Search

Chinese returnee scholars' trans -spatial integration and identity (re)construction have received considerable attention in recent discussions. However, their collaborative academic writing practices in English have been relatively neglected in research. This paper addresses this gap by examining how a group of Chinese returnees engage in collaborative English writing for publication, aiming not only to navigate the challenges of competitive academia but also to excel within it. The concept of community of practice is used as a lens to analyze these returnees' motivation in seeking collaboration in English writing. The examination encompasses the affordances derived from such collaborative efforts and the subsequent impact on the scholars' (re)constructed identities. The paper explores their perceptions of how collaborative writing has built their professional social capital and strengthened their identity as academics. This study contributes to understanding Chinese returnee scholars' international publishing practices and urges universities to reconsider their policy when assessing scholars' collaborative writing and publishing practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to Petrić's (2012) call for comparing citation practices between student and published writing in the same field to better understand the interaction between developmental and disciplinary influences on the utilization of direct quotation, this paper conducts a comparative analysis of citation choices in 100 literature review sections of L2 master's theses and 100 research article literature review sections in the field of translation studies. This analysis utilizes a modified framework of functional options for cited information. The findings reveal a significant difference in the normalized frequency of citation options between the student corpus and the expert corpus. L2 master's students predominantly rely on single-source, author-responsible, long direct quotations with active voice and past tense. This approach is used to present source information without active engagement, suggesting their primary objective is to showcase knowledge of the research field. Conversely, experts strategically employ citations to support their claims and establish intertextual links. The differences in citation choices between master's theses and research articles might be attributed to the L2 students' limited grasp of the subtle nuances associated with citation forms, reporting verbs, verb tenses and voices, as well as a lack of proficiency in employing various pragmatic and rhetorical functions achievable through citation. Additionally, these differences may be attributed to the comprehensive knowledge and experience accumulated by expert writers over time. The implications of these findings for teaching English academic writing are discussed within the paper. • A new citation analysis model is proposed. • Students use more single-source direct quotations than experts. • Students prefer using the active past tense describing previous studies. • Students prefer non-factive reporting verbs. • Students place more responsibility on authors than writers in citing studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lexical bundles use in academic discourse has been explored across numerous dimensions including discipline, genre, register, student proficiency, and language, among others. These studies have resulted in claims about the nature of these different discourses or their authors, and they have been used in EAP instructional practices. Recent studies on methodological considerations in frequency-based lexical bundles research have pointed to variability in results that stem from changes in criteria used in lexical bundle extraction and corpus composition. Following this, the current study explores the impact of methodological variation in lexical bundle extraction from sets of research articles in Linguistics and Biology, with a focus on the extent of disciplinary variation uncovered in lexical bundles use and function. Experiments with varying frequency thresholds and range specifications as well as corpus composition show that results about lexical bundles use in different disciplinary discourses could be more sharply differentiated when certain variables are used, underscoring the variableness in results and the need for caution in interpreting the findings of lexical bundles research. This paper also evaluates claims made in previous lexical bundles studies using the findings from this study. Finally, previous pedagogical applications of lexical bundles research in academic discourse are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]