1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Register Studies
  4. Volume 5, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article reports on a new Multi-dimensional model of graduate student coursework writing in two applied science disciplines from a corpus containing 1,108 texts and 2,008,316 words. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) revealed five dimensions: (1) Conceptual Information vs. Process-Focused Actions (2) Human/Subjective- vs. Entity/Objective- Focus, (3) Attitudinal Monoglossia vs. Precisely Measured Information, (4) Social vs. Physical Science Approaches, and (5) Speculative vs. Finalized Events. The dimensions are analyzed functionally in terms of both register and discipline. The results demonstrate that course papers exhibit distinct patterns of language use, often attributed to the varying purposes of the texts but also related to disciplinary ways of knowing. Findings have implications for disciplinary writing research and representativeness of student writing corpora while contributing to an exploration of register as a continuous construct. The research provides an enhanced understanding of academic coursework writing for stakeholders such as professors, graduate students, writing consultants. (150 words)

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.23003.bec
2024-03-05
2025-04-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.23003.bec
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthony, L.
    (2015) AntFileConverter (2.0.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aull, L. L.& Lancaster, Z.
    (2014) Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written communication, 31(2), 151–183.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Berkenkotter, C.& Huckin, T. N.
    (1995) Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2019) Multi-dimensional analysis: A historical synopsis. InSardinha, T. B., & Pinto, M. V. (Eds.) (2019) Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues. Bloomsbury Publishing. 10.5040/9781350023857.0009
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0009 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2006 University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2016) Register variation on the searchable web: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 44(2), 95–137. 10.1177/0075424216628955
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424216628955 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2010) Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R.
    (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 10.1017/CBO9780511804489
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in l2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  11. Braine, G.
    (1989) Writing in science and technology: An analysis of assignments from ten undergraduate courses. English for Specific Purposes, 8(1), 3–15. 10.1016/0889‑4906(89)90003‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(89)90003-3 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D. and Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen, J.
    (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Cooper, A. and Bikowski, D.
    (2007) Writing at the graduate level: what tasks do professors actually require?Journal of English for Academic Purposes6(3): 206–21. 10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.008 [Google Scholar]
  15. Egbert, J.
    (2015) Publication type and discipline variation in published academic writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(1), 1–29. 10.1075/ijcl.20.1.01egb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.1.01egb [Google Scholar]
  16. (2019) Corpus design and representativeness. InSardinha, T. B., & Pinto, M. V., (Eds.). Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues, 27–42. Bloomsbury Publishing. 10.5040/9781350023857.0010
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0010 [Google Scholar]
  17. Egbert, J., Biber, D., and Gray, B.
    (2022) Designing and evaluating language corpora: A practical framework for corpus representativeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316584880
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316584880 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gardner, S. & Nesi, H.
    (2013) A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics34(1), 25–52. 10.1093/applin/ams024
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams024 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. 10.1093/applin/amy005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Graves, R., Hyland, T., & Samuels, B. M.
    (2010) Undergraduate writing assignments: An analysis of syllabi at one Canadian college. Written Communication, 27(3), 293–317. 10.1177/0741088310371635
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310371635 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gray, B.
    (2015) Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/scl.71
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2019) Tagging and counting linguistic features for multi-dimensional analysis. InSardinha, T. B., & Pinto, M. V. (Eds.) (2019) Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues. Bloomsbury Publishing. 10.5040/9781350023857.0011
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0011 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grieve, J., Biber, D., Friginal, E., & Nekrasova, T.
    (2011) Variation among blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis. InA. Mehler, Sharoff, S., & Santini, M. (Eds.) Genres on the web: Computational models and empirical studies, 303–322. New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. 10.3366/cor.2013.0040
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2013.0040 [Google Scholar]
  25. IBM Corp. Released
    IBM Corp. Released 2017 IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Ives, L., Gokhale, J., Barott, W. C., & Perez, M. V.
    (2019) Sprinting Toward Genre Knowledge: Scaffolding Graduate Student Communication Through” Sprints” in Finance and Engineering Courses. Across the Disciplines, 16(2), 16. 10.37514/ATD‑J.2019.16.2.08
     https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2019.16.2.08 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jackson, L., Meyer, W. and Parkinson, J.
    (2006) A study of the writing tasks and reading assigned to undergraduate science students at a South African University. English for Specific Purposes25(3): 260–81. 10.1016/j.esp.2005.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  28. LaFrance, M., & Corbett, S. J.
    (2020) Discourse community fail! Negotiating choices in success/failure and graduate-level writing development. InM. Brooks-Gillies, Garcia, E. G., Kim, S. H., Manthey, K., and Smith, T. G. (Eds.) Graduate Writing Across the Disciplines: Identifying, Teaching, Supporting: 295–314. 10.37514/ATD‑B.2020.0407.2.12
     https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-B.2020.0407.2.12 [Google Scholar]
  29. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009030199
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030199 [Google Scholar]
  30. O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U.
    (2012) From student hard drive to web corpus (part 2): The annotation and online distribution of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 7(1), 1–18. 10.3366/cor.2012.0015
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2012.0015 [Google Scholar]
  31. Plonsky, L.& Oswald, F. L.
    (2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language learning, 64(4), 878–912.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B.
    (2011) From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): the design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 6(2), 159–177. 10.3366/cor.2011.0011
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2011.0011 [Google Scholar]
  33. Thompson, P. & Gray, B.
    (2022) Motivation, development, and application of a revised framework for semantic categories of content words in corpus-based academic writing research. American Association for Applied Linguistics annual conference. Pittsburgh, PA.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Thompson, P., Hunston, S., Murakami, A. & Vajn, D.
    (2017) Multi-dimensional analysis, text constellations, and interdisciplinary discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(2), 153–186.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhu, W.
    (2004) Writing in business courses: an analysis of assignment types, their characteristics, and required skills. English for Specific Purposes23(2): 111–35. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(02)00046‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00046-7 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.23003.bec
Loading
A multi-dimensional analysis of graduate student writing in two applied science disciplines
Register Studies 5, 171 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.23003.bec
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.23003.bec
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.23003.bec
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics; graduate student writing; multi-dimensional analysis; register analysis

Most Cited

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