Stance construction via that-clauses in telecommunications research articles: a comparison of L1 and L2 expert writers

IF 0.8 3区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Text & Talk Pub Date : 2023-01-20 DOI:10.1515/text-2021-0170
Juanjuan Wu, Fan Pan
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过电信研究文章中的那个从句构建立场——L1和L2专家作家的比较
摘要鉴于关于本土性和/或专业知识在学术写作中的作用的争论尚未解决,我们比较了第一语言(L1)-英语专家作家和第二语言(L2)-英语(中文L1)专家作家在使用立场补充条款方面的专业水平相似。为了进行分析,我们选择了相同数量的由电信领域的L1和L2专家撰写的已发表研究文章。我们发现,这两组作家在控制从句的频率、范围和语义类别方面存在相当大的差异。首先,尽管一级专家和二级专家都绝大多数使用动词+that从句,但他们对立场结构表现出相对不同的句法偏好。二级专家比一级专家使用更多的动词+that从句,而一级专家则使用更多的名词+that从句。其次,二级专家比一级专家更有可能对该条款中的索赔表示更大的确定性。第三,在所有语义类别中,L2专家比L1专家使用了更窄范围的词来控制从句。这些发现表明,即使在高级水平上,学术作家的本土地位仍然会影响他们对评价性that从句的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Text & Talk
Text & Talk Multiple-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
70
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.
期刊最新文献
The effects of modal value and imperative mood on self-predicted compliance to health guidance: the case of COVID-19 “The results might not fully represent…”: Negation in the limitations sections of doctoral theses by Chinese and American students Recurrent gestures and embodied stance-taking in courtroom opening statements Turning talk into text: the representation of contemporary urban vernaculars in Swedish fiction Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1