Variation in Academic Writing: A Corpus-Based Investigation on the Use of Syntactic Features by Advanced L2 Academic Writers

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Аннотация

Background: Writing means communication through words whereas academic writing means making careful use of words to communicate ideas to a range of readers and audiences. Therefore, academic writing reflects specificities related to audience, context/discipline and purpose of the use. These specificities result in ample differences in terms of language use.

Purpose: This study investigates disciplinary variation in the use of different syntactic (i.e., clausal, intermediate and phrasal) features in academic writing produced by the Pakistani advanced writers of English as an L2 specializing in different disciplines of arts and humanities, life sciences, physical sciences and social sciences.

Method: For the said purpose, the corpus has been developed from dissertation texts produced by the Pakistani doctoral candidates from 16 academic disciplines of four disciplinary divisions. The analysis has been performed using AntConc Software after tagging with Multidimensional Analysis, and TagAnt Taggers.

Results: The results reveal mixed findings. On the one hand, the results show variation in the use of syntactic features that is observed to be marked by the difference in the frequency of the different types of the said features across disciplines. On the other hand, the results show a similarity in the use of syntactic features that has been evidenced by the finding that the most and least frequently used features are identical across disciplines.

Conclusion: These results suggest both heterogeneity and homogeneity in the use of syntactic features by the Pakistani advanced L2 academic writers. The results of this study have implications for educators, policy makers, and syllabus designers to ensure discipline-specific instruction, and incorporation of the discipline-specific syntactic features into the academic curricula for supporting academic writing development skills in the students particularly at the advanced level of education.

Авторлар туралы

Muhammad Ahmad

Government College University

Email: ahmad453@yandex.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6759-9511
Faisalabad, Pakistan

Muhammad Mahmood

Government College University Faisalabad

Email: m_asimrai@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8377-2289
Pakistan

Ali Siddique

Government College University

Email: alimalik81@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1946-2347
Faisalabad, Pakistan

Muhammad Imran

Prince Sultan University; Khazar University

Email: mimran@psu.edu.sa
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8754-2157
Saudi Arabia; Azerbaijan

Norah Almusharraf

Prince Sultan University

Email: nmusharraf@psu.edu.sa
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6362-4502
Saudi Arabia

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Abid, A., Manzoor, H., & Siddique, A. R. (2022). Cross-cultural examination of argumentative English essays: A multidimensional analysis of Pakistani and Chinese learners. Linguistic Forum, 4(4), 40-48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.53057/linfo/2022.4.4.6
  2. Ahmad, M., Mahmood, M. A., & Siddique, A. R. (2019). Organisational skills in academic writing: A study on coherence and cohesion in Pakistani research abstracts. Languages, 4(4), 1-26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4040092
  3. Ahmad, M. (2022). Phrasal complexity in Pakistani academic writing: A corpus-based comparative study of doctoral dissertations across disciplines [Unpublished doctoral Ddssertation]. Government College University.
  4. Ahmad, M., Mahmood, M. A., & Siddique, A. R. (2022). Exploring disciplinary variation in Pakistani academic writing: A corpus-based research on doctoral dissertations. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 6(4), 51-60. DOI:https://doi.org/10.47205/plhr.2022(6-IV)06
  5. Ahmad, M., Mahmood, M. A., & Siddique, A. R. (2023a). Determining the L2 academic writing development stage.
  6. A corpus-based research on doctoral dissertations. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0028
  7. Ahmad, M., Mahmood, M. A., & Siddique, A. R. (2023b). Features characterizing academic writing: A corpus-based research on dissertations from hard and soft science disciplines. City University Research Journal of Literature and Linguistics, 6(1), 61-78.
  8. Ahmad, M., Mahmood, M. A., & Siddique, A. R. (2023c). Variation in academic writing: A corpus-based research on syntactic features across four disciplinary divisions. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 17(2), 50-65. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10015816
  9. Ansarifar, A., Shahriari, H., & Pishghadam, R. (2018). Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 58-71. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.008
  10. Azher, M., Faiz, R., Izhar, A., Nisa, R., & Ali, S. (2019). Revealing disciplinary variation in Pakistani academic writing: A multidimensional analysis.International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(2), 258-272.. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n2p258
  11. Aziz, A., Pathan, H., & Ali, S. (2016). Linguistic variation across major disciplinary groups of Pakistani academic writing.
  12. Multidimensional analysis of doctoral theses. ARIEL-An International Research Journal of English Language and Literature, 27, 27-60.
  13. Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109-122. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078112331379362
  14. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
  16. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016 Eds.). Academic writing: Challenging the stereotypes. In D. Biber & B. Gray (Eds.), Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing (pp. 1-42). Cambridge University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511920776
  17. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Contrasting the grammatical complexities of conversation and academic writing: Implications for EAP writing development and teaching. Language in Focus, 2(1), 1-18. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/lifijsal-2016-0001
  18. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034701
  19. Casal, J. E., Lu, X., Qiu, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, G. (2021). Syntactic complexity across academic research article part-genres: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 1-12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100996
  20. Dong, J., Wang, H., & Buckingham, L. (2023). Mapping out the disciplinary variation of syntactic complexity in student academic writing. System, 113, 1-15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102974
  21. Elliott, T. (2019). Variation in use of nouns as nominal premodifiers in advanced student writing across academic disciplines [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University.
  22. Fatima, N., Siddique, A. R., & Ahmad, M. (2023). Linguistic variations in the abstracts of Pakistani dissertations: A multidimensional analysis across disciplines. University of Chitral Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 7(1), 50-80. DOI:https://doi.org/10.33195/btm19817
  23. Gray, B. (2015). Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71
  24. Housseine, B., & Oifaa, T. (2020). The significance of English scientific writing proficiency for publishing purposes: The case of Moroccan EFL PhD students at the Euromed University of Fes. Linguistic Forum, 2(3), 13-19. DOI:https://doi.org/10.53057/linfo/2020.2.3.3
  25. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
  26. Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 59, 116-125. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.05.002
  27. Jalilifar, A., White, P., & Malekizadeh, N. (2017). Exploring nominalization in scientific textbooks: A cross-disciplinary study of hard and soft sciences.International Journal of English Studies, 17(2), 1-20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2017/2/272781
  28. Kachru, B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (2006). Handbook of world Englishes. Blackwell.
  29. Khamaiseh, M. (2023). Toward a model for analyzing the rhetorical move structure of the master thesis introductions in applied linguistics. Linguistic Forum, 5(4), 1-29. DOI:https://doi.org/10.53057/linfo/2023.5.4.1
  30. Lan, G., & Sun, Y. (2018). A corpus-based investigation of noun phrase complexity in the L2 writings of a first-year composition course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 14-24. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.001
  31. Lan, G., Zhang, Q., Lucas, K., Sun, Y., & Gao, J. (2022). A corpus-based investigation on noun phrase complexity in L1 and L2 English writing. English for Specific Purposes, 67, 4-17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.02.002
  32. Lu, X. (2014).Computational methods for corpus annotation and analysis. Springer.
  33. Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16-27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003
  34. Lu, X. (2017). Automated measurement of syntactic complexity in corpus-based L2 writing research and implications for writing assessment. Language Testing, 34(4), 493-511. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217710675
  35. Lu, X., Casal, J. E., & Liu, Y. (2020). The rhetorical functions of syntactically complex sentences in social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 44, 1-16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100832
  36. Lu, X., Casal, J. E., Liu, Y., Kisselev, O., & Yoon, J. (2021). The relationship between syntactic complexity and rhetorical move-steps in research article introductions: Variation among four social science and engineering disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 52, 1-13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101006
  37. Mahboob, A. (2008). Pakistani English: Morphology and syntax. In R. Mesthrie, B. Kortmann & E. Schneider (Ed.), 4 Africa, South and Southeast Asia (pp. 578-592). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208429.2.578
  38. Mahmood, M. A. (2009). A corpus-analysis of Pakistani English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Bahauddin Zakariya University.
  39. Nasseri, M. (2021). Is postgraduate English academic writing more clausal or phrasal? Syntactic complexification at the crossroads of genre, proficiency, and statistical modelling. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 49, 100940. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100940
  40. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press.
  41. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
  42. Olthouse, J. M. (2013). MFA writers' relationships with writing. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(4), 259-274. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X13507972
  43. Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492-518. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492
  44. Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82-94. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008
  45. Parry, S. (1998). Disciplinary discourse in doctoral education. Higher Education, 36, 273-299. :1003216613001. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1023/A
  46. Pervez, N., Siddique, A. R., & Ahmad, M. (2024). Analyzing linguistic variations in the discussion sections of Pakistani English research articles: A multidimensional study. LinguisticaSilesiana, 45(1), 103-134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24425/linsi.2024.150392
  47. Rahman, T. (1990). Pakistani English: The linguistic description of a non-native variety of English. National Institute of Pakistan Studies.
  48. Qasim, S., Hussain, Z., & Mahmood, M. A. (2017). A critical analysis of structuralist variations in academic writing. Journal of Research (Humanities), 53(1), 217-240.
  49. Rashid, A., & Mahmood, M. A. (2019). Linguistic variations across disciplines: A multidimensional analysis of Pakistani research articles. Global Social Sciences Review, 4(1), 34-48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-I).04
  50. Saricaoglu, A., Bilki, Z., & Plakans, L. (2021). Syntactic complexity in learner-generated research paper introductions: Rhetorical functions and level of move/step realization. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 53, 1-11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101037
  51. Saricaoglu, A., & Atak, N. (2022). Syntactic complexity and lexical complexity in argumentative writing: Variation by proficiency. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 16(1), 56-73.
  52. Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149-183. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527
  53. Szczygłowska, T. (2022). Lexical verbs of epistemic modality in academic written English: Disciplinary variation. Linguistica Silesiana,43, 91-111.https://doi.org.
  54. Szczygłowska, T. (2023). Adverbial cohesion in English-medium academic prose: Disciplinary and linguacultural considerations. Linguistica Silesiana, 44(2), 81-108. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24425/linsi.2023.146648
  55. Talaat, M. (1993). Lexical variation in Pakistani English. In R. J. Baumgardner (Ed.), The English language in Pakistan (pp. 55-62). Oxford University Press.
  56. Tian, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Exploring nominalization in academic writing: A comparative study of shipbuilding and oceanography engineering and linguistics. Athens Journal of Philology, 10(2), 101-122. DOI:https://doi.org/10.30958/ajp.10-2-2
  57. Wang, M., & Lowie, W. (2021). Understanding advanced level academic writing on syntactic complexity. In Proceedings of the 35th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 455-465). Association for Computational Lingustics.
  58. Xue, Q., & Ge, T. (2021). A corpus-based study on phrasal complexity in computer science abstracts of novice and advanced writers. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 808-822. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2021.115062
  59. Yin, S., Gao, Y., & Lu, X. (2021). Syntactic complexity of research article part-genres: Differences between emerging and expert international publication writers. System, 97, 1-14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102427
  60. Yoon, H. J., & Polio, C. (2017). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. Tesol Quarterly, 51(2), 1-27. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.296
  61. Ziaeian, E., & Golparvar, S. E. (2022). Fine-grained measures of syntactic complexity in the discussion section of research articles: The effect of discipline and language background. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 57, 101116. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101116

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу


Creative Commons License
Бұл мақала лицензия бойынша қолжетімді Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.