Aug 2026· PLoS ONE· Vol 21, pp. e0344331· 0 citations· 45 references
Medicine
Abstract
Our study investigated stance markers used in Materials Science research article abstracts by native Chinese-speaking (Chinese L1) and native English-speaking (English L1) researchers, adopting the widely recognized interactional metadiscourse framework. We constructed two comparable corpora, each comprising 501 abstracts from research articles published between 2023 and 2025 in Materials Science journals indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. Quantitative analysis revealed that there were significant cross-cultural differences between the two corpora: Chinese L1 researchers used hedges more frequently than English L1 researchers (9.67 vs. 7.04 per 1,000 words). Chinese L1 researchers preferred to use the self-mention phrase “this paper”, while English L1 researchers employed slightly more boosters and self-mentions generally. Attitude markers were found comparable between the two corpora (4.63 vs. 4.28 per 1,000 words), which can reflect the demands of this academic genre for objectivity. These usage patterns are consistent across all journal quartiles and are generally not influenced by impact levels of the journals. Further analysis of the subcategories shows that Chinese L1 researchers depended more on modal and phrase-based hedges, while English L1 ones used a more diversified range of hedging strategies. In terms of English L1 countries, researchers from the USA, the UK, and Canada shared similar rhetorical conventions. The findings indicate that cultural traditions and disciplinary norms jointly shape the use of stance markers. This study enriches cross-cultural academic discourse studies in hard sciences, and provides practical guidance on the academic English writing instruction for Chinese L1 researchers, especially graduate students.
Drawing upon Hyland’s (2005a) reader engagement modal, this study investigates both the similarities and differences in the frequency of engagement markers across different linguistic contexts by constructing corpora of Chinese-English research articles by the same Chinese scholars. It is found that there are statistically significant differences in the use of engagement markers between two corpora and Chinese scholars use engagement markers more frequently and strategically in English. They employ more personal asides to solicit reader collusion and questions to lead the reader in English research articles. Additionally, they also favor reader mentions, which reflects they prioritize interactive communication with readers in English research articles. Beyond these differences, the study also reveal notable similarities in two corpora. Findings indicate that scholars adopt appeals to shared knowledge with comparable frequency and avoid second-person pronouns in Chinese and English research articles due to the similar writing conventions. The research results are of great significance for deepening the understanding of the cultural differences and academic writing in bilingual context and enhancing the Chinese scholars’ ability of international academic writing.
Cui-Song He· English Language Teaching an...· 0 citations
This study compares the use of lexical bundles in the abstracts of Chinese master’s theses and those of research articles written by English expert writers. Two small corpora were constructed: a corpus of master’s thesis abstracts and a corpus of expert research article abstracts. Based on Hyland’s (2008b) functional classification framework, four-word lexical bundles were extracted and functionally annotated using AntConc. The findings show that: (1) the normalized frequency of lexical bundles in the expert corpus is significantly higher than that in the master’s corpus, indicating a greater degree of formulaic density among expert writers; (2) in terms of functional distribution, text-oriented bundles account for the highest proportion in the expert corpus (45%), reflecting stronger discourse organizational awareness, while research-oriented bundles account for the highest proportion in the master’s corpus (42%), reflecting a focus on research background and methods; (3) master’s thesis abstracts exhibit certain weaknesses, including a preference for verb-based bundles and vague quantifiers, overuse of certainty verbs, avoidance of first-person pronouns, and formulaic use of bundle patterns. This study provides empirical evidence for the teaching of academic English writing.
Zihan Wu· Frontiers in Humanities and...· 0 citations
Shell Nouns Complement Constructions (SNCCs) play a central role in packaging complex information and encoding authorial stance. Previous studies have mainly focused on their classification, stylistics distribution, and cross-linguistic difference in SNCCs use among different groups of writers. Less attention, however, has paid to how the same group of L1 Chinese scholars redistribute constructional resources across different publication contexts. Through the lens of usage-based construction grammar, this study investigates whether SNCCs preferences reflect stable authorial tendencies or context adaptation by comparing Chinese and English research articles written by the same group of Chinese applied linguistics scholars. This research is conducted on the self-built corpus, consisting of research articles published by 13 Chinese applied linguistics scholars in prestigious Chinese and English journals. The findings indicated that: 1) although clausal complement was the dominant construction family in both contexts, Chinese publications showed a stronger concentration on this construction, whereas English publications demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of verbal complements. No significant contextual difference was found for eventive complements. 2) SNCC preferences should not be understood solely as stable individual writing styles. Instead, constructional choices represent context-sensitive resource allocation shaped by the interaction between authors’ habitual tendencies and publication environments. This study aims to provide strategies for using shell noun complement constructions in English and Chinese.
Wanting Zhang· Studies in Linguistics and L...· 0 citations
Purpose: The growing popularity of pronunciation research has led to an accumulation of knowledge in the literature. Notwithstanding the existence of reviews and syntheses on pronunciation, none has addressed this line of inquiry in the Turkish academic setting within the context of DergiPark journals. Design & Methodology: To that end, this study employed systematic, bibliometric, and content analyses to uncover the research tendencies and trends in pronunciation research within the mentioned context. A title search using keywords in DergiPark revealed 73 eligible records. A spreadsheet was used to document bibliometric and methodological characteristics, and NVivo 15 was used for content analysis. Findings: The study demonstrated that pronunciation research primarily focused on learnerteacher problems, leaving under-researched areas (e.g., instructional effectiveness, affective/cognitive factors, pronunciation constructs). Methodological robustness and depth are missing as the majority of research is either pedagogical/practice-oriented or uses quantitative designs, data collection tools, and analysis techniques. The prevalence of single-authorship calls for national and international co-operation. Implications & Suggestions: Collectively, the results were discussed within the broader literature, and implications were drawn. The findings suggest that Turkish researchers need greater methodological diversity, interdisciplinary collaboration, and attention to under-researched areas within English pronunciation scholarship.
I. Topal· İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Bi...· 0 citations
This study compares the use of shell nouns in Chinese master’s thesis abstracts and English expert research article abstracts. Based on Schmid’s (2000) definition of shell nouns and Jiang and Hyland’s (2015) functional classification, two small-scale corpora were built: a Master’s Corpus and an Expert Corpus. The findings reveal three major differences. First, experts use shell nouns significantly more frequently than master’s students. Second, experts employ a balanced distribution of lexico-grammatical constructions, with N-that accounting for 18.3%, whereas master’s students heavily rely on N-of and underuse N-that. Third, master’s students overuse event and manner nouns, while experts excel in using cognition, quality, and state nouns to express stance. These findings suggest pedagogical implications for improving Chinese master’s students’ academic writing by enhancing N-that construction training and shifting focus from process description to research evaluation.
Zihan Wu· Frontiers in Humanities and...· 0 citations
The analysis shows that most mismatches follow a recurring pattern in which a French passé composé reporting the students’ own methods, results, or attribution to prior research is rendered in the English present tense, blurring the distinction between the students’ specific findings and established disciplinary knowledge.
Kaoutar Atarchi, Abdelkrim Elamari, Mohamed Marouane· International Journal of Lin...· 0 citations