Informality in Applied Linguistics Research Articles: Comparing Native and Non-Native Writings

Abstract

This quantitative-qualitative study aimed to fathom out whether and how informal features are exploited in articles of applied linguistics written in English by natives and non-natives. To this end, a corpus of 200 articles was compiled. We employed the classification of informal features proposed by Chang and Swales (1999) representing 10 informal features in academic writing. The AntConc software was used, along with manual search, to detect the informal features. The frequency, percentages, and the density per 1000 words of each informal feature were calculated. The results revealed that informal features are utilized more frequently in native articles than non-native ones, with no significant differences in the two corpora in terms of their most and least frequent informal features. Sentence initial conjunctions are the most recurrent informal features, while exclamation marks are employed the least frequently in both native and non-native articles. Implications for EAP courses are delineated in the study as well.

Keywords

• Informal features,applied linguistics,research articles,natives,non-natives

References

1. Adel, A. (2008). Metadiscourse across three varieties of English: American, British and advanced learner English. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. V. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (45-62). Amsterdam: Bemjamins.
2. Adel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 81-92.
3. Alipour, M. & Matouri, H. (2017). Comparative study of reflexive metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles published in international journals and in Iranian national journals. ARTESOLESP E-Journal, 7(1), 15-28.
4. Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc3.4.3. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html
5. Atai, M. R., & Asadnia, F. (2016). The prestigious world university on its homepage: The promotional academic genre of overview. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1-34.
6. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Attarn, A. (2014). Study of metadiscourse in ESP articles: A comparison of English articles written by Iranian and English native speakers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 5(1), 63-71.
8. Aufa, F. (2014). Should native speaker norms be taken into account?: A perspective in teaching EIL. SELT, 11, 152-258.

9. Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 1–22.
10. Bennet, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 43-54.
11. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1999). Corpus linguistics. Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.
15. Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian native speakers. Studies about Languages, 5, 60-67.
16. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Celik, S. (2006). A concise examination of the artificial battle between native and non-native speaker teachers of English in Turkey. Kastamonu Education Journal, 14(2), 371-376.
18. Chafe, W. (1982). ‘Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature’. In T. Deborah (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35-54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19. Chafe, W. (1986a). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 20, 261-272.
20. Chafe, W. (1986b). Writing in the perspective of speaking. In C. Cooper, & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches. London: Sage Publications.
21. Chang, Y.-Y., & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers?. In C. Candlin, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp.145-167). London: Longman.
22. Chen, Y. H., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology, 14(2), 30–49.
23. Cobb, T. (2003). Analyzing later interlanguage with learner corpora: Quebec replications of three European studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 393-423.
24. Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.
25. Duff, P. A. (2015). Transnationalism, multilingualism, and identity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 57-80.
26. Durrant, P. (2013). Discipline and level specificity in university students’ written vocabulary. Applied linguistics, 35(3), 328-356.
27. Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? IRAL, 47, 157-177.
28. Erman, B. (2009). Formulaic language from a learner perspective: What the learner needs to know. In B. Corrigan, H. Quali, E. Moravcsik, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Evenson, L. S., & Rygh, I. L. (1 988) Connecting L I and FL in discourse-level performance analysis. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 22, 133-1 78.
30. Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 92-107.
31. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Essex: Longman.
32. Field, Y., & Yip, L M. O. (1992). A comparison of internal cohesive conjunction in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15-28.
33. Florence, L. P. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of native- and non-native Englishspeaking teachers: Students perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 280- 305.
34. Foster, J. (2005). Effective writing skills for public relations. London: Kogan Page.
35. Flowerdew, L. (2001). The exploitation of small learner corpora in EAP materials design. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT (pp. 363 379). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36. Ghafournia, N., & Afghari, A. (2013). Exploring the relationship between learning strategies, academic disciplines, and reading comprehension test performance. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 21-51.
37. Granger, S., & Tribble, C. (1998). Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: Form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 199–211). London: Longman.
38. Geisler, C., Kaufer, D. S., & Steinberg, E. R. (1985). The unattended anaphoric ‘This’: When should writers use it? Written Communication, 2, 129-155.
39. Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41. Hardie, A. (2014). Log Ratio: An informal introduction. Retrieved from http://cass.lancs.ac.uk/?p=1133
42. Harding, L. (2014). Towards a theory of diagnosis in second and foreign language assessment: Insights from professional practice across diverse fields. Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 236-260.
43. Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J. M. (1999). Formality of language: Definition, measurement and behavioral determinants. Internal Report. Center “Leo Apostel”: Free University of Brussels.
44. Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
45. Hyland, K. (2001). ‘Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles,’ Written Communication, 18(4), 549–74.
46. Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112.
47. Hyland, K. (2002b). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text-The Hague Then Amsterdam Then Berlin, 22(4), 529-558.
48. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
49. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-191.
50. Hyland, K. (2009). English for professional academic purposes: Writing for scholarly publication. In D. A. Belcher, & A. Arbor (Eds.), English for specific purposes in theory and practice (pp. 83–105). MI, USA: University of Michigan Press.
51. Hyland, K. (2009). Constraint versus Creativity: identity in academic writing. In M. Gotti (Ed.) Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse (pp. 25-520). Frankfort: Peter Lang.
52. Hyland, K., & Anan, E. (2006). Teacher’s perceptions of error: The effects of first language and experience. System, 34, 509-519.
53. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F.K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal?. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40-51.
54. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
55. Hundt, M., & Mair, C. (1999). “Agile” and “Uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(2), 221-242.
56. Ivanic, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound. Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 3–33.
57. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Jenkins, J. (2000). The spread of EIL: A testing time for testers. ELT Journal, 60(1), 42-50.
59. Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60. Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 926–936.
61. Jiang, K., & Hyland, K. (2015). “The fact that”: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies, 17(5), 529-550.
62. Johnston, J. E., Berry, K. J., & Mielke, P. W. (2006). Measures of effect size for chi-squared and likelihood-ratio goodness-of-fit tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103, 412-414.
63. Kahkesh, M., & Alipour, M. (2017). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in English and Persian university lectures. Research in Applied Linguistics, 8, 125-135.
64. Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter‐cultural education. Language learning, 16(1‐2), 1-20.
65. Keshavarz, M. H., Kheirich, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in English research articles written by native English and nonnative Iranian writers in Applied Linguistics and Civil Engineering. Journal of English Studies. 1(3), 3-15.
66. Kuo, C. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121–138.
67. Leedham, M. (2015). Chinese students’ writing in English: Implications from a corpus-driven study. Oxford: Routledge.
68. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.
69. Mair, C. (1998). Corpora and the study of the major varieties of English: Issues and results. The major varieties of English: Papers from Maven, 97, 139-157.
70. Martinez, I. A. (2000). Discrepancias entre las concepciones de hispanoparlantes del artı´culo de investigacio´n eningle´s y las caracterı´sticas del mismo segu´n el ana´lisis del ge´nero. Actas II Congreso Iberoamericano de Educacio´n en Ciencias Experimentales. Co´rdoba, Argentina: CD-Rom.
71. Martinez, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language writing, 14, 174-190.
72. Mauranen, A. (2009). Introduction. In A. Mauranen, & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings (pp. 1–9). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
73. Mazdayasna, G., & Noori, M. (2014). Developing a profile of learning needs of Iranian undergraduate students of English Language and Literature. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(2), 27-58.
74. McCrostie, J. (2008). Writer visibility in EFL learner academic writing: A corpus-based study. Icame Journal, 32, 97-114.
75. Milton, J., & Tsang, E. S. C. (1993). A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students’ writing: directions for future research. In R. Pemberton, & E.S.C. Tsang (Eds.), Studies in lexis (pp. 2 15-246). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
76. Mirzapour, F., RasekhMahand, M. (2012). Hedges and boosters in native and non-native library and information and computer science research articles. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(2), 119-128.
77. Mohseni, A. (2015). Investigating the relationship between teacher’s thinking vs. feeling personality type and Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ speaking skill. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(2), 123-136.
78. Moreno, A. (2010). Researching into English for research publication purposes from an applied intercultural perspective. In M. Garrido, J. Palmer-Silveria, & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 57–71). New York: Rodopi.
79. Nash, W. (1986). English usage: A guide to first principles. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
80. Norris, J. M. (2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230-244.
81. Nwogu, K. N. (1997). The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(2), 119–138.
82. Ozturk, U. & Atay, D. (2010). Challenges of being a non-native English teacher. Educational Research, 1(5), 135-139.
83. Petch-Tyson, S. (1998). Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 107-118). London: Addison Wesley Longman.
84. Ragan, P. (2001). Classroom use of systemic functional small learner corpus. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small corpus studies and ELT (pp. 207–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
85. Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519-549.
86. Scott, M. (2001). Comparing corpora and identifying key words, collocations, frequency distribution through the WordSmith Tools suite of computer programs. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small Corpus Studies and ELT (pp. 47–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
87. Seone, E. (2013). On the conventionalisation and loss of pragmatic function of the passive in Late Modern English scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14(1), 70-99.
88. Seone, E., & Loureiro-Porto, L. (2005). On the colloquialization of scientific British and American English. ESPAcross Cultures, 2, 106-118.
89. Shaw, P. (1991). Science research students’ composing processes. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 189–206.
90. Sifakis, N. C. (2014). Teaching pronunciation in the post-EFL era: Lessons from ELF and implications for teaching education. In J. D. M. Agudo (Ed.), English as a foreign language teacher education: Current perspective and challenges (pp. 127-146). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
91. Smith, R. (2015). Building ‘applied linguistic historiography’: Rationale, scope, and methods. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 71-87.
92. Straus, P. (2017). It’s not the way we use English: Can we resist the native speaker stranglehold on academic publications? Publications, 5, 1-7.
93. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
94. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
95. Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘‘I’’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 23–39.
96. Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 58, 1-21.
97. Vakili Latif, S. (2016). Discourse and ideology variation: A critical functional approach to Mina stampede news reports. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 207-231.
98. Yeganeh, M. T., Heravi, I. M., & Sawari, A. (2015). Hedge and booster in newspaper articles on Iran's presidential election: A comparative study of English and Persian articles. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 679-683.
99. Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A Contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 42-50.