DocuScope, multi-dimensional analysis, and student
writing
Comparisons across tagging systems and corpora
In this chapter, we present a method for
comparing tagging systems and patterns of disciplinary variation in
corpora of student writing. We begin by highlighting the affordances
of rhetorically and linguistically informed tagging systems by
highlighting similarities and differences in each system’s analysis
of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-Level Student Papers (MICUSP).
Results confirm that both taggers produce statistically robust
results in distinguishing disciplines across three dimensions and
also highlight commonalities and differences that reflect the
taggers’ respective theoretical orientations. Then, we present the
results of a DocuScope-driven comparison of the British Academic
Written English (BAWE) and MICUSP corpora and summarize topical and
rhetorical patterns of disciplinary writing that seem fairly stable
across national contexts. This chapter’s findings should prove
useful to scholars interested in comparative methodologies of corpus
analysis and rhetorical measures of disciplinary variation as well
as those who work in or research writing in the disciplines.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Data and methods
- 2.1Corpora description
- 2.2Data preparation and processing
- 2.3Multi-Dimensional Analysis (MDA)
- 3.Comparing rhetorically and linguistically oriented
dimensions
- 3.1Dimension 1
- 3.2Dimension 2
- 3.3Dimension 3
- 4.Comparing dimensions across national corpora
- 4.1Social, humanistic commentary versus object- and
process-oriented description
- 4.1.1Topical content: The world of people versus the world of objects and
processes
- 4.1.2Rhetorical modes: Evaluative commentary versus analytical
description
- 4.2Dialogic inquiry versus monologic narration
- 4.3Strategic planning for public good
- 5.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References (27)
References
Banks, D. (2017). The extent to which the passive voice is used in the scientific journal article, 1985–2015. Functional Linguistics, 4(1), 1–17.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation
across speech and
writing. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (1992). The
multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre
variation: An overview of methodology and
findings. Computers and the
Humanities, 26(5), 331–345.
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics
in corpus linguistics: A practical
guide. Cambridge University Press.
Citing
references. (n.d.). University
of Reading. Retrieved
on 20 January
2023 from [URL]
Claridge, C., & Kytö, M. (2021). Degree
and related phenomena in the history of English: Evidence of
usage and pathways of
change. Journal of English
Linguistics, 49(1), 3–17.
Egbert, J., & Biber, D. (2018). Do
all roads lead to Rome? Modeling register variation with
factor analysis and discriminant
analysis. Corpus Linguistics
and Linguistic
Theory, 14(2), 233–273.
Gardner, S., Biber, D., & Nesi, H. (2015). MDA
perspectives on discipline and level in the BAWE
corpus. Paper presented at
the International Corpus
Linguistics
Conference, Lancaster,
UK.
Gardner, S., Nesi, H., & Biber, D. (2019). Discipline,
level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new
MD analysis of university student
writing. Applied
Linguistics, 40(4), 646–674.
Geisler, C. (1991). Toward
a sociocognitive model of literacy: Constructing mental
models in a philosophical
conversation. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual
dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary
studies of writing in professional
communities (pp. 171–190). University of Wisconsin Press.
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic
literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and
knowing in academic
philosophy. Routledge.
Gray, B. (2013). More
than discipline: Uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of
variation in academic research
articles. Corpora, 8(2), 153–181.
Hardy, J. A., & Friginal, E. (2016). Genre
variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional
analysis. Journal of English
for Academic
Purposes, 22, 119–131.
Hardy, J. A., & 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.
Hyland, K. (2014). Disciplinary
discourses: Writer stance in research
articles. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing:
Texts, processes and
practices (pp. 99–121). Routledge.
McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Coh-Metrix:
An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural
language
processing. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied
natural language processing: Identification, investigation
and
resolution (pp. 188–205). IGI Global.
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres
across the disciplines: Student writing in higher
education. Cambridge University Press.
R Core
Team. (2021). R:
A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Riley, K. (1991). Passive
voice and rhetorical role in scientific
writing. Journal of Technical
Writing and
Communication, 21(3), 239–257.
Rorty, R. (2009). Philosophy
and the mirror of
nature. Princeton University Press.
Straka, M., & Straková, J. (2017). Tokenizing,
POS tagging, lemmatizing and parsing UD 2.0 with
UDPipe. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Sugimoto, C. R., & Weingart, S. (2015). The
kaleidoscope of
disciplinarity. Journal of
Documentation, 71(4), 775–794.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre
analysis: English in academic and research
settings. Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, V. L., Hupcey, J. E., & Clark, M. B. (2003). The development of trust in parents of hospitalized children. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 8(4), 137–147.
Wolfe, J., Olson, B., & Wilder, L. (2014). Knowing
what we know about writing in the disciplines: A new
approach to teaching for transfer in
FYC. The WAC
Journal, 25(1), 42–77.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
DeJeu, Emily Barrow
2024.
Topoi of Nonprofit Proposal Writing.
Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 87:1
► pp. 122 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 2024. 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.