Cover not available
Part of
Corpora and Rhetorically Informed Text Analysis: The diverse applications of DocuScope
Edited by David West Brown and Danielle Zawodny Wetzel
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 109] 2023
► pp. 42–78

DocuScope, multi-dimensional analysis, and student writing

Comparisons across tagging systems and corpora

| Carnegie Mellon University
| Carnegie Mellon University
In this chapter, we present a method for comparing tagging systems and patterns of disciplinary variation in corpora of student writing. We begin by highlighting the affordances of rhetorically and linguistically informed tagging systems by highlighting similarities and differences in each system’s analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP). Results confirm that both taggers produce statistically robust results in distinguishing disciplines across three dimensions and also highlight commonalities and differences that reflect the taggers’ respective theoretical orientations. Then, we present the results of a DocuScope-driven comparison of the British Academic Written English (BAWE) and MICUSP corpora and summarize topical and rhetorical patterns of disciplinary writing that seem fairly stable across national contexts. This chapter’s findings should prove useful to scholars interested in comparative methodologies of corpus analysis and rhetorical measures of disciplinary variation as well as those who work in or research writing in the disciplines.
Keywords: student writing, disciplinary variation, academic discourse, international education, corpus analysis, corpus linguistics, corpus tagging, rhetorical analysis, multidimensional analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methods
    • 2.1Corpora description
    • 2.2Data preparation and processing
    • 2.3Multi-Dimensional Analysis (MDA)
  • 3.Comparing rhetorically and linguistically oriented dimensions
    • 3.1Dimension 1
    • 3.2Dimension 2
    • 3.3Dimension 3
  • 4.Comparing dimensions across national corpora
    • 4.1Social, humanistic commentary versus object- and process-oriented description
      • 4.1.1Topical content: The world of people versus the world of objects and processes
      • 4.1.2Rhetorical modes: Evaluative commentary versus analytical description
    • 4.2Dialogic inquiry versus monologic narration
    • 4.3Strategic planning for public good
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.109.03dej
References (27)
References
Ädel, A., & Römer, U. (2012). Research on advanced student writing across disciplines and levels: Introducing the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banks, D. (2017). The extent to which the passive voice is used in the scientific journal article, 1985–2015. Functional Linguistics, 4(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and the Humanities, 26(5), 331–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. W., & Laudenbach, M. (2021). Stylistic variation in email. Register Studies, 4(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citing references. (n.d.). University of Reading. Retrieved on 20 January 2023 from [URL]
Claridge, C., & Kytö, M. (2021). Degree and related phenomena in the history of English: Evidence of usage and pathways of change. Journal of English Linguistics, 49(1), 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J., & Biber, D. (2018). Do all roads lead to Rome? Modeling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 233–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, S., Biber, D., & Nesi, H. (2015). MDA perspectives on discipline and level in the BAWE corpus. Paper presented at the International Corpus Linguistics Conference, Lancaster, UK.
Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D. (2019). Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 646–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geisler, C. (1991). Toward a sociocognitive model of literacy: Constructing mental models in a philosophical conversation. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 171–190). University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Routledge.Google Scholar
Gray, B. (2013). More than discipline: Uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora, 8(2), 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardy, J. A., & Friginal, E. (2016). Genre variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 119–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hardy, J. A., & Römer, U. (2013). Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 8(2), 183–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. (2014). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation and resolution (pp. 188–205). IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Riley, K. (1991). Passive voice and rhetorical role in scientific writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 21(3), 239–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rorty, R. (2009). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straka, M., & Straková, J. (2017). Tokenizing, POS tagging, lemmatizing and parsing UD 2.0 with UDPipe. Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugimoto, C. R., & Weingart, S. (2015). The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity. Journal of Documentation, 71(4), 775–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, V. L., Hupcey, J. E., & Clark, M. B. (2003). The development of trust in parents of hospitalized children. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 8(4), 137–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, J., Olson, B., & Wilder, L. (2014). Knowing what we know about writing in the disciplines: A new approach to teaching for transfer in FYC. The WAC Journal, 25(1), 42–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

DeJeu, Emily Barrow
2024. Topoiof Nonprofit Proposal Writing. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 87:1 ► pp. 122 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.