Abstract A key feature of academic texts is the heteroglossic interaction that occurs between the writer and the experts he/she references. When integrating outside experts into their texts, writers often employ integral, author prominent reporting structures, selecting reporting verbs (RVs) to evaluate the veracity and merit of the propositions. This paper examines EAL and English L1 learners’ RV use and compares it with that of experts, providing a corpus-assisted, comparative analysis. It further explores how writers build intertextuality through these RV choices. Using the resources of Appraisal theory, and specifically, the Engagement system, we found that experts tend to favor dialogically contracting RVs (e.g., show and find) that endorse the proposition whereas learners rely heavily on expanding RVs that entertain the evidence as an option to consider (e.g., suggest) or simply attribute it to an outside expert (e.g., state). In particular, both the EAL and English L1 learners strongly rely upon more “neutral” attribute: acknowledge structures (e.g., state, according to), providing no overt indication as to their intersubjective stance on the evidence. These comparative findings provide a roadmap for novice writers to develop authorial stance and adapt to the expert conventions of their given fields.

中文翻译：

---

“某某”说、陈述和争论：报告动词的语料库辅助参与分析

摘要 学术文本的一个重要特征是作者与其所参考的专家之间发生的异语互动。在将外部专家整合到他们的文本中时，作者通常采用完整的、作者突出的报告结构，选择报告动词 (RV) 来评估命题的真实性和优点。本文考察了 EAL 和英语 L1 学习者的 RV 使用情况，并与专家进行了比较，提供了语料库辅助的比较分析。它进一步探讨了作家如何通过这些 RV 选择建立互文性。使用评估理论的资源，特别是参与系统，我们发现专家倾向于以对话方式签订 RV（例如，显示和发现）支持命题，而学习者严重依赖扩展的 RVs，将证据视为考虑（例如，建议）或简单地将其归因于外部专家（例如，状态）的选项。特别是，EAL 和英语 L1 学习者都强烈依赖更“中性”的属性：承认结构（例如，状态，根据），没有公开表明他们对证据的主体间立场。这些比较发现为新手作家提供了发展作者立场并适应其特定领域专家惯例的路线图。没有公开表明他们对证据的主体间立场。这些比较结果为新手作家提供了一个路线图，以发展作者的立场并适应他们给定领域的专家惯例。没有公开表明他们对证据的主体间立场。这些比较结果为新手作家提供了一个路线图，以发展作者的立场并适应他们给定领域的专家惯例。