Some linguistic features are proscribed in academic writing as they are considered too informal. However, from a descriptive perspective, the extent to which academic writers follow popular proscriptions is an empirical question. Although previous studies present important findings about the frequency of proscribed informality features in academic writing, they do not explore how many academic writers use these features because frequencies were typically not calculated per text (i.e., per article). Additionally, previous research may have included quotes in frequency counts. These methodological limitations are addressed in the current study, which examines (a) whether proscribed informality features are commonly used by a wide range of academic writers, (b) whether disciplines differ in their use of these features, and (c) whether the use of these features has changed over time. The findings show that academic writers tend to avoid many of the proscribed informality features, but some features such as initial conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs, first-person pronouns, and unattended references have higher frequency rates, which corroborates the findings of previous research. Unlike previous research, the current study shows that these high frequencies come from a few academic authors as most authors either use these features minimally or completely avoid them.
Early in the planning the Emory-Tibet Science Initiative, we realized that the encounter between Buddhism and contemporary science demanded that Buddhist logic and epistemology encounter Anglophone philosophy of science. A titanic clash of world views was anticipated, but as we began the conversation, we found something different. Many philosophical concerns were shared, but these problems were understood differently. While fundamental elements of epistemology, like observation and inference, had similar functions in both traditions, subtle differences in conceptualization challenged mutual intelligibility. Through thousands of years of erudite debate, each tradition had honed their tools. While each cut cleanly, they carved in different joints. This essay will briefly discuss the linguistic, philosophical, and pedagogical adjustments that made for mutual comprehensibility.
Manually coded data form the basis of many of our analyses in corpus linguistics. It is thus imperative that we work towards increased reliability and enhanced transparency in our coding practices, since failing to do so may ultimately lead us to draw erroneous conclusions about language. Using spoken data from a study on adverb usage for illustration, this methods paper discusses some strategies for identifying threats to the reliability of our coding and offers suggestions for how to mitigate these and ensure that our coding can be assessed and replicated. The paper also includes suggestions for best practices for manual linguistic coding and concludes with a discussion of the benefits of such practices. With this paper, we expand on the ongoing discussions in the field on issues of reliability and transparency as they relate to manual coding. We argue that while tests of inter-rater reliability offer a helpful starting point, further steps are needed to ensure increased reliability and transparency.
Academic writing is often referred to as “formal,” but the teaching and assessment of formality can be challenging as formality has been conceptualized in many ways. The goal of this study is to explore the elusive construct of formality in the context of academic writing, especially with regard to what formality means to academic writing instructors. We used instructors’ perceptions of formality (i) to identify relationships between the use of linguistic features in academic texts and perceptions of formality and (ii) to determine the extent to which the situational characteristics of texts (e.g., differences in audience, purpose, and discipline) are related to perceptions of formality. Specifically, we asked 72 academic writing instructors to rate the formality level of 60 short academic text excerpts on a five-point scale. The excerpts were sampled from two publication types (university textbooks, journal articles) in three disciplines (psychology, biology, history). Overall, the results indicate that perceptions of formality can be explained by both linguistic features and situational characteristics. As linguistic features and situational characteristics are intertwined, differences in perceptions of formality seem to be functionally motivated. Implications for the teaching of academic writing are discussed.
This special issue of Kronos fruitfully focuses on fraught issues related to persons who are missing and missed. Examining the processes involved in becoming ‘missing’, and how the categories related to being missing and missed are created, can offer ways to consider how historical knowledge and political meanings are produced and contested, as well as how diverse disciplinary formations and perspectives come together to constitute such knowledge and meanings. The papers attest to the instability, indeterminacy, and power relations that can pervade questions about evidence – numbers, events, memories, images, and a range of categories (what is a funeral? who is a ‘civilian’? who is counted among the dead?) – as narratives and knowledge about the missing are constituted across a range of contexts.
In this meta-analysis, we estimate the effectiveness of hybrid language instruction overall and across a number of moderator variables by aggregating effect sizes from 11 studies with 34 samples. Results suggest hybrid language instruction can be just as effective as traditional face-to-face (f2f) instruction, as indicated by the negligible differences between hybrid courses and traditional f2f courses (d = .14). Furthermore, studies employing within-group designs indicate that students in hybrid language classes can improve their language skills considerably (d = 1.47). This is a positive finding given that many institutions have experienced a surge in hybrid teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We also report on a number of moderator variables that can impact the effectiveness of hybrid language courses, including (a) the amount of reduction in f2f time, (b) the use of online activities provided by textbook publishers, (c) the use of a learning management system, (d) advances in digital technologies, (e) the targeted language skills (e.g., speaking, writing), and (f) whether the data come from initial or subsequent iterations of a hybrid course. Additionally, we offer directions for future research regarding the substantive and methodological issues in the hybrid language instruction domain.