Cover not available
Part of
Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing
Edited by Pilar Mur-Dueñas and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 18] 2018
► pp. 237–253

Chapter 11
Not the same, but how different?

Comparing the use of reformulation markers in ELF and in ENL research articles

| Universidad de Zaragoza
Reformulation markers can be considered indicators of rhetorical conventions (Cuenca, 2003). In this paper I contrast these markers in the SciELF corpus of unedited research papers (building on previous work [Murillo, submitted]) and in a comparable ENL (English as a Native Language) corpus (SERAC), focusing on the overall frequency, the relative frequency of each marker and the discourse processes they introduce (Murillo, 2012). The results reveal statistically significant differences between the two corpora regarding the specific choice of reformulation markers and the processes introduced by them. Further, the “similects” of the SciELF corpus (Mauranen, 2012) present very different trends. ELF does not seem to constitute a homogeneous use of the English language, at least at the lexico-grammatical level.
Keywords: reformulation markers, intercultural rhetoric, written academic English, English as a Lingua Franca, English as a Native Language, research articles, SciELF corpus, SERAC corpus, similects, hard and soft sciences
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Functions of reformulation markers
  • 3.Corpus and methodology
  • 4.Results and discussion
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Corpora
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.11mur
References (47)
References
Anderson, L. (2010). Standards of acceptability in English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Evidence from a corpus of peer-reviewed working papers by international scholars. In R. Cagliero & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Discourses, communities and global Englishes (pp. 115–143). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bordet, G. (2018). ‘This dissonance’: bolstering credibility in academic abstracts. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing(pp. 83–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carey, R. (2013). On the other side: Formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), 207–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chalker, S. (1996). Collins Cobuild English guides 9: Linking words. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Charolles, M., & Coltier, D. (1986). Le contrôle de la compréhension dans une activité rédactionnelle: Élements pour l’analyse des reformulations paraphrastiques. Pratiques, 49, 51–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural communication at work. Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication. From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 59–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, M. J. (2003). Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1069–1093. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Saz, M. (2007). English discourse markers of reformulation. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dontcheva Navratilova, O. (2018). A contrastive (English, Czech English, Czech) study of rhetorical functions of citations in linguistics research articles. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing (pp. 15–37). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K. (1994). À propos de c’est-à-dire et ses correspondants norvégiens. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 15, 109–130.Google Scholar
Gülich, E., & Kotschi, T. (1983). Les marqueurs de reformulation paraphrastique. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 5, 305–351.Google Scholar
(1987). Les actes de reformulations dans la consultation. La dame de Caluire. In P. Bange (Ed.), L’analyse des interactions verbales. La dame de Caluire: Une consultation (pp. 15–81). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(1995). Discourse production in oral communication. In U. M. Quasthoff (Ed.), Aspects of oral communication (pp. 30–66). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinds J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2007). Applying a gloss. Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 266–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lafuente-Millán, E. (2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 201–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011). The study of authorial voice: Using a Spanish–English corpus to explore linguistic transference. Corpora, 6(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). ELF in the making? Simplification and hybridity in abstract writing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(1153–81.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by nonnative speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2014). Lingua franca discourse in academic contexts: Shaped by complexity. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics. Vol. 3 (pp. 225–245). London; New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2016). ELF corpora: Design, difficulties and triumphs. In M. L. Pitzl & R. Osimk-Teasdale (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and prospects: Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer (pp. 19–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A., Pérez-Llantada, C., & Swales, J. M. (2010). Academic Englishes: A standardized knowledge? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of World Englishes (pp. 634–652). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A., Carey, R., & Ranta, E. (2015). New answers to familiar questions: English as a lingua franca. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 401–417). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murat, M., & Cartier-Bresson, B. (1987). C’est-à-dire ou la reprise interpretative. Langue Française, 73, La reformulation du sens dans le discours, 5–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2009). Logical markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research articles. English Text Construction, 2(2), 246–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Looking into ELF variants: A study of evaluative it-clauses in research articles. ESP Today, 3(2), 160–179.Google Scholar
Murillo, S. (2009). Los marcadores de reformulación explicativa en español y en inglés: Estudio contrastivo de ‘o sea’ y sus traducciones ‘that is (to say)’ e ‘in other words’. In M. P. Garcés Gómez (Ed.), La reformulación del discurso en español en comparación con otras lenguas (catalán, francés italiano, inglés, alemán e islandés) (pp. 137–161). Madrid: BOE/Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.Google Scholar
(2012). The use of reformulation markers in Business Management research articles: An intercultural analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Reformulation markers and polyphony: A contrastive English-Spanish analysis. Languages in Contrast, 16(1), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(submitted). Some evidence on the rhetorical patterns of written academic ELF: Reformulation and its markers in research articles.
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). The ‘dialectics of change’ as a facet of globalisation: Epistemic modality in academic writing. In M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, J. C. Palmer-Silveira, & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 25–42). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Povolná, R. (2016). A cross cultural analysis of conjuncts as indicators of the interaction and negotiation of meaning in research articles. Topics in Linguistics, 17(1), 45–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Conference abstracts in English: A challenge for non-Anglophone writers. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing. (pp. 151–171)Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K. J. (2001). Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence [Computer software]. Available from <[URL]> (15 January 2017).
Pitzl, M. L., & Osimk-Teasdale, R. (2016). Introduction. In M. L. Pitzl & R. Osimk-Teasdale (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 1–9). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. (2006). Towards making ‘Euro-English’ a linguistic reality. In K. Bolton & B. B. Kachru (Eds.), World Englishes. Critical concepts in Linguistics (Vol. III, pp. 47–50). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 343–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Šinkūnienė, J. (2018). The power of English: I and we in Lithuanian, Lithuanian English and British English research writing. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural perspectives on research writing. (pp. 59–79)Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corpora
ENL SERAC 2016. English as a Native Language - Spanish-English Research Article Corpus. InterLAE research group. Universidad de Zaragoza. <[URL]>
SciELF 2015. The SciELF Corpus. Director: Anna Mauranen. Compilation manager: Ray Carey. <[URL]>
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Kim, Heejung
2024. Reformulation Markers in Spanish and Korean: An Intercultural Rhetoric Study. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 99 ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Maňáková, Monika
2021. Self-mention in the academic discourse of ELF writers. Topics in Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Guziurová, Tereza
2020. DISCOURSE REFLEXIVITY IN WRITTEN ACADEMIC ENGLISH AS LINGUA FRANCA: CODE GLOSSES IN RESEARCH ARTICLES. Discourse and Interaction 13:2 ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo
Guziurová, Tereza
2022. Glossing an argument: Reformulation and exemplification in L2 Master’s theses. Topics in Linguistics 23:2 ► pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
Povolná, Renata
2020. Persuasion in Technical Discourse: The Role of Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in User Manuals. In Persuasion in Specialised Discourses, ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.