Differences in the structure of scientific discourse with individual and collaborative authorship of publications
- Autores: Voronin А.1, Rafikova A.1,2, Smirnov I.3, Stankevich М.3
-
Afiliações:
- Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences
- Federal Research Center for Information and Computational Technologies
- Edição: Volume 45, Nº 3 (2024)
- Páginas: 118–132
- Seção: Scientometric inpsychology
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/0205-9592/article/view/261999
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0205959224030107
- ID: 261999
Citar
Resumo
Within the framework of scientific discourse, the article occupies a central place in the construction and dissemination of knowledge in the scientific community. At the same time, collaborative authorship is becoming increasingly widespread in the scientific community. The syntactic and semantic differences between the texts of collaborations and individual authors present an urgent problem and remain poorly understood. This determines the purpose of the study — to identify differences in the structure of scientific discourse with individual and collaborative authorship of publications. At the preliminary stage of the study, an unstructured research interview was conducted on the specifics of writing scientific articles individually and as part of author teams. The main research is devoted to the analysis of the semantic and syntactic structure of texts using the method of relational situational analysis (RSA), which allows you to automatically identify the correspondence of the syntaxemic structure of a sentence to the logical structure of the actions described in this sentence. The study compared the texts of 201 scientific articles in Russian from the leading psychological journals included in WoS and Scopus, divided into corpora by type of authorship (individual-collaborative) and genres (theoretical articles and reviews vs empirical methodological articles). During the study, it was revealed that the articles written in collaboration have higher lexical coherence, they are more syntactically correct. The volume of the text of a scientific article on psychology is on average 9% more with individual authorship compared with collaborative writing. The semantic and syntactic differences between the texts of articles by individual authors and collaborations have a genre differentiation. In theoretical articles and reviews of collaborations, the syntactic complexity and semantic coherence of the text are higher, the traditional structure of the statement prevails: the thesis is briefly postulated and then fully justified. With individual authorship, the main idea is more often formulated after the context, while reformulation is more often used in the texts of individual authors. The meta-discourse in theoretical articles also differs significantly: the author’s position is more represented by individual authors, and “reader involvement” is in the case of co-authorship. In empirical and methodological articles, the main differences are revealed in the specifics of meta-discourse: the author’s position, unlike the genre of theoretical articles, is more inherent in the texts of collaborations.
Texto integral
Sobre autores
А. Voronin
Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: voroninan@bk.ru
Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor, Chief Researcher
Rússia, 129366, Moscow, Yaroslavskaya str., 13, bldg. 1A. Rafikova
Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences;
Email: antoninaraf@yandex.ru
Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Senior Researcher
Rússia, 129366, Moscow, Yaroslavskaya str., 13, bldg. 1I. Smirnov
Federal Research Center for Information and Computational Technologies
Email: ivs@isa.ru
Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Head of the Department
Rússia, 119333, Moscow, Vavilova str., 44, bldg. 2М. Stankevich
Federal Research Center for Information and Computational Technologies
Email: stankevich@isa.ru
Research Engineer
Rússia, 119333, Moscow, Vavilova str., 44, bldg. 2Bibliografia
- Bazhenova E.A. Struktura novogo znanija v nauchnom tekste. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. 2020. № 4(210). P. 144–151. doi: 10.23951/1609-624X-2020-4-144-151 (In Russian)
- Van Dejk T.A. Jazyk, poznanie, kommunikacija. Moscow: Progress, 1989. 312 p.
- Kvale S. Issledovatel’skoe interv’ju. Moscow: Smysl, 2003. 301 p. (In Russian)
- Osipov G.S., Smirnov I.V., Tihomirov I.A. Reljacionno-situacionnyj metod poiska i analiza tekstov i ego prilozhenija. Iskusstvennyj intellekt i prinjatie reshenij. 2008. № 2. P. 3–10. (In Russian)
- Smirnov I.V., Shelmanov A.O., Kuznecova E.S., Hramoin I.V. Semantiko-sintaksicheskij analiz estestvennyh jazykov. Chast’ II. Metod semantiko-sintaksicheskogo analiza tekstov. Iskusstvennyj intellekt i prinjatie reshenij. 2014. № 1 P. 11–24. (In Russian)
- Shejgal E.I., Deshevova V.V. Agonal’nost’ v kommunikacii: struktura ponjatija. Vestnik Cheljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2009. № 34 (172). P. 145–148. (In Russian)
- Bueno Alastuey M.C., Martínez de Lizarrondo Larumbe P. Collaborative writing in the EFL Secondary Education classroom: Comparing triad, pair and individual work. Huarte de San Juan. Filología y Didáctica de la Lengua. 2017. № 17. P. 254–275. URL: https://hdl.handle.net/2454/28503
- Bukhova H. Studying Research Collaboration: A Literature Review. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems. 2010. V. 10. № 3. URL: https://sprouts. aisnet.org/10.3
- Crismore A., Markkanen R., Steffensen M.S. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication. 1993. V. 10. № 1. P. 39–71.
- Fernandez Dobao A. Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2012. V. 21. № 1. P. 40–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
- Giorgi A., Giorgi В. Phenomenological psychology. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. Eds. C. Wilig, W. Stainton-Rogers. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2008. P. 165–178.
- Hyland K. Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes. 1999. V. 18. № 1. P. 3–26. doi: 10.1016/S08894906 (97)00025-2
- Hyland K. Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics. 2002. V. 34. № 8. P. 1091–1112.
- Hyland K. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies. 2005. V. 7. № 2. P. 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1461445605050365
- Hyland K. Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction. 2008. V. 1. № 1. P. 5–22. doi: 10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl
- Ivanic R., Camps D. I am how I sound Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2001. V. 10. № 1–2. P. 3–33. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00034-0
- Jalili M.H., Shahrokhi M. Impact of collaborative writing on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of Iranian EFL learners’ L2 writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research. 2017. V. 4. № 4. P. 13–28. URL: http://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/ 570/0
- Lehman I.M. Authorial presence in English academic texts: A comparative study of student writing across cultures and disciplines. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag, 2018. 254 p. doi: 10.3726/b14175
- Lehman I., Cybulska-Gómez de Celis K., SułkowskiL. Writing to make a difference: Discursive analysis of writer identity in research articles on management. Ibérica. 2022. № 44. P. 155–178. doi: 10.17398/2340-2784.44. 155
- Mann W.C., Thompson S.A. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 1988. V. 8. № 3. P. 243–281. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
- McDonough K., De Vleeschauwer J., Crawford W. Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System. 2018. V. 74. № 1. P. 109–120. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2018.02.010
- McDonough K., Fuentes C.G. The Effect of Writing Task and Task Conditions on Colombian EFL Learners’ Language Use. TESL Canada Journal. 2015. V. 32. № 2. P. 67–79. doi: 10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1208
- Morton J., Storch N. Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader’s perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2019. V. 43. P. 15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2018.02.004
- Olovson B. Are two heads better than one? A process and product analysis of collaborative writing in the Spanish as a foreign language classroom: Doctoral dissertation. Iowa Research Online Iowa, 2020.
- Peng J. Authorial voice constructed in citation in literature reviews of doctoral theses: Variations across training contexts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2019. V. 37. P. 11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.001
- Peng J.E., Zheng Y. Metadiscourse and Voice Construction in Discussion Sections in BA Theses by Chinese University Students Majoring in English. SAGE Open. 2021. V. 11. № 2. doi: 10.1177/21582440211008870
- Sarkhosh M., Najafi S. Collaborative and Individual Writing: Effects on Accuracy and Fluency Development. Porta Linguarum An International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. 2020. № 33. P. 27–42. doi: 10.30827/portalin.vi33.18124
- Savasci M., Kaygisiz S. One hand washes the other and both wash the face: Individuality versus collaboration in L2 writing. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2019. V. 5. № 1. P. 131–151. doi: 10.32601/ejal.543789
- Sheldon E. From I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes. 2009. V. 28. № 4. P. 251–265. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001
- Stell A. Exploring the use of collaborative writing in an EFL classroom context. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL. 2018. V. 13. P. 63–97. URL: https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/faculty-of-arts-and-social-sciences/research/research-centres- institutes-groups/uos-papers-in-tesol/volume-13/ article03.pdf
- Storch N. Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2005. V. 14. № 1. P. 153–173. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw. 2005.05.002
- Storch N. Collaborative writing. Language Teaching. 2019. V. 52. № 1. P. 40–59. doi: 10.1017/S0261444818000320
- Strobl C. Affordances of web 2.0 technologies for collaborative advanced writing in a foreign languageю CALICO Journal. 2014. V. 31. № 1. P. 1–18. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/calicojournal.31.1.1
- Vande Kopple W.J. Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication. 1985. V. 36. № 1. P. 82–93.
- Villarreal I., Gil-Sarratea N. The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research. 2020. V. 24. № 6. P. 874–897. DOI: 10.1177/ 1362168819829017
- Vold E.T. Modalité Épistémique et Discours Scientifique: Thèse Pour le Degré de Philosophiae Doctor (PhD). Bergen: Université de Bergen, 2008.
- Wigglesworth G., Storch N. Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracyю Language Testing. 2009. V. 26. № 3. P. 445–466. doi: 10.1177/0265532209104670