In:Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing
Edited by Pilar Mur-Dueñas and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 18] 2018
► pp. 237–253
Chapter 11Not the same, but how different?
Comparing the use of reformulation markers in ELF and in ENL research articles
Published online: 6 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.11mur
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.11mur
Abstract
Reformulation markers can be considered indicators of rhetorical conventions (Cuenca, 2003). In this paper I contrast these markers in the SciELF corpus of unedited research papers
(building on previous work [Murillo, submitted]) and in a comparable ENL
(English as a Native Language) corpus (SERAC), focusing on the overall frequency, the relative frequency of each
marker and the discourse processes they introduce (Murillo, 2012). The
results reveal statistically significant differences between the two corpora regarding the specific choice of
reformulation markers and the processes introduced by them. Further, the “similects” of the SciELF corpus (Mauranen, 2012) present very different trends. ELF does not seem to constitute
a homogeneous use of the English language, at least at the lexico-grammatical level.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Functions of reformulation markers
- 3.Corpus and methodology
- 4.Results and discussion
- 5.Concluding remarks
Acknowledgements Notes References Corpora
References (47)
Anderson, L. (2010). Standards
of acceptability in English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Evidence from a corpus of peer-reviewed working
papers by international scholars. In R. Cagliero & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Discourses,
communities and global
Englishes (pp. 115–143). Bern: Peter Lang.
Bordet, G. (2018). ‘This
dissonance’: bolstering credibility in academic
abstracts. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural
perspectives on research
writing(pp. 83–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carey, R. (2013). On
the other side: Formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic
ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 2(2), 207–228.
Charolles, M., & Coltier, D. (1986). Le
contrôle de la compréhension dans une activité rédactionnelle: Élements pour l’analyse des reformulations
paraphrastiques. Pratiques, 49, 51–66.
Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural
communication at work. Cultural values in
discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency
in ELF communication. From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical
innovation. Nordic Journal of English
Studies, 5(2), 59–93.
Cuenca, M. J. (2003). Two
ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal
of
Pragmatics, 35(7), 1069–1093.
Dontcheva Navratilova, O. (2018). A
contrastive (English, Czech English, Czech) study of rhetorical functions of citations in linguistics research
articles. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural
perspectives on research
writing (pp. 15–37). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fløttum, K. (1994). À
propos de c’est-à-dire et ses correspondants
norvégiens. Cahiers de Linguistique
Française, 15, 109–130.
Gülich, E., & Kotschi, T. (1983). Les
marqueurs de reformulation paraphrastique. Cahiers de Linguistique
Française, 5, 305–351.
(1987). Les
actes de reformulations dans la consultation. La dame de
Caluire. In P. Bange (Ed.), L’analyse
des interactions verbales. La dame de Caluire: Une
consultation (pp. 15–81). Bern: Peter Lang.
(1995). Discourse
production in oral communication. In U. M. Quasthoff (Ed.), Aspects
of oral
communication (pp. 30–66). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hinds J. (1987). Reader
versus writer responsibility: A new
typology. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing
across languages: Analysis of L2
text (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
(2007). Applying
a gloss. Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied
Linguistics, 28(2), 266–285.
Lafuente-Millán, E. (2014). Reader
engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research
articles. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 24(2), 201–223.
Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011). The
study of authorial voice: Using a Spanish–English corpus to explore linguistic
transference. Corpora, 6(1), 1–24.
(2016). ELF
in the making? Simplification and hybridity in abstract writing. Journal of
English as a Lingua
Franca, 5(1153–81.
Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring
ELF: Academic English shaped by nonnative
speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2014). Lingua franca discourse in academic contexts: Shaped by complexity. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Discourse in Context: Contemporary Applied Linguistics. Vol. 3 (pp. 225–245). London; New York: Bloomsbury.
(2016). ELF
corpora: Design, difficulties and triumphs. In M. L. Pitzl & R. Osimk-Teasdale (Eds.), English
as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and
prospects: Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer (pp. 19–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mauranen, A., Pérez-Llantada, C., & Swales, J. M. (2010). Academic
Englishes: A standardized knowledge? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of World
Englishes (pp. 634–652). London: Routledge.
Mauranen, A., Carey, R., & Ranta, E. (2015). New
answers to familiar questions: English as a lingua
franca. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of English Corpus
Linguistics (pp. 401–417). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murat, M., & Cartier-Bresson, B. (1987). C’est-à-dire
ou la reprise interpretative. Langue
Française, 73, La reformulation du sens dans le
discours, 5–15.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2009). Logical
markers in L1 (Spanish and English) and L2 (English) Business research
articles. English Text
Construction, 2(2), 246–264.
(2015). Looking
into ELF variants: A study of evaluative it-clauses in research articles. ESP
Today, 3(2), 160–179.
Murillo, S. (2009). Los
marcadores de reformulación explicativa en español y en inglés: Estudio contrastivo de ‘o sea’ y sus
traducciones ‘that is (to say)’ e ‘in other
words’. In M. P. Garcés Gómez (Ed.), La
reformulación del discurso en español en comparación con otras lenguas (catalán, francés italiano, inglés,
alemán e
islandés) (pp. 137–161). Madrid: BOE/Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
(2012). The
use of reformulation markers in Business Management research articles: An intercultural
analysis. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 17(1), 69–90.
(2016). Reformulation
markers and polyphony: A contrastive English-Spanish analysis. Languages in
Contrast, 16(1), 1–30.
(submitted). Some
evidence on the rhetorical patterns of written academic ELF: Reformulation and its markers in research
articles.
Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). The
‘dialectics of change’ as a facet of globalisation: Epistemic modality in academic
writing. In M. F. Ruiz-Garrido, J. C. Palmer-Silveira, & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English
for professional and academic
purposes (pp. 25–42). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Povolná, R. (2016). A
cross cultural analysis of conjuncts as indicators of the interaction and negotiation of meaning in research
articles. Topics in
Linguistics, 17(1), 45–63.
(2018). Conference abstracts in English: A challenge for non-Anglophone
writers. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural
perspectives on research
writing. (pp. 151–171)Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Preacher, K. J. (2001). Calculation
for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and
independence [Computer software]. Available
from <[URL]> (15 January
2017).
Pitzl, M. L., & Osimk-Teasdale, R. (2016). Introduction. In M. L. Pitzl & R. Osimk-Teasdale (Eds.), English
as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and
prospects (pp. 1–9). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A
comprehensive grammar of the English
language. Harlow: Longman.
Seidlhofer, B. (2006). Towards
making ‘Euro-English’ a linguistic reality. In K. Bolton & B. B. Kachru (Eds.), World
Englishes. Critical concepts in
Linguistics (Vol. III, pp. 47–50). London: Routledge.
Shaw, P. (2003). Evaluation
and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 2(4), 343–357.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance:
Communication and
cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Šinkūnienė, J. (2018). The power of English: I and we in Lithuanian, Lithuanian English and British
English research writing. In P. Mur-Dueñas & J. Šinkūnienė (Eds.), Intercultural
perspectives on research
writing. (pp. 59–79)Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
ENL SERAC 2016. English as a Native Language - Spanish-English Research Article Corpus. InterLAE
research group. Universidad de Zaragoza. <[URL]>
SciELF 2015. The SciELF
Corpus. Director: Anna Mauranen. Compilation manager: Ray
Carey. <[URL]>
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Dontcheva-Navratilova, Olga , Tereza Guziurová, Renata Jančaříková & Marie Lahodová Vališová
Kim, Heejung
Maňáková, Monika
Guziurová, Tereza
Guziurová, Tereza
Povolná, Renata
Yilmaz, Selahattin & Ute Römer
2020. A corpus-based exploration of constructions in written academic
English as a lingua franca. In Advances in Corpus-based Research on Academic Writing [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 95], ► pp. 59 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 march 2026. 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.
