دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها933
تعداد مقالات7,666
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,514,748
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,896,668
Baleghizadeh, Sasan, Asadi, Faria. (1401). A Comparative Study of Text Formality of Applied Linguistics Articles Written in English by Iranian and Native Speaking Researchers. جلوه هنر, 6(3), 7-25. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.30138.1472
Sasan Baleghizadeh; Faria Asadi. "A Comparative Study of Text Formality of Applied Linguistics Articles Written in English by Iranian and Native Speaking Researchers". جلوه هنر, 6, 3, 1401, 7-25. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.30138.1472
Baleghizadeh, Sasan, Asadi, Faria. (1401). 'A Comparative Study of Text Formality of Applied Linguistics Articles Written in English by Iranian and Native Speaking Researchers', جلوه هنر, 6(3), pp. 7-25. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.30138.1472
Baleghizadeh, Sasan, Asadi, Faria. A Comparative Study of Text Formality of Applied Linguistics Articles Written in English by Iranian and Native Speaking Researchers. جلوه هنر, 1401; 6(3): 7-25. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2021.30138.1472

A Comparative Study of Text Formality of Applied Linguistics Articles Written in English by Iranian and Native Speaking Researchers

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 1، دوره 6، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 13، اسفند 2022، صفحه 7-25    اصل مقاله (650.05 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2021.30138.1472
نویسندگان
Sasan Baleghizadeh* 1؛ Faria Asadi2
1Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters & Human Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University. Tehran, Iran
2MA in TEFL, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters & Human Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده
International scientific communication is mostly conducted in English. Consequently, writing and publishing in English is of significant importance in academic settings. Alongside many other factors, proper academic writing has an appropriate level of linguistic formality. Research has shown that linguistic features can distinguish between formal and informal texts. Different scholars have utilized different methods to define and measure formality. The present study compares the degree of formality of applied linguistics articles written in English by native English speaking and Iranian non-native English-speaking researchers by calculating their F-scores, a measure of formality introduced by Heylighen and Dewaele (1999). In total, 80 articles were selected from four international journals. Half of them were written by Iranian non-native researchers and the other half by native researchers. The results indicated a medium level of formality in both groups. However, articles written by Iranian non-native researchers were found to have a significantly higher degree of formality. Broadly, this research has implications for teachers of English in different areas, journal editors, materials developers and researchers who want to publish internationally.
کلیدواژه‌ها
formality؛ native English-speaking researchers؛ non-native English-speaking researchers؛ applied linguistics؛ research article
عنوان مقاله [English]
مطالعه ی مقایسه ای رسمیت متن در مقالات نوشته شده به زبان انگلیسی در حوزه ی زبانشناسی کاربردی توسط پژوهشگران ایرانی و انگلیسی زبان
نویسندگان [English]
ساسان بالغی زاده1؛ فریا اسدی2
1دانشیار، گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2کارشناس ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده [English]
ارتباط علمی بین‌المللی اغلب به زبان انگلیسی انجام می‌شود. بنابراین نوشتن و انتشار به انگلیسی اهمیت قابل توجهی در محیط‌های دانشگاهی دارد. در کنار بسیاری از عوامل دیگر، نگارش دانشگاهی شایسته، سطح رسمیت زبانی مناسبی دارد. تحقیقات نشان داده‌است که ویژگی‌های زبانی می‌توانند میان متون رسمی و غیر رسمی تمایز ایجاد کنند. پژوهشگران مختلف از روش‌های گوناگونی برای تعریف و اندازه‌گیری رسمیت بهره برده‌اند. تحقیق حاضر، درجة رسمیت مقاله‌های زبان‌شناسی کاربردی که توسط پژوهشگران انگلیسی‌زبان غیر بومی ایرانی و انگلیسی‌زبانان بومی نوشته شده‌اند را با محاسبة شاخص اف، معیارِ اندازه‌گیری رسمیت که توسط هیلگن و دوالو (1999) معرفی‌شده‌است، مقایسه می‌کند. در مجموع، 80 مقاله از 4 مجلة بین‌المللی انتخاب شدند. نیمی از این مقالات توسط پژوهشگران غیر بومی ایرانی و نیمی دیگر به وسیلة پژوهشگران بومی انگلیسی زبان نوشته شده بودند. نتایج نمایانگر سطح متوسطی از رسمیت متن در هر دو گروه بود. با این وجود، مقالات نوشته ‌شده توسط پژوهشگران ایرانی، به صورت معناداری درجه رسمیت بالاتری را نشان دادند. به طور کلی، این تحقیق کاربردهایی برای مدرسان زبان انگلیسی در حوزه‌های مختلف، ویراستارهای مجله، تدوین‌کنندگان مطالب آموزشی و محققانی که می‌خواهند در سطح بین المللی اثری چاپ کنند، دارد.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
رسمیت, پژوهشگران انگلیسی‌زبان بومی, پژوهشگران انگلیسی‌زبان غیر بومی, زبان‌شناسی کاربردی
مراجع
  1. Abdi, R. (2010). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(212), 1-15. https://elt.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_638.html
  2. Abu Sheikha, F., & Inkpen, D. (2010). Automatic classification of documents by formality. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/nlpke.2010.5587767
  3. 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(2), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004
  4. Alipour, M., & Nooreddinmoosa, M. (2018). Informality in applied linguistics research articles: Comparing native and non-native writings. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 349-373. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.464196
  5. Askarzadeh Torghabeh, R. (2007). EIL, variations and the native speaker’s model. Asian EFL Journal, 9(4), 67-76.
  6. Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813505381
  7. Behnam, B., Mirzapour, F., & Mozaheb, M. A. (2014). Writer's presence in English native and non-native speaker research articles. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.428
  8. Bei, G. X. (2011). Formality in second language discourse: Measurement and performance. Interdisciplinary Humanities, 28(1), 32-41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324014572
  9. Belcher, D. D., & Connor, U. (Eds.). (2001). Reflections on multiliterate lives. Multilingual Matters.
  10. Bennett, K. (2009). English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(1), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003
  11. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
  12. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press.
  13. Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (Eds.) (2019). Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  14. Biber, D., Davies, M., Jones, J. K., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2006). Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora, 1(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.1.1
  15. Biber, D., & Hared, M. (1992). Dimensions of register variation in Somali. Language Variation and Change, 4(1), 41-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439450000065X
  16. Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 13(4), 435-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004001
  17. Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5hjn6c
  18. 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. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefdergi/issue/49104/626612
  19. Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.) (2003). The handbook of language variation and change. Blackwell Publishers.
  20. 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). Longman.
  21. Coffin, C., Curry, M., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. Routledge.
  22. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (Eds.) (2001). Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. Routledge.
  24. Constantinou, F., Chambers, L., Zanini, N., & Klir, N. (2020): A diachronic perspective on formality in students’ writing: empirical findings from the UK. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(1), 66-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1563609
  25. Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 663-688. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588284
  26. Dewaele, J.-M. (1996). How to measure formality of speech? A model of synchronic variation. In K. Sajavaara & C. Fairweather (Eds.), Approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 119-133).
  27. Durrant, P., & Schmitt, N. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.007
  28. Ebrahimi, S. F., & Fakheri, S. A. (2019). Features of informality in applied linguistics research articles published in Iranian local journals. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 16(1), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1515/RJES-2019-0017
  29. 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.
  30. Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  31. Florence Ma, L. P. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of native- and nonnative-English-speaking teachers: Student perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 280-305. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.21
  32. Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80125-8
  33. Formal. (2020). In Collins English Dictionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/formal
  34. Forman, R. (2012). Six functions of bilingual EFL teacher talk: Animating, translating, explaining, creating, prompting and dialoguing. RELC Journal, 43(2), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212449938
  35. Ghafarpour, H. (2017). Classroom conversation analysis and critical reflective practice: Self-evaluation of teacher talk framework in focus. RELC Journal, 48(2), 210-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631173
  36. Ghahari, S., & Sedaghat, M. (2018). Optimal feedback structure and interactional pattern in formative peer practices: Students' beliefs. System, 74, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.003
  37. Gleason, J. (2014). “It helps me get closer to their writing experience” Classroom ethnography and the role of technology in third-year FL courses. System, 47, 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.023
  38. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Cai, Z., Conley, M., Li, H., & Pennebaker, J. (2014). Coh-Metrix measures text characteristics at multiple levels of language and discourse. Elementary School Journal, 115(2), 210-229.
  39. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11413260
  40. Heylighen, F. (1999). Advantages and limitations of formal expression. Foundations of Science, 4, 25-56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009686703349
  41. Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J. M. (1999). Formality of language: Definition, measurement and behavioral determinants (Internal Report). http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Formality.pdf
  42. Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J. M. (2002). Variation in the contextuality of language: An empirical measure. Foundations of Science, 7, 293-340. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019661126744
  43. Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 275-301.
  44. Hryniuk, K. (2015). Linguistics research articles written in English: Comparing native English speakers and Polish writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12099
  45. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
  46. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40-51.
  47. Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  48. Jenkins, J. (2006). The spread of EIL: A testing time for testers. ELT Journal, 60(1), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci080
  49. Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 926-936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.05.011
  50. Johns, A. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge University Press.
  51. Kim, Y. J., & Biber, D. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 157-181). Oxford University Press.
  52. Lahiri, S., Mitra, P., & Lu, X. (2011). Informality judgment at sentence level and experiments with formality score. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing (pp. 456-457). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19437-5_37
  53. Larsson, T., & Kaatari, H. (2020). Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in)formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100850
  54. Liardét, C. L., Black, S., & Bardetta, V. S. (2019). Defining formality: Adapting to the abstract demands of academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38(2), 146-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.007
  55. Liaw, E. (2004). “How are they different?” A comparative study of native and nonnative foreign language teaching assistants regarding selected characteristics: Teacher efficacy, approach to language teaching/learning, teaching strategies and perception of nativeship [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University, Ohio, USA. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
  56. Lillis, T. (2013). The sociolinguistics of writing. Edinburgh University Press.
  57. Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (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
  58. Lillis, T. & Curry, M. J. (2010) Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.
  59. Martinez, R. (2018). “Specially in the last years…”: Evidence of ELF and non-native English forms in international journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.01.007
  60. McCrostie, J. (2008). Writer visibility in EFL learner academic writing: A corpus-based study. ICAME Journal, 32, 97-114. http://icame.uib.no/ij32/ij32_97_114.pdf
  61. Meara, P. (2012). The bibliometrics of vocabulary acquisition: An exploratory study. RELC Journal, 43(1), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212439339
  62. Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A., & Leap, W. L. (2009). Introducing sociolinguistics (2nd  ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
  63. Moreno, A. I. (2010). Researching into English for research publication purposes from an applied intercultural perspective. In M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, J. C. Palmer-Silveria, & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 57-71). Rodopi.
  64. Mur-Duenas, P., & Jolanta, Š. (2016). Self-reference in research articles across Europe and Asia: A review of studies. Brno Studies in English, 42(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2016-1-4
  65. Nowson, S., Oberlander, J., & Gill, A. J. (2005). Weblogs, genres, and individual differences. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1666-1671.
  66. Ozturk, U., & Atay, D. (2010). Challenges of being a non-native English teacher. Educational Research, 1(5), 135-139.
  67. Pavlick, E., & Tetreault, J. (2016). An empirical analysis of formality in online communication. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4(2), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00083
  68. Peterson, K., Hohensee, M., & Xia, F. (2011). Email formality in the workplace: A case study on the Enron corpus. Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages in Social Media, 86-95. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262311292
  69. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482935
  70. Rahmati, T., Sadeghi, K., & Ghaderi, F. (2019). English language teachers’ vision and motivation: Possible selves and activity theory perspectives. RELC Journal, 50(3), 457-474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218777321
  71. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Pearson.
  72. Sardinha, T. B., & Pinto, M. V. (Eds.). (2014). Multi-dimensional analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber. John Benjamins.
  73. Seone, E., & Loureiro-Porto, L. (2005). On the colloquialization of scientific British and American English. ESP Across Cultures, 2, 106-118.
  74. Sionis, C. (1995). Communication strategies in the writing of scientific research articles by non-native users of English. English for Specific Purposes, 14(2), 99-113.
  75. Strauss, P. (2017). “It’s not the way we use English”: Can we resist the native speaker stranglehold on academic publications? Publications, 5(4), 1-7. https://doi/10.3390/publications5040027
  76. Strauss, P. (2019). Shakespeare and the English poets: The influence of native speaking English reviewers on the acceptance of journal articles. Publications, 7(1), 1-10. https://doi:10.3390/publications7010020
  77. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for nonnative speakers of English (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
  78. Tajeddin, Z., & Moghadam, A. Z. (2012). Interlanguage pragmatic motivation: Its construct and impact on speech act production. RELC Journal, 43(3), 353-372. https://doi/10.1177/0033688212468481
  79. Taki, S., & Jafarpour, F. (2012). Engagement and stance in academic writing: A study of English and Persian research articles. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 3(1), 157-168. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236026941
  80. Tardy, C. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 247-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.10.001
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 550
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 355


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب