Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1461-0213
  • E-ISSN: 1570-5595



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.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. 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]
  2. Bex, T.
    (1996) Variety in written English: Texts in society: Societies in text. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. Burgess, S. , & Martín-Martín, P. A.
    (2019) Why we cite and are cited: readers’ and writers’ perceptions. Paper presented at the37th Conference of the Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada (Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics), Valladolid, Spain, March 27–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. 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. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.013 [Google Scholar]
  9. (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. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_8 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cherry, R. D.
    (1998) Ethos versus persona; Self-representation in written discourse. Written Communication, 15, 384–410. 10.1177/0741088398015003009
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088398015003009 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R. J.
    (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805. 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  12. Docherty, P. , & Mach, T.
    (2017) The DQMD tag: A system of direct quotation meta-data tagging for EAP corpora. Lingua, 193, 23–35. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Erikson, M. G. , & Erlandson, P.
    (2014) A taxonomy of motives to cite. Social Studies of Science, 44, 625–637. 10.1177/0306312714522871
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714522871 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fairclough, N.
    (1992) Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2009) Goffman’s stigma and EAL writers: The author responds to Casanave. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 69–72. 10.1016/j.jeap.2009.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2019) The linguistic disadvantage of scholars who write in English as an Additional Language: Myth or reality. Language Teaching, 52(2), 249–260. doi:  10.1017/S0261444819000041
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000041 [Google Scholar]
  18. Flowerdew, J. & Li, Y.
    (2007) Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28, 440–465. 10.1093/applin/amm031
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm031 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goffman, E.
    (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
  20. (1968) Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Harmondsworth/Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pelican/Prentice Hall. (Original edition 1963).
  21. 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]
  22. 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. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Habibie, P. , & Hyland, K.
    (2019) Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5 [Google Scholar]
  24. Harwood, N.
    (2009) An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 497–518. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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. doi:  10.3390/publications7020031
    https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020031 [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. 10.1075/scl.19.02hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.19.02hun [Google Scholar]
  27. Hyland, K.
    (2000) Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2016a) Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2016b) Language myths and publishing mysteries: A response to Politzer-Ahles, et al. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 9–11. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. (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. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95333‑5_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95333-5_2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hyland, K. , & Jiang, F. (Kevin)
    (2017) Points of reference: Changing patterns of academic citation. Applied Linguistics, 40(1), 64–85. 10.1093/applin/amx012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx012 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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. 10.1162/tacl_a_00028
    https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00028 [Google Scholar]
  33. Labov, W.
    (1973) The linguistic consequences of being a lame. Language and Society, 2, 81–115. 10.1017/S0047404500000075
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000075 [Google Scholar]
  34. Latour, B.
    (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 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. 10.1002/ca.10255
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.10255 [Google Scholar]
  36. Martín-Martín, P. A.
    (2003) A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes22, 25–43. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(01)00033‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00033-3 [Google Scholar]
  37. Martín-Martín, P. A. , & Burgess, S.
    (2004) The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts. Text, 24(2), 171–195. 10.1515/text.2004.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2004.007 [Google Scholar]
  38. Matarese, V.
    (2016) Editing research: The author editing approach to providing effective support to writers of research papers. Medford: Information Today.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Milroy, L.
    (1980) Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwells.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Milroy, J. & Milroy, L.
    1985 Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 339–384. 10.1017/S0022226700010306
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010306 [Google Scholar]
  41. Pecorari, D.
    (2008) Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Petrić, B.
    (2012) Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 102–117. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  44. Roig, M.
    (2010) Plagiarism and self-plagiarism: What every author should know. Biochemia Medica, 20(3), 295–300. 10.11613/BM.2010.037
    https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2010.037 [Google Scholar]
  45. 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. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00019‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00019-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schlottman, A.
    (2018) Samuel Beckett: Fail Better and “Worstward Ho!”. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://booksonthewall.com/blog/samuel-beckett-quote-fail-better/
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Shi, L.
    (2004) Textual borrowing in second language writing. Written Communication, 21, 171–200. 10.1177/0741088303262846
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303262846 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2010) Textual appropriation and citing behaviours of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics31. 10.1093/applin/amn045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn045 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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/
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Swales, J. M.
    (1990) Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Thompson, G. , & Ye, Y.
    (1991) Evaluation of the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 365–382. 10.1093/applin/12.4.365
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.4.365 [Google Scholar]
  52. Verheijen, L.
    (2015) The language of quoting in academic writing. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 101–121. doi: 10.1075/dujal.4.1.10verissn2211–7245
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.4.1.10verissn2211–7245 [Google Scholar]
  53. Willett, P.
    (2013) Readers’ perceptions of authors’ citing behavior, Journal of Documentation, 69, 145–56. 10.1108/00220411311295360
    https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411311295360 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic conflict; authors’ responses; linguistic recycling; quotation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error