Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis.
Saved in:
| Title: | Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Dixon, Tülay1 to283@nau.edu |
| Source: | English for Specific Purposes. Jan2022, Vol. 65, p63-78. 16p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Academic discourse, *Discourse groups, *Scholarly publishing, *English language education, *Language & education |
| Abstract: | Some linguistic features are proscribed in academic writing as they are considered too informal. However, from a descriptive perspective, the extent to which academic writers follow popular proscriptions is an empirical question. Although previous studies present important findings about the frequency of proscribed informality features in academic writing, they do not explore how many academic writers use these features because frequencies were typically not calculated per text (i.e., per article). Additionally, previous research may have included quotes in frequency counts. These methodological limitations are addressed in the current study, which examines (a) whether proscribed informality features are commonly used by a wide range of academic writers, (b) whether disciplines differ in their use of these features, and (c) whether the use of these features has changed over time. The findings show that academic writers tend to avoid many of the proscribed informality features, but some features such as initial conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs, first-person pronouns, and unattended references have higher frequency rates, which corroborates the findings of previous research. Unlike previous research, the current study shows that these high frequencies come from a few academic authors as most authors either use these features minimally or completely avoid them. • Proscribed informality features are either minimally used or completely avoided. • Previously lauded principles of writing may lose effectiveness over time. • Sciences and social sciences are becoming more accepting of informality features. • From 1965 to 2005, the use of first person pronouns increased the most. • Frequency counts are more accurate when quoted material in texts is accounted for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of English for Specific Purposes is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 153752894 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dixon%2C+Tülay%22">Dixon, Tülay</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> to283@nau.edu</i> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22English+for+Specific+Purposes%22">English for Specific Purposes</searchLink>. Jan2022, Vol. 65, p63-78. 16p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+discourse%22">Academic discourse</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discourse+groups%22">Discourse groups</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarly+publishing%22">Scholarly publishing</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+language+education%22">English language education</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+%26+education%22">Language & education</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Some linguistic features are proscribed in academic writing as they are considered too informal. However, from a descriptive perspective, the extent to which academic writers follow popular proscriptions is an empirical question. Although previous studies present important findings about the frequency of proscribed informality features in academic writing, they do not explore how many academic writers use these features because frequencies were typically not calculated per text (i.e., per article). Additionally, previous research may have included quotes in frequency counts. These methodological limitations are addressed in the current study, which examines (a) whether proscribed informality features are commonly used by a wide range of academic writers, (b) whether disciplines differ in their use of these features, and (c) whether the use of these features has changed over time. The findings show that academic writers tend to avoid many of the proscribed informality features, but some features such as initial conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs, first-person pronouns, and unattended references have higher frequency rates, which corroborates the findings of previous research. Unlike previous research, the current study shows that these high frequencies come from a few academic authors as most authors either use these features minimally or completely avoid them. • Proscribed informality features are either minimally used or completely avoided. • Previously lauded principles of writing may lose effectiveness over time. • Sciences and social sciences are becoming more accepting of informality features. • From 1965 to 2005, the use of first person pronouns increased the most. • Frequency counts are more accurate when quoted material in texts is accounted for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of English for Specific Purposes is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=153752894 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 16 StartPage: 63 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Academic discourse Type: general – SubjectFull: Discourse groups Type: general – SubjectFull: Scholarly publishing Type: general – SubjectFull: English language education Type: general – SubjectFull: Language & education Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Dixon, Tülay IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Text: Jan2022 Type: published Y: 2022 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 08894906 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 65 Titles: – TitleFull: English for Specific Purposes Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
