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.
Funding source: Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
Award Identifier / Grant number: HUST：2021WKZDJC013
About the authors
Juanjuan Wu is a lecturer at School of Foreign Languages, Yulin Normal university, Guangxi, P.R. China. She is currently a PhD candidate at School of Foreign Languages, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, P.R. China. Her research interests are corpus linguistics and second language academic writing.
Fan Pan is a professor of Applied Linguistics at School of Foreign Languages, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, P.R. China. Her research interests include corpus linguistics and second language academic writing.
-
Research funding: This study is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (HUST: 2021WKZDJC013). We are grateful to the editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their kind and valuable comments.
Appendix A: List of journals
L1 journals
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications
Transactions on Mobile Computing
Communications Magazine
Wireless Communications
Transactions on Broadcasting
Network
IEEE-ACM Transactions on Networking
Transactions on Antennas and Propagation
Transactions on Wireless Communications
Transactions on Multimedia
EEE Transactions on Communications
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
L2 journals
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications
Transactions on Mobile Computing
Communications Magazine
Wireless Communications
Transactions on Broadcasting
Network
IEEE-ACM Transactions on Networking
Transactions on Antennas and Propagation
Transactions on Wireless Communications
Transactions on Multimedia
EEE Transactions on Communications
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
Microelectronics Reliability
Optics Communications
Solid-State Electronics
Signal Processing
Appendix B: List of controlling words for that-clauses (adapted from Biber et al. 2004: 33–35)
That-clauses controlled by verbs
Certainty verbs: acknowledge, affirm, ascertain, calculate, certify, check, conclude, confirm, decide, deem, demonstrate, determine, discover, find, know, learn, mean, meant, meaning, note, notice, observe, prove, realize, recall, recognize, recollect, record, remember, see, show, signify, submit, testify, understand.
Likelihood verbs: appear, assume, believe, bet, conceive, consider, deduce, detect, doubt, estimate, figure, gather, guess, hypothesize, imagine, indicate, intend, perceive, postulate, predict, presuppose, presume, reckon, seem, sense, speculate, suppose, suspect, think, wager.
Communication (speech act and other communication) verbs: add, announce, advise, answer, argue, allege, ask, assert, assure, charge, claim, confide, confess, contend, convey, convince, declare, demand, deny, emphasize, explain, express, forewarn, grant, hear, hint, hold, imply, inform, insist, maintain, mention, mutter, notify, order, persuade, petition, phone, pray, proclaim, promise, propose, protest, reassure, recommend, remark, reply, report, respond, reveal, say, shout, state, stress, suggest, swear, sworn, teach, telephone, tell, urge, vow, warn, whisper, wire, write.
Attitudinal/evaluative/emotional verbs: accept, admit, agree, anticipate, boast, complain, concede, cry, dream, ensure, expect, fancy, fear, feel, forget, foresee, guarantee, hope, mind, prefer, pretend, reflect, require, resolve, trust, wish, worry.
That-clauses controlled by nouns
Certainty nouns: assertion, conclusion, conviction, discover, doubt, fact, knowledge, observation, principle, realization, result, statement
Likelihood nouns: assumption, belief, claim, contention, expectation, feeling, hypothesis, idea, implication, impression, indication, notion, opinion, possibility, presumption, probability, rumor, sign, suggestion, suspicion, thesis.
Communication (nonfactual) nouns: comment, news, proposal, proposition, remark, report, requirement.
Attitude/perspective nouns: ground, hope, reason, view, thought
That-clauses controlled by adjectives
Certainty adjectives (also with extraposed constructions): accepted, apparent, certain, clear, confident, convinced, correct, evident, false, impossible, inevitable, obvious, positive, proved, plain, right, sure, true, well-known.
Likelihood adjectives (with extraposed constructions): doubtful, likely, possible, probable, unlikely.
Attitude adjectives: adamant, afraid, alarmed, amazed, amazing, amused, angry, annoyed, annoying, astonished, astonishing, aware, concerned, curious, depressed, disappointed, disappointing, dissatisfied, distressed, disturbed, embarrassing, encouraged, frightened, frightening, funny, glad, happy, hopeful, hurt, irritated, irritating, mad, pleased, reassured, relieved, sad, satisfied, shocked, shocking, sorry, surprised, surprising, thankful, unaware, uncomfortable, unhappy, upset, upsetting, worried.
References
Anthony, Laurance. 2019. AntConc (version 3.4.8 w) [Computer Software]. Weda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net (accessed 20 May 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1). 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.5.1.06bib.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006a. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5. 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006b. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/scl.23Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Randi Reppen. 1998. Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: A study of complement clauses. In Sylviane Granger (ed.), Learner English on computer, 145–158. London: Longman.10.4324/9781315841342-11Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan M. Conrad, Randi Reppen, Pet Byrd, Marie Helt, Victroria Clark, Viviana Cortes, Enilo Csomary & Alfredo Urzua. 2004. In Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 spoken and written academic language corpus (TOEFL Monograph Series). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Search in Google Scholar
Burrough-Boenisch, Joy. 2003. Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing 12. 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00037-7.Search in Google Scholar
Chan, Thomas Hon-Tung. 2015. A corpus-based study of the expression of stance in dissertation acknowledgements. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20. 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.09.005.Search in Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2003. ‘This mystery…’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2(4). 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(03)00048-1.Search in Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3). 492–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml021.Search in Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes 26(2). 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Alan. 2004. The native speaker in applied linguistics. In Alan Davis & Catherine Eder (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics, 431–450. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9781405138093.2005.00023.xSearch in Google Scholar
ElMalik, Abdullahi Tambul & Hilary Nesi. 2008. Publishing research in a second language: The case of Sudanese contributors to international medical journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7. 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.007.Search in Google Scholar
Farley, A. Fay. 2018. NNES RAs: How ELF RAs inform literacy brokers and English for research publication instructors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33. 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.002.Search in Google Scholar
Ferguson, Gibson, Carmen Pérez-Llantada & Ramón Plo. 2011. English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes 30(1). 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971x.2010.01656.x.Search in Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany & Douglas Biber. 2012. Current conceptions of stance. In Ken Hyland & Carmen Sancho Guinda (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 15–33. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137030825_2Search in Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany & Douglas Biber. 2015. Stance markers. In Karin Aijmer & Christoph Rühlemann (eds.), Corpus pragmatics: A handbook, 219–248. London: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edn. London: Hodder.Search in Google Scholar
Hewings, Martin & Ann Hewings. 2002. “It is interesting to note that…”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes 21. 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(01)00016-3.Search in Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2000. Persuasive rhetoric in linguistics: A stylistic study of some features of the language of Noam Chomsky. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 28–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1982. Expressing doubt and certainty: A corpus-based analysis. RELC Journal 13(9). 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, Guangwei & Feng Cao. 2011. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 2795–2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3). 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2012. Corpora and academic discourse. In Ken Hyland, Chau Meng Huat & Michael Handford (eds.), Corpus applications in applied linguistics, 30–46. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2016. Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing 31. 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Feng Jiang. 2016. “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24. 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Feng Jiang. 2018. “We believe that”: Changes in an academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics 38(2). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1400498.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Feng Jiang. 2021. ‘The goal of this analysis …’: Changing patterns of metadiscursive nouns in disciplinary writing. Lingua 252. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.103017.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & John Milton. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6. 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90033-3.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2005a. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24(2). 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2005b. Evaluative that constructions Signaling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12(1). 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.03hyl.Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, Feng. 2015. Nominal stance construction in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20. 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.07.002.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Chanhee & Peter Crosthwaite. 2019. Disciplinary differences in the use of evaluative that: Expression of stance via that-clauses in business and medicine. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100775.Search in Google Scholar
Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2004. Attitude, certainty and allusions to common knowledge in scientific research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3(2). 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.08.001.Search in Google Scholar
Larsson, Tove. 2016. The introductory it pattern: Variability explored in learner and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22. 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.007.Search in Google Scholar
Lillis, Theresa & Mary Jane Curry. 2006. Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication 23(1). 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305283754.Search in Google Scholar
Man, Deliang & Meng Huat Chau. 2019. Learning to evaluate through that-clauses: Evidence from a longitudinal learner corpus. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 37. 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.007.Search in Google Scholar
Marti, Leyla, Selahattin Yilmaz & Yasemin Bayyurt. 2019. Reporting research in applied linguistics: The role of nativeness and expertise. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 40. 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.05.005.Search in Google Scholar
Martinez, Ron. 2018. “Specially in the last years…”: Evidence of ELF and nonnative English forms in international journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33. 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.01.007.Search in Google Scholar
McKinley, Jim & Health Rose. 2018. Conceptualizations of language errors, standards, norms and nativeness in English for research publication purposes: An analysis of journal submission guidelines. Journal of Second Language Writing 42. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.07.003.Search in Google Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, Pilar. 2021. There may be differences: Analysing the use of hedges in English and Spanish research articles. Lingua 260. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2021.103131.Search in Google Scholar
Omidian, Taha, Anna Siyanova-Chanturia & Douglas Biber. 2021. A new multidimensional model of writing for research publication: An analysis of disciplinarity, intra-textual variation, and L1 versus LX expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 53. 101020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101020.Search in Google Scholar
PanFan, Randi Reppen & Douglas Biber. 2016. Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21. 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.003.Search in Google Scholar
Parkinson, Jean. 2013a. Representing own and other voices in social science research articles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(2). 199–228. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.02par.Search in Google Scholar
Parkinson, Jean. 2013b. Adopting academic values: Student use of that-complement clauses in academic writing. System 41(2). 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.03.002.Search in Google Scholar
Rozycki, William & Neil H. Johnson. 2013. Non-canonical grammar in best paper award winners in engineering. English for Specific Purposes 32(3). 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.04.002.Search in Google Scholar
Staples, Shelly & Randi Reppen. 2016. Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing 32. 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002.Search in Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tang, Ramona (ed.). 2012. Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and challenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in Higher Education contexts. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Tribble, Christopher. 2017. ELFA vs. Genre: A new paradigm war in EAP writing instruction? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25. 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.003.Search in Google Scholar
Wood, Alistair. 2001. International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In Jonh Flowerdew & Mattew Peacock (eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes, 71–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524766.008Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Xiaoyu & Hilary Nesi. 2019. Evaluation in research article introductions: A comparison of the strategies used by Chinese and British authors. Text & Talk 39(6). 797–818. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-2046.Search in Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Selahattin & Ute Römer. 2020. A corpus-based exploration of constructions in written academic English as a lingua franca. In Ute Römer, Viviana Cortes & Eric Friginal (eds.), Advances in corpus-based research on academic writing, 59–88. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/scl.95.03yilSearch in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
