Email this article 
Hide
Show all
Language Varieties of the Abstracts in Journal Articles Written by Chinese and American Scholars: A Contrastive Corpus Analysis using the Gramulator
Abstract
In this study, we identify the systematic language varieties and discourse characteristics that are indicative of the academic writings of Chinese and American scientists. We conduct a Contrastive Corpus Analysis using the computational tool, the Gramulator, to identify indicative features in Chinese science journal abstracts as compared to American science abstracts. The results suggest that the Chinese scientists tend to employ different linguistic features from their American counterparts. Specifically, Chinese science abstracts can be characterized as non-standard varieties of English by the choice of the three items: the agent, the tense, and two major types of reporting verbs. We conclude that the results may account for the interpretation of Chinese academic writings of English as non-prototypical in terms of discourse style. This study sheds light on language varieties and methodology that may be helpful to English Language Learners as well as materials developers in countries such as China.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bizzell, P. (1992) Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in PhD thesis introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 57-75). Harlow: Pearson.
Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 207-224.
Cho, D.W. (2009). Science journal paper writing in an EFL context: The case of Korea. English for Specific Purposes, 4(28), 230-239.
Cobb, T. 2003. Analyzing Late Interlanguage with Learner Corpora: Québec Replications of Three European Studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 59(3): 393-423
Conrad, S. (1996). Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: an example from biology. Linguistics and Education, 8, 299-326.
Crossley, S.A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D.S. (2008). Assessing text readability using psycholinguistic indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 475-493.
Crossley, S.A. & Louwerse, M. et al. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Language Journal, 91, 15-30.
Dong, Y. R. (1998). Non-native speaker graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 369-390.
Duncan, B., & Hall, C. (2009). A coh-metrix analysis of variation among biomedical abstracts. Proceedings of the twenty second International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 237-242). Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121-150.
Gamon, M., Leacock, C., Brockett, C., Gao, J., & Klementiev, A. (2009). Using statistical techniques and web search to correct ESL errors. CALICO Journal, 26 (3), 491-511.
Glanville, R., Sengupta, S., & Forey, G. (1998). A (cybernetic) musing: Language and science and the language of science. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 5(4), 61-70.
Granger, S. eds. (1998). Learner English on computer. London: Longman.
Graesser, A.C. & McNamara, D.S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 371-398.
Graesser, A.C., Olde, B. A., & Klettke, B. (2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In M. Green, J. Strange, and T. Brock (Eds.), Narrative Impact: social and cognitive foundations (pp.57-69). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Essex: Pearson Education.
Kučera, H. & Nelson, F. (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-day American English. Brown University Press.
McCarthy, P.M., Hall, C., Duran, N.D., Doiuchi, M., Duncan, B., Fujiwara, Y., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). A Coh-Metrix Analysis of Discourse Variation in the Texts of Japanese, American, and British Scientists The ESPecialist, 30, 141-173.
McCarthy, P.M., Watanabe, S.&Lamkin, T.A. (2012). The Gramulator: A Tool to Identify Differential Linguistic Features of Correlative Text Types. Applied Natural Language Processing: Identification, Investigation and Resolution. IGI Global.
Min, H.C & McCarthy, P.M (2012). Insiders and Outsiders: A Gramulator Analysis of the Journal Text of American and Korean Scientists. TESOL Quarterly. in review
Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children’s reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp.47-71). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyceta, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Porter, J. (1992). Audience and Rhetoric: An archaeological composition of the discourse community. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Reid, J. (1992). A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 79-107.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swales, J.M. (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tang, R. (2012). Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and challenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in higher education contexts. London: Continuum.
Trebits, A. (2009). The most frequent phrasal verbs in English language EU documents: A corpus-based analysis and its implications. System, 37, 470-481.
van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Yu L.& Liang Y(2006). A Study of the Writing Model of English Scientific Papers. Foreign Language Education. 27(1). 34-37
Zwaan, R.A. (1993). Aspects of literary comprehension. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.2p.15
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.