東華大學圖書館 |

Rules of Academic Writing : = A Synchronic and Diachronic Corpus Analysis across the Disciplines.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Rules of Academic Writing :/
Reminder of title:	A Synchronic and Diachronic Corpus Analysis across the Disciplines.
Author:	Dixon, Tulay Orucu.
Description:	1 online resource (248 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-02, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-02A.
Subject:	Linguistics. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29321169click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798841772026

Rules of Academic Writing : = A Synchronic and Diachronic Corpus Analysis across the Disciplines.
Dixon, Tulay Orucu.

Rules of Academic Writing :A Synchronic and Diachronic Corpus Analysis across the Disciplines. - 1 online resource (248 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-02, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northern Arizona University, 2022.

Includes bibliographical references

Standards of academic writing are documented in style guides adopted by academic disciplines, style guides such as the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association and Scientific Style and Format. Some of the standards in these style guides are expressed as prescriptive or proscriptive rules that provide academic writers with language advice. Regarding such prescriptive and proscriptive rules, this dissertation has two goals: (i) to identify and describe the body of rules that form standard academic writing and (ii) to examine whether such rules matter; that is, whether they are followed in current academic writing and whether adherence to such rules has changed over time.To accomplish the first goal, six style guides adopted by academic disciplines were analyzed to identify rules. The identified rules (n = 537) were categorized by their aim (e.g., promoting clarity, removing bias), linguistic category (e.g., lexical, grammatical), and the disciplines for which they are intended, among others. These basic categorizations revealed contradictions in how prescriptive and proscriptive rules are traditionally viewed in the linguistics community. Prescriptive and proscriptive rules are often referred to as "grammar rules," but the vast majority of the rules are, surprisingly, about lexis. As discussed by Curzan (2014), rules are often associated with arbitrary judgements regarding what constitutes "correct" or "standard" language, but rules can also be motivated by desirable values in writing such as clarity, concision, and bias-free language. Such basic categorizations and descriptions show the various layers of rules, furthering our understanding of rules and their study as a sociolinguistic phenomenon.To accomplish the second goal of the dissertation, 155 rules were analyzed in a corpus of reputable journal article writing in four disciplines (i.e., biology, history, psychology, mechanical engineering) during two periods (i.e., 1950, 2020). The corpus included 17,085 articles with 117,707,019 words. The corpus analyses provided insights into (i) which rules are violated more versus less often, (ii) what characteristics are shared by rules that tend to be violated more often, and (iii) which rules will likely continue to be followed or violated. A few of the major findings are as follows: (i) lexico-grammatical or grammatical rules are generally violated more often than lexical rules; (ii) surprisingly, some bias-free language rules are violated (e.g., the use of the biased terms opposite gender, opposite sex, and chairman); (iii) current academic writing violates the rules that proscribe the dense use of nominalizations, long noun-noun sequences, and adverbial uses of based on, and there is a considerable increase in the frequency of these features from 1950 to 2020, indicating that the rules proscribing these features will likely continue to be violated; (iv) academic writing in biology, psychology, and mechanical engineering include fewer agentless passive voice constructions in 2020 compared with 1950, and this decrease in the frequency of passive voice constructions is related to the increase in the use of the first-person pronoun we; and (v) the proscribed use of the relative pronoun which in restrictive relative clauses is mostly followed by academic writers, and adherence to this proscription has increased from 1950 to 2020. The findings of the dissertation have implications for the study of prescriptivism as a sociolinguistic phenomenon and for anyone involved in the writing, teaching, and/or editing of academic writing.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2023

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798841772026Subjects--Topical Terms:

524476
Linguistics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Academic writingIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

Rules of Academic Writing : = A Synchronic and Diachronic Corpus Analysis across the Disciplines.
LDR:05035nmm a2200397K 4500 001 2354296
005 20230403071210.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 241011s2022 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798841772026
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI29321169
035 $a AAI29321169
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Dixon, Tulay Orucu. $3 3694644
245 1 0 $a Rules of Academic Writing : $b A Synchronic and Diachronic Corpus Analysis across the Disciplines.
264 0 $c 2022
300 $a 1 online resource (248 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-02, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Biber, Douglas; Crawford, William.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Northern Arizona University, 2022.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Standards of academic writing are documented in style guides adopted by academic disciplines, style guides such as the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association and Scientific Style and Format. Some of the standards in these style guides are expressed as prescriptive or proscriptive rules that provide academic writers with language advice. Regarding such prescriptive and proscriptive rules, this dissertation has two goals: (i) to identify and describe the body of rules that form standard academic writing and (ii) to examine whether such rules matter; that is, whether they are followed in current academic writing and whether adherence to such rules has changed over time.To accomplish the first goal, six style guides adopted by academic disciplines were analyzed to identify rules. The identified rules (n = 537) were categorized by their aim (e.g., promoting clarity, removing bias), linguistic category (e.g., lexical, grammatical), and the disciplines for which they are intended, among others. These basic categorizations revealed contradictions in how prescriptive and proscriptive rules are traditionally viewed in the linguistics community. Prescriptive and proscriptive rules are often referred to as "grammar rules," but the vast majority of the rules are, surprisingly, about lexis. As discussed by Curzan (2014), rules are often associated with arbitrary judgements regarding what constitutes "correct" or "standard" language, but rules can also be motivated by desirable values in writing such as clarity, concision, and bias-free language. Such basic categorizations and descriptions show the various layers of rules, furthering our understanding of rules and their study as a sociolinguistic phenomenon.To accomplish the second goal of the dissertation, 155 rules were analyzed in a corpus of reputable journal article writing in four disciplines (i.e., biology, history, psychology, mechanical engineering) during two periods (i.e., 1950, 2020). The corpus included 17,085 articles with 117,707,019 words. The corpus analyses provided insights into (i) which rules are violated more versus less often, (ii) what characteristics are shared by rules that tend to be violated more often, and (iii) which rules will likely continue to be followed or violated. A few of the major findings are as follows: (i) lexico-grammatical or grammatical rules are generally violated more often than lexical rules; (ii) surprisingly, some bias-free language rules are violated (e.g., the use of the biased terms opposite gender, opposite sex, and chairman); (iii) current academic writing violates the rules that proscribe the dense use of nominalizations, long noun-noun sequences, and adverbial uses of based on, and there is a considerable increase in the frequency of these features from 1950 to 2020, indicating that the rules proscribing these features will likely continue to be violated; (iv) academic writing in biology, psychology, and mechanical engineering include fewer agentless passive voice constructions in 2020 compared with 1950, and this decrease in the frequency of passive voice constructions is related to the increase in the use of the first-person pronoun we; and (v) the proscribed use of the relative pronoun which in restrictive relative clauses is mostly followed by academic writers, and adherence to this proscription has increased from 1950 to 2020. The findings of the dissertation have implications for the study of prescriptivism as a sociolinguistic phenomenon and for anyone involved in the writing, teaching, and/or editing of academic writing.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2023
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
650 4 $a Language arts. $3 532624
653 $a Academic writing
653 $a Corpus linguistics
653 $a Disciplinary writing
653 $a Prescriptivism
653 $a Proscriptivism
653 $a Style guides
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0279
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 783688
710 2 $a Northern Arizona University. $b English. $3 2095140
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-02A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29321169 $z click for full text (PQDT)