Master of Arts (Applied Linguistics)

In the past few decades, plagiarism has engendered increasing concern 111 academia. Previous studies have investigated the issue from various perspectives, including students' and teachers' understanding of plagiarism, potential causes of plagiarism, teaching practices that could educate students against plagiarism, and institutional policies on plagiarism. However, most of these studies have been conducted 111 Anglophone or English-as-second-language (ESL) contexts, while English-as-foreign-language (EFL) contexts such as China have received far less attention. As a result, little is known as to what criteria for plagiarism are held in Chinese academia, to what extent these criteria concur with those widely accepted in the Anglo-American academic context, and how Chinese academic institutions are responding to issues related to plagiarism. As an attempt to address these gaps, the present study adopts a mixed-methods approach to investigating Chinese university English teachers' perceptions of and attitudes towards plagiarism, and the impacts of teaching experience, overseas educational experience, and levels of education thereon.

To achieve this aim, this study utilized a textual judgment task, a paraphrasing practices survey, and semi-structured interviews to collect data from 108 Chinese university English teachers. The teachers' responses to the textual judgment task, including judgments on different rewritten versions of the same given paragraph, ratings of rewritten versions that they identified as guilty of plagiarism, and open-ended justifications provided for their judgments, were analyzed to explore their understandings of intertextuality, attitudes towards recognized transgressive intertextual practices, as well as their criteria for plagiarism and proper paraphrasing. ANOVAs were run to determine whether levels of education, overseas academic training, and teaching experience had an impact on the teachers' knowledge of plagiarism and how knowledge of plagiarism, academic background and teaching experience would relate to their stance on recognized plagiarism. Writing samples in the paraphrasing practices survey were examined for patterns in these teachers' textual appropriation behaviors, such as whether they would borrow strings of consecutive words from the original paragraph provided. Chi-square tests were run on a measure of verbatim copying from the original text to identify possible influences on the teachers' textual borrowing practices. Responses in the interviews were analyzed to reveal their professional experience of plagiarism, including previous plagiarism-related academic training, dealing with student plagiarism, teaching of plagiarism knowledge, as well as knowledge and understanding of institutional policies on plagiarism.

Several major findings emerged from this study. First of all, in general, the teachers' knowledge of plagiarism, stance towards plagiarism, and textual appropriation practices showed that their perceptions of plagiarism were more similar to those of Anglo-American teachers than those reported in previous studies. Arguably, this is partially attributable to these teachers' exposure to English academic writing and the need to deal with student plagiarism. It also suggests the trend that Anglo-American conceptions of plagiarism and intertextual conventions are becoming increasingly accepted in the Chinese academic community.

Second, the statistical analyses revealed different contributing factors to the teachers' knowledge of plagiarism, stance towards recognized plagiarism, and paraphrasing practices. Inconsistent with findings of previous studies, none of the variables examined was found to impact knowledge of plagiarism, suggesting the complexity of the issue. Years of teaching experience was found to be significantly correlated with plagiarism stance, in that the more experience one had, the more lenient s/he would become towards plagiarism. This points to the need to re-educate teachers, update their knowledge of plagiarism and strengthen their awareness of the seriousness of the issue. Whether a respondent had overseas academic experience proved to be a significant predictor of paraphrasing practices, with those who had overseas experience being less likely to appropriate strings of three or more words from the original text, suggesting the positive influence of exposure to the Anglo-American conventions of plagiarism and source use.

Third, Chinese universities in general did not seem to attach as much importance to the issue of plagiarism as Anglo-American universities do. The interviewees reported an absence of an institutional framework on plagiarism and a lack of teacher attention to the issue. To effectively prevent plagiarism, not only should policies and regulations be established, but sufficient support be provided to both teachers and students on teaching about plagiarism and avoiding plagiarism, respectively.

These findings point to the conclusion that although Chinese university English teachers seem to demonstrate a good understanding of plagiarism and acceptable paraphrasing practice, Chinese universities are not serving their role effectively in educating students about (il)legitimate intertextual practices. More institutional and pedagogical efforts are called for to draw attention to the issue from students and staff alike, and to ensure that norms of plagiarism are effectively and explicitly communicated to students.

Despite its value for scientific researchers and its indispensable role as an important platform for scientific communication, the genre of the Letter to the Editor (LTE) has received scant research attention compared with other academic genres. Extant studies only focused on some surface discursive or linguistic features. Research on LTEs with a focus on the interpersonal and evaluative aspect is even harder to find. In order to fill this research gap, the present study concentrates on this under-researched genre. Informed by previous studies which have investigated the interpersonal dimension of other academic genres mainly from a comparative perspective, this study also adopts a comparative research design. Specifically, it is a multi-level comparative study examining multiple factors – i.e., LTE writers’ ethnolinguistic background, historical time, publication venues, and purposes of LTEs – that may shape writer-reader engagement in LTEs. These factors are jointly investigated to understand their influences on the employment of linguistic resources for interpersonal and evaluative purposes.

To achieve the research objective, a corpus of 240 LTEs was constructed. These letters were sampled from two prestigious scientific journals (Science and Nature) in two historical periods (1980s and 2010s) and were authored by both Anglophone and non-Anglophone academics. In addition, a coding scheme was developed to classify the LTEs according to their writing purposes. Drawing on a well-established analytic framework – the engagement system of appraisal theory proposed by Martin and White (2005), a conceptualization of the interpersonal dimension of texts grounded in systemic functional linguistics, this study analyzed the use of engagement resources (i.e., different types of interaction – deny, counter, concur, pronounce, endorse, entertain, acknowledge and distance – that are realized by various linguistic resources at the semantic level) from the sampled LTEs with the assistance of a software package for linguistic annotations of texts.

Significant differences in the incidence of various engagement resources were identified in relation to all the four investigated factors. Specifically, ethnolinguistic influences were reflected in the higher frequencies of distance and entertain resources in the LTEs written by Anglophone scholars than those authored by their non-Anglophone counterparts. Next, deny resources were used more frequently in the LTEs from the 1980s than those from the 2010s, but more frequent use of acknowledge resources occurred in the latter group of LTEs. In terms of differences between the two prestigious journals, there were more endorse and acknowledge resources in the Science LTEs but more entertain resources in the Nature LTEs. The analyses also revealed that the rhetorical purposes of the LTEs were related to the use of all types of engagement resources except for those of pronounce and acknowledge. These differences are attributed to different educational traditions, socio-cultural factors, the evolution of the scientific community, different editorial requirements, and the inherent needs of different rhetorical purposes.

The findings from the present study have important implications for English for Academic Purpose (EAP) researchers, instructors of academic writing, novice researchers as well as expert researchers.

It is now recognised that authorial voice is central to academic writing but to date, research is unable to determine conclusively exactly where it lies on a page. A substantial body of work has investigated the use of first person pronouns in academic writing as clear markers of a writer’s presence in a text. These studies found that first person pronouns are multi-faceted resources performing a variety of purposes within a text. However, the forms and frequency of these pronouns and the functional roles behind them are not totally left to the personal preferences of individual writers. Rather, they are guided by disciplinary conventions to ensure acceptance by their disciplinary community. This study scrutinises how expert writers in the contrasting disciplines of Literature, a field considered highly interpretive, and Computer Science, an empirical field, use first person pronouns. The hypothesis is that in the absence of objective fact, Literature writers resort to frequent use of first person pronouns backed by stronger authorial roles to build credibility and convince readers, while Computer Science writers would avoid them. A total of 160 articles culled from 11 journals from both fields are analysed, to capture typical examples of expert writing in these disciplines. The findings suggest that the general dichotomy between hard and soft sciences may not apply in all cases. Even though all selected papers were single-authored, the pronoun we was most frequent in both sub-corpora. Though certain functional roles are present in both disciplines, the pronominal forms which front these roles differ as did the frequency between and within the disciplines. The study seeks to provide some illumination on the disciplinary conventions in Literature and Computer Science, thus contributing towards pedagogy and scholarship of the role of first person pronouns in voice construction in academic texts.

As a multifaceted phenomenon that is embedded in cultural and social contexts, plagiarism has remained an issue of concern in the academic community throughout the years. Previous studies have investigated the issue from various perspectives and using various methods, yet few studies were conducted in EFL contexts like China. Different from students in other academic disciplines, English-major students in China have curriculum requirements that are similar to those of Anglo-American universities in terms of thesis writing, although they study the English language in a non-native learning environment. Therefore, it is not clear whether Chinese English-major students know how to appropriate sources in a proper way, what their knowledge of and attitudes toward plagiarism are in practice and as self-reported, and more importantly, what factors may contribute to their intertextual competence, knowledge of and stance on plagiarism. To address these gaps, this study used an integrated approach to explore Chinese English-major students’ perceptions, knowledge of and attitudes towards plagiarism, and the impact of various variables including language proficiency, institutional context, years of learning English, and so forth.

Adopting a cross-sectional survey research design, this study used multiple instruments (including a paraphrase practice, a textual judgment task, a questionnaire, and a biodata form) to collect data from 212 English- major students of different academic levels from 9 universities in mainland China. The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analyses consisted of three hierarchical multiple regressions conducted to determine if the various variables mentioned above could explain the participating students’ verbatim copying from a source text in a paraphrase task, inability to recognize plagiarized texts, and leniency towards plagiarized texts, respectively. The qualitative data that were derived from the respondents’ justifications of their judgments on plagiarized texts were analyzed to complement the quantitative findings.

The study showed that, first, the Chinese English-major students did not perceive the nature of plagiarism distinctively differently from their Western counterparts but had less knowledge of what constitutes plagiarism. Most of the students recognized blatant plagiarism in the form of verbatim copying in the plagiarized texts, but many of them were confused about what would be sufficient paraphrase and correct citations. The students’ inability to detect plagiarism in actual writing samples were found to be predicted by their leniency toward the plagiarized texts, intertextual competence, and knowledge of inappropriate referencing. Second, the Chinese English-major students generally held punitive attitudes toward plagiarism, and their leniency toward the plagiarized texts could be accounted for by their inability to recognize plagiarized texts, years of learning English, and knowledge of blatant plagiarism. These results have provided counterevidence of the essentialist view that Chinese students are predisposed by their cultural values and practices to be accepting of plagiarism. Third, Chinese English-major students did not have sufficient intertextual competence to engage in legitimate intertextuality, especially with respect to criteria of sufficient paraphrase. Their intertextual competence as reflected in the paraphrase task appeared to have been shaped by their language proficiency, institutional context, inability to recognize plagiarized text, and inadequate academic ability.

These findings have pointed to the conclusion that Chinese English-major students’ inadequate knowledge of plagiarism should be brought to the forefront and that institutional efforts are required to socialize them into legitimate intertextual norms in English academic writing.

Within the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP), the abstract is considered by many researchers to be an important component in a research article. For instance, Hyland (2000) thinks that academic writers use abstracts as a way of promoting their articles by claiming significance and insider credibility.

This study explores the abstracts of published research articles written in English by Chinese academic writers in the field of applied linguistics. Specifically, it looks at the rhetorical move structures, the presence and absence of certain moves, the importance placed on different moves and the linguistic realization of the moves. A corpus of abstracts was collected from three Chinese academic journals as the data for my genre analysis. In addition, as a comparative set of data, a second corpus of abstracts from three international journals was collected to see whether Chinese writers are writing in ways found in the international journals. Hyland's (2000) "Introduction- Purpose- MethodProduct-Conclusion" (I-P-M-Pr-C) classification is used as the schema for the analysis. As a supplementary step, a questionnaire survey targeted at Chinese academic writers was conducted to probe into their perceptions of the functions of the abstract and the rhetorical moves in it.

The findings showed both similarities and differences in how Chinese writers and writers for international journals construct their abstracts. Both groups of writers seem to have similar perceptions of the importance of the Purpose and Product moves in the abstract to demonstrate the significance of their studies and attract readers' attention. However, Chinese writers differ significantly from the contributors of the international journals in the use of first person pronouns and the linguistic realizations of the Method move. It is suggested that the differences may have to do with their lack of familiarity with the culture and conventions of doing academic writing in English. Their practices may reflect their cultural and linguistic background and fit well with the commonly acceptable practices in the Chinese discourse community and Chinese publication culture. However, if Chinese writers aim to publish in international journals, which is of great importance for their career development, it is important for them to be aware of the kinds of discourse practices valued in international journals so that they can make more appropriate linguistic choices when writing in English.

Plagiarism, which is complex and difficult to eliminate, has been a topic under considerable discussion and recognized as a pervasive problem at all levels of study in higher education. Previous studies have revealed the severity of the problem in higher education worldwide, especially at the undergraduate level. However, relatively insufficient documented research has been undertaken in related fields in the Chinese contexts, including studies about Chinese EFL undergraduate students’ perception of plagiarism, their attitudes to it, as well as their participation in such activities. Therefore, conducting such a study here (as in the present study) is not only of great academic significance but is also of useful pedagogical insight for Chinese EFL instructors in China or instructors in other countries who have Chinese international students.

To address the research questions, multiple data collection methods were employed. 300 fourth-year English-major undergraduates who were randomly chosen from three universities in Southwest China participated in the study as questionnaire respondents. A total number of 284 valid copies of questionnaire were collected from them. Besides this, 4 student-supervisor pairs, i.e., 4 fourth-year English-major undergraduates working on their graduation theses and their supervisors, were also interviewed, and the graduation theses of the interviewed students were closely examined and discussed.

Data analysis revealed striking issues which suggest that the investigated students remained confused about the notion of plagiarism. They appeared to show a lack of knowledge of plagiarism and of agreement about what constituted plagiarism in general. They also had very limited knowledge of citation conventions. Great difficulty existed among them in recognizing both the obvious and the subtler forms of plagiarism.

In the present study, among the 9 forms of plagiarism investigated in the questionnaire (adapted from Maxwell et al’s (2006) and Marshall & Garry’s study (2006)), buying an assignment was regarded as the most serious form of plagiarism while the inappropriate use of secondary citations, the least serious form.

The epidemic nature of plagiarism among those Chinese undergraduates in the EFL writing was revealed by the analysis of data collected from the questionnaire, the paired interviews and the sample writings, with Internet plagiarism reported as the most widespread. Howard’s (1995) notion of “patchwriting” was supported by evidence found in the students’ writing samples. Besides, unattributed borrowed/translated information and incorrect use of secondary citations were found to be salient features, according to the data gathered from the students’ theses and from the interviews with the students’ academic supervisors. Differential levels of writing performance in the students’ writing arising from borrowed/translated material and patchwriting were observed to be a function of the students’ language proficiency levels.

Based on the major findings, this study explored the attendant pedagogical implications and offered some suggestions for EFL instructors and institutions of higher learning. In particular, the systematic training in academic writing conventions for University students was advised for incorporation into EFL teaching, and Howard’s (1995) proposed policy of classifying plagiarism into three forms, i.e., cheating, non-attribution of sources and patchwriting was also recommended to Chinese institutions of higher learning. Finally, several possible future research areas were recommended for further investigation into academic plagiarism among EFL undergraduates in China.

This study examines voice in texts as interpersonal features from a dialogic perspective and explores the rhetorical moves employed by expert academic writers in the field of second language writing in reviewing existing literature. Drawing on the ENGAGEMENT framework, a sub-system of APPRAISAL from Systemic Functional Linguistics, the dissertation investigates how expert academic writers use ENGAGEMENT resources to position themselves towards the value positions being referenced in their writing while also taking the putative readers into consideration. The differences between the practices of writers from two distinct research paradigms, namely, qualitative and quantitative, will also be explored. To do so, a corpus of literature review extracted from 136 research articles has been built. The articles are selected from six peer-reviewed SSCI journals of international prestige in applied linguistics. The findings of this study may contribute to the current knowledge of voice and also provide some kind of reference to those who wish to get their work published in internationally prestigious journals.

The use of metadiscourse in academic writing has been investigated extensively from multiple perspectives: disciplinary, cultural, historical, and paradigmatic (Hu & Cao, 2015; Hyland, 2005). However, one type of metadiscourse – linguistic markers of surprise – has received little attention from researchers of academic discourse. This lacuna is surprising since surprise markers, as lexico-grammatical items that explicitly express the authorial attitude of surprise toward various scientific information, can provide a window on deep-seated epistemological beliefs and fundamental views of the nature of disciplinary inquiry (Tutin, 2015). This dissertation reports on a corpus-based study that aimed to bridge the lacuna and examined surprise markers in published research articles to determine what factors may influence their use and what they may reveal epistemologically about academic discourse. A corpus of 320 research articles was constructed to represent two disciplines (applied linguistics and clinical psychology), two historical periods separated by a 30-year interval (1981-1985 and 2011-2015), and two research paradigms (qualitative and quantitative research). Aided by the auto-search function of a text annotation program, a comprehensive list of surprise markers compiled on the basis of previous empirical and theoretical research was used to identify all instances of surprise markers in the corpus. Each identified surprise marker was analyzed in terms of intensity (what is the level of the surprise expressed?), trigger type (what causes the expressed surprise?), incongruence type (why is a scientific fact surprising?) and resolution (how is the conceptual incongruence leading to the expressed surprise resolved?) and experiencer (who feels surprised?). Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the coded data revealed several clear differences in the use of surprise markers along disciplinary, historical, and paradigmatic lines. These observed differences can be attributed to distinct and evolving epistemologies and knowledge-making practices. The findings of the present study could contribute to a deeper understanding of the fine-grained variance in academic writing across disciplines, research paradigms and historical periods, especially in terms of how attitude is expressed in research articles. Pedagogically, it points out the importance of raising novice writers’ awareness of the semantic coherence realized by dimensions of a single attitude marker. Based on these findings, more dimensional analyses of language markers are encouraged to surface the hidden patterns in academic writing.

Voice has always been an important and slippery concept in writing. Despite the fact that there have been studies on voice with different terms (Ivanic, 1998; Elbow, 1994, 2007; Hyland, 2002, 2008; Thompson & Hunston, 2000; Matsuda & Tardy, 2007, 2009), much of the studies have focused on the cross-cultural or cross-level aspect of the construal of the writer's voice and there is limited study on the voice in medical discourse. The present study aims to identify the writer's voice through the ENGAGEMENT system (Martin & White, 2005). The Discussion sections of 120 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) from the five clinical subfields of Internal Medicine, Surgery, Obstetric & Gynecology, Pediatrics, and Infectious Diseases are coded with the heteroglossic ENGAGEMENT features. It has been observed that Internal Medicine writers strike a balance between objectivity and flexibility in their use of non-human agents, superscript numbers, and paraphrases or summaries to acknowledge an external source, while Surgery and Infectious Diseases writers make their presence more salient by using ACKNOWLEDGE with other dialogically contractive ENGAGEMENT features to strengthen the contractive features. In terms of the patterns of ENGAGEMENT features, Internal Medicine and Pediatrics share the same pattern of ENTERTAIN > DENY > COUNTER > ACKNOWLEDGE > PRONOUNCE > ENDORSE > JUSTIFY, as opposed to the pattern shared by Surgery, Obstetrics & Gynecology and Infectious Diseases: ENTERTAIN > DENY > ACKNOWLEDGE > PRONOUNCE > ENDORSE > JUSTIFY. The difference between the two patterns lies in the different frequencies of COUNTER and ACKNOWLEDGE.