Informal features in English academic writing: Mismatch between prescriptive advice and actual practice

Pub Date : 2023-02-28 DOI:10.2989/16073614.2022.2088579
Yiying Yang, Fan Pan
{"title":"Informal features in English academic writing: Mismatch between prescriptive advice and actual practice","authors":"Yiying Yang, Fan Pan","doi":"10.2989/16073614.2022.2088579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study empirically investigates the mismatch between English academic writing materials and actual language use by comparing prescriptive advice on informal features given in academic style manuals with descriptive practice in published academic writing. We summarise the advice about linguistic features traditionally associated with an informal style offered in 25 style manuals, and conduct an empirical study to examine the distribution of these features in a 1.87-million-word corpus of research articles in linguistics and physics. Findings indicate that the common advice given in style manuals generally matches the actual use. Despite some disagreements among manual authors, generally it is discouraged to use most informal features, but the authors acknowledge first personal pronouns, unattended this and sentence-initial conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs. In actual practice, published writers use these three categories of informal features frequently, but tend to avoid the other features. However, most style manuals tend to treat academic writing as a monolithic and homogeneous entity, or only discuss the use of informal features across broad disciplinary groupings, without capturing the disciplinary-specific use of individual features as evidenced in this corpus-based research. These findings have potential implications for English academic writing instructors as well as material designers.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2022.2088579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This study empirically investigates the mismatch between English academic writing materials and actual language use by comparing prescriptive advice on informal features given in academic style manuals with descriptive practice in published academic writing. We summarise the advice about linguistic features traditionally associated with an informal style offered in 25 style manuals, and conduct an empirical study to examine the distribution of these features in a 1.87-million-word corpus of research articles in linguistics and physics. Findings indicate that the common advice given in style manuals generally matches the actual use. Despite some disagreements among manual authors, generally it is discouraged to use most informal features, but the authors acknowledge first personal pronouns, unattended this and sentence-initial conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs. In actual practice, published writers use these three categories of informal features frequently, but tend to avoid the other features. However, most style manuals tend to treat academic writing as a monolithic and homogeneous entity, or only discuss the use of informal features across broad disciplinary groupings, without capturing the disciplinary-specific use of individual features as evidenced in this corpus-based research. These findings have potential implications for English academic writing instructors as well as material designers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
英语学术写作中的非正式特征:规范性建议与实践的错位
摘要本研究通过比较学术风格手册中关于非正式特征的规定性建议与已出版学术写作中的描述性实践,实证调查了英语学术写作材料与实际语言使用之间的不匹配。我们总结了25本风格手册中提供的关于传统上与非正式风格相关的语言特征的建议,并进行了一项实证研究,以检验这些特征在187万字的语言学和物理学研究文章语料库中的分布。调查结果表明,样式手册中给出的常见建议通常与实际使用相匹配。尽管手册作者之间存在一些分歧,但通常不鼓励使用大多数非正式特征,但作者承认第一人称代词,没有注意到这一点,以及句首连词和连接副词。在实际实践中,已发表的作家经常使用这三类非正式特征,但倾向于回避其他特征。然而,大多数风格手册倾向于将学术写作视为一个整体和同质的实体,或者只讨论在广泛的学科分组中使用非正式特征,而没有捕捉到这项基于语料库的研究所证明的个别特征在学科中的具体使用。这些发现对英语学术写作教师和材料设计师都有潜在的启示。
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
×
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