{"title":"Stance construction via that-clauses in telecommunications research articles: a comparison of L1 and L2 expert writers","authors":"Juanjuan Wu, Fan Pan","doi":"10.1515/text-2021-0170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Given the unsettled debate about the role of nativeness and/or expertise in academic writing, we compared the first language (L1)-English expert writers and the Second language (L2)-English (Chinese L1) expert writers with a similar expertise level in the use of stance complement that-clauses. For our analysis, we selected equal numbers of published research articles written by the L1 and the L2 experts in the field of Telecommunications. We found considerable differences between the two groups of writers in terms of frequency, range, and semantic classes of words controlling that-clauses. First, although both the L1 experts and the L2 experts overwhelmingly used verb + that-clauses, they demonstrated relatively different syntactic preferences for stance construction. The L2 experts used more verb + that-clauses than the L1 experts, while the L1 experts utilized more noun + that-clauses. Second, the L2 experts were more likely to express greater certainty towards the claims in that-clauses than the L1 experts. Third, the L2 experts employed a narrower range of words controlling that-clauses than the L1 experts in all the semantic classes. These findings suggest that the nativeness status of academic writers still influences their use of evaluative that-clauses even at an advanced level.","PeriodicalId":46455,"journal":{"name":"Text & Talk","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Text & Talk","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0170","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Given the unsettled debate about the role of nativeness and/or expertise in academic writing, we compared the first language (L1)-English expert writers and the Second language (L2)-English (Chinese L1) expert writers with a similar expertise level in the use of stance complement that-clauses. For our analysis, we selected equal numbers of published research articles written by the L1 and the L2 experts in the field of Telecommunications. We found considerable differences between the two groups of writers in terms of frequency, range, and semantic classes of words controlling that-clauses. First, although both the L1 experts and the L2 experts overwhelmingly used verb + that-clauses, they demonstrated relatively different syntactic preferences for stance construction. The L2 experts used more verb + that-clauses than the L1 experts, while the L1 experts utilized more noun + that-clauses. Second, the L2 experts were more likely to express greater certainty towards the claims in that-clauses than the L1 experts. Third, the L2 experts employed a narrower range of words controlling that-clauses than the L1 experts in all the semantic classes. These findings suggest that the nativeness status of academic writers still influences their use of evaluative that-clauses even at an advanced level.
期刊介绍:
Text & Talk (founded as TEXT in 1981) is an internationally recognized forum for interdisciplinary research in language, discourse, and communication studies, focusing, among other things, on the situational and historical nature of text/talk production; the cognitive and sociocultural processes of language practice/action; and participant-based structures of meaning negotiation and multimodal alignment. Text & Talk encourages critical debates on these and other relevant issues, spanning not only the theoretical and methodological dimensions of discourse but also their practical and socially relevant outcomes.