Journal of English for Academic Purposes最新文献_第10页

“Figure 2 shows that …”: Evidentiality in Chinese graduate students’ research articles “图2显示……”：中国研究生研究文章的证据性

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-31 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101507

Zhongqing He, Haowen Zhou

Evidentiality is an important interpersonal resource in academic discourse, indicating sources of information and authorial commitment to propositions. Compared to other interpersonal resources in academic writing, however, evidentiality is an understudied area. In particular, much is unknown about the possible similarities/differences between student writers and expert writers in their use of evidentiality in research articles (RAs). The present study, adopting a systemic functional linguistics perspective, reports a corpus-based comparative examination of evidentiality in Chinese graduate students' coursework RAs and expert writers' published RAs. The study's aim is to discern the extent to which Chinese graduate students differ from expert writers in their use of evidentiality in English RAs in four disciplines: mathematics, physics, metallurgy, and materials science. The results showed that Chinese graduate students, as English as a foreign language (EFL) writers, use significantly more evidentials in their RAs than expert writers and their repertoire of evidentials is relatively limited. Chinese graduate students also show strong preferences for certain types and realizations of evidentiality and thus display less variety and flexibility in their use of evidentials in their RAs. This study provides evidence for the relationship between writers' writing skills and language proficiency and their use of evidentiality in RAs, and may contribute to our understanding of evidentiality in academic discourse.

证据是学术话语中重要的人际资源，表明了信息来源和作者对命题的承诺。然而，与学术写作中的其他人际资源相比，证据性是一个未被充分研究的领域。特别是，学生作家和专家作家在研究文章（RAs）中使用证据性方面可能存在的相似/差异尚不清楚。本研究采用系统功能语言学的观点，基于语料库对中国研究生的课程论文和专家作家发表的论文的证据性进行了比较研究。这项研究的目的是辨别中国研究生在数学、物理、冶金和材料科学四个学科的英语RAs中使用证据性的程度与专家作家的不同。研究结果表明，中国研究生在英语写作中使用的证据明显多于专业作者，且证据的使用范围相对有限。中国研究生对证据的某些类型和实现也表现出强烈的偏好，因此在他们的研究中使用证据的多样性和灵活性较低。本研究为作者的写作技巧和语言熟练程度与证据性使用之间的关系提供了证据，并有助于我们理解学术话语中的证据性。

{"title":"“Figure 2 shows that …”: Evidentiality in Chinese graduate students’ research articles","authors":"Zhongqing He, Haowen Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101507","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101507","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Evidentiality is an important interpersonal resource in academic discourse, indicating sources of information and authorial commitment to propositions. Compared to other interpersonal resources in academic writing, however, evidentiality is an understudied area. In particular, much is unknown about the possible similarities/differences between student writers and expert writers in their use of evidentiality in research articles (RAs). The present study, adopting a systemic functional linguistics perspective, reports a corpus-based comparative examination of evidentiality in Chinese graduate students' coursework RAs and expert writers' published RAs. The study's aim is to discern the extent to which Chinese graduate students differ from expert writers in their use of evidentiality in English RAs in four disciplines: mathematics, physics, metallurgy, and materials science. The results showed that Chinese graduate students, as English as a foreign language (EFL) writers, use significantly more evidentials in their RAs than expert writers and their repertoire of evidentials is relatively limited. Chinese graduate students also show strong preferences for certain types and realizations of evidentiality and thus display less variety and flexibility in their use of evidentials in their RAs. This study provides evidence for the relationship between writers' writing skills and language proficiency and their use of evidentiality in RAs, and may contribute to our understanding of evidentiality in academic discourse.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101507"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143738256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A systematic analysis of first-person identity roles in agricultural sciences 农业科学中第一人称身份角色的系统分析

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-30 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101506

Julia T. Williams-Camus

This paper presents a systematic quantitative and qualitative analysis of first-person reference in a corpus of 30 Agricultural Science research articles. The analysis is based on Tang and John’s (1999) taxonomy of authorial identity roles cross-referenced with rhetorical functions within the IMRaD structure. A total of 795 instances (39.3 per 10,000 words) were found, the most frequent roles being recounter (59.5 %) and opinion-holder (32.8 %) spread across all sections. The highest density, however, was observed in the short Conclusion section and Abstract (84.1 and 75.7 per 10k, respectively). Interestingly, the qualitative analysis revealed that instances of presenting reasoned decisions for procedural choices outnumbered plain description of procedures through first-person reference in Methods. These were also frequent in the Results section, where stating results with the first-person was relatively rare (21 of 62 tokens). In the Discussion section, use of the possessive was higher than that of the subject pronoun (52.2 % vs. 46 % instances), which was attributable to writers employing our to identify the source of the data under consideration in the control of the different voices in the text. The study provides new insights into the diverse ways that authors imprint their presence on their discourse through self-reference.

本文对30篇农业科学研究论文语料库中的第一人称指称进行了系统的定量和定性分析。这一分析基于Tang和John（1999）的作者身份角色分类，该分类与IMRaD结构中的修辞功能相互参照。总共发现了795个实例（每10,000个单词中有39.3个），最常见的角色是重述者（59.5%）和意见持有人（32.8%），分布在所有部分。然而，在较短的结论部分和摘要中观察到的密度最高（分别为84.1和75.7 / 10k）。有趣的是，定性分析显示，在方法中，通过第一人称引用对程序选择进行合理决策的实例多于对程序的简单描述。这些在Results部分中也很常见，其中用第一人称陈述结果的情况相对较少（62个标记中有21个）。在讨论部分，所有格的使用高于主语代词的使用（52.2% vs. 46%），这是由于作者在控制文本中不同的语态时使用our来识别所考虑的数据的来源。该研究为作者通过自我参照将自己的存在烙印在话语中的各种方式提供了新的见解。

{"title":"A systematic analysis of first-person identity roles in agricultural sciences","authors":"Julia T. Williams-Camus","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101506","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101506","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper presents a systematic quantitative and qualitative analysis of first-person reference in a corpus of 30 Agricultural Science research articles. The analysis is based on Tang and John’s (1999) taxonomy of authorial identity roles cross-referenced with rhetorical functions within the IMRaD structure. A total of 795 instances (39.3 per 10,000 words) were found, the most frequent roles being <em>recounter</em> (59.5 %) and <em>opinion-holder</em> (32.8 %) spread across all sections. The highest density, however, was observed in the short Conclusion section and Abstract (84.1 and 75.7 per 10k, respectively). Interestingly, the qualitative analysis revealed that instances of presenting reasoned decisions for procedural choices outnumbered plain description of procedures through first-person reference in Methods. These were also frequent in the Results section, where stating results with the first-person was relatively rare (21 of 62 tokens). In the Discussion section, use of the possessive was higher than that of the subject pronoun (52.2 % vs. 46 % instances), which was attributable to writers employing <em>our</em> to identify the source of the data under consideration in the control of the different voices in the text. The study provides new insights into the diverse ways that authors imprint their presence on their discourse through self-reference.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101506"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143734652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A cross-disciplinary study of authorial identity construction through ‘reader engagement’ in the introduction of research articles 通过“读者参与”在研究文章的介绍作者身份建设的跨学科研究

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-24 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101503

Yajing Wu , Zhanting Bu , Jingyuan Zhang

Despite readers' active and constitutive role in how authors construct their identities, most of the current research on authorial identity construction has focused on author-oriented self-mentions, and few studies have examined how authors engage readers in the text and construct their identities in the reader-oriented interactions. Drawing upon Hyland's (2005a) reader engagement model, this study explores how authorial identity is constructed through reader engagement resources in 120 introductions of research articles from both soft disciplines (i.e., linguistics and philosophy) and hard disciplines (i.e., bioscience and materials science). Employing both corpus-based and text-based analyses, our findings indicate that authors of selected disciplines rarely use reader pronouns to construct interlocutor identities. Instead, they frequently employ informative asides and shared knowledge expressing tradition and typicality to portray themselves as guides. Notable variations exist both between and within hard and soft disciplines. These findings can guide EAP practitioners to help novice authors enhance their reader awareness and construct appropriate authorial identities in the interaction with readers.

尽管读者在作者身份建构过程中发挥着积极的构成性作用，但目前关于作者身份建构的研究大多集中于以作者为导向的自我陈述，很少有研究探讨作者如何在文本中与读者互动，并在以读者为导向的互动中建构自己的身份。本研究借鉴 Hyland（2005a）的读者参与模型，探讨了作者身份是如何通过 120 篇软学科（即语言学和哲学）和硬学科（即生物科学和材料科学）研究文章的引言中的读者参与资源来构建的。通过基于语料库和文本的分析，我们的研究结果表明，所选学科的作者很少使用读者代词来构建对话者身份。相反，他们经常使用信息性的旁白以及表达传统和典型性的共享知识，将自己描绘成指导者。在软硬学科之间和内部都存在明显的差异。这些发现可以指导英语语言教学法从业人员帮助新手作者在与读者的互动中增强读者意识，构建适当的作者身份。

{"title":"A cross-disciplinary study of authorial identity construction through ‘reader engagement’ in the introduction of research articles","authors":"Yajing Wu , Zhanting Bu , Jingyuan Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101503","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101503","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite readers' active and constitutive role in how authors construct their identities, most of the current research on authorial identity construction has focused on author-oriented self-mentions, and few studies have examined how authors engage readers in the text and construct their identities in the reader-oriented interactions. Drawing upon Hyland's (2005a) reader engagement model, this study explores how authorial identity is constructed through reader engagement resources in 120 introductions of research articles from both soft disciplines (i.e., linguistics and philosophy) and hard disciplines (i.e., bioscience and materials science). Employing both corpus-based and text-based analyses, our findings indicate that authors of selected disciplines rarely use reader pronouns to construct interlocutor identities. Instead, they frequently employ informative asides and shared knowledge expressing tradition and typicality to portray themselves as guides. Notable variations exist both between and within hard and soft disciplines. These findings can guide EAP practitioners to help novice authors enhance their reader awareness and construct appropriate authorial identities in the interaction with readers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101503"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143687799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Exemplification and its local grammar patterns in English as an academic lingua franca in research writing 作为学术通用语的英语在研究性写作中的例证及其地方语法模式

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-21 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101504

Feng (Kevin) Jiang , Hang Su

In this study, we investigate the underexplored rhetorical practice of authors adopting English as a lingua franca (ELF) in academic writing, focusing on their use of exemplification. By giving examples for illustration or clarification, the act of exemplifying is central to the clarity and persuasiveness of research writing. We examined it through a local grammar approach, analysing both its lexico-grammatical and discourse-semantic patterns. Based on the SciELF corpus, which comprises unproofread pre-submission drafts of ELF authors, our analysis shows that for example and “Exemplified – Indicator – Exemplification – Subordinate Category” are the dominant marker and local grammar pattern of exemplification. The use of exemplification also relates to the L1 background, professional status and disciplinary alignment of the ELF authors. Czech and Russian authors made the most and least frequent use of exemplification respectively while Finnish and Czech authors often use variant patterns of the dominant one. Additionally, senior academics, particularly from soft disciplines, make the most of exemplificatory markers and prefer the “Exemplified – Indicator – Exemplification – Relevant Studies” pattern. Our study sheds light on the rhetorical language use by ELF authors, and unravels the value of local grammars in the research of English as an academic lingua franca.

在本研究中，我们调查了在学术写作中采用英语作为通用语言（ELF）的作者未被充分探索的修辞实践，重点关注他们对例证的使用。通过举例说明或澄清，举例行为对研究写作的清晰度和说服力至关重要。我们通过局部语法方法对其进行了研究，分析了其词汇语法和话语语义模式。科学英语论文语料库由英语论文作者未校对的投稿前草稿组成，基于该语料库，我们的分析表明，"例如 "和 "例证--指标--例证--从属类别 "是例证的主要标记和局部语法模式。例证的使用还与 ELF 作者的 L1 背景、专业地位和学科排列有关。捷克语和俄语作者使用例证标记的频率分别最高和最低，而芬兰语和捷克语作者则经常使用主导标记的变体模式。此外，资深学者，尤其是来自软学科的学者，最常使用例证标记，并偏爱 "例证--指标--例证--相关研究 "模式。我们的研究揭示了 ELF 作者的修辞性语言使用，并揭示了地方语法在英语作为学术通用语的研究中的价值。

{"title":"Exemplification and its local grammar patterns in English as an academic lingua franca in research writing","authors":"Feng (Kevin) Jiang , Hang Su","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101504","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101504","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In this study, we investigate the underexplored rhetorical practice of authors adopting English as a lingua franca (ELF) in academic writing, focusing on their use of exemplification. By giving examples for illustration or clarification, the act of exemplifying is central to the clarity and persuasiveness of research writing. We examined it through a local grammar approach, analysing both its lexico-grammatical and discourse-semantic patterns. Based on the SciELF corpus, which comprises unproofread pre-submission drafts of ELF authors, our analysis shows that <em>for example</em> and “Exemplified – Indicator – Exemplification – Subordinate Category” are the dominant marker and local grammar pattern of exemplification. The use of exemplification also relates to the L1 background, professional status and disciplinary alignment of the ELF authors. Czech and Russian authors made the most and least frequent use of exemplification respectively while Finnish and Czech authors often use variant patterns of the dominant one. Additionally, senior academics, particularly from soft disciplines, make the most of exemplificatory markers and prefer the “Exemplified – Indicator – Exemplification – Relevant Studies” pattern. Our study sheds light on the rhetorical language use by ELF authors, and unravels the value of local grammars in the research of English as an academic lingua franca.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101504"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143687798","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Languages of publication among multilingual researchers: Locality to mobility in the Taiwan context 多语研究者的出版语言：台湾语境下的地域到流动

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-19 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101501

Cheryl L. Sheridan

Faculty of eight universities around Taiwan were surveyed regarding the extent to which they use English for academic publication, why they use English, and their perceptions of their experiences. Analysis focuses on participants who used English and Chinese for journal articles in two disciplinary groups: Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM), at different academic ranks. Analysis shows that they publish in English for similar reasons, closely related to institutional policies pushing “international” publications, but experience the process differently. Within disciplinary groups, respondents' language use at different academic ranks also varied. Adopting Blommaert (2010), the paper explores multilingual scholars’ movement along the sociolinguistic scale of academic rank in relation to language use that connotes an indexical order from locality to mobility. Compared to HSS, STEMM participants experienced greater mobility in the Anglophone-centric view because they published more in English, secured more first-author international collaboration, and perceived less sense of barrier to publishing in English. The relationship between the privileging of internationally indexed journals and mobility is considered. Finally, the implications of such policies in pursuit of internationalization is discussed and a critical pragmatic approach to higher education suggested.

对台湾八所大学的教师进行了调查，内容涉及他们在学术出版中使用英语的程度、使用英语的原因以及他们对自己经历的看法。分析的重点是在不同学术级别的人文社会科学（HSS）和科学、技术、工程、数学和医学（STEMM）两个学科组中使用英文和中文发表期刊文章的参与者。分析表明，它们以英文出版的原因相似，与推动“国际化”出版物的制度政策密切相关，但经历的过程不同。在学科组内，不同学术等级的受访者的语言使用情况也有所不同。本文采用Blommaert（2010）的方法，探讨了多语言学者在社会语言学的学术等级尺度上的运动与语言使用的关系，这意味着从地方到流动的索引顺序。与HSS相比，STEMM参与者在以英语为中心的观点中经历了更大的流动性，因为他们用英语发表了更多的文章，获得了更多的第一作者国际合作，并且认为用英语发表的障碍更小。考虑了国际索引期刊的特权与流动性之间的关系。最后，讨论了这些政策对追求国际化的影响，并提出了一种重要的实用主义高等教育方法。

{"title":"Languages of publication among multilingual researchers: Locality to mobility in the Taiwan context","authors":"Cheryl L. Sheridan","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101501","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101501","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Faculty of eight universities around Taiwan were surveyed regarding the extent to which they use English for academic publication, why they use English, and their perceptions of their experiences. Analysis focuses on participants who used English and Chinese for journal articles in two disciplinary groups: Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM), at different academic ranks. Analysis shows that they publish in English for similar reasons, closely related to institutional policies pushing “international” publications, but experience the process differently. Within disciplinary groups, respondents' language use at different academic ranks also varied. Adopting Blommaert (2010), the paper explores multilingual scholars’ movement along the sociolinguistic scale of academic rank in relation to language use that connotes an indexical order from locality to mobility. Compared to HSS, STEMM participants experienced greater mobility in the Anglophone-centric view because they published more in English, secured more first-author international collaboration, and perceived less sense of barrier to publishing in English. The relationship between the privileging of internationally indexed journals and mobility is considered. Finally, the implications of such policies in pursuit of internationalization is discussed and a critical pragmatic approach to higher education suggested.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101501"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143644698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Using visual scaffolding to enhance the comprehensibility of English materials in science education: A genre-based approach 运用视觉脚手架提高科学教育英语材料的可理解性：体裁教学法

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101500

Jun-Jie Tseng

This paper investigates how visual scaffolding enhances the comprehensibility of English scientific materials in secondary education, focusing on Bilingual Scientific Literacy (BSL). Despite its importance, BSL is often underemphasized, with students facing linguistic challenges in understanding scientific texts. The study addresses two research questions: how teachers create visual scaffolds to improve students' grasp of quantum science materials and their perceptions of this approach. Utilizing Unsworth's (2001) genre analysis framework and Kress & van Leeuwen's (2006) visual analysis framework, the research involved collaborative efforts between physics and English teachers in Taiwan. Data were collected through designs of visual scaffolds, interviews, and reflection reports. Findings show that teachers used visual representations of functional stages, logical connections, and nominalizations to simplify abstract concepts. They believed visual scaffolding enhanced student comprehension, though challenges remain in interpreting complex visuals and creating effective scaffolds. This study contributes to the literature on genre-based visual scaffolding in bilingual education by demonstrating how the integration of Unsworth's (2001) and Kress & van Leeuwen's (2006) frameworks can create visual scaffolding that improves the comprehensibility of English scientific materials for EFL students.

本文以双语科学素养（BSL）为研究对象，探讨了视觉脚手架如何提高中学英语科学材料的可理解性。尽管车贴语很重要，但它经常被低估，学生在理解科学文本时面临语言挑战。该研究解决了两个研究问题：教师如何创建视觉支架来提高学生对量子科学材料的掌握，以及他们对这种方法的看法。利用Unsworth（2001）的体裁分析框架和Kress &；van Leeuwen（2006）的可视化分析框架，研究涉及台湾物理教师与英语教师之间的合作努力。通过视觉支架设计、访谈和反思报告收集数据。研究结果表明，教师使用功能阶段、逻辑联系和名词化的视觉表征来简化抽象概念。他们认为视觉支架可以提高学生的理解力，尽管在解释复杂的视觉效果和创造有效的支架方面仍然存在挑战。本研究通过展示Unsworth's（2001）和Kress &；van Leeuwen（2006）的框架可以创建视觉脚手架，提高英语学生对英语科学材料的可理解性。

{"title":"Using visual scaffolding to enhance the comprehensibility of English materials in science education: A genre-based approach","authors":"Jun-Jie Tseng","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101500","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101500","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper investigates how visual scaffolding enhances the comprehensibility of English scientific materials in secondary education, focusing on Bilingual Scientific Literacy (BSL). Despite its importance, BSL is often underemphasized, with students facing linguistic challenges in understanding scientific texts. The study addresses two research questions: how teachers create visual scaffolds to improve students' grasp of quantum science materials and their perceptions of this approach. Utilizing Unsworth's (2001) genre analysis framework and Kress & van Leeuwen's (2006) visual analysis framework, the research involved collaborative efforts between physics and English teachers in Taiwan. Data were collected through designs of visual scaffolds, interviews, and reflection reports. Findings show that teachers used visual representations of functional stages, logical connections, and nominalizations to simplify abstract concepts. They believed visual scaffolding enhanced student comprehension, though challenges remain in interpreting complex visuals and creating effective scaffolds. This study contributes to the literature on genre-based visual scaffolding in bilingual education by demonstrating how the integration of Unsworth's (2001) and Kress & van Leeuwen's (2006) frameworks can create visual scaffolding that improves the comprehensibility of English scientific materials for EFL students.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101500"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143641751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Longitudinal development of L2 learners’ linguistic complexity in reading-to-write argumentative tasks 二语学习者从阅读到写作的论证任务中语言复杂性的纵向发展

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101502

Li Tao, Yue Qu, Peng Bi

This study investigates the longitudinal development of linguistic complexity in the reading-to-write argumentative tasks finished by 30 second language (L2) learners over one semester. Following recent trends in L2 linguistic complexity studies, the current study examines the longitudinal development of both large-grained and fine-grained syntactic complexity and lexical complexity indices, as well as the interactions between these indices. The results demonstrate simultaneous increases in both syntactic and lexical complexity, characterized by a concurrent rise in the use of complex nominals (particularly pre-modifiers) and sophisticated vocabulary. The qualitative data further indicate that the advanced nouns and nominal structures present in the input texts are key factors in the development of linguistic complexity in integrated writing. Our findings provide additional empirical evidence for the learning potential of reading-to-write argumentative tasks and demonstrate the important role of input texts in scaffolding writing. They also have implications for incorporating reading-to-write tasks and modifying reading materials to meet teaching requirements in academic writing pedagogy.

本研究调查了30名第二语言学习者在一个学期内完成的从阅读到写作的论证任务中语言复杂性的纵向发展。根据二语语言复杂性研究的最新趋势，本研究考察了大粒度和细粒度句法复杂性和词汇复杂性指标的纵向发展，以及这些指标之间的相互作用。结果表明，句法和词汇的复杂性同时增加，其特点是复杂名词（特别是前修饰语）和复杂词汇的使用同时增加。定性数据进一步表明，输入文本中存在的高级名词和名义结构是综合写作中语言复杂性发展的关键因素。我们的研究结果为从阅读到写作的议论文任务的学习潜力提供了额外的经验证据，并证明了输入文本在脚手架写作中的重要作用。在学术写作教学中，它们也对整合阅读到写作的任务和修改阅读材料以满足教学要求具有启示意义。

{"title":"Longitudinal development of L2 learners’ linguistic complexity in reading-to-write argumentative tasks","authors":"Li Tao, Yue Qu, Peng Bi","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101502","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101502","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study investigates the longitudinal development of linguistic complexity in the reading-to-write argumentative tasks finished by 30 second language (L2) learners over one semester. Following recent trends in L2 linguistic complexity studies, the current study examines the longitudinal development of both large-grained and fine-grained syntactic complexity and lexical complexity indices, as well as the interactions between these indices. The results demonstrate simultaneous increases in both syntactic and lexical complexity, characterized by a concurrent rise in the use of complex nominals (particularly pre-modifiers) and sophisticated vocabulary. The qualitative data further indicate that the advanced nouns and nominal structures present in the input texts are key factors in the development of linguistic complexity in integrated writing. Our findings provide additional empirical evidence for the learning potential of reading-to-write argumentative tasks and demonstrate the important role of input texts in scaffolding writing. They also have implications for incorporating reading-to-write tasks and modifying reading materials to meet teaching requirements in academic writing pedagogy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101502"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143620955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Exploring the affordances of generative AI large language models for stance and engagement in academic writing 探索生成式人工智能大型语言模型在学术写作中的立场和参与的启示

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101499

Zhishan Mo, Peter Crosthwaite

Large pre-trained models like ChatGPT demonstrate remarkable capabilities in generating coherent text across various domains, posing serious implications for teaching academic writing, given the potential for student plagiarism and reliance on software for developing writing skills. However, the linguistic properties and strategies these models employ remain largely unexplored. We investigate how three available large language models (LLMs) express stance and engage with readers in their writing, providing insights into their abilities to produce contextually appropriate and discipline-specific academic writing. 30 academic essays produced by each model were compared with those of human writers on identical topics using detailed prompts, before annotating each text for stance and engagement following Hyland's (2005) taxonomy. Results indicate that LLMs generally use a narrower and more repetitive range of stance and engagement features than human writers, with significant variation also across each LLM. Disciplinary use of stance and engagement is largely in line with human writing except for the philosophy discipline. Implications for teaching academic writing are discussed, particularly regarding identifying potential LLM-related plagiarism and inconsistencies in academic stance and engagement.

像ChatGPT这样的大型预训练模型展示了在不同领域生成连贯文本的卓越能力，这对学术写作教学产生了严重的影响，因为学生抄袭的可能性和对软件开发写作技能的依赖。然而，这些模型使用的语言特性和策略在很大程度上仍未被探索。我们研究了三种可用的大型语言模型（llm）如何表达立场，并在写作中与读者互动，从而深入了解他们撰写适合上下文和特定学科的学术写作的能力。每个模型生成的30篇学术论文与人类作者在相同主题上的论文进行了比较，使用详细的提示，然后根据Hyland（2005）的分类法对每个文本的立场和参与进行了注释。结果表明，法学硕士通常比人类作家使用更窄、更重复的立场和参与特征范围，每个法学硕士之间也存在显著差异。学科使用立场和参与在很大程度上与人类写作一致，除了哲学学科。讨论了学术写作教学的意义，特别是关于识别潜在的法学硕士相关剽窃和学术立场和参与的不一致。

{"title":"Exploring the affordances of generative AI large language models for stance and engagement in academic writing","authors":"Zhishan Mo, Peter Crosthwaite","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101499","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101499","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Large pre-trained models like ChatGPT demonstrate remarkable capabilities in generating coherent text across various domains, posing serious implications for teaching academic writing, given the potential for student plagiarism and reliance on software for developing writing skills. However, the linguistic properties and strategies these models employ remain largely unexplored. We investigate how three available large language models (LLMs) express stance and engage with readers in their writing, providing insights into their abilities to produce contextually appropriate and discipline-specific academic writing. 30 academic essays produced by each model were compared with those of human writers on identical topics using detailed prompts, before annotating each text for stance and engagement following Hyland's (2005) taxonomy. Results indicate that LLMs generally use a narrower and more repetitive range of stance and engagement features than human writers, with significant variation also across each LLM. Disciplinary use of stance and engagement is largely in line with human writing except for the philosophy discipline. Implications for teaching academic writing are discussed, particularly regarding identifying potential LLM-related plagiarism and inconsistencies in academic stance and engagement.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101499"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143592462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Implementing academic reading circles in higher education: Exploring perceptions, motivation and outcomes 在高等教育中实施学术阅读圈：探索认知、动机和结果

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101489

Jennifer Rose Ament , Irene Tort-Cots , Elisabet Pladevall-Ballester

Academic reading is an essential yet challenging skill to teach in higher education. Research shows that academic reading circles (ARC) is a promising methodology that could improve academic reading skills but despite this, few studies have reported on the experiences and outcomes of implementing the methodology in the university setting. The purpose of this study is to investigate perceptions, motivation and outcomes of using ARC methodology in a first-year university English for academic purposes (EAP) course. 95 students and 4 instructors participated in a 16-week longitudinal study. A pre- and post-reading test was used to measure reading improvement and pre- and post-questionnaires were administered to obtain students' and instructors’ experiences with the implementation of ARC and their perceptions on the impact of ARC on reading skills. Results show that while ARC is a demanding activity that requires training for instructors and scaffolding for students, students perceive ARC to have a positive impact on both their higher and lower order thinking skills and that overall reading scores significantly improve after the intervention. The findings highlight the potential benefits of ARC as an effective and useful methodology to teach critical reading skills in higher education EAP courses.

在高等教育中，学术阅读是一项必要但具有挑战性的技能。研究表明，学术阅读圈（ARC）是一种很有前途的方法，可以提高学术阅读技能，但尽管如此，很少有研究报告在大学环境中实施该方法的经验和结果。本研究的目的是调查在大学一年级学术英语（EAP）课程中使用ARC方法的认知、动机和结果。95名学生和4名教师参加了一项为期16周的纵向研究。通过阅读前和阅读后测试来衡量阅读能力的提高，并通过问卷调查来了解学生和教师对ARC实施的经验以及他们对ARC对阅读技能影响的看法。结果表明，虽然ARC是一项要求很高的活动，需要对教师进行培训和为学生搭建脚手架，但学生认为ARC对他们的高阶和低阶思维技能都有积极的影响，并且在干预后整体阅读成绩显著提高。研究结果强调了ARC作为高等教育EAP课程中教授批判性阅读技能的有效和有用的方法的潜在好处。

{"title":"Implementing academic reading circles in higher education: Exploring perceptions, motivation and outcomes","authors":"Jennifer Rose Ament , Irene Tort-Cots , Elisabet Pladevall-Ballester","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101489","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101489","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Academic reading is an essential yet challenging skill to teach in higher education. Research shows that academic reading circles (ARC) is a promising methodology that could improve academic reading skills but despite this, few studies have reported on the experiences and outcomes of implementing the methodology in the university setting. The purpose of this study is to investigate perceptions, motivation and outcomes of using ARC methodology in a first-year university English for academic purposes (EAP) course. 95 students and 4 instructors participated in a 16-week longitudinal study. A pre- and post-reading test was used to measure reading improvement and pre- and post-questionnaires were administered to obtain students' and instructors’ experiences with the implementation of ARC and their perceptions on the impact of ARC on reading skills. Results show that while ARC is a demanding activity that requires training for instructors and scaffolding for students, students perceive ARC to have a positive impact on both their higher and lower order thinking skills and that overall reading scores significantly improve after the intervention. The findings highlight the potential benefits of ARC as an effective and useful methodology to teach critical reading skills in higher education EAP courses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101489"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143548118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Corrigendum to “The expression of obligation in student academic writing” [Journal of English for Academic Purposes (2020), (44), 100840] “学生学术写作中义务的表达”的更正[学术英语杂志（2020），（44），100840]

IF 3.1 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101481

Benet Vincent

引用次数: 0