A multidimensional analysis of L1–L2 differences across three advanced levels

References

• Ädel A, Erman B. 2012. Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes 31(2): 81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson D. 2001. Scientific discourse across history: A combined multi-dimensional/rhetorical analysis of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. In: Conrad S, Biber D (eds), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional Studies. London: Longman. pp. 45–65.
   Google Scholar
• Biber D. 1986. Spoken and Written textual dimensions in English: resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62(2): 384–414. doi: 10.2307/414678
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biber D. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Biber D, Conrad S, Reppen R, Byrd P, Helt M, Clark V, Cortes V, Csomay E, Urzua A. 2004. Representing Language Use in the University: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Biber D, Finegan E. 2001. Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In: Conrad S, Biber D (eds), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman. pp. 108–137.
   Google Scholar
• Biber D, Johansson S, Leech G, Conrad S, Finegan E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Cao Y, Xiao R. 2013. A multi-dimensional contrastive study of English abstracts by native and non-native writers. Corpora 8(2): 209–234. doi: 10.3366/cor.2013.0041
   Google Scholar
• Carrió-Pastor ML. 2013. A contrastive study of the variation of sentence connectors in academic English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12(3): 192–202. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2013.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chafe WL. 1985. Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In: Olson DR, Torrance N, Hildyard A (eds), Literacy, language and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 105–123.
   Google Scholar
• Conrad S. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8(3): 299–326. doi: 10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90025-X
   Google Scholar
• Conrad S. 2001. Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In: Conrad S, Biber D (eds), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman. pp. 94–107.
   Google Scholar
• Conrad S. 2014. Expanding multi-dimensional analysis with qualitative research techniques. In: Berber-Sardinha T, Veirano-Pinto M (eds), Multi-dimensional analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 273–294.
   Google Scholar
• Conrad S, Biber D (eds). 2001. Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Dalili MV, Dastjerdi HV. 2013. A contrastive corpus-based analysis of the frequency of discourse markers in NE and NNE media discourse: Implications for a ‘universal discourse competence’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(1): 39–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flowerdew J. 2010. Use of signaling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1): 36–55. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.02flo
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friginal E, Mustafa SS. 2017. A comparison of US-based and Iraqi English research article abstracts using corpora. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 25(1): 45–57. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.11.004
   Google Scholar
• Friginal E, Weigle S. 2014. Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing 26(4): 80–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.007
   Google Scholar
• Gao X. 2016. A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers’ use of linking adverbials in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24(4): 14–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.08.002
   Google Scholar
• Gardner S, Nesi H, Biber D. 2018. Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005
   Google Scholar
• Gilquin G, Paquot M. 2008. Too chatty: Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction 1(1): 41–61. doi: 10.1075/etc.1.1.05gil
   Google Scholar
• Gray B. 2013. More than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora 8(2): 153–181. doi: 10.3366/cor.2013.0039
   Google Scholar
• Gray B. 2015. Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy JA, Friginal E. 2016. Genre variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22(2): 119–131. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.03.002
   Google Scholar
• Hardy JA, Römer U. 2013. Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: a multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan corpus of upper-level student papers (MICUSP). Corpora 8(2): 183–207. doi: 10.3366/cor.2013.0040
   Google Scholar
• Heslot J. 1982. Tense and other indexical markers in the typology of scientific texts in English. In: J Hoedt et al. (eds), Pragmatics and LSP. Copenhagen: The Copenhagen School of Economics. pp. 83–103
   Google Scholar
• Hinkel E. 2002. Second language writer’s texts: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hinkel E. 2003. Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly 37(2): 275–301. doi: 10.2307/3588505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland K. 1998. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3): 349–382. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
   Google Scholar
• Hyland K. 2002. Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8): 1091–1112. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland K. 2005a. Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 16(4): 363–377. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002
   Google Scholar
• Hyland K. 2005b. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland K, Milton J. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2): 183–205. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
   Google Scholar
• Li LJ, Ge GC. 2009. Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985–2004). English for Specific Purposes 28(2): 93–104. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2008.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luzón MJ. 2009. The use of we in a learner corpus of reports written by EFL Engineering students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8(3): 192–206. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2009.04.001
   Google Scholar
• McCrostie J. 2008. Writer visibility in EFL learner academic writing: A corpus-based study. ICAME Journal 32(2): 97–114.
   Google Scholar
• Nwogu KN. 1997. The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes 16(2): 119–138. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)85388-4
   Google Scholar
• Pan F, Reppen R, Biber D. 2016. Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21(1): 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Paquot M. 2010. Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Petch-Tyson S. 1998. Writer/reader visibility in EFL written discourse. In: Granger S (ed.), Learner English on computer. London: Longman. pp. 107–118.
   Google Scholar
• Quirk R, Greenbaum S, Leech G, Svartvik J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Reppen R. 1994. Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
   Google Scholar
• Salazar D, Ventura A, Verdaguer I. 2013. A cross-disciplinary analysis of personal and impersonal features in English and Spanish scientific writing. In: Verdaguer I, Laso NJ, Salazar D (eds), Biomedical English: A corpus-based approach (Vol. 56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 121–143.
   Google Scholar
• Sheldon E. 2009. From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes 28(4): 251–265. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staples S, Reppen R. 2016. Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing 32(2): 17–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002
   Google Scholar
• Swales JM. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick B, Fidell L. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics (5th edn). Boston: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson P, Hunston S, Murakami A, Vajn D. 2017. Multi-Dimensional Analysis, text constellations, and interdisciplinary discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(2): 153–186. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.01tho
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Rooy B. 2008. A multi-dimensional analysis of student writing in Black South African English. English World-Wide 29(3): 268–305. doi: 10.1075/eww.29.3.03van
   Google Scholar
• Van Rooy B, Terblanche L. 2009. A multi-dimensional analysis of a learner corpus. Language and Computers 69(1): 239–254.
   Google Scholar
• Weigle S, Friginal E. 2015. Linguistic dimensions of impromptu test essays compared with successful student disciplinary writing: Effects of language background, topic, and L2 proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 18(2): 25–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.03.006
   Google Scholar