Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.200
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.386

CiteScore 2017: 0.80

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.930

Online
ISSN
1613-7035
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Academic language in Catalan students’ research reports across levels of study

Ana M. Pujol Dahme
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistic and Literary Education, and Teaching and Learning of Experimental Sciences and Mathematics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Moisés Selfa
Published Online: 2017-09-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0065

Abstract

When students engage in a research community of practice they not only have to master academic register but also discourse features embodied in the research genre. This corpus-based study examines lexico-grammatical features and stance and engagement markers in 54 Catalan (Romance language) research reports in biology, from high school twelfth-graders and university master theses’ writers. These texts belong to the TARBUC corpus (Treballs Acadèmics de Recerca de Batxillerat i Universitat en Català) – Baccalaureate and University Academic Research Reports written in Catalan. Analyses reveal a statistically significant increase in syntactic complexity and lexical density in university writers. Furthermore, findings on interactional function indicate that marking of stance (i.e., hedges) correlates with a specific type of engagement marker (i.e., directive to argument) in university students’ texts. Self-mention is the most salient rhetorical strategy used by students, in line with the requirements of the research article published in this discipline. Finally, overall data on the distribution of interactional markers suggest that the conventions of the research article genre constrain interactional strategies from high school onwards. Results suggest that linguistic literacy, cognitive maturity and the genre’s social convention interact in a linked process in the development of a skilled writer.

Keywords: research reports; corpus-based; register; metadiscourse; Catalan

References

  • Anthony, Laurence. 2011. Antconc (Version 3.2.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Laurence Anthony, University of Waseda.Google Scholar

  • Aull, Laura L. & Zak Lancaster. 2014. Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus based-comparison. Written Communication 31(2). 151–183.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baratta, Alexandra M. 2010. Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic. Journal of Pragmatics 42(4). 1017–1036.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

  • Bereiter, Carl & Marlene Scardamalia. 1987. The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Berkenkotter, Carol, Thomas Huckin & John Ackerman. 1991. Social context and socially constructed tests: The initiation of a graduate student into a writing research community. In Charles Bazerman & James Paradis (eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities, 191–215. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

  • Berman, Ruth A. 2004. Between emergence and mastery: The long developmental route of language acquisition. In Ruth A. Berman (ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence, 9–34. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Berman, Ruth A. 2007. Developing linguistic knowledge and language use across adolescence. In Erika Hoff & Marilyn Schatz, Blackwell handbook of language development, 347–367. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Berman, Ruth A. & Dorit Ravid. 2009. Becoming a literate language user: Oral and written text construction across adolescence. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 92–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Berman, Ruth A. & Ludo Verhoeven. 2002. Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy, 5(1). 1–43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9. 93–124.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1994. Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas & Bethany Gray. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1). 2–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray & Kornwipa Poonpon. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45(1). 5–35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Castelló, Montserrat, Mariona Corcelles, Anna Iñiesta, Gerardo Bañales & Norma Vega. 2011. La voz del autor en la escritura académica: Una propuesta para su análisis. Signos 44(76). 105–117.Google Scholar

  • Chafe, Wallace & Jane Danielewicz. 1987. Properties of spoken and written language. In Rosalind Horowitz & S. Jay Samuels (eds.), Comprehending oral and written language, 83–113. San Diego, California: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Christie, Frances & Bewerly Derewianka. 2008. School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Clyne, Michael. 1994. Inter-cultural communication at work. Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Colombi, M. Cecilia. 2002. Academic language development in Latino Students’ writing in Spanish. In Mary Schleppegrell & M. Cecilia Colombi (eds.), Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second Languages, 67–86. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Conrad, Susan. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8. 299–326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cortes, Viviana. 2004. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23(4). 397–423.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crismore, Avon, Raija Markkanen & Margaret S. Steffensen. 1993. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10(1). 39–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cuenca, Maria-Josep. 2003. Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 35. 1069–1093.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cuenca, Maria-Josep. 2005. Sintaxi Catalana. Barcelona: UOC.Google Scholar

  • Cutillas, Laia, Liliana Tolchinsky, Elisa Rosado & Joan Perera. 2014. Indicators of lexical growth throughout age, genre and modality for a Catalan L1 corpus. In Ana Díaz-Negrillo & Francisco Díaz-Pérez (eds.), Specialisation and variation in language corpora, 161–188. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Dubois, Betty L. 1982. The construction of noun phrases in biomedical journal articles. In Jorgen Hoedt , (ed.) Pragmatics and LSP, 49–67. Copenhagen: Copenhagen School of Economics.Google Scholar

  • Flowerdew, John. 2014. Foreword. In Luz Gil-Salom & Carmen Soler- Montreal (eds.), Dialogicity in written specialised genres, IX–XVI. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gardner, Sheena. 2012. Genres and registers of student report writing: An SFL perspective on texts and practices. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11(1). 52–63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gardner, Sheena & Hilary Nesi. 2013. A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics 34(1). 25–52.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grabe, William & Robert B. Kaplan. 1996. Theory and practice of writing. Essex, UK: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Guillén Galve, Ignacio. 1998. The textual interplay of grammatical metaphor on the nominalizations occurring in written medical English. Journal of Pragmatics 30(3). 363–385.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Halliday, Michael A. K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. The language of science. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaia Hasan. 1989. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Henderson, Alice & Robert Barr. 2010. Comparing indicators of authorial stance in psychology students’ writing and published research articles. Journal of Writing Research 2. 245–264.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hunston, Susan. 1994. Evaluation and organisation in a sample of written academic discourse. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis, 191–218. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 2004. A convincing argument: Corpus analysis and academic persuasion. In Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton (eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics, 87–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken. 2008. Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies 8(2). 1–23.Google Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken & John Milton. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2). 183–205.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2). 156–177.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johansson, Victoria. 2008. Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Working Papers (Lund University) 53. 61–79.Google Scholar

  • Kellogg, Roland T. 2008. Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research 1(1). 1–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kuo, Chi-Hua. 1999. The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 18(2). 121–138.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • León, Isabel & Lourdes Divasson. 2006. Nominal domains in the biomedical research paper: A grammatico-rhetorical study of modification. In Maurizio Gotti & Françoise Salager-Meyer (eds.), Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts, 289–309. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Lewin, Beverly A. 2005. Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’ in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4(2). 163–178.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lu, Xiaofei. 2011. A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly 45(1). 36–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Malvern, David, Brian Richards, Ngoni Chipere & Pilar Durán. 2004. Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Markkanen, Raija & Hartmut Schröder (eds.). 1997. Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Martínez, Iliana A. 2005. Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3). 174–190.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCarthy, Philip M. & Scott Jarvis. 2010. MTLD, Vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods 42(2). 381–392.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • McGrath, Lisa & Maria Kuteeva. 2012. Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes 31(3). 161–173.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McNamara, Danielle S., Scott A. Crossley & Philip M. McCarthy. 2010. Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication 27(1). 57–86.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mendiluce, Gustavo. 2005. La matización asertiva en el artículo biomédico: Una propuesta de clasificación para los estudios contrastivos inglés-español. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes 10. 63–90.Google Scholar

  • Mur, Pilar. 2007. ‘I/we focus only’: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2). 143–162.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Neff, Joanne & Rosa Prieto. 1994. First language influence on Spanish EFL university writing development. Washington, DC: Educational Resource Information Center.Google Scholar

  • Nelson, Nancy & Montserrat Castelló. 2012. Academic writing and authorial voice. In Montserrat Castelló & Christiane Donahue (eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies, 33–52. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar

  • Oliver Del Olmo, Sonia. 2004. Análisis contrastivo Español/ Inglés de la atenuación retórica en el discurso médico. El artículo de investigación y el caso clínico. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Ortega, Lourdes. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24. 492–518.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Padró, Lluis & Evgeny Stanilovsky. 2012. FreeLing 3.0.: Towards wider Multilinguality. Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC). Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar

  • Pujol Dahme, Ana M. & Moisés Selfa. 2015. The transition from university to publication: Register and interactional metadiscourse features in immunology research written in Catalan and English. Ibérica, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes 30(1). 155–182.Google Scholar

  • Ravid, Dorit & Ruth A. Berman. 2009. Developing linguistic register across text types. The case of modern Hebrew. Pragmatics and Cognition 17(1). 108–145.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ravid, Dorit & Liliana Tolchinsky. 2002. Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language 29(2). 417–447.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Rienecker, Lotte & Peter Stray Jörgensen. 2003. The (im)possibilities in teaching university writing in the Anglo-American tradition when dealing with continental student writers. In Lennart Björk, Gerd Bräuer, Lotte Rienecker & Peter Stray Jörgensen (eds.), Teaching academic writing in European higher education, 101–112. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

  • Russell, David R. & Vivana Cortes. 2012. Academic and scientific texts: The same or different communities? In Montserrat Castelló & Christiane Donahue (eds.), University writing. Selves and texts in academic societies, 3–18. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar

  • Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes 13(2). 149–170.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schleppegrell, Mary J. 2001. The linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education 12(4). 431–459.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schleppegrell, Mary J. & M. Cecilia Colombi. 2002. Theory and practice in the development of advanced literacy. In Mary J. Schleppegrell & M. Cecilia Colombi (eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power, 1–19. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Snow, Catherine E. & Paola Uccelli. 2009. The challenge of academic language. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 112–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Strömqvist, Sven, Victoria Johansson, Sarah Kriz, Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir, Ravid Aisenman & Dorit Ravid. 2002. Toward a cross-linguistic comparison of lexical quanta in speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy 5(1). 45–67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research and research settings. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Swales, John M. 2004. Research genres: Explorations and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Szmrecsányi, Benedikt M. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In Gérald Purnelle, Cédrick Fairon & Anne Dister (eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, 2, 1032–1039. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar

  • Thompson, Geoff. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22(1). 58–78.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Uccelli, Paola, Christina Dobbs & Jessica Scott. 2013. Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication 30(1). 36–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vallduví, Enric. 2002. L’oració com a unitat informativa. In Joan Solà, Maria Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró & Manuel Pérez-Saldanya (eds.), Gramàtica del català contemporani, vol. 2, 1221–1279. Barcelona: Empúries.Google Scholar

  • Vallduví, Enric & Elisabet Engdahl. 1995. Information packaging and grammar architecture. North East Linguistics Society 25. 519–533.Google Scholar

  • Vázquez, Glòria, Fernández, Ana & Martí, Maria Antònia. 2000. Dealing with lexical semantic mismatches between English and Spanish. Proceedings of the International Conference of Knowledge Based Computer Systems, 308–319, Mumbai, 17–19 December.Google Scholar

  • Vázquez, Ignacio. 2010. A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in Business Management research articles in English and Spanish. Ibérica, 19. 77–96.Google Scholar

  • Vázquez, Ignacio & Diana Giner. 2008. Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers as hedges in research articles. A cross-disciplinary study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 21. 171–190.Google Scholar

  • Ventola, Eija M. 1996. Packing and unpacking of information in academic. In Eija Ventola & Anna Mauranen (eds.), Academic writing. Intercultural and textual issues, 153–194. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Woerfel, Till & Seda Yilmaz. 2011. Lexical development of German-Turkish bilinguals: A comparative study in written discourse. In Chris Cummins (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research, 240–251. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research.Google Scholar

  • Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim. 1998. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

  • Xanthos, Aris. 2014. Textable: Programmation visuelle pour l’analyse de données textuelles. Actes des 12èmes Journées Internationales d’Analyse Statistique de donées textuelles (JADT).Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-09-09


Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0065.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in