a!stract notion of grammaticalit. :oe1er, man linguists arnagainst seeing the corpus as a guarantee of trul o!>ecti1e data. %n 8illmores(/++2) analsis of the use of the ord ris% he demonstrates that the ord hasa uni5ue le=icogrammar in the language in that 4running a ris%+

conceptualises harm as a result of an action, hile 4ta%ing a ris%+ sees harmas a result of a goal. &ut he cannot see ho a computer could e1er come to

determine such a pattern, or ho it could rule out alternati1e e=pressions.Chafe ta-es a similar stance"

corpus cannot tell us hat is not possi!le... Should it e1er come a!outthat linguistics can !e carried out ithout the inter1ention and suffering ofa nati1espea-er, % ill pro!a!l lose interest in the enterprise. (Chafe/++2"+)

%n a sense, this argument could !e turned around against tagging, since Chafeand 8illmore are discussing linguistic features that appear to !e !eond

99




automatic parsing, !ut are not !eond more !asic empirical 5uantification. %nan case, Chafe, 8illmore and others claim that Sinclair has missed the pointa!out intuition, and has ruled out the important function of negati1e data inconstructing a model of sntactic principles. 8or them it is important for themodel to !e a!le to e=plain h certain features of language do not occur,and the corpus does not pro1ide this e=planator ade5uac. The also pointout that there is nothing inauthentic a!out a nati1espea-ers intuitions a!oute=amples and counter e=amples (although as e ha1e seen, othergenerati1ists ha1e made much use of corpora to test their hpotheses for

positi1e data).Chafes point essentiall contrasts the generati1e linguists preoccupation

ith selected countere=amples ith the empirical linguists interest inauthenticall occurring data hich is often more difficult to analse.Sinclairs approach is not concerned ith grammaticalit !ut ith anaccount of naturalness in language. Nati1e intuition and in1ented e=amplesma !e enough to e=plain the underling sntactic principles of potentiale=pression, !ut the are inappropriate hen e need to address issues ofstle and te=tual accepta!ilit. :e argues that although the corpus replacesintrospection in linguistic analsis (essentiall guessing at data and in1entinge=amples), the computer still implies the use of human intuition (a nati1espea-er interpretation, a linguists s-ill in e=planation), a factor that 8illmore

and Chafe appear to ha1e o1erloo-ed.%n addition, a corpus of authentic te=ts is undou!tedl the product of ahuman intuition, !ut the linguistic !eha1iour used to produce authentic te=tsis uninhi!ited, unselfconscious and natural. The same can not !e said forin1ented e=amples or e=amples created to pro1e some grammatical point.Sinclair cites a continuum of e=amples from crptical to e=plicit" &e

searc$e! (most crptical) , &e searc$e! all nig$t, &e searc$e! all nig$t for

t$e missing climbers (most e=plicit) (/+*"20E). :e as-s at hat point or inhat conte=t each of these -inds of utterance ould !e deemed to !e natural,and suggests that most authentic te=t occurs at some point in!eteen. %nnatural speech, therefore, there is a happ medium !eteen the crptical and

the o1ertl e=plicit. This argument for authentic e=amples has !een particularl rele1ant in the field of le=icograph, here the e=amples chosenfor each entr in his Co!uild dictionar ere not designed for le=icographic

purposes !ut ta-en from authentic te=ts. 8urthermore, Sinclair claims thatthe internal grammatical relations of the sentence are not rele1ant hen oneattempts to ta-e account of the function or natural feel of the sentence inconte=t. s ith :oes discussion of le=ical cohesion, e can see hoSinclairs approach mo1es our attention aa from ords in a sentence

!ased grammar to items ith a definite te=tual function.

100




The discussion in this present section has concentrated on the 5ualit ofdata analsed in corpus linguistics. % conclude that a tagged corpus and asntactic parser are not immediatel necessar for an analsis of tpicalcorpus stle, and note that such processes ma indeed ! inappropriate for agenre analsis of the tpe % en1isage, at least at the present time. Since m

primar aim is to esta!lish a general phraseolog of research articles, % hopeto sho !elo that instances of collocation can !e fruitfull identified on theinitial !asis of statistical analsis rather than resorting to formulae andsntactic parsing of the sort proposed ! Smad>a and others.

%n the preceding sections, % ha1e set out :allida and Sinclairs perspecti1eson discourse analsis and corpus linguistics. :allida esta!lishes the notionof register as pro!a!le e=pression, and emphasises the changing role oflinguistic features as the are used in different rhetorical conte=ts. %naddition, e ha1e seen that :allida and Sinclairs 1ie of the le=icogrammar prioritises the role of grammatical collocation and grammaticalitems, and m corpus analsis !elo therefore concentrates on the

phraseolog of these items and their distri!ution ithin the corpus. Thefolloing sections discuss the main steps in1ol1ed in the corpus analsis andattempt to implement the Fstatistical te=tual analsis of the corpus as a firststage in the phraseological analsis of the research article genre.

+. T#e Corpus and t#e !iscourse Community

corpus is a te=t assem!led according to e=plicit design criteria for aspecific purpose, and therefore the rich 1ariet of corpora reflects thedi1ersit of their designers o!>ecti1es. (t-ins, Clear and Dstler /++2"/')

%t is no necessar to set out the principles underling m choice of te=ts forthe P#armaceutical Sciences Corpus (PSC). %n !rief, the PSC contains"

•

/0 research articles from 22 different >ournals on cancer research and pharmacolog.• 00 000 ords of te=t, e=cluding reference sections, ta!les and footnotes.

% propose to analse these te=ts in terms of their different su!sections (Titles,!stracts, %ntroductions, and so on) and conduct the analsis ! e=aminingthe collocations associated ith those grammatical items hich ha1e !eenfound to !e statisticall significant ithin each section.

% ha1e suggested a!o1e that corpus analsis presents considera!lemethodological ad1antages for a description of languages for specific

101




purposes. %n the first instance, the rhetorical aims of the riters are -nonand can !e prioritised in the analsis" this is not an anonmous collection ofte=ts. %n addition, e ha1e seen that hile there are man studies of

phraseolog and le=icogrammar in the general language, fe specialist1arieties ha1e !enefited from a largescale corpus analsis of this -ind. Thecorpus does not represent the register of science riting, !ut instead focuseson one genre (the research article) dealing ith one 1er specific discourse(cancer research). The usual pro!lem of representati1eness is thereforeminimised, although not entirel eliminated.

7e ha1e seen a!o1e that, historicall spea-ing, corpus pro>ects ha1etended to opt to represent an entire register or language 1ariet. These

pro>ects ha1e often found it difficult to delimit !oundaries for theirconstituent te=ts. 8or e=ample, <enouf (/+$!) states that the te=ts used inthe Co!uild corpus range from 1er !road registers (nonfiction, procedures,argumentpositional te=ts and narrati1e) to 1er specific genres (sur1es, the

NTDcorpus, the Si)e&ell enKuir- corpus). Since such a disparate collectionof te=ts is not clearl defined, Sinclair (/++'), t-ins, Clear and Dstler(/++2), hmad et al. (/++/) and others ha1e argued for a more sstematicapproach to te=t tpes in corpus linguistics. Sinclair (/++'c"E$) proposesfour principles of corpus design hich % adopt in the folloing sections"

/. The choice of te=ts should !e go1erned ! a stated 1ie of language incommunication.2. The 1aria!les determining the choice of te=ts should !e distinct and

identified.'. The component te=ts should !e clearl identified, descri!ed and documented.*. The proportions of different te=t tpes should !e clearl stated and

concomitant ith principle /).

+.1 T#e "anguage ,ie of t#e P#armaceutical Sciences Corpus

s stated earlier, the research article H despite its 1ariet of forms is seen asa pri1ileged statement of pu!lic research and is thus a ma>or o!>ect of en5uirin linguistics. Dther te=ts, such as grant proposals and internal documentsmentioned in m sur1e can !e ruled out of the corpus !ecause the form

part of the nonpu!lic orld of ugers (/++) Fgre literature. %nstead ofe=act representation of genres in the discourse communit therefore, arhetorical o1er1ie of the department should emerge from a mi=ture ofauthors on research articles. These te=ts are considered to !e central to theresearchers or-, and appear in the >ournals hich the researchers regularluse for Finde=ical purposes in the la! and for general research reading.

102




+.2 !esign Criteria of t#e Corpus.

Dne cause of im!alance in this and perhaps man other corpora lies in therange of potential criteria for the selection of te=ts as can !e seen !elo(from Sinclair /++'c" E$)"

5edium(oriented c#oice8

/ 'ut$or Te=ts selected from informants on pu!lications.2 'ccess Te=ts chosen on the !asis of free access, machine

reada!ilit, etc.

$esearc#(oriented c#oice8

' @ournal Te=ts from the same >ournals as informants papers.* Prestige Te=ts from recognised or prestige >ournals.

Topic(oriented c#oice8

Samle Te=ts from a ide sample of >ournals hich co1er the areagenerall.

ECentralit- Te=ts or >ournals considered essential ! informants.$ Fiel! Te=ts co1ering one research acti1it or concern onl,

perhaps on the !asis of !i!liograph or -eords.Coerage Te=ts chosen at the le1el of o1er1ie or specialisation.

com!ination of these criteria ere used to select the te=ts for the PSC,although some criteria account for more research articles in the corpus thanothers (especiall aut$or, restige and centralit- !ut also access" see !elo).Such 1aria!les cannot !e made entirel distinct. s e sa in the sur1e ofthe Pharmaceutical Sciences 4epartment, the fourteen researchers had

pu!lished in their respecti1e fields, and some of their articles pro1ided asu!stantial !asis for the corpus as a sample of their output. :oe1er, theircontri!utions alone ould result in a 1er heterogeneous !od of te=ts, not

onl in terms of different su!fields as mentioned a!o1e, !ut in the degree ofco1erage of the field. 8or e=ample, one researcher donated an introductor paper ta-ing a longterm 1ie of his or-, in a >ournal hich ould ha1ehad a ide readership" Tren!s in P$armaceutical Sciences (TPS)M hereasanother donated an article in the specialised Tetra$e!ron Letters (TL) hichas an incomplete part of a series of communications on a specialised drug.Clearl, the readership of such a paper ould !e highl limited.

%n an attempt to collect a representati1e spread of research articles, onemight cali!rate the papers ! criteria such as Ffield, Fcentralit as suggesteda!o1e, or ! classifing >ournals ! Fco1erage of su!>ect (general or

103




specific) or Fsi?e of e=pected audience. nother solution ould !e to use ameasure of prestige. s % mentioned earlier, the department >udged its onresearch pu!lications according to %mpact 8actor scores. 7hile papers inresearch selecti1it e=ercises are >udged according to a researchers

pu!lications in highran-ing >ournals (calculated from citations in other >ournals), the head of the department ( PL) pointed out that some prestigiousand ell -non >ournals ere misrepresented in the listings. :e pointed outthat the @ournal of General #icrobiolog-, a >ournal su!scri!ed to ! thedepartment and mentioned e1en ! chemists in the sur1e, does not appear inthe first E00 >ournals of the Science Citation %nde=. %t as also noted that theell -non highcirculation >ournal Nature (/*th position) as at one point

preceded ! the esoteric '!ance! C-clic Nucleic Proteins (th position) (SC%/++'"'). Dne e=planation of this is that hile Nature is a idel distri!uted

pu!lication, citations in For-ing >ournals, perhaps used more inde=icallthan for !rosing, are li-el to ma-e use of more specific data from lessell-non pu!lications. %t ma therefore !e misleading to state that acorpus represents Fprestigious >ournals in the field, here e1en an o!>ecti1emeasure attempts to distinguish this. Ne1ertheless, this rather idiosncraticmeasure does ha1e some importance, since it is 1alued ! the institution ande=ternal funding councils, if not ! the indi1idual scientists themsel1es.

The reputation of >ournals is also rather difficult to gauge. Tetra$e!ron

Letters as of dou!tful 5ualit according to another researcher ( ?P ), !ecauseit pu!lished Faccelerated communications hich ha1e not had time to !etested. Dthers sa it as an important >ournal for ne research. Dne aaround this pro!lem as to as- the scientists to cite specificall the last fi1e

papers the had !een using as reference material or in the la! and in their periods of riting up. This ensured that the corpus included a ide range of >ournals and topics.

+. C#oice of 5aterial in t#e Corpus

The compilation of the PSC in1ol1ed /0 research articles from a selection of22 >ournals. full list of these articles and the source >ournal are set out inppendi= 2. target of 00 000 ords as set as the initial corpus si?e. %norder to reach this target after the initial collection of papers from the authorsin the sur1e (hich ga1e *E papers, criteria / and 2, !elo), a further /0*random papers ere selected according to prestige and accessi!ilit (criteria' and *, !elo). The num!er of articles collected from each >ournal aslargel determined ! ho man papers could !e copied a factor limited !copright restrictions (usuall one paper from each issue as permitted for

104




research purposes). &ut e5uall crucial ere the length of the article and5ualit of paper for scanning. The folloing conditions of inclusion in thecorpus emerged"

/ 'ut$orial " The corpus includes /0 research articles authored or coauthored ! inter1ieees. Dne researcher su!mitted three papers, another to

papers (one in electronic form) and fi1e others su!mitted one each (one inelectronic form). 8our researchers did not donate an article.

2 Centralit-" The corpus includes research articles from >ournals mentionedin sur1e 5uestion ! (specific papers the researchers had recentl). 'Earticles ere o!tained in this a, mainl from the 4DN%S !iochemistronline catalogue.

' Prestige" The corpus includes 0 research articles from >ournalsmentioned more than tice in sur1e 5uestion a (>ournals the researchesconsidered important in their field, !ut hich the had not necessarilconsulted recentl).

/( 'ccessibilit-" The >ournals 8T, 9PP and C< ere a1aila!le on ;edlineand could

!e immediatel donloaded (a!!re1iations refer to >ournal titles listed inppendi= 2). rticle C as su!mitted ! a researcher from &irmingham3ni1ersit. This ga1e 2* articles.

%n ppendi= 2 the corpus is documented in terms of 9ournal SC% <an-, percentage si?e of the corpus per >ournal and title of each research article.The topical and te=tual !rea-don of the te=ts are detailed in section E.E.

C$oice of 'rticles an! Numbers of Paers.

/. & author" &9, CC, 9CPT$, , +, /0O, 9;C, 9NC%, TL, TPS

2. & topic centralit" &9C///O, CL/+O, 9G;/+O, 9DC/$O'. & prestige" &9P/'O, &;9/O, CCP//EO, C<//2O,%9C/2O, 9CPT/EO, 9DCS///O, P:/2O

*. & accessi!ilit" C, C<//0O, 8T//0O, 9PP/'O

%t as decided that the PSC ould !e split into se1eral su!corpora(pharmacolog and cancer H the main di1ision ithin the pharmaceuticalsciences department) !ut also into sections including Titles and !stracts (assu!genres in the research article) and %ntroduction, ;ethods, <esults and4iscussion su!sections (T%;<4). lthough the original /0 Titles and

105




!stracts of the PSC are compared directl ith other rhetorical sections, anadditional su!corpus as deemed to !e necessar in order to o!tain moreresults. This as deri1ed from the electronic inde= #e!line. The PSC(

#e!line su!corpus consists of the first $2 a!stracts ( ''2 running ords)selected ! the -eord Fcancer in 4ecem!er /++'. The su!corpus alsoincludes a separate te=t of the $2 corresponding Titles ($ E2E to-ens) forcomparison ith the !stracts. The !stracts are all authora!stracts, from a1er ide 1ariet of @nglishlanguage >ournals and relate to cancer eitherfrom ithin the Title or !stract or from the list of -eords included as

#e!line data (the -eords are discarded for this stud). The ;edline corpusthus has the ad1antage of topical specificit as ell as !eing a homogenoussource of scientific te=ts. %n the data analsis section, % compare the PSCtitles su!corpus ith the PSC as a hole to gi1e a picture of the salientle=ical items hich are tpical of titles ith the PSC. These results can then

!e analsed using the ;edline corpus, since the PSC titles corpus alone is notlarge enough to re1eal interesting concordance data.

num!er of scanning mista-es due to small print account for certainanomalies of ord counts in m data. %n man cases, this meant that somee=perimental sections had to !e discarded as the often ha1e smaller printthan the rest of the article. The te=ts that accompan ta!les ere alsoeliminated unless the had a considera!le amount of argumentation, in hich

case the ere considered to !e 1alua!le parts of the rhetorical section inhich the ere situated and added to the end of that section. Dnce postedited, all the te=ts ere con1erted to te=t files for use on a PC mounted3N% sstem for fre5uenc tests and then con1erted to te=t files for analsis

! a PC ordlist and concordance pac-age (detailed !elo).The PSC thus consists of /0 research articles, consisting on a1erage of $

sections each. 3sing <oes ord analsis programs (/++'!"/0) a 3N% ordfre5uenc count calculates the total ord count to !e / 0$' running ords(to-ens) (<oe ta-es a ord to consist of an string of sm!ols !ound ! tospaces, e=cluding figures). :oe1er, this num!er of ords is pro!a!l toolarge (some chemical sm!ols, Gree- letters and misscans are also identified

! this procedure). second count ! the 7ordlist program (Scott /++')ga1e *++ /0 ords, of hich 2* 2' ere different ords (tpes). The PSCas then split into sections (including !stracts) and counted using the3N% ordcount (percentages ha1e !een ad>usted to ta-e account ofo1erlapping sections such as ;< and <4 sections)"

106




Table * Si)e of Corus b- Sections.

Su4genre 6Total7 To:ens ; of PSC.

TTitle (/0) 2 /2' 0.!stract (/0) 2+ 2' E.E%%ntroduction (/0) E0 0+ /'.$;;ethods (/2) //' 0+ 2.;<;ethods<esults (') ' 20$ ('2.0)O@@=perimental (2/) '0 $+ (*$.0)O< <esults (/20) /2' 0* 2$.

<4<esults4iscussion (2$) '$ '$2 (*E./)O44iscussion (/2) //* 20 2.CConclusions (*) / 022 naOSSummar (/) /20 naOTotal =T'9#? onl-> //2 OH *00

Total (all sections) /' +'/ NaO

%n some >ournals, h!rid rhetorical sections replace the function of toseparate sections (;ethods<esults, <esults4iscussion). 8or e=ample, thestructural chemistr >ournal 9CPT has !oth <4 and @sections. There are

h!rid rhetorical sections in '0 articles as ell as nine nonh!rid articleshich include additional e=perimental sections. Nine of the '0 <4sectionsare accompanied ! e=perimental sections. @=perimental sections occuralmost alas in chemical and pharmaceutical papers (ith the e=ception ofTPS). <4sections occur mostl in cancer research and micro!iolog papers.lthough these figures suggest the are large sections, the are

proportionall smaller than the corresponding nonh!rid sections henthese are com!ined. ;< and <4 sections are usuall indicati1e of anFaccelerated pu!lication or communication, especiall in micro!iolog. Therelati1e si?es of the rhetorical sections, as ell as an element of o1erlappingmeans that statistical comparison !eteen rhetorical sections !ecomes

complicated. Since @=perimental sections ne1er replace ;ethods sections,and are roughl e5ui1alent, these are conflated to ;sections (ma-ing thecom!ined section 2.W of the corpus). %t is orth noting here that all;ethods, ;ethods <esults and @=perimental sections are com!ined for the

purposes of statistical analsis !ut <esults4iscussion sections are -eptseparate from the <esults and 4iscussion su!corpora. <esults4iscussionsections are ta-en into account in the statistics for the hole corpus !ut arenot the su!>ect of phraseological analsis in this !oo-. %t ould !e for afuture stud to determine to hat e=tent phraseolog in <4 sections is moreor less characteristic of < and 4 sections separatel. 8or our purposes

107




therefore, e loo- onl at the traditional T%;<4 sections, !earing in mindthat an additional control corpus (;edline) is used in con>unction ith Titlesand !stracts.

%n terms of impact, co1erage and prestige (here the latter term simpldenotes popularit among the e=pert informants), the SC% inde= indicates thatsome >ournals in the corpus rate 1er highl in a list of 000 >ournals, !ut notnecessaril according to the classification o!tained from m sur1e(Fprestigious >ournals identified ! the e=pert informants are underlined forcomparison. FPrestige >ournals ha1e loer ran- score)"

Table 2. SC9 9mact atings of t$e PSC @ournals.

<ournal Name SCI $an: 61=>>7 <ournal SCI $an: 61=>>7

&9P * C< '2EC +' &9C '*0TPS +* CC 'E/9DCS //' 9CPT '$0C< /'2 9DC '+*&9 /2 9;C '+$%9C 22E TL *$E&;9 2'2 P: /E

@NC9, CCP, CL, F'T, @G# and @PP are not ran-ed ithin the first E00O

%n terms of relating the PSC ith its discourse communit, the PSC thereforeincludes man high impact >ournals, and has 5uite a specialised co1erageith the e=ception of such Fintroductor articles as TPS. %t is surprising thatCCP (Cancer C$emot$era- an! P$armacolog-) is not a F1er high prestige

>ournal " it as mentioned ! researchers from !oth sides of the departmentas a -e lin- !eteen them, as the title of the >ournal suggests.

:a1ing compiled the PSC, the ne=t stage in1ol1es a topical o1er1ie ofthe specialisms co1ered in each research article. To researchers (one fromeach main di1ision) helped to classif and gloss all the research articles in thePSC according to the folloing research categories"

Ancolog- =Cancer esearc$ TotalX' articles)

Chemotherap" 2E Chemicoto=ic effects on cancer.Carcinogenesis" / Processes that acti1ate cancer.:istopatholog" /2 ;eta!olic effects of tumours.%mmunohistochemistr" // Drganic resistance to tumours.Ctogenetics" /0 Genetic characteristics of cancer.Cancer @pidemiolog" 2 Population stud of carcinogenesis.

108




<adioimmunolog" 2 <adioto=ic effects on tumours.:istolog" / Drganic properties of tumours.%mmunolog" / Drganic resistance to tumours.

P$armaceutical science =#e!icinal C$emistr- TotalQRH>

Structural chemistr" / Processes of chemical interaction.Drganic Chemistr"/ 8unctions of organic compounds.To=icolog" /' @ffects of drugs on meta!olism.Pharmacolog" + @ffect of drugs on disease.@n?molog" Drganic compounds in the meta!olism.

General #e!icine (TotalX*)

@pidemiolog" / Population stud of disease.Gnaecolog" / Population stud of fertilit.Patient Care" / :ospital management of disease.#irolog" / Population stud of ru!ella 1irus.

The corpus emerges ith a large num!er of papers on the !iolog of cancer(W of the PSC), co1ering a range of pro!a!l the most important cancerspecialisms, from descriptions of the pro!lem to testing !iochemicalsolutions to the pro!lem (chemotherap and immunohistochemistr), thelatter forming the larger part of the cancer research di1ision. The minorit

part of the corpus, pharmaceutical sciences (*2W) is more di1erse, co1eringmore specialisms than is perhaps suggested ! the term Fstructuralchemistr. s can !e seen in ppendi= some >ournals are topicspecific

!eing mostl pharmaceutical and lo impact (&9P, CCP, 8T, 9CPT,9DCS, 9DC, 9PP, P:) hile others ha1e a range of specialisms (&;9,&9C, C<, CL, C<, %9C, 9G;) and tend to !e high impact cancer research micro!iolog >ournals. The Jritis$ @ournal of #e!icine as one of the mostfa1oured >ournals, (more than fi1e mentions). 3nfortunatel, no e=amples of&;9 papers on cancer ere a1aila!le, so fi1e random papers ere included

as e=amples of the genre.

+.& Corpus Typology

noing that our corpus is un!alanced is hat counts. (t-ins et al. /++2"/*)

s ell as considering the internal linguistic features of the corpus, it isnecessar to set out sstematicall the e=ternal conte=tual characteristics ofthe te=ts as a hole. s % ha1e alread mentioned, one of the more interesting

109




aspects of corpus design is not an attempt to pro1ide total co1erage orrepresentati1eness, !ut the realisation that the te=ts of e1en such a specialisedcorpus are different and distinct. No to corpora can !e e=actl compara!le.7ith this comple=it in mind, t-ins, Clear and Dstler (/++2"//+) set out ata=onom of corpora for the description of their 9nternational Corus of

Englis$ on the !asis of @n-1ists (/++) concept of te=tual Fconte=t incorpus linguistics. The propose a tpological template to esta!lish the1arious features of an corpus. %n their terms, the PSC can !e characterised asfollos"

•

PSC function is Finformati1e, persuasi1e rather than Finstructional.• PSC setting is !ased on a Fscientific research setting, including la!orator

and institutional use.• PSC stle is Facademic scientific and presuma!l 1aries according to

internal factors such as Ftechnicalit (degree of specialisation).• PSC technicalit is Fhigh degree of specialisttechnical -noledge of the

author and target readershipaudience.• PSC topic is a comple= of Fscience, !iolog, chemistr etc.• PSC genre is Fresearch article in the pharmaceutical sciences !ut !ecause

of 1aring reader moti1ations (!rosing, reference inde=ing) and of1ariations in format and te=t tpe (communications, 5uasireports,

e=perimental reports, introductor essas) the term Fresearch article co1ersa ider range of te=ts than originall concei1ed. % propose the informal termcogenre for these, and su!genre for such sections as FTitles,F%ntroductions etc.

%t is difficult to esta!lish the other criteria proposed ! t-ins et al.. 8ore=ample, the Fauthorit of each te=t is onl -non for the te=ts originatingfrom the sur1e. 4espite the large num!er of multiauthor te=ts, there is noe1idence to suggest that single authorship is indicati1e of co1erage orauthorit" singleauthor papers C and TL are 1er specific and ritten !

postdoctoral research fellos, CC is a specialist single author te=t ! a

senior lecturer, and TPS is a more general te=t ! a professor ho alsohappens to !e an editor of other >ournals. The other factors cited ! t-ins etal. can not !e easil identified for this corpus. 8or e=ample, % ha1e no recordof the degree of proficienc in @nglish of man of m authors, althoughman of the coauthored te=ts appear to !e ritten ! scientists from non@nglish spea-ing counties.

%t is possi!le of course to analse an num!er of these differentdimensions from the point of 1ie of phraseolog (the phraseolog ofgenetics articles 1ersus structural chemistr, of singleauthor 1ersus multipleauthor te=ts, or nati1eauthor 1ersus nonnati1e author te=ts etc.). lthough

110




such analsis ould !e of !enefit to the genre analsis of the research article,the rhetorical su!section of the article remains the main focus of analsis inthis !oo- and should ser1e as a model for future analsis of other dimensions.

+.) Te't Analysis

%n this section, % set out the main analtical procedures in1ol1ed in manalsis of the Pharmaceutical Sciences Corpus. The statistical analsis ofthe PSC follos the folloing plan"

/. 8re5uenc " the corpus is split into su!sections (or Fsu!genres) andordlists are prepared for each section.

2. Salienc " The Wor!list program compares each su!list ith the o1erallPSC. The most statisticall significant grammatical items are selected astpical of each different PSC su!section.

'. Concordance " The #icroconcor! program is used to esta!lish thecollocational patterns of each salient grammatical item. phraseolog foreach su!section can then !e esta!lished.

The procedure used to prepare and compile the PSC is similar to that used inthe compilation of the Co!uild dictionar (as set out ! rishnamurth /+$,

Clear /+$ and Sinclair /++/) and has !een !ro-en don into a series ofcomputational steps ! <oe (/++'a"/0/') on a 3N%!ased sstem calledthe 'STEC suite and later de1eloped for the 7%N4D7S en1ironment as the

'ston Tet 'nal-ser (T). &urnard (/++2"2/) descri!es 3N% in terms ofli!raries of routines used for common procedures that can !e integrated into acommon en1ironment. 7hile this ma-es the 'STEC analsis e=tremelfle=i!le, commerciall a1aila!le programs emphasise the presentation of datahich is an important consideration in concordance analsis. 8urther steps inthe analsis as ell as comparison of the rhetorical sections ere thus carriedout at a later stage ! an PC!ased collocation program ( #icroconcor! "9ohns and Scott /++') and the ordlist compiler (Wor!list " Scott /++'). The

differences in definitions of hat is an accepta!le and unaccepta!le Ford inthese programs, and te=tual changes of format in con1erting the PSC forthese sstems mean that conse5uent differences in ord fre5uenc lists must

!e ta-en into account.

STG@ /" NL6S%NG 8<@`3@NC6. The main >ustification for usingfre5uenc lists in this !oo- is the capacit of the computer to identifstatisticall the most salient le=ical differences !eteen to te=ts or corpora.7e can demonstrate this ! preparing a sample comparison of most fre5uent

111




ords in the PSC ith the /$ million ord Co!uild corpus (these figuresdiffer slightl from the Wor!list generated list in ppendi= /). This iscalculated ! the ST@C program ! simpl comparing to fre5uenc listsas follos"

Table H T$e 'stec to ten leical items in t$e PSC an! Cobuil! corora.

Rank Item Tokens PSC % Cobuild

%.

/ the 2+ /22 . E./2 of 2/ '0+ *.' '.0

' and /* E/0 2.+ 2.* in /* '*+ 2. /. a E'/ /.$ 2.*E to /2 /.$ 2.$$ as E /*E /.2 /.0 ith ' *' /./ 0.E+ for 22* /.0 0./0 ere /E2 /.0 0.*

The ST@C comparison re1eals clear differences !eteen the specialist and

the general corpora, especiall in the sharp increase in the proportion ofman prepositions in the PSC (this increase can !e more clearl seen in thefirst /00 ords of the PSC in ppendi= /). %t is also nota!le that thecon>unction pronoun t$at at ran- $ in the general language corpus drops toran- /2 in the PSC (ith ' '+ occurrences) and the pronoun it at ran- inCo!uild drops don to ran- */ in PSC (ith / 00E occurrences).

s part of ST@C, the FCD;;DN program produced a list indescending order of relati1e fre5uenc of each item in the PSC and a figureindicating the relati1e fre5uenc in the Co!uild list. clear pattern emergesfrom this analsis" clumps of ords are 1er significantl associated ith thePSC in the midrange le1el of fre5uenc as one ould e=pect (bet&een,

$uman, table, using, results, bot$, stu!-, s$o&n, rotein, obsere!, ?N',

!ata are all at 0.*W or more compared to their occurrence in Co!uild" 0./*Wor less). Dther higher fre5uenc ords ha1e a slightl higher relati1efre5uenc in the PSC" of, an!, in, &as, &it$, for, &ere, b-, cell s, at, from, or,

et al., t$ese, after, also, mice, actiit- (all at 0.$W fre5uenc or more in thePSC). Con1ersel, se1eral grammatical items ha1e a significantl higher

percentage fre5uenc in Co!uild than in the PSC t$e, a, to, t$at, is, as, on,

t$is, are, be, not, &$ic$, an, $ae, it, all, $as, but, ot$er .

112




@1en a cursor glance at these lists suggests considera!le differences ofgrammatical and phraseological patterning !eteen scientific te=ts and ageneral language corpus. num!er of these differences are e=amined inmore detail !elo.

STG@ 2" 4@T@<;%N%NG SL%@NT 7D<4S. salient ord is a ord thatoccurs significantl more in one te=t (or part of a te=t) than it does in another.3sing the Wor!list program, ten of the most statisticall salient grammaticalitems from each su!corpus ere identified in order to e=amine theircollocational properties and phraseolog.

The Wor!list program create fre5uenc lists and compares them. Theresultant F-eord list places those ords that are more fre5uent in the te=ttpe at the top, and ords that are untpical of that te=t toards the !ottom ofthe list. The first step in salienc analsis in1ol1es the Wor!list programhich compares proportional fre5uenc lists made for each rhetorical sectionof the corpus, eighing the fre5uenc of ords in each list against the

proportion of the corpus made up ! the su!genre. Wor!list then comparesthe ord fre5uenc list of each section ith the hole corpus (or part of thecorpus if comparing < and 4sections) pro1iding a chis5uare score ofsignificant difference (as descri!ed ! /+a and &arn!roo- /++E). This iso!tained ! di1iding the o!ser1ed fre5uenc of the ord in the su!list ! the

o!ser1ed fre5uenc in the hole PSC and multipling ! the e=pectedfre5uenc, a proportion !ased on the si?e of the su!corpus relati1e to thehole PSC. Wor!list then prepares a list of salient ords for that rhetoricalsection. The results of the most statisticall significant salient ords for eachrhetorical section are listed in ppendices '. % ha1e onl listed the first 0items from each result" a Wor!list comparison assesses e1er ord includingall the ords that are nonsignificant. 3nfortunatel, these lists are too longto !e included in the ppendices.

To demonstrate the use of these salienc lists, here is an e=tract from thelist of salient items in !stracts"

113




Table / Wor!list 'bstract(salient &or!s in t$e PSC.

PSC

<an- 7ord 8re5.in!stracts

Win!stracts

8re5.inPSC

WinPSC

(W) Chi2 Pro!a !ilit

'/ !ut E$ (0.2W) EE' (0./W) /./ 0.000

'2 immortali?ed /' (0.0W) E+ (0.0W) /$.+'' shoed *' (0./W) '$ (0.0W) /$.* 0.00

0

'* increased *' (0./W) '$E (0.0W) /$.2 0.000

' inter1al /2 (0.0W) E (0.0W) /E.+

%tems at the top of the ord list are relati1el more fre5uent than those nearthe !ottom. This represents the first page of se1eral, so all of these ords are

particularl Fsalient or tpical of !stracts. Near the !ottom of the list in

ppendi= *, it can !e seen that immortali)e! is the '2nd most !stractsalient ord (! 1irtue of its o!ser1ed fre5uenc in the !stract, i.e. /'to-ens). This result is di1ided ! the o!ser1ed fre5uenc of the ord in thePSC (E+ to-ens). %ts occurrence is not >udged ! the program to !e significant(the chis5uare is calculated as /$.+ !ut a score is not shon). %n fact, fromthe Wor!list ta!les it can !e seen that there is a statistical cutoff point interms of items that are too Finfre5uent compared to items from the holecorpus. 8or !stracts the cutoff point is +0. This means that hile itemsith feer than +0 occurrences in the PSC ma !e 1er fre5uent in !stracts(i.e. Fsalient), the are not gi1en a pscore.

Dn the other hand, but is the '/st most a!stractsalient ord, the first

grammatical item on the list and has a chis5uare score of /./, hich at /degree of difference (&utler /+a"/$E) places it e1en !elo the 0./W le1el.This is considered to !e Fhighl significant (W or less is regarded asFsignificant) and those items ith a X 0.000 score in the lists are allconsidered statisticall 1er highl significant. Wor!list signals ords thatare important to the corpus as a hole ! shoing their percentage if it isgreater than 0./W (in the case of but 0.2W). s a statisticall salient ord asell as a grammatical item, but therefore merits out attention. This ord is

114




then listed as the /st !stractsalient item in ppendi= * (folloed ! t$eseand of and the other salient grammatical items from !stracts).

s internal measurements of the relati1e distri!ution of ords in thecorpus, the Wor!list results ser1e as the !asis for deciding hich items are ofinterest in our analsis. The assumption here is that a significantl fre5uentitem is li-el to pla some role in a phraseological pattern. The assumption isalso that the significance of an item in one part of the corpus ma !e tpicalof that rhetorical section, although clearl an analsis of the use of the ordould need to !e underta-en across the corpus to rule out o1ergeneralisation.%n theor, a ord ma ha1e a constant distri!ution !ut a different

phraseological pattern throughout the corpus. 8or this reason, those itemshich ha1e !een found to !e salient in different sections are analsed inse5uence in order to demonstrate an similarities or differences in !eha1iour.

%t is important to note here that chis5uared has recentl !een criticised forsome samples (Clear /++', ilgariff /++E) !ecause it compares te=ts ith anidealised notion of general distri!ution. ilgariffs o!ser1ations suggest thatto 1ersions of a &ritish @nglish corpus sho more 1ariance under chis5uare than hen merican and &ritish corpora are compared. :is argumentis perfectl reasona!le" since no to isolated sentences ill share the samedistri!ution of grammatical items, there should !e no surprise that highfre5uenc ords do in fact 1ar e1en ithin hat is supposed to !e a

homogenous corpus. ; argument ould !e that similar genres ha1e similargrammatical profiles, and that Ne1ertheless, it should !e clear from theppendices ' that the items identified as salient are indeed 1er highlsignificantl more fre5uent in different su!sections of the corpus that oneould normall e=pect in a general distri!ution (or at least some items aresalient in a num!er of sections, indicating that the are 1er untpical inothers). The ultimate test is that the phraseolog hich emerges shouldconform in some respects to pre1ious research hich has e=amineddifferences in research article su!sections, and % signal these instances asnecessar in the analsis !elo.

The su!corporasalient ords that emerge from the Wor!list analsis are

set out in section %# (data analsis). The rationale for choosing the first tengrammatical items rather than >ust the first ten salient items in a su!corpushas !een discussed a!o1e. The main argument is that grammatical items ha1e

!een relati1el neglected in traditional analses of phraseolog, althoughrecent corpus research has emphasised their role in grammatical collocationand collocational frameor-s (Gerson /++). % hope to demonstratethroughout section %# !elo that grammatical items ha1e 1er distincti1ecollocational properties. The significance of grammatical phraseolog can !esimpl illustrated here ! fact that the grammatical item but identified a!o1e

115




is more li-el to !e of interest to a discussion of the phraseolog of !stractsthan the ord Summar- hich is the most salient item in the list, !ut hich isclearl also e=pected to occur at the head of the !stract or Summarsection^ %n an case, grammatical items such as but tend to !e the mostsalient items in the list (this can !e seen in the results for the main sections ofthe article" ppendices , although admittedl the results for grammaticalitems are less stri-ing for the shorter Titles and !stracts). Ne1ertheless,man le=ical items are also important indicators of phraseolog, and % raisean interesting tendencies hen % discuss each indi1idual section in ChapterThree. The importance placed on grammatical items here should hoe1ernot detract from the initial assumptions % ha1e argued throughout this !oo-,that le=ical and grammatical items ultimatel operate on a continuum.

Some initial results are orth mentioning at this point. The folloinggrammatical items ere identified ! Wor!list as salient ords in thedifferent parts of the corpus (% indicate ! code the original su!corpus of eachitem. Some items, li-e F!oth or Fthis are listed ! their most fre5uent ordclass as o!ser1ed in the corpus)"

Au'iliary 3 5odal *er4s (//)" as (, ;), did (, <). !een (%), has (%),ha1e (%, 4), is (%, 4), can (%), ere (;), had

(<), !e (4), ma (4).Prepositions (//)" of (T, , %), for (T, ;), on (T), in (T, ,

<, 4), to (%), at (;), from (;), after (;, <)

!eterminers ()" these (), such (%), each (;), no (<), the(<), all (<), our (4), this (4)

Con?unctions ()" and (T, ;), !ut (), that (, 4), !oth (),hen (<)

Pronouns (*)" there (, <), ho (), it (%), e (%, 4),

%rammatical Ad*er4s (2)" then (;), not (<, 4)

The analsis co1ers ' items in total, and certain items are salient in anum!er of different sections of the research article. s mentioned a!o1e, thisallos for an analsis of phraseological distri!ution across the corpus" the

!eha1iour of in for e=ample, can !e analsed in Titles, !stracts and <esultsand 4iscussion sections. The salience of in in these sections can !e regardedas a result of its relati1e infre5uenc of use elsehere (in ;ethods and%ntroductions). &elo % set out the analsis in to different as" !grammatical item (thus e=amining the changing phraseolog of one item

116




throughout the corpus) and ! rhetorical section (esta!lishing a specific phraseolog for each su!section).

STG@ '" CDNCD<4NC@ NL6S%S. The first step in recognising patternsin the corpus is to create a computerreada!le inde= of the location of e1erord in the te=t, a process that is full automatic in most concordancing

pac-ages.. Patterns of use are made easier to see ! placing each instance of aord and its conte=t in the centre of the computer screen (the Fconcordance)and changing the list format so that ords to the left or the right are presentedtogether and alpha!eticall. %n #icroconcor!, patterns can !e calculatedstatisticall (for left, right and total collocates of a ord) and the patterns canalso !e outlined in colour, highlighting patterns o1er a long range and

permitting the analsis and sorting of collocational frameor-s (<enouf andSinclair /++/). :ere is an e=ample of an ordered concordance of the ord of

elicited from the #e!line corpus here the left hand pattern as re1ealedfirstM then an ordered listing is elicited for one ord to the right"

* Table Selection from an or!ere! concor!ance of of

nesthetic... management of a patient ith &artters sndrome.

neurosurgical... management of !rain Kmetastasis from colorectal

Pschological... management of !reast cancer patients in a group.

ort re1ie. '$/ ;anagement of chemotherapinduced neutropenic

Teicoplanin in the ;anagement of 8e!rile @pisodes in Neutropenic

Ch resistance in the management of head and nec- cancer.

current trends in the management of in1asi1e !ladder cancer.

current trends in the management of localised prostate cancer.

irradiation in the management of patients ith li1er Kmetastases"

Kinterdisciplinar management of ...retino!lastoma.

4iagnosis and management of sali1ar dsfunction.

8rom this e can gather that the e=pression ...management of ... is animportant a of introducing the concept of a specific treatment of disease inthe title (at least in cancer research). % ha1e imposed a notational con1entionon the concordances presented in this !oo- as follos"

old item a node ord or ord currentl under

117




in1estigation.

3nderlined item a highl fre5uent collocate of the node ord.

K%tem in curl !rac-ets a cluster of semanticall related le=icalitems.

I%tems in angled !rac-etsJ a fi=ed se5uence of collocates.

7e can see from the e=ample concordances that the fi=ed se5uence Iin themanagement ofJ is not >ust a phrase in itself !ut is related to a !roader

phraseolog. This is !ecause it collocates ith a consistent set of topical

patterns ith fe de1iations from the pattern. 8or e=ample, the e=pression isintroduced ! a general statement of research, in particular the collocationscurrent tren!s in, !iagnosis an! ... or a less fi=ed and more 1aried semanticset (clinical histochemical approaches" KTreicolanin in, irra!iation in,

resistance in...). :oe1er, the ord management on its on has a different phraseolog. %t allos the researcher to signal the general methodolog to !eunderta-en in the rest of the article" Kanest$etic, neurosurgical,

s-c$ological, inter!iscilinar-. Similar modification of the tpe of cancer

is also in1ol1ed to the right of the e=pression and these could !e said to !etpical processes of inclusion of methodolog and precision of pro!lem inthe noun phrases of titles.

The ad1antage of this -ind of 1isual analsis is that it re1eals patterns thatma not easil !e re1ealed ! automaticall deri1ed collocation counts.:a1ing identified a pattern such as management of , it can !e seen that thee=pression is semanticall modified ! a topic that is onl intuiti1elaccessi!le" a statement of the disease or its smptoms (6 cancer , 6 atients).The 1isual cues are not used in all cases, !ut it can !e immediatel gatheredfrom the a!o1e e=ample that the term management in1ol1es to consistent

phraseologies.%n order to signal here a reading of the concordance has re1ealed a large

scale le=ical pattern, a semantic co1ering term is e=pressed in !rac-ets and insmall capitals K4%S@S@ 6. %n the phraseological analsis section of the !oo- %

ha1e identified four ma>or semantic categories" <@S@<C:, CL%N%CL, @;P%<%CL

and &%DC:@;%CL, ith certain further su!categories. % ha1e also used thesm!ol to demonstrate the man tpes of treatmentrelated names ofcompounds (often ith positi1e connotations), and 6 for man diseaserelateditems. 8inall, in order to ma-e the optimum use of e=amples, a ma=imum offi1e concordance lines is usuall shon for each pattern.

STG@ *" CLC3LT%NG CDLLDCT%DN. 8or m purposes, collocation is astatistical phenomenon of language that can !e used to >ustif the

118




identification of patterns ! the analsis of concordances of a specificconte=t. 8or e=ample, in the #e!line control corpus, management as foundto !e not onl a fre5uent !ut also a significant collocate of of . FAf+ itself asa significant ord in titles hen compared ith the rest of the corpus. Thusthe >ustification of analsis of the initial node of and hence e=pressions inhich it plas a role, are !ased on some comparison ith a norm. The termFstatistical collocation is thus seen as the >ustification for the assignment of

phraseological patterns. The term Fphraseological collocation is used here tosignif patterns that are not significant or e1en fre5uent ! themsel1es !ut are1isi!l (or intuiti1el) part of the phraseolog, such as the pattern K@;P%<%CL

P<DC@SS in the management of K4%S@S@ 6. !uiltin assumption of statistical collocation (as opposed to

phraseological collocation) is that the closer collocates are to their nodes, thegreater the collocational force !eteen them. This has led to dispute o1er theamount of cote=t (the span to the left or right of a node) that should !e ta-eninto account, on the grounds that, as Sinclair argued, collocates are notindependent 1aria!les. %f so, there should !e some sstematic approach todetermining statistical dependence. Generall, phraseological studies eithertreat collocation as !irectional (either left of or right of the node) orinformational (collocates are calculated for !oth sides). The also 1ar in the1alue the assign to the position of the collocate. Thus a different 1alue can

!e either assigned locall- for each position of each collocate" first left, secondleft, first right, second right and so on, or assigned globall- to a collocateregardless of position or span. 4ifferent collocation programs pro1ide a rangeof means of calculating fre5uenc of collocation (to a span of ten) and

position of collocation (to a span of three)"

/. #icroconcor! Short range (' = ') glo!alised collocation (eitherinformational or directional)

2. 'stec Short range (' = ') localised collocation (directional onl)'. Wor!list Long range (/0 = /0) glo!alised collocation (either

informational or directional)

@ach of the programs has statistical and analtical ad1antages anddra!ac-s. 'stec s S6N program calculates collocations for all items to theleft of the node and the right of the node separatel for a span of ' = '. Thusthe first line for of from the PSC is"

the (/$*) a (/'*) the ($*) of the ('*) of (E$) a ('*)

This is useful for determining distri!ution according to position, !ut does notgi1e an immediate pattern that can !e folloed up ! closer analsis !

119




concordance. #icroconcor! , on the other hand, gi1es e5ual 1alue tocollocates up to a span of ' = '. Thus, in the PSC ;edline corpus, the firstthree left collocates of of are t$e (/00), an! (+) and cancer (*/) hile rightcollocates are t$e ($) cancer (E+) and in (E'). The program gi1es at thesame time a 1ie of the main concordance and the full cote=t, alloing animmediate o1er1ie of phraseological patterns in hich a ord ma !ein1ol1ed. Wor!list calculates glo!al collocation to a ider span of /0 = /0.The results are more dispersed than those of #icroconcor! , as shon !elo"

Table R Collocates of 4 of in a *0 *0 san, accor!ing to t$e

Wor!list rogram.

Collocate FreKuenc- of

left

collocation.

FreKuenc- of

rig$t

collocation.

of /*2/ /*/cancer /20' /2+in /20 /2/the //E ///Ea *+2 **$ith '$E '+2 !reast 2$+ '2

for '+ 22+ patients 2* 2cell 2+ 2'/human /$ 2+

This shos that patterns appear to !e esta!lished e1en across such a idespan (of breast, of $uman). The program also allos for a distri!utionanalsis not across se1eral te=ts !ut ithin a te=t, gi1ing a F!ar code of thecooccurrence of up to three items. %n his on collocation program, Clear(/++') ta-es a indo of ords i.e. a span of 2 = 2 (to ords to the left

of a node, the node itself, to ords to the right of a node) and does not ta-einto account hether items are left or right collocates" the are all calculatedtogether. Clear uses to principles of information retrie1al from corpora.

Precision is the measure of ho successfull the sstem retrie1es interestingdata. ecall is a measure of ho much interesting data are actuall found andho much are lost. Phillips (/+) and Smad>a (/++'a) aim at a totalcollocational description of a corpus, and thus recall is an important conceptfor them. 8or the purposes of this !oo-, hoe1er, recision is a sufficientmeasure of the significance of hat Clear terms mutual information.

120




t-ins, Cal?olari and Picchi (/++2) define mutual information forcollocation as the logarithm (to !ase 2) of the o!ser1ed cooccurrence of acollocate ith a node di1ided ! the independent pro!a!ilit of eithermeeting ! chance ithin the corpus. The result is s5uared to gi1e a steadilincreasing logarithmic ;% score, here the highest scoring items areconsidered the most Fcollocational. The folloing ta!le illustrates the factthat highl mutuall informational collocates do not correspond to the mostfre5uent collocates (here the collocations are deri1ed from #icroconcor! )"

Table 7 #utual information =#9> of collocates of t$e &or! of from t$e

#e!line titles subcorus.

Collocate Corpus

Rank

Frequency

of

collocation.

MI score.

Lo P!"bs#$p&'

presentation V of /0 $ .*department V of /$ /0 .0concentration V of '* /$ $.Ema>orit V of /' E $.*significance V of 2* /0 $.2died V of 2 /0 E.management V of *' / E.

... Oof V patients // 2* 2.0of V of 2 /.$of V as + /E /.*

The ;% score also re1eals different patterns" it is onl until the last half of the;% ta!le for of (see the nalsis section //./ and ppendi= C for full details)that righthand collocates appear, suggesting that the use of of is largelmoti1ated ! a limited set of lefthand researchacti1it or empiricalloriented ords li-e resentation, !eartment, ma1orit-, measurement hich

are then 5ualified ! a more di1erse group of diseaserelated items (!isease6, cancer 5, atient ...). This e=ample illustrates the fact that fre5uenc andsignificance onl tell half the stor" there ma !e collocational patterns to !ediscerned in the less statisticall salient parts of the ta!le.

8or a num!er of reasons the ;% score as not used in the main analsis ofthis !oo-. To !egin ith, % e=amined fift collocations of of to o!tain thea!o1e ta!le. %f ten items from each rhetorical section ere analsed, % ouldha1e to calculate a large num!er of collocates for each of the ' items" thatmeans /+00 (' = 0) toord com!inations. Since % am interested in

121




longer collocational patterns than 2 ords, such an analsis ould not !emathematicall accurate. This is the reasoning !ehind :oarths reticenceo1er automatic identification of phrasemes (/++E). nother pro!lem ithcollocational counts is that some items are significant et ha1e fe shortrange collocational properties (such as the statisticall significant use of but

in the a!stract). ae (/++0) suggests that sampling !e carried out o1er alarge amount of te=t to include discussion of longrange collocation such as

so ... as. %n a relati1el small corpus such as the PSC, hoe1er, most of theoccurrences of an item such as of can !e analsed, since the highestfre5uenc items in the corpus displa remar-a!l sta!le collocational

properties.To summarise" collocational patterns are identified firstl in terms of ra

fre5uenc in this !oo- ithin a span of ' = ' hile more di1erse patterns areesta!lished ! concordance analsis. No automatic method (such as the ;%score) is applied. Statistical collocations (signalled here ! underlining) aretherefore a measure of ran- occurrence ithin the span of the node ord, !utno statistical significance is claimed for phraseological patterns as a hole(in particular in1ol1ing semanticallrelated items).

122




I,. Collocations and t#e $esearc# Article

The conte=t and specificit of the research article genre ha1e !een e=ploredin the introductor sections of this !oo-. theor of te=t has !een proposedin hich collocations and phraseolog are seen as central to the discourse of

science. %n order to e=amine the research article genre more sstematicall,the construction of the Pharmaceutical Sciences Corpus (PSC) as descri!edin section %%%. %n this section, % e=amine the specific phraseological andcollocational properties of the corpus ith a 1ie to e=ploring the tpicalstle of scientific te=ts.

The description throughout the folloing sections attempts to anser a !asic hpothesis a!out the research article" collocational patterns are assumedto correspond to rhetorical functions, and are also considered to !e consistentithin different sections of the cancer research article (the socalledrhetorical sections" Title, !stract, %ntroduction, ;ethods, <esults and4iscussion). %n order to e=amine this specific claim, % set out firstl a

separate analsis of those grammatical items of statistical significance indifferent research article sections (at times this e=tends to four sections peritem). Dn the !asis of the remaining grammatical items (those hich are onlsalient in one specific section), % then e=amine the particular phraseolog ofeach rhetorical section in turn.

1. Collocations of Salient -ords in t#e P#armaceutical Sciences Corpus

s e=plained in section %%%.E, a Wor!list analsis of all the ords in a sectionof the corpus pro1ides us ith a sstematic comparison of the section and thecorpus as a hole. The most statisticall significant items are termed salientords (as listed in ppendices '), and these items can !e sorted accordingto three criteria"

/. significant le=ical items.2. significant items of high fre5uenc in the PSC.'. significant grammatical items.

123




%n m discussion of data collection a!o1e, % argued that grammatical itemsgi1e the optimum amount of phraseological information for a mediumtosmall si?ed corpus such as the PSC. s e ha1e seen, statisticall the PSC istoo small to pro1ide interesting phraseological data for lo fre5uenc items(criterion /) and in such cases Wor!list imposes a statisticalldeterminedcutoff for each section (those items hich do not o!tain a X000 score). %tcan !e seen that man such criterion/ items are 1er specific le=ical items or$aa legomena (accidents or 1er or uni5ue forms such as &EC'8/ in theTitlesalient list). Criterion 2 on the other hand pro1ides an immense amountof 1alid data, as can !e seen in the results for Titles and !stracts(ppendices ' and *). ; argument for criterion ' simpl rests on theassumption that an analsis of phraseolog from the !asis of grammaticalitems minimises the amount of data analsis needed ! characterising glo!al

patterns first. % maintain that the -ind of data o!tained under criterion 2ould !e more suita!le for a le=icographic or terminological sur1e than a

phraseological one. s e ha1e seen, fe phraseological studies ha1econcentrated on grammatical items (criterion ') !ecause the amounts of datato !e analsed are too large. %ronicall, these studies are also often too largeto pro1ide insights a!out specific te=ttpes. nd it has !een shon in ourdiscussion of the le=icogrammar that man phraseological units contain atleast one grammatical item. %n other ords, if grammatical items are analsed

as a priorit o1er and a!o1e criterion 2 items, then it follos that le=icalitems of interest should emerge as organising elements ithin a larger phraseolog. %n most cases, as can !e seen in ppendices , grammaticalitems are more fre5uent in an case, and it is li-el that an patterns thedispla ill !e more statisticall significant than those of loer fre5uencle=ical items.

s detailed in section %%%.E a!o1e, salient ords are selected from eachrhetorical section !ecause the are statisticall atpical of the rest of thecorpus. The are therefore an internal measure, tpical of the rhetoricalsection rather than of the corpus as a hole. The salient grammatical itemsfor the si= main rhetorical sections in the corpus are listed in the ta!le !elo.

8or comparati1e purposes, salient ords hich en>o a higher ran- in thePSC than in the Co!uild corpus are underlined. (Statistics for each section are

pro1ided later. Dnl fi1e grammatical items are salient in Titles)"

124




Table . Salient Grammatical Wor!s in $etorical Sections of t$e PSC.

Titles A4stracts Introductions 5et#ods $esults !iscussion

/ of !ut !een ere no that

2 for these has as in !e

' on of ha1e at did ma

* and there is then not is

in in such for had our

E as can each after in

$ that it and there not

did e from the this

+ ho of after hen e

/0 !oth to ith all ha1e

%t can !e seen that some sections are more FCo!uildli-e than others.Parado=icall, ' of the ords set out in the ta!le a!o1e are in factrelati1el more fre5uent in the Co!uild /+$ corpus than in the PSC (asdetailed in section 2.E a!o1e). Patterns attri!uted to Co!uild items marepresent a Fgeneral language 5ualit of that rhetorical section, although ase demonstrate !elo, their use in fact changes significantl in the corpus.Perhaps not surprisingl hoe1er, %ntroduction and 4iscussion sections ha1ea more Fgeneral language 1oca!ular, hile the salient items in Titles and!stracts seem to !e further aa from general usage. Salient ords that aremore fre5uent in the corpus (in Titles and !stracts) presuma!l ha1e

phraseological patterns hich mo1e the corpus as a hole aa from thegeneral language. This sense of distance is of course a con1enient metaphor"the real difference lies in the high densit of use of such items as prepositionsin these sections. Such features of language are noted in the analses set out

!elo. %n summar, hen grammatical items are analsed in the corpus, e

are characterising a particularit of the rhetorical section that sets it apartfrom other sections, not necessaril one that sets the corpus apart fromCo!uild or the general language. Some ords, such as F!eteen ha1e ahigher ran- in the PSC !ut are relati1el sta!le across the corpus" the aretherefore not co1ered this -ind of analsis.

%n the folloing sections, % ha1e set out grammatical items hich aresalient in se1eral sections in alpha!etical order in order to immediatelcompare the !eha1iour of an item from one section to the ne=t (such as is

hich is salient in %ntroduction and 4iscussion sections). Secondl, certainitems are 1er highl significant for that rhetorical section onl, and can !e

125




more usefull descri!ed in a general discussion of each section as a hole.The folloing ta!les indicate the order in hich % ha1e conducted these toanalses"

Table O eeate! Salient Wor!s Sorte! b- 9tem

Titles A4stracts Introduction 5et#ods $esults !iscussion

after b band b bdid b b

for b bha1e b bin b b b bis b bnot b bof b b bthat b bthere b bas b be b b

Table *0 "niKue Salient Wor!s Sorte! b- Section

Title A4stract Introduction 5et#ods $esults !iscussion

on !ut !een ere no !ethese has at had maho such then the our !oth can each hen this

it from allto ith

@ach one of these items is analsed as a node ord !elo, thus $as and $aeare analsed separatel (it is orth noting here that each ord form has asufficientl different set of collocates to >ustif this separation, a pointdefended in our discussion of the le=icogrammar, a!o1e). These salientords are analsed !elo ith the data that moti1ate their selection (thesefigures can also !e seen in the ppendices). % ha1e attempted to limit thenum!er of e=amples of collocation to fi1e, although there is some 1ariation inthis. 7ith long e=amples % ha1e sometimes had to omit all other elementse=cept the heads of comple= nominals or omit modifing ords hich did

126




not fit into the span (for e=ample, a long set of technical premodifiers placed !efore a significant collocate of the node ord).

Dne specific finding hich emerges from the corpus needs to !e signalledhere !efore % set out the data in full. There is a strong tendenc forcollocations to cluster around le=ical items that share similar semanticcharacteristics. 8our process tpes appear to predominate in the corpus data.The are listed here from relati1e pro=imit to the scientists (research

processes) to relati1e distance (!iochemical processes)"

a) <@S@<C: (cogniti1e, 1er!al processes) or Fmetacomments a!out researchitself, and hich characterise the riting acti1it or act of o!ser1ation that theresearchers are engaged in (for e=ample, from the ;edline corpus" stu!-,ealuation, case, comarison, anal-sis, !etection, c$aracterisation, assessment ).

!) CL%N%CL (material, !eha1ioural processes) include the medical ormethodological processes carried out specificall ! the scientists ine=perimentation" (e.g. treatment, t$era-, care, management, resection, in1ection).

c) @;P%<%CL (relational, material, perceptual processes) refer to theoreticalmodels or e=press 5uantitati1e o!ser1ations and the !eha1iour of data (effect, role,

ris%, influence, use, releance, stabilit-, increase).

d) &%DC:@;%CL (material, !eha1ioural processes) identif the technical !iochemical interactions and entities o!ser1ed ! the researchers" (eression,

infusion, s-nt$esis, $-!rol-sis, in!uction).

% find !elo that so called Fregular phraseological units tpicall restrict thesemantic components of the phrase to one of these process tpes (or e1en asu!tpe). %n other ords, one of the defining characteristics of each processtpe is that the occur in complementar distri!ution to each other. This is ineffect the principle !ehind the original Co!uild dictionar" senses are defined

! collocational or e1en grammatical !eha1iour. % use this classification todescri!e the glo!al characteristics of a phrase !ut emphasise here that these

categories emerged initiall from the corpus analsis and need to !econsidered in their phraseological en1ironment.%t should also !e noted here that % ma-e reference to clause structure often

in terms of :allidaan grammar (/+), including terms such as relational(copular) clauses and material (transiti1e) clauses, ad>uncts (sentencemodifiers) etc. The scientific processes" !iochemical, clinical, empirical orresearch also closel relate to :allidas transiti1it processes (material,relational, 1er!al, mental, !eha1ioural...). 8or e=ample, most research

processes correspond semanticall (if not phraseologicall) ith :allidasmental or 1er!al processes.

127




2.T#e P#raseology of Salient Items

%n this section % set out alpha!eticall those grammatical items hich aresalient in more than one research article section. Their relati1e ran- ofsalience in relation to the Wor!list comparison is included in !rac-ets.

2./ 8T@< / (;ethods salient ord +).

7e ha1e seen a!o1e that in a general le=ical comparison !eteen the PSCand the Co!uild corpus, prepositions emerge as the most significantlfre5uent items in science riting, hereas au=iliaries and modal 1er!s,con>unctions, pronouns and determiners appear to !e less pre1alent. Thissuggests that the research article genre differs from the general language at a

!asic grammatical le1el in nominal groups (in hich prepositions pla a -erole), phrasal prepositional 1er! usage and the use of sentence ad>uncts. The

phraseolog of Fafter is important in ;ethods sections in the e=pression oftime. The preposition does not hoe1er head a timerelated PP (preposition

phrase), !ut instead introduces a clinical process performed !efore the actionindicated ! the 1er!. The methodological procedure is thus presented in

re1erse order in the sentence. Some tpical e=amples include"

@Clinical process after @Clinical nominalisation

ere added 2* hours after amputation

ere -illed 2E'0 das after in>ection

cultures gron ' hours after the start of chemotherap

regimes administered se1eral hours after heating at reflu=

laction as applied for 2 hours after drug administration

'fter tends to !e introduced ! passi1ised clinical or e=perimentalinter1entions such as obtaine!, a!!e!, %ille! (its ' most fre5uent le=ical leftcollocates). This is mar-edl different to its use in the general language,here after more fre5uentl introduces a time e=pression in narrati1e(according to Co!uild the most fre5uent uses include after t&o !a-s, after a

&$ile" these are more fre5uent, !ut of course the preposition enters into manother patterns). 8urthermore, e can see that alternati1e time e=pressions inthe PSC ta-e on a rather different phraseolog. 8or e=ample, if a specific

128




time reference is missing in the lefthand e=pression, after is usuallintensified ! Fimmediatel"

remo1ed immediatel after sacrifice

returned to their cages immediatel after surger

saline as remo1ed immediatel after surger

e=cised immediatel after e=posure

cut into to parts immediatel after the cclophophanineinfusion

These e=pressions also pro1ide numerous euphemisms for -illinge=perimental animals (as in the e=ample after sacrifice). #ariouseuphemisms of this sort emerge in our corpus data !elo.

8T@< 2 (<esults salient ord E).

%n <esults sections, after is used predominantl in the phrase Iafter

treatment J (more than 0 occurrences). part from time periods, obsere! isthe most fre5uent leftcollocate, and in man e=amples after ta-es on itsmore usual general language function introducing time phrases"

the resistant phenotpe o4ser*ed after /0 min. dilution time

the phenotpe as o4ser*ed after 2 das culti1ation

the resistance as o4ser*ed after * ee-s of treatment

This might !e ta-en as a small mo1e in the direction of general languagestle. The le=ical phrase Uafter a!1ustment for J also !ecomes pre1alent in<esults sections and is used sentenceinitiall (in the terminolog of themerheme analsis) in a comple= topical theme. s % point out in m specific

discussion of <esults sections !elo, much of the recurrent phraseolog ofthis section has to do ith rephrasing. %n this case, the e=pressionreformulates a 1aria!le and passes o1er or summarises a comple= set ofcalculations"

IAfter ad>ustment forJ other factors, e

IAfter ad>ustment forJ !irth eight

IAfter ad>ustment forJ this additional 1ariation

IAfter ad>ustment forJ tumor stage

129




IAfter ad>ustment forJ the same factors

2.2 N4/ (Title salient ord *).

Con>unctions are perhaps the least li-el candidates to displa collocational properties. 6et an! appears in a num!er of relati1el predicta!lecollocational frameor-s throughout the corpus, for e=ample" combine!

Kresearch process clinical process and (research process clinical process,here the ord combine! appears to function in Titles as an additionalintensifier"

com!ined presentation and discussion.

com!ined chemotherap and e1aluation.

com!ined e1aluation and comparison.

com!ined diagnosis and management.

com!ined modalit ad1ance radiation in children and radiotherap.

Since an! is a salient ord in Titles, it presuma!l has a significant role inthe presentation of data. 7hile an! is treated in general language as a

con>unction signalling similarit or connectedness in longer stretches ofdiscourse, in research article Titles it is primaril used to signal causalit. %nother ords, the con>unction >oins items that ma !e construed to !e orthof scientific en5uir and has the pattern" Kdisease related cause and

Kdisease"

diet and cancer

dementia and cancer

colorectal cancer and genes

gastric cancer and metastasesthe role of color 4oppler 3S and prostrate cancer

longer e=pression on the same semantic lines appears to !e triggered ! anempirical process item (such as lin%, !iffers, relates, relations$i) andin1ol1es a collocational frameor- bet&een and or Kempirical processKbet&een Kdisease related phenomenon and Kdisease"

130




gene e=pression differs 4eteen species and malignant tissues

lin- found 4eteen smo-ing and ris- of cancer

relationship 4eteen geneamplification

and long termmalignanc

relationship of Ger&e=pression

4eteen and endometricalcancer

Prototatic T<: relates peptides

4eteen and high cell count

%t is nota!le that these Titles (deri1ed from the #e!line su!corpus) in1ol1enonfinite and finite clauses, hich are as e ha1e noted a!o1e a no1elcharacteristic of Titles in de1elopmental !iolog. &esides relating pre1iouslunrelated causes of disease, relationships are also esta!lished !eteenscientific disciplines"

The relation !eteen clinical and histologicaloutcome

&ridging the gap !eteen research and clinical practice

Similarl an! lin-s complementar items !elonging to a limited class ofrelated items in the collocational frameor- in an!

(cancer) in children and adolescents

(patterns of !reast cancer) in sian and Caucasian omen

(clinical applications) in prognosis and disease monitoring.

(mechanism of action) in disease and. therap

Such a frameor- of complementar listed items also appears to !e initiated ! leftcollocates of 4of+ in e=pressions such as 4Potential combination of+ .

This includes research and empirical process items" !etection, comarison,imact, role, effect, leels. This leads to a longer collocational frameor- ofthe form of in an! s can !e seen in a num!er of Titles in ppendi=2, a general pattern emerges ith the folloing phraseolog" Kgeneralfinding of Kfocus of research" a !iochemical entit in Kdata sample. 8ore=ample from the PSC"

Prolonged retention of high concentrations of fluorouracil in human and murinetumours.

131




4e1elopmental to=icit of !oric acid in mice and rats.

ntitumor acti1it of the aromatase inhi!itor 8C@ 2*+2 on 4;&induced mammartumors in o1ariectomi?ed rats treated ith testosterone.

Comparati1e immunolog using intact fragments of ...antiC@ anti!od in a colonic=enograft ;odel.

The influence of the schedule and the dose of gemcita!ine on the antitumour efficac in

e=perimental human cancer.

Characteri?ation of p' mutations in methlene chlorideinduced lung tumorsfrom &EC'8/ mice.

%t appears that the phraseolog of the frameor- ofin =an!> forces us tointerpret each constituent in rhetorical rather than le=ical terms. %n otherords, nouns hich ould normall !e seen as part of a general semanticfield ha1e a specific role ithin the title. 8or e=ample, !eelomental

toicit-, comaratie immunolog- and c$aracteri)ation are seen as researchfields or research acti1ities out of conte=t, !ut in NP (nominal) Titles thecan !e considered as the main finding of the article. Terms such asC$aracteri)ation and ?eelomental toicit- are claims as a function of

!eing placed in thematic position ithin a comple= nominal, !ut theirassociated meaning of result or finding is also reinforced ! the appearanceof other le=ical items hich are unam!iguousl empiricall oriented in this

position. The can !e compared ith T$e influence of t$e sc$e!ule ... 'ntitumour actiit- and Prolonge! retention hich are specific claims a!outeffects or ne data. %n Titles, F 9nfluence+ and F 'ntitumour+ e=press a

!iochemical claim a!out causalit, hile F Prolonge!+ ma-es an empirical5uantitati1e claim. This can !e further compared ith e=pressions in hichthe second (grammaticall su!ordinate) element is introduced ! in and thenominal head reformulates an empirical claim" ?ecrease! resistance to N,N(

!imet$-late! ant$rac-clines in multi!rug(resistant Frien! er-t$roleu%emia

cells. Nominal patterns ith of and to e=press a transiti1e relationship and arerelati1el fi=ed. The !oth operate in parallel to nominals ith in. Patternsith an! are less fi=ed, !ut operate ithin the o1erall phraseolog and e=tracomple=it ithin the nominal does not affect the o1erall pattern (as can !eseen in the Titles in ppendi= 2). Such patterns pro1ide a consistent schemahich places the findings of the research in thematic position hen the Titleis e=pressed nominall (and this pattern differs considera!l from the mannonnominal Titles here the findings are placed more stereotpicall insentencefinal Fne position as in S2 is an in!een!ent factor of goo!

rognosis in rimar- breast cancer ). ; claim is therefore that hile theseould perhaps !e tri1ial patterns in terms of the general language,

132




grammatical frameor-s correspond to highl meaningful phraseologithin the conte=t of research article Titles.

N42 (;ethods salient ord $)

s ith the items 4t$en+ and 4eac$+ hich e see !elo, the statisticalsignificance of 4an!+ in ;ethods sections is due to the general tendenc tose5uence stages of clinical and empirical analsis. 'n! is used in fi=ede=pressions hich can !e seen as routine collocations, as in the folloingrecurrent e=amples" cut an! staine!, cut an! mounte!, cut an! late!,

culture! an! late! , secte! an! staine! &it$...treate! an! counterstaine!&it$ remoe! an! routinel- staine! &it$...!eeloe! an! staine!... :oe1er,chronological se5uence is not alas respected in the phraseolog, andclinical processes such as collecte! seem to !e e=pressed as a redundantintensifier"

collected and counterstored

collected and mounted

collected and placed

collected and stored

Such unremar-a!le phraseolog stands in star- contrast to the -e role ofan! in the e=pression of causalit in Titles.

2.' 4%4/ (!stract salient ord )

7e ha1e seen in the !asic statistical count that 1er! forms, especiallau=iliar and modal forms such as !i! and $ae are in fact somehat lessfre5uent in the PSC in comparison ith Co!uild. The salience of !i! in!stracts and <esults is therefore significant, !ecause e are dealing

therefore ith a phraseolog that is 1er specific to these to sections. Themodal 1er! !i! is onl used in to as in !stracts" to introduce thenegati1e not , and in elliptical e=pressions such as Ias !i! t$e NP ...Perhaps surprisingl, the presentation of negati1e results is a -e function in!stracts. Such findings are included partl to deflect possi!le criticism !utalso !ecause empirical negati1e results are >ust as nesorth in thediscussion of nullhpotheses.

133




The su!>ects of !i! reflect the tpical sentence themes of the !stract" processes of tumour groth (or stopping the groth) ( roagation, gro&t$,

eression, in$ibition) and pharmaceutical molecules that are in1ol1ed inhelping or hindering these processes (c$olesterol, met$-l c$lori!e,

!oorubicin, $earin). #er!s that are negated tend to !e empiricalmeasurement or reporting 1er!s pre1alent after 4but+ (Ubut !i! not J...increase, !ecrease, s$o& t$at ). Tpical su!>ects of these clauses are5uantitati1e empirical processes (efficienc-, correlation, t$e !ata, samle

resonse). This pattern differs slightl for !i! in <esults sections, herenegati1e findings tend to relate to empirical processes of causalit rather than5uantification. The reason for the difference in e=pression ma !e that<esults sections tend to >ustif and e=plain negati1e findings (such as lac- ofcausalit, effect or e1idence) hile !stracts state datarelated results,lea1ing inferences a!out Fhigher empirical or research implications to themain te=t.

4%42 (<esults salient ord ')

% discuss the role of 4!i!+ in <esults sections in the ne=t section (under not ).:oe1er, !i! is fre5uentl used in to other important sntacticen1ironments. The first after but is as an intensifier of a !iochemical process

or empirical finding (notice that in !stracts e=pressions of this tpe in1ol1ethe negati1e not )"

!ut did appear to induce protein

!ut did demonstrate the presence of

!ut did cause a statisticall significant increase in the elimination of

!ut did cause some increase in the le1els of C6P2

!ut did cease to gain eight

The second use is elliptical after the con>unction t$an and an empirical or !iochemical process 1er! in a comparison of findings (such a discursi1ee=pression is also not used in !stracts)"

caused more eight loss than it did in nontumour !earing mice

ielded more snergism than did e=posure to Cis PT

e=erted sig. higher to=icit than did danoru!icin

produced much higher 1alues than did cells pretreated ith !oth

134




treated mice generated more :2D2 than did C$&L mice

2. * 8D< / (Title salient ord 2)

F8or is a significant salient ord in Titles and generall signals a specificresearch pro!lem, usuall a disease. lthough rather infre5uent in PSCTitles, for emerges as a salient ord hen the larger control corpus (;edlineTitles) is compared ith ;edline !stracts. %n titles, for is used to

postmodif comple= nominals and has the phraseological pattern" Ktreatmentrelated item for Kdisease related item 6. This e=pression has to

1ariants" empirical or clinical process items"

empirical item" for disease"

conse5uences, estimates for colorectal !reast

implications, ris- for ad1anced o1arian

ris- factor for ... cancer

clinical item" for cancer of the li1er...diagnosis, radiotherap, resection for

chemotherap, screening, therap for

surger, uretoscop for

%n the larger ;edline control corpus of titles, to thirds of e=pressions of thissort are placed in thematic position as in Jioreersible rotection for t$e

$os$o grou.... in a similar resultsrelated pattern to the one descri!edunder an!. For is thus not idel used as an ad>unct in this part of theresearch article.

8D< 2 (;ethods salient ord )

%n Titles 4for+ is used in a num!er of e=pressions to lin- causalit anddisease, hereas in ;ethods sections it e=presses a stage of analsis ithinthe methodolog, for e=ample"

the primers ere used for amplification

135




the procedure as used for calculating the C% 1alues

the pro!es ere used for characteri?ation of anti!od

the supernatant as used for comparisons

the test as used for e1aluation of patients

particularl regular phraseolog emerges in the e=pression 4eamine! for+

hich is effecti1el a prepositional 1er! ith the phraseolog Kanimatedonors cells Iere e=amined forJ K1isi!le diseaserelated item"

8i1e animals Iere e=amined forJ e=ternal defects

the animals Iere e=amined forB soft tissue...a!normalities

Li1ers Iere e=amined forJ grossl 1isi!le lesions

donor organs Iere e=amined forJ 1isceral defects

Li1e fetuses Iere e=amined forJ gross defects

...carcasses Iere e=amined forJ malfunctions

Cell mar-ers Iere e=amined forJ s-eletal malformations

...cell lines Iere e=amined forJ malformation and 1ariation

Such a regular phraseolog demonstrates the effects of semantic prosod. 8ore=ample, in the folloing e=pression, T$e $ea!s &ere senall- sectione! an!

eamine! for T actiit-, e must assume that 4T actiit-+ is e1idence of adiseaserelated defect on the !asis of the more general phraseolog. %t isorth noting again at this point that hen such related !ut disparate items areo!ser1ed in a regular phraseolog the are seen as a collocational cluster.

Similarl, the ad>ecti1al complement e=pression Ieligible for J is used tosignal the rele1ance of certain data and collocates ith stud"

fifteen patients ere Ieligi!le forB entr into the present stud

the control group Ieligi!le forB the stud

%n order to !e Ieligi!le forB the stud

to groups ere Ieligi!le forB the present stud

136




2. :#@/ (%ntroduction salient ord ')

The significance of $ae (and $as) in %ntroduction sections confirms manintuiti1e findings e=pressed in pre1ious @SP research. %n general the perfecttogether ith e=traposed e=pressions in 4it $as been seen t$at+ is acon1entional a of reporting present research processes, hile the presenttense, as e see for the item 4is+ !elo is parado=icall used to report Fgi1enor Fpast !iochemical facts. D1er W of the instances of Fha1e in the corpusare in1ol1ed in research reports in 4$ae been+ (discussed !elo). Df theremaining instances, the most common uses of the 1er! are as au=iliar inimpersonal summaries of pre1ious research as in 4$as receie!+ 4$ae

receie! =little, muc$> attention+ , and also 4$ae attracte! =muc$, a lot of>

!ebate, attention+ . particular phraseolog is associated ith the 1er!F s$o&+ , this time used in the acti1e 1er! complement e=pression" Istudiesha1e shon thatJ K!iochemical result"

<andomised clinical studies #a*e shon that @P is e5ui1alent to ;T

%mmunological studies #a*e shon that oral feeding in drin- ater correlates ithse1eral colonic cancers.

Some studies #a*e shon that there is considera!le heterogeneit

@arlier studies #a*e shon that some acti1it mutation in ras genes are specific.Pre1ious studies in this la!orator #a*e shon that semiempirical and a! initiomethods can !e coupled...

The onl e=ception to this pattern is the replacement of Fstudies ! thenames of other researchers ( Jar!&ell an! C$eng $ae s$o&n t$at, Tanis$

an! co(&or%ers $ae s$o&n t$at etc.). similar and important use of the1er! is introduced ! 4&e+ (e=cept that the prefers 1er! is Ffound" 4&e $ae

foun! t$at ) !ut this change in collocational !eha1iour is discussed !elounder 4&e+. These general o!ser1ations are in accordance ith pre1iousresearch on tense (:eslot /+2, Salager;eer /++2). :oe1er, $ae is notonl used in the PSC in the direct reporting of past research !ut also in thee=pression of su!>ecti1e >udgements. The third use of the 1er! does not report

pre1ious research directl !ut e=presses esta!lished facts in terms of positi1eor negati1e e1aluation (the !rac-eted ords are nonoptional e1aluations)"

... #a*e a Kprofound ena!ling effect

... #a*e a Kgood prognosis

137




... #a*e a Khigh glcoltic rate

... #a*e a Khigh prognosis potential

... #a*e Kpoor capacit

... #a*e Kpoor oral a1aila!ilit

... #a*e Ksignificant role

... #a*e Ktotall differentmolecular frameor-

... #a*e Kelldocumented effect

%t is noticea!le throughout the corpus that present tense simple relationalclauses of this tpe (in1ol1ing $as, $ae, is, are) almost alas in1ol1esu!>ecti1e or e1aluati1e e=pressions. Simple e=pressions of relation ithoutsome e=plicit e1aluation are rare. This is mar-edl different to patterns ofusage in the general language. The Cobuil! dictionar does not listse1aluation as a main use of is. %t appears therefore that simple relational usesof $ae often tend to !e possessi1e, hile is is often used in more impersonalgrammatical constructs, such as e=traposed pro>ections (it is safe to).

:#@2 (4iscussion salient ord /0)

%n %ntroductions 4$as, $ae+ are most often used ith specific e=pressions of past research reporting 4$ae le! to !ebate $as attracte! attention+ . %n4iscussions, more specific research processes are more emphasised.lthough most research is e=pressed acti1el in terms of &e (see F&e+

!elo), passi1ised reports of research processes are the ne=t most fre5uentuse"

#a*e !een detected

#a*e !een found to !e

#a*e !een identified in

#a*e !een reported to

#a*e !een shon to

nother less dominant pattern in1ol1es reports of pre1ious research similar tothat e=pressed in %ntroductions (the pattern $ae t$at can !e seen to form aconsistent collocational frameor- ith mental or 1er!al e=pressions ofresearch)"

138




pre1ious studies #a*e shon that

e #a*e reported that

e #a*e found that

clinical studies #a*e demonstrated that

e=periments #a*e suggested that

nd as in %ntroductions, attri!uti1e relational processes e=pressed ! Fha1e

are used fre5uentl to e=press e1aluation, although this time in relation to5uantitati1e or specific results reported in the research article rather than

prior facts"

ioc#emical report E*aluation io ( 3 Empirical

process

sur1i1ing cells #a*e a!errant morpholog

the drug ma #a*e important implications

the current assas ma #a*e limited sensiti1it

granisteron has !een shon to #a*e negligi!le agonist a!ilitiesragments ha1e !een reported to #a*e superior localisation a!ilities

2.E %N/ (Title salient ord )

F%n is salient in four rhetorical sections in the corpus and presents us ith theopportunit to test hether phraseolog is consistent throughout the corpus.s noted a!o1e, prepositions appear to account for man of the ma>ordifferences in 1oca!ular and stle !eteen the PSC and the generallanguage (at least in terms of a comparison ith Co!uild). The highl

fre5uent prepositions in and of in the corpus are thus -e to an understandingthe fundamental phraseolog of the genre. %n Titles in functions as a prepositional phrase functioning as either modifier or complement incomple= nominals (e ha1e seen one use under an! a!o1e). There are todistinct semantic patterns"

/) %n modifier e=pressions, the left collocate is a !iochemical process andthe right collocate a clinical or !iochemical entit. 7here the head of the left

phrase is not the immediate collocate, the head item is usuall an empirical orclinical process. %t is noticea!le that for each leftcollocate, a more or less

139




limited pattern emerges to the left again of this item (for e=ample, genee'pression). :ead items are noted in italics"

ioc#emical process Clinical or 4ioc#emical entity

changes in distri!ution of cancer in human, li1er etcO

inta-e and ris- of cancer in children, primar care

impro1ed detection of !reast cancer in group practice, omen

determination of screening for cancer in rats, Singapore,

surgical therap of prostate cancer in the elderl, aged patients

gene eression in scrotal contents

receptor gene eression in !reast C6P//

groth factors in Cancer

prognostic factors in colorectal cancer

@=pression of trpsin andother

factors in gastric carcinoma

p'li-e.., factors in :& carcinoma p' e=pression and other factors in !reast cancer

diethl analogue cell lines in Culture

grothregulator cell lines in a p' patha

human !ladder cancer cell lines in Protein

larger au=iliar metastases in o!ese omen

colorectal adrenal metastases in patients ith (cancer) !reast cancer metastases in meginoma

ealuation of...hepatic metastases in patients

re!iction of au=iliar lmphnode

metastases in tumour!earing animals

140




The onl e=ception to this pattern in1ol1es the modifier (of ) in atients

&it$"

5odified empirical item in patients it# !isease

chemotherap determination in patients it# malignant melanoma

cell acti1ation le1els in patients it# terminal cancer

the function of folinic acid in patients it# cancer of the li1er

e1aluation of pain measurementtherap

in patients it# intraperitonealmalignancies

effecti1eness of interferon alpha in patients it# cancer

le1els of coagulation factor in patients it# cancer

2) %n complement e=pressions, the left collocate is an empirical item forhich a statistical significance or medical potential is signaled in the Title.7hile the first pattern for 4in+ suggests a general tendenc for the 5ualifing

phrase to specif the disease (or the su!>ects in hich the disease is to !efound a Fspatial metaphor common in the general language), the rightcollocate in the second pattern completes the semantics of the leftcollocate.<ight collocates are not clinical samples, as in (/) a!o1e, !ut empirical datasets"

Empirical item Empirical data set

Significant change in le1els of specific in 1itroresidue

significant changes in cto-ne le1els

highl significant change in le1els of stromal antigens

change in cache=ia mortalitchange in distri!ution of histogenic

tpe

potential role in human disease

possi!le role in the metastatic process

suggests a role in tumor production

141




The !asic distinction !eteen in /) and in 2) echoes Sinclairs o!ser1ationsof of in the general language. %n the first case, the phrase after in functions assemantic support, hereas in complement e=pressions the prepositional

phrase is the semantic focus of the entire phrase (Sinclair /++/"2').

%N2 (!stract salient ord )

The spatial metaphor of in in Titles is not pre1alent in the rest of the article.49n+ in !stracts is used in three semantic patterns (the most fre5uent first).

/) as nominal modifier in e=pressions of measurement ( significant increasein toicit-, re!uction in leels, !ifferences in c-totoicit-, !ecrease in uta%e)2) as 1er!al modifier in attri!uti1e or relational clauses of !iochemical

process (accumulates in, is lo& in, resistance &as narro&er in t$e cell ) andas a phrasal element in research processes (obsere! in, !etecte! in) orempirical processes (role in, resulte! in, use! in).') in an ad>unct, introducing research ith t$is (in t$is stu!- trial $ase *

stu!- reort...).

%n !stracts, in also introduces nonfinite relati1e clauses here gi1eninformation on a chemical process is !undled in ith the original information

such as intro!uce! in, inole! in, imlie! in (as in" t$is is a noel aroac$to a!atie resistance inole! in t$e eression of ras oncogene ). %n Titles,it can !e seen that the ma>orit of uses of in are determined ! the rightcollocate (in therefore completes the meaning of these e=pressions hilefunctioning as a Fspatial modifier of the lefthand e=pression). %n !stractsthe spatial use of in is largel supplanted ! a less specific meaning of the

prepositional phrase (a general !iochemical empirical process) and isdetermined ! the lefthand collocate. This also corresponds ith the use ofthe determiner t$e (largel a!sent in the righthand collocates of in in Titles)as in " classification suression treatment transmission !issemination

!ifferentiation of t$e tumor increase in... t$e total number of cells. Dn theother hand, in is folloed ! ?eroarticle in !stracts in the case ofFpro!lem items" cancers, su!>ects or specific diseaserelated entities (cancer,

breast cancer, tumor(bearing animals, atients, tumor(bearing mice,

c-to%ines, met$-lene c$lori!e). This pattern appears to re1ert to the use of in

in Titles.%t is li-el that reference and other discoursal factors ha1e a role to pla in

this distinction although ;aster (/+$) has claimed that discoursal factors(hile crucial elsehere) do not affect generic article ?eroarticle usage. Soan alternati1e e=planation ma !e that >ust as article usage is idiomatic in

142




certain specific semantic domains in the general language, then it ma !e thatdeterminers are also constrained ! prepositions in the @SP.

%N' (<esults salient ord 2).

9n is used in three tpes of phrase in <esults. The first is to indicate positi1eresults hich usuall in1ol1e a higher e=perimental score or increasedamount of measurement. This can !e contrasted ith the negati1e resultshich usuall lac- Fdirection (higher or loer score), and usuall indicateonl the rele1ance of the result to the empirical model (Fdirectionless

findings tend to !e reported in !stracts, as seen !elo). The second patternis closer to the spatial metaphor of in in Titles, indicating here a specific

!iochemical process as found o!ser1ed in the !odies of patients orsu!>ects. third pattern ta-es the form of a research process 1er! V

preposition functioning as a cross reference to another section of the article.The first and the third patterns are specific to <esults sections.

%n the first pattern, the most tpical use of 4in+ is to e=press data direction(increase in, increases in" E/ occurrences) after either a semitechnicalempirical 1er! such as 4-iel!s, eresse!, ro!uce!+ " Kempirical processaan Kspecific data shape increase in Kmeasura!le, often diseaserelated

empirical item"

treatment ith !utrate

resulted in an increase in relati1e tumoreights

2 ee-s e=posure produced a linear increase

in

the total num!erof.. tumors

e=posure tomethlene chl.

produced an increase in incidence of renaldilation

treatment ith...carcinogens

led to an o*erall

increase in

al-aline phosphaseacti1it

concentrations ofdeo=..

e=pressed an increase in the total tumor !urden

Dne phraseolog in particular !ecomes pre1alent in <esults sections in hichthe 1er! -iel! is consistentl folloed ! a postnominal 5uantifier"Iincrease in t$e leel of

143




Treatment ithdismutase

ielded modest increase in t#e le*els of lactase

!utratetreated cells ielded fe increases in t#e le*el of fetal matter

cells pree=posed to !utrate

ielded an increase in t#e le*el

of

spleen eight

treatment ithc;P

ielded asignificant

increase in t#e le*el of ...lesions

in 1itro doses ielded a

similar

increase in t#e le*els of ...resorption

nother fre5uent e=pression in the first pattern in1ol1es the empirical process4resulte! in+ in hich the direction of the data is emphasised ! someintensifier" Kclinical process resulted in Kintensifier Kempirical measure

!iochemical process. 3nli-e the -iel!e! phraseolog, this e=pressiongenerall allos for 1er e=plicit modalit (if no e=plicit e1aluation ise=pressed, then a determiner or similar e=pression to the first pattern is used)"

ioc#emical process E*aluation

analsis resulted in mar-ed increases

protocols resulted in significant deaths

concentrations of dr ;; resulted in negati1e induction

The same dose of 4< resulted in strong snergism

Since increasing the dietar &D< resulted in total loss of oral1ia!ilit...

The riter ma also choose to e=press positi1e results as a relation ( is, be,

&ere) ith $ig$er. Such a phraseolog is oriented toards an e1aluation ofchange in !iochemical data (in animals or cells)" Kempirical measure is

Kempirical e1aluation higher in Kanimate material"

tended to !e higher in dogs treated ith'0mg

pea- le1el is mar-edl higher in tumor cell lines

drug le1el is consistentl higher in animals

leucocte count is significantl higher in the liposomal 4<groups

144




83 concentrationsere2 times

higher in animals necropsied at

This is related to the second, spatial use of Fin in <esults sections, in hichthe preposition introduces a !iochemical. %n some cases, as in the laste=amples, the !iochemical entit is a data set itself. 8or e=ample, 4in+ is usedin the !asic comparison of results here the data sets are e=pressed assu!>ects or patients"

li1er neoplasms ere more fre5uent than in animals

drug le1els ere '0 times #ig#er than in controls significantl #ig#er le1els

thanin males

more tpicall loerconcentrations

in the correspondingcontrol group

o=idised !ases are present at #ig#er le1els than in those recei1ingliposomal drugs

more tpical spatial metaphor pattern in1ol1es technical !iochemical processes including the e=pression 4in io+ (although this is a Latine=pression, its grammatical profile is similar to other modifiers or ad>unctsintroduced ! in). #arious collocational e=pressions emerge in terms of thespatial metaphor. 4'ctiit-+ for e=ample usuall ta-es place in organs"

ctoto=ic acti1it in the organs

phosphatase acti1it in all the organs

PC acti1it in ctosolic fractions

` acti1it in 1arious organs

antitumor acti1it in 1i1o

4Concentrations+ are onl found hoe1er in 4tissues+ or 4tumours+ 4tumors+ "

1ariation of concentrations in human tissues

relationship !eteen 83 concentrations in li1er metastases

4ata represent concentrations in murine tumors

= as the ma>or meta!olite concentrations in perfused rat li1er

measurement of concentrations in tissues o!ser1ed

145




from the patient

The most fre5uent -ind of materials to !e found in !iochemical entities are roteins (2$ instances) hich are tpicall foun! or eamine! in mammar-

cells"

e=amined the protein3s in normal mammar cells

found su!cell location protein3s in mammar epithelial cells

the results sho protein3s in epitheliaM and fi!ro!last cells

detection of protein3s in tumor mammar cellsdecreases the le1el of protein3s in !reast tissue

#utations in turn are tpicall detected in genes (t$e H gene, eon R of

H, %(ras eons, 8(ras gene). n alternati1e ording is to premodif themutation ith a gene classifier, thus ena!ling it to !e detected in tumours

1ariation in spelling here indicates the use of &ritish spelling in such >ournals as &;9, &9, etc.O"

identification of ras mutations in li1er tumors

p' mutations in lung tumoursanalsis of the p' gene mutation in methlene chlorideinduced lung tumors

rras mutation in case hepatomas

transcript mutation in tumour!earing animals

The spatial use of 4in+ also re1eals terminological consistenc ithin righthand collocates. 8or e=ample, onl nude mice are used for s-in grafts"

=enografting in nude mice

in =enografts in nude micetumours =enografted in nude mice

inoculation or s-ingrafting in nude mice

The =enografts in nude mice

hile frameor-s ith other common le=ical items also re1eal theterminological properties of related ords. 8or e=ample, tumours areassociated ith a 1ariet of phsiological locations (from genes and cells to

146




organs) as ell as a range of conditions (benign, necrotic, malignant ), hilecancers are named in terms of larger organs and are less fre5uentlmentioned. Carcinomas are generall limited to the e=pression of cellularcancers"

In !enign, !reast, clearcell, colon, colorectalepithelial, in1asi1e, malignant, murine, necrotic, p'negati1e, primar, renal cellTaTi, #arious

tumour3s...

In &ladde, !reast colonic, colorectal lung, oesophageal,

pancreatic...

cancer

In &asalcell, Cer1ical, colorectal, hepatocellular, human cell,in1asi1e, s5uamous cell

carcinoma3s.

..

%nterestingl, hile the Latin 4in io+ is often used as a sentence ad>unct, itscomplementar e=pression 4in itro+ tends to !e used as a premodifier innoun groups, and so e get the folloing e=pressions (in such usage in itro

functions as a single le=ical item as such in itro is not as clearcut a caseof in as in io)"

The Din *itroB antitumour acti1it

The Din *itroB culture

useful Din *itroB groth

1arious doses of Din *itroB results

PC acti1it of the Din *itroB sstem

The third o1erall use of in is a te=treferencing pattern, tpical of <esultssections. This usage accounts for the most fre5uent le=ical leftcollocate ofin" 4s$o&n in+ ('* occurrences). The use of the present rather than past

passi1e is noticea!le in the folloing e=amples"

Empirical measurement $esearc# item

results are shon in ta!le

results of the present stud are shon in fig.

correlations shon in ta!le

tumour response is shon in ta!le

the perfusate profiles shon in fig.

147




range of similar researchriting 1er!s pla a similar role"

clinical details are detailed in ta!le

samples are gi1en in fig.

doses gi1en are illustrated in ta!le

grain counts are listed in fig.

these results are plotted in ta!le

1alues are presented in ta!le

N;< plotting is summari?ed in fig.

Con1ersel, the e=pression 4as !escribe! in( is uni5uel used to crossreference to other sections of the research article, usuall ;ethods, toindicate that the research process referred to is detailed there"

analsed for the presence of o=idised 4N !ases

as descri!ed in ;ethods

%ncu!ation as carried out under conditions as descri!ed in ;ethods

tumours ere e=amined histopathologicall as descri!ed in the ;ethods

`< acti1it as determined as descri!ed in ;aterials and;ethods

ccumulation as measured using... as descri!ed in ;aterials and;ethods

The e=pression 4as seen in( is also in1ol1ed in a longer fi=ed e=pressiono!ser1ed in to structural chemistr te=ts"

difference from controls as seen in the first scoring e1ent .

at this time point as seen in the first scoring e1ent .

no change in esterase acti1it as seen in the first scoring e1ent .

some inter1als in rates as seen in the first scoring e1ent .

significantl increased as seen in the first scoring e1ent .

8inall, the use of 4in+ in le=ical phrases in <esults is more 1aried than for theother prepositions e o!ser1e in the corpus, and e note here !riefl suche=pressions as in a!!ition, in all, in comarison, in contrast . This suggests

148




that there is more e=plicit signalling in <esults sections, although this issomehat terser than the -inds of e=pression encountered in 4iscussionsections.

%N* (4iscussion salient ord E)

To summarise the uses of 4in+ so far" in Titles, e=pressions after Fin modifsome !iochemical item or process (metastases in, eression in, gro&t$ in) orcomplement an empirical item (role of... in, c$ange in). Such patterningconstitutes important e1idence for grammatical and semantic correspondence,

in other ords a le=icogrammatical sstem. %n !stracts, e noted mostlnominal reformulations of 5uantitati1e results and a num!er of e=pressionsin1ol1ing empirical 5uantification (increase in, !ecrease in, re!uction in,

!ifference in). %n <esults sections the use of in e=tends to more comple=forms of 5uantification, a spatial use ith !iochemical entities and the use ofle=ical phrases and cross references to other parts of the research article. %n4iscussion sections the tendenc is again to e=press empirical shapes anddirections of data (the most fre5uent pattern) and causal relations (the second

pattern). third pattern in1ol1es research processes, and a fourth compriseslarge num!ers of discourse mar-ers. Such increasing 1ariation in the

phraseolog of a single grammatical item supports a general o!ser1ation that

the final sections of the research article !ecome increasingl stlisticalldi1erse.

The role of the 4iscussion section also returns to e=planation, in a similarmode to that of %ntroduction sections. Thus the fi=ed e=pression I la- a role

inJ !ecomes a significant phrase in 4iscussions here some degree ofe=plicit e1aluation is often present"

lin-age does not play a ma?or role in modulating theconformation of 4N

Dur findings suggest that Cs might play a role in the differentiation of cells

lso, long!ond structures could play an important role in other !ondscission reactions

The phenopholation of c/*' T plays some role in the malignant proliferation of cells

accumulation of p' alterations ma play an important role in regulation of the proliferation... of cells

&iochemical items are descri!ed as (spatiall) 4resent+ and stated asimplicitl o!ser1ed facts"

149




other transcription factors are present in these cells

other factors are present in the calf serum

p' mutations ere present in the ma>orit of cancer cells

a small amount of contaminating mouses-in as

present in the tissue

e=cept for the /*E*cm mode that is present in nearl all the resonancespectra

similar pattern is seen in 1er! or ad>ecti1e complement e=pressions isreflecte! in, is similar in, and is isible in. 3nli-e man simple present tenseuse of relational 1er!s in the corpus, ad>ecti1es used in complementconstructions are rarel accompanied ! e=plicit e1aluation. This represents ageneral mo1e aa from 5uantified o!ser1ation in <esults sections to5ualified empirical o!ser1ation. Specific results are reformulated oridentified as 4foun!+ or 4obsere!+ in the passi1e ( similar resonse &as

obsere! in t$is stu!-, LA8 $as alrea!- been foun! in all renal tumours).8inall, 4in+ tends to !e used in comple= NPcomplement prepositions. Theseta-e the form of collocational frameor-s here the hole e=pressionfunctions as a discourse mar-er. 8or e=ample, 4in to+ allos for contrasts"

in response to normal smooth muscle tissue

in addition to !enign tumours

in contrast to !enign smooth tissue and leiomas

hile 4in &it$+ signals that findings ha1e or ha1e not !een replicatedelsehere"

in agreement ith pu!lished data

in com!ination ith other methlene results

in concurrence ith &elle1ille et al.

in con>unction ith the results o!tained

2.$ %S/ (%ntroduction salient ord *)

150




The 1er! is is fundamental to the phraseolog of %ntroduction sections. sith the relational 1er!s 4$as $ae+, is is used to signal e=plicit e1aluation.%n the PSC, the phraseological patterns of is are (in order of fre5uenc)"

/) %ntroducing an e=traposed ad>ecti1al complement clause" 9t is Kmodalitem t$at Ktreatment related item K!iochemical empirical process"

%t is unli-el that () does not e=press its gene products

%t is possi!le plas a -e role

%t is assumed increases in direct relation to

%t is possi!le needs to !e ell separated

%t is concei1ed differs at the le1el of tumor production

%t is ell -non can !e modulated

%t is rele1ant is the main source of circulator...

2) %ntroducing an e=traposed ad>ecti1al nonfinite complement clause(limited to three ad>ecti1es) 9t is Kmodalit item to Kresearch process

%t is possi!le to identif Ts that allo%t is necessar to assess the cell differentiation at this stage

%t is important to o!tain structural information

%t is possi!le to construct a series of... structures

%t is necessar to identif mechanisms of drug resistance

%t is possi!le to repeat measurements

%t is necessar to esta!lish hether

%t is important to stud forms of the en?me

') %ntroducing an ad>ecti1al or 1er!al nonfinite complement clause" aK&iochemical process is Kresearch utterance to K!iochemical process.There are onl three possi!ilities for this tpe of e=pression. These arealternati1e e=pressions, indicating decreasing le1els of certaint throughmodulation in 1er! group comple=es (a tpe of grammatical metaphor)"

:perphasia is :non to inhi!it

@n?matic... is :non to processed generall 1ia

151




:P# /E @E is :non to !ind p'

meta!olism inccells

is :non to !e protonele1ated

K&iochemical is li:ely to !e in1ol1ed in...

is li:ely to arise from differences in...

is li:ely to differentiate in man cells

is li:ely to attract factors from hepatoctes

K&iochemical is t#oug#t to !e a ma>or factor in

is t#oug#t to determine cell ccleis t#oug#t to act 1ia ....crosslin-ing

is t#oug#t to !e one of the most important

*) fourth use in1ol1es e5uati1e relational clauses" here is a specificK!iochemical process or item " Pancreitis, resistance to t$era-, JA', t$e

Winsfor! !eosit...

is aan common predictor is aan important target

is an appealing alternati1e

method

is an effecti1e inhi!itor

is a critical parameter is a potent deri1ati1e

is a ma>or Sign is a potential agent

is an imperfect route is a strong inhi!itor

%mpersonal e=istential clauses are also used to e=press e=plicit e1aluation"

there is a strong moti1ation

there is a su!stantial differencethere is a positi1e correlation

there is a clear need

there is a significant possi!ilit

7hen 4is+ is used in e5uati1e relational clauses (i.e. here the 1er! simplidentifies one to-en as another), the element of e1aluation is transferred to anotion of Fmeasure or Fcausalit as in the fi=ed e=pressions 4is one of t$e

152




most ...is one of t$e main causes of . %n attri!uti1e clauses, on the other hand,disease and treatment related items ha1e stereotpical patterns Dnl diseaserelated items, for e=ample can !e Fassociated ith"

to=icit is associated ith

eight loss is associated ith

a!errant cell proliferation is associated ith

an e=ogenous retro1irus that is associated ith

o1ere=pression of p/ gene is associated ith

Con1ersel, onl treatmentrelated items are e=pressed in comparison, usingFmore KV empirical propert"

target orientation is more efficient

;T as an inhi!itor is more efficacious

a ne foliati1e agent is more localised

this choice of prodrug is more popular

antitumour acti1it is more ta!le

The reason for these patterns stems fairl straightforardl from the researchacti1it. 4iseases are !eing associated ith potential causes, hile treatmentsare !eing compared and measured. So phraseological patterns correlateaccording to some con1ention ith the common semantic categoriesnaturall in1ol1ed in the research. This is complicated hoe1er ! the1aring phraseologies of different ord forms. % note later that these patternsdo not correspond ith the use of 4&as+ (in ;ethods and <esults sections).

9s also re1eals a limited set of items hich can introduce nominal

complement (pro>ecting) clauses (-non as Ffact clauses, as in t$e fact ist$at " :allida /+"2**). 8act clauses in the corpus are almost alasempirical and premodified ! some degree of e1aluation. The folloing listgi1es all the possi!ilities"

disad1antage... is that a magnetic field ma enhance...

The most direct e1idence is that coagulation factors diffuse

153




simple e=planation is that none of these is currentl in use

The e=pectation is that PTC apparentl does not sho...

n intriguing o!ser1ation is that these compounds are tpromoters

ma>or o!stacle is that the repel.

n interesting outcome... is that the polar effect is mas-ed

:oe1er, there is one important e=ception to the e1aluati1e pattern for 4is+ .%n the %ntroduction corpus, hen the researchers are saing that something is

not something else, e=plicit e1aluation !ecomes more implicit"

lthough its sensiti1it toTP

is not et pro1en , mouse stamen ha1e !eene=amined...

lthough cholesterol is not full responsi!le for the formation ofliposomes, it is often used in pharmaceuticalliposome formulation

lthough the regulation of;o4/

is not full understood it and othersO appear to perform critical functions

4espite massi1e lipidmo!ilisation, the plasma

le1el of these meta!olites

is not ele1ated in the cachectic state...

7hile p2 e=pression is not detected , it is unli-el that o1ere=pression isrelated to L;8 factors outside the cell.

gain, the negati1e relates to empirical or research processes in similare=pressions to the pattern 4'lt$oug$ it $as not been s$o&n t$at+ descri!edunder 4been+ !elo. To summarise, affirmati1e phrases ith 4is+ almoste=clusi1el e=press modalit in terms of empirical processes. Negati1ee=pressions of relation, hoe1er, deal ith the full range of research,empirical and !iochemical processes. %n !oth patterns, the distinction

!eteen 1arious genrespecific process tpes K!iochemical, empirical,research appears to coincide (in some cases) e=actl ith sntactic patterns.

%S2 (4iscussion salient ord *).

F%s is a salient ord in %ntroduction and 4iscussion sections. %n%ntroductions, the ma>or patterns ere seen to !e"

/) %t is Kempirical item that K!iochemical process

154




2) %t is Ke1aluated empirical process to Kresearch process') K&iochemical process is Kresearch utterance to K!iochemical

process

%n 4iscussion sections, as ith other grammatical items the patterns are moredistri!uted across a range of e=pressions, ha1e a greater emphasis on research

processes and e1aluation and ha1e in some cases different le=icalcomponents"

/) %t is Ke1aluated empirical item that K!iochemical process2) %t is Ke1aluated empirical item to Kresearch process') There is a Ke1aluated empirical item*) (This) is Kattri!uti1e research e1aluati1e process) K<esearch process is not Ke1aluati1eE) K&iochemical process is K!iochemical empirical process

Pro>ecting (1er! ad>ecti1e complement) clauses are still pre1alent in4iscussions hoe1er the range of ad>ecti1es and participles in1ol1ed issomehat more restricted. 7hereas most pro>ection in %ntroductions isrelated to modalit and hedging, pro>ections in 4iscussions sectionsemphasise more affirmati1e e1aluation"

%t is interesting that

%t is apparent that

%t is clear that

%t is most li-el that

Less affirmati1e modalit is e=pressed ! e=traposed nonfinite (to) clauses(49t is P to+ )"

%t is possi!le to screen for cell lines

%t is difficult to determine influence

%t is important to mechanisticall lin-

%t is unli-el to !e the case that

155




fi=ed le=ical phrase is used to introduce a ne research gap" I little is%no&n about J and this differs from the use of F-non in %ntroductions ( 5 is

%no&n to)"

Little is :non a4out hepatic regulation

Little is :non a4out hepatocarcinogenesis

Little is :non a4out the a the relationship helps changes in immune tests

Little is :non a4out the phsiological importance of ... endothelin

Little is :non a4out the !eha1iours of p' gene

%n %ntroductions, negati1e relational processes are concerned ith negatingthe empirical rele1ance of !iochemical processes ( sensitiit- is not !etecte!,

c$olesterol is not alicable). :ere the tendenc is to e=press a negati1ee1aluation of the research process"

%t is not et clear (=)

The latter finding is not con1incingl determined

the present stud is not feasi!le

The reason for this une=pected result is not -nonSampling re5uired for analsis is not 1er defined

The functional implication is not surprising

This strateg is not 1er different

7hen results are e=pressed after e=pressions of !iochemical processes, somedegree of 5uantification is e=pressed as an ad>unct" K!iochemical entit is

K!iochemical process" e=pressed K5uantification"

the polpeptide is e'pressed at a 1er lo stage of differentiation

acti1it is e'pressed onl in a minorit of the tumor cells

peripherin is e'pressed at high le1els

protein is e'pressed as micromoles

tumor si?e is e'pressed ! diameter

There are also a num!er of e=planator e=pressions here a !iochemical process of disease or treatment is empiricall related to o!ser1ed data"

156




hpoglcaemia is associated ith considera!le increase in

The tumor mechanism is associated ith ac5uisition of tcell properties

The ;C tumor is associated ith increased lactation

;D< phenotpe is associated ith enhanced sta!ilit

Dncogene p/ is associated ith internali?ation of !leeding

damage is due to o!ser1ed alterationsinduction in the li1er is due to direct action

The presence of normal !ones is due to direct interaction

Suppression is due to su!se5uent incu!ation

The positi1e reaction is due to the effect of.. filters

:oe1er, these patterns contrast ith 4is relate! to+ hich has as su!>ect anempirical o!ser1ation hich is related to more specificall !iochemicalloriented items. 3nli-e empirical e=pressions in !stracts and <esults

sections, and as noted a!o1e in the phraseolog of in, these phrases deal moreith 5ualitati1e e=planation than ith 5uantitati1e measurement. Thefolloing pattern is shared ! less fre5uent e=pressions (4is resent in+, an!

4is resonsible for+ )"

ris- is related to ethnicit

efficienc is related to sta!ilisation

the cause of to=icit is related to spasmodic polpeptides

presence of protein is related to e=pression of class %%% antigens

fre5uenc in some tumorsamples

is related to the schedule of administration

2. NDT/ (<esults salient ord *)

s might !e e=pected, the phraseolog of not has less to do ith propositional negation and more to do ith a !roader rhetorical distinction !eteen empirical tendencies and findings (the affirmati1e) and empiricale=planation (the negati1e). @=amining the patterns of 1er!s used ith not , e

157




can see that hile 1er!s li-e 4s$o&+ are used in affirmati1e statements todescri!e 4increases in+ the data, or changes of the data shape (as descri!edunder 4in+ a!o1e) negati1e e=pressions ith 4s$o&+ are used mostl toe=plain the rele1ance of data or the idea that a specific !iochemical

phenomenon did not ta-e place. The implication is that in <esults sections,the researchers are ma-ing a statement a!out causalit in relation to theirFfailed or negati1e hpotheses !ut use positi1e statements for reportingchanges in the data shape. This is contrar to the pattern in !stracts, herenegati1e polarit is reser1ed for 5uantitati1e statements (usuall related toad1ersati1e e=pressions signalled ! but ).

The most fre5uent rightcollocate of not is Fsho" K!iochemical entit,usuall li1ing cells did not sho K!iochemical process, usuall treatmentrelated"

controls did not sho <T acti1it

females did not sho an antitumor effect

;C< lines did not sho crossresistance

chemotreated mice did not sho greater response

the population did not sho allelic loss

Similarl, the 1er fre5uent rightcollocate, Fdiffer emerges in a 1er fi=ede=pression of findings" K!iochemical process did not differ Kempiricale1aluation of measurement or sometimes !iochemical process from that those Kresearch process"

concentrations did not differ

!ile content did not differ morphologicall from that of

the consumption rate did not differ significantl from those measured

e=tra1asation did not differ significantl from those o!ser1edthe lipoltic factor did not differ significantl from that seen in

@mpirical measurement items such as" inci!ence, concentrations, increasing

serum leels, bo!- &eig$t, leucoc-te counts are all used in a similar a in arelational clause" &ere not statisticall- significant . This can !e contrastedith affirmati1e relational clauses and uses of the 1er! Fsho in hichresearchers tend to rite that data are 4increase!+ or 4eleate!+ .

158




Clearer e=amples of the negati1e in !iochemical processes in1ol1e thee=pressions of the 1er fre5uent 1er!s 4eress+ and 4in!uce+ , and this againre1eals common su!>ect1er! preferences. Cells or cell lines Fe=press

!iochemical compounds,

the ma>orit of cells did not e=press peripherin (=' instances)

cells in this clone did not e=press < acti1it

some cell lines did not e=press mocenin

onl one clone did not e=press tP

the g/* cell line did not e=press capsid antigen

hile drug therapies tend to Finduce !iochemical effects"

chemotherap did not induce a depressor gene

loer doses did not induce an antitumor effect

C6PU did not induce loss of eight

peptide did not induce an ctoto=icit

stronger treatment did not induce eight loss

Such !iochemical process 1er!s ha1e 1er much the same distri!ution asnominalisations (c.f. in!uction of tumor necrosis factor ). &ut there are alsocases in hich !iochemical processes are e=plained rather than simplo!ser1ed, in hich case the riters use less technical 1er!s such as 4cause+

and 4affect+ . 8or e=ample, 4affect+ is 1er specificall limited to the chemical process of (cell) !inding"

preincu!ation did not affect cell groth

%L 2 secretion did not affect anchorage

Those inhi!itors did not affect !inding

nti!ioticconcentrations

did not affect su!se5uent !inding

magnetic field e=posure did not affect !inding capacit

%n the passi1e the affecting medium (e=pressed a leftcollocate a!o1e) isreformulated as a Ftreatment"

159




accumulation as not affected ! the treatment

rela=ations ere not affected ! nitroLarginine at andose

reaction -inetics ere not affected ! incorporation ofcholesterol

e=cretion 1omiting as not affected ! the presence of...danoru!icin

eight gain as not affected ! treatment ith... anti!odies

FCause is not passi1ised, !ut similarl presents a !iochemical relationshipal!eit of a less restricted 1ariet"

did not cause mutations in the p' gene

did not cause further inhi!ition

did not cause lsis

did not cause an mortalit

did not cause tumorigenesis

Such e=pressions can !e partl seen as !rief claims or e=planations, !ut cane5uall !e seen as fi=ed dele=ical phrases (such as ta%e a bat$, ma%e one+s

fortune). part from !iochemical or semitechnical e=planations, the negati1ein the <esults section is also used to signal hat the researchers didnt find.7ith 4&as &ere+ , e see !elo that the passi1e in ;ethods sections tends to

!e used ith technical !iochemical process 1er!s. %n <esults, the passi1ere1erts to research process 1er!s and, at least in negati1e 1oice, is usuallmodal" K!iochemical process could not !e Kresearch process"

lipophilicit could not !e detected

degenerated mitochondria could not !e e=plained

chimeric m<N could not !e related

D1ere=pression of p' could not !e o!ser1ed.

160




Dther 1er!s in1ol1ed in this e=pression are !istinguis$e!, establis$e!,maintaine! .

NDT2 (4iscussion salient ord $).

7hereas in the <esults su!corpus, negati1e statements concerned causalrelationships (affect, cause, eress) and the general shape of the data (!i!

not increase, is not !ifferent etc.) the 4iscussion sections e=press negati1eresearch o!ser1ations. gain, unli-e !stracts, data directions are notemphasised in 4iscussion sections, and the emphasis is more on

reformulating results than on e=plaining negati1e results. Dne research pattern emerges as a 1er regular collocational frameor-" Fdid not Kresearch process an Kempirical item and it ser1es to report negati1e results"

e did not detect an changes

e could not find relations

e did not o!ser1e tumor de1elopment

e could not o!tain e1idence of precursor

@arl reports did not suggest ma>or difference

The negati1e also plas a -e role in signalling gaps in e=isting research. Thee=pression, not %no&n is part of the Fendgame of the 4iscussion sectionhich allos for further applied research"

The specific source of serum To is not -non

The e=act mechanisms of the antitumour effect of %8N are not -non

The functional implication... is not -non

7hether this is also reflected in demethlation... is not -nonThe nature of the inhi!itor factor is not -non

nother important signal for future research possi!ilities is Fnot clear herenegati1e findings are reformulated ! higher empirical or research processes(in italics)"

The reason for this !ifference is not clear .

161




The reason for this latter fin!ing is not clear .

:oe1er, it is not clear hat !ifferences if ane=ist.

The relations$i !eteen gene p'mutations and pe=pression

is not clear .

ith one longer reformulation"

%t is therefore not clear h cells are not a!le to useO serum plasmogen.

2.+ D8/ (Title salient ord /)

4Af+ eclipses 4t$e+ in an stec comparison ith the Co!uild corpus, and is asalient ord in Titles, !stract and %ntroduction sections, thus mar-ing its

phraseolog as particularl tpical of technical science riting. 7hile the useof of descri!ed !elo is somehat comple=, it is orth noting that the four orfi1e ma>or uses of the preposition in the PSC can !e contrasted ith a 1er

!road set of uses in the general language" Co!uild, for e=ample, lists /+ nonidiomatic uses for 4of+ .

%n Titles, as in the rest of the corpus, 4of+ is fundamental to theconstruction of comple= nominals, in particular e=pressions of empiricalrelations and 5uantification as ell as compound nominal terminolog. %nTitles there are no e=amples of 5uantification (a number of ), or support (a

grou of). %nstead, 4of++s leftcollocates are nominalisations of research orempirical processes (effects of ='0, treatment of =2*, stu!- of =/E,ealuation of =/) hile its rightcollocates are nouns snonmous ith theillness or the patient (cancer =E+, $uman =2E, breast =2, atients =/,tumor =/, rostate =/'). The ma>orit of the leftcollocates of 4of+ can !edi1ided into four groups of patterns. <esearch processes are the most fre5uentleftcollocates of of in Titles, and tpical e=pressions from the ;edlinecontrol corpus include nominal research process titles premodified ! a topicspecific specifier and postmodified ! illnessrelated items most oftenin1ol1ing cancer patients. The e=pression 4stu!- of+ is tpical"

162




Therapeutic stud of metastasis in omen aged o1er *0

&asic stud of postoperati1e surger

Comparati1e stud of NCCST*'+ in !reast cancer.

Colla!orati1e stud of su!>ects participating in...trials

Case control stud of :%#infected carriers

%mmunohistochemical stud of omen ith earl !reast cancer.

The research process e=pression ealuation of (=/ in ;edline) is differentin that it is seldom premodified (and is thus usuall the first ord of theTitle), and appears to ha1e a more limited set of postmodifiers, such as semitechnical empirical process items hich are less concrete than those forFstud of"

@1aluation of effects of radical resection on li1er metastasis

@1aluation of factors aggra1ating postoperati1e reco1er

@1aluation of factors affecting success of chemotherap

@1aluation of factors affecting la!orator data

@1aluation of 5ualit of life in postchemotherap

7e ha1e seen in a num!er of instances a small change of e=pression isassociated ith a change in the semantic composition of the phrase. Todemonstrate this e can see that the e=pression 4stu!- on+ has a different

phraseological pattern from 4stu!- of+ . Left collocates are more limited forFstud on !ut are more specific in terms of research acti1it (case control =,clinical =', basic =', clinicoat$ological =2, collaboratie,

immuno$istoc$emical, oulation(base!, ran!omi)e!, retrosectie,

screening ). <ight hand collocates of stu!- on are empirical processes oritems, rather than diseaserelated items introduced ! 4stu!- of+ "

Kresearch process stud o n clinical prediction

Kresearch process stud o n effects of continued...infusion

Kresearch process stud o n effecti1eness of 38T against cancer

Kresearch process stud o n the inhi!ition effect of granisteron on...

163




Kresearch process stud o n usefulness of !leomcin in comparison ith...

; claim is that the most sta!le elements of a phraseological opposition areimportant signals of the larger phraseolog i.e. FKresearch process stu!-

of Kdisease 6 on the one hand and F Kspecific research process stu!-

on Kempirical process 6 on the other. This can !e seen to !e an entirelcon1entional distinction, ith little relation to an intrinsic meaning of the

prepositions concerned. The distinction cannot !e put don to le=icalselection (or Fle=ical pro>ection as in uni1ersal grammar), since !oth

e=pressions share the same lefthand collocates. %f there ere some !asemeaning for 4of+ (as claimed ! `uir- /++) then F@1aluation of ould notha1e a different pattern to other 4of+ phrases introduced ! research processitems, nor share a similar phraseolog to Fstud on.

Clinical process phrases such as Ftreatment of and Fmanagement of share asimilar phraseolog to Fstud of"

surgical treatment of solid carcinomas

com!ined treatment of human !reast cancer

recom!inant treatment of gastric cancers in Singapore

surgical treatment of !reast cancer patients treated ith@D<TC

Df empirical processes, the phrase Feffects of is the most fre5uent in thesu!corpus and has the folloing phraseolog" Ktreatmentrelated item effects of Ktreatment on Killnessrelated item 6"

effect3s of chemotherap on metastases

!iphasic effect3s of aspirin on colorectal cancer

inhi!ition effect3s of surgical inter1ention on pancreatic cancer

prognostic effect3s of optimism on cancer related stress

therapeutic effect3s of somostratin on the groth of... cancer

This -ind of pattern is a collocational frameor- can !e seen to !e similar insemantics to 4stu!- on+ hich in turn sometimes introduces effects of . chain of phrases ma !e ine1ita!le in such a con1entional conte=t, and e

164




find that there are man such Fcollocational cascades in the corpus. 7hat isinteresting a!out them is that phrases such as 4effects of+ appear to !e implicitin the longer chains, or are reformulated.

n idiomatic use of the phrase Fa case of emerges. 7hile the ord Fcaseon its on is in1ol1ed in the longer phraseolog 4a case control stu!- in

=Jra)il Greece S&e!en> of =sub1ects articiating in t$e Notting$am

stu!- t$e bloo! screening rogramme), it also acts as head for /2 titlesintroducing specific diseaserelated items hich are then postmodified ! aresponse to the disease Ktreatment or (in a minorit of e=amples) ane=planation of its cause"

A case of complete response ! intraarterial in>ection

A case of ad1anced oesophageal carcinoma treated !...

A case of lung cancer responding significantl to...

A case of pulmonar carcinoma hich responded to treatment ith

A case of drug induced pneumonitis caused ! oral etoposide.

D82 (!stract salient ord ')

%n the control corpus of Titles (as seen a!o1e), of plas a -e role in nominalgroups ith a tpical treatmentof(disease pattern. Such a smmetricalsolutionpro!lem pattern is e=panded in !stracts, the ma>or difference !eingthat hile items in the title corpus tend to predict of ith no strong rightcollocates, in !stracts there are >ust as man significant rightcollocates,such as $uman, t$ese, &as. nother difference from Titles is that !stractsin1ol1e the 5uantification or description of disease, here of introducessemantic Fsupport (not necessaril Fhead)" number, concentration, leels,

inci!ence, freKuenc-, ma1orit-, resence ... of... cancer, tumour, oncogene,

gro&t$, eression, atients, mice, $uman. second pattern tends tointroduce either empirical or !iochemical items that e=plain the potential

treatment of the disease (effect, role, mec$anism, treatment in$ibition, s-nt$esis... of.. !rug 5, !oorubicin, comoun!s, ;!isease 6<). s the firstelement !ecomes more necessar to the interpretation of the ne=t item, the

phrase introduced ! of in the second group can !e seen as Ffocus rather thansupport (Sinclair /++/"2').

The Ftreatmentofdisease pattern can !e seen as an o1erriding pattern, !ut ithin this there is considera!le phraseological change. There are fourdifferent pro!lemsolution patterns of comple= stereotpical phraseologin1ol1ing of in the !stract" (effect, loss, number, resence). There does not

165




seem to !e an e1idence to suggest that an such middle fre5uenc item(often termed su!technical items" 8rancis /++') shares the same phraseologas an other. %n particular, the solution pro!lem treatment disease patternseen in the Title does not appear to !e fi=ed for each item in the !stract. 8ore=ample, resence of has a specific pattern if postmodified" t$e role

resence of K!rug 5 in Killness 6 . Dther items re5uire more e=plicitmodification. Effects and effect are usuall in su!>ect position and are almostalas premodified ! a treatmentoriented item ( gro&t$(in$ibitor-,

antitumour, c$emoreentie, rotectie) or a researcho!ser1ation itemindicating some pro!lem (a!erse, si!e(effect, toic). Dn the other hand,

resence is often used in a prepositional phrase functioning as 5ualifier,(preceded ! in, for, on) or in a su!ordinate clause here there is no e=plicitstatement of pro!lem or solution, and here resence of signals an illnessrelated specific item here a possi!le lin- ith cancer is !eing e=plored"retroirus, ras roto(oncogenes, maternal toicit-.

%n addition, the e=pression use of represents one of the more stereotpical patterns of the !stract. %t is alas preceded ! some degree of measure ora methodsoriented specification of use (!ail-, &i!esrea!, regular,

intensie, combine!, clinical, otential ) and folloed ! a specific drug (/)and an e=pansion of the treatment and illness (&it$ !rug 5=2>, in t$e stu!- of

illness 6 , in t$e treatment of, in t$e ealuation of 6 ) and finall folloed !

some degree of e1aluation or a research process" resulte! in..., s$oul! beconsi!ere!, is !iscourage!, is !iscusse!.

%n a different -ind of distri!ution, the significant collocate loss appears toha1e !ecome terminologised in the fi=ed e=pression loss of $etero)-gocit-.

Loss also appears in thematic position here! a research statement is phrased in the passi1e or placed after the term (loss of 5...&as foun!,

occurre! , occurring ), although there are reporting instances such as suggest

t$at .... hich form a separate pattern. The pattern occurs more regularl itheffects here specific reporting items are sometimes placed as hedges"(effects of 5... &ere foun!, re!uce!, aeare! to be.., as s$o&n..., an! seem

to...). %nterestingl, among most of the e=pressions of measurementdisease

mentioned a!o1e, the reporting 1er! precedes the e=pression ( s$o&s confirms in!icates ...t$e resence of , inci!ence of, absence of ). The final,fourth pattern is represented ! the e=pression number of hich is notimmediatel preceded or folloed ! a reporting discourse item. %t ma !ethat there is a differentiated pattern of phraseolog in hich of has a role asconstructor of nominalisations of measurement and 5ualification (i.e. the firstuse mentioned a!o1e), in con>unction ith e=pressions of research reportingand e1aluation (the second use). The riter can thus choose to emphasise theFself e1idence of the data ! e1o-ing phrases in1ol1ing number of , or ma

166




ish to place the stud in the position of sentence theme (that is" as su!>ect orin front of the su!>ect in @nglish). These patterns also suggest that choice ofe=pression in Titles is constrained to the e=tent that the riter must either usemeasurementdisease phrases as a statement of research topic, oralternati1el thematicise the results and use an e=pression ith items such aseffects.

D8' (%ntroduction salient ord +).

4Af+ in the %ntroduction ser1es to 5ualif empirical process nouns and to form

fi=ed !iochemical or clinical terminolog. This is the same function as inTitles and !stracts, the difference !eing that the fi=ed e=pressions andcollocations in the %ntroduction are e=panded to longer stretches of

phraseolog. %n e=amining the 1er comple= phraseolog of of in this lessconstrained en1ironment, the assumption is that collocation operates at longer

!oundaries than the phrase. The folloing left right collocates demonstratethe 1ariet of collocation"

Left collocates J/0" effects, concentration, treatment, effect, num!er, presence,1ariet, acti1it, results, mechanism, administration, use, !ecause, le1els.

<ight collocates J/0" this, these, cells, human, compounds, drug, mice, drugs,mice, methlene, studies, cancer, &ora, li1er, cell, chloride, effects.

num!er of longer phrases !ecome pre1alent in the %ntroduction and anum!er of phrases identified in the Title or !stract ta-e on a differenten1ironment. %n particular e find a stri-ingl long collocational frameor-in the form of a pro>ecting factclause" Ithe aim purpose of J (this stud)Ias toJ KV research process Kmeasura!le !iochemical acti1it (/Eoccurrences) "

The aim of this stud as to compare

The aims of the present stud ere to e=amine (=')

The purpose of the current report as to in1estigate

The aims of this or- ere to relate

The aim of this series of studies as to measure upta-e

The aims of this stud ere to test

The aim of the present stud as to e=pand data

The aim of the current report as to identif

167




The aims of this or- ere to determine

The (missing) complements of the research processes a!o1e are measura!leacti1ities" actiation, uta%e, circulator- resonses, $armo%inetics in t$e

lier, concentration of ituitar- $umours, 2 on mN' eression, a

ossible rognostic of tumour regression..... 7hile in the a!stract e=pressionsin1ol1ing effects of are generall folloed ! some degree of e1aluation oran empirical process (t$e effects of treatment 5 are !emonstrate! ) here the

phrase occurs as complement of some research process"

Xresearc$ rocessY Xtreatment relate! item 5Y effect of Xtreatment 5Y

assess the ad1erse antitumour effects of &D<

in1estigate the chemopre1entati1e effect of !oron on mice

sho the inhi!itor effect of cholesterol

report protecti1e effect of 4o=o drugs

compare ctoto=ic effects of displatin treatment

%n Titles and !stracts, e identified the role of Fof in fi=ed terminolog. %n%ntroductions e find that fi=ed e=pressions ha1e regular phraseologies

!eond their internal components, possi!l !ecause there are simpl moredata for us to spot long range relations rather than !ecause of an 5ualit of%ntroduction sections. The term Fmechanism of action appears to occur in asurprisingl delimited phraseological conte=t" mechanism of action ofKdiseaserelated item model Kmodalised or negati1e research process"

The mec#anism of action of human tumour model sstems is

The mec#anism of action of their ctostatic action appears to !emutagenic

Thus mec#anism of action of human tumor models has not !eendetermined ith certaint

The mec#anism of action of methlene chloride has not !eenclarified

:oe1er the mec#anism of action of these tumor models can !e deciphered

lthough the mec#anism of action of some carcinogens remains un-non...

168




longer phraseolog can also !e seen in a common e=pression in !stractstreatment of , hich is no premodified ! a com!ination of recurrente=pressions in %ntroductions (e present one e=ample of each)"

Xemirical roblem or roleY in for b- treatment of X!isease 6Y

...is a common clinical pro!lem

in t#e treatment of adult acute leu-aemia

... e=pression... is induced 4y treatment of tumour cells ith c;Panalogues.

... an alternati1e strateg for treatment of hepatoma... ...is... a promisingcandidate

for t#e treatment of topical infections.

Dne particularl interesting term 4!rug of c$oice+ (E occurrences) collocatesith Fin t$e treatment of . @1en more stri-ing is the le1el of reformulation ofsimilar concepts for ne drugs used in the longer phraseolog" Ktreatment is a Kne drug (commonl) used in the treatment of Kdisease 6"

aca C, a drug commonl used in t#e treatment of !reast cancer

patientsP4 a commonl used drug in t#e treatment of cancer

:arris et al. suggest the drug of potential1alue used

in t#e treatment of ...tumours.

(drug ) is a ne :2 used in t#e treatment of cancer

(drug ) is a recent antagonist used in t#e treatment of gastric and duodenalcancer

(drug ) is a metallic antineoplasticagent that is used

in t#e treatment of ... !reast cancer

Af also introduces 5uantitati1e focus e=pressions in %ntroductions such as a

ariet- of . The frameor- is in1ol1ed in a longer phraseolog" K!iochemical process entit or at times empirical process is Kused empirical process in(a) (ide) 1ariet o f Ktreatment disease related items)"

@n?mes are in1ol1ed in a *ariety of anticancer drugs

&oth are inacti1ated in a *ariety of industrial drugs

169




&oth are used as a sol1ent in a *ariety of industrial drugs

;ethl chloride is used in a *ariety of consumer drugs

;ethlene is used in a *ariety of pharmaceutical applications

2./0 T:T/ (!stract salient ord $)

FThat as con>unction plas an important role in reformulating the claim as acogniti1e research process (T$e i!ea t$at, &e conclu!e t$at ). fre5uent useof 4t$at+ in !stracts is in e=traposed it clauses folloing 1er!s of cognition

and !elief (it is ...beliee!, eecte!, conclu!e! ... t$at ) or ad>ecti1es of possi!ilit or 1olition (imortant, ossible, li%el-, !esirable, ei!ent ).Similarl reporting clauses ha1e clear limitations on the su!>ect of the clause"

e conclude t#at

e find t#at

hile more dataoriented items used introduce in!icate,

1alues indicate t#at

findings indicated t#at

results indicate t#at

information indicated t#at

The items stu!ies and results also introduce !emonstrate! . similar pattern is o!ser1ed in 4iscussion sections. Dne difference ith the4iscussion section is the important rle of 4t$at+ as relati1e pronoun inem!edded clauses. T$at functions refers most often !ac- to a specific

chemical and esta!lishing some characteristic function of the entit" ( occurre! to c$emical 5 t#at is...normall- resonsible for, t-ical, eresse!

onl- as, effectie in maintaining leels of ) or emphasising the status of the-noledge structure (allo& re!iction of eerimental factors t)at un!erline

our lac% of un!erstan!ing of t$ese rocesses). Such uses of t$at (and, indeed&$o) as relati1es confirms ret?en!achers (/++0) finding that em!eddedclauses are an important characteristic of !stracts.

170




T:T2 (4iscussion salient ord /).

4T$at+ is the most significant salient ord in 4iscussion sections. The ord islisted ! Wor!list as one of the least salient ords of the other rhetoricalsections hoe1er, ith the one interesting e=ception of !stracts. %n4iscussion sections, 4t$at+ indicates the primar use of complement thatclauses hich function as pro>ections of research reports and facts (:allida/+"2**). %n terms of rhetorical function, t$at(clauses reformulate ore1aluate results. T$at clauses can !e di1ided into four patterns in 4iscussionsections, in order of fre5uenc of occurrence"

/) <esearch item V research process V hpotactic pro>ections.2) 7e This stud Vresearch process V hpotactic pro>ections.') @=traposed it V pro>ections of modalit.*) <esearch itemem!edded pro>ections.

The first three le=ical leftcollocates of Fthat are all research processesin1ol1ed in the first pattern (1er! complement clauses" suggests t$at,

in!icate t$at, s$o&n t$at ), !ut the ha1e 1er different modalities associatedith their su!ordinate clauses. The first e=ample, 4suggests t$at+ , is

introduced ! an empirical measurement as su!>ect, and the 1er! in thesu!ordinate clause usuall has some degree of modalit or phase"

data suggests t#at reacti1e o=gen ould !e important

e1idence suggests t#at simple sampling can !e performed

the model data suggest t#at endothelin receptors might pla a role

a num!er of o!ser1ations suggest t#at ;` ;T is unli-el to pla a role in

lac- of ...acti1it suggests t#at patients should !e monitored

s a more affirmati1e e=pression, 4in!icates t$at+ is introduced ! deicticresearch process items as su!>ects and no modalit in the su!ordinate clause"

These findings indicate t#at a cell has !ecome committed to the.. lineage

These results indicate t#at the cell has !een arrested earl in..de1elopment

The present stud indicates t#at this parameter is highl correlated ith

our data indicate t#at L%C is less immunogenic than other tumors

171




our data indicate t#at ras acti1ation is an earl e1ent

<elated to this structure, e find cleft noun complement clauses introduced ! a limited tpe of empirical or research process su!>ect"

The strength of this model Kempirical) is t#at

Dne dra!ac- of such models Kempirical) is t#at

nother possi!ilit Kempirical) is t#at

Dne disad1antage Kempirical) is t#atThe potential e=planation Kresearch) is t#at

The main conclusion Kresearch) is t#at

The second pattern e find is sntacticall the same as the first, e=cept thatthe su!>ect tends to !e 4&e+ or (depending on the 1er!) 4t$is stu!-+ or thenames of other researchers. The first most fre5uent pattern of this tpe4s$o&e! t$at+ tends to entail more e1aluation or negati1e results than its

present tense counterpart Fsho that. lso unli-e Fsho that, it has Fe andFe=periments as possi!le su!>ects"

Xesearc$ itemY XJioc$emical Emirical rocessY

@=periments shoed t#at there as no homolog in this region

e shoed t#at there are no differences in drug upta-e

studies shoed t#at the compound as not an inhi!itor

e shoed t#at the parent compound as e=tensi1elmeta!olised

studies shoed t#at acti1e management as prefera!le

nother fre5uent e=pression, !ut hich e=presses a different phraseolog isFe conclude. This time the su!ordinate clause deals ith empiricale=planation rather than 5uantification, and this tends to in1ol1e an e1aluati1emodifier"

-e conclude t#at platinum orientation is not ade5uatel represented

-e conclude t#at CTL and N cells together pla an important role

172




-e conclude t#at ifosamine is ell tolerated

-e conclude t#at ;TT assa is suita!le for assessing antiproliferati1e action

-e conclude t#at this in 1itro !eha1iour is meaningful

@=traposed it clauses (ad>ecti1e complement clauses) permit the researchersto omit the research process su!>ect of the main clause, generall in1ol1ingalmost o!ligator modalit in the complement clauses"

%t is possi!le t#at the !ioa1aila!ilit of &`/2' might !e different

%t is possi!le t#at a!normal gene product ma !e in1ol1ed

%t is possi!le t#at Pglcoprotein ma !e responsi!le

%t is possi!le t#at serine phosphorlate could pla some role

%t is possi!le t#at the ;P modification could sta!ilise the... cuformation

%n contrast, it is li%el- t$at in1ol1es modalit, negati1e polarit, or somenegation of a pre1ious result"

it seems li-el t#at the missed the pea-

it seems li-el t#at a!normal patterns affect...

it seems li-el t#at order and timing are not in1aria!le

it seems li-el t#at cell counts ere not carried in :;C/00 pE*

it seems li-el t#at ... alterations did not reflect the P;N population

nd in further contrast it is clear t$at is alas used in opposition to pre1iousl negati1e results and introduced ! ad1ersati1e sentence ad1er!s"

Nonetheless it is clear t#at there are se= differences in meta!olism

Nonetheless it is clear t#at cardiac effects are not dose limiting

Nonetheless it is clear t#at the glcoproteins ere specificall induced

lthough it is clear t#at T is not specificall induced

:oe1er it is clear t#at assignment is paramagneticall influenced

173




The fourth main pattern for t$at in1ol1es em!edded noun phrasecomplements, and similarl demonstrates a modalit pro>ection !eteen thenoun and its em!edded 1er!. Dne of the most fre5uent noun phrasecomplements is 4t$e fact t$at+ . The e=pression ta-es on a 1er specificrhetorical role, ! first stating negati1e results and then ! setting out ane=planation"

The fact t#at Xnegatie emirical obserationY XelanationY

T#e fact t#at this enhancement does not

occur in femalesOOimplies that such oncogenesere not in1ol1ed

T#e fact t#at e cannot demonstrate thischange OO

suggests that %N causesdifferent effects...

T#e fact t#at the /0pp treated group asnot -illed earlierOO

might !e due to ea-ness inthe dose monitor

T#e fact t#at 2 ;C< lines did not shohigher acti1itOO

confirmed that these reagentsere highl specific

T#e fact t#at se5uential accumulation ofLD: as not o!ser1ed OO

might !e due to earlmonitoring

The e=pression Imight !e due toJ, as seen in the e=amples a!o1e, is alsorelated to the comple= con>unction" Idue to the fact t#atB. :ere the ritersreformulate some anomal and then e=plain it, hile the ne e=planation(hich does not appear to !e a reformulation of pre1ious material) maconstitute a research result in itself"

The failure of the to mechanismscould !e

due to t#e fact t#at phenotpicsu!stituents reach comple= le1els at lotime inter1als

These discrepancies ere due to t#e fact t#at anti!odcolumnsare rarel /00W efficient

The ineffecti*eness of thiamine ma !e due to t#e fact t#at thiamine hassi?a!le groups present.

The une'pectedly high concordance is due to t#e fact t#at multiple immuno processes are in1ol1ed

7e can see that t$e fact t$at appears to collocate across clause !oundariesith the e=pression !ue to in the folloing e=ample (it also consistentlcolligates ith a negati1e e=pression)" T$e fact t)at &e cannot !emonstrate

t$is !egree ma- be !ue to insufficient sensitiit- of our met$o!. :ere e can

174




see reformulation at or-, in that an anaphoric noun (an Fonerless fact in8ranciss /+ classification) introduces a su!ordinate clause hich e=plainsthe fact. %n the case of the last e=ample, the negati1e result is em!edded andthe reformulation of the pro!lem is presented as an e=planation in the mainclause. The idea that a su!ordinate clause Fe=plains rather than sets resultsout is compati!le ith the semantics of the less fre5uent e=pression 4is

elaine! b- t$e fact t$at . 8urther proof of this is that e must thematicisethe e=planation in the last e=ample or change the formulation to 4is t$e

elanation of+ as in 49nsufficient sensitiit- of our met$o! ;is t$e

elanation of< t$e fact t)at &e cannot !emonstrate t$is !egree+ .F%nsufficient sensiti1it can not !e e=pressed as a negati1e result. Thissuggests that research processes are not 1alid e=planations and are hence not

permitted ! the phraseolog. The negati1e result e=planation pattern e1ene=tends !eond the le1el of the sentence, as can !e seen from the folloingrather uni5ue e=ample (from 9G;E4)"

/ 7e found that.. onl anti &/ couldmediate specific ctolsis.

2 This is li-el due to t#e fact t#at thedifference is onl one su!class.

The more fre5uent e=pression Fdue to re1eals a regular pattern acrosssentence !oundaries in other parts of the discussion su!corpus (/ negati1e

result or negati1e research process, 2 possi!le empirical e=planation)"

/ 3nfortunatel e could not detecten?me acti1it in crude e=traction thatcon1erted cis C:D to thetransomer.

2 This could !e due to the insta!ilit ofthis acti1it in a cellfree sstem.

/ The !asis for this o!ser1eddiffusion ... is not readil apparent.

2 %t ma !e due to inherent differences.

/ :oe1er, control and treated le1elsof mutagenicit are not significantldifferent.

2 This ma !e due to reduction in-inase le1els.

/ Le1els of mutagenicit ere notsignificantl different.

2 This ma !e due to reduction ofsmall intestinal glucoriadas.

These e=amples also re1eal the important reformulating role of deictic Fthishich is discussed later. The phraseolog of T$e fact t$at differs fromalternati1e e=pressions, such as t$e ossibilit- t$at here the em!eddedclause itself contains the modalised e=planation (the main clause, not shonhere, is usuall an e=pansion of the hpothesis e=pressed in the em!eddedcomplement clause)"

175




The possi!ilit t#at the h!rid cells might ha1e differentiated

The possi!ilit t#at the chromosome changes might represent in1itro artefacts

The possi!ilit t#at &chloro(...) ma ha1e contri!uted to...donregulation

The possi!ilit t#at this factor ma contri!ute to the immunore1ersal

The possi!ilit t#at the higher p' le1els ma !e the result of

unusuall high

This e=pression forms a longer phraseological unit hen it is introduced !clauses hich e=press the modalit of the proposition in terms of e=clusionfrom or support for a research programme"

7e cannot rule out the possi!ilit t#at

7e should not rule out the possi!ilit t#at

Not onl does this result eliminate the possi!ilit t#at

This does not e=clude the possi!ilit t#at These studies raise the possi!ilit t#at

These reports support the possi!ilit t#at

similar phraseolog accompanies the NP complement 4$-ot$esis t$at+

hich is usuall introduced ! more positi1e results"

These data suggest t#e #ypot#esis t#at ;Gaa ma !e responsi!le

8irst e1idence supports t#e #ypot#esis t#at ...cell lines could !e moreresistant

Dur o!ser1ations support t#e #ypot#esis t#at ;CChD: ill occur onl ifdeletion...

Dur o!ser1ations lendsupport to...

t#e #ypot#esis t#at this might !e the source ofmethlation

Dur results are in agreementith

t#e #ypot#esis t#at the promoting agent maresem!le..

176




To summarise, e can di1ide the 1arious t$at complement clauses !eteenthose hich e1aluate results and those hich reformulate and e=plain resultsas follos"

E*aluation8 $eformulation

suggest that (Vmodal) indicate that

(empirical item) is that (Vmodal) confirmed that

conclude that (Ve1aluation) demonstrated that

shoed that (V neg. modal) sho that (V neg.)

(e) reported that (Vmodal) (e) reported that

it is possi!le that (Vmodal) (e) found that (V5uantification)

the possi!ilit that (V modal) the o!ser1ation that

the hpothesis that (Vmodal)

Negati*e e*aluation8

it seems li-el that (Vneg.)

(ad1ersati1e) it is clear that

the fact that (V neg.)

(neg.) due to the fact that

;odalit does not necessaril constitute e1aluation" in the e=amples a!o1ee find that modalit in most e=pressions accompanies other e=plicit mar-ersof e1aluation, such as e1aluati1e modifiers. %n man cases hoe1er modalsha1e other uses, as discussed in the entr for Fma, !elo. notherinteresting feature of the patterns is that some e=pressions maintain theircollocational properties (such as negati1e polarit) in different sntactic

patterns. %n particular, the e=pression 4t$e fact t$at+ is the clearest case forarguing that the phrase has to !e used here some negati1e result is present hether that negati1e result in an em!edded clause introduced ! thee=pression, or in a preceding main clause (here the e=pression has to !econ1erted into a clause lin-er 4!ue to t$e fact t$at+ ) or e1en in a near!sentence.

177




2.// T:@<@/ (!stract salient ord *)

The significant use of 4t$ere+ in !stracts re1eals a pre1alence of simpleimpersonal e=traposed clauses in this section of the article, most oftene=pressing e=plicit e1aluation a!out the shape of the research articles results(up, don or no change)"

Eistential rocess Ealuate! Kuantification"

t#ere as no difference,

t#ere as no significant difference,

t#ere as a reduction in the percentage of,

t#ere as considera!le 1ariation,

t#ere as a transientl increased num!er of correlations,

t#ere as strong correlation,

t#ere as no change,

t#ere as pronounced distri!ution,

t#ere as decreased hepatocte la!elling,

t#ere as a high degree of similarit.

The e=clusi1e use of the past tense is in line ith other e=pressions hiche=press ne results in the research article as a hole. These e=pressionstpicall precede highl significant items ithin the !stracts su!corpushich deal ith statistical direction or relation (increase!, !ecrease!,

interal, correlate! ). The one or to e=ceptions to the pattern (5ualitati1eempirical items) seem to highlight the preponderance of 5uantitati1ee=pressions elsehere in !stracts"

t#ere ere pronounced effectst#ere as... no complete response

t#ere as... clearl a strong genetic predisposition...

T:@<@2 (<esults salient ord $)

4T$ere+ has a role in e=istential clauses in !stracts in the past tensee1aluation of change in data. This is in line ith the general finding

178




throughout the corpus that past tense or perfecti1e aspect tend to correspondto current claims in the research article, hereas the present tense is used toe=press esta!lished fact or report past research. :oe1er, in <esults sectionsthe pattern mo1es to the present tense ( t$ere is are) and tends to !eem!edded after NP or #P complement clauses. The most fre5uent patternin1ol1es pro>ection, here the main clause is generall a research processand introduces empirical o!ser1ations ith some degree of e=plicite1aluation"

esearc$ rocess Ealuation Emirical items

it appears t#at t#ere are considera!le differences (=/0)

Topograph confirmed t#at t#ere are considera!le correlations

it is e1ident t#at t#ere are important differences

the fact t#at t#ere are pronounced correlations

e found t#at t#ere is little detecta!le acti1it

This indicates t#at t#ere is no redistri!ution

The o!ser1ation t#at t#ere is normal o1erlap

<esults sho t#at t#ere is some protein de1elopment

The present tense is hoe1er replaced in the collocational frameor- T$ere

&as = > ei!ence of t$at . The e=pression is used ith negati1e e1idence orsome statement a!out more theoretical !iochemical processes (!utinterestingl not ithout some modifier, and the simple e=pression T$ere

&as ei!ence of does not occur)"

T#ere as no e1idence of long term to=icit

T#ere as clear e1idence of long term deterioration

T#ere as some e1idence of tumor de1elopment

T#ere as e1idence of a decreasing ris-

T#ere as e1idence that...1ia!ilit as compromised

T#ere as e1idence for tumor de1elopment

7hat phraseological principle can !e postulated to e=plain h tensecorresponds ith le=ical choice in this a] Dne clue emerges in the

phraseolog of the e=traposed e=istential e=pression 4t$ere aeare! to be+ .<esearchers tend not to use this e=pression to signal data hich are

179




pro!lematic or hich present a clear contrast (often preceded ! 4'lt$oug$+ ).The 1er! aeare! is consistentl used as a hedging 1er! hich collocatesith negati1e data (in the rightcollocates)"

T#ere (=/E occurrences) appeared to !e lo le1els of e=pression

lthough (=$) t#ere appeared to !e 1er fe fi!ro!lasts...

nd (=) t#ere appeared to !e slight correlation

There is a cluster of grammatical and le=ical features hich coincide ith thenegati1e 4T$ere aeare! to be no... pattern"

/. @=istential Fthere.2. ;odalit.'. The use of the past tense.

Such clustering demonstrates that collocational processes e=tend !eondsntagmatic ordpairs and !eond the linear ordering of constituents. Thisma demonstrate that such a pattern e=ists as a mar-ed form in relation to themore pre1alent present tense pattern. The present tense pattern, ith itsthematicised research clause in <esults sections, is a preferred a of

presenting positi1e results, em!edded ithin the modalised presentation offacts. The present tense is also used in a num!er of nonhedgeddemonstrati1e references in the present tense thatclause pattern" 4T$is

s$o&s t$at... T$is in!icates t$at+ ). Generall spea-ing therefore, negati1eresults ser1e as an aside or as a contrast ith the main argument, hile the

present tense indicates that an argument is to !e ta-en forard.

2./2 7S/ (!stract salient ord E)

7e ha1e seen in our discussion a!o1e that the simple past is the preferredtense for presenting the research articles present methodolog and results.

%ronicall, the present is used to introduce pre1ious research. This appears toconflict ith pre1ious research (:anania and -htar /+) and ;alcolms(/+$) distinction (past for generalisations, present for specific data). %n thePSC e find that 4&as+ generall reports the research articles Kclinicalmethodolog and non5uantitati1e Kempirical process results. %n !stractsections, 4&as+ can !e seen to ha1e a completel phraseological role to is. %nthe !stract, there are to patterns for is"

/) T$ere is... folloed ! a statement of e1idence" no ei!ence, no

molecular ei!ence, no in!ication t$at, for t$is, to suggest etc. (contrast the

180




present tense ith a negati1e in !stracts, ith the past tense usage in<esults).

2) @=traposed it and t$at(clauses" it is ...conclu!e!, aarent, !esirable,

essential, imortant, ossible, beliee!, eecte!, li%el- t$at...folloed !e=planation.

Was does not share an of these phraseological characteristics, and is insteadin1ol1ed ith statements of 5ualitati1e results here the su!>ects are either-e !iochemical entities in the cell ( eri$erin, rotein, nucleus, ?N',

gl-corotein, toicit-) or !iochemical items in1ol1ed ith a tumours effecton the meta!olism ( gro&t$, &eig$t, aso!ilatation, eression). s in;ethods sections, &as introduces passi1e participles hich are often premodified ! a technical (!iochemical) ad1er!"

as meta!olicall e=pressed

as immunologicall reacted

as en?maticall deaminated

as induced

as carried

:oe1er, the ma>orit of passi1es in the a!stract are more empirical orresearchoriented and resem!le passi1es in <esults sections" as V Kresearch

process ordered ! fre5uencO.... obsere!, foun!, !etecte!, !etermine!,

stu!ie!, seen, s$o&n, inestigate!, !emonstrate!, erforme!, establis$e!,

confirme!, comare! .

7S2 (;ethods salient ord 2)

Was &ere ha1e a relati1e consistent phraseolog across the corpus, although

in the e=pression T$ere &as t$ere &ere a different phraseolog emerges in<esults sections (as discussed a!o1e). The significance of &as in ;ethodssections stems fairl straightforardl from the pre1alence of the passi1e inthe past tense description of !iochemical and empirical o!ser1ations. #er!sused in the passi1e ha1e 1er fi=ed collocational uses. particularl fre5uent

pattern emerges ith 4!etection+ hich tends to !e either Ucarrie! out at

Kmeasurement item or 4accomlis$e! V Kmethod"

181




detection as carried out at O mm (se1eral instances)

detection as accomplished using amplified PC<

detection as accomplished using fluorescence differentials

detection as accomplished using fluorescence techni5ues

detection as carried out ! the fluorescence model

7hen the 1er! is 4anal-)e+ the method is a statistical model"

the result as analsed using the ttest

this set of dataO as analsed using the general linear model

correlation of the assa group as analsed using Students ttest

7hen the 1er! is 4!etermine!+ the method is a tpe of Fassa"

transferase acti1it as determined using a commerciall a1aila!le immunoassa-it

the structure as determined using a re1ersephase chromatographic assa

;%%% e=pression as then determined using the isotopedilution assathe reference range as determined using *' pharmo-inetic assas

7hen the 1er! is 4erforme!+ the methodolog can !e a statistical ormeasurementrelated item"

This analsis as performed using e=ponentiall groing cells

hile our analsis as performed using infrared spectroscop

clinical determination of the titlecompound as

performed using an in1erted microscope

!aseline calculation as performed using the ttest

cell line count as performed using the ;ann 7hitne test

The repetiti1e nature of some of the methodological details in the corpus alsore1eals a num!er of fi=ed e=pressions (and e1en idiosncratic idioms)in1ol1ing 4&as+ . The folloing e=amples are common to se1eral differentte=ts, although of course there is also much repetition ithin the same te=t"

182




t#e sol*ent as remo1ed under reduced pressure (= instances).

t#e solution as run on the plates for the analsis (= instances).

t#e supernatant as transferred to a ne fraction (=E instances, plus1ariants).

temperature as maintained at (measurement) degrees C. (=$instances plus 1ariants)

t#e reference range for 6drug

7 as

(measurement =) nmol. (= instances)

The plural 4&ere+ tends to !e used ith plural !iochemical entities (mice,cells, controls etc.) FK!iochemical entities *ere Kclinical process 1er! b-+ .Singular items on the other hand tend to ha1e the folloing formulation"FKusuall deictic Kempirical research process *as Kclinical empirical

process 1er!. Thus singular and plural forms of the 1er! tend to coincideith different semantic 1er! classes.

2./' 7@/ (%ntroduction salient ord )

rich set of alternati1e e=pressions emerges hen the research articleriters present their on pre1ious or current research. The %ntroduction,

together ith 4iscussion sections, appears to !e the pri1ileged location forselfreference and o1ert >ustification of research goals. %n man of thee=pressions referring to 4&e+ there are time e=pressions or deictic referencesto the riting process. These appear to 1ar sstematicall according to thechoice of 1er! and circumstantial ad>uncts"

:ere e compare production in sheep

:ere e compare e=pression of gene alpha

:ere e compare spectra

%n this stud e e=amine a com!ination of methods

in the present stud e e=amine the acti1it of PC (=2)

in a su!se5uent stud e e=amine the incidence of protein

These time e=pressions ma ha1e a role in situating a present tense 1er! !ecause the unmar-ed meaning of the present in articles is more usuall to

183




report Fpast research or esta!lished facts. ;ore fre5uentl hoe1er, theresearchers refer to themsel1es or to a generic audience (using &e) in the

perfecti1e aspect (a form of present tense time reference !ut indicatingFrecent past research). This perfecti1e pattern is comple= !ut essentiallcontains the folloing recurrent elements" (time reference) Kreference to thisstud paper report e ha1e Kresearch process"

I<ecentlJ e #a*e found that

Pre1iousl e #a*e in1estigated hether

I%n this paperJ e #a*e in1estigated reacti1e effects

%n a pre1ious paper e #a*e in1estigated other protonated

%n this stud e #a*e reported (=')

%n a pre1ious report e #a*e determined

%n this report e #a*e shon that

-e #a*e Drecently !een studingJ

-e #a*e pre*iously reported that mutant p'causes

-e #a*e recently shon that (=')-e #a*e pre*iously studied p' e=pression

-e #a*e pre*iously succeeded in catenating

-e #a*e Din t#is studyB studied N cellsuscepti!ilit

-e #a*e in t#is report studied tumourdrugdistri!ution

-e #a*e in t#is paper succeeded in esta!lishing

-e #a*e in t#is study succeeded in esta!lishing ph/p

Generall spea-ing, hen the research process is descri!ed ! ametacomment (inestigation, reort, stu!-), the sentence ad1er! as theme is

placed sentence initiall. 7hen the 1er! is more technical or lin-ed tospecific empirical processes, the ad1er!ial element is placed after the finite1er! as a specifier of the technical 1er!. This is particularl clear ith the1er! 4reort+ hich is e=clusi1el used in the simple present tense ith

184




specific technical results or o!ser1ed !iochemical processes" e Ktimereference Kresearch process Kreference Fhere (t$at) Kresults"

e no report that p' o1ere=pression is ele1ated in the presence of

e no report that epo=alcohol also inhi!its

e no report the results of our immunological studies

e report here the results of a phsical stud

e report here the results of our stud

e report here that 244Psu!clones

e report that groth in soft agar appears to in1ol1e.. su!stitution

e report the snthesis of ' su!stituted pramidi?ole

e report first isolation and characterisation

e report characterisation of a ne !reast cancer cell line

e report 2 different approaches to snthesis

7@2 (4iscussion salient ord +)

The researchers reference to 4&e+ in 4iscussion sections is associated ithcogniti1e research process (&e conclu!e, &e beliee, &e consi!er ) hereas inthe %ntroduction &e tends to !e used ith Fresearch riting processes to doith actions ( resent, succee!e!, comare). This difference corresponds toour data on actionoriented 4to+ clauses hich are more tpical of%ntroductions than propositional 4t$at+ clauses (generall related to mental

process 1er!s). %n addition, 4&e+ is su!>ect of the folloing present perfectforms"

e ha1e demonstrated, descri!ed, designed, detected, determined, de1eloped,emploed, esta!lished, e=amined, e=tended, found, identified, in1estigated,

o!tained, o!ser1ed, noted, reported, shon, suggested, summari?ed, used.

Df these, emlo-e!, eten!e! and use! can !e classed as clinical processes(on the !asis of" &e $ae use! clonogenic assa-s to Kuantif-...). ;oregenerall, riters tend to use Fcogniti1e 1er!s hen assessing negati1eresults. @ach 1er! hoe1er has a specific phraseolog. 8or e=ample, theresultspecific 4&e conclu!e t$at+ pattern technicall rephrases an empiricalresult, hile 4&e beliee t$at e=trapolates and e=plains the outcome.

185




We conclu!e t$at reformulation of results"

/ num!er of other approaches ha1eaddressed the assignment of change.

2 -e conclude that energ groupeffects are not o1erhelming.

/ T cells and N cells are essentialfor re>ection.

2 -e conclude that CTL and Ncells pla an important role in there>ection of LC%L2 cells.

/ The 1alidation coefficient decreasedfrom E.'W to E.*W

2 -e conclude that ... the dosee=pressed... does not contri!utesignificantl.

/ The result .. !i! not reeal asignificant shift.

2 -e conclude that DS ma affect themo1ement of P;Ns.

/ Neit$er osition !and as detected. 2 -e conclude that the glcoproteins..are specificall recognised...

We beliee t$ate1aluation of results"

/ The cellular !asis for this associationis un%no&n,

2 !ut e !elie1e that comparing this in1i1o... is meaningful.

/ @1en if methlene !oes not interact

ith hepatocte...

2 e !elie1e that the magnitude is not

sufficient./ The reasons for the discrepanc arenot entirel- clear ,

2 !ut e !elie1e that our techni5ue ofassessing transport... offers greatersensiti1it.

/ The relati1e L%s !i! not !iffer

!eteen methlenee=posed controls.2 -e !elie1e that methlenechloridee=posure did not pro1ide a selecti1egroth ad1antage.

/ The role of the negati1e phosphate !ac-!one... is oorl- c$aracteri)e! at present.

2 -e !elie1e that impro1ed progresscan !e made to enhance understanding inareas such as chemical drug design.

Thus e=pressions introduced ! We conclu!e t$at can (as the 1er! promises)stand as a summar of the main empirical o!ser1ations. @=pressionsintroduced ! We beliee t$at are not representati1e of the results !ut signalthe percei1ed significance of the research in the ees of the researchers.

186




. T#e P#raseology of $esearc# Article Sections

The data presented in the pre1ious section set out the distri!ution of uses ofsingle grammatical items as the are used in the research article. 7hile mostof the o!ser1ations signal departures from predominant usage in the generallanguage, certain features of language can !e seen to 1ar relati1elsstematicall from one grammatical item to the ne=t. This as seen to

particularl affect such general grammatical features such as 1er!al polarit,tense and complementation, clausal e=traposition and pro>ection and comple=nominal modification. Grammatical items can also !e seen to ha1e consistent

patterns in terms of semantic clusters and collocational sets and re1ealconsistent correlations !eteen le=ical or grammatical form and suchdiscourse features as modalit. Such data also suggest 1aring range of usagefrom one rhetorical section of the article to another. This section of the !oo-e=plores this theme in more detail, ! e=amining the specific role ofgrammatical items hich are found to !e statisticall salient in one section ofthe article alone. % also set out here the statistics used to identif thegrammatical items e=amined in the pre1ious section (this data is alsoincluded in the ppendices).

.1 Titles

There are onl 2'00 ords in the PSC titles su!corpus. To stud phraseologin Titles a larger control corpus as needed and so the ;edline electronicdata!ase as searched for a dis-full of $2 titles relating to cancer (/ E2Eords) and, for comparison, their !stracts ere also analsed (''2ords) as detailed in section %%%.E. :oe1er, the items e analse in thecontrol corpus are determined ! hat is found to !e salient in the PSC. The7ordlist programme gi1es the folloing data (in the same format asdiscussed in Section 2.E a!o1e)"

187




Table ** Title salient grammatical items from t$e Wor!list rogram

$an: -ord PSC Titles

/re0.

;

in

su4corpus

PSC

/re0.

; in

corpus

C#i

s0.

Pro4a

4ility

/2 D8 /EE ($.EW) 2/'0+ (*.'W) +.' 0.000

E0 8D< //0 (.0W) 22* (/.0W) 2E.E 0.000

E$ DN 2* (/./W) 2/2 (0.*W) 20. 0.000

$0 N4 ++ (*.EW) /*E/0 (2.+W) /+.$ 0.000/'* %N +/ (*.2W) /*'*+ (2.+W) /2.+ 0.000

7ordlist comparison of the ;edline Titles corpus and their corresponding!stracts re1eals similar data for grammatical items" of, on, an!, in, b-, ia,

its, together ith the marginall grammatical self (in relation to selfanalsistechni5ues for !reast cancer). ;ost of these items ha1e !een analsed a!o1e,and onl the item on remains.

'.// T%TL@ salient ord '" Dn

4An+ occurs in e=pressions that are either the topic of research or theapplication of a specific empirical process. limited set of items introduceon, and its tpical leftcollocates ha1e !een listed under 4of+ a!o1e (diseaserelated items)"

Xesearc$ rocessesY XEmirical rocessesY

a retrospecti1e stud on effect

&asic stud on influence

Clinical stud on impact

%n Titles 4on+ is also a -e element in fi=ed modifing e=pressions hich addem!edded information a!out methodolog, as in Kresearch process / !asedon Kresearch process 2 clinical process"

XEmirical rocessY Xesearc$ rocessY

design for pilot studies !ased on la! data

lmphatic studies !ased on a clinicopathological stud

188




flo in carcinoma !ased on anatomic manner of e=tension

design methodolog !ased on N;< com!ined spectroscop

An is less in1ol1ed in comple= nominals than 4of+ and 4for+ . s mentioned inour discussion of an! and of (!oth Titlesalient items) prepositions such as on

are largel determined ! the idespread use of le=ical items such as effect .The collocational relation !eteen effect and on can !e seen to operateregardless of complement or modifier roles, especiall hen the item 4effect+

is seen to go1ern a prepositional complement phrase"

/ The effect of surgical inter1ention and nec- cancer on hole sali1ar flo .(;odifier of effect )

2 &lood transfusion does not ha1e ad1erse effect on sur1i1al after operations forcolorectal cancer. pilot stud. (Complement of effect ).

%n /, the prepositional phrase can !e inserted !efore the presumedcomplement phrase bintroduced ! of ). The pro=imit of effect and on in 2suggests that 4on+ !elongs to a complement phrase (if no other material caninter1ene in that position), in hich case after is candidate for introducing a

modifier. %n either case, if 4effect+ is seen to introduce 4on+ then acollocational relation appears to !e 1alid across phrase !oundaries.

189




.2 A4stracts

There are 2+ /'E ords in the PSC !stracts su!corpus. The Wor!list datare1eal the folloing salient ords"

Table *2 'bstract salient grammatical items from t$e Wor!list rogram

R+,- "R/ PSC

+bstracts

Freq

%

in

subcorpu

s

PSC

Freq.

%

in

corpus

C)i sq Probability

'/ &3T E$ (0.2W) EE' (0./W) /./ 0.000

*' T:@S@ //+ (0.*W) /'++ (0.'W) /.' 0.000

$+ D8 /'E$ (*.$W) 2/'0+ (*.'W) //. 0.00/

/+ T:@<@ *0 (0./W) *** E. 0.0//

20' %N +/2 ('./W) /*'*+ (2.+W) E.' 0.0/2

2E$ 7S 'E (/.'W) E2$/ (/.2W) .0 0.020

2++ T:T 22$ (0.W) ''$ (0.$W) *. 0.0'*'2+ 4%4 '* (0./W) '+ *.' 0.0'$

''* 7:D /* /2+ *.2 0.0*0

'$ &DT: (0.2W) $/' (0./W) '.$ 0.0

The salient le=ical items of !stracts are largel diseaserelated entities(mammar-, tumor ) or cellular processes (eression, in!uce! ). %n particular,important processes in1ol1ing tumor groth appear to !e the most fre5uentitems in the a!stract ($etero)-gocit-, gro&t$, eression, actie, cancer ).

@5uall rele1ant from the first /00 significant le=ical ords are itemsindicating a general description of the shape of the data rather than themethods (correlate!, !ecrease!, increase!, interal , leel ) and 1er!s hichreport past research ( stu!ie!, suggest ). This tendenc is !orne out ! the

phraseolog, as e ha1e seen a!o1e for items such as of , t$ere, in, &as, t$at,

!i! , The folloing four salient items are uni5uel significant in !stractssections, and confirm the general tendenc for em!edded e=pansion (inclauses and phrases) and 5uantitati1e reporting.

190




'.2/ &ST<CT salient ord /" &ut

The 1er high significance of but (compared ith other grammatical items in!stracts) suggests that the reporting of negati1e results is a fundamentalcharacteristic of !stracts. Positi1e results are announced in a first clause andthen 5ualified. %n particular 4but+ is an e=plicit signal of re1ersal ande1aluation of the direction of 5uantifia!le results (up, don or sta!le)"

4ut displaed no significant reduction...

4ut this also fell...4ut decreased sharpl...

4ut resta!ili?ed...

4ut ad>usted to milder in 1itro e=pression...

Su!>ects of clauses introduced ! but are all related to the measurement ofthe efficienc of drugs (items include resistance, efficac-, immune resonse).%n <esults sections on the other hand, e find that the tendenc is to e=plainnegati1e results using ad1ersati1es hich introduce hpotactic clauses ratherthan coordinating con>unctions ()o*e0er ...5 !i! not correson!, alt)ou)

t$is !i! not result in...). s e ha1e seen a!o1e, in !stracts report and5uantif negati1e data hereas <esults e=pand on and 5ualif them.

'.22 &ST<CT salient ord 2" These

FThis ser1es as a determiner (in rephrasing, or reformulation) or as a deicitic pronoun to refocus information from one clause to the ne=t. This function isshared ! 4iscussion sections and a more detailed analsis is seen in ourdiscussion of Fthis !elo. 7e note here that Fthese in !stracts differs fromFthis in that almost half of the occurrences of t$ese are as pronouns

introduced ! of , hile Fthis is mostl a determiner. The anaphoric referentsof t$ese tend to !e 1er specific diseaserelated items (carcinogenic factors,

leucoc-tes, oncogenes, metastases) and items that introduce of are items ofmeasurement ($alf of t$ese, t$e ma1orit- of t$ese, concentrations of t$ese) a

pattern that coincides ith similar (!ut infre5uent) patterns for of (see pre1ious section). !stracts therefore tend to fa1our the use of deicticencapsulation (pointing to single items) as opposed to reformulation (a

process seen in 4iscussion sections, here t$is and t$ese are determiners oflonger noun phrases rather than single pronouns). The high significance of

191




t$ese (according to ppendi= C2) here also coincides ith Nogu and&loors (/++/) o!ser1ation that a!stracts tend to emplo simple thematic

progression, linearl con1erting rheme to theme.

'.2' &ST<CT salient ord +" 7ho

The relati1e pronoun &$o is prime e1idence of em!edding in !stracts (alsoseen in the pronominal use of t$at ). W$o refers to the onl participants otherthan the researchers (&e) mentioned in the corpus" atients and analogousterms such as $-siological grou, t$ose... Conse5uentl, relati1e clauses

introduced ! &$o deal ith the role of atients as su!>ects (in thegrammatical and clinical sense) ho are seen as acti1e recipients of research,rather than o!>ects to !e e=perimented on"

su!>ects #o recei1e acti1e management

patients #o had recei1ed acti1e management

W of those #o had ta-en aspirin,

su!>ects #o too- part in radiation studies

patients #o shoed positi1e response to the administration of UTthose #o progressed slol

cancer patients #o succum!ed

patients #o had tumours,

%n particular, patients are ne1er gien drugs (a passi1e e=pression), therecei1e them (&$o receie carbolasmin, receie ?oo, receie !oorubicin).This ma !e legal re5uirement or a deli!erate euphemistic a1oidance (unli-emice, patients must !e illing recipients of drugs) H although the consistencof the e=pression in the corpus and the fact that science riters are not aare

of such con1entions suggest that e are dealing ith a 1er dominantscientific F1oice. This is also 5uite a clear e=ample of the a phraseologhelps to shape a specific 1ie of transiti1it at the same time as framingterms stereotpicall. 8or e=ample, gi1en that all o!>ect complements of the1er! 4receie+ are drug treatments, the noninitiate o!ser1er is compelled toassign a similar semantic profile to the terms actie $-siological

management and a!ministration. The phraseolog of the term management

(the *Eth most fre5uent term in the corpus) allos us to esta!lish its meaningithin the corpus not onl as 1er different to Forganisation of personnel !ut

192




as part of a larger, recurrent transiti1e structure in1ol1ing patients andFrecei1ing the preferred phraseolog for the e=perimental application ofdrugs in io. 7hile 4ta%e art in+ and 4receie+ are the most commonformulations after 4&$o+ , the same phraseolog is not reser1ed for the other

participants in the process. nimals tend to !e 4gien+ drugs, so e find(especiall in the methods section) 4mice &ere eose! to &ere fe! &ere

gien.... 7e did find, hoe1er, one instance of mice infelicitousl 4ta%ing

art+ in an e=periment"

mice #o too- part in the control stud ere gi1en do=oru!icin !asedanalogues.

'.2* &ST<CT salient ord /0" &oth

4Jot$+ signals a noun group comple=, another possi!le characteristic ofFcompaction in !stracts. %n man of the cases here 4bot$+ is used as alin-ing con>unction, it is a redundant signal of a folloing con>unction. Thefolloing sentence is tpical"

To anti!odies that inhi!ited 4ot# anchorage dependent and anchorageindependent groth also !loc-ed...

s mentioned in our discussion of an! a!o1e, 4bot$+ is considered necessar ! the researcher to emphasise to complementar alternati1es, thusesta!lishing a !asic ta=onom. %n !stracts e find the folloingoppositions"

4ot# accelerate and dela,

pre& earl cells

high lo secretors

mouse human

rats mice

ctosolic particulate functions

o=idati1e reducti1e meta!olism

destructi1e regenerati1e processes

193




normal tumor cells

Jot$ appears to signal a parado=ical relationship !eteen to terms ate=treme ends of a scale, esta!lishing at the same time the limits of the scale(short range" from mice to rats, or long range" from normal to tumor cells).& using such e=pressions in !stracts, the riters signal a !road andinclusi1e data set to !e compared in the research article.

. Introductions

The PSC introductions su!corpus contains + $2* ords. The 7ordlistcomparison ith the PSC gi1es the folloing data"

Table *H 9ntro!uction salient grammatical items from t$e Wor!list

rogram

$ANF -O$! A4stracts

/re0.

;

in

su4corpus

PSC

/re0.

;

in

#ole

corpus

C#i s0. Pro4a4

ility

' &@@N '*E (0.EW) +EE (0.2W) '*/./ 0.000

* :S 2' (0.W) $*/ (0./W) '/0.' 0.000

:#@ '+ (0.EW) //2$ (0.2W) 2.* 0.000

$ %S E*' (/./W) '/E+ (0.EW) /E.' 0.000

// S3C: //' (0.2W) ' $'.$ 0.000

/ CN /20 (0.2W) *E ./ 0.000

/ %T 20$ (0.'W) /00E (0.2W) 2.2 0.000

/+ 7@ 200 (0.'W) +$2 (0.2W) 0.* 0.000

2 D8 2$* (*.W) 2/'0+ (*.'W) */.* 0.000'2 TD /2'' (2./W) E'/ (/.$W) 'E.E 0.000

The phraseolog of these items indicates a general tendenc for e=traposed pro>ections (clauses of action and hpothesis), the relational e=pression oftechnical facts, the reporting of pre1ious research and the present signaling ofresearch goals. The le=ical properties of %ntroductions are considera!l morecomple= that those of Titles and !stracts and, generall spea-ing, the

194




phraseolog of %ntroductions is distinctl unli-e that of the rest of theresearch article.

'.'/ %NT<D43CT%DN salient ord /" !een.

4Jeen+ is used in to tpes of perfecti1e passi1e construction hich ha1e !een identified as tpical in the reporting genre of %ntroductions (Salager;eer /++2). 7e ha1e seen man of the phraseological properties of the

perfecti1e in our discussion of $ae (a!o1e). The passi1e perfect appears to polarise around a semantic difference !eteen research process 1er!s

introduced ! a !iochemical empirical su!>ect and 1er!s hich indicate ane or pre1ailing theoretical model in e=traposed clauses"

/) K!iochemical entit or research process (has ha1e) 4een Kresearch process 1er! in or!er of freKuenc- *0" reorte!, s$o&n, !emonstrate!,

foun!, obsere!, i!entifie!, stu!ie!, !escribe!, obtaine!, ublis$e!,

con!ucte!, !etecte!, inestigate! . :oe1er, this Freport pattern alsoin1ol1es three empirical process 1er!s" use!, imlicate!, associate! .

2) it has 4een (in or!er of freKuenc- *0" s$o&n, suggeste!, roose!,

establis$e!, ostulate!, conclu!e! ) that. These are also research process1er!s as e ha1e defined them a!o1e, !ut the also tend to !e mental or1er!al processes (:allidas terms) and refer more to the research acti1it of

the discourse communit than to that of the authors. The hole pattern istermed a Fresearch utterance.

The 1er! 4s$o&n+ appears in !oth lists, and % claim !elo that it has adifferent distri!ution to other 1er!s. :oe1er, the most significant rightcollocate of been ith *0 occurrences is reorte! in the folloing

phraseolog" (!iochemical process hasha1e 4een reported to (V5uantification clause"

p' gene resistance has 4een reported to !e 1er fre5uent

drug resistance has 4een reported to !e different in 2 case

studiesantigen mechanisms has 4een reported to !e fre5uentl

carcinogenic

the LD: mechanism has 4een reported to cause significantimmunological damage

Stransferases has 4een reported to produce metastasis inse1eral species

195




less fre5uent !ut similar phraseolog in1ol1es reorte! in (V5uantification phrase"

gene inacti1ation #as 4een reported in a num!er of cancers

;P su!stitution #as 4een reported in a high percentage ofcarcinomas

LD: from /5 #as 4een reported in se1eral human cancers

lo effects ofinhi!ition

#as 4een reported in man tissues

drug resistance #as 4een reported in mammals treated ithP%;D

This appears to !e a tpical pattern for other research process 1er!s(obsere!, !escribe!, !etecte! ). 7hen e analse the empirical relational

process associate! in the same glo!al pattern, the e=pression relates telltalesigns of cancer to causes" K!iochemical process ha1e !een associated &it$ Kcancer 6"

<etro1iruses has ha1e 4een associated ith hepatic cancer

<as gene has ha1e 4een associated ith specific neoplasia

high doses of to=in has ha1e 4een associated ith gastrointestinal !leeding

mutation in these genes has ha1e 4een associated ith haemic neoplasms

its effects on human health has ha1e 4een associated ith the occurrence ofcancer

7hile this ma appear to !e unremar-a!le, it has to !e remem!ered that5uantification is a possi!le pattern ith associate! !ut is simpl not used.

similar pattern is seen ith imlicate! e=cept that the pattern is" K!iochemical process ha1e 4een imlicate! in Kdiseaserelated process 6 and thediseaserelated item is more specific than in the associate! &it$ pattern"

...ha1e 4een implicated in... regulating cell differentiation

...ha1e 4een implicated in... in the de1elopment of cancer

...ha1e 4een implicated in... the tprogramming process

196




The third e=ceptional empirical report in the first pattern has a uni5ue phraseolog, in1ol1ing a statement a!out a general research model ortechni5ue as su!>ect"

This model has 4een (idel) used...

animal models... hich ha1e 4een utili?ed....

This tpe of assa has 4een used...

the macrolide techni5ue has 4een used...

crosscharacterisationtechni5ue has 4een utili?ed....

"tili)e! is mostl interchangea!le ith use! !ut is less fre5uent"

... ha1e 4een used utili?ed to stud e1aluate prepare... K!iochemical

... ha1e 4een used for other TCN` deri1ati1es

... ha1e 4een utili?ed for the commercial production of citric acid

... ha1e 4een used as a guide in the primar stud

... ha1e 4een utili?ed as chiral au=iliaries in a 1ariet of assas

The difference !eteen the to 1er!s is that in onl follos utili)e! "

... ha1e !een utiliGed in industrial settings

... ha1e !een utiliGed in com!ination chemotherap

... ha1e !een utiliGed in a recent snthesis

... ha1e !een utiliGed in the deli1er of amines

... ha1e !een utiliGed in cancer therap

Such differences impl an e=tra le1el of phraseolog a1aila!le for thise=pression, and ma indicate the effects of merican @nglish on the general

phraseolog of the corpus.The clauses introduced ! the second ma>or pattern (e=traposed V research

utterance) ha1e a less technical semantic scope than those in the first andgenerall e=press some empirical relational clause ( 5 is associate! &it$

inole! &it$ 6 ). The pro>ected clause is a past result framed in terms of ane (present tense) research direction (the folloing e=amples are listed inorder of rightcollocate fre5uenc)"

197




it #as 4een proposed t#at this transformation in1ol1es 4N damage

it #as 4een esta4lis#ed t#at the are reacti1e ith the e=tracelluar domain of p/

it #as 4een postulated t#at the mitogenic effect of estrogens are mediated

it has !een concluded that ;P su!stitution is a significant tumorigenicfactor.

it #as 4een suggested t#at thamine is in1ol1ed in the de1elopment of prostatic cancer.

% suggested a!o1e that collocational patterns are not due solel to thegrammatical preferences of le=ical elements (in this case 1er!s) !ut to ageneral semantic Fmeaning that the collocational frameor- em!odies. clear e=ample of this can !e seen ith 4s$o&+ . Since 4s$o&+ appears to fitsemanticall into se1eral categories of 1er! (empirical and researchoriented)it is perhaps no accident that it is the sole 1er! to !e used in !oth the passi1e

perfect Freporting pattern and the e=traposed Fresearch utterance pattern.8urthermore, its use does not 5uite coincide ith other 1er!s in terms of

phraseolog and le=ical collocation. %n the first pattern (2* instances), thee=pression introduces nonfinite clauses in the same a as the 1er! reort .

%n this case, hoe1er, the clause does not present 5uantitati1e results (founde=clusi1el after $as been reorte! to) !ut more 5ualitati1e findings"

the disease #as 4een s#on to ha1e considera!leresistance to

TN8 alpha #as 4een s#on to efficientl deli1er theto=icit of ricin

a structural analogue of histidine #as 4een s#on to pro1o-e an immuneresponse

`uercetin, a lipo=genase inhi!itor #as 4een s#on to e=hi!it antitumour

acti1it in 1itroencapsulation of d<... #as 4een s#on to act as an in 1itro

inducer

The e=traposed pattern for s$o& is similar to other 1er!s such as establis$,hich introduce an e=planation rather than a specific 5uantifia!le result. Thedifference ith other 1er!s lies in the choice of clause comple=, and s$o& isused almost e=clusi1el in thematicall prominent su!ordinate clausesintroduced ! 'lt$oug$"

198




Alt#oug# it #as 4een

s#on t#at

the murine p' used in all of these studies asmutated, its mechanisms are not full understood.


s#on t#at

p' gene constructs ith man different pointmutations, the gene responsi!le for the to cancershas not !een identified.


s#on t#at

the hepatoctes are critical to the sur1i1al of thetumor, .... no correlation has !een pre1iousldetermined...


s#on t#at

the cells that mediate cancer induced G#:4,

structural studies of the en?mes ha1e et to !e pu!lished.

S$o& is thus used almost e=clusi1el to present contradictor e1idence hichhas not et !een pu!lished. These sentences are a clear case of consistencof use, and demonstrate that collocational !eha1iour e=tends !eond the le1elof the clause. 7e can see that the e=pression 4it $as been s$o&n t$at+ has aspecific phraseolog !ut is not incompati!le ith the other researchutterances. %t plas a marginall different role to these e=pressions, andriters choose it to distance themsel1es from the possi!l more su!>ecti1eFcogniti1e 1er!s of the same phraseolog. 7h should the e=traposed s$o&

V t$at clause !e limited to signaling gaps in the research record] %t ma !ethat the semantics of the 1er! 4s$o&+ are sufficientl 1ague and nonemphatic(as opposed to roose!, conclu!e!, establis$e!, suggeste! ). This allos theriter(s) to suggest a frameor- in hich the ider discourse communithas no agreed fi=ed position on pre1ious findings (neither pro1en norre>ected).

'.'2 %NT<D43CT%DNsalient ord 2" :as.

s ith 4$ae+ and 4been+ , 4$as+ plas a -e role in the phraseolog of report,

ta=onom and e1aluation. 48as been+ accounts for E0W (/2*) of theinstances of 4$as+ , and this usage is detailed a!o1e. The remaining phrasesusing this item are collocational frameor-s ith 4of+ " $ae t$e of inhich the hole e=pression functions as an attri!uti1e relational process"

#as the ad1antage of

#as the !enefit of

199




#as the characteristic of

There are also a num!er of instances of impersonal reporting in hich the phraseological pattern is" Kclinical approach or techni5ue) #as recei1edK5uantification of research process attention in1estigation folloed ! areformulation of the clinical process"

com!ined N;< therap #as recei1ed little in1estigation on a clinical !asis

P%;D antigen #as recei1ed little in1estigation as a factor in this disease

intracellular sol1oosis #as recei1ed little attention as a possi!le treatment

interferon #as recei1ed much attention as potential cure for cancer

C/'0 #as recei1ed particular attention as a possi!le source ofmeta!olic data.

s seen elsehere in the corpus, the relational or possessi1e use of Fhas alsoin1ol1es o1ert e1aluation"

the inhi!itor #as a profound effect on its structure

the factor #as a pea- incidence !eteen...the disease #as a !road spectrum of clinical indications

'.'' %NT<D43CT%DN salient ord " such.

The e=pression 4suc$ as+ is a discourse mar-er reformulating items in ata=onomic a. The most fre5uent reformulations are of !iochemical

processes (agents, en)-mes and tumours) here the reformulationdemonstrates the con1entional notation or chemical nomenclature for thesuperordinate chemical tpe"

antitumour agents suc# as N;3

al-lating agents suc# as &CN#

carcinogenic agents suc# as nitromida?oles

other agents suc# as TCPD&0

use of hormonal en?mes suc# as dismutase

200




se1eral 4N en?mes suc# as e=onuclease

meta!olic en?mes suc# as transferase

deto=ifing en?mes suc# as acetates

tumors suc# as 7ilms melanoma

tumors suc# as maleic meloma

tumors suc# as the adenocarcinoma

tumors suc# as ;C8$

The reformulation appears to !e !idirectional" the first item can !e a neitem, hile the comple= preposition 4suc$ as+ introduces a reference to a

pre1iousl mentioned specific item. %n this case, the te=tual function Fgi1enor Fne does not determine ord order, the phraseolog (superordinate)such as (hponm) remains the same. The Fne superordinate gi1enhponm reading of this pattern is not listed for this e=pression ! theCo!uild dictionar, and it is plausi!le that particular uses of set e=pressionsli-e this undergo slight shifts of use in technical riting. 7hat is clear,hoe1er, is the function of rephrasing (reformulation) hich confirms thatthis is a fundamental mechanism in report riting and e=planation in

%ntroductions. This also occurs in a slightl different form to 4iscussions"reformulation in !stracts and %ntroductions can !e seen to Frefocus singleitems, hile 4iscussions sections reformulate items as more generic terms.

'.'* %NT<D43CT%DN salient ord E" can.

4Can+ e=presses potential empirical procedures or !iochemical processes.The 1er! essentiall signals a reduced form of claim. To patterns emerge,either in research oriented passi1e constructions or in acti1e technicale=pressions"

2) KGeneral clinical or empirical process can !e Kresearch empirical process "

alterations can !e prepared applied

1ariants can !e deciphered pre1ented

ideas can !e correlated determined

methods can !e considered classified

201




therapies can !e attri!uted deri1ed

products can !e o!tained

Some technical !iochemical processes are also used in this e=pression"transmitte!, mo!ulate!, coule!, in!uce! .

') KSpecific !iochemical process item can Ktechnical !iochemical process"

gene products can dimeri?ecto-ines can flip

%L2 can hdrolse

differentiated cells can induce

gingi1alis can undergo malignant transformation

4N can meta!olise

P;@ can inhi!it

%n %ntroductions, at least, the passi1e is not used to e=press clinical or

technical !iochemical processes. This trend is re1ersed in ;ethods sections,as e ha1e seen for &as &ere a!o1e.

'.* %NT<D43CT%DN salient ord $" %t.

;ost of the uses of Fit ha1e !een descri!ed in the discussion of 4it is+ and 4it

$as been+ V Kresearch process a!o1e. 7hile the present tense is the preferred tense in %ntroductions, ith the 1er!s foun! , t$oug$t =H>,

reasone!, reorte!, s$o&n the e=traposed passi1e is e=pressed in the pasttense"

it as also found that the polmer as not sta!le

it as found that it causes higher o1erall cell counts

it as found that although sta!ilit outside the cell...

202




49t+ is the most Co!uildsalient ord in the corpus. The stec FCommon program shos that in relati1e fre5uenc (not actual fre5uenc), it is nearlfi1e times more li-el to occur in the Co!uild corpus than in the PSC (theratio is 20" //2 per /000) and this ould indicate that e=traposed clauses area prototpical characteristic of %ntroductions rather than the rest of corpus.@=traposed acti1e clauses (in t$at ) are hoe1er o1erta-en in %ntroductions !the use of nonfinite e=traposed toclauses, such as e1aluati1e researchutterances (it is essential to etc.) and it &oul! be &ort$&$ile to. Such actionoriented phrases are descri!ed !elo.

'.'E %NT<D43CT%DN salient ord /0" To.

Generall spea-ing, the pre1alence of to in %ntroductions is indicati1e of a preference for actionoriented clauses as opposed to cogniti1e Fmental process clauses. Such a distinction as first o!ser1ed from concordance data ! 9ohns and ing (/++') in the general language. %n the PSC, 4it is

imortant to+ and 4$ae been reorte! to are folloed ! specific findings orempirical e1ents. This can !e contrasted ith present tense or modale=pressions such as" it aears t$at , and it &oul! seem t$at hich tend tointroduce hpotheses and e=planations (as seen under been a!o1e" to clausessuch as $as been s$o&n to are more fre5uent than $as been s$o&n t$at ). The

most fre5uent use of 4to+ as complementi?er is in pro>ecting cleft clauseshich formulate the aims of the research paper, a -e e=pression in%ntroductions sections. 7e ha1e alread seen 4T$is aim of t$is stu!- &as toin our discussion of of , hoe1er the 1ariet of e=pression e find ith I &as

to goes ell !eond this simple formulation"

The aim of this stud as to compare

The intention as to determine

Dne further goal as to e1aluate

The -e to the plan asto

e=amineTherefore our second o!>ecti1e as to e=pand data

their polic as to e=amine

Dur purpose as to e=plore hether

nother goal of these studies as to identif 4N adducers

The aim of the present series of these studies as to in1estigate

The present studs aim as to in1estigate hether

203




The goal of this stud as to ree1aluate

main tas- as to stud hether

Thus, the first aim of the present stud as to test

The purpose of the &ristol 'rd stage trail as to use

The purpose of this oras to iden the research indo.

(@=ception" The purpose of the current report as to generate and trap...)

The onl permanent elements of the phraseolog here are the grammaticalitems 4&as to+ , and the semantics of the surrounding clusters is highlconsistent" Kresearch goal &as to Kresearch process 1er!. The onle=ception to this seems to !e here the aim is to act in a specificmethodolog, for e=ample the clinical process 4generate an! tra+ . This maseem unsurprising, !ut the important point a!out phraseolog is that perfectl

plausi!le alternati1es such as 4to generate an! tra are not e5uall as pre1alent as the research process e=pressions" the are e=ceptions. There isno logical reason h the potential e=pression Kresearch goal &as to

Kempirical clinical process should not occur >ust as fre5uentl in thecorpus. %n the case of %ntroductions, goals are presented as glo!al researchrather than the specific empirical or clinical processes. possi!le corollar is

that hat ould !e free or restricted collocation in the general language !ecomes fi=ed either one a or another in the specific language !ecause ofsuch o1erriding rhetorical constraints.

:oe1er, this does not e=haust the role of to as complementi?er in noungroup pro>ections in other salient e=pressions in %ntroductions. Dne

particularl regular pro>ecting clause ta-es the form" K!iochemical process" possessi1e a!ilit to K!iochemical process"

the reactantO its a!ilit to alter tolerance to self

e e=tended its tumorO a!ilit to differentiate

cali!rating their leu-octesO a!ilit to modif factor specific4N

e=emplified ! its pa'O a!ilit to undergo epo=idation

%n some cases, ad>ecti1e complement clauses reflect more tpical 1er!complement patterns. 4'ble to+ , for e=ample can ha1e animate su!>ects Ktheresearchers ith the folloing pattern" (e areere) a!le to Kresearch

process"

204




e ere a!le to compare the patterns

e are a!le to confirm that...

if e ere a!le to design an interim sstem

e are not et a!le to gi1e a definiti1e statement

%n /E cases e ere a!le to identif the structural defects

or inanimate !iochemical su!>ects ith the folloing pattern" K!iochemical process entit (!e) a!le to K!iochemical process"

agents that are a!le to don regulate

gangliosides are a!le to function as

human %L2 is not a!le to induce an immune response

the most potent of these is not a!le to maintain c %%%

The...analogous tumor as also a!le to metastasi?e.

This phraseological distinction Kresearch oriented !iochemical oriented isalso stri-ingl reflected in the tense patterns of one 1er!" 4lea! to+ here the

past tense is used for the research oriented pattern"

These o!ser1ations led to comparati1e studies

these findings led to idespread use of hormonal aspects

%dentification of ...cellresponse

led to the in1estigation of radioimmuni?ation

e descri!e the rationalehich

led to speculation that :T' receptors...

These results led to the selection of a !atter of immune assas

7hile the present tense is e=clusi1el used for the !iochemical technical pattern (and can !e seen to !e used in reporting of results)"

response to 4N damage leads to an arrest of the cells

This in turn leads to increased con1ersion of the lactase

This process leads to inhi!ition of intracellular concentrations

altered mem!ranetransport

leads to degradation e=tracelluar matri= (@C;)

205




the agonist 2methl :T leads to release of su!stance P

This appears to confirm our findings elsehere that tense and aspect pla arole in phraseolog (e see elsehere that it does for is &as $ae been).<ather than representing a stance in relation to past and present (current)research, the past tense appears to correspond to researchorientedo!ser1ations (relating to the o1ert mental or 1er!al acti1ities of theresearchers) hile the present corresponds to !iochemical and empiricalo!ser1ations (co1ert acti1it on the part of the researchers).

% ha1e mentioned a!o1e that pro>ected 4toclauses (such as the 1er

fre5uent $ae been foun! to, !esigne! to) are characteristic of %ntroductionshile pro>ected Fthatclauses (T$e ossibilit- t$at, it $as been foun! t$at ) !ecome are preferred in !stracts and 4iscussions. This ma reflect anincreased use of indirect grammatical metaphor later on in the te=t. %n%ntroductions, for e=ample mental research processes (in the passi1e) pro>ecte=planator clauses impersonall"

cells are -non to !ind p'

chemicals are -non to cause em!roto=icit

en?mes are -non to inhi!it hepatic ;8D acti1it

hdrolsis are -non to proceed 1ia a 2step reaction proteins are -non to repair the E0 methlguanin

%f e loo- at the long range phraseolog of the most fre5uent of thesee=pressions Fappears to e see that it is generall used in con>unction ith anegati1e statement, or a statement that contradicts an accompaning clause"

lthough the regulation of ;o4/ is notfull understood, this

appears to perform critical functions.

:oe1er, the function of p2... does not appear to stimulate 4Nsnthesis directl.

;an tumours appear to ha1e no relation to 4NToncogenic 1iruses

:oe1er, this appears to contradict some of our preliminar o!ser1ations.

%t appears to !e an u!i5uitous protein,although there is no correlation...

206




The phraseolog of Fappears to seems to !e lin-ed not ith Fhedging ofassertions, as one might e=pect, !ut ith signalling contradiction, tied in ithnegati1e su!ordinate clauses. %t is also orth noting that the negati1e hichaccompanies ad1ersati1es li-e 4'lt$oug$+ seems to operate in parallel ith4aears t$at+ and comes either in the main or su!ordinate clause" it is as ifthe phraseolog re5uires a negati1e e=pression !ut has no preference a!outhere it is finall e=pressed. gain, one e=planation for this 1ariation ma !ethat phraseolog determines hat le=icogrammatical choices are a1aila!le,ith the final mechanism of thematic choice and ord order left to te=tualconsiderations.

8inall, the prepositional use of 4to+ accounts for onl half of itsoccurrences in %ntroductions hereas it !ecomes pre1alent in ;ethodssections. %n particular e note its use in the ad>unct" accor!ing to V researchmodel (in itro criteria, soliton t$eor-, t$e t$eor- of Bnu!son =*O>, t$e

mec$anism &e ut fort$, tumor $istolog- =Palmer et al. *O>), phrasal 1er!s,as ith the 1er fre5uent comare! to V !iochemical process, andcomplements of !iochemical nominals hich ta-e to, such as the fre5uent4resistance to c$emot$era-+ . longer phraseological unit emerges ith thenominal Kempirical process Kemprical premodifier eosure to

K!iochemical entit"

(drug ) as increased folloing shortterm e=posure to TN8 and other sol1ents

(drug ) undergoes induction in1ol1ing e=posure to high concentrations of TN8

Studies ha1e demonstrated permea!ilitfolloing e=posure to nonto=ic doses

industrial e=posure to methlene chloride

human e=posure to higher concentrations

occupational e=posure to !en?ocaine

Dther nominal constructions normall use 4to+ phrases as a comparator, 1eroften in1ol1ing 4cells+ and another !iochemical, often a reagent 4gro&t$

factor+ "

responses of cells to a ide 1ariet of mitogenic groth factors

resistance of cells to groth factors

suscepti!ilit of cells to hormones in groth factor

207




responsi1eness of cells to oestrogens

similarit of cells to the anti!od

.& 5ETHO!S sections

The PSC ;ethods su!corpus contains /'$/E/ ords. The 7ordlistcomparison ith the PSC gi1es the folloing data"

Table */ #et$o!s salient grammatical items from t$e Wor!list rogram

R+,- "R/ PSC Met)ods

Freq

%in

subcorpus

PSC Freq

%in *)ole

corpus

C)i sq. Probability1

/ 7@<@ 2$+ (2.0W) /E2 (/.0W) $E. 0.000

' 7S 2$$ (2./W) E/*E (/.2W) $E.$ 0.000

/ T:@N 22 (0.2W) *20 /*2.+ 0.000

20 T /'2* (/.0W) '2$ (0.$W) /*0.' 0.000

2 8D< /+/+ (/.*W) 22* (/.0W) /20./ 0.000

'0 @C: '2' (0.2W) + (0./W) /00.2 0.000

** N4 *E'' ('.*W) /*E/0 (2.+W) $*.' 0.000

2 8<D; /0* (0.W) 2+2 (0.EW) *$.2 0.000

/'+ 8T@< *'/ (0.'W) //'+ (0.2W) '2.0 0.000

2E0 7%T: /$// (/.2W) *' (/./W) /$. 0.000

The language of this section is adapted to e=press 1er specific sets ofinstructions, accompanied ! a mar-ed lac- of su!ordination and oftenresulting in the progressi1e use of shorthand a!!re1iations in e=perimentalsections. The e=pressions to !e found in this section are thus highl regular

and presuma!l help the Finde=ical reading of the te=t.

'.*/ ;@T:D4S salient ord /" 7ere.

s ith 4been+ in %ntroduction sections, Fere is indicati1e of the passi1e.&ut hereas passi1es elsehere in the corpus tend to !e research oriented(4$ae been i!entifie!+ , etc.) here the past passi1e (hich is largel uni5ue tothe ;ethods section) is clinicall or empiricall oriented, in1ol1ingsometimes highl technical 1er!s. This contradicts :anania and -htar

208




(/+) ho found that the passi1e in ;ethods as found to !e fre5uentl present tense (is i!entifie!, $as been i!entifie! ). Con1ersel :eslot (/+2)and 7ingard (/+/) found that the simple past as pre1alent in ;ethodssections, hich also appears to !e contradicted in this corpus. %n theliterature, passi1e e=pressions in science riting ha1e !een characterised as ano1el relationship !eteen su!>ect and 1er! (Sager et al. /+0, :eslot /+2,:anania and -htar /+, Sales /++0). %t can !e seen that grammaticalsu!>ects correspond consistentl ith either clinical or empirical 1er!s (ithsome e=ceptional crosso1er)"

anaero!es ere (empirical) enumeratedanalses ere (clinical) carried out, performed, prepared

animals ere (clinical) alloed food, gi1en food, housed in5uarantine randoml assigned allocated a cage,-illed,sacrificed

cells ere (clinical) collected, cultured, fi=ed, gron,incu!ated, maintained, plated, seeded, sonicated,su!cloned, treated, trpsinised, ashed(empirical) counted

compounds ere (clinical) separated, dissol1ed, heated, dissol1ed,o!tained, prepared, com!ined

concentrations ere (clinical) optimised, added, ad>usted, maintained(empirical) achie1ed

data ere (empirical) pooled , e=pressed, o!tained(research) analsed, considered

mice rats ere (clinical) !led and -illed, e=posed to, fed, gi1en-illed, o!ser1ed, o!tained, raised, treated,eighed

patients ere (empirical) as-ed for their consent, entered atman inter1als, e=cluded from the stud,folloed until death,(clinical) treated at dose le1el

samples ere (clinical) collected, o!tained, run at =W,centrifuged(empirical) counted

tissues ere (clinical) fi=ed, homogeni?ed

209




:oe1er, patterns of the passi1e can perhaps !e more usefull sortedaccording to the elements hich follo the passi1ised 1er!, hich are for themost part prepositional modifiers (ad>uncts). 7e see later that these can !efurther sorted ! 1er!al process. % term such sorting of phraseolog from one

pattern to a su!pattern Fcollocational cascade !ecause this is the effect ofthe listing on the page. Thus the most fre5uent pattern for the passi1e is"K!iochemical entit ere Kclinical process ! K!iochemical entit(detailed in a later section). Setting out other passi1e V preposition patternse find that the collocational cascade ta-es on a further Fstep since each

passi1e then has specific (!ut consistent) element ith a sense ofinstrument medium"

ere analsed ! log ran- test

ere analsed ! ND# test

ere analsed ! using analsis of 1ariance

ere determined ! TLC scanner

ere determined ! li5uid scintillon counting

ere determined ! the method of Chadic- et al.

ere determined ! means of a Students ttest

ere determined ! the :PLC method

ere -illed ! cer1ical dislocation

ere -illed ! e=sanguination

ere -illed ! CD2 anaesthesia

ere -illed ! CD2 asph=iation

ere o!tained ! measuring the fluorescenceKclinical procedure

ere o!tained ! using a /. mm diameter cor- !orer

ere o!tained ! retroor!ital !leeding of mice

ere o!tained ! in>ecting '=/0 cells into !oth flan-s

210




ere prepared ! the re1erse e1aporation method

ere prepared ! the film method of S-o?a et al.

ere prepared ! protein precipitation ith acetonite

ere prepared ! dilution of the liposome dispersions

Such a use of b- for the medium of the sentence rather than the agent changesour stereotpical 1ie of the passi1e (in hich b- signals a grammaticalagent" reare! b- t$e scientists etc.). %n a collocational frameor- ith Ffor(a ;ethods salient ord) the passi1e construction is empiricall oriented

rather than clinical"

ere analsed for Ko!ser1a!le itemhormone traces

ere analsed for significance

ere calculated for anti!od depletion

ere calculated for luteini?ing hormone count

ere eligi!le for Kstudthe present stud

ere eligi!le for this stud

ere e=amined for Kdiseaserelated item1isceral defects

ere e=amined for malfunctions

ere e=amined for e=ternal defects

ere used for Kresearch processo!ser1ation

ere used for e1aluation of patients

ere used for the e=periments

7ith 4at+ (another ;ethods salient ord) the passi1e construction is used toe=press some measurement together ith clinical process 1er!s. s ith the

patterns a!o1e, the collocational cascade onl has one step in this patternsince the phraseological possi!ilities for circumstantial elements are limitedto times temperatures"

XClinical rocessY

211




ere collected at appropriate time le1els

ere collected at $$ minute inter1als

ere collected at / minute inter1als

ere incu!ated at '$ degrees C

ere stood at room temperature

ere performed at '$ degrees C

ere repeated at room temperature.

The o1erall picture seems to !e that e can usefull categorise certain passi1e constructions ! the tpes of prepositions that are used to signalad>uncts in these e=pressions. These are of course mediated ! the specific

phraseolog of passi1ised 1er!s, and these 1er!s and their su!>ects andad>uncts can in the ma>orit of cases !e classified semanticall and regularlsu!classified ! 1er!al process. :oe1er, there are also 1arious choices ofe=pression for the same process. 8or e=ample se1eral idioms are used toe=press the (legall o!ligator) destruction of animals. :ere are the

possi!ilities in decreasing order of fre5uenc (su!>ects include in order offre5uenc" animals, mice, rats, rabbits, igs, mon%e-s, !ogs and 4control

grous+ )"

Kanimals) ere -illed ! cer1ical dislocation

Kanimals) ere sacrificed ! se1ering the dorsal aorta

Kanimals) ere euthani?ed after 2 ee-s

Kanimals) ere necroti?ed ! CD2 asph=iation

'.*2 ;@T:D4S salient ord '" t.

Prepositions such as b- and at ha1e 1irtuall onl one use in the cancerresearch article as opposed to a ide range of use in the general language.F 't+ signals empirical measurement or 5uantification, either of temperature,duration or increments of time. 4't+ is necessar after a ide range of

passi1ised clinical process 1er!s as e ha1e seen ith 4&as &ere+ , or ithinthe collocational frameor- of 4for (= hours) at (temperature =)"

centrifuged at /2 000 rpm

212




eluted at a flo rate of

heated at room temperature

incu!ated at room temperature

measured at *00mm

s stated a!o1e man of these are repeated se1eral times ithin the samete=t, and listed in the methods section so that certain phrases achie1e thestatistical status of idioms. :ere is >ust one e=ample of man, although ecan claim that this is uni5ue in that it in1ol1es a triple collocational

frameor- ith an in1erted temperature time e=pression (as compared iththe e=pressions a!o1e)" &as (stirred) at (temp.) for (time.) until (empirical clinical process item"

as stirred at 20 degrees C. for*0 min.

until 4N e=traction

until processed

until assaed

until analsed

There are also a num!er of idiomatic uses of 4at+ , for e=ample the e=pressionFat ris- in apposition to either tumors carcinomas or animals mice. Thele=ical phrase 4at least+ is perhaps the onl e=ception to this general modifier

pattern, although it also fits into the !roader e=pression of Fmeasurement"

total of at least / 000 nuclei per sample

e=pectanc of at least E0W a load

model cohort of at least ' patients

!ased on at least * tumours

performed on at least 2 separate occasions

The Flocation meaning of 4at+ is rare in the corpus, although e findinstances such as" uni!entifiable numbers are lace! at t$e bottom of t$e

scale.

'.*' ;@T:D4S salient ord *" Then.

213




7e ha1e seen a!o1e that the num!er of uses listed in Co!uild dictionar forcertain ords is usuall highl restricted in the PSC. lthough t$en is animportant feature of narrati1e in @nglish, there is simpl no need forargumentation in this section of the research article and despite !eing a 1ersignificantl FCo!uildsalient item, 4t$en+ functions here in a restricted a(it corresponds to / out of /0 possi!ilities in Co!uild (/++ 2nd edition)" as atimespecifier !efore passi1ised 1er!s to signal a su!se5uent incremental stepin the methodolog. The most fi=ed phraseolog in1ol1es an idiomatice=pression 4t$e solution &as a!!e! !ro&ise an! t$e susension &as t$en

$eate!+ (=* instances). The folloing clinical 1er!s are most fre5uentl usedin this construction"

the solution as cooled and t#en added

the supernatant as internali?ed and t#en e=tracted

fifteen slides ere e=posed and t#en incu!ated

the fro?en cells ere thaed and t#en transferred

the mi=ture as filtered and t#en ashed

'.** ;@T:D4S salient ord E" @ach

The determiner 4eac$+ is e1idence of deictic refocusing, in hich theresearchers emphasise the distri!ution and repetition of a series of clinical

processes"

XEmirical Kuantification alication of a !oseY

1erified at eac# dose le1el

entered at eac# dose le1el

repeated at eac# dose le1el

counted at eac# dose le1eltreated at eac# dose le1el

XClinical etraction from a sub1ect grouY

separated from eac# colon

aspirated from eac# mutant

remo1ed from eac# contact

214




prepared from eac# treated region

ithdran from eac# sample

'.* ;@T:D4S salient ord " 8rom

4From+ re1eals a preoccupation in the ;ethods sections ith the source ofdata samples, particularl from organisms. 4From+ is in1ol1ed in em!edded

passi1e clauses in comple= nominals (a Freducedrelati1e pattern). ;ost1er!s used as reduced relati1es ha1e the same essential meaning Fe=tracted

as in breast cancer tumours !erie! from $ost normal cells. Similar 1er!sinclude" elute! from, etracte! from, $areste! from, isolate! from, obtaine!

from, reare! from, remoe! from, ta%en from...). 7e can also see in thefolloing e=amples similar noun1er! relations to those presented underFere, here onl genetic material tends to !e Fe=tracted"

4N as e=tracted from paired fro?en tissue

4N as e=tracted from !one cells using...

<i!onucleic acid as e=tracted from PLL cells

m<N as e=tracted from the parent cells

t<N as e=tracted from the e=ponentiall groing cells

Dne important e=ception emerges in the reduced relati1e e=pression4obtaine! from hich appears to com!ine !oth Fe=traction from !iochemicalentit as ell as an empirical F!ased on this data source phraseologies"

X esearc$ !ata sourceY

cells o4tained from 4r 9: 1an 4ierendon-

data o4tained from the a!o1e reaction

cultures o4tained from Sigma Chemical Co.

tissues o4tained from hospital recalls

1alues o4tained from the pre1ious stud

XClinical etractionY

4N o4tained from patients

cell lines o4tained from platelet rich plasma

215




mice o4tained from !reeding colonies

tumours o4tained from control mice

factor o4tained from green tea lea1es

4From+ in noun phrases generall has the Fe=traction meaning. nota!lecollocation is F(specific !iochemical cells from K!iochemical specific"culture

trpsini?ed cells from monolaer culturesspleen cells from tissue culture

tumor cells from peripheral tissue cultures

mononuclear cells from control animals

epithelial cells from immuni?ed mice

'.*E ;@T:D4S salient ord /0" 7ith.

7e ha1e alread mentioned the significant role of 4&it$+ in a collocational

frameor- ith 4&ere+ . 7hereas in Titles 4&it$+ is a salient ord used tocon>oin similar research processes, in the ;ethods su!corpus it signals theinstrument or medium ! hich the clinical methodolog is achie1ed. ne1en more specific phraseolog can !e found ith certain 1er!s hich allha1e a delimited set of possi!le instruments"

@4ioc#emical solution

ere acti*ated it# ethanol

ere acti*ated it# an e5ual amount of saline

ere acti*ated it# a cell suspension

ere acti*ated it# the culture medium

ere acti*ated it# !lan- human plasma

@su4?ect(deri*ed serum

ere incu4ated it# a mouse monoclonal anti!od

ere incu4ated it# monoclonal anti!odies

ere incu4ated it# antimouse antiserum

216




ere incu4ated it# test sera

ere incu4ated it# antirat %gG mi=ture

@colouring agent

ere stained it# /0W ammonium sulphide

ere stained it# lcian !lue stain

ere stained it# !rilliant crstal !lue

ere stained it# nitro!lue tetra?olium

ere stained it# monoclonal anti!od

.) $ESU"TS sections

The folloing results ere o!tained for grammatical items in <esultssections.

Table * esults salient grammatical items from t$e Wor!list rogram

R+,- -O$! PSC$esults

/re0

; insu4corp

us

PSC/re0.

; in#ole

corpus

C#i s0. Pro4a4ility

/E ND 2+E (0.2W) E+* (0./W) $0.0 0.000

2 %N '+0E ('.'W) /*'*+ (2.+W) 0.* 0.000

2+ 4%4 /$E (0./W) '+ *$. 0.000

'0 NDT + (0.W) /$+ (0.*W) *E. 0.000

'$ :4 20E (0.2W) /$ (0./W) '.2 0.000

*/ 8T@< ' (0.'W) //'+ (0.2W) ''. 0.000

$2 T:@<@ /E (0./W) *** 2.2 0.0000 T:@ $*2$ (E.2W) 2+/22 (.W) 2'.* 0.000

+2 7:@N /* (0.2W) / (0./W) 20. 0.000

/2 LL 22 (0.2W) $' (0.2W) /E.' 0.000

The general phraseolog of <esults sections is dominated ! le=icalrefocusing, su!ordination and reporting of 5uantitati1e results. 7e ha1e seenin the discussion of in, !i! and not a!o1e, that <esults sections attempt to

217




e1aluate positi1e and negati1e results, hereas !stracts tend to presentresults (especiall negati1e ones) as 5uantitati1e findings.

'./ <@S3LTS salient ord /" No.

4No+ is the most significant salient ord in the <esults section, and its role insignalling significant or contradictor data similar to the 4but ... pattern in!stracts. 4No+ functions uni5uel as a determiner, a usage that is not amongthe /2 uses of the ord in the Co!uild /++ dictionar. %ts most fre5uent useis in the e=pression 4t$ere &as no significant Kdifference correlation"

XEmirical statementY X?ata s$aeY XJioc$emical clinicalY

There as no significant change in radiosensiti1it

There as no significant difference in plating efficienc

There as no significant increase in hdrolsis

There as no significant change in the time course of efflu=

There as no significant 1ariation in food...consumption

This contrasts ith affirmati1e statements of this -ind, hich tend to !e

e=pressed in the present tense (as discussed a!o1e under the item 4t$ere+ ).7e also find se1eral instances of the passi1e form of this -ind of phrase"

No significant relationship as found.

No significant association as o!ser1ed.

No significant association as found !eteen tumor grade and L:

No significant difference as o!ser1ed during the time period

No significant correlation as o!ser1ed ith respect to rerite m<N

The changing preoccupations of the researchers can !e seen in the fact thatthe passi1e is preferred for research process 1er!s rather than the clinical1er!s o!ser1ed earlier in the !stract and ;ethods sections. 7hen the termFsignificant is not chosen, another e1aluati1e term is necessar ith forms ofFto !e"

XEmirical ealuationY

There as no apparent effect of diet

218




There as no consistent pattern across concentration

There as no detecta4le difference in the incidence of

There as no strong e1idence for tumor de1elopment

negati1e determiner also demonstrates e1aluation in relational process1er!s"

1accination had no significant effect on the factor

protein inhi!itors had no incremental effect on tumor groth

ethanol /W had no apparent effect on the p/ cell line

There ma !e no o4*ious smptoms of cache=ia

Dther uses of 4no+ re1eal the dele=ical nature of 1er!s used to report findings.The 1er! gae collocates regularl ith the su!>ect anal-sis, hile reeale!

corresponds ith specific clinical methods"

Xanal-sisY Xemirical KuantificationY

< analsis ga*e no indication of allelic losses

SSC P analsis ga*e no indication of p2 alterationsanalsis of Nsensiti1it

ga*e no statistical significancecorrelation

Xclinical met$o!Y Xbioc$emical rocessY

screening re*ealed no acti1it

postmorteme=amination

re*ealed no e1idence of metastasis

a topographic

scan...

re*ealed no effect ithin the group

The a!o1e patterns could ha1e !een e=pressed using an e=istential Fthere asno (as in the !stract) !ut here are used to emphasise the !iochemical entitor clinical process initiating the empirical lac- of relationship.

'.2 <@S3LTS salient ord " :ad.

219




The role of the relational processes 4is a and 4$ae a+ is lin-ed ithe1aluation in this corpus. 48a!+ is more restricted hoe1er, and in the resultssu!corpus, Fhad ser1es to signal some degree of 5uantification rather than5ualitati1e e1aluation as for $as $ae in %ntroductions. The su!>ect oftentends to !e a !iochemical su!>ect"

XJioc$emical entit-Y XZuantificationY

mice #ad a decreased num!er of formations

animal tumours #ad a greater mean length

rat li1er #ad a higher glucose count patients #ad a loer fre5uenc

protein #ad a more pronounced effect

infants #ad a much loer suscepti!ilit

controls #ad a normal harotpe en?mes

su!>ects #ad a smaller !od mass

This pattern has also !een noted in relation to the determiner 4no+ hich canstand in place of the e1aluati1e 5uantifier, although this e=pression is limited

to !iochemical compound su!>ects ith empirical item 4effect+ as head ofcomplement"

the 1ehicle XdrugO #ad no effect on tumor e=pression

Uf #ad no effect on the reduction of tumorsi?e

treatment of narial cells #ad no effect on eight gain

methanol control #ad no effect on num!er of implantations

2 ee-s e=periments #ad no effect on the factor acti1ator

Dne fi=ed collocation emerges in this conte=t" Ktumour e=pression hadsignificant prognostic 1alue"

TaT tumours I#ad significant prognostic 1alueJ

tumor e=pression I#ad significant prognostic 1alueJ

o1ere=pression of p' I#ad significant prognostic 1alueJ

220




The inhi!itor I#ad significant prognostic 1alueJ

The receptor antagonist ondansetron I#ad significant prognostic 1alueJ

7hen 4$a!+ is used as an au=iliar to e=press the passi1e perfect, its participle 1er!s are clinical processes, in direct contrast ith the past passi1e(4&as &ere+ ) in the ;ethods section.

electrode #ad !een allocated

the film #ad !een deposited

inspection of the electrode #ad !een electropolmerisedtumour!earing mice #ad !een e=posed to

rats that #ad !een treated to.

This is further proof that the past tense can !e seen as a mar-ed tense,indicating pro=imit to current research.

'.' <@S3LTS salient ord " The.

The statistical significance of 4t$e+ appears to indicate that te=tual reference

to pre1iousl mentioned items increases in later stages of the te=t, a discourseeffect that correlates ith increased le=ical refocusing and rephrasing in laterstages of riting. The definite article is o!ligator in se1eral collocationalframeor- constructions, and so is a useful indicator of terminological units.mong the more fre5uent frameor-s, e identif the folloing categories"

Emirical frame&or%

! t#e (addition, method, end, presence, production)

ofB I(folloed, increased,affected, reflected, mediated)

Ifor t#e (!asis, achie1ement, accumulation, crossreaction) of B

Iin t#e (presence, si?e, staging, setting, release, ?ones,care, le1els, a!sence, range, appearance,relationship)

ofJ

Clinical frame&or%

Dafter t#e (infusion, administration, end, in>ection, deli1er, ofB

221




implantation, remo1al)

esearc$ frame&or%

Iduring t#e (inter1al, period, inter1als, periods) of (stud,o!ser1ation)J

#easurement frame&or%

I(consistenc,fraction, precision,on the !asis, time

course, grading)

of t#e (product, mean,estimation, loss,incidence, 2/W,

accumulation)

of t#e (first 1alues,1alues, !odeight,

hperplasmin,dose, cell populations)J

#ie! categor- =researc$ emirical bioc$emical:>

I(formed, found,calculated, effect)

on t#e (sensiti1it, !asis, range)

of (the cell, these results,the data, our data, prated hpertosis)J

Iin t#e (a!sence, presence, care, li1er ) ofB

%t can !e seen that in all of these frameor-s (ith the e=ception of the !iochemical sets) all mem!ers of the !rac-eted cluster share some semanticsimilarit, e1en though the ma not all fall into our rough part categorsstem. This is perhaps not surprising as <enouf and Sinclair (/++/) pointout, collocational frameor-s depend on their le=ical elements to moti1atethe structure. The regularit ith hich some are composed confirms the1ie that prepositions are particularl important to the phraseologicalspecificit of the corpus. The same can also !e said of items hich ha1e aide set of uses in one grammatical role !ut appear to ha1e a uni5ue

phraseolog as prepositions (such as to).

'.* <@S3LTS salient ord +" hen.

Some forms of su!ordination (especiall signalled ! a con>uncti1e !inder)increase in later stages of the research article. 4W$en+ is used to introducesu!ordinate clauses detailing a clinical process after a description of researchfindings. The <esults section can !e seen to reformulate and reord clinicale=periments alread descri!ed in the ;ethods section. The pre1alent

222




structure in1ol1es a research process usuall e=pressed ! the passi1e of to1er!s obsere! and obtaine! "

XEmirical itemY Xesearc$ rocessY XClinical rocessY

loss of the film !and as o!ser1ed #en films ere photolsed

distinct redistri!ution as o!ser1ed #en cells ere treated

The results ere o!tained #en tumors ere e=posed

lmost identical 1alues ere o!tained #en () as su!stituted

greater than +W ield as o!tained #en the e5ui1alent as treated

%n ;ethods sections 4after+ is used to introduce nominalisations of a clinical process, and in <esults sections such e=pressions can !e seen to !eFunpac-ed into clauses. This can !e seen in reduced su!ordinate clausesespeciall ith the 1er! 4comare!+ "

XEmirical measurementY XClinical itemsY

ere significantl reduced #en compared to contr

ols

ielded a $ fold increase #en compared to thecontr ols

shoed superior effects thesamedos

223




e

resulted in groth dela #en compared ith in>ection ofsaline

produced a significant effect #en compared ith groupsrecei1ing notreatment

infusion as delaed #en compared ith groupsrecei1ing noSCTT

'. <@S3LTS salient ord /0" ll.

4'll+ is a salient ord in <esults sections. %t plas a role in the phraseolog ofgeneralisation across the totalit of data, and also an important role in le=icalreformulation. Df the more regular le=ical phrases 4in all cases+ precedes astatement of specific results"

%n all cases the medium as supplanted

%n all cases normal eight as regained

%n all cases the inter1al returned to !aseline

%n all cases the relationship ... fell short

%n all cases nuclei had upfield shifts

4'll ot$er+ ser1es in particular to rephrase items more generall ithin ata=onom"

All other dose groups of males ere euthani?edAll other gross o!ser1ations ere chec-ed

All other microscopic findings ere incidental

All other micro1essels shoed no change

All other regions remained the same in sensi!ilit

224




.+ !ISCUSSION sections

Table *R ?iscussion salient grammatical items from t$e Wor!list

rogram

$ANF -O$! PSC

!iscussion

/re0

;

in

su4cor

pus

PSC

/re0

;

in

#ole

corpus

C#i s0. Pro4a4

ility

/ T:T /'/ (/.2W) ''$ (0.$W) '*/. 0.000

2 &@ $ (0.$W) /2 (0.*W) 22.E 0.000

' ;6 '' (0.'W) E (0./W) 22'.2 0.000

* %S //E$ (/.0W) '/E+ (0.EW) /+'./ 0.000

$ D3< 222 (0.2W) '/ /2+.0 0.000

+ %N '++/ ('.W) /*'*+ (2.+W) //E.0 0.000

// NDT EE2 (0.EW) /$+ (0.*W) /0.+ 0.000

/2 T:%S $0* (0.EW) /++$ (0.*W) +E.2 0.000

/' 7@ '+ (0.'W) +$2 (0.2W) +2.+ 0.000

/* :#@ **2 (0.*W) //2$ (0.2W) +2./ 0.000

7hereas the phraseolog of the <esults section is determined largel !refocusing and e1aluation of data, the 4iscussion section can !e characterised

! considera!le le=ical reformulation, e=planation (! relational processesand e=plicit signaling), modalit and grammatical pro>ection (most often interms of reporting or referring to pre1ious research).

'.E/ 4%SC3SS%DN salient ord 2" &e.

The high statistical significance of the infiniti1e be is largel due to the presence of large num!ers of modal 1er!s in 4iscussion sections. 7e ha1eseen in the discussion a!o1e of 4t$at+ that modalit in the e1aluation offindings is a 1er salient feature of 4iscussion sections. @1aluation ta-es todistinct forms" e=ternal e1aluation (commenting on the 1alue of findings forfuture research) and internal e1aluation (commenting on the significance offindings for the present argument). 7hen 4be+ is introduced ! 4can+ the

225




e=pression tends to !e negati1e, and is uni5uel used to e=press inclusion ore=clusion in respect to the Finternal research model"

analsis cannot 4e e=cluded

range of interactants cannot 4e completel e=cluded

ratio cannot 4e ruled out

4Coul!+ tends to indicate either the researchers a!ilit to e1aluate or e=plaina !iochemical fact in terms of Fe=ternal !enefits"

XJioc$emical rocessY XEmirical elanation ealuationY

chemotherap could 4e a potential !enefit

chromatograph could 4e a promising candidate for

tumor e=pression could 4e an appropriate target

This inhi!itorO could 4e e=plained ! to steps

This o1ere=pressionO could 4e e=plained as cellular

This 1ariet contrasts mar-edl ith 4must+ hich is limited to the

collocation must be !ue to (and thus forms an Finternal e=planation)

Jioc$emical emirical rocess Jioc$emical elanation

These results must 4e due to administration ith

These results must 4e due to rea!sorption

This suggestion must 4e due to en?matic acti1it

The dispersion must 4e due to seasonal 1ariation

This 1ariation must 4e due to increased sol1oosis

This rhetorical certaint clearl differs from its e=hortati1e or empatheticuses in the general language (Fou must !e tired" a significant use in theCo!uild dictionar). %n contrast, the modal s$oul! does tend to !e used to

persuade or recommend a similar usage in the general language. %ts maindifference ith other modals in 4iscussion sections is that the recommendedactions tend to !e passi1ised research processes (its uses are generalle=ternal" as in" s$oul! un!ergo furt$er inestigation)"

Xesearc$ rocessY

226




s#ould 4e e1aluated

s#ould 4e in1estigated

s#ould 4e mentioned

s#ould 4e >ustified

8urthermore, the e=pression 4it s$oul! be note! t$at+ is used to introduce afinding from current or pre1ious research (Finternal argumentation)"

It s#ould 4e noted t#at tumor cell lines are heterogeneous

It s#ould 4e noted t#at others ha1e found higher e=pression

It s#ould 4e noted t#at ...tests ha1e some degree ofinterdependence

It s#ould 4e noted t#at the degrees of inhi!ition... did note=ceed $0W

It s#ould 4e noted t#at the deca does not ta-e place in aconcerted electron transfer

4Woul!+ tends on the other hand to !e used in more instances of hpothetical

su!>ecti1it than other modals (mostl Finternal argumentation)"

the most li-el source ould 4e e=pected to return its reacti1it

it ould not 4e ise to allo plasma

stretching modes ould 4e sufficient

this localisation ould 4e in agreement ith

such a ...mechanism ould 4e interesting to -no

4Will+ also introduces e1aluation rather than e=planation, and emphasises

future research (a clear Fe=ternal phraseolog)"

ctometric analsis ill 4e re5uired for different outcomes

samples ill 4e re5uired to determine hether

this cohort ill 4e suita!le

modulation of their -inasele1el

ill 4e important for...

tests ill 4e of limited 1alue

227




%f these modals are related to their historical Ftensed categories, it can !eseen that there is no correspondence !eteen Fpresent tense modals (can,

&ill, ma- from our discussion !elo) and Fpast tense modals (coul!,

&oul!, must, s$oul! ). 7ith the possi!le e=ception of &oul! , most modals arehoe1er used consistentl ith argumentinternal or argumente=ternal1er!s.

e1en more e=plicit distinction !eteen e1aluati1e and none1aluati1eempirical processes emerges in e=amples of phasemodalit, here thesecond 1er! is introduced not as a su!ordinate clause !ut as an infiniti1eFtensed ! the initial finite. The most fre5uent is 4aear to be+ (='+occurrences), hich is accompanied ! clear e=amples of comparati1ee1aluation"

This response appears to 4e definitel ruled out

These appear to 4e significant relationships

These tissues appear to 4e 1er suita!le for se5uentialmeasurement

This immunoprocess appears to 4e much more resistant to ctoto=icit

This detection method appears to 4e important in immortalisation

Dther e=pressions share this pattern, such as 4li%el- to be and 4foun! to be+ "

( !iochemical process as found to 4e considera!l more potent

( !iochemical process as found to 4e more relia!le

( !iochemical process as found to 4e the !est strateg

( !iochemical process as found to 4e much higher

The e1aluati1e pattern is in contrast ith that associated ith the phasemodal 4nee! to be+ , hich re5uires a research process as main 1er!"

esearc$ rocess esearc$ rocess

This hpothesis needs to 4e formall tested

the ne findings need to 4e classified

;an more samples needs to 4e e=amined in order to esta!lish

;ore.. cell tumors needs to 4e studied in order to 1erif hether

228




These ne strategies... need to 4e de1ised

'.E2 4%SC3SS%DN salient ord '" ;a.

7e ha1e seen in pre1ious sections that 4ma-+ is the preferred modal insu!ordinate clauses after e=pressions such as 4it is ossible t$at+ and 4it is

li%el- t$at+ . %n most of these e=pressions, modalit corresponds ith e=plicitmar-ers of e1aluation. :oe1er, outside su!ordination the ma>orit of theuses of 4ma-+ appear to function as true Fhedges ! proposing an e=planationand indicating to the discourse communit that the researchers -no it manot !e true in all circumstances. To of the most fre5uent e=amples of thisare"

XEmirical resultY XJioc$emical elanationY

ineffecti1eness.... may 4e related to sensiti1it

efficienc of this line may 4e related to crosstransformation

the more moderate effect may 4e related to cell differentiation

lac- of !ioa1aila!ilit may 4e due to error prone snthesis

deficienc in ..!odeight

may 4e due to direct effects of replication

nother possi!ilit may 4e due to inherent differences in age

'.E* 4%SC3SS%DN salient ord " Dur.

The statistical significance of 4our+ in 4iscussion sections is not surprisinggi1en that 4&e+ is also a 4iscussionsalient ord (discussed a!o1e). Personal

pronouns are infre5uent in the corpus as a hole, and Four+ signals a shift

from impersonal e=pression to clear signals of Fonership of research in the4iscussion section"

Our results sho that

Our data sho that

Our stud shos that

Our findings sho that

Our studies sho that

229




;ost references to the researchers tend to in1ol1e hedging"

Our stud suggests that

Our stud suggests indicates

Our stud suggests demonstrates

:oe1er, if the term 4anal-sis+ is used, no hedge or complement clause isintroduced"

Our analsis focused on a limited su!set

Our analsis as !ased on immunohistochemical studies

Our analsis as !ased on four methods

Our analsis as to esta!lish criteria for histolog

Our analsis as to understand em!edded tissue

8inall, specifing ad1er!s such as 4clearl-+ are used to emphasise theresearchers certaint hen no hedging 1er! is used"

Our results clearl indicate

Our results clearl demonstrate

Our results clearl sho that

Our results strongl argue that

230




'.E 4%SC3SS%DN salient ord " This.

4T$is+ is an important item in the te=tual de1elopment of research articles. sa pronoun, t$is selects an element from pre1ious discourse as the focus of ade1eloping e=planation"

T#is suggests that...

T#is ma e=plain...

T#is might e=plain...

T#is is in agreement...

T#is is in contrast to...

This use is more common in ;ethods and <esults sections. %n 4iscussions,t$is is more li-el to ser1e as a determiner, reformulating a pre1ious item or

proposition as a more general categor (for e=ample, e=pressing a statisticalor !iochemical fact as a Fresult)"

Xesearc$ reformulation as ana$oric utteranceY

T#is result...

T#is finding...

T#is o!ser1ation...

T#is model...am!iguous" this ma also !e interpreted as a FstructureO

T#is hpothesis...

This contrasts ith less fre5uent (!ut more 1aried) terminologicalreformulations"

XJioc$emical reformulation b- sueror!inateY

T#is region...T#is cell line...

T#is group...

T#is model as a!o1e, this ma also !e interpreted as a FhpothesisO

T#is protein...

T#is tpe...

T#is compound...

231




T#is acti1it...

%n addition, a series of reformulations correspond to specific collocationalframeor-s, such as 4T$is Kempirical result in K!iochemical empiricalitem"

T#is appearance in parental cells

T#is dela in P;N appearance

T#is difference in rate constantT#is disparit in degree of suppression

T#is increase in meta!olic rate

%n the frameor- 4T$is...of+ the pattern in1ol1es a superordinate empiricalitem hich constitutes the o!>ect of measurement rather than a result (asopposed to the pattern a!o1e)" 4T$is (empirical data set of K!iochemical empirical processentit"

T#is class of aromatic compoundsT#is dose of chemical...

T#is group of tumours

T#is period of time

T#is range of concentrations

% ha1e omitted one high fre5uenc item that is 1er fre5uentl used toreformulate results, !ut is difficult to classif as either research or empiricalloriented on the !asis of its intrinsic meaning" t$is effect . 7e ha1e alreadseen that effect has a comple= complement structure, accounting for se1eralcomple= collocational frameor-s in Titles and !stracts (in particular incollocations ith in and of ). The ord can !e used to la!el o!ser1a!le andmeasura!le phenomena (such as t$is motion, t$is reaction) and at the sametime can !e construed as a researchers interpretation or modelling of results(t$is ten!enc-, t$is freKuenc-). The ord appears to lie somehere in

!eteen t$is $-ot$esis (a clear researchorientation) and t$is actiit- (anempirical o!ser1ation). & reformulating o!ser1ations as an effect theresearchers simultaneousl e=plain results and comment on pre1ious dataithout proposing a ne model"

232




/ The increased li1er eightas re1ersi!le.

2 T#is effect could !e the result of increasedintracellular glcogens

/ Treatment ith chloroc;P drasticall reduces </le1els.

2 T#is effect is e1en more pronounced in ;C8LD cells

/ L3;D gap is correlated ithdonard shift.

2 T#is effect is misleading. :oe1er, someshifts are in1ol1ed...

/ &oth approaches resulted in0W inhi!ition.

2 T#is effect on @C; degradation indicatesthat cell 3P is much more efficient.

/ @88 cells gre slightl fasterin ;@;.

2 T#is effect as independent of oestrogens.

To use :allidas terminolog, the clause introduced ! t$is effect is ane=pansion of a pre1ious formulation. The e=pression differs ith research

process rephrasings such as 4T$is result+ (the most fre5uent e=pression usedith t$is). T$is result tends to introduce a ne research direction hich doese=pand on the pre1ious result !ut essentiall goes !eond it in a reference toresearch implications"

/ 4N se5uencing of themelanoma re1ealed that p'codons... ere ild tpe.

2 T#is result eliminates the possi!ilit thatmutations are germline...it suggests a mutagenicmechanism.

/ 7e o!ser1e se1eral large 9% positi1e m<Ns

2 T#is result ma indicate that 9% is a 1erdistant e=on.

/ +0W of the car!onium ion astrapped and

2 t#is result suggests that inorganic phosphatecan compete ith ater to trap the ion.

/ The reaction.. produces;eDrc.

2 T#is result is consistent ith the partitioningof a common intermediate.

/ The stud .. produced a 2'

response rate

2 !ut e ha1e not !een a!le to reproduce t#is

result.

%t can !e seen from !oth of these items that reformulation is not >ust a processof le=ical selection, !ut also in1ol1es the rest of the clause hichaccompanies the reformulating item. %t seems that the meaning ofreformulations such as 4t$is effect+ and Ft$is result+ depend on the orientationof the folloing clause. The semantics of a particular ord are thereforethron into sharp relief ! its conte=t of use, !ut can also !e seen to !e sta!lein rhetorical termsH at least in the conte=t of a particular genre.

233




,. P#raseology and t#e !iscourse Of Science

The main focus of this !oo- has !een to e=amine the specific conte=t of thecancer research article. %n pre1ious sections, % proposed that grammaticalitems are a useful starting point in the analsis of scientific te=ts. The

collocational !eha1iour of a selection of grammatical items as set out in the preceding chapter in order to relate patterns of phraseolog to the stle andrhetorical function of the different sections of the research article. % nosummarise the main findings of this stud and e=amine some of theimplications and limitations of the analsis carried out in this !oo-.

1. Collocations and t#e T#eory of P#raseology

Collocations are ords hich tend to cooccur in recurrent, recognisa!lee=pressions. Dur data analsis a!o1e shos different collocations are

attracted to grammatical items in different tpes of te=t. t a !asic le1el ofte=t analsis therefore, % hope to ha1e shon that the comparison of ordlists and collocational patterns pro1ides a sstematic method of contrasting aspecific genre ith a general corpus of te=ts. Collocational patterns thusappear to !e fundamental units in the stlistic description of te=ts.

% also hope to ha1e esta!lished the notion of collocation ithin a generaltheor of language. %n phraseolog studies, it is generall accepted thatclusters of more than one ord can reflect a single choice. 7e ha1e seen inthe data analsis a!o1e that fi=ed e=pressions are often made up of se5uencesof grammatical items alone, or in com!ination ith high fre5uenc le=icalords. %n addition, hen different le=ical items are in1ol1ed in collocation,the differences of phraseolog the e=hi!it suggest that the are chosen iththeir role in the larger te=t in mind. Thus ords are chosen not simpl for theinformation the !ring along !ut also for their longrange a!ilit to signalte=tual relations. These o!ser1ations appear to confirm the role ofgrammatical collocation in discourse, and ser1e to redefine the relationship

!eteen the ord and the te=t.The starting point of m analsis has !een to esta!lish a !asic Fstatistical

te=tual definition of collocation. This 1ie of collocation does not predefine the unit of analsis as a grammatical phrase, !ut see-s simpl to find

234




significant recurrent e=pressions. The term Fstatistical deri1es from &err<ogghes (/+$0) analsis of statistical collocation and also refers toSinclairs procedure of relating different distri!utions of collocation to le=icalor grammatical categories (Sinclair /++/). The term Fte=tual is used here tosuggest that collocations must at first !e defined in terms of their te=tualoccurrence, that is to sa their use in authentic, naturall occurring te=ts.:oe1er, the analsis % set out a!o1e demonstrates that there is more tocollocation than ord fre5uenc and cooccurrence. 7e ha1e seen that thereare considera!le restrictions on e=pression in science riting, and thatsemantic sets of lo fre5uenc ords (le=ical clusters) tend to !e organised1er consistentl in specific grammatical patterns, a restriction that iscompati!le ith the Fsemantic sntactic 1ie of collocation set out !le=icologists such as :oarth (/++) and the sstemic grammarians, in

particular :unston and 8rancis (/++). 7e ha1e also o!ser1ed that on manoccasions, collocations and le=ical phrases are used as specificcommunicati1e acts. This corresponds to a Fdiscoursal rhetorical 1ie offi=ed e=pressions, as seen in the or- of Nattinger and 4eCarrico (/++2) and8ernando (/++E). Thus collocation is a fundamental notion ithin a much

!roader and more comple= sstem of phraseolog. % ha1e alread noted thatthis use of the term does not correspond to that used ! man le=icologists.%nstead this 1ie of phraseolog is compati!le ith the or- of GlBser

(/++) and ;oon (/++a and /++!). The statistical analsis of collocation istherefore the !uilding !loc- upon hich more sophisticated degrees ofdescription and e=planation can !e !ased.

Phraseolog is the Fpreferred a of saing things ithin a particulardiscourse. The notion of phraseolog implies much more than in1entories ofidioms and sstems of le=ical patterns. Phraseolog is a dimension oflanguage use in hich patterns of ording (le=icogrammatical patterns)encode semantic 1ies of the orld, and at a higher le1el idioms and le=ical

phrases ha1e rhetorical and te=tual roles ithin a specific discourse.Phraseolog is at once a pragmatic dimension of linguistic analsis, and asstem of organisation hich encompasses more local le=ical relationships,

namel collocation and the le=icogrammar. % claim that the phraseologicalanalsis of a te=t should not onl in1ol1e the identification of specificcollocations and idioms, !ut must also ta-e account of the correspondence

!eteen the e=pression and the discourse ithin hich it has !een produced. 1isualisation ma help to conceptualise the relationship !eteen thesethree different le1els of le=ical organisation"

235




Levels of organisation. Systems of organisation .

Discoursal-rhetorical.

Semantic-syntactic.

Statistical-textual.

The flo chart on the left represents increasingl sophisticated le1els ofte=tual description. 7hile these are mutuall dependent and inclusi1e (ithcollocation pro1iding the !asis of all o!ser1ations at a phraseological le1el,for e=ample), the correspond to sstems of e=planation hich differ inessential as (i.e. sntagmatic, semantic and pragmatic sstems). &

!rea-ing phraseolog don into su!sstems and attempting to fi= the

relationship !eteen such terms as phraseolog and le=icogrammar in thisa, % am proposing a frameor- ithin hich it is possi!le to discuss1arious le1els of le=ical e=pression in a particular te=t. t the same time, themodel distinguishes usefull !eteen descripti1e sstems, hich are oftenfelt to !e interdependent, and their corresponding e=planator sstems hichdiffer in 5ualitati1e terms. % use the terms of this model to summarise mgeneral findings !elo.

2. P#raseology and Scientific Style.

The analsis of grammatical items in the preceding chapters of this !oo- hasre1ealed a num!er of interesting properties of the scientific te=t. 8rom the

point of 1ie of genre analsis and Englis$ for Secific Puroses (@SP),there is much to !e said a!out the role of grammatical collocation andscientific stle. The data % set out a!o1e sho ho statisticall significantgrammatical items can !e identified using Wor!list (Scott /++'). This

pro1ides a list of Fsalient ords for each section of the research article (theseare summarised in section *.' !elo). @1en this relati1el simple,mechanical step re1eals that the distri!ution of grammatical items 1aries

236

Collocation

Lexico-grammar

Phraseology




sstematicall in different rhetorical sections of the article. ;ore generall, %claim that collocational patterns are central to the analsis of register, genreand stle. This te=tual 1ie of collocation is compati!le ith more recentor- on the theoretical frameor- of le=icogrammar (:allida /+) and the

phraseological analsis of te=ts (;oon /++a and /++!).Dne implication of the data % ha1e presented here is that there is a shared

scientific 1oice or Fphraseological accent hich leads much technicalriting to polarise around a num!er of stoc- phrases. 8i=ed e=pressionsranging from !rug of c$oice..., -iel!e! mo!est increases in..., is stable to t$e

action of... are per1asi1e in the corpus, !ut are also at times unusualformulations hich are stlisticall mar-ed in comparison ith general@nglish. 7hile the appear to !e normal from the point of 1ie of thescience riter, such particular forms of e=pression stand in mar-ed contrastto alternati1e as of putting ords to these ideas, a point that is often lost inlargescale corpus analsis. s :allida (/++) has recentl noted, there is aFfa1ourite clause tpe in scientific @nglish. Comple=es of to or moreclauses are tpicall compacted as Fthings (noun phrases) in a simplerelational clause, the -ind of sentence structure that appears to !e idespreadin scientific riting. :e gi1es an idealised e=ample (/++"/+0)"

Process $elation Process

/ The dri1er dro1e the !us too fast don thehill,

so the !ra-esfailed.

2 The dri1ers o1errapid donhill dri1ing of the !us

caused !ra-efailure.

The ording in 2) is an e=ample of :allidas notion of grammaticalmetaphor. 7e ha1e seen in the introduction to this !oo- that grammaticalmetaphor ser1es to ree=press a comple= formulation, ta-ing it generalltoards a more nominal mode of e=pression. %n fact, man of the seemingl

comple= idiomatic e=pressions e find in the corpus share this underling propert. Thus a !rug of c$oice is a !eha1ioural process encoded as anominal entit, stable to t$e action of is a relational process encoded as anad>ecti1al 5ualit, and -iel!e! increases in is an empirical o!ser1ation ofcircumstance encoded as a material 1er!. :allida claims that such highldistilled structures share the single underling mechanism of grammaticalmetaphor (/++" 2//). :e further points out that far from merel pro1idingno1el as of saing the same thing, grammatical metaphor plas a usefulrole in the distri!ution of thematic roles ithin the clause and at the same

237




time is a -e mechanism in the construction of ne meanings. Nominalisation has !een noted on man occasions !efore in science riting, !ut :allida has shon that the process is present in a hole series ofgrammatical e=pressions and clause tpes. Dther :allidaan linguists,including &an-s (/++*) and 4ereian-a (/++*), ha1e pointed out that thisshift of e=pression underpins processes such as modalit, hedging and the useof the passi1e in science riting. Thus from the point of 1ie of phraseolog,the underling tendenc to use grammatical metaphor e=plains to somee=tent h scientific language appears to !e so constrained and sostlisticall mar-ed in relation to the general language.

Collocational patterns emerge as a consistent !ut largel su!liminalfeature of language. The are specific to the genre and e1en to the su!genreor section of the te=t. nd those collocations hich emerge in our corpusappear for the most part to !e consistent ith the general stlistic shift ofscientific @nglish toards grammatical metaphor. The regularit andidespread nature of much of the phraseolog e ha1e o!ser1ed a!o1e iscompelling e1idence not onl for the e=istence of a discourse communit, !utfor the per1asi1e influence of communit norms on general stle ande=pression. Such consistencies ha1e !een identified idel in the literatureon genre analsis, and range from the macrole1el of the te=t to smallscalegrammatical patterns of usage. Thus Sales (/++0) conception of discourse

communit relies on largescale regularities in rhetorical structure, hile;ers (/++/) e=amines the consistent use of longrange cohesi1e de1icesithin the research article genre. Dn the other hand, ;aster (/+$) e=aminesthe role of generic t$e in research articles, and Salager;eer (/++2) andothers e=amine le=ical metaphor, the rhetorical role of tense and 1er! form inscience te=ts and other micro te=tual features. % suggest that the collocational

patterns e ha1e seen a!o1e (including the use of idioms, fi=ed e=pressionsand other formulae) pro1ide a useful intermediar stage of analsis !eteenthe macro and the micro le1els of linguistic description. Collocation is thelin- !eteen the ord on the one hand and the te=t on another.

Collocations appear to confirm the e=istence of a discourse communit.

Their 1er consistent nature suggests that collocations ha1e a central role to pla in discourse, at a metaphorical le1el in terms of reformulating ideas !utalso, to use :allidas terms, at the le1el of te=tual organisation andinterpersonal e=pression. Ne1ertheless, this picture is complicated ! the factthat the research article genre does not ha1e a single monolithic stle, orle=icogrammar, ith entirel predicta!le features. The sheer 1ariet ofgraphic presentation from one research specialism to another is a usefulreminder of the comple=it and heterogeneous nature of scientific discourse.The regularit and per1asi1e nature of collocation appears to !e incompati!le

238




ith the intuition that an indi1iduals use of language is inherentl uni5ueand creati1e. 7hile presentation and format are matters of conscious editorialcontrol ithin different research articles, collocational stle is presuma!lnot a conscious product of composition or of editing. %nstead, it is li-el thatthe collocational coherence of a te=t is an ac5uired characteristic deri1ed !the riter from ide reading and su!conscious attempts to conform to thenorm of speech in the scientific communit.

% ha1e pointed out a!o1e that the Pharmaceutical Sciences Corpus includesa ide 1ariet of different specialisms e1en ithin the specific field of cancerresearch. @1en te=ts ithin the same >ournal co1er 1er different areas ofresearch, and the authors originate from different institutions and language

!ac-grounds. So it must !e the case that e=amples of collocational regularitacross these idel different research specialisms (and across a !road rangeof periodicals) represent a form of coherent scientific stle. The term %

propose for these e=pressions is generic collocation. Thus >ust as thediscourse communit has its sstem of genres and technical >argon, it maalso de1elop a more su!tle set of identifing e=pressions, at least in its formalmodes of ritten communication. %t does not appear enough hoe1er tosuggest that collocations and phraseolog are dependent on stle andinterpersonal factors such as similar rhetorical functions. % ha1e suggesteda!o1e that phraseolog ma ha1e an important role to pla in the te=tual

de1elopment of meaning, and so an e=planation of the consistent stle mustin some respects return to the preoccupation of terminologists and attempt torelate the Fpreferred a of saing things ith the pre1alent -noledgestructure of science.

;ore recentl, Lem-e (/++) has shon that se1eral genres are presentithin a single te=t, and that it ould !e an o1ersimplification to seescientific stle as purel limited to a specific genre ithin the !roaderlanguage sstem. 4espite the collocational specificit of man of thee=pressions e ha1e e=amined a!o1e, there is no reason to !elie1e thatscientific te=ts are holl separate from the general language or that the donot interact ith or deri1e ne modes of e=pression from e1erda speech.

%ndeed, :allida and ;artin (/++') ha1e consistentl argued that the generallanguage is itself im!ued ith the phraseolog of se1eral competing technicalregisters, from the language of science and religion to that of !usiness and

>ournalism"

@1er te=t, from the discourses of technocrac and !ureaucrac to the tele1isionmaga?ine and the !lur! on the !ac- of the cereal pac-et, is in some a affected ! the modes of meaning that e1ol1ed as the scaffolding for scientific-noledge... %n other ords, the language of science has !ecome the language ofliterac (:allida and ;artin /++'"//)

239




:allida and ;artin see the influence of scientific discourse as per1asi1e insociet, especiall in the conte=t of ad1anced and higher education. Theirthesis has !een to alert educational authorities to this influence so thatstudents from nonliterate !ac-grounds can deal ith technical language.7hile other forms of discourse ma !e e5uall as influential (such as thediscourse of commerce), scientific discourse can !e seen to operate in a largenum!er of genres that are ultimatel deri1ed from research articles. s esa in the PSC sur1e of scientists in chapter 2, research articles compete forthe readers attention ith re1ie articles, e=perimental articles, acceleratedcommunications, Fpopular science articles (in Nature etc.) and inde=inga!stracts. &ut one can also note the important role of the Fgre literature(uger /+$+)M that is, of grant proposals and the reports of the researchfunding councils, and the press releases of the ma>or cancer charities.

Specialist research articles ha1e adapted 1er specialised as of processing scientific -noledge. &ut science as a human acti1it is em!odiedin discourse, not >ust in research articles and the discourse of science isappropriated ! 1arious groups rather than produced or reproduced in te=ts.

. T#e "e'ico(grammar of t#e Scientific $esearc# Article.

The theor of le=icogrammar is !ased on the o!ser1ation that different ordstend to ha1e uni5ue grammatical relations, and that e=tended e=pressionstend to include onl those items hich ha1e the same semantic properties.This !oo- has attempted to construct the essential elements of a le=icogrammar of the research article genre, at least in the field of cancer research.

To present a summar of the le=icogrammar of research articles hereould !elie the comple=it of the data. Ne1ertheless, there are some generalcorrespondences !eteen grammatical items on the one hand and thecommunicati1e functions of each section in the corpus. The picture of ahomogenous grammar e=tending from the Title to the 4iscussions section

fades aa, and e are left ith highl specific grammatical su!sstems foreach of the rhetorical sections of the article. These remar-s !ecome e1enmore significant, hen one considers that most of the Fscience in theresearch article is reformulated from one section to the ne=t, and that the te=tis in effect a cclical series of more or less comple= paraphrases and ree1aluations of the same data. The differences in ording !eteen differentsections must therefore !e interpreted in terms of the te=tual andinterpersonal functions of the te=t rather than simpl in terms of propositionalinformation.

240




%ntroductions, for e=ample, in1ol1e the lions share of infiniti1e clauses of pro>ection (clauses introduced ! Fto, e.g. $as been s$o&n t o... V nonfinite1er!), hile pro>ection in !stracts and 4iscussion sections is tpicall finite(it $as been s$o&n t$at V finite 1er!). %n addition, e ha1e seen a!o1e thate1en the same salient items in different rhetorical sections ha1e su!tle !utconsistent 1ariations in use. 8or e=ample, hile there is significant negati1e

polarit in !oth !stracts and <esults sections (e=pressed ! !i! not ),!stracts summarise the 5uantit of negati1e results (!i! not !ecrease

significantl-), hile <esults sections compare data and e=plain negati1eresults in terms of 5ualit (!i! not result in significant metastasis). Generallspea-ing, grammatical items in cancer research articles tend to ha1e a muchmore restricted set of uses than in the general language (at least incomparison ith items listed in the Co!uild dictionar). Thus despitedifferences !eteen con1entional sections, some indi1idual grammaticalitems share associated phraseological roles throughout the corpus. Thisin1ol1es such features as the construction of nominal groups (here Fof is asignificant item), signalling of negati1e results (F!ut), the reformulation ofimmediatel neigh!ouring discourse (Fthis), e1aluation in relational clauses(folloing Fis, ha1e), research or empiricall oriented clause comple=es(Fthat or Fto), passi1es (F!een), the 5uantification of clinical processes(Fat), the 5ualification of effects or results (Fin), the e=pression of modalit

and hedging (F!e) and indirect impersonal metaphor (Fit). Thus hile agrammatical item in the general language ma ha1e a largel unpredicta!leset of conte=ts, the corpus allos us to infer a 1er specific phraseolog andsstem of le=icogrammatical relations for these ords.

:oe1er, the le=ical and semantic structure of the research article !ecomes much more predicta!le hen e e=amine coherent su!sections ofthe corpus. 8or e=ample, the tpical phraseolog of Titles centres on

prepositions such as of hich are used to form comple= nominal groups. Thefocus of research in Titles tends to !e to the left of the e=pression ith anempirical or !iochemical finding in thematic position ith postmodifing

phrases tending to e=press clinical methodolog. %f the lefthand item is a

semitechnical noun, such as e1aluation, relation, effects then this item ser1esas the methodological focus of research rather than a !iochemical entit,although this entit or process must then !e e=pressed as the ne=t element(i.e. is not head of the noun group). 7hile this is the dominant phrasestructure, a minorit of Titles also in1ol1e acti1e clauses, hich usuallin1ol1e an attri!uti1e clause, ser1ing as an immediate e1aluation of results"

241




Titles

inhi!ition effects of chemotherap on metastases (comple= !iochemical nominal)

@1aluation of prognostic factors in !reast cancer (comple= research nominal)

to!acco as a ris- factor for lung cancer (nominal ith goal)

The relation !eteen clinical and histological outcome... (frameor- ith con>unction)

pS2 is an independent factor of good prognosis in primar !reast cancer (e1aluation)

%n contrast, salient e=pressions in !stracts represent grammaticalcompaction (relati1e clauses and hpotactic e=pansions hich define thescope of reference of a the main nominal e=pression) and the 5uantitati1ereporting of data shapes (rising, falling, sta!le or negati1e statistical results)together ith other pasttense findings"

+bstractsthe mechanism of action of Kcompound 6 as shon to KV empirical process (comple=nominal e=pression of findings)

t#ere as a significant increase in to=icit (5uantitati1e report)

%t is concluded t#at propagation did not increase (impersonal e=pression of 5uantitati1ereport)

su!>ects #o recei1e acti1e management (fi=ed em!edded clause)

4ot# normal and tumor cells (frameor- ith coordinate con>unction).

%ntroductions in turn contain perhaps the longest stretches of consistent phraseolog, generall reformulating pre1ious research or e1aluatingesta!lished concepts (in the present and present perfect) or announcingactionoriented e1ents (research aims and intended methodolog e=pressed inthe past tense). Such e1ents tend to !e associated ith to( and t$at(clause

pro>ections"

Introductions p' gene resistance #as 4een reported (fi=ed e=pression of report)

P%;D #as recei1ed little attention (fi=ed e=pression of report)

studies #a*e shon t#at... (fi=ed e=pression of report)

is an effecti1e inhi!itor (e=pression of e1aluation)

(Compound ) is sta!le to the action of (Compound 6) (e=pression of empirical result)

use of agents suc# as dismutase (refocusing pre1ious item)

it as also found that (reporting pre1ious research)

242




%n this stud e e=amine (fi=ed e=pression of report)

the purpose of the present stud as to e=pand data (fi=ed e=pression).

;ethods sections contain a 1ariet of fi=ed e=pressions, and their phraseolog is principall concerned ith the circumstances of clinical procedure such as se5uences, rates of change and clinical e=tractions fromone data source to another. The past passi1e also !ecomes pre1alent in thereporting of (recent) clinical e1ents in this section"

Met)ods

aminids ere censored from the organs (idiosncratic e=pression of procedure)

as e=amined for e=ternal defects (clinical e=pression)

at eac# dose le1el (procedure)

(Compound 6) as t#en added dropise (clinical e=pression)

as collected and concentrated (clinical se5uence)

(data set) calculated from the !ootstrap samples 2*h after e=posure to (fi=ed e=pression of procedure)

The salient e=pressions of <esults sections are predominantl concerned ith5ualitati1e reporting, reformulation and comparison of positi1e and negati1e

data. Prepositions such as in hich are used to introduce clinical data setselsehere (for e=ample in !stracts and Titles) are no used in nominalmodifiers e=pressing empirical o!ser1ations. Grammatical pro>ections (int$at and to) are replaced ! e=istential impersonal e=pressions of report(using t$ere is, t$ere are) or e=pansion clauses (introduced ! &$en)"

ResultsT#ere as no significant change in radiosensiti1it (5ualitati1e report)

controls did not sho <T acti1it (5ualitati1e report)

mice #ad a decreased num!er of formations (5uantitati1e report)

it appears that t#ere are considera!le differences (5ualitati1e report)

after t#e infusion of (clinical frameor-)

no acti1it as o!ser1ed #en () as incu!ated (5ualitati1e research report of clinical process).

8inall, 4iscussion sections tpicall e=press o1ert e1aluation (referring to&e and the use of pro>ections ith is) and e=planation of data reformulated asempirical rather than !iochemical processes (nota!l after in). s might !e

243




e=pected in research papers, the 4iscussion section refocuses attention on aconceptual research model and reformulates empirical o!ser1ations ascogniti1e researchoriented nouns" mo!els, $-ot$eses and strategies.Clause pro>ections in t$at !ecomes pre1alent (t$at introduces cogniti1eresearch processes as opposed to to hich tends to introduce !iochemicale1ents) and modal 1er!s are used in idespread hedging"

/iscussiondata suggests t#at reacti1e o=gen ould 4e important (modified report of results)

This result may 4e related to !leeding tendenc (modified e=planation)

%t is interesting to note t#at (modified research report)

increasing data does not result in an further enhancement (5ualitati1e report)

T#is e1idence suggests t#at (including reformulation)

e ha1e found t#at (report)

lthough % ha1e used the ords Ftpical or Fprototpical in reference tothese e=pressions, it is perhaps more accurate to descri!e this as outstanding

phraseolog. % chose the term Fsalient to capture the idea that thesee=pressions are onl tpical of those elements of stle hich are in some ade1iant from the rest of the corpus. This is !ecause the Wor!list comparisonemphasises e=treme differences in the corpus, and although concordanceanalsis does suggest some similarities, it sheds little light on phrases hichma !e used consistentl from one section to the ne=t. The e=pressions listeda!o1e are in fact untpical, at least in respect to the corpus as a hole,although the are of course prototpical of the section of the te=t hich therepresent. %t has to !e noted therefore that a degree of potential consistencma ha1e !een o1erloo-ed ! the largescale statistical analsis ofdifferences in the corpus.

lthough grammatical collocations are useful for identifing longerstretches of phraseolog, it has not et !een pro1en that the represent the

o1erriding phraseolog of the te=t as a hole. The listing % present a!o1erepresents an e=treme generalisation and it is difficult to gauge from this the proportion of an one indi1idual te=t hich ma !e made up of prototpicalor outstanding phraseolog. %n particular, it is important to relate thesefindings a!o1e to indi1idual te=ts. To e=amine this dimension of te=tanalsis, % ha1e annotated !elo a 4iscussion section from one article" Jioreersible Protection for t$e P$os$o Grou, a paper donated to thecorpus ! the leadauthor S. 8reeman and originall pu!lished in the @ournal

of t$e C$emical Societ- (#ol./', /++/). rough indication of the e=tent tohich such a te=t conforms to the tpical le=icogrammar of the corpus can

244




!e shon ! graphicall identifing those items mentioned as salient in thePSC in !old, and at the same time indicating le=ical items hich are usuallcollocations of salient items in the corpus (underlined). (Triangle !rac-ets areused to separate phrases found in the general phraseolog from those hichappear to !e untpical. Thus !old items outside triangle !rac-ets indicatenontpical uses of grammatical items identified in the corpus)"

Comarison of t-ical PSC $raseolog- &it$ a $armaceutical ?iscussion section.

DT#e read remo1al of the *aceto=!en?l groupsJ ith car!o=esteraseIsuggests t#at t#e *aclo=!en?l diesters may 4e useful !iore1ersi!lederi1ati1es of the phospho groupJ. IT#e loer reacti1it of t#e monoester Jith car!o=esterase I#en compared ith t#e diesterJ, Icould 4e e=ploited Jto pro1ide Ia sustained release of parent drugJ . In theor, once inside t#e cell,t#e lipophilic diester ould readil Iield t#e anionic monoester J, hich

!eing charged Iould 4e trappedJ and hence ser1e as Ia reser1oir for t#e

parent drugJ. IT#is !iore1ersi!le protecting group could also #a*e applicationsin snthesisJ, ith t#e phospho moiet !eing li!erated under 1er mildconditions a1oiding It#e common methods of high pressure hdrogenationJ,'strong acid/* or trimethlsill!romide./

lthough the products Ideri1ed from the phospho group of the diester (/) are-nonJ, the fate of the !en?l group Iis more comple=J ith onl I '0W of

the product deri1ed from t#e proposed car!onium ionJ !eing present as *hdro=!en?l alcohol Iat earl time pointsJ. %nstead of reacting ith ater,Ithe car!onium ion may 4e trapped ! another nucleophileJ, and possi!ilitiesinclude t#e en?me, products or !uffer. IT#e reaction profile for t#e

decomposition of triester (/) ith car!o=esterase is 1er similar to t#at of

monoester (2)J (8igure /). /or (/), Ito e5ui1alents of t#e car!onium ionJ aregenerated, hich Idoes not loer cataltic efficiencJ, It#is suggesting t#at

t#is intermediate does not react ith en?meJ. IIn a related reaction/E the !en?l car!onium ion generated from t#e sol1olsis of diphenl !en?l phosphate in phenolJ is trapped ! electrophilic aromatic su!stitution Ito gi1e2 and *!en?lphenolJ. In analogous reaction of t#e *hdro=!en?lcar!onium ionJ ith *hdro=!en?l alcohol ould gi1e '(*hdro=!en?l)*hdro=!en?l alcohol, hoe1er t#e /: n.m.r. spectrumonl suggested /,* disu!stituted products. To in1estigate It#e in1ol1ement of

t#e !ufferJ It#e reaction of (/)J ith I units of car!o=esteraseJ Ias

repeated using 0.0/ ; phosphate !ufferJ. IAt all time points more than +0W of

the car!onium ion as trapped as *hdro=!en?l alcoholJ and It#is resultsuggests t#atJ ith the original 0./ ; !uffer, Iinorganic phosphate can

competeJ ith ater to trap t#e car!onium ion. lthough Ie #a*e et to prepare a standardJ, unassigned pea-s Iin t#e n.m.r. spectra of t#e reactionmi=tureJ ith 0./; !uffer are dP '.$2 ppm and d: $.2E (2:, d, 9:: .*),E./ (2:, d, 9:: .*) and *.E* (2:, d, 9P: .*) consistent ith

245




* hdro=!en?l phosphate, hich I#as an appro=imate half life of / h .JIT#e monoanion of !en?l phosphate J Iis reported to hdrolseJ ith PDclea1age ith Ia halflife of E h at $.E oC and p:J $./$,/ IT#e higherreacti1it of *hdro=!en?l phosphate suggests a change in mechanismJ,ith t#e electrondonating hdro= group promoting CD clea1age. Studies arein progress to optimise It#e sta!ilit and !ioacti1ation of t#e *aclo=!en?l phosphodiestersJ, Ifor !oth drug deli1er and as a snthetic methodJ, !altering It#e nature of t#e acl groupJ. T#e potential pro!lems associated ithIt#e release of a highl reacti1e !en?l car!onium ion I#a*e 4een outlinedJ,EIand methods to trap t#is intermediateJ internall are !eing in1estigated.

This 1isual identification of collocations allos us to contrast those featuresthat are tpical of cancer research articles in general (the corpus) ithfeatures hich appear to !e distincti1e in the stle of this particular te=t. %tcan !e seen that appro=imatel '0W of the te=t (// items out of *+E) is notin1ol1ed in the tpical phraseolog identified in our main corpus analsis. tthe same time, this 1isualisation shos that man collocations run into eachother and are interdependent. n to !old items included in the same

!rac-ets appear to share le=ical collocations, and presuma!l also collocateas an e=tended e=pression. Such se5uences of interloc-ing items are termedcollocational casca!es (Gledhill /++a)" collocational patterns hich e=tendfrom a node to a collocate and on again to another node (in other ords,chains of shared collocates).

7hat is of interest in terms of genre analsis is the e=tent to hich thiste=t differs from the corpus!ased norm. The 4iscussion section o!ser1edhere has features of language hich are tpical of other sections (such as ahigh num!er of pro>ecting clauses). &ut there are also features hich are 1eruntpical, including e=pansion clauses introduced ! to (as a snonm of Finor!er to+ ) in dependent clauses signaling a circumstantial aim orconse5uence. This feature does not occur prominentl in other 4iscussionsections or in fact an other section in the corpus (%ntroductions fa1our tocomplement clauses or pro>ections, such as 9t is imortant to..., T$e aim &as

to...). The te=t also uses an une=pectedl large num!er of nonfinite clausesafter &it$ (in an e=pansion V ing ). :oe1er, the most stri-ing feature of this

te=t is the num!er of reduced relati1e clauses" mil! con!itions aoi!ing t$e

common met$o!s of $ig$ ressure $-!rogenation... OO, t$e $os$o moiet-

being liberate!...OO , -iel! t$e anionic monoester &$ic$ being c$arge!...OO.The final e=ample here in1ol1es the pronoun &$ic$, hich happens to !e the/$th most salient grammatical item in the 4iscussions su!corpus (*E usesout of /*22). This suggests that nonrestricted relati1e clauses are also tpicalof other 4iscussion sections. This differs from !stracts, hich use e=plicit(nonreduced) relati1e pronouns (&$o, t$at ) more often in defining relati1e

246




clauses attached to a noun. %n other ords, !stracts use restricted relati1econstructions and tend to reformulate and summarise findings first presentedand e1aluated elsehere, usuall in <esults sections. 4iscussion sections, onthe other hand, prefer to use dependent clauses hich add ne information,e=tending the thematic range of the clause as a hole. <educed relati1eclauses such as the ones e find here do not appear to !e fre5uent in other4iscussion sections hoe1er (onl fi1e H ing 1er! forms appear in the first/000 salient items in that su!corpus). Thus reduced dependent Iing clausesand dependent circumstantial clauses introduced ! to (Fin or!er to) appearto !e an idiosncratic feature of the indi1idual stle of this te=t rather than afeature of the genre as a hole.

Dne of the more fundamental findings to emerge in our stud is that the phraseolog in the corpus tends to correspond 1er consistentl to a small setof dominant semantic categories. %n the Pharmaceutical Sciences Corpusmost le=ical items ere found to !elong to four main process tpes"<@S@<C:, @;P%<%CL, CL%N%CL and &%DC:@;%CL. These fourdimensions form a continuum in hich the represent the relati1ein1ol1ement of the author in the scientific acti1it (either in e=perimentationor riting up). <@S@<C: processes can !e seen as the most o1erte=pressions of an authors mental or !eha1ioural in1ol1ement, and

&%DC:@;%CL processes are seen as the most distant from the author(representing a chemical, material process ith no o1ert e=ternal agent).

Increasing Jautonomy Increasing Jinter*ention

<@S@<C: <@S@<C:

↓ ↑

@;P%<%CL @;P%<%CL

↓ ↑

CL%N%CL CL%N%CL

↓ ↑

&%DC:@;%CL &%DC:@;%CL

s might !e e=pected, these semantic categories correspond indirectl to thefundamental processes identified in :allidas (/+) grammar of transiti1it(the main processes in the general language are" material, relational, 1er!al,mental, !eha1ioural, e=istential). s ith :allidas terms, our process tpesare open to reformulation as grammatical metaphors (for e=ample, processese=pressed as e1ents etc). lthough the terminolog does not corresponddirectl, it can !e seen that the process tpes identified in the corpus can !e

247




realised as entities (prototpicall nouns), 5ualities (prototpicallad>ecti1es), e1ents (prototpicall 1er!s) and circumstances (prototpicallad1er!s and prepositional groups).

Thus semantic categories emerged at all points in the corpus analsis ascollocates of grammatical items and longer stretches of phraseolog. SuchFclusters are a elldocumented feature of collocation, and are often seen tocoincide ith small changes in grammatical formulation (Sinclair /++/,Carter /++$). 8or e=ample, in ;ethods sections (!ut not elsehere) the past

passi1e phraseolog I&ere V past participleJ in1ol1es mostl clinical 1er!s(&ere slice!, incubate!, filtere! ) or empirical 1er!s ith associated

prepositions (&ere increase! at, i!entifie! as, !etermine! &it$). 6et the passi1e in other sections is e=pressed in the simple or perfecti1e presenttense, and is dominated ! research process 1er!s ( is beliee! to be, are

obsere!, is conclu!e! t$at ). simple interrelation !eteen le=ical items andgrammatical collocations can !e seen in the frameor- I&ere b- 5 hichin1ol1es onl statistical tests" 5 *ere anal-se! b- Stu!ent+s t(test , hile theframeor- I&ere &it$ 6 J in1ol1es onl instruments of methods" 6 *ere

!etermine! &it$ N# sectrosco-. nother e=ample from the PSC in1ol1esthe interdependence of 1er! form and phraseolog. s e ha1e seen in adiscussion of t$ere is t$ere &as (in the analsis of the ad1er! pronounFt$ere), statements of gi1en fact a!out !iochemical entities are li-el to !e in

the present tense (indirect o!ser1ations), hile statements in1ol1ing researchand empirical processes are li-el to !e in the past tense (directo!ser1ations). :oe1er, some e1idence suggests that the phraseolog isconstrained on a more specific le=ical le1el. 8or e=ample e sa a!o1e thatthe su!>ect of a past tense phrasal 1er! 4le! to is alas a researchoriented

process (t$ese obserations le! to...) hile the su!>ect of the present tenseform 4lea!s to+ is alas a !iochemical or empirical process (resonse to

?#T !amage lea!s to...). Thus, it is also possi!le that tense correlates ithle=ical and semantic categories as ell as the !roader rhetoricalgeneralisations postulated ! linguists such as Dster (/+/) and ;alcolm(/+$). The general implication ma !e that grammatical features hich are

often seen in terms of open or free choice are in fact determined as o!ligator parts of a comple=, e=tended le=ical e=pression, as first posited ! Sinclair(/++/)..

The principle of a le=icogrammatical sstem !ecomes immediatelapparent hen one e=amines the middle ground !eteen le=ical andgrammatical items, including high fre5uenc le=ical items and hat are-non as nontechnical ords. % ha1e shon elsehere that nontechnicalle=ical items in science riting are in1ol1ed in highl specific and consistentgrammatical sstems. These items are used in a le=ical su!sstem that ma

248




!e independent of the general language. 8or e=ample, in Gledhill (/++$) %e=amined the le=ical phraseolog of high fre5uenc nouns and 1er!s in thecorpus. % found that the collocational patterns of 1er!s such as s$o& and!emonstrate displa 1er consistent grammatical differences. S$o& istpicall in1ol1ed ith nonfinite pro>ections of the tpe 5 $as been s$o&n

to KV empirical finding, hile !emonstrate! is used ith a simplecomplement or a finite pro>ection it $as been !emonstrate! t$at KV finitestatement of !iochemical fact. &ut a further une=pected difference in1ol1esthe polarit of the to 1er!s" !emonstrate! regularl introduces negati1eresults, either e=pressed as failure (&e $ae faile! to !emonstrate 5 ... ) or asa simple negati1e (&e $ae !emonstrate! t$at 5 is not effectie in t$e

treatment of 6 ). The 1er! is therefore coselected as part of an e=tendede=pression. Putting it another a, the 1er! !emonstrate! is Freser1ed forthe e=pression of negati1e results, almost as though the 1er! is used as part ofan e=tended communicati1e signal and e=ists in opposition to more neutral1er!s such as s$o&.

These instances are complicated ! the fact that in a similar corpus ofscientific te=ts in 8rench, the usual translation e5ui1alents of these 1er!s(montrer, !montrer ) do not displa the same le=icogrammatical properties(Gledhill /+++). The 8rench sstem in1ol1es a 1er! hich has no translatione5ui1alent in @nglish rciser , hose use lies somehere !eteen in!icate

(8rench in!iKuer ) and s$o&. The meaning of the 1er! !emonstrate inscientific @nglish in1ol1es a notion of contrast (not necessaril negati1econtrast). &ut there is no such nuance in the 8rench use of the 1er!!montrer . Dur understanding of these 1er!s must therefore depend on ourdeeper recognition of the underling phraseological impact of the ord as

part of an e=tended e=pression. 7hile one might e=pect a general underling pattern to emerge across different languages ithin the discourse communitof scientists, it appears that 8rench and @nglish science riting ma ha1ede1eloped their on specific discourses, ith a 1ariet of le=ical itemsemploed to e=press 1er sophisticated !ut also 1er consistent

phraseological nuances. %f these o!ser1ations on phraseological patterns do

not correspond ith the general language, then translation appears to !e anmore difficult tas- than is ordinaril assumed, since e1en nontechnicalle=ical items can !e seen to !e none5ui1alent on a !asic phraseologicalle1el. lthough further oris necessar on intercultural and interdiscoursal aspects of collocation, it is clear that these features of the le=icogrammar are sstematic !ut also unpredicta!le. collocational pattern isunpredicta!le in the sense that a nati1e spea-er is largel unaare of theconsistenc of the pattern. :oe1er, spea-ers ma !e aare of the general

phraseological effects of the ord, and ma associate the phraseological

249




patterns of the ord su!consciousl ith its connotati1e meanings. Such a principle is the !asis of recent corpus!ased dictionar pro>ects, as pointedout ! Sinclair (/++/).

Generall spea-ing, linguists such as :unston and 8rancis (/++) ha1efound that changes in grammatical se5uence tend to in1ol1e the formation ofcoherent, consistent groups of le=ical collocates. Such correspondences

!eteen glo!al grammatical choice and le=ical phraseolog are fundamentalfeatures of :allidas notion of le=icogrammar (:allida /+). s 8rancis(/++') puts it"

s e !uild up and refine the semantic sets associated ith a structure, emo1e closer to a position here e can compute a grammar of the tpicalmeanings that human communication encodes, and recognise the untpicaland hence foregrounded meanings as e come across them. (8rancis/++'"/).

7e ha1e seen in chapter 2 that there is a !od of linguistic theor that seessuch patterns as central to the a discourse is construe! , or to reformulate:allida (/+), ho e !uild and interpret the orld through discourse. Theneo8irthian 1ie of language set out throughout this !oo- sees the semanticsof the ord as te=tuall distri!uted and snta= as intimatel lin-ed ithle=ical -noledge. %n the specific conte=t of cancer research articles,-noledge of phraseolog in1ol1es -noing hich tense to use in e=pressing

!iochemical and research processes and, to gi1e a 1er specific e=ample,e1en a su!conscious -noledge of dualit in the discipline in the use of !asiccoordinating con>unctions. Phraseological -noledge can !e seen as acentral factor in the process of riting and reading in this specialist field. %nthis regard, 8rancis (/++') has argued that such -noledge is a -emechanism ! hich e mo1e from ideas to linguistic form"

s communicators e do not proceed ! selecting sntactic structures andindependentl choosing le=is to slot into them. %nstead e ha1e concepts tocon1e and communicati1e choices to ma-e hich re5uire central le=ical

items, and these choices find themsel1es sntactic structures in hich thecan !e said comforta!l and grammaticall (8rancis /++'"/22)

Gi1en this 1ie, that meanings ac5uire their on ordings, e can thereforeconcei1e of the !roader sstem of phraseolog as the set of linguistic formsmoti1ated ! rhetorical aims and hich further shape the discourse. %tfollos that the collocational patterns e ha1e identified are formulated in

pre1ious te=t and must ha1e a role in the processing of the te=t as a hole.The interte=tual function of collocation is therefore apparent. Clearl an

250




changes in phraseolog introduced ! the author or an de1iations from thecollocational cascade must ha1e conse5uences for concepts throughout arunning te=t, as e ha1e demonstrated on se1eral occasions in this !oo- inthe analsis of grammatical reformulation.

&. T#e $ole of %rammatical Items in Collocation.

lthough grammatical items tend to occup similar ran-s of fre5uenc in a1ariet of te=ts and ord counts (for e=ample those !ased on large te=t

corpora such as the Jritis$ National Corus and the Jan% of Englis$), thisstud claims that their use is more predicta!le in terms of conte=t andfunction than has !een pre1iousl suggested. This is !ecause an 1ariationsin !asic ord lists come into sharp focus hen the collocational !eha1iour ofthese items is considered at a further stage of analsis. %t appears from ouranalsis a!o1e that con1entional formulations remain consistent ithin eachsection of the research article, and that each salient grammatical item tends tocontract a different set of collocations from one su!section to the ne=t.

Dne reason for this is that the communicati1e goals and semantic concernsof the genre lead to a delimited set of linguistic e=pressions. 7hen thesegoals change, the phraseological resources of the te=t change at the same

time. Collocations in1ol1ing grammatical items are thus consistent indicatorsof longrange relations !eteen te=ts. The are usuall sta!le from one te=tto the ne=t (i.e. ithin the su!corpus of !stracts or %ntroductions etc.), !utdiffer from one section of the article to another. Collocational 1ariationacross rhetorical sections affects man areas of grammar and discourse in thecorpus, largel !ecause the items that are found to !e salient co1er a num!erof grammatical categories. This is not a tri1ial o!ser1ation. %f the statisticalcounts are ell concei1ed and accurate, then the rhetorical sections ofresearch articles appear to !e 1er different in terms of a ide 1ariet ofgrammatical constructions a point not often realised in those corpus studieshich classif the hole te=t as a single register or te=ttpe (a recente=ception has !een &i!er, Conrad and <eppen /++).

The le=icogrammatical patterns of research articles sho that collocationis not an accidental propert !ut a fundamental characteristic of the genre, ascentral as such features as rhetorical mo1es, thematic progression and clausestructure. %t is interesting to o!ser1e that these glo!al features of te=t tendedto dominate the discussion of genre analsis !efore the ad1ent of computer

!ased corpus linguistics (for e=ample, Nogu /++, 7i-!erg /++0,;auranen /++'). %t no appears that corpus!ased studies ha1e shifted theemphasis of analsis to the microle1el of the genre. %t is no possi!le to

251




posit generic features of a te=t ith much more certaint than earlier or-.There has recentl !een a considera!le amount of research on le=icalcollocation in technical genres (as in the or- of :oarth /++E and Pearson/++) or on sndromes of interrelated grammatical categories in thecomparison of !roader registers (&i!er, Conrad and <eppen /++). Dnl asmall num!er of studies ha1e !egun to e=amine the distri!ution ofgrammatical collocations in a specialised genre, and none ha1e esta!lished acomparati1e analsis of collocation in su!sections of a te=t. 7hile the stud

presented here shares similar methods ith man computer!ased studies ofauthorship and information retrie1al (for e=ample ger et al. /+$+,;os-o1itch and Caplan /+$+, :arris /+, Phillips /++, hmad et al. /++/and %de /++'), fe of these ha1e focused on grammatical collocation as ameans of Ftraling or fishing out the phraseological properties of the te=t.The aim of m analsis is therefore to !alance those studies of genre hichconcentrate on the macrostructure of te=ts (especiall ithin @SP), and alsoto pro1ide an alternati1e contri!ution to mainstream oron the language ofscience, hich has tended to see collocations as an e=tension of terminolograther than as a feature of te=t.

<ecent studies of corpora of the general language (Sinclair /++/) ha1e !egun to challenge the traditional a of seeing grammatical items. 7hereasle=ical items 1ar in fre5uenc and distri!ution across a 1ariet of topics and

genres, high fre5uenc grammatical items are assumed to remain the same.6et much of the e1idence % ha1e presented in this !oo- suggests that this picture is misleading. The interaction !eteen a grammatical item and acluster of semanticallrelated le=ical items suggests that grammatical ordsshould !e seen not onl as closedclass or highfre5uenc items, !ut also asthe fundamental elements of organisation in phraseological units. ;angrammatical items do of course lac- propositional meaning hen consideredin isolation, !ut it is important to consider the role of grammatical ordsithin longer phrases and their function in the grammatical reformulation ofthe te=t. % ha1e suggested a!o1e that grammatical items pro1ide an efficienta of arri1ing at a description of the most tpical phraseolog of the genre.

nd e ha1e also seen that grammatical items and grammaticalreformulation ha1e an important role to pla in :allidas theor ofgrammatical metaphor, that is to sa in the formation of te=tual meaning.7hen considered from this perspecti1e, it !ecomes clear that grammaticalitems and their attendant phraseolog ha1e an important role to pla in thete=tual and interpersonal functions of the te=t.

7e ha1e seen that grammatical items are present in the most fundamental phraseolog of the Pharmaceutical Sciences Corpus, including such !asice=pressions as &e conclu!e t$at..., ;comoun! 5< $as been s$o&n to

252




;!imeri)e, eress, fli...<..., t$ese fin!ings !emonstrate t$at.... Thesecorrespond to Nattinger and 4eCarricos (/++2) notion of the le=ical phrase.<ather than e=pressing propositional information through terminolog, thesee=pressions represent the fundamental stle of the te=t and ha1e specificrhetorical functions. Their te=tual roles range from reformulating asgrammatical metaphors, signalling modalit, forming hedged and modal

phrases, and refocusing pre1ious discourse. Such e=pressions are not oftenseen as prototpical e=amples of science riting. :oe1er, the corpuse1idence suggests that grammatical items ithin le=ical phrases are the moststa!le features of language in the research article. This is partl aconse5uence of the processes of grammatical metaphor % cited a!o1e, !ut itcan also !e seen that man of these e=pressions ha1e 1er specific

phraseological properties hich differ mar-edl from their generallanguagee5ui1alents.

% ha1e concentrated throughout this !oo- on grammatical collocation(grammatical items collocating ith le=ical clusters), collocationalframeor-s (collocations in1ol1ing more than one grammatical item) andcolligation (collocation !eteen grammatical categories). These forms can !econtrasted ith le=ical collocation, for e=ample nominals such as total

s-nt$esis and actie $-siological management . Le=ical collocation is animportant feature of scientific terminolog. :oe1er, le=ical collocations do

not appear to ha1e the same range or distri!ution of use as those e=pressionshich in1ol1e a grammatical item. s e ha1e argued a!o1e, grammaticalords pla an important role in reformulation and reording. :allidaidentifies se1eral instances of grammatical metaphors, and all happen toin1ol1e grammatical items" t$e moement of lanets, t$e instabilit- of

!iamon!, resulte! in bra%e failure, lea!s to 5..., t$e fact of 6... (/++" '0+2/0). %t appears that man features of grammatical metaphor in1ol1e

prepositions, and prepositions ha1e caught the attention of linguists in pre1ious studies (Sastri /+E). This general form of reformulation accountsfor the high fre5uenc of prepositions in the PSC ord list hen comparedith the general language (c.f. ppendi= /). 7e ha1e seen similar instances

in a num!er of areas in the corpus, in particular in impersonal pro>ectingclauses (ith con>uncti1e t$at and to) and the passi1e (in1ol1ing forms of the1er! to be). %n addition, the mechanisms of Falternation in science te=ts ereidentified as important processes ! Pettinari (/+2). These processescorrespond to Sager et al.s (/+0) o!ser1ation that hile certain terms canin1ol1e !asic grammatical reformulation (!rug us$er a us$er of !rugs,

measles accine a accine for measles), other more esta!lished terms appearto !e grammaticall fi=ed ( 1et engine :t$e engine of a 1et, long(term

memor- :memor- for t$e long term). This is also reflected in 8ischers

253




(/++) discussion of neologism and le=ical change in the general language, inhich the range of successful nominal compounds hich in1ol1e le=icalmodifiers (min!(ben!ing comleit-, grant(maintaine! sc$ool, &i!e(bo!ie!

1et ) tends to !e greater than compounds in1ol1ing comple= grammaticalrelations ( 1ust(in(time, $an!s(on, us(ersus(t$em). Grammatical collocationsthus seem to !e central to stle and reformulation in the te=t, hile le=icalcollocations (especiall nominal compounds) are represent a sstem of moreorless fro?en esta!lished terms.

%n her analsis of the reformulation of idiomatic e=pressions, ;oon (/++E)finds that of all the items used in common e=pressions, grammatical itemstend to !e the most fi=ed. This is a departure from the traditionalle=icological 1ie of a phrase or fi=ed e=pression, in hich le=ical ords areseen as the most useful entries for classification in dictionaries. Con1ersel,man of the e=amples in the pre1ious chapter sho that hile the num!er ofle=ical items in a cluster is 1aria!le, the grammatical items in a collocationalframeor- are integral parts of the e=pression. s % noted in chapter to, it isclear that grammatical items and high fre5uenc Fnontechnical ords areclues for decoding the scientific research article, and ma pro1ide asignificant feature of recognition for e=pert readers. %n a stud on thereada!ilit of scientific te=ts Clar-e and Nation (/+0) point out that for none=pert readers, grammatical and high fre5uenc le=ical items are the onl

items the are a!le to recognise, and their understanding of the te=t illdepend on a coherent reading of collocational patterns in hat is essentiallan appro=imation of a clo?etest.

6et this 1ie of high fre5uenc items has not often !een recognised, as %argued in chapter '. @1en :allida and :asan (/+$E) claimed that highfre5uenc le=ical items such as go, man, %no& or &a- Fcan hardl !e said tocontract significant cohesi1e relations, !ecause the go ith anthing at all.(/+$E"2+0). The also claimed that Fthe higher the fre5uenc of a le=icalitem... the smaller the part it plas in le=ical cohesion in te=ts (/+$E"2+0).;an linguists appear to similarl !elie1e that higher fre5uenc ords(grammatical items) are of little interest in the meaning creation of the te=t,

and most large scale analses of corpora tend to eliminate grammatical items ! imposing Fstoplists. 6et % hope to ha1e demonstrated that grammaticalitems pla a important role in a num!er of discourse features of the te=t(especiall in the guise of le=ical phrases). lthough admittedl :allida and:asan ere tal-ing a!out longrange features of te=tualit, % ha1e argued thate1er grammatical item displas a rich range of collocational patterns, fromrelati1el 1aria!le collocational frameor-s, to le=ical phrases and fi=edidiomatic e=pressions. These phrases in turn ha1e patterns of phraseologicaluse in the te=t hich e=tend !eond the !oundaries of the clause, an issue

254




hich ser1es to enhance rather than distract from :allida and :asansnotion of te=tual cohesion.

%t is orth admitting at this point that some features of phraseolog hichdo not in1ol1e isolated grammatical items ma ha1e escaped our statisticaltraling. %t is fair to sa that the reduced relati1e clauses mentioned in oursample 4iscussion section a!o1e ould !e missed ! a preliminar analsisusing Wor!list . lthough reduced relati1es in1ol1e a comple= snta= andconsistent morpholog, this is one aspect of le=ical collocation hich isli-el to !e missed ! our surface!ased analsis. Generall spea-ing, thereis no a riori reason h le=ical collocations should not form part of the

predominant phraseolog of a te=tual genre. There is also no reason hmorphological features of the te=t can not !e ta-en into account. :oe1er,the fact remains that grammatical collocation is in1ol1ed in an immense

portion (if not a ma>orit) of the tpical -inds of e=pression to !e found in a particular te=t.

These o!ser1ations suggest that although collocational patterns must !e animportant first step in genre analsis, a closer reading of the te=t is alsore5uired. Tpical grammatical phraseolog clearl needs to !e comparedith other important le=ical e=pressions. s e ha1e seen in the sample te=ta!o1e, nontpical formulations are li-el to ha1e significant roles to pla inthe te=t. nother e=ample from the corpus in1ol1es the unusual sentence

ad1er! 4Forefront+ in the %ntroduction of Te=t @NC9 " Forefront in t$is role istumor necrosis factor TNF ... Since the te=t is ritten ! a nati1espea-er, itmight !e assumed that this is a rather mar-ed e=pression, perhaps used tosignal that this sentence, a!o1e all others, is orth of notice (in popularised1ersions of this article TNF is hailed as a ne disco1er in our understandingof cancer, as e see !elo). Such interesting and significant features of thete=t should not !e ignored, as the are also significant in terms of the te=t as ahole. &ut it is also clear that the idiosncratic nature of indi1idual te=ts can

!e onl !e demonstrated ! esta!lishing in the first instance those elementshich are generic or salient in the !roader corpus and ultimatel in thegeneral language as a hole.

Such e=ceptions to the rule also indicate that hile the glo!al analsis ofcollocation is essential in order to esta!lish the ma>or idiomaticcharacteristics of the corpus, statistical collocations can onl !e considered to

!e a limited area of stle in hich all the te=ts appear to o1erlap. Thusgeneric collocations are important in the sense that the la !are those areasof the te=t hich are trul indi1idual or de1iant. Such considerations ha1elong !een recognised in the statistical analsis of authorship (in scienceriting, :arris /+), in forensic linguistics (Gi!!ons /++*) and studies oninformation retrie1al (Sparc-9ones /+$/, Choue-a et al. /+, 8rohman

255




/++0, &usch /++2). Dnce it is accepted that generic collocation is animportant first step in descri!ing the fundamental characteristics of a te=t, itappears increasingl unaccepta!le to adopt traditional approaches of literaranalsis (and some discourse analsis), hich stereotpicall analse theFspecial characteristics of a te=t ithout reference to a general phraseologof the genre, and ultimatel of the language. %n man as this principle

points out the insufficienc of m present stud, and suggests that morerelated genres must !e ta-en into account, such as a statistical comparisonith a control corpus of general scientific te=ts and ultimatel ith a generalcorpus of @nglish. This leads us naturall on to a discussion of future

possi!ilities of research.

). Ne $esearc# !irections.

s % suggested in the pre1ious section, the research set out in this !oo- lea1esa num!er of 5uestions unansered. %t is not clear, for e=ample, ho

phraseolog in science is determined and propagated ithin the discoursecommunit. There is no indication as et hether the phraseological patternse ha1e seen in a 1er specific genre are replicated in disciplines other thancancer research. nd there has !een no space to discuss the historical

dimension of phraseolog. 8or e=ample, a collocational account ouldcertainl enhance the useful or- carried out alread ! &i!er and 8inegan(/+) and t-inson (/++2) on the histor of the research article genre. %ha1e suggested a!o1e that the language of science can !e defined in terms ofmechanisms of reformulation and phraseolog, in particular ! theunderling tendenc toards grammatical metaphor. &ut it must also !e thecase that the research article creates its on ne phraseolog, and that oneaspect of successful research lies in the e=tent to hich the ne phraseologhas !een a!le to penetrate (or !e accepted !) the e=isting discourse and !ereplicated as part of the esta!lished order. Studies such as Choue-a et al.(/+) and &usch (/++2) argue that slight 1ariation in the use of common

le=ical collocations is an important indicator of no1elt in technical riting.This suggests a future research programme hich e=plores the possi!ilit thatlanguage has a role to pla in the natural selection of scientific ideas. % ha1e

pre1iousl proposed a phraseological 1ie of logogenesis (the e1olution of phrases ithin the te=t, Gledhill /++$), and ould li-e to suggest that futureor- !e applied to ontological de1elopment (the ac5uisition of phraseologin the indi1idual) and phlogenic de1elopment (the e1olution of phraseologo1er time).

256




Similarl, 1er little is -non a!out the longrange cohesi1e functions ofcollocation. 7hile rhetorical structure allos the reader to predict hat is to

!e said on a !roader scale, phraseological patterns ma also !e in1ol1ed inhat % term the inde=ical function of the scientific te=t. That is to sa, the useof de1ices for !rosing and s-imming through a te=t. %n their studies ofsignalling and use of rhetorical structure, Sales (/+/), Nogu (/++) andSharp (/++) found that predicta!le elements of rhetorical structure and1isual format help readers to identif hich parts of the te=t to >ump to, andto guess the content of con1entional areas of the te=ts. &ut hile suchanalsis helps to descri!e the linear reading of te=ts, it does not e=plain hoscientists ma-e a coherent account of a partiall read te=t, or ho parts of thete=t ma !e considered cohesi1e e1en at some distance apart, a notion that eha1e seen in the or- of :oe (/++/). %n the light of 4op-ins and ;orriss(/++2) oron eefi=ation in reading, it ma !e possi!le to e=amine thee=tent to hich collocations and other fi=ed e=pressions attract (or repulse)the readers attention, thus ha1ing an important role in te=t processing. So inaddition to -e ords, rhetorical structure and graphic format, it is orthconsidering hether grammatical parallelism, con1entionalised phrases andcohesi1e netor-s might also !e used as long range cohesi1e de1ices in the

process of reading. lthough oron the semiotics of non1er!al features ofthe scientific research article has recentl !een carried out ! Taraso1a

(/++') and Lem-e (/++), it ma !e orthhile to e=amine the relationship !eteen phraseolog and the non1er!al features of scientific discourse.nother fruitful area of research ma lie in the phraseolog of scientific

popularisation. 7hile there ha1e !een man studies of the popularisation ofscience (Nogu and &loor /++/, ;ers /++/, #arttala /+++), fe ha1econcentrated on phraseolog. Popularisation also constitutes a 1ast range ofgenres and te=t tpes, and e=tends !eond the stereotpical -ind of te=t onenormall associates ith popular science (for e=ample the scientific

!loc-!uster, as e=plored ! 8uller /++). % ha1e carried out a preliminaranalsis of >ournalistic accounts of one of m e=pert informants recentF!rea-throughs (Gledhill forthcoming). s noted in section %%.*, the

Pharmaceutical Sciences department had a num!er of !rea-throughs relatingto the or- of the micro!iologist, #T . %t turns out in fact that scientific

!rea-throughs are planned. The local and national press are informed atregular inter1als of hat to report and hen. This degree of manipulation andinterdependence !eteen the press and the researchers changes our

perspecti1e on popularisation, and is interesting not in terms of thesimplification of ideas, !ut in the a in hich scientific discourse is usedfor rhetorical purposes.

257




%t is possi!le to compare the phraseolog of highl specialised te=ts suchas @NC9 ith a corpus of articles such as the 4ail Telegraphs 4Cancer

!iscoer- b- farmer scientist . ; initial findings suggest that popularaccounts of scientific research are hea1il influenced ! the language of thescientists reports. %nterestingl, most reports de1ote onl one or to lines tothe actual Fscience of the stor (the rest of the article concentrates on issuesthat are ne1er dealt ith in the research articles, such as the local angle andfunding). 7hen the press does e=plain the science, it appears that there islittle effort to simplif the language in1ol1ed. %t is as though the >ournalistsitches genres ithin the te=t. :ere is the original formulation of the mainscientific !rea-through from the Jioc$emistr- @ournal

The reason for depletion of host tissues is not -non, !ut is thought to arisefrom differences in meta!olism in the tumour!earing state. (&iochemistr9ournal)

8rom /2 nespaper clippings in the local and national press, the firstsentence of the %ndependent suffices to sho the processes of reformulationhich ma ta-e place"

su!stance found in fish oil is to !e used in the treatment of cancer,folloing ne e1idence that it can shrin- solid tumours and ma halt the

dramatic eight loss associated ith the disease. (The %ndependent)

The report displas se1eral e=amples of phraseolog hich ould not !e outof place in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Corpus" nominal compaction (theuse of 4of+ and reduced relati1e clauses) as ell as hedging ith 4ma-+. %naddition, there are a num!er of grammatical metaphors (underlined),e=pressing impersonal ideas (treatment of..., ne& ei!ence t$at..., &eig$t loss

associate! &it$...).. There is therefore a stri-ing similarit !eteen thisdiscourse and that of the original research articles. Since the >ournaliststhemsel1es use press releases produced ! the cancer research charities, thisis presuma!l reflected in the language of the popular report. 4espite similar

phraseological features, the press reports are ne1er 5uite the same as eachother, hich leads to an interesting range of 1aria!le e=pressions. Theconse5uences of this are not et clear. &ut it ould seem to suggest thatstereotpical features of scientific riting such as nominalisation,

passi1isation and general comple=it of grammatical metaphor are >ust asmuch a part of the popularised genre of science riting as the originaltechnical te=t. Science riting !ecomes less !ound to an original te=t orgenre, and ta-es on a more a!stract e=istence as a mode of meaning.

258




&eond the corpus analsis carried out in this stud, there is further or- to !e done in genre and discourse analsis in general. 4espite the immensegroth of specialised language corpora, there remains considera!le scope forthe analsis of collocation in !oth descripti1e and applied linguistics. #erlittle or- has !een done for e=ample on the comparati1e analsis of le=icogrammars in languages other than @nglish. 7hile much orin corpuslinguistics has recentl !een de1oted to language teaching (for e=ample,9ohns and ing /++', #an :alteren /++*), &arn!roo- (/++E) points out thatcorpora are long a from !eing properl e=ploited as reference tools ingeneral linguistics. There is in contrast a strong tradition of corpus analsis inliterar and authorship studies (more recentl including Potter /++/ and %de/++') and there ha1e !een interesting de1elopments in forensic linguisticsand in the automatic detection of plagiarism (Coulthard /++*). &ut in eachcase there remains much to !e said a!out the comparati1e analsis ofcollocation and phraseolog. large te=t corpus produced ! secondlanguage learners of @nglish has !een e=amined e=tensi1el ! Granger(/++E), and this research has shon that it is possi!le to e=aminecollocational differences !eteen apprentice riters and professionals inorder to pinpoint learners difficulties and design teaching materials. corpus of Fapprenticeship te=ts ma not onl !e a useful analtical tool inmonitoring the linguistic progress of apprentice riters, !ut also in analsing

ho te=ts are edited and changed in their process of production, and hocoherence de1elops chronologicall throughout the te=t (such or- has !eenta-en on ! ouilo1a, forthcoming). nd in this respect, there are mandimensions of the Pharmaceutical Sciences Corpus hich remain une=plored,for e=ample the potential differences !eteen singleauthor and teamauthored te=ts, !eteen nati1espea-er and nonnati1e te=ts, or !eteen

papers on !iolog and those on structural chemistr. These fascinating possi!ilities !elong, of course, to another !oo-.

259




,I. Appendi' A8 /re0uency "ist.

T$e #ost FreKuent Wor!s in t$e P$armaceutical Sciences Corus

( First *00 9tems)*.

/ T:@ 2+/22 (.$W)2 D8 2/'0+ (*./W)' N4 /*E/0 (2.W)

* %N /*'*+ (2.W) TD E'/ (/.$W)E ([) /2 (/.EW)$ 7S E/*E (/.2W) 7%T: *' (/./W)+ 8D< 22* (/.0W)/0 7@<@ /E2 (/.0W)// &6 */$E (0.W)/2 T:T ''2 (0.EW)/' T '2$ (0.EW)/* %S '/E+ (0.EW)/ S '0E/ (0.EW)/E C@LLS '0/E (0.EW)

/$ 8<D; 2+2 (0.EW)/ C (celsius) 2'0' (0.*W)/+ D< 22+0 (0.*W)20 DN 2/2 (0.*W)2/ % (io!ine) 202+ (0.*W)22 T:%S//+$ (0.*W)2' @T /+$ (0.*W)2* : ($-!rogen)/+E/ (0.*W)2 L /+'' (0.'W)2E <@ /+20 (0.'W)2$ C@LL /+0 (0.'W)2 &@ /2 (0.'W)2+ NDT /$+ (0.'W)

'0 N /*' (0.'W)'/ 7:%C: /*22 (0.'W)'2 T:@S@ /'+2 (0.'W)'' L (liKui! ) /2++ (0.2W)'* T3;D< /2' (0.2W)' S ( secon!s) /20' (0.2W)

'E 8T@< //'+ (0.2W)'$ :#@ //2$ (0.2W)' ;L /0+$ (0.2W)

'+ N (nitrogen)/0$E (0.2W)*0 (algebraic)/0* (0.2W)*/ %T /00E (0.2W)*2 P ( ressure) ++2 (0.2W)*' ; (mol.metre)+$' (0.2W)** 7@ +$2 (0.2W)* &@@N +EE (0.2W)*E T3;D<S +0' (0.2W)*$ ;%C@ +02 (0.2W)* LSD * (0.2W)*+ CT%#%T6 0 (0.2W)0 G ( gramme)$ (0.2W)/ T:N 22 (0./W)

2 4 (!euterium)2/ (0./W)' 3S@4 $+0 (0./W)* :3;N $* (0./W) LL $' (0./W)E &@T7@@N$0 (0./W)$ 4N $$ (0./W) T&L@ $$* (0./W)+ 8%G $$ (0./W)E0 <@S3LTS $ (0./W)E/ 3S%NG $2 (0./W)E2 P<DT@%N $/ (0./W)E' :S $*/ (0./W)E* S:D7N $'/ (0./W)

E ;%N $2 (0./W)EE 4T $/ (0./W)E$ &DT: $/' (0./W)E G<D7T: $0$ (0./W)E+ D&S@<#@4$0' (0./W)$0 ST346 $0/ (0./W)

/ Single letters (e.g. C, %, :) are left in the count as man of these represent chemical ormathematical sm!ols. There is some am!iguit o1er F hich ma in some casesrepresent a determiner, the sm!ol FαF, or the sm!ol F for relati1e atomic mass. F%alas represents iodine, or Felectric current or some mathematical 1aria!le in thiscorpus.

260




$/ ND E+* (0./W)$2 & (\) E' (0./W)$' NL6S%S E2 (0./W)$* T7D E2 (0./W)$ DT:@< E$' (0./W)$E &3T EE' (0./W)$$ ;6 E (0./W)$ 8D3N4 E/ (0./W)$+ 8%G3<@ E0 (0./W)0 @88@CT E*+ (0./W)/ D&T%N@4 E*0 (0./W)2 ND<;L E2+ (0./W)' @ (emf ) E2' (0./W)* DN@ E/+ (0./W) ;G E/ (0./W)

E ;D<@ E/2 (0./W)$ DNL6 E// (0./W) T (time tem) E0+ (0./W)+ T<@T;@NT E0E (0./W)+0 G<D3P ++ (0./W)+/ @C: + (0./W)+2 PT%@NTS * (0./W)+' 4DS@ 2 (0./W)+* @P<@SS%DN 2 (0./W)+ T%;@ $ (0./W)+E L%N@S $' (0./W)+$ :D7@#@< E/ (0./W)+ G@N@ $ (0./W)++ CDNT<DL * (0./W)/00 ;; *0 (0./W)

261




,II. Appendi' 8 Te'ts Used in t#e PSC

T$e P$armaceutical Sciences Corus =PSC>

eference Lists.

9ournals are alpha!eticall listed according to the Science Citation %nde= mnemonic code(CCP, CL etc) and not according to title. The 9ournals ran- in the SC% (/+) impact factorta!le (compared ith /000 other >ournals) is listed as an appro=imate indicator of prestige.The relati1e si?e of the >ournal as a percentage of the corpus is also noted. 3ni=!asedord count has !een used for this list, here the total corpus is of /0 papers, and /+ 20/running ords. 8or each paper one of se1eral field classifications is noted (generall" cancerresearch medicinal chemistr pharmacolog structural chemistr). Dnl asteris-edauthors (usuall the lead riter) are noted in the case of multiple author papers.

'.C. ( 'nge&an!te C$imie.

SC% /+ <an-X+' Corpus WX0.*+O

C" The Selfassem!l of catenated cclode=trins. Supramolecular chemistrOuthor" 4, 9S Source" authors ms, forthcoming

J.@. ( Jioc$emistr- @ournal.

SC% /+ <an-X/2 Corpus WX0.*O

&9" ;eta!olic su!strate utili?ation ! tumour and host tissues in cancercache=ia. Cancer :istopathologO

uthor" ;T. Source" &iochem 9 2$$'$/ /++/

[email protected]. ( Jritis$ @ournal of Cancer.

SC% /+ <an-X'*0 Corpus WX.O

&9C/"The influence of the schedule and the dose of gemcita!ine on the anti tumour efficacin e=perimental human cancer Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" T&. Source" &rit 9. CanE/ /++'

&9C2"<egulation of ctochrome P*0 gene e=pression in human colon and !reast tumour =enografts CarcinogenesisO uthor" ;P, 9<. Source" &rit 9. Can E*/++2

&9C'" llele loss from 52/ (PC%;CC) and /52/ (4CC) and 4CC m<N e=pression in

!reast cancer CarcinogenesisO uthor" G: Source" &rit 9. Can E /++2&9C*"Comparati1e radioimmunotherap using intact or 8(a!)2 fragments of /'l% anti C@anti!od in a colonic =enograft model Cancer <adioimmunologO uthor" 8S. Source"&rit 9. Can EE /++2

&9C"Characteri?ation of ninedsineresistant human sarcomas. Cancer ChemotherapOuthor" ;L, D4,64. Source" &rit 9. Can E$ /++2&9CE"Strong :L4< e=pression in large !oel carcinomas is associated ith

good prognosis @tiolog:istopathologO uthor" C#, N&, DP. Source" &rit 9. Can E/++2

&9C$"<esponse to ad>u1ant chemotherap in primar !reast cancer" nocorrelation ith e=pression of glutathione Stransferases Cancer ChemotherapO uthor"L. Source" &rit 9. Can E' /++'

262




&9C"pS2 is an independent factor of good prognosis in primar !reastcancer @tiologDncologO

uthor" :T. Source" &rit 9. Can E* /++'&9C+"Serum pituitar and se= steroid hormone le1els in the etiolog of prostatic cancer

a population!ased casecontrol stud Cancer @tiolog Case studO uthor" 7P, %T, PL.Source" &rit 9. Can E /++'

&9C/0"@=pression of group%% phospholipase 2 in malignant and nonmalignant human gastric mucosa Cancer %mmunohistochemistrO uthor" 7%. Source"&rit 9. Can E$ /++'

&9C//"@ndogenous cortisol e=erts antiemetic effect similar to that ofe=ogenous corticosteroid ChemotherapO uthor" C6. Source" &rit 9. Can E+ /++'

[email protected]( Jritis$ @ournal of P$armacolog-.

SC% /+ <an-X* Corpus WX /.+O&9P/"ntiarrhthmic drugs, clofilium and ci!en?oline are potent inhi!itors of gli!enclamide

sensiti1e V currents in enopus ooctes PharmacologO uthor" T:. Source" &.9. Phar2/0+' /++/

&9P2" ttenuation of contractions to acetlcholine in canine !ronchi ! anendogenous nitrico=ideli-e su!stance PharmacologO uthor" G. Source" &.9. Phar */0+' /++/

&9P'" @nhancement ! endothelin/ of micro1ascular permea!ilit 1ia the acti1ation of @Treceptors. PharmacologO uthor" ;T et al. . Source" &.9. Phar /0+' /++/

J.#.@. ( Jritis$ #e!ical @ournal.

SC% /+ <an-X2'2 Corpus WX2./'O&;9/" The &ristol third stage trial" acti1e 1ersus phsiological management of third stage of

la!our Phsiological managementO Source"stec corpus&;92"%mmunit to ru!ella in omen of child!earing age in the 3nited

ingdom @tiolog#irologOSource" stec corpus&;9'"d1erse neurode1elopmental outcome of moderate neonatal

hpoglcaemia Phsiological managementO Source" stec corpus&;9*"Seasonal distri!ution in conceptions achie1ed ! artificial insemination

! donor @tiologGnacologO Source" stec corpus&;9" spirin and !leeding peptic ulcers in the elderl PharmacologO Source" stec

corpus

C' ( Carcinogenesis.

SC% /+ <an-X'2E Corpus WX.*$O

C</"Sensiti1it to tumor promotion of S@NC< and C$&LE9 micecorrelates ith o=idati1e e1ents and 4N damage. Tumour Promotor CarcinogenesisOuthor" N:. Car. * /++'

C<2" <as protooncogene acti1ation of methlene chloride. CarcinogenesisOuthor" C. Car. /++'C<'"Characteri?ation of p' mutations in methlene chlorideinduced lung tumors

from &EC'8/ mice Cancer :istologO uthor" N@. Car. /E /++'C<*"%nhalation e=posure to a hepatocarcinogenic concentration of methlene chloride does

not induce sustained replicati1e 4N snthesis in hepatoctes of female &EC'8/ miceCancer :istopathologO uthor" <S. Car. 2E /++'

263




C<"@ffect of 1aring e=posure regimens on methlene chlorideinduced lungand li1er tumors in female &EC'8/ mice. Chemical CarcinogenesisO uthor" 8P. Car.'E /++'

C<E"@=pression and sta!ilit of p' protein in normal human mammarepithelial cells. Tumour Supressor Gene CarcinogenesisO uthor" GP. Car. /' /++2

C<$" p' ;utations in human immortali?ed epithelial cell lines CarcinogenesisOuthor" 63. Car. 2' /++2C<"Protection against Nnitrosodiethlamine and !en?oaOprene

induced forestomach and lung tumorigenesis in 9 mice ! green tea. Cancer%mmunohistochemistrO uthor" LG. Car. '' /++2

C<+ %nhi!itor effects of curcumin on protein -inase C acti1it induced ! /20tetradecanolphor!ol/'acetate in N%: 'T' cells. Cancer %mmunohistochemistrOuthor" ;:. Car. *' /++2

C</0 Characteri?ation of highl polar !is dihdrodiol epo=ide4N adducts formed aftermeta!olic acti1ation of di!en?a,hOanthracene CarcinogenesisO uthor" P<. Car. '/++2

C.C. ( C$emical Communications.

SC% /+ <an-X'E0 Corpus WX0.E+OCC" &iore1ersi!le Protection for the Phospho Group" Chemical Sta!ilit and &ioacti1ation of

4i(*aceto=!en?l) ;ethlphosphonate ith Car!o=esterase Structural chemistrOuthor" S8, 79, ;, 4N, 7T. 9 Chem Soc. /' /++/

C.C.P. ( Cancer C$emot$era- an! P$armacolog-.

SC% /+ <an-X/E0 Corpus WX//./EOCCP/"`uantification of the snergistic interaction of edatre=ate and cisplatin

in 1itro. Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" ;P. '/* /++'CCP2 Pharmaco-inetics of peptichemio in meloma patients" release of mLsarcolsin

in 1i1o and in 1itro. Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" CP. '/ /++'CCP'"Prolonged retention of high concentrations of fluorouracil in human

and murine tumors as compared ith plasma. Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" ;P '/E/++'

CCP*"<elationship !eteen the melanin content of a human melanoma cell lineand its radiosensiti1it and upta-e of pimonida?ole. Cancer <adioimmunologOuthor"67,PS '02 /++2

CCP"Phase % clinical and pharmacolog stud of 023' gi1en as a 2*h continuous intra1enous infusion. Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" 44. '0E /++2

CCPE"Correlation of the in 1itro ctoto=icit of ethldeshdro=sparsomcin

and cisplatin ith tne in 1i1o antitumour acti1it in murine L/2/) leu-aemia and toresistant L/2/0 su!clones. Cancer ChemotherapOuthor" @L. '0* /++2CCP$"4o=oru!icin and local hperthermia in the microcirculation of

s-eletal muscle. Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" ;. '0' /++2CCP"4ecreased resistance to N,Ndimethlated anthracclines in multidrug

resistant 8riend erthroleu-emia cells. Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" 89. '0/ /++2CCP+"ntitumor acti1it of the aromatase inhi!itor 8C@ 2*+2 on 4;&

induced mammar tumors in o1ariectomi?ed rats treated ith testosterone.Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" %6. 2+E /++2

CCP/0" Drgan distri!ution and antitumor acti1it of free and liposomal do=oru!icin in>ectedinto the hepatic arter Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" 49. 2+ /++2

264




CCP//" @ffect of toremifene on antiprine elimination in the isolated perfused rat li1er.uthor" T4 2+* /++2CCP/2" limited sampling method for estimation of the car!oplatin area under

the :N< cur1e. Cellgroth inhi!ition ! and ctoto=icit of anthracclinesin do=oru!icinsensiti1e and resistant 8*E cells. Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" P%.2+' /++2

CCP/'"Pharmaco-inetics of /0ethl/0dea?a aminopterin, edatre=ate, gi1en ee-lfor non smallcell lung cancer Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" :. 2+2 /++2

CCP/*"Phase % clinical e1aluation of SP*'(<)O/,/cclo!utanedicar!o=lato(2)O (2methl/,*!utanediamineN,Nl) platinum in patients ith metastatic solidtumors Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" #@. 2+/ /++2

CCP/"Phase %% stud of highdose ifosfamide in hepatocellular carcinomaCancer ChemotherapO

uthor" <7. 2E /++2CCP/E" %fosfamide in ad1anced epidermoid head and nec- cancer Cancer ChemotherapOuthor" S%. 2 /++2

C.L.( Cancer Letters.

SC% /+ <an-X2/ Corps WX.E*'O

CL/"Purification and analsis of a human sarcoma associated antigenCancer ChemotherapO

uthor" SG. //2/E / /++'CL2"Potentiation of !utrateinduced differentiation in human colon tumor cells

! deo=cholate Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" 8T. //200 /++'CL'"Serum crossreacti1e thmosin al le1els in rats during induction of mammar carcinoma

ith $,/2dimethl!en?aOanthracene" short and longtermeffects. Cancer CarcinogenesisO uthor" T. //2/ /++'

CL*"%n 1itro effects of natural plant polphenols on the proliferation of normal and a!normalhuman lmphoctes and their secretions of interleu-in2 Cancer ChemotherapO uthor"T3. //2/+ /++'

CL" %nhi!ition of melanoma cell groth ! amino acid alcohols. Cancer ChemotherapOuthor" <T //220 /++'

CLE"p' ;utations are common in pancreatic cancer and are a!sent inchronic pancreatitis CarcinogenesisO uthor" S. //222 /++'

CL$"@ffect of e=ogenous heparin on anchorageindependent groth offi!ro!lasts induced ! transforming cto-ines Cancer %mmunohistochemistrO uthor":6. //20' /++'

CL"c:a<as mutants ith point mutations in Gln#al#al region ha1ereduced inhi!itor acti1it toard cathepsin & Cancer %mmunohistochemistrO uthor":4. //20* /++'

CL+"%nhi!ition of !en?ol pero=ideinduced tumor promotion and progression ! copper(%%)(',diisoproplsaliclate)2 Cancer CarcinogenesisO uthor" <S. //20 /++'

C.. ( Cancer esearc$.

SC% /+ <an-X/'2 Corpus WX.*E/OC</"%ntracellular Locali?ation of :uman 4N <epair @n?me ;ethlguanine

4N ;ethltransferase ! nti!odies and its %mportance. DncologO uthor" %G #ol'2/ /++2

265




C<2" ;onoclonal nti!odies to the ;ogenic <egulator Protein ;o4/" @pitope ;appingand 4iagnostic 3tilit. Cancer %mmunohistochemistrO uthor" T7 #ol '2' /++2

C<'"Therap ith 3nla!eled and /'l%la!eled Pan&Cell ;onoclonal nti!odiesin Nude ;ice &earing <a>i &ur-itts Lmphoma enografts Cancer%mmunohistochemistrO uthor" @T #ol '2* /++2

C<*" %nhi!ition of Cellular Proliferation ! Peptide nalogues of %nsulinli-e Groth 8actorCancer ChemotherapO uthor" L #ol '2 /++2

C<"@=pression of the @ndogenous 0E;ethlguanine4Nmethltransferase Protects Chinese :amster D1ar Cells from Spontaneous G"C to "TTransitions/ Cancer CarcinogenesisO uthor" PS #ol *2E /++'

C<E"Tumorassociated ;r '*,000 and ;r '2,000 ;em!rane Glcoproteins That re SerinePhosphorlated Specificall in &o1ine Leu-emia #irusinduced Lmphosarcoma CellsCancer CarcinogenesisO uthor"P< #ol *2$ /++'

C<$"ntitumor @ffect of %nterferon plus Cclosporine folloingChemotherap for 4isseminated ;elanomal Cancer %mmunologO uthor" S: #ol*2 /++'

C<" Tumorigenic Suppression of a :uman Cutaneous S5uamous Cell Carcinoma Cell Linein the Nude ;ouse S-in Graft ssa. Cancer chemotherapO uthor" G3 #ol *2+/++'

C<+" <etro1irus in Chinoo- Salmon (Dnco6hnchus tshatscha)ith Plasmactoid Leu-emia and @1idence for the @tiolog of the 4isease.CarcinogenesisO uthor" L #ol 2/$ /++/

C</0" @=pression and CpG ;ethlation of the %nsulinli-e Groth 8actor %% Gene in :umanSmooth ;uscle Tumors CarcinogenesisO uthor" :T #ol 2/ /++/

C<//"Loss of :etero?gosit %n1ol1es ;ultiple Tumor Suppressor Genes in:uman @sophageal Cancers CarcinogenesisO uthor" 68 #ol */+ /++/

C</2"%nduction of cfos Gene @=pression ! @=posure to a Static ;agnetic 8ield in :eLaS'Cells/ CarcinogenesisO uthor" : #ol *20 /++/

F.'.T. ( Fun!amental an! 'lie! Toicolog-.

SC% /+ <an-X 2+ Corpus WX$.'O8T/"2,*,Trichloropheno=acetic cid %nfluence on 2,E4initrotoluene

induced 3rine Genoto=icit in 8ischer '** <ats" @ffect on Gastrointestinal ;icrofloraand @n?me cti1it To=icologO uthor &N. Source 8. pp. To=. /2 /++2

8T2"Three;onth @ffects of ;4L /+,EE0 on the Canine Platelet and@rthrocte To=icologO uthor %6. Source 8. pp. To=. /' /++2

8T'"@1aluation of the Potential for 4e1elopmental To=icit in <ats and;ice folloing %nhalation @=posure to Tetrahdrofuran To=icologO uthor G:. Source

8. pp. To=. /' /++28T*"Topical nestheticlnduced ;ethemoglo!inemia in Sheep" Comparisonof &en?ocaine and Lidocaine/. To=icologO uthor P. Source 8. pp. To=. /* /++2

8T" Time Course of Permea!ilit Changes and P;N 8lu= in <at Trachea folloing0' @=posure To=icologO uthor 9G. Source 8. pp. To=. /+/ /++'

8TE"Control of the Nephroto=icit of Cisplatin ! Clinicall 3sed SulfurContaining Compounds To=icologO uthor L7. Source 8. pp. To=. /+2 /++'

8T$" 4e1elopmental To=icit of &oric cid in ;ice and <ats. To=icologO uthor 8G.Source 8. pp. To=. /+' /++'

8T"crlamide" 4ermal @=posure Produces Genetic 4amage in ;ale ;ouse Germ Cells.To=icologO uthor GN. Source 8. pp. To=. /+* /++'

266




8T+" @ffects of 4iet Tpe on %ncidence of Spontaneous and 2cetlaminofluorenelnduced Li1er and &ladder Tumors in &L&c ;ice 8ed %N$E 4iet 1ersus N%:0$ 4iet To=icologO uthor PD. Source 8. pp. To=. /$ / /++/

8T/0" <is- ssesment in %mmunoto=icit. Sensiti1it and Predicta!ilit of %mmune Tests.To=icologO uthor S. Source 8. pp. To=. /$' /++/

[email protected].( 9nternational @ournal of Cancer.

SC% /+ <an-X 22E Corpus WX /$.EO%9C/"4onregulation of ri(=) su!unit of campdependent protein -inase

induces groth inhi!ition of human mammar epithelial cells transformed ! charasand cer!!2 protooncogenes Cancer CtogeneticsO uthor" T;. Source" %nt 9. Cancer'/* /++2

%9C2"Phenotpic and molecular analsis of phchromosomepositi1eacute lmpho!lastic leu-emia cells. Cancer CtogeneticsO uthor" . Source" %nt 9. Cancer'$2 /++'

%9C'" Loss of hetero?gosit at the short arm of chromosome ' in renalcell cancer correlatesith the ctological tumour tpe Cancer CtogeneticsO uthor" : et al.. Source" %nt 9.Cancer 'E/ /++2

%9C*"D1ere=pression of p' nuclear oncoprotein in transitionalcell !ladder cancer andits prognostic 1alue Cancer CtogeneticsO. uthor" PL. Source" %nt 9. Cancer 'E2 /++2

%9C"%nternational 1ariations in the incidence of childhood !one tumoursCancer @pidemiologO

uthor" 4P, CS, 9N. Source" %nt 9. Cancer 'E' /++2%9CE";olecular and serological studies of human papilloma1irus among patients ith

anal epidermoid carcinoma Cancer @pidemiologO uthor" P:, SG, 3L, 94. Source" %nt9. Cancer 'E* /++2

%9C$"Concordant p' and dcc alterations and allelic losses on chromosomes /'5and /*5 associated ith li1er metastases of colorectal carcinoma CtogeneticsO uthor"D et al. Source" %nt 9. Cancer 'EE /++2

%9C" %solation and characteri?ation of an oestrogen responsi1e !reastcancer cell line, eff'Cancer CtogeneticsO uthor" <: et al. Source" %nt 9. Cancer 'E$/++2

%9C+"4ifferential regulation of gelatinase ! and tissuetpe plasminogen acti1ator e=pressionin human &oes melanoma cells Cancer :istopathologO uthor" :&, <U. Source" %nt 9.Cancer 'E /++2

%9C/0"nti!odinduced groth inhi!ition is mediated throughimmunochemicall and functionall distinct epitopes on the e=tracellular domain of thecer!!2 (her2neu) gene product pl Cancer %mmunohistochemistrO uthor" 8 et al.Source" %nt 9. Cancer 'E+ /++2

%9C//" Structureacti1it relationships of four anticancer al-lphosphocholine deri1ati1es in1itro and in 1i1o Cancer ChemotherapO. uthor" SS et al. . Source" %nt 9. Cancer '$0/++2

%9C/2"nalsis of the relationship !eteen stage of differentiation and NL suscepti!ilit of colon carcinoma cells. Cancer :istopathologO uthor" :&,<U. Source" %nt 9. Cancer '$2 /++'

%9C/'"Com!ination effect of 1accination ith il2 and il* cdna transfected cells onthe induction of a therapeutic immune response against leis lung carcinomacells Cancer CtogeneticsO uthor" 6D, @P,D. Source" %nt 9. Cancer '$* /++'

%9C/*" Comparati1e ctogenetic and dna flo ctometric analsis of /0 !one and softtissue tumors CtogeneticsO uthor" N;, && etc.. Source" %nt 9. Cancer '* /++'

267




%9C/" The role of the uro-inase receptor in e=tracellular matri= degradation !ht2+ human colon carcinoma cells Cancer :istopathologO uthor" L<, @. Source" %nt9. Cancer ' /++'

%9C/E" %mmortali?ation of normal human fi!ro!lasts ! treatment ith *nitro5uinoline lo=ide. Cancer CtogeneticsO uthor" L&, 6, ;N. Source" %nt 9. Cancer 'E /++'

%9C/$"@=pression and distri!ution of peripherin protein in human neuro!lastoma celllines. Cancer :istopathologO uthor" :&, <U. Source" %nt 9. Cancer '$ /++'

%9C/"ntimetastatic 1accination of tumor!earing mice ith il2geneinserted tumor cells.Cancer %mmunohistochemistrO uthor" P, &G,<&. Source" %nt 9. Cancer ' /++'

%9C/+" 4istinct pglcoprotein e=pression in to su!clones simultaneousl selected froma human colon carcinoma cell line ! cisdiamminedichloroplatinum (ii)Cancer ChemotherapO uthor" L6, 9T. Source" %nt 9. Cancer '+ /++'

%9C20"Cellular and in 1i1o characteri?ation of the mcr rat mammar tumormodel Cancer %mmunohistochemistrO uthor" G, 3<. Source" %nt 9. Cancer '+0/++'

%9C2/"Coamplification of cmcp1tl in immortali?ed mouse !lmphocticcell lines results in a no1el p1tla>l transcript. CtogeneticsO uthor" :, 4S. Source"%nt 9. Cancer '+/ /++'

%9C22"Persistence of plasminmediated prouro-inase acti1ation on the surfaceof human monoctoid leu-emia cells in 1itro. Cancer :istopathologO uthor" :T.Source" %nt 9. Cancer '+2 /++'

%9C2'"Cto-eratins e=pressed in e=perimental rat !ronchial carcinomasCancer :istopathologO

uthor" :, :& etc.. Source" %nt 9. Cancer '+' /++'%9C2*"cti1ators of coagulation in cultured human lungtumor cells Cancer :istopathologOuthor" <S, ::. Source" %nt 9. Cancer '+* /++'%9C2"ction of a cd2*specific deglcoslated ricinachain immunoto=in

in con1entional and no1el models of smallcelllungcancer =enograft.Cancer %mmunohistochemistrO uthor" 3P, :PL. Source" %nt 9. Cancer '+ /++'

@.C.P.T. ( @ournal of C$emistr- Per%in Transactions.

SC% /+ <an-X 2+0 Corpus WX E.E2EO9CPT/" Snthesis of (V) and ();ethl Shi-imate from &en?ene Structural ChemistrOuthor C9 #ol / /++'9CPT2" <ein1estigation of the %ntramolecular &uchner <eaction of / 4ia?o*

phenl!utan2ones Leading to 2Tetralones Structural ChemistrO uthor C #ol 2/++'

9CPT'"Snthesis of FNLa!elled Chiral &ocmino cids from Triflates of

Leucine and Phenlalanine. Structural ChemistrO uthor 84 #ol ' /++'9CPT*"Studies on Pra?ines. Part 2. Leis cidpromoted 4eo=idati1e Thiationof Pra?ine ND=ides" Ne Protocol for the Snthesis of 'Su!stitutedPra?inethiols. Structural ChemistrO uthor NS #ol * /++'

9CPT" 3se of the /(28luorophenl)*metho=piperidin*l (8pmp) Protecting Group inthe SolidPhase Snthesis of Dligo and Polri!onucleotides. Structural ChemistrOuthor #< #ol * /++2

9CPTE"<ein1estigation of the Pummerer rlation of to 2,2,Trihdro=!iarls. `uinones" Selecti1e pproach. Structural ChemistrO uthor GS#ol 2 /++2

9CPT$"Snthesis and :drolsis Studies of Phosphonopru1ate. Structural ChemistrOuthor" S8 #ol. 2 /++/

268




9CPT"Structural Studies on &ioacti1e ;olecules. Part /$. Crstal Structure of +(2Phosphonlmetho=ethl)adenine (P;@). Structural ChemistrO. uthors" 7T, S8.Source" author ms

9CPT+"&iore1ersi!le Protection for the Phospho Group" &ioacti1ation of the 4i(*aclo=!en?l) and ;ono(*aclo=!en?l) Phosphoesters of;ethlphosphonate and Phosphonoacetate/. Structural ChemistrO uthor" ;, 7T,4N, 7%, S8.#ol / /++2

9CPT/0"Latent %nhi!itors. Part $. %nhi!ition of 4ihdroorotate 4ehdrogenase ! Spirocclopropano!ar!iturates. Structural ChemistrO.. uthor" 78, CS, :7 / /++0

@.G.#. ( @ournal of General #icrobiolog-.

SC% /+ <an-X '+ Corpus WX $.+$/O9G;/" %solation and characteri?ation of urease from spe6gillus niger. @n?mologOuthor <4. 9G; #ol /+' /++29G;2"8unctional and phsiological characteri?ation of the Tn2/ cassette

for resistance genes in Tn2*2E @n?mologO uthor 9G. 9G; #ol /+' /++29G;'"<esistance to spiramcin in Streptomces am!ofaciens, the

producer organism in1ol1es at least to different mechanisms. @n?mologO uthor S9.9G; #ol /+/ /++

9G;*"The induction of o=idati1e en?mes in Streptomces coelicolorupon hdrogen pero=ide treatment. @n?mologO uthor P8. 9G; #ol /+2 /++

9G;"&acterial meta!olism of aminosaliclic acid" en?mic con1ersion to Lmalate, pru1ate and ammonia. @n?mologO uthor S. 9G; #ol /+' /++

9G;E"<egulation of methlthiori!ose -inase ! methionine inle!siella pneumoniae. @n?mologO.

uthor ;@. 9G; #ol /+* /++9G;$"%onophoric action of transisohumulone on Lacto!acillus

!re1is. %mmuno!acteriologOuthor &3. 9G; #ol /+02 /++09G;"rchetal halophins (halo!acteria) from 2 salt en?mes in

-le!siella pneumoniae. @n?mologOuthor &%. 9G; #ol /+0' /++09G;+" Characteri?ation of the trpsinli-e en?mes of Polphomonas gingi1alis 7' using

a radiola!elled acti1esitedirected inhi!itor. @n?mologO uthor L4. 9G; #ol ///+

@.#.C. ( @ournal of #e!icincal C$emistr-.

SC% /+ <an-X '* Corpus WX 0.EO

9;C" Structural Studies on Ta?o!actam. Structural ChemistrOuthor PL. 9 ;edChem '* /++/

@.N.C.9. ( @ournal of t$e National Cancer 9nstitute.

SC% /+ <an-X Not ran-ed. Corpus WX 0.'+O9NC%" Lipoltic 8actors ssociated 7ith ;urine and :uman Cancer Cache=ia Cancer

:istopathologOuthor :4, ;T. 9Nat Can %nst 22* /++0

@.A.'.C.S. ( @ournal of t$e 'merican C$emical Societ-.

SC% /+ <an-X '/2. Corpus WX E./$+O

269




9DCS/"Time @1olution of the %ntermediates 8ormed in the <eaction ofD=gen ith ;i=ed#alence Ctochrome c D=idase. Sructural ChemistrO uthor" 7:9DrgS. #ol. //22E /++/

9DCS2"4namic Properties and @lectrostatic Potential Surface of Neutral4N :eteropolmers. Drganic ChemistrO uthor" SN 9DrgS. #ol. //22 /++/

9DCS'"&onding !eteen C2 and N2" Locali?ation %nduced (a) &ond.Drganic ChemistrO

uthor" L 9DrgS. #ol. //22$ /++/9DCS*"Normal;ode Characteristics of Chlorophll ;odels. #i!rational

nalsis of ;etallooctaethlchlorins and Their Selecti1el 4euterated nalogues.Drganic ChemistrO

uthor" 4 9DrgS. #ol. //2/E /++/9DCS"The @ffect of 8luorine Su!stituents on the <ate and @5uili!rium Constants

for the <eactions of Su!stituted *;etho=!en?l Car!ocations and on the<eacti1it of a Simple uinone ;ethide. Drganic ChemistrO uthor" ; 9DrgS. #ol.//'+ /++2

9DCSE"Concurrent Stepise and Concerted Su!stitution <eactions of *;etho=!en?l 4eri1ati1es and the Lifetime of the *;etho=!en?l Car!ocation.Structural ChemistrO uthor" N@ 9DrgS. #ol. //'E /++2

9DCS$" @n?me and mediated enantiface differentiation.Drganic ChemistrO uthor" SC9DrgS. #ol. //'$ /++2

9DCS"Photochemical Ligand Loss as a &asis for %maging and;icrostructure 8ormation in a Thin Polmeric 8ilm. Structural ChemistrO uthor" #N9DrgS. #ol. //' /++2

9DCS+"%:N;< <esonance ssignment of the cti1e Site <esiduesof Paramagnetic Proteins ! 24 &ond Correlation Spectroscop" ;etcanomoglo!in.Drganic ChemistrO uthor" &N 9DrgS. #ol. //'/0 /++2

9DCS/0 :o 8ar Can a Car!anion 4elocali?e] /'C N;< Studies onSoliton ;odel Compounds. Drganic ChemistrO uthor" 7 9DrgS. #ol. //'// /++2

9DCS//"Calculation of Structures and &ond 4issociation @nergies of <adical Cations" The%mportance of Through&ond 4elocali?ation in &i!en?lic Sstems.Drganic ChemistrOuthor" SG 9DrgS. #ol. //*/ /++'

270




@.A.C. ( @ournal of Arganic C$emistr-.

SC% /+ <an-X '2 Corpus WX .+*0O

9DC/"D=idation of Natural Targets ! 4io=iranes. 2./ 4irect :dro=lation atthe Side Chain C2 of Cholestane 4eri1ati1e and of #itamin 4' 7indausGrundmann etone. Drganic ChemistrO uthor L@" 9DC $E /++2

9DC2"Snthesis of 'rlprroles and 'Prrollacetlenes ! PalladiumCatal?ed Coupling <eactions Drganic ChemistrO uthor 9:" 9DC $ /++2

9DC'" Simple smmetric Snthesis of 2Su!stituted Prrolidines and Su!stituted Prrolidinones Drganic ChemistrO uthor ;<" 9DC $* /++2

9DC*"Stereoand <egioselecti1e Snthesis Df Chiral 4iamines and Triamine fromPseudoephedrine and @phedrine Drganic ChemistrO uthor P4" 9DC $/ /++2

9DC" Ne @lectron cceptors" Snthesis, @lectrochemistr, and <adical nions of N,$,$Tricano5uinomethanimines and ra Crstal Structures of theTrimethl and Tetramethl 4eri1ati1es Drganic ChemistrO uthor %S" 9DC $2 /++2

9DCE"Stereocontrolled Sntheses of Su!stituted 3nsaturated Lactam from 'l-enamide Drganic ChemistrO uthor ST" 9DC $' /++2

9DC$" %mportance of the 8olded Drientation of To @noate ;oietie Drganic ChemistrOuthor" 8N 9DC / /++'

@.P.P.( @ournal of P$armac- an! P$armacolog-.

SC% /+ <an-X *E Corpus WX './+O

9PP/":drolsis of Partiall Saturated @gg Phosphatidlcholine in5ueous Liposome 4ispersions and the @ffect of Cholesterol %ncorporation on:drolsis inetics PharmacologO uthor <6, S9, :S" 9PP *EE /++0

9PP2":drolsis and Sta!ilit of cetlsaliclic cid in Stearlaminecontaining LiposomesPharmacologO uthor" 4%, S, %S 9PP *E /++0

9PP'" %n1itro &ioadhesion of a &uccal, ;icona?ole Slorelease Ta!let PharmacologOuthor <T, SG" 9PP *E* /++0

P.'.8. ( P$armaceutica 'cta 8eletica.

SC% /+ <an-X /E. Corpus WX 0.$2EO

P:/"Thin Laer Chromatograph in Pharmaceutical `ualit Control. ssa of %nosiple= indifferent pharmaceutical forms. PharmacologO uthor @4" Pharm :el1 E$'*2'$'

P:2"The Sta!ilit of 8amotidine :drochloride Solutions at 4ifferent p:

#alues. PharmacologOuthor L" Pharm :el1 E$'2/'2

271




T.L. ( Tetra$e!ron Letters.

SC% /+ <an-X *$E. Corpus WX0.**EO

TL" Snthesis of nti1iral Nucleosides from Crotonaldehde. Part './,2 Total Snthesisof 4idehdrodideo=thmidine (d*T) Drganic ChemistrO uthor" 9@, 9G. Tetr Let #ol.''2$ /++2

T.P.S. ( Tren!s in P$armaceutical Sciences.

SC% /+ <an-X +*. Corpus WX0.2'/O

TPS" Nel identified factors that alter host meta!olism in cancer cache=ia Cancer:istopathologO

uthor" ;T. Source" 9NC% #ol. 2 2*

272




,III. Appendi' C8 Salient -ord "ists

1. Salient -ords in Titles'

Titles PSC

R+,- "R/ Freq. % Freq. % C)i ' Probability

/ C:<CT@<%UT% (0.*W) ** 2'E.0 2 :3;N 2 (/.2W) $* (0.2W) /2E.E ' S6NT:@S%S /2 (0.EW) 20* //+.+ * LN43C@4 sicO 2 ' /0/.* L@&S%@LL 2 * *.0 E <@%N#@ST%GT%D 2 * *.0 $ ;@T:D6&@NU6L ' (0./W) /* 0.' CNC@< /E (0.$W) 22 (0./W) $*. + ;@T:6LT<NS8@< 2 $/.E/0 @4T<@T@ 2 $/.E// C<C%ND; + (0.*W) 20 E2.2

/2 D8 /EE ($.EW) 2/'0+ (*.'W) +.' 0.000/' &%D<@#@<S%&L@ 2 $ .0/* /'L% 2 *+.2/ &EC'8/ ' (0./W) 2* *./E S3&ST%T3T@S (0.2W) $$ *.E/$ ;@T:6LG3N%N@ 2 /0 *0./ @P<@SS%DN /' (0.EW) 2 (0./W) '.*/+ @P%4@<;D%4 2 /2 '*.'20 PN@3;DN%@ 2 /' '/.2/ <@G3LT%DN * (0.2W) $2 '0.$22 N /$ (0.W) /0$E (0.2W) 2+.*2' L@3@;% * (0.2W) $ 2+.'2* 8L3 / / 2.02 L/2/ / / 2.02E #L#D sicO / / 2.02$ PDL6P:6D;DNS / / 2.02 @/ / / 2.02+ ;%NDSL%C6L%C / / 2.0'0 S@<%N@P:DSP:D< / / 2.0'/ L%4DC%N@/ / / 2.0'2 DNCD6:6NC:3S / / 2.0

2 Some items ere misscanned in the original corpus. % ha1e mar-ed them sic

273




'' %N@4S%N@ / / 2.0'* ;@LND;L / / 2.0' ;D%@T%@6 / / 2.0'E S3&LCDN@S sicO / / 2.0'$ SS6/ / / 2.0' L6;P:D&LST%C / / 2.0'+ NL6S%S sicO / / 2.0*0 P6<@N@%N43C@4 / / 2.0*/ <C:@TL / / 2.0*2 %;PD<TNC@L / / 2.0*' NTLT3;D3< sicO / / 2.0** SP@6G%LL3S / / 2.0* 4%S@S@/ / / 2.0*E 4@LDCL%U@ / / 2.0*$ P<@4%CT&%L%T6 / / 2.0* T<%;%N@ / / 2.0*+ P<@4%CT&%L%T6 / / 2.00 T<%;%N@ / / 2.0

Salient %rammatical -ords in Titles

Titles PSC


/2 D8 /EE ($.EW) 2/'0+ (*.'W) +.' 0.000E0 8D< //0 (.0W) 22* (/.0W) 2E.E 0.000E$ DN 2* (/./W) 2/2 (0.*W) 20. 0.000$0 N4 ++ (*.EW) /*E/0 (2.+W) /+.$ 0.000/'* %N +/ (*.2W) /*'*+ (2.+W) /2.+ 0.000

274




2. Salient -ords in A4stracts

+bstracts PSC


/ &ST<CT '2 (0./W) '2 2'*.E2 S3;;<6 '+ (0./W) E' 20'.' 0.000' 4DD<3&%C%N 2E +$ *.$ 0.000* 83 /* * '*./ ;6D4/ + /+ ''.2E 4DD /E + ''.0$ G *' (0./W) '0' '0.* 0.000 S3GG@ST '0 (0./W) /$$ '0.' 0.000+ :N+ 2+.+/0 :E+/#4S E 2E.*// :@T@<DU6GDS%T6 /' 0 2*./2 @ST@<S /2 ** 2*.2/' ;;;<6 2E /E/ 2'.$ 0.000/* CT%#@ '' (0./W) 2'/ 2'.* 0.000/ 4DS@S 2+ /+' 22. 0.000/E ST34%@4 2E /E* 22. 0.000

/$ <@S%STN@@ sicO * * 22.*/ SP%<;6@%N * * 22.*/+ T3;D< //* (0.*W) /2' (0.2W) 2/. 0.00020 %N:%&%T@4 2/ /2/ 2/.$ 0.0002/ %D E /2 2/.$22 @P<@SS%DN E' (0.2W) 2 (0./W) 2/.E 0.0002' PT%@NTS E' (0.2W) * (0./W) 2/.' 0.0002* CD<<@LT@4 /' E 2/.02 ;:& /E 0 20. 0.0002E C6LD6&@NU6L + 2+ 20.$2$ NT:<C@N@ /' $ 20.2 %N43C@4 $ (0.2W) 2/ (0./W) 20./ 0.0002+ D * /+.2

'0 N4@NT + /+.0'/ &3T E$ (0.2W) EE' (0./W) /./ 0.000'2 %;;D<TL%U@4 /' E2 /$.+'' S:D7@4 *' (0./W) '$ /$.* 0.000'* %NC<@S@4 *' (0./W) '$E /$.2 0.000' %NT@<#L /2 E /E.+'E P4L * E /E.$'$ G<D7T: E+ (0.2W) $0$ (0./W) /E.* 0.000' 4@C<@S@4 2' /E/ /.+ 0.000'+ CNC@< * (0.2W) 22 (0./W) /.$ 0.000*0 CDNT<CT%DNS // /.$

275




*/ U%4@ /0 *' /.$*2 :@;D<<:G@ 2+ /.*' T:@S@ //+ (0.*W) /'++ (0.'W) /.' 0.000** ;NG@;@NT /$ /0* /.' 0.000* @T:D6 ' ' /.0*E P<D8%C%@NT ' ' /.0*$ NDNNL ' ' /.0* &@NUDC%N@ /2 E/ /*.$*+ P * $ /*.E0 T3;D<S 2 (0.'W) +0' (0.2W) /*.* 0.000

Salient %rammatical -ords in A4stracts

+bstracts PSC


'/ &3T E$ (0.2W) EE' (0./W) /./ 0.000*' T:@S@ //+ (0.*W) /'++ (0.'W) /.' 0.000$+ D8 /'E$ (*.$W) 2/'0+ (*.'W) //. 0.00//+ T:@<@ *0 (0./W) *** E. 0.0//20' %N +/2 ('./W) /*'*+ (2.+W) E.' 0.0/22E$ 7S 'E (/.'W) E2$/ (/.2W) .0 0.0202++ T:T 22$ (0.W) ''$ (0.$W) *. 0.0'*'2+ 4%4 '* (0./W) '+ *.' 0.0'$''* 7:D /* /2+ *.2 0.0*0'$ &DT: (0.2W) $/' (0./W) '.$ 0.0

276




. Salient -ords in Introduction Sections

Introductions PSC


/ @T E+2 (/.2W) /+$ (0.*W) E2. 0.0002 L E$0 (/./W) /+'' (0.*W) E2E.' 0.000' &@@N '*E (0.EW) +EE (0.2W) '*/./ 0.000* :S 2' (0.W) $*/ (0./W) '/0.' 0.000 :#@ '+ (0.EW) //2$ (0.2W) 2.* 0.000E %NT<D43CT%DN ' (0./W) +$ 2'*. 0.000$ %S E*' (/./W) '/E+ (0.EW) /E.' 0.000 <@C@NTL6 2 /02 *.' 0.000+ ST34%@S /' (0.2W) *+* $E.E 0.000/0 CNC@< /*0 (0.2W) 22 (0./W) $E.0 0.000// S3C: //' (0.2W) ' $'.$ 0.000/2 G@N@S 2 (0./W) 2*2 $/.+ 0.000/' @88@CTS //2 (0.2W) */* E/. 0.000/* #<%@T6 '$ $2 +.+ 0.000/ CN /20 (0.2W) *E ./ 0.000

/E <DL@ E /2 E.* 0.000/$ <@PD<T '$ $+ '.0 0.000/ %T 20$ (0.'W) /00E (0.2W) 2.2 0.000/+ 7@ 200 (0.'W) +$2 (0.2W) 0.* 0.00020 S3PP<@SSD< '+ +2 *. 0.0002/ :3;N /E$ (0.'W) $* (0.2W) *$.* 0.00022 %;PD<TNT /$0 *'.$ 0.0002' ;N6 0 /0 */.+ 0.0002* S6NT:@S%S E/ (0./W) 20* */. 0.0002 D8 2$* (*.W) 2/'0+ (*.'W) */.* 0.0002E C:%<L 2E / */.0 0.0002$ <@ ''2 (0.EW) /+20 (0.*W) '+.$ 0.0002 &@ '/$ (0.W) /2 (0.*W) '. 0.000

2+ S@#@<L $ (0./W) 2* '.$ 0.000'0 <@PD<T@4 + (0.2W) '+ '.E 0.000'/ CL%N%CL * // 'E.$ 0.000'2 TD /2'' (2./W) E'/ (/.$W) 'E.E 0.000'' CD;PD3N4S $E (0./W) 2+E 'E.E 0.000'* ;@C:N%S;S * /' 'E./ 0.000' %TS (0./W) 'E 'E.0 0.000'E D8T@N 2+ E '.+ 0.000'$ S6ST@;S '$ /0* '*. 0.000' CNC@<S 'E /00 '*.' 0.000'+ SD;@ $$ (0./W) '/0 '*.0 0.000

277




*0 G@NTS * /* '2.$ 0.000*/ C6LD6;@T:6L / // '/.+*2 4@;DNST<T@4 * /E2 '/. 0.000*' T:%S ''0 (0.EW) /++$ (0.*W) '0.E 0.000** 3S@83L 2E E' '0.* 0.000* P<DP@<T%@S 2 $' 2+.' 0.000*E G@N@ // (0.2W) $ (0./W) 2+.0 0.000*$ TT@NT%DN /* 2/ 2.$* #%#D * /$/ 2.2 0.000*+ ;6 /'0 (0.2W) E (0./W) 2$.+ 0.0000 %NCL34@ 2/ *$ 2$.2 0.000

Salient %rammatical -ords in Introduction Sections.

Introductions PSC


' &@@N '*E (0.EW) +EE (0.2W) '*/./ 0.000* :S 2' (0.W) $*/ (0./W) '/0.' 0.000 :#@ '+ (0.EW) //2$ (0.2W) 2.* 0.000 $ %S E*' (/./W) '/E+ (0.EW) /E.' 0.000// S3C: //' (0.2W) ' $'.$ 0.000/ CN /20 (0.2W) *E ./ 0.000/ %T 20$ (0.'W) /00E (0.2W) 2.2 0.000

/+ 7@ 200 (0.'W) +$2 (0.2W) 0.* 0.0002 D8 2$* (*.W) 2/'0+ (*.'W) */.* 0.000'2 TD /2'' (2./W) E'/ (/.$W) 'E.E 0.000

278




&. Salient -ords in 5et#ods Sections.

Met)ods PSC


/ 7@<@ 2$+ (2.0W) /E2 (/.0W) $E. 0.0002 : /2/ (0.+W) /+E/ (0.*W) E20.2 0.000' 7S 2$$ (2./W) E/*E (/.2W) $E.$ 0.000* ;L 0 (0.EW) /0+$ (0.2W) E2. 0.000 C /'0' (0.+W) 2'0' (0.W) **. 0.000E ;%N 0E (0.*W) $2 (0./W) 2$$. 0.000$ ;; *0/ (0.'W) *0 (0./W) 2*.+ 0.000 ;;DL 22 (0.2W) '02 2*.* 0.000+ 44@4 2+ (0.2W) '*0 2'/.E 0.000/0 ; 2 (0.*W) +$' (0.2W) 2'/.2 0.000// +$ (0.*W) /0* (0.2W) 2/2.* 0.000/2 G 20 (0.*W) $ (0.2W) 20/.$ 0.000/' 4 *$ (0.*W) 2/ (0.2W) /+. 0.000/* SDL3T%DN '0* (0.2W) *2 /$/.$ 0.000/ :U 2*0 (0.2W) 2+* /$/. 0.000/E S E20 (0.W) /20' (0.2W) /EE.+ 0.000/$ 7S:@4 /$+ (0./W) /+0 /$.0 0.000/ T:@N 22 (0.2W) *20 /*2.+ 0.000/+ &388@< 2'2 (0.2W) '/' /*/.2 0.000

20 T /'2* (/.0W) '2$ (0.$W) /*0.' 0.0002/ P: '0* (0.2W) *' /'*. 0.00022 3S%NG */2 (0.'W) $2 (0.2W) /'/.2 0.0002' P&S /*' (0./W) /' /2'. 0.0002* %NC3&T@4 /* (0./W) 2'$ /20.+ 0.0002 8D< /+/+ (/.*W) 22* (/.0W) /20./ 0.0002E 4@SC<%&@4 2E+ (0.2W) *'E //*.0 0.0002$ 7T@< 20+ (0.2W) '0 /0+.+ 0.0002 P@<8D<;@4 // (0./W) 20 /0.' 0.0002+ SD4%3; /*2 (0./W) /$' /0/.$ 0.000'0 @C: '2' (0.2W) + (0./W) /00.2 0.000'/ CDNT%N%NG 22+ (0.2W) '$0 +$.E 0.000'2 # 2 (0.2W) / (0./W) +E. 0.000

'' % 2 (0.EW) 202+ (0.*W) +'./ 0.000'* 3S@4 '+/ (0.'W) $+0 (0.2W) +2.$ 0.000' S%G; /00 /02 +/.$ 0.000'E C: /00 /0E $.2 0.000'$ CDL3;N /2 (0./W) 2/2 E.$ 0.000' 4<%@4 /02 //' '.$ 0.000'+ ;@4%3; 22/ (0.2W) '$E '.E 0.000*0 4%SSDL#@4 +0 +2 2./ 0.000*/ T@;P@<T3<@ /* (0./W) 20* /.' 0.000*2 ;%T3<@ /'$ / 0.* 0.000*' ;:U +2 /0/ $E.' 0.000

279




** N4 *E'' ('.*W) /*E/0 (2.+W) $*.' 0.000* ;@T:D4S /E2 (0./W) 2' $*.0 0.000*E <DD; ++ //$ $'.+ 0.000*$ C;' / * $2.* 0.000* 4%L3T@4 $+ 2 $0. 0.000*+ CDLL@CT@4 /02 /2 E+.' 0.0000 <@;D#@4 /02 /'2 E.+ 0.000

Salient %rammatical -ords in 5et#ods Sections.

Met)ods PSC


/ 7@<@ 2$+ (2.0W) /E2 (/.0W) $E. 0.000' 7S 2$$ (2./W) E/*E (/.2W) $E.$ 0.000/ T:@N 22 (0.2W) *20 /*2.+ 0.00020 T /'2* (/.0W) '2$ (0.$W) /*0.' 0.0002 8D< /+/+ (/.*W) 22* (/.0W) /20./ 0.000'0 @C: '2' (0.2W) + (0./W) /00.2 0.000** N4 *E'' ('.*W) /*E/0 (2.+W) $*.' 0.0002 8<D; /0* (0.W) 2+2 (0.EW) *$.2 0.000/'+ 8T@< *'/ (0.'W) //'+ (0.2W) '2.0 0.0002E0 7%T: /$// (/.2W) *' (/./W) /$. 0.000

280




). Salient -ords in $esults Sections

Results PSC


/ 8%G3<@ *$0 (0.*W) E0 (0./W) 'EE.' 0.0002 8%G *+E (0.*W) $$ (0.2W) '2./ 0.000' T&L@ *$ (0.*W) $$* (0.2W) 2$.$ 0.000* S:D7N '$2 (0.'W) $'/ (0./W) /*.* 0.000 P */ (0.*W) ++2 (0.2W) /'0.E 0.000E :E+ /2E (0./W) /E' /0$.* 0.000$ ;@N 20$ (0.2W) 'E* /0'. 0.000 C@LLS /02 (0.+W) '0/E (0.EW) +.$ 0.000+ #L3@S 2'/ (0.2W) *' +0.' 0.000/0 T<@T@4 22 (0.2W) **+ *.2 0.000// LN@ /*2 (0./W) 2'0 '.' 0.000/2 CDNT<DL 2$ (0.2W) * (0./W) 0.+ 0.000/' SP%<;6C%N + /'E $*.$ 0.000/* LLC // /* $*./ 0.000/ S:D7S /2/ (0./W) /+$ $0./ 0.000/E ND 2+E (0.2W) E+* (0./W) $0.0 0.000/$ D&S@<#@4 2+ (0.2W) $0' (0./W) E+./ 0.000/ LN@S ' //' E.0 0.000

/+ S%GN%8%CNTL6 /0 (0./W) 2+/ +.+ 0.00020 G /* (0./W) '0' +.* 0.0002/ 4/22 /2E $.+ 0.00022 #4S $0 +2 $.E 0.0002' S%GN%8%CNT // (0.2W) 'E E.$ 0.0002* N%;LS 22$ (0.2W) 2* (0./W) E.' 0.0002 & 2$ (0.2W) E' (0./W) '.2 0.0002E ;6C@L%3; E E$ 2.* 0.0002$ S:D7@4 /$2 (0./W) '$ 0. 0.0002 %N '+0E ('.'W) /*'*+ (2.+W) 0.* 0.0002+ 4%4 /$E (0./W) '+ *$. 0.000'0 NDT + (0.W) /$+ (0.*W) *E. 0.000'/ N3& 2 E *.E 0.000

'2 46S /+/ (0.2W) **E *. 0.000'' L%#@< 20/ (0.2W) *$+ **. 0.000'* #@<P;%L E2 + **.2 0.000' 7@@S /*2 (0./W) '0* *'. 0.000'E CD;P<@4 /E2 (0./W) 'E* *'. 0.000'$ :4 20E (0.2W) /$ (0./W) '.2 0.000' L%N@S 22/ (0.2W) $' (0./W) 'E./ 0.000'+ <@S3LTS 2$ (0.2W) $ (0.2W) '.2 0.000*0 9 *' $ '*.' 0.000*/ 8T@< ' (0.'W) //'+ (0.2W) ''. 0.000*2 ;<N /0' 2/ ''. 0.000

281




*' LD: /0* 2/ ''. 0.000** ;< $ +/ ''.E 0.000* G<D3PS /E' (0./W) '+$ ''.E 0.000*E T%;@ 2/+ (0.2W) $ (0./W) ''.' 0.000*$ L@#@LS /+2 (0.2W) *+/ ''./ 0.000* CD4DN $ ''.0 0.000*+ %NC%4@NC@ +E /+$ '2.+ 0.0000 PDS%T%#@ /2* (0./W) 22 '/.+ 0.000

Salient %rammatical -ords in $esults Sections.

Results PSC


/E ND 2+E (0.2W) E+* (0./W) $0.0 0.0002 %N '+0E ('.'W) /*'*+ (2.+W) 0.* 0.0002+ 4%4 /$E (0./W) '+ *$. 0.000'0 NDT + (0.W) /$+ (0.*W) *E. 0.000'$ :4 20E (0.2W) /$ (0./W) '.2 0.000*/ 8T@< ' (0.'W) //'+ (0.2W) ''. 0.000$2 T:@<@ /E (0./W) *** 2.2 0.0000 T:@ $*2$ (E.2W) 2+/22 (.W) 2'.* 0.000+2 7:@N /* (0.2W) / (0./W) 20. 0.000/2 LL 22 (0.2W) $' (0.2W) /E.' 0.000

282




+. Salient -ords in !iscussion Sections.

/iscussions PSC


/ T:T /'/ (/.2W) ''$ (0.$W) '*/. 0.0002 &@ $ (0.$W) /2 (0.*W) 22.E 0.000' ;6 '' (0.'W) E (0./W) 22'.2 0.000* %S //E$ (/.0W) '/E+ (0.EW) /+'./ 0.000 @T $+ (0.$W) /+$ (0.*W) /$2.E 0.000E L $E2 (0.$W) /+'' (0.*W) /E2.* 0.000$ D3< 222 (0.2W) '/ /2+.0 0.000 4%SC3SS%DN //+ (0./W) /* //+./ 0.000+ %N '++/ ('.W) /*'*+ (2.+W) //E.0 0.000/0 ;D4@S /'/ (0./W) /$+ ///.E 0.000// NDT EE2 (0.EW) /$+ (0.*W) /0.+ 0.000/2 T:%S $0* (0.EW) /++$ (0.*W) +E.2 0.000/' 7@ '+ (0.'W) +$2 (0.2W) +2.+ 0.000/* :#@ **2 (0.*W) //2$ (0.2W) +2./ 0.000/ ST346 '0E (0.'W) $0/ (0./W) +. 0.000/E @N4DT:@L%N /E2 (0./W) '0' $.E 0.000/$ %T '+0 (0.'W) /00E (0.2W) $$. 0.000/ ;D4@ +/ /'E EE.+ 0.000

/+ P' /$ (0.2W) '$E E/.0 0.00020 P<@S@NT /+ (0.2W) */+ E0. 0.0002/ CN 20 (0.2W) *E E0. 0.00022 ;%G:T //0 /+E .$ 0.0002' S3GG@ST /02 /$$ $.* 0.0002* :D7@#@< 2'/ (0.2W) E/ (0./W) E.* 0.0002 :S 2 (0.2W) $*/ (0./W) ./ 0.0002E <@PD<T@4 /$E (0.2W) '+ *.* 0.0002$ T:@S@ *$ (0.*W) /'++ (0.'W) *./ 0.0002 CD3L4 /$E (0.2W) '+ '.2 0.0002+ ST<@TC:%NG + $ /.+ 0.000'0 8%N4%NGS $/ /0 0.* 0.000'/ S3C: /EE (0./W) ' *. 0.000

'2 7:%C: *E (0.*W) /*22 (0.'W) *.* 0.000'' &@@N ''+ (0.'W) +EE (0.2W) *.0 0.000'* T:@ $2+2 (E.*W) 2+/22 (.W) **.* 0.000' ;D<@ 2'2 (0.2W) E/2 (0./W) *2.' 0.000'E G@N@ 2/2 (0.2W) $ (0./W) '+.2 0.000'$ @P<@SS%DN 2/+ (0.2W) 2 (0./W) '. 0.000' S3GG@STS E //$ '. 0.000'+ C3D@C E* /0$ '.2 0.000*0 7D3L4 /0 2'2 '$.' 0.000*/ 4D@S E$ //$ 'E. 0.000*2 %NC<@S@ /** (0./W) '2 '*./ 0.000

283




*' P<D&&L6 /0/ '/.+ 0.000** S3GG@ST@4 + /0* '/.$ 0.000* P@<;@&%L%T6 +* '/.' 0.000*E <@ $E (0.W) /+20 (0.*W) '/.2 0.000*$ %N4%CT@ $$ / '/./ 0.000* ;@C:N%S;S $/ /' '/./ 0.000*+ TD 22E/ (2.0W) E'/ (/.$W) '0.E 0.0000 43@ /0 22 2+. 0.000

Salient %rammatical -ords in !iscussion Sections

/iscussions PSC


/ T:T /'/ (/.2W) ''$ (0.$W) '*/. 0.0002 &@ $ (0.$W) /2 (0.*W) 22.E 0.000' ;6 '' (0.'W) E (0./W) 22'.2 0.000* %S //E$ (/.0W) '/E+ (0.EW) /+'./ 0.000$ D3< 222 (0.2W) '/ /2+.0 0.000+ %N '++/ ('.W) /*'*+ (2.+W) //E.0 0.000// NDT EE2 (0.EW) /$+ (0.*W) /0.+ 0.000/2 T:%S $0* (0.EW) /++$ (0.*W) +E.2 0.000/' 7@ '+ (0.'W) +$2 (0.2W) +2.+ 0.000/* :#@ **2 (0.*W) //2$ (0.2W) +2./ 0.000

284




I. $eferences

arts 9an. /++2. FComments in 9. S1art1i- /++2a" /0/'arts 9. and ;ei>s 7. (eds.) /+* Corus Linguistics. ecent ?eeloments in t$e "se of

Corora in Englis$ Language esearc$ msterdam" <odopiarts 9. and ;ei>s 7. (eds.) /+E Corus Linguistics 99 msterdam" <odopiarts 9. and ;ei>s 7. (eds.) /++0 T$eor- an! Practice in Corus Linguistics msterdam"

<odopi!eillA . /++. FThe 8le=i!ilit of 8rench %dioms" <epresentation ith Le=icali?ed Tree

d>oining Grammar. in ;. @1eraert et al. (eds.)" /*2!raham @. /++/. F7h F&ecause] the ;anagement of Gi1en Ne %nformation as a

Constraint on the Selection of Causal lternati1es. in Tet #ol.//'" '2'''+damsSmith 4.@. /+*. F;edical 4iscourse" spects of uthors Comments. in Englis$

for Secific Puroses @ournal #ol.'/" 2'EdamsSmith 4.@. /+$. F#ariation in 8ield<elated Genres. in Englis$ Language

esearc$ @ournal #ol./" /0'2ger 4.@. /+$E. FThe %mportance of the 7ord in the nalsis of <egister. in . 9ones and

<.8. Churchhouse (eds.) T$e Comuter in Linguistic an! Literar- Stu!ies, 3ni1ersit of7ales Press" E

ger 4.@., noles 8.@. and 9. Smith /+$+ (eds.). '!ances in Comuter('i!e! Literar-

an! Linguistic esearc$ &irmingham" ston 3ni1ersit

hmad ., 8ulford :., Griffin S. and :olmes:iggins P. /++/ Tet(Jase! Bno&le!ge 'cKuisition( ' Language for Secific Puroses Persectie. Guildford" @SP<%T %% <eportfor the 3ni1ersit of Surre.

i>mer . and lten!erg &. (eds.) /++/. Englis$ Corus Linguistics London" Longman.le=ander <. 9. /+$. F8i=ed @=pressions in @nglish" <eference &oo-s and the Teacher in

Englis$ Language Teac$ing @ournal . '2" /2$/'*.le=ander <. 9. /++. F8i=ed @=pressions, %dioms and Collocations <e1isited. in P. ;eara

(ed.) Je-on! Wor!s. Jritis$ Stu!ies in 'lie! Linguistics /. Proceedings of &...L+,@=eter, Septem!er /+. Pp/2.

le=ander <. 9. /++/. F:opes and 8ears of a Corpus Linguist or, the Sad !ut @difing Tale of Corpus Search for 8i=ed @=pressions. in Corora !es Englisc$en in Forsc$ung, Le$re

un! 'n&en!ungen (CC@ Nesletter) #ol. (/2)" / /2lten!erg &. /++/. Fmplifier Collocations in Spo-en @nglish. in S. 9ohansson and .&.

Stenstrjm (eds.) /++/" /2$/*$t-ins S., Cal?olari N. and Picchi @. /++2. FComputational Le=icograph. Pre(Eurole

Tutorial 3ni1ersit of Tampere, 8inland, ugust *+, /++2t-ins S., Clear 9. and Dstler N. /++2. FCorpus 4esign Criteria. in Literar- an! Linguistic

Comuting #ol. $/" //t-inson 4. /++0. F<egister" <e1ie of @mpirical <esearch. in 4. &i!er and @. 8inegan

(eds.) /++/!" /Et-inson 4. /++2. FThe @1olution of ;edical <esearch and 7riting from /$' to /+. The

Case of the E!inburg$ #e!ical @ournal in 'lie! Linguistics #ol. /'*" ''$'$*uger C.P. /++. 9nformation Sources in Gre- Literature London" &o-erSaur

285




ustin 9.L. /+E2 b /+$ (eds. 3rmson 9.D. and S!isZ ;). 8o& to ?o T$ings &it$ Wor!sLondon" D=ford 3ni1ersit Press

&a-er 4.&., :oris? 9.7. and ;etanoms-i 7.#. /+0. F:istor of !stracting at Chemical!stracts Ser1ice. in @ournal of C$emical 9nformation an! Comuter Science #ol. 20"/+'20/

&a-er ;., 8rancis G. and Tognini&onelli @. (eds.) /++'. Tet an! Tec$nolog- msterdam"9ohn &en>amins

&ar!er C.L. /+E2. FSome ;easura!le Characteristics of ;odern Scientific Prose. inlm5uist and 7i-ell (eds.) Contributions to Englis$ S-nta an! P$ilolog-" 2/*'

&arn!roo- G. /++E. Language an! Comuters @din!urgh 3ni1ersit Press" @din!urgh&arthes <. /+EE. #-t$ologies. Paris" Seuil&asili <., Pa?ien?a ;.T. and #elardi P. /++2. F Shallo Sntactic nalser to @=tract

7ord ssociations from Corpora. in Literar- an! Linguistic Comuting #ol.$2" //'/2'

&an-s 4. /++*a FClause Drgani?ation in the Scientific 9ournal rticle. 'lse!(Ls

Ne&sletter #ol. /$2" */E.&an-s 4 /++*!. Writ in Water 'sects of t$e Scientific @ournal 'rticle. @.<.L.."

3ni1ersitA 4e &retagne.&an-s 4. /++$. FThe Things 7e ;a-e. %n Language Sciences. /+*" '0''0.&an-s 4. /++. F#ague `uantification in the Scientific 9ournal rticle. in 'nglais !e

Scialit. G@<S" Presses de l3ni1ersitA #ictorSegalen, &ordeau= No. /+22" /$2$.&auer L. /+$+. FDn the Need for Pragmatics in the Stud of Nominal Compounding. in

@ournal of Pragmatics. '/" *0.&A>oint :. /+. FScientific and Technical 7ords in General 4ictionaries. in 9nternational

@ournal of Leicogra$- #ol. /*" '*'E&enson ;. /++. FThe Collocational 4ictionar and the d1anced Learner. in ;.L. Tic-oo

(ed.) Learner+s ?ictionaries State of t$e 'rt Singapore" S@;D <egional LanguageCentre" *+'

&enson. ;., &enson., @. and %lson <. /+E T$e Leicogra$ic ?escrition of Englis$

London" 9ohn &en>amins&ernier C.L. /+$2. FTerse Literatures /" Terse Conclusions. in @ournal of t$e 'merican

Societ- for 9nformation Science #ol. 2/" '/E'/+&ernier C.L. /+. F!stracts and !stracting. in ?6# " *2'***&err<ogghe G. /+$0. FCollocations" Their Computation and Semantic Significance.

3npu!lished Ph.4 Thesis, 3;%ST, ;anchester &i!er 4./+E. Variation across Seec$ an! Writing Cam!ridge" Cam!ridge 3ni1ersit Press&i!er 4. /++. F Tpolog of @nglish Te=ts. in Linguistics 2$" '*'&i!er 4. /++2a. FDn the Comple=it of 4iscourse Comple=it" ;ultidimensional

nalsis. in ?iscourse Processes #ol. / /''/E'&i!er 4. /++2!. F3sing Computer&ased Te=t Corpora to nal?e the <eferential Strategiesof Spo-en and 7ritten Te=ts. in 9. S1art1i- (ed.) /++2" 2/22

&i!er 4. /++'. FThe ;ultidimensional pproach to Linguistic nalses of Genre #ariation"n D1er1ie of ;ethodolog and 8indings. in Comuters an! t$e 8umanities #ol. 2E"''/'*.

&i!er 4. Conrad S. and <eppen <. /++*. FCorpus&ased pproaches to %ssues in ppliedLinguistics. in 'lie! Linguistics #ol. /2" /E+/+

&i!er 4., Conrad S., and <eppen <. /++E. FCorpus&ased %n1estigations of Language 3se.%n 'nnual eie& of 'lie! Linguistics. /E" ///'E.

&i!er 4., Conrad S., <eppen <. /++. Corus Linguistics 9nestigating Language Structure

an! "se. Cam!ridge" Cam!ridge 3ni1ersit Press.

286




&i!er 4. and 8inegan @. /+. F4rift in Three @nglish Genres from the /th to the 20thCenturies" ;etadiscoursal pproach. in ;.tj et al. (eds.)" '++

&i!er 4. and 8inegan @. (eds.) /++*. Sociolinguistic Persecties on egister D=ford"D=ford 3ni1ersit Press

&lac-ell S. /+$. FPro!lems in the utomatic Parsing of %dioms. in <. Garside et al. (eds)S-nta Versus Art$ogra$-" //0//+

&loor T. and &loor ;. /+. FLanguage for Specific Purposes" Practice and Theor. CLCSDccasional Papers" Trinit College, 4u!lin.

&or-o :. and Chatman S. /+E'. FCriteria for ccepta!le !stracts" Sur1e of !stractors%nstructions. in 'merican ?ocumentation #ol. /*" /$/*

&oer @. /++*. t$e 'ca!emic Profession 'n 9nternational Persectie. California" PrincetonPress

&re--e ;. /++/. Futomatic Parsing ;eets the 7all. in S. 9ohansson and .&. Strenstrjm(eds.)" '/0'

&rett P. /++*. F Genre nalsis of the <esults Sections of Sociolog rticles. in Englis$

for Secific Puroses @ournal #ol./'/" *$+&riscoe T. /++0 F@nglish NounPhrases re <egular" <epl to Professor Sampson. in 9.

arts and 7. ;ei>s /++0" *E0&ritt ;.. Perfetti C.. and Garrod S. /++2. FParsing in 4iscourse" Conte=t @ffects and

Their Limits. in @ournal of #emor- an! Language #ol.'/" 2+''/*&urnard L. /++2. FTools and Techni5ues for Computerided Te=t Processing. in C. &utler

(ed.)" /2&usch G. /++2. FSearch and <etrie1al. in J6TE , 9une" 2$*22. Ne 6or=" &i= Pu!lishers&utler C. /+a. Comuters in Linguistics D=ford" &asil &lac-ell&utler C. /+!. Statistics in Linguistics D=ford" &asil &lac-ell&utler C. (ed.) /++2. Comuters an! Written Tets D=ford" &asil &lac-ell&utler C. /++'. F&eteen Grammar and Le=is" Collocational 8rameor-s in Spanish

3npu!lished Paper Presented at the th %nternational Sstemic 7or-shop on Corpus&ased Studies, 3ni1ersidad Complutense 4e ;adrid, 2E2+ 9ul /++'

&u=ton .&. and ;eados .9. /+$. FCategorisation of %nformation in @=perimentalPapers and Their uthor !stracts. in @ournal of esearc$ Communication Stu!ies #ol./" /E//2

Cahn, <. S. /+$+. 9ntro!uction to C$emical Nomenclature. Ne 6or- Press.Carter <. /++. Vocabular-. 'lie! Linguistic Persecties. (2nd @dition). London"

<outledge.Ca1alliSfor?a L. and 8elman ;. /++. Cultural Transmission an! Eolution Princeton Ne

9erse" Princeton 3ni1ersit PressChafe 7. /++2. FThe %mportance of Corpus Linguistics to 3nderstanding the Nature of

Language. in S1art1i- /++2a" $++$Chesterman . /++$. #emes of Translation. t$e Srea! of 9!eas in Translation T$eor-.

msterdam" 9ohn &en>amins.Choue-a 6., lein T. and Neuitch @. /+'. Futomatic <etrie1al of %diomatic and

Collocational @=pressions in Large Corpus. in @ournal for Literar- an! Linguistic

Comuting #ol. *" '*'Church . 7. and :an-s . P /++. F7ord ssociation Norms, ;utual %nformation and

Le=icograph. in Comutational Linguistics /E/" 222+Church . 7. and ;ercer <.L. /++'. F%ntroduction to the Special %ssue on Computational

Linguistics 3sing Large Corpora. in Comutational Linguistics #ol. /+/" /2*Clar-e 4. 8. and Nation %. S. P. /+0. FGuessing the ;eanings of 7ords from Conte=t"

Strateg and Techni5ues. %n S-stem '" 2//220.

287




Clear 9. /+$. FD1er1ie of the <ole of Computing in Co!uild. in 9.;c:. Sinclair (ed.)/+$" */E/

Clear 9. /++'. Ffrom 8irth Principles. Collocational Tools for the Stud of Collocation. in ;.&a-er et al. (eds.) /++'" 2$/2+2

Cle1eland 4.&. and Cle1eland .4. /+'. 9ntro!uction to 9n!eing an! 'bstracting

Princeton Colorado Li!raries 3nlimitedCollins P. and Peters P. /+. FThe ustralian Corpus Pro>ect. in ;. tj et al. (eds.)" /0'

/20Collot ;. /++/. F@lectronic Language. Pilot Stud of Ne #ariet of @nglish.

Comuter Corora !es Englisc$en in Forsc$ung, Le$re un! 'n&en!ungen (CC@ Nesletter, &erlin) #ol. (/2)" /''/

Coulmas 8. /+$+. FDn the Sociolinguistic <ele1ance of <outine 8ormulae. %n @ournal of

Pragmatics. 2'" 22'2'.Coulthard ;. (ed.) /++*. '!ances in Written Tet 'nal-sis London" <outledge.Coie .P. (ed). /++ P$raseolog- T$eor-, 'nal-sis, an! 'lications. D=ford" D=ford

3ni1ersit Press.Cremmins @.T. /+2. T$e 'rt of 'bstracting Philadelphia %S% PressCruse 4.. /+E. Leical Semantics Cam!ridge 3ni1ersit Press4e &eaugrande <. /++/. Linguistic T$eor-. t$e ?iscourse of Fun!amental Wor%s. Longman"

London.4e &eaugrande <. and 4ressler 7. /+/. 9ntro!uction to Tet Linguistics London"

Longman4eCarrico, 9. and Nattinger, 9. /+. kLe=ical Phrases for the Comprehension of cademic

Lectures, @SP 9ournal, $2, +//0/4ereian-a &. /++*. FGrammatical ;etaphor and 8u?? &oundaries. 3npu!lished ;S,

Presented at the 2/st %nternational Sstemic 8unctional Comgress, / ugust /++*.4iodato #. /+2. FThe Dccurrence of Title 7ords in Parts of <esearch Papers" #ariations

mong 4isciplines. in @ournal of ?ocumentation #ol. ''" /+220E4o!ro1ols-i>, 4. /++2. FPhraseological 3ni1ersals" Theoretical and pplied spects. %n ;.

efer (ed.) #eaning an! Grammar Cross(Linguistic Persecties. &erlin.4op-ins S. and ;orris <.. /++2. FLe=ical m!iguit and @e 8i=ation in <eading" Test

of Competing ;odels of Le=ical utonom <esolution. in @ournal of #emor- an!

Language #ol.'/" *E/*$E4ron!erger G.&. and ronit? G.T. /+$ F!stract <eada!ilit s 8actor in %nformation

Sstems. in @ournal of t$e 'merican Societ- for 9nformation Science #ol. 2E" /0///4rur :. /++/. FThe 3se of Sstemic Linguistics to 4escri!e Student Summaries at

3ni1ersit Le1el. in @. #entola (ed.) /++/" *'/*E4u!ois &. L. /+/. FThe Construction of Noun Phrases in &iomedical 9ournal rticles. in 9.

:oedt et al. (eds) Pragmatics an! LSP Copenhagen" " *+E$4u!ois &. L. /++$. T$e Jiome!ical ?iscussion Section in Contet . London" !le=Pu!lishing Corporation.

@ndresNiggemeer &. /+. F<eferierregeln 3nd <eferate !stracting ls<egelgesteuerter Te=t1erar!eitungspro?e. in Nac$tric$ten Für ?o%umentaristen #ol.'E/" '0

@n-1ist N. /+E*. FDn 4efining Stle" n @ssa in pplied Linguistics. in 9. Spencer (ed.) Linguistics an! St-le London" D=ford 3ni1ersit Press.

@n-1ist N. /++. F8rom Te=t to %nterpreta!ilit" Contri!ution to the 4iscussion of &asicTerms in Te=t Linguistics. in 7. :edrich et al. (eds.) /++" 'E+'2

@scarpit <. /+$E. T$orie Gnrale !e l+9nformation et !e la Communication Paris :achette

288




@1eraert ;., #an 4er Linden @., Schen- ., and Schreuder <. (eds.) /++. 9!iomsStructural an! Ps-c$ological Persecties. :illsdale, N9" Larence @rl!aum ssociates.

8ernando C. /++E. 9!ioms an! 9!iomaticit-. D=ford" D=ford 3ni1ersit Press.8idel <. /+E. F7riting !stracts for 8reeTe=t Searching. in @ournal of ?ocumentation

#ol. *2/" //2/8illmore C.9. /++2. FCorpus Linguistics, or Computerided rmchair Linguistics. in

S1art1i- (ed) /++2a" 'E08illmore C.9. and t-ins S. /++*. FStarting 7here the 4ictionaries Stop" the Challenge of

Corpus Le=icograph. in S. t-ins and Uampolli (eds.) Comutational 'roac$es to

t$e Leicon D=ford" D=ford 3ni1ersit Press8illmore C.9., a P. and DConnor ;.C. /+. F<egularit and %diomac in Grammatical

Constructions. in Language #ol. E*" 0/'8irth 9.<. /+'. FThe Techni5ues of Semantics. in Transactions of t$e P$ilological Societ-.

'E$2.8irth 9.<. /+$. Paers in Linguistics *OH/(*O*. D=ford" D=ford 3ni1ersit Press.8ischer <. /++. Leical C$ange in Present(?a- Englis$. T!ingen" Gunter Narr #erlag.8l\ttum . /+. F;ethodological Pro!lems in the nalsis of Student Summaries. in Tet

#ol. *" 2+/'08ontenelle T. /++*. F7hat on @arth are Collocations]. %n Englis$ To!a- No. *0 #ol. /0*"

*2*.8o= G. /++'. F Comparison of FPolicespea- and FNormalspea-" Preliminar Stud. in

9. ;c:. Sinclair et al. (eds.) /++'" /*/+8oucauld ;. /+$2. t$e 'rc$aeolog- of Bno&le!ge London" Ta1istoc-.8rancis G. /+. Fnaphoric Nouns. 4iscourse nalsis ;onograph No. //" &irmingham"

&irmingham 3ni1ersit @nglish Language <esearch8rancis G. /++'. F Corpus4ri1en pproach to Grammar. in &a-er et al. (eds.) /++'" /'$

/E8rancis G. and ramer4ahl . /++/. F8rom Clinical <eport to Clinical Stor" To 7as of

7riting !out ;edical Case. in @. #entola (ed.) /++/" ''+'E8rancis G. and S%NCL%< 9. /++*. F% &et :e 4rin-s Carling &lac- La!el. <iposte to

Den on Corpus Grammar. in 'lie! Linguistics #ol./2" /2008uller G. FCulti1ating Science" Negotiating 4iscourse in the Popular Te=ts of Stephen 9a

Gould. %n 9. <. ;artin , <. #eel (eds). /++. ea!ing Science Critical an! Functional

Persecties on ?iscourses of Science. London" <outledge. 'E2.Gadamer :.G. /+$E. FDn the Scope and 8unction of :ermeneutical <eflection. in 4.@.

Linge (ed. and Trans.) P$iloso$ical 8ermeneutics 3ni1ersit of California Press.Ger!ert ;. /+$0. Jeson!er$eiten !er S-nta in !er Tec$nisc$en Fac$srac$e !es

Englisc$en &erlin" :alle.

Gerson S. /++. F From ...to as an %ntensifing Collocation. in Englis$ Stu!ies #ol. $0" 'E0'$/Gi!son T.<. /++2. FToards a 4iscourse Theor of !stracts and !stracting. 3npu!lished

Ph.4. Thesis, @nglish Language 4epartment" NottinghamGi!!ons 9. /++*. Language an! t$e La&. London" ddison 7esle.GlBser, <. /++. FGi!t @s @ine 8achsprachenphraseologie], in 8achsprache 8remdsprache

;uttersprache, #%%th %nternational Conference Fngeandte Sprachissenschaft 3nd8achsprachliche us!ildung" Technische 3ni1ersitBt 4resden

GlBser <. /++/. FThe LSP Genre !stract <e1isited. in 'LSE? ( Ne&sletter #ol. /'*" '//

GlBser <. /++2. F ;ultiLe1el ;odel for a Tpolog of LSP Genres. in Fac$srac$e #ol.//2" /2E

289




GlBser <. /++. FThe Stlistic Potential of Phraseological 3nits in the Light of Genrenalsis. %n . P. Coie (ed.)" /2/*'.

Gledhill C. /++a. FCollocation and Genre nalsis. F %n eitsc$rift für 'nglisti% un!

'meri%anisti% #ol. /"//'EGledhill C. /++!. FScientific %nno1ation and the Phraseolog of <hetoric. Posture,

<eformulation and Collocation in Cancer <esearch rticles. Ph4 thesis, 3ni1ersit ofston.

Gledhill C. /++E. FScience as a Collocation. Phraseolog in Cancer <esearch rticles. in&otle S., Glass 9, ;c@ner T and 7ilson (eds.) Procee!ings of Teac$ing an!

Language Corora *OOR . Lancaster. 3C<@L Technical Papers #olume +" /0/2E.Gledhill C. /++$. FLes collocations et la construction du sa1oir scientifi5ue. in ;artin 9.

'nglais !e Scialit ='S>. No. // "/0*.Gledhill C. /+++. FToards a phraseolog of @nglish and 8rench. %n C. &eedham (ed.)

Language an! Parole in S-nc$ronic an! ?iac$ronic Persectie. Proceedings ofSocietas Linguistica @uropaea %. D=ford" Pergamon" 22/'$.

Gledhill C. (forthcoming) FThe phraseolog of rhetoric, collocations and discourse in cancerresearch a!stracts in C. &arron and N. &ruce (eds.) . 4Bno&le!ge an! ?iscourse

Procee!ings of t$e 9nternational #ulti!iscilinar- Conference. :ong ong" /2/ 9une/++E. 3ni1ersit of :ong ong, :ong ong. pril /+++.

Gnut?mann L. and Dlden!urg :. /++2. FContrasti1e Te=t Linguistics in LSP <esearch"Theoretical Considerations and Some Preliminar 8indings. in Schneider (ed.)" /0'/'E

Godle T. /++'. FTerminological Principles and ;ethods in the Su!>ect 8ield of Chemistrin &. Sonne1eld and Loening (eds.)" /*//E'

Godman . and Pane @.;.8. /+/ F Ta=onomic pproach to the Le=is of Science. inSelin-er et al. (eds.) 2''+

Gopni- ;. /+$2. Linguistic Structures in Scientific Tet 4en :aag" ;outonGrBt? N /+. FTeaching @8L Students to @=tract Structural %nformation from !stracts. in

9.;. line and .. Pugh (eds.) ea!ing for Professional Puroses #et$o!s an!

#aterials in Teac$ing Languages" 22''Granger S. /++. FPrefa!ricated Patterns in d1anced @8L 7riting" Collocations and

8ormulae. %n Coie . (ed) /++" /2/.Grice :.P. /+$. FLogic and Con1ersation in P. Cole and 9.;organ (eds.) S-nta an!

Semantics 999 Ne 6or-" cademic PressGu!a @.G. and Lincoln 6.S. /+2. F@pistemological and ;ethodological &ases of

Naturalistic %n5uir in E!ucational Communication an! Tec$nolog- @ournal #ol. '0*"2''22

Gunaardena C.N. /++. FThe Present Perfect in the <hetorical 4i1isions of &iolog and&iochemistr 9ournal rticles. in Englis$ for Secific Puroses #ol. '" 2E2$'.

:allida ;.. /+E/. Categories of t$e T$eor- of Grammar . 4epartment of @nglishLanguage and General Linguistics ;onographs. (Pp2*/2+2). @din!urgh" @din!urgh3ni1ersit Press.

:allida ;... /+EE. FLe=is s Linguistic Le1el in &a?ell et al. (eds.) /+EE in #emor-

of @..Firt$ London" Longman:allida ;... /+$E. F8unctions and 3ni1ersals of Language. in G. ress (ed.) /+$E

8alli!a- S-stem an! Function in Language London" D=ford 3ni1ersit Press:allida ;... /+$$. FLanguage Structure and Language 8unction. in 9.Lons (ed.) /+$$

Ne& 8ori)ons in Linguistics :armonsorth" Penguin &oo-s:allida ;... /+ 9ntro!uction to Functional Grammar London" @dard rnold:allida ;... /+. FDn the Language of Phsical Science.. %n ;.Ghadess /+" /E2

/$$

290




:allida ;... /++/a. FCorpus Studies in Pro!a!ilistic Grammar. in . i>mer and &.lten!erg (eds) /++/" '0*'

:allida ;... /++/!. FToards Pro!a!ilistic %nterpretations. in @. #entola (ed.) /++/"'+E/

:allida ;... /++2. FLanguage as Sstem and Language s %nstance" the Corpus s Theoretical Construct. in 9. S1art1i- (ed.) /++2a" E/$$

:allida ;... /++*. FThe Construction of noledge and #alue in the Grammar ofScientific 4iscourse, ith <eference to Charles 4arins FThe Drigin of Species. in ;.Coulthard (ed.)" /'E/E.

:allida ;. . /++. FThings and <elations. <egrammaticising @=perience as Technicalnoledge. in 9. <. ;artin , <. #eel (eds) /++ ea!ing Science Critical an!

Functional Persecties on ?iscourses of Science. London" <outledge. /2'.:allida ;... and 9ames U.L. /++'. F `uantitati1e Stud of Polarit and Primar Tense

in the @nglish 8inite Clause. in 9. ;c:. Sinclair (et al.) /++'" '2EE:allida ;... and :asan <. /+$E. Co$esion in Englis$ London" Longman:allida ;... and :asan <. /++. (2nd @dition) Language, Contet an! Tet 'sects of

Language in a Social(Semiotic Persectie D=ford" D=ford 3ni1ersit Press:allida ;... and ;artin 9. /++'. Writing Science Literac- an! ?iscursie Po&er

London" 8almer Press:anania @..S. and -htar . /+. F#er! 8orm and <hetorical 8unction in Science

7riting" Stud of ;.Sc. Theses in &iolog, Chemistr, and Phsics. in Englis$ for

Secific Puroses #ol. *" *+:arle &. /++E. Leical 9ssues in Language Learning . London" 9ohn &en>amins.:arris 9. @. /+. Fspects of uthorship in the Scientific !stract. 3npu!lished ;Sc.

4issertation, Language Studies 3nit" ston 3ni1ersit:artle 9. /++*. FThree 7as to %mpro1e the Clarit of 9ournal !stracts in Jritis$ @ournal

of E!ucational Ps-c$olog- #ol. E*2" ''/'*':eidegger ;. /+EE. ?iscourse on T$in%ing London" Torch" :arper and <o:oe ;. /+'. An t$e Surface of ?iscourse London" llen and 3nin:oe ;. /++/. Patterns of Leis in Tet D=ford" D=ford 3ni1ersit Press:op-ins . and 4udle@1ans T. /+. F Genre&ased %n1estigation of the 4iscussion

Sections in rticles and 4issertations . in Englis$ for Secific Puroses @ournal #ol.$2" //'/2/

:oarth, P. /++'. k Phraseological pproach to cademic 7riting, in G. &lue (ed.) Language, Learning an! Success Stu!-ing T$roug$ Englis$, London" ;acmillan," E+.

:oarth P. /++E. P$raseolog- in Englis$ 'ca!emic Writing. Some 9mlications for

Language Learning an! ?ictionar- #a%ing . T!ingen" ;a= Niemeer #erlag.

:oarth P. /++. FThe Phraseolog of Learners cademic 7riting. %n .P. Coie (ed.)Pp/E//E.:uddleston <.4. /+$/. T$e Sentence in Written Englis$. ' S-ntactic Stu!- Jase! on an

'nal-sis of Scientific Tets Cam!ridge 3ni1ersit Press.:unston S. /++'. FPro>ecting Su!Culture" the Construction of Shared 7orlds &

Pro>ecting Clauses in To <egisters. in 4. Graddol, L Thomson and ; &ran (eds.)/++'. Language an! Culture Cle1edon" &L" +//2

:unston S. /++. F%deolog, Genre and Te=t in Sstemic Linguistics. 3npu!lished ;SPresented at &L C3P Genre nalsis 7or-shop, Sheffield 9ul /++.

:unston, S. and 8rancis, G. /++. k#er!s D!ser1ed" Corpus4ri1en Pedagogic Grammar, 'lie! Linguistics, /+/, *$2

291




:mes 4.:. /+$/. An Communicatie Cometence Philadelphia" 3ni1ersit ofPennsl1ania Press

%de N.;. /++'. F Statistical ;easure of Theme and Structure. Comuters an! t$e

8umanities #ol. /'" 2$$2'%nman &. /+$. FLe=ical nalsis of Scientific and Technical Prose. in ;.T. Trim!le et al.

(eds.) /+$" 2*2E9aimeSis[ ;. /++'. FThe Ne <ole of Titles in <esearch rticles. 3npu!lished Paper

Presented at the th %nternational Sstemic 7or-shop on Corpus&ased Studies,3ni1ersidad Complutense 4e ;adrid, 2E2+ 9ul /++'

9ohansson S. /+2. F7ord 8re5uenc and Te=t Tpe" Some D!ser1ations &ased on the LD&Corpus of &ritish @nglish Te=ts. in Comuters an! t$e 8umanities #ol./+" 2''E

9ohns T. and ing P. /++'. ?ata(?rien Learning Wor%s$o Presented at the &[email protected];eeting, 3ni1ersit of &irmingham, ;arch 22 /++'

9ohns T. and Scott ;. /++*. #icroconcor! Concor!ancing Programme. D=ford 3ni1ersitPress" D=ford.

Bllgren G. /+a. Futomatic %nde=ing and Generating of Content Graphs from3nrestricted Te=t. in . 4ahl and . 8raurud (eds.)" /*$/E0

Bllgren G. /+!. Futomatic !stracting of Content in Te=t. in Nor!ic @ournal of

Linguistics #ol. // +//0a P. and 8illmore C.9. /+++. FGrammatical Construction and Linguistic Generali?ation"

the W$at+s 5 ?oing 6: Construction. in Language $/" /'*.ae G. /++0. F Corpus&uilder and <ealTime Concordance &roser for n %&; PC. in

9. arts and 7. ;ei>s (eds) /++0" /'$/E/enned G. /+*. FPreferred 7as of Saing Things ith %mplications for Language

Teaching. in 9. arts and 7. ;ei>s (eds) /+*" '''$'enned G. /++/. F Jet&een and T$roug$ the Compan The eep and the 8unctions The

Ser1e. in . i>mer and &. lten!erg (eds) /++/" +//0e1les 4. /++. FPursuing the 3npopular" :istor of Courage, #iruses and Cancer. in <.

Sil1ers (ed.) /++ 8i!!en 8istories of Science. Ne 6or-" Granta," E+//2.hurshid . /+$+. FDn !stracts and !stracting. in 'nnals of Librar- Science an!

?ocumentation #ol. 2E" /*20ilgariff . /++E. FComparing 8re5uencies across Corpora" 7h ChiS5uare 4oesnt 7or-,

and n %mpro1ed LD&&ron Comparison. Procee!ings of t$e Conference of t$e

'ssociation of Literar- an! Linguistic Comuting('C8 *OOR , 3ni1ersit of &ergen, 9une22+, /++E" /E+/$'

ina .N., ;uloshi L.P., ;usa-a!antu ;.<. and Sales 9.;. /+'. FPrennouncing<esults in rticle %ntroductions. ;S, &irmingham 3" Language Studies 3nit,3ni1ersit of ston

ing <. /+$E. F Comparison of the <eada!ilit of !stracts ith their Source 4ocuments.in @ournal of t$e 'merican Societ- for 9nformation Science #ol. 2$" ///2/intsch 7. /++'. F%nformation ccretion and <eduction in Te=t Processing %nferences. in

?iscourse Processes #ol. /E/ /+'202intsch 7. and #an 4i>- T. /+$ FToards a ;odel of Te=t Comprehension and

Production in Ps-c$olog- eie& #ol." 'E''+*>ellmer G. /+*. FSome Thoughts on Collocational 4istincti1eness. in 9. arts and 7.

;ei>s (eds) /+*" /E'/$/>ellmer G. /++0. FPatterns of Colloca!ilit. in 9.arts and 7. ;ei>s (eds) /++0" /E'/$norrCetina . 4. (ed.). /+'. Science Absere! Persecties on t$e Social Stu!- of

Science London" Sage

292




och C. /++/. FDn the &enefits of %nterrelating Computer Science and the :umanities" theCase of ;etaphor. in Comuters an! t$e 8umanities #ol. 2" 2+2+

ouilo1a ;. (8orthcoming) F%nteracti1e 8unctions of Language in Peer <e1ies of ;edicalPapers 7ritten & NonNati1e Spea-ers of @nglish 3npu!lished ;S.

ret?en!acher :.L. /++0. e%aitulation Tetstrategien !er usammenfassung on

Wissensc$aftlic$en Fac$teten T!ingen" Gunter Narr #erlagrishnamurth <. /+$. FThe Process of Compilation. in 9.;c:. Sinclair (ed.) /+$" E2uRera :. and 8rancis 7. N. /+E$. Comutational 'nal-sis of Present ?a- 'merican

Englis$ Pro1idence" &ron 3ni1ersit PressLac-strom S., Selin-er L. and Trim!le L. /+$2. FGrammar and Technical @nglish. in

Englis$ Teac$ing Forum SeptDct." '/*Lac-strom S., Selin-er L. and Trim!le L. (eds.) /+$'. FTechnical Principles and

Grammatical Choice. in TESAL Zuarterl-#ol. $" /2$/'ELatour &. and 7oolgar S. /+E. 9nsi!e t$e Laborator-. t$e Construction of Scientific Facts

Ne 6or-" Garland PressLa-off G. /+$. Women, Fire an! ?angerous T$ings. W$at Categories eeal about t$e

#in!. 3ni1ersit of Chicago Press" CaliforniaLeech G. /++/. FThe State of the rt in Corpus Linguistics. in . i>mer and &. lten!erg

/++/" 2+Leech G. /++2. FCorpora and Theories of Linguistic Performance. in 9. S1art1i- (ed) /++2a"

/0/2Leech G. and 8ligelstone S. /++2. FComputers and Corpus Linguistics. in C. &utler (ed.)"

///*0Lehr!erger 9. /+2. Futomatic Translation and the Concept of Su!language. in <.

ittredge and 9. Lehr!erger (eds.) Sublanguage Stu!ies of Language in estricte!

Semantic ?omains, &erlin" 7alter 4e Gruter" Chapter '.Lem-e 9.L./++/. FTe=t Production and 4namic Te=t Semantics. in @. #entola (ed.) /++/"

2''$Lem-e 9. L. /++ F;ultipling ;eaning. #isual and #er!al Semiotics in Scientific Te=t. %n

9. <. ;artin, <. #eel (eds) /++ ea!ing Science Critical an! Functional Persecties

on ?iscourses of Science. London" <outledge. $//'.LA1iStrauss C. /+E2 La Pense Sauage Paris" PlonLidd @., &on?i S., at?er 9., and Ddd @. /+$. F Stud of 4iscourse naphora in

Scientific !stracts. in @ournal of t$e 'merican Societ- for 9nformation Science #ol.'" 22E/

Linstrom!erg S. /++/. F;etaphor and @SP" Ghost in the ;achine] Englis$ for Secific

Puroses #ol. /0'" 20$22L>ung ;. /++/. FSedish T@8L ;eets <ealit. in S. 9ohansson and &. Stenstrjm (eds.)"

2*2ELo1e . /++'. FLe=icoSemantic 8eatures of Geolog Te=t!oo-s. %n Englis$ for Secific

Puroses #ol./2'" /+$2/Lou &. /++'. F%ron in the Te=t Dr %nsincerit in the 7riter] the 4iagnostic Potential of

Semantic Prosodies. in &a-er et al. (eds.) /++'" /$/$ELuhn :.P. /+E. Fe7ordinConte=t %nformation %nde= for Technical Literature. in C..

Schult? (ed.) 8.P.Lu$n Pioneer of 9nformation Sciences Selecte! Wor%s Ne 6or-"Spartan

Lund5uist L. /++2. FSome Considerations on the <elations &eteen Te=t Linguistics and theStud of Te=t for Specific Purposes. in Schrjder (ed.)" 2'/2*'

Lund5uist L. /++. FCoherence in Scientific Te=t. in 7. :edrich et al. (eds.)" /22/*+

293




Lu?on;arco, ;.9. /+++. FCorpus nalsis and Pragmatics" Stud of the Negati1eStructure Fail to in 9TL(eie& of 'lie! Linguistics. /2'/2*" '$

Lne .. /+$ F 7ord8re5uenc Count of 8rench &usiness Correspondence. in 9'L

#ol. /'2" +//0Lne . . /+'. F7ord 8re5uenc Counts" Their Particular <eference to the 4escription of

Languages for Special Purposes and Techni5ue for @nhancing Their 3sefulness. %n Notting$am Linguistic Circular . /22" /'0/*0.

;cCarth ;. /+*. F Ne Loo- at #oca!ular in @8L. %n 'lie! Linguistics /" /22/.;cCarth ;. and Carter <. /++*. Language 's ?iscourse. Persecties for Language

Teac$ing Ne& 6or% Longman ;c@ner T. and 7ilson . /++E. Corus Linguistics @din!urgh 3ni1ersit Press"

@din!urgh;cinla 9. /+'. Fn nalsis of the 4iscussion Section of ;edical 9ournal rticles.

3npu!lished ;Sc Thesis. @SP Collection, Language Studies 3nit, ston 3ni1ersit;cinne ;. /++/. F@=perimenting on and @=perimenting ith" Polater and

@=perimental <ealism. Jritis$ @ournal of t$e P$iloso$- of Science #ol. *2" 2+'0$;a--ai . /++2. FThe Challenge of the #irtual 4ictionar and the 8uture of Linguistics. in

9nternational @ournal of Leicogra$- #ol. *" 222E+;alcolm L. /+$. F7hat <ules Go1ern Tense 3sage in Scientific rticles] in Englis$ for

Secific Puroses @ournal #ol. E/" '/*';alinos-i &. /+2'. FThe Pro!lem of ;eaning in Primiti1e Languages. Supplement to

C.. Dgden and %..<ichards (eds.) t$e #eaning of #eaning Ne 6or-" :arcourt &race9o1ano1ich

;artin 9.<. /++. 9!eation t$e Coman- Wor!s Bee Cam!ridge" Cam!ridge 3ni1ersitPress

;artin 9.<. /++/. FNominali?ation in Science and :umanities" 4istilling noledge andScaffolding Te=t. in @. #entola (ed.) /++/" '0$''$

;aster P. /+$. FGeneric t$e in Scientific 'merican. %n Englis$ for Secific Puroses #ol.E'" /E/E

;aster P. /++/. Fcti1e #er!s ith %nanimate Su!>ects in Scientific Prose. in Englis$ for

Secific Puroses #ol. /0/" /'';auranen . /++'. FTheme and Prospection in 7ritten 4iscourse. &a-er et al. (eds.) /++'"

+//*;elRu- %. /++. FPhrasemes in Language and Phrasemes in Linguistics. %n @1eraert et al.

(eds.)" /E$2'2.;elRu- %. /++. FCollocations and Le=ical 8unctions in Coie (ed)." 2'*.;ei>s 7. (ed.). /+$. Corus Linguistics an! Je-on! msterdam" <odopi;ei>s 7. /++2. FComputers and 4ictionaries in C. &utler (ed.)" /*//E

;eer P.G. /+. FStatistical Te=t nalsis of !stracts" Pilot Stud on Cohesion andSchematicit. in Comuter Corora ?es Englis$en #ol. '" /$*0;iall 4.S. /++2. F@stimating Changes in Collocations of e 7ords across Large Te=t"

Case Stud of Coleridges Note!oo-s. in Comuters an! t$e 8umanities #ol. 2E" //2;oon <. @. /+$. FThe nalsis of ;eaning. in 9. ;c:. Sinclair (ed.) /+$" E/0'.;oon <. @. /++2. FThere %s <eason in the <oasting of @ggs. Comparison of 8i=ed

@=pressions in Nati1e Spea-er 4ictionaries. in Eurale 4O2 Procee!ings D=ford3ni1ersit Press" *+'02

;oon <.@. /++*. FThe nalsis of 8i=ed @=pressions in Te=t. %n ;. Coulthard (ed). Pp//$/'.

;oon, <.@. /++a. Fie! Eressions an! 9!ioms in Englis$ ' Corus(Jase! 'roac$.(D=ford Studies in Le=icograph and Le=icolog) D=ford" D=ford 3ni1ersit Press.

294




;oon <.@. /++!. F8re5uencies and 8orms of Phrasal Le=emes in @nglish. %n . P. Coie(ed)." $+/00.

;os-o1itch G.;. and Caplan . /+$+. F4istri!uti1e Statistical Techni5ues in Linguistic andLiterar <esearch. in [email protected], 8.@. noles and 9. Smith (eds.)" 2*2E'

;uller C. /+E. Essai !e StatistiKue Licale Paris" Li!rairie linc-siec- ;uller C. /+$$. Princies et #t$o!es !e StatistiKue Licale Paris" :achette 3ni1ersitA;ers G. /++. FThe Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific rticles. in 'lie! Linguistics

#ol. /0 /" /';ers G. /++0. Writing Jiolog- Tets in t$e Social Construction of Scientific Bno&le!ge

;ilau-ee" 3ni1ersit of 7isconsin Press;ers G. /++/. FLe=ical Cohesion and Speciali?ed noledge in Science and Popular

Science Te=ts. in ?iscourse Processes #ol. /*/" /2E;ers G. /++2. FTe=t!oo-s and the Sociolog of Scientific noledge. in Englis$ for

Secific Puroses #ol. //" '/$ Nattinger 9.<. and 4eCarrico /++2. Leical P$rases an! Language Teac$ing D=ford" D=ford

3ni1ersit Press Nattinger 9.<. and 4eCarrico /++. FLe=ical cts and Teaching Con1ersation. in

Vocabular- 'cKuisition '9L' eie& R " ///'+ Nogu .N. /++. F4iscourse #ariation in ;edical Te=ts" Schema, Theme and Cohesion in

Professional and 9ournalistic ccounts. 3npu!lished Phd. Thesis, Language Studies3nit, ston 3ni1ersit.

Nogu . N. and &loor T. /++/. FThematic Progression in Professional and Popular ;edicalTe=ts. in #entola (ed) /++/" 'E+'*

Nstrand ;. /+2. W$at Writers Bno&. T$e Language, Process an! Structure of Written

?iscourse Ne 6or-" cademic Press Nstrand ;. /+E. T$e Structure of Written Communication Stu!ies in ecirocit- Jet&een

Writers an! ea!ers Drlando 8l." cademic PressDa-es ;. /++E. Statistics for Corus Linguistics. @din!urgh" @din!urgh 3ni1ersit Press.Dppenheim <. /+. FThe ;athematical nalsis of Stle" Correlation&ased pproach.

in Comuters an! t$e 8umanities #o.22" 2*/2'Dster S. /+/. FThe 3se of Tenses in <eporting Past Literature in @ST. in Englis$ for

'ca!emic an! Tec$nical Puroses Stu!ies in 8onour of Louis Trimble L. Selin-er, @.Tarone and #. :an?eli (eds.), ;assachussets" Ne!ur :ouse" $E+0

Papegaai> and Schu!ert <. /+. ' Corus(Jase! Jilingual Bno&le!ge Jan% for

?istribute! Language Translation 4LT Pu!lications msterdam.Pa1el S. /++'a. FNeolog and Phraseolog as Terminologinthe;a-ing. in :.&.

Sonne1eld and .L.Loening (eds.) /++'" 2/'*Pa1el S. /++'!. FLa PhrasAologie en Langue de SpAcialitA. ;Athodologie de Consignation

dans les #oca!ulaires Terminologi5ues. 3npu!lished ;S, SecrAtariat dtat du Canada"4irection de la Terminologie et des Ser1ices Linguisti5ues.Pa1el S. and &oileau P. /++*. S-st]mes ?-namiKues et 9magerie Fractale. Vocabulaire

FranMais('nglais. SecrAtariat dtat 4u Canada" 4irection 4e La Terminologie @t 4esSer1ices Linguisti5ues. Canada

Pale . and Sder 8.:. /+'. FTo Pu??les for Linguistic Theor" Natureli-e Selectionand Natureli-e 8luenc. in <ichards and Schmidt (eds.) /+ Language an!

Communication London" Longman" /+/22E.Pearson 9. /++. Terms in Contet . msterdam" 9ohn &en>amins.Pettinari C. /+2. FThe 8unction of Grammatical lteration in /* Surgical <eports. in 7.

8rale (ed.) /+2" /*/'.

295




Phillips ;. /+. 'sects of Tet Structure 'n 9nestigation of t$e Leical Argani)ation ofTet msterdam" @lse1ier N:L Series

Phillips ;. /++ Leical Structure of Tet 4iscourse nalsis ;onograph No. /2,&irmingham" @nglish Language <esearch, 3ni1ersit of &irmingham

Picht :. and 4ras-au 9. /+. Terminolog- 'n 9ntro!uction Surre 3ni1ersit 4epartmentof Linguistic and %nternational Studies ;onographs.

Popiel S. and . ;c<ae. /+. FThe 8igurati1e and Literal Senses of %dioms, Dr ll %diomsre Not 3sed @5uall. in @ournal of Ps-c$olinguistic esearc$ /$E" *$*$.

Potter <. G. /++/. Statistical nalses of Literature" <etrospecti1e on C$um" /+EE/++0 in Comuters an! t$e 8umanities #ol. 2" *0/*2+

Propp #. /+Eb/+2. T$e #or$olog- of t$e Fol%tale 3ni1ersit of Te=as Press`uir- <. /++. Grammatical an! Leical Variance in Englis$ London" Longman.`uir- <., Green!aum S., Leech G. and S1art1i- 9. /+. ' Comre$ensie Grammar of t$e

Englis$ Language London" Longman.<aa 8. /+E. F7riting !stracts for 8reeTe=t Searching. in @ournal of ?ocumentation

#ol. *2" //2/<eder L.;. and nderson 9.<. /+0. F Comparison of Te=ts and their SummariesM

;emorial Conse5uences. in @ournal of Verbal Learning an! Verbal Je$aiour #ol. /+"/2//'*

<enouf . /+$a. FLe=ical <esolution.. %n 7. ;ei>s (ed.) /+$<enouf . /+$!. FCorpus 4e1elopment. in 9. ;c:. Sinclair (ed) /+$" /*/<enouf . /++/. FCoding ;etalanguage" %ssues <aised in the Creation and Processing of

Specialised Corpora. in S. 9ohansson and &. Strenstrjm (eds.)" /+20E<enouf . /++. Elorations in Corus Linguistics. (Language and Computing 2').

<odopi" msterdam.<enouf . and Sinclair 9. ;c:. /++/. FCollocational 8rameor-s in @nglish. in . i>mer

and &. lten!erg /++/" /2/**<ichards 9.C. and Schmidt <. (eds.) /+'. Language an! Communication London" Longman<ingle ;. /+2. Frtificial %ntelligence and Semantic Theor. in T.7. Simon and <.9.

Scholes (eds.) Language, #in! an! Jrain London" @rl!aum<oe P. 9. /++'a. FST@C" 3sers Guide to the ston Corpus of Scientific and Technical

@nglish. %nternal <eport, Language Studies 3nit" ston 3ni1ersit<oe P. 9. /++'!. FSoftare Specification for T (ston Te=t nalser). %nternal <eport,

Language Studies 3nit" ston 3ni1ersit<undell ;. and Stoc- P. /++2. FThe Corpus <e1olution. Englis$ To!a- prilDcto!er /++2Sager 9.C. /++0. ' Practical Course in Terminolog- Processing msterdam" 9ohn

&en>aminsSager 9.C., 4un-orth 4. and P.8. ;c4onald /+0. Englis$ Secial Languages Princiles

an! Practice in Science an! Tec$nolog- 7ies!aden" Dscar Nadstetter #erlagSalager;eer 8. /++2. F Te=tTpe and ;o1e nalsis Stud of #er! Tense and;odalit 4istri!ution in ;edical @nglish !stracts. in Englis$ for Secific Puroses

#ol. //2" +'//*Salager;eer 8. /++0a. F;etaphor in ;edical @nglish Prose" Comparati1e Stud ith

8rench and Spanish. in Englis$ for Secific Puroses #ol.+" /*/+Salager;eer 8. /++0!. F4iscoursal 8las in ;edical @nglish !stracts in Tet #ol. /0*"

'E'*Sampson G. and :aigh <. /+. F7h re Long Sentences Longer Than Short Dnes] in ;.

tj et al. (eds.)" 20$2/+Sastri ;. /+E. FPrepositions in Chemical !stracts. in Linguistics #ol. '" 2'2Saussure de 8. /+/E. Cours ?e LinguistiKue Gnrale. Paris" Paot.

296




Sa1illeTroi-e ;. /+2. T$e Et$nogra$- of Communication D=ford" &asil &lac-ellSC9ENCE C9T'T9AN 9N?E5 /++'. @ournal Citation eorts %nstitute for Scientific

%nformation" PhiladelphiaSchan- <.C. and !elson <.P. /+$$. Scrits, Plans, Goals an! "n!erstan!ing. 'n 9nKuir-

9nto 8uman Bno&le!ge Structures Ne 9erse" Larence @rl!aumSchiffrin 4. /++0. F&eteen Te=t and Conte=t" 4ei=is, naphora and the ;eaning of T$en

in Tet /0'" 2*2$0Schu!ert . /+E. ?istribute! Language Translation msterdam" @lse1ier ScienceScott 7..:. /++/. C$emistr- Glasgo" :arper CollinsScott ;. /++'. FLe=ical Tools for Genre nalsis for Computers. 3npu!lished ;S

Presented at the &L nnual ;eeting /*/E Sept. /++'Searle 9.P. /+E+. Seec$ 'cts London" D=ford 3ni1ersit PressSharp &. /++. F@la!oration and Testing of Ne ;ethodologies for !stracting

3npu!lished Ph.4 Thesis, ;odern Languages 4epartment, ston 3ni1ersitSherrard &. /++. FTeaching Students to Summari?e" ppling Te=tlinguistics. in S-stem

#ol. /$/" ///Sinclair 9. ;c:. /+0. FSome %mplications of 4iscourse nalsis for @SP ;ethodolog. in

'lie! Linguistics /'" 2'2E/Sinclair 9. ;c:. /+/. FPlanes of 4iscourse. ;S, @nglish 4epartment of the 3ni1ersit of

&irmingham, Presented in S.N.. <i?1il (ed.) /+' t$e T&o(Fol! Voice Essa-s in

8onour of ames$ #o$an at the 3ni1ersit of Sal?!urgSinclair 9.;c:. /+*. FNaturalness in Language. in 9. arts and 7. ;ei>s (eds.) /+*" 20'

2/0Sinclair 9. ;c:. (ed.) /+$a. Loo%ing " 'n 'ccount of t$e Collins CAJ"9L? Pro1ect

London" Collins @LTSinclair 9. ;c:. /+$!. FGrammar in the 4ictionar" /0*// and FThe Notion of

@1idence." /'0/+ in 9. ;c:. Sinclair (ed.) /+$a.Sinclair 9. ;c:. /+$c. FCollocation" Progress <eport. in <. Steele and T. Threadgold

(eds.) Language Toics Essa-s in 8onour of #ic$ael 8alli!a-. /+$" msterdam" 9ohn&en>amins" '/+''/

Sinclair 9. ;c:. /+. FCompressed @nglish. in ;. Ghadess (ed.) /+" /'0/'ESinclair 9. ;c:. /++/. Corus, Concor!ance, Collocation D=ford" D=ford 3ni1ersit PressSinclair 9. ;c:. /++2. FThe utomatic nalsis of Corpora. in 9. S1art1i- (ed.) /++2" '$+

'+$Sinclair 9. ;c:. /++'a. FTe=t Corpora" Le=icographers Needs. in eitsc$rift für 'nglisti%

un! 'meri%anisti% #ol. L%" //" /'Sinclair 9. ;c: /++'!. FPosturing in 4iscourse. enote Speech Presented at the th

%nternational Sstemic 7or-shop on Corpus&ased Studies, 3ni1ersidad Complutense

4e ;adrid, 2E2+ 9ul /++'Sinclair 9. ;c: /++'c. FThe &an- of @nglish" &ritish and %nternational Corpus of@nglish. in eitsc$rift Für 'nglisti% "n! 'meri%anisti% #ol. L% 22" /EE/E$

Sinclair 9. ;c:. /++'d. F7ritten 4iscourse Structure. in 9.;c: Sinclair et al. (eds.) /++'"E'/

Sinclair 9. ;c:. /++*. FTrust the Te=t. %n ;. Coulthard (ed.) London" <outledge. Pp/22.Sinclair 9. ;c:., :oelter ;., and Peters C. (eds.) /++. t$e Languages of ?efinition t$e

Formalisation of ?ictionar- ?efinitions for Natural Language Processing , Lu=em!urg"Dffice for Dfficial Pu!lications of the @uropean Committees.

Sinclair 9., ;c:. :oe ;., and 8o= G. (eds.) /++'. Tec$niKues of ?escrition So%en an!

Written ?iscourse London" <outledge

297




Sinclair 9. ;c:., 9ones S. and 4ale <. /+E+. Englis$ Leical Stu!ies. 3& <eport for theDffice of Science and Technolog %nformation.

Smad>a 8. /++'. F<etrie1ing Collocations from Te=t" tract. in Comutational Linguistics

#ol/+/" /*'/$$Smad>a 8. /++E. FTranslating Collocations for &ilingual Le=icons" Statistical pproach.

%n Comutational Linguistics 22/ Pp/'.Sonne1eld :.&. and Loening .L. (eds.) /++'. Terminolog-. 'lications in

9nter!iscilinar- Communication. 9ohn &en>amins" msterdamSouter C. /++0. FSstemic8unctional Grammars and Corpora. in arts and ;ei>s (eds.)

/++0" /$+2//Sparc-9ones . /+$/. 'utomate! Be-&or! Classification for 9nformation etrieal London"

&utterothStu!!s ;. /+2. F7ritten Language and Societ" Some Particular Cases and General

D!ser1ations. in ;. Nstrand (ed.) /++2" '/Stu!!s ;. /+$. Fn @ducational Theor of (7ritten) Language. in T. &loor and 9. Norrish

(eds.) J''L 2 Paers from t$e 'nnual #eeting of t$e Jritis$ 'ssociation for 'lie!

Linguistics London, C%LT" ''Stu!!s ;. /++'. F&ritish Traditions in Te=t nalsis. from 8irth to Sinclair. in ;. &a-er et

al. (eds.) /++' /''Stu!!s ;. /++*. FGrammar, Te=t and %deolog" Computerssisted ;ethods in the

Linguistics of <epresentation. %n 'lie! Linguistics #ol./2" 20/22'Stu!!s ;. /++E. Tet an! Corus 'nal-sis <outledge" London.S1art1i- 9. (ed.) /++2a. ?irections in Corus Linguistics Proceedings of the No!el

Smposium 2" Stoc-holm * ugust /++/.S1art1i- 9. /++2!. FCorpus Linguistics Comes of ge. " $/' in 9. S1art1i- /++2aS1art1i- 9. /++'. FLe=is in @nglish Language Corpora. in eitsc$rift Für 'nglisti% "n!

'meri%anisti% #ol. L%" //" /''/Sales 9. /+/a. 'sects of 'rticle 9ntro!uctions ston @SP <esearch <eport No./,

Language Studies 3nit" ston 3ni1ersitSales 9. /+/!. F4efinitions in Science and La" Case for Su!>ect Specific @SP

;aterials. in Fac$srac$e #ol. /'" /0E//2Sales 9. /+/c. FThe 8unction of Dne Tpe of Particle in Chemistr Te=t!oo-. in

Selin-er et al. (eds.)" *02Sales 9. /++0. Genre 'nal-sis Englis$ in 'ca!emic an! esearc$ Settings. Cam!ridge"

Cam!ridge 3ni1ersit Press.Sales 9. /++. At$er Floors, At$er Voices. ' Tetogra$- of ' Small "niersit- Juil!ing .

;ahah, N.9. Larence @rl!aum.Sales 9. and Na>>ar :. /+$. FThe 7riting of <esearch rticle %ntroductions. in Written

Communication #ol. *" /$/+2Taraso1a T. /++'. FNon#er!al @lements in Scientific Te=t. 3npu!lished Ph.4. Thesis,Language Studies 3nit, ston 3ni1ersit.

Thomas P. /++'. FChoosing :eadords from LSP Collocations for @ntr %nto Terminolog 4ata &an- (Term &an-). in Sonne1eld :.&. and Loening .L. (eds.) /++'"*EE.

Thomas :. and 7a=man 9. /++. FDncogenes and Cancer. in 9. 7a=man and . Si-era(eds.) t$e #olecular Jiolog- of Cancer " //$.

Thompson G. and 6iun 6. /++/. F@1aluation in the <eporting #er!s 3sed in cademicPapers. in 'lie! Linguistics #ol. /2*" 'E'2

Traugott @. and :eine :. /++/. 'roac$es to Grammaticalisation. #ol. %%. msterdam"9ohn &en>amins.

298




3re 9. /+$/. FLe=ical 4ensit and <egister 4ifferentiation. in G. @. Prerren and 9.L.;. Trim(eds.) 'lications of Linguistics Cam!ridge" Cam!ridge 3ni1ersit Press

#an 4er 7ouden T. /++$. Negatie Contets. Collocation, Polarit- an! #ultile Negation .<outledge" London.

#an 4i>- T. /+$+. #acrostructures 'n 9nter!iscilinar- Stu!- of Global Structures in

?iscourse :illsdale Ne 9erse" Larence @rl!aum#an 4i>- T. and intsch 7. /+'. Strategies of ?iscourse Comre$ension Ne 6or-M

cademic Press#an 4i>- T. and intsch 7. /+$. FCogniti1e Pscholog and 4iscourse" <ecalling and

Summari?ing Stories. in 7. 4ressler (ed.) Current Tren!s in Tetlinguistics. &erlin" 4eGruter.

#an :alteren :. /++*. FSntactic 4ata!ases in the Classroom. in 7ilson and ;c@ner(eds.)" /$2

#an <oe 9. /++0. Frenc$(Englis$ Contrastie Leicolog- 'n 9ntro!uction. Lou1ainLa Neu1e" Peeters.

#arttala T. /+++. F<emar-s on the Communicati1e 8unction of :edges in Popular Scientificand Specialist <esearch rticles. in Englis$ for Secific Puroses. /2" /$$200.

#entola @. (ed.) /++/. Functional an! S-stemic Linguistics 'roac$es an! "ses 4en:aag" ;outon 4e Gruter

#entola @. and ;auranen . /++/. FNonNati1e 7riting and Nati1e <e1ising of Scientificrticles. in @. #entola (ed.)" *$*+2

#erschueren 9. /+++. "n!erstan!ing Pragmatics. London" rnold.#idalenc 9L. /++$. F`uel5ues remar5ues sur lemploi de la mAtaphore comme outil de

dAnomination dans un corpus dhistoire des sciences. in &oisson C. and Thoiron P. (eds.)/++$. La ?nomination. Paris" Presses 3ni1ersitaires 4e Lon." ///.

#ossen P., den &roeder ;. and ;ei>s 7. /+E. FThe L%NS Pro>ect" &uilding Semantic4ata!ase for Linguistic pplications.. %n arts and ;ei>s (eds.) /+E" 2$$2+'

7eil &.:., Uarem!er %. and Den :. /+E'. FTechnical !stracting 8undamentals. Part %%.7riting Principles and Practices. in @ournal of C$emical ?ocumentation #ol. '/" /2/'2

7est G.. /+0. FT$at Nominal Constructions in Traditional <hetorical 4i1isions ofScientific <esearch Papers. in TESAL Zuarterl- #ol. /*" *'*+

7i-!erg . /++0. FTopic, Theme and :ierarchial Structure in Procedural 4iscourse. in 9.arts and 7. ;ei>s (eds.) /++0" 2/2*

7il!ur 7.9. and Sirot-in . /++2. FThe utomatic %dentification of Stop 7ords. in @ournal

of 9nformation Science #ol. //" *7illiams %. /++E. 49fs and Juts. %mpact 8actors of 9ournals ma ffect 4ecisions on

<esource llocation. %n C$emistr- in Jritain, 8e!ruar /++E" '/''

7illiams %. . /++E. F Conte=tual Stud of Le=ical #er!s in To Tpes of ;edical<esearch rticle. in Englis$ for Secific Puroses. #ol /'" /$/+.7illis 4. /++0. t$e Leical S-llabus London" Collins @LT7illis 4. /++'. FGrammar and Le=is" Some Pedagogical %mplications. in Sinclair et al.

(eds.) /++'" '+'7ilson . and ;c@ner T. (eds) /++*. Corora in Language E!ucation an! esearc$ '

Selection of Paers from TalcO/. 3C<@L Technical Papers *., Lancaster 3ni1ersit.7ingard P. /+/. FSome #er! 8orms and 8unctions in Si= ;edical Te=ts. in L. Selin-er, @.

Tarone and #. :an?eli (eds.) Englis$ for 'ca!emic an! Tec$nical Puroses Stu!ies in

8onour of Louis Trimble" 'E*7inter @. /+$$. F Clause <elational pproach to @nglish Te=ts" Stud of Some

Predicti1e Le=ical %tems in 7ritten 4iscourse. %n 9nstructional Science. #ol. E/"/+2.

299

Collocations in Science Writing

Documents

Transcript of Collocations in Science Writing