In:Variation in University Student Writing: A communicative text type approach
Larissa Goulart
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 117] 2024
► pp. v–x
Published online: 22 August 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.117.toc
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.117.toc
Table of contents
List of figuresXI
List of tablesXV
Chapter 1.Introduction1
1.1The need for describing the language of university writing1
1.2The text categories of university writing2
1.3The importance of discipline in the characteristics of university writing7
1.4The linguistic characteristics of academic writing and university writing8
1.4.1Studies of grammatical complexity in academic writing
and university writing9
and university writing9
1.4.2MD analyses of published academic writing10
1.4.3MD analyses of university writing: Register variation19
1.4.4MD analyses of university writing: Disciplinary variation25
1.5Trends and gaps in the linguistic profile of university writing30
1.6Overview of the study31
Chapter 2.Corpus and data analysis34
2.1Introduction34
2.2Corpus description34
2.3Corpus annotation37
2.3.1Tagging and accuracy38
2.3.2Identifying complexity features39
2.3.3Computing and norming rates of occurrence41
2.4Overview: Steps of the study42
Chapter 3.The challenges of classifying university writing
into register categories45
into register categories45
3.1Introduction45
3.2University writing classification: A survey of university writing register46
3.2.1In interviews, syllabi, and prompts46
3.2.2In university writing corpora49
3.2.3Trends and gaps in the types of registers found
in university writing54
in university writing54
3.3University writing classification: Two case studies of university
writing registers55
writing registers55
3.4A summary of the challenges of classifying university writing
into register categories59
into register categories59
3.4.1Challenge 1: Overt markers of register categories59
3.4.2Challenge 2: The set of registers that exist in university writing60
3.4.3Challenge 3: The description of register categories61
3.4.4Challenge 4: Purpose variation within register categories61
3.5Implications for the text categorization of university writing64
Chapter 4.The communicative text types of university writing66
4.1Introduction66
4.2Proposing a framework for the analysis of communicative purposes
in university writing66
in university writing66
4.3Classifying university writing into communicative text types67
4.4The communicative text types of university writing70
4.4.1To give a procedural recount73
4.4.2To argue77
4.4.3To explain80
4.4.4To propose84
4.4.5To compare87
4.4.6Other purposes89
4.5Trends in the communicative text types of university writing91
Chapter 5.Textual characteristics of university communicative text types92
5.1Introduction92
5.2Situational characteristics of university writing92
5.3Motivating a textual framework of university communicative text types93
5.4The framework of textual characteristics of university communicative
text types95
text types95
5.4.1Text length95
5.4.2Textual layout96
5.4.3Visual elements97
5.4.4Explicitness of purpose98
5.5The textual characteristics of each communicative text type100
5.5.1To give a procedural recount100
5.5.2To argue103
5.5.3To explain105
5.5.4To propose107
5.5.5To compare109
5.5.6Other purposes111
5.6Trends observed in the textual analysis of university writing111
Chapter 6.A multidimensional analysis of university communicative
text types114
text types114
6.1Introduction114
6.2The need for a new MD analysis of university writing115
6.3Conducting a new multidimensional analysis of student writing117
6.3.1Choosing variables118
6.3.2Factor analysis120
6.4Dimensions of variation in university writing124
6.4.1Dimension 1: Elaborated discourse vs condensed style124
6.4.2Dimension 2: Production of possibility vs content-focused description132
6.4.3Dimension 3: Informational density vs involved, academic narrative139
6.5Cumulative findings of multidimensional analyses
of university writing146
of university writing146
6.6Trends in the multidimensional analysis of university writing149
Chapter 7.What is an essay? Comparing the communicative text type
and the register approach152
and the register approach152
7.1Introduction152
7.2Previous research on the communicative purpose and linguistic characteristics of essays153
7.3Corpus of study156
7.4Summary of communicative text types in the register of essays157
7.4.1Combinations of purposes in the register of essays
in arts and humanities160
in arts and humanities160
7.4.2Combinations of purposes in the register of essays
in social sciences162
in social sciences162
7.4.3Combinations of purposes in the register of essays
in life sciences163
in life sciences163
7.4.4Combinations of purposes in the register of essays
in physical sciences164
in physical sciences164
7.5Summary of textual characteristics in the register of essays167
7.5.1Textual characteristics of essays in arts and humanities169
7.5.2Textual characteristics of essays in social sciences169
7.5.3Textual characteristics of essays in life sciences170
7.5.4Textual characteristics of essays in physical sciences171
7.6Summary of MD analysis results for the register of essays172
7.6.1Dimension 1: Elaborated discourse vs condensed style175
7.6.2Dimension 2: Production of possibility vs content-focused description178
7.6.3Dimension 3: Informational density vs involved,
academic narrative181
academic narrative181
7.7Trends in the communicative purposes and linguistic characteristics
of essays184
of essays184
Chapter 8.Conclusion and implications186
8.1Overview186
8.2Perspectives on communicative text types187
8.2.1The communicative text types of university writing
across disciplines190
across disciplines190
8.2.2The textual characteristics of university communicative
text types across disciplines191
text types across disciplines191
8.2.3The linguistic characteristics of university communicative
text types across disciplines192
text types across disciplines192
8.2.4Comparing the register and the communicative text
type approach198
type approach198
8.3Methodological contributions of this study201
8.3.1Classifying texts by communicative text types201
8.3.2Examining variation across both communicative text types
and disciplines202
and disciplines202
8.3.3Describing the textual characteristics of texts203
8.4Implications of the current study204
8.4.1Implications for the teaching of university writing204
8.4.2Implications for research on university writing205
8.4.3Implications for register studies205
8.5Future research206
References209
Appendixes
Appendix A.Reliability of automatic tags given by the Biber Tagger
on texts written by L1-English and L2-English students216
on texts written by L1-English and L2-English students216
Appendix B.Tag-fixing script219
Appendix C.All combinations of purposes in the corpus220
Appendix D.Overall features selected for factor analysis221
Appendix E.Full factorial structure matric
for the three-factor solution224
for the three-factor solution224
Appendix F.Correlation and scree plot226
Appendix G.Mean and standard deviation for each factor228
Appendix H.Simple effects Dimensions 1–3229
Index
