A multi-dimensional contrastive study of English abstracts by native and non-native writers

This article takes the multi-dimensional (MD) analysis approach to explore the textual variations between native and non-native English abstracts on the basis of a balanced corpus containing English abstracts written by native English and native Chinese writers from twelve academic disciplines. A total of 47 out of 163 linguistic features are retained after factor analysis, which underlies a seven-dimension framework representing seven communicative functions. The results show that the two types of abstracts demonstrate significant differences in five out of the seven dimensions. To be more specific, native English writers display a more active involvement and commitment in presenting their ideas than Chinese writers. They also use intensifying devices more frequently. In contrast, Chinese writers show stronger preferences for conceptual elaboration, passives and abstract noun phrases no matter whether the two types of data are examined as a whole or whether variations across disciplines are taken into ac...

[1]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Intra-textual variation within medical research articles , 2014 .

[2]  D. Biber.  A typology of English texts , 1989 .

[3]  K. Hyland,et al.  HUMBLE SERVANTS OF THE DISCIPLINE? SELF-MENTION IN RESEARCH ARTICLES , 2001 .

[4]  Adele E. Goldberg,et al.  Constructions at Work , 2005 .

[5]  Daryl J. Bem,et al.  Writing the Empirical Journal Article , 2021, The Compleat Academic.

[6]  Richard Xiao.  Word clusters and reformulation markers in Chinese and English : Implications for translation universal hypotheses , 2011 .

[7]  G. Thompson,et al.  Evaluation in the Reporting Verbs Used in Academic Papers. , 1991 .

[8]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing , 2002, J. Documentation.

[9]  James K. Jones.  7. Vocabulary-based discourse units in biology research articles , 2007 .

[10]  K. Hyland,et al.  Talking to the Academy , 1996 .

[11]  William E. Rivers,et al.  Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[12]  Douglas Biber,et al.  The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries , 1992 .

[13]  E. D. Garber,et al.  Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (review) , 2015 .

[14]  Susan Conrad,et al.  Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies , 2001 .

[15]  Paul Rayson,et al.  From key words to key semantic domains , 2008 .

[16]  Tony McEnery,et al.  Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book , 2006 .

[17]  Jack Grieve,et al.  A regional analysis of contraction rate in written Standard American English , 2011 .

[18]  Andre Gillet,et al.  Using English for Academic Purposes. A Guide for Students in Higher Education , 2010 .

[19]  Susan Hunston,et al.  Book Reviews: Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English , 2000, CL.

[20]  D. Biber,et al.  Drift and the Evolution of English Style: A History of Three Genres , 1989 .

[21]  I. A. Martínez,et al.  Impersonality in the research article as revealed by analysis of the transitivity structure , 2001 .

[22]  Nigel Harwood,et al.  ‘We Do Not Seem to Have a Theory … The Theory I Present Here Attempts to Fill This Gap’: Inclusive and Exclusive Pronouns in Academic Writing , 2005 .

[23]  Eniko Csomay,et al.  Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective , 2004 .

[24]  A. P. B. Sardinha.  Corpus linguistics - investigating language structure and use , 1999 .

[25]  D. Biber,et al.  If you look at …: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks , 2004 .

[26]  U. Römer.  The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives , 2009 .

[27]  R. Xiao.  Multidimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes , 2009 .

[28]  K. Hyland,et al.  Hedging in scientific research articles , 1998 .

[29]  Max M. Louwerse,et al.  Multi-dimensional register classification using bigrams , 2007 .

[30]  Enikó Csomay.  8. Vocabulary-based discourse units in university class sessions , 2007 .

[31]  Tony McEnery,et al.  Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study . , 2005 .

[32]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis , 2006 .

[33]  D. Biber,et al.  Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English , 1999 .

[34]  Christine B. Feak,et al.  Academic Writing for Graduate Students , 1994 .

[35]  Wang Xianyin.  Some aspects on personal pronouns and voices in abstracts of scientific writing , 2010 .

[36]  Richard Xiao.  What can SLA learn from contrastive corpus linguistics?:The case of passive constructions in Chinese learner English , 2007 .

[37]  Vernon Booth,et al.  Communicating in Science: Writing a Scientific Paper and Speaking at Scientific Meetings , 1993 .

[38]  Ronald Carter,et al.  Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse , 2004 .

[39]  Attapol Khamkhien,et al.  Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language , 2013 .

[40]  G. Watson,et al.  A multidimensional analysis of style in Mudrooroo Nyoongah’s prose works , 1994 .

[41]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Stance in spoken and written university registers , 2006 .

[42]  Lois Malcolm,et al.  What rules govern tense usage in scientific articles , 1987 .

[43]  Douglas Biber,et al.  A Corpus Linguistic Investigation of Vocabulary-based Discourse Units in University Registers , 2004 .

[44]  Amir Zeldes.  Tony McEnery, Richard Xiao & Yukio Tono. 2006. Corpus-Based Language Studies. An Advanced Resource Book (Routledge Applied Linguistics). London, New York: Routledge. xx, 386 S , 2010 .

[45]  Hilde Hasselgård.  Adjunct Adverbials in English: Adjunct adverbials in English , 2010 .

[46]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Variation across speech and writing: Methodology , 1988 .

[47]  Phuong Dzung Pho,et al.  Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: a study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance , 2008 .

[48]  Stefan Th. Gries,et al.  N-grams and the clustering of registers , 2011 .

[49]  K. Hyland,et al.  As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation , 2008 .

[50]  Douglas Biber.  Conversation text types : A multi-dimensional analysis , 2004 .

[51]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Variation among University Spoken and Written Registers: A New Multi-Dimensional Analysis , 2003 .

[52]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison , 1995 .

[53]  John Sinclair,et al.  Corpus, Concordance, Collocation , 1991 .

[54]  Paul Edward Rayson,et al.  Matrix : a statistical method and software tool for linguistic analysis through corpus comparison , 2003 .

[55]  D. Biber,et al.  Book Review: Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure by Douglas Biber, Ulla Connor, and Thomas A. Upton , 2007, CL.

[56]  Douglas Biber,et al.  On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis , 1992 .

[57]  J. Swales.  Research Genres: Explorations and Applications , 2004 .

[58]  Mimi Zeiger,et al.  Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers , 1991 .