Article published in:
Linguistic Recycling: The process of quoting in increasingly mediatized settings
Edited by Lauri Haapanen and Daniel Perrin
[AILA Review 33] 2020
► pp. 47–66

Linguistic recycling and its relationship to academic conflict

An analysis of authors’ responses to direct quotation

| Universidad de La Laguna
| Universidad de La Laguna
Reaching an understanding of how scholarly writers manage linguistic recycling remains a focus of many studies in applied linguistics, bibliometrics, and the sociology of science. The value apportioned to citations in research assessment protocols is one factor in this sustained interest, the challenges that managing intertextuality present for novice scholars, another. Applied linguists such as Harwood (2009) and Hyland and Jiang (2017) alongside sociologists of science have studied citation practices largely from the point of view of writers’ reasons for citing (see Erikson & Erlandson, 2014 for a review) or readers’ understanding of the function of the citation (e.g., Willett, 2013). Linguistic recycling as direct quotation of previously published research has received less attention from applied linguists, a notable exception being Petrić’s (2012) examination of students’ quotation practices. Her study focuses on quoting writers’ intentions. We know less, however, about cited authors’ responses to quotations of their work. It is these responses that form the focus of our study. Taking our two most frequently cited publications, we compiled a corpus of direct quotations noting the quotation strategy and our responses to each instance of the reuse of our words. These responses ranged from pride and satisfaction through to annoyance at an instance of blatant misquotation. We then extended our corpus to include quotations from publications by three scholars who have played a role in debate around a key controversy in the English for research publication purposes (ERPP) literature. We presented these scholars with a representative sample of quotations of their publications related to the controversy and asked them to indicate which instances they regarded as unwarranted. Analysis of these authors’ responses provides insights into the relationship of direct quotation to the rhetorical management of academic conflict. We suggest possible parallels with the expression of discrepancy in other domains.
Keywords: academic conflict, linguistic recycling, quotation, authors’ responses
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 07 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00029.bur

Full-text

Linguistic recycling and its relationship to academic conflict
References

References

Beard, M.
(2019) The Greer method. Learning by text or context? [Review of the book On rape by G. Greer]. London Review of Books, 41(20), 12–14.Google Scholar
Bex, T.
(1996) Variety in written English: Texts in society: Societies in text. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burgess, S.
(2002) Packed houses and intimate gatherings: Audiences and rhetorical structure. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 196–215). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Burgess, S., & Fagan, A.
(2002) (Kid) gloves on or off? Academic conflict in research articles across the disciplines. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 44, 79–96.Google Scholar
Burgess, S., & Martín-Martín, P. A.
(2019) Why we cite and are cited: readers’ and writers’ perceptions. Paper presented at the 37th Conference of the Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada (Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics), Valladolid, Spain, March 27–29.
Canagarajah, S.
(2012) Autoethnography in the study of multilingual writers. In L. Nickoson & M. P. Sheridan (Eds.), Writing studies research in practice: Methods and methodologies (pp. 113–124). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Cargill, M., & Burgess, S.
(2008) Introduction to the special issue English for research publication purposes . Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 75–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casanave, C. P.
(2008) The stigmatizing effect of Goffman’s stigma label: A response to John Flowerdew. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 264–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Does writing for publication ever get easier? Some reflections from an experienced scholar. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 35–53). London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, R. D.
(1998) Ethos versus persona; Self-representation in written discourse. Written Communication, 15, 384–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R. J.
(1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Docherty, P., & Mach, T.
(2017) The DQMD tag: A system of direct quotation meta-data tagging for EAP corpora. Lingua, 193, 23–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, M. G., & Erlandson, P.
(2014) A taxonomy of motives to cite. Social Studies of Science, 44, 625–637. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N.
(1992) Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J.
(2008) Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman’s ‘Stigma’’ tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 77–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Goffman’s stigma and EAL writers: The author responds to Casanave. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 69–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an Additional Language: Myth or reality. Language Teaching, 52(2), 249–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J. & Li, Y.
(2007) Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28, 440–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
(1968) Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Harmondsworth/Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pelican/Prentice Hall. (Original edition 1963).Google Scholar
Groom, N.
(2000) Attribution and averral revisited: Three perspectives on manifest intertextuality in academic writing. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives: Insights into EAP writing practice (pp. 14–25). Reading: Center for Applied Language Studies.Google Scholar
Habibie, P.
(2019) To be native or not to be native: That is not the question. In P. Habibie, & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 35–53). London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Habibie, P., & Hyland, K.
(2019) Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, N.
(2009) An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 497–518. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hultgren, A. K.
(2019) English as the language for academic publication: On equity, disadvantage and ‘non-nativeness’ as a red herring. Publications, 7(2), 31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S.
(2005) Conflict and consensus. Constructing opposition in Applied Linguistics. In E. Tognini-Bonelli & G. del Lungo Camiciotti (Eds): Strategies in academic discourse (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K.
(2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
(2016a) Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Language myths and publishing mysteries: A response to Politzer-Ahles, et al. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 9–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Participation in publishing: the demoralising discourse of disadvantage. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 1–33). London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (Kevin)
(2017) Points of reference: Changing patterns of academic citation. Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 64–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jurgens, D., Kumar, S., Hoover, R., McFarland, D., & Jurafsky, D.
(2018) Measuring the evolution of a scientific field through citation frames. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6, 391–406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1973) The linguistic consequences of being a lame. Language and Society, 2, 81–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B.
(1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Lukić, I. K., Lukić, A., Glunčić, V., Katavić, V., Vučenik, V., & Marušić, A.
(2004) Citation and quotation accuracy in three anatomy journals. Clinical Anatomy, 17, 534–539. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martín-Martín, P. A.
(2003) A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes 22, 25–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martín-Martín, P. A., & Burgess, S.
(2004) The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text, 24(2), 171–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matarese, V.
(2016) Editing research: The author editing approach to providing effective support to writers of research papers. Medford: Information Today.Google Scholar
Milroy, L.
(1980) Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L.
1985 Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 339–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pecorari, D.
(2008) Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Petrić, B.
(2012) Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 102–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Politzer-Ahles, S., Holliday, J. J., Girolamo, T., Spychalska, M., & Harper Berkson, K.
(2017) Is linguistic injustice a myth? A response to Hyland (2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 3–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roig, M.
(2010) Plagiarism and self-plagiarism: What every author should know. Biochemia Medica, 20(3), 295–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M. A. A., & Zambrano, N.
(2003) The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes, 22, 223–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schlottman, A.
(2018) Samuel Beckett: Fail Better and “Worstward Ho!”. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://​booksonthewall​.com​/blog​/samuel​-beckett​-quote​-fail​-better/
Shi, L.
(2004) Textual borrowing in second language writing. Written Communication, 21, 171–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Textual appropriation and citing behaviours of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics 31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subtirelu, N.
(2016) Language privilege: What it is and why it matters. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://​linguisticpulse​.com​/2013​/06​/26​/language​-privilege​-what​-it​-is​-and​-why​-it​-matters/
Swales, J. M.
(1990) Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y.
(1991) Evaluation of the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 365–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verheijen, L.
(2015) The language of quoting in academic writing. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 101–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willett, P.
(2013) Readers’ perceptions of authors’ citing behavior, Journal of Documentation, 69, 145–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar