A Corpus-Based Study of Reformulation Markers: The Case of Native versus Non-Native Research Articles
This study presents a corpus-based study of reformulation markers as a common metadiscourse device in research articles of applied linguistics by native and Iranian non-native writers. Toward this end, qualitative and quantitative analyses of reformulation devices were conducted. The corpora were compiled by downloading articles from academic journals which were selected via convenience sampling. Each corpus included approximately one million words. All the analyses were conducted through employing Murillo’s (2004, 2007) classification which consists of three broad categories: explicit meaning functions (identification, specification, and explanation), conceptual meaning functions (definition and denomination), and implicit meaning functions (conclusion and mathematical operation). After analyzing the data, Chi-square tests were performed to determine whether the results found in the analysis were statistically significant. The results revealed that there were differences between the functions of reformulation markers (RMs) across research articles written by native and non-native writers. In particular, they differ in terms of their types and functions, where non-native writers of applied linguistics research articles (RAs) use RMs much more frequently than native writers of applied linguistics. In light of the findings, recommendations are made for EAP classes as well.
Aijmer, K. (2007). The meaning and functions of the Swedish discourse marker alltså - Evidence from translation corpora. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6, 31-59. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.123
Alipour, M., Jalilifar, A. & Zarea, M. (2013). A corpus study of lexical bundles across different disciplines. The Iranian EFL Journal, 9(6), 11-35.
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.
Alipour, M., & Zarea, M. (2013). A disciplinary study of lexical bundles: The case of native versus non-native corpora. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 5(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.6706/TIESPJ.2013.5.2.1
Bach, C. & Cuenca, M. J. (2007). Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 149-175.
Baker, M. (2004). A corpus-based view of similarity and difference in translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(2), 167-193.
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263-286.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1993). The relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature, 2, 101-120.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang Publisher.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10 (1), 39-71.
Cuenca, M. J. (2003). Two ways to reformulate: a contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1069–1093.
Del Saz Rubio, M.M. & Pennock Speck, B. (2005). Discourse markers of reformulation from the perspective of grammaticalization. In Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics, AESLA (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Applied Linguistics (pp. 89-100). Spain: Universidad Politecnica de Valencia.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
Fluttum, K. (1994). A propos de cest-a-dire et ses correspondants norvegiens. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 15, 109-130.
Fluttum, K. (1995). Dire et redire. La reformulation introduite par cest-a-dire. Stavanger: Hogskolen and Stavanger.
Gulich, E. & Kotschi, T. (1995). Discourse production in oral communication. In U.M. Quasthoff (Ed.), Aspects of oral communication (pp. 30-66). Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Hopper, P.J. & E.C. Traugott. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.). Writing: texts, processes and practices (99–121). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Jalilifar, A. R. & Author, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL Learners' reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38 (1), 35-52.
Johnson, B. & Larry, C. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kahkesh, M., & Author. (2017). A comparative study of metadiscourse markers in English and Persian university lectures. Research in Applied Linguistics, 8, 125-135.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural communication. Language Learning, 16(1), 11-20.
Khodabandeh, F. (2007). A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asian ESP Journal, 3(2), 41-46.
Liantade, M. (2008). Stance and academic promotion: A cross-disciplinary comparison in the soft. Journal of Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 30(1), 129-145.
Martin, M.P. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 25-42.
Murillo, S. (2004). A relevance reassessment of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(11), 2059–2068.
Murillo, S. (2007). A contribution to the pragmalinguistic contrastive study of explicatory reformulative discourse markers in contemporary journalistic written English and Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universidad de Zaragoza.
Murillo, S. (2012). The use of reformulation markers in business management research articles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 64–90.
Mutesayire, M. (2005). Cohesive devices and explicitation in translated English – A corpus-based study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
Rossari, C. (1994). Les operations de reformulation. Berne: Peter Lang.
Swales, J. (1998). Other floors, other voices: a textography of a small university building. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sweetser, E. (1988). Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 389-405.
Thoiron, P. and Bejoint, H. (1991). La place de la réformulation dans les textes scientifiques. Meta, 36(1), 101–110.
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36 (1), 82-93.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E. Barton & G.Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91-113). NY: Hampton Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). The description in scientiﬁc language. In H. G. Widdowson (Ed.), Explorations in applied linguistics (pp. 57–61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (607-632). Oxford: Blackwell.
Xiao, R. (2011). Idioms, word clusters, and reformulation markers in translational Chinese: Can translation universals survive in Mandarin? United Kingdom: Edge Hill University.
Copyright (c) 2019 Mohammad Alipour
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
By submitting the manuscript of the article, the authors agree with this policy with no specific document sign-off required.
The authors certify that:
- if the manuscript is co-authored, they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- the work described has not been formally published before in a registered ISSN or ISBN media, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis.
- it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- they secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere (it does not infringe the rights of others).
- they agree to Ethical Lingua license and copyright agreement.
All articles published by Ethical Lingua are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Copyright Agreement
- Authors retain copyright and other proprietary rights related to the article.
- Authors retain the right and are permitted to use the substance of the article in own future works, including lectures and books.
- Authors grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in Ethical Lingua.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in Ethical Lingua.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post or self-archive their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.