Text Redundancy in Academic Writing: A Scoping Review

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Background: Academic writing aims to communicate and disseminate new knowledge and discoveries effectively, necessitating a balance of brevity and thoroughness in the expression of scientific ideas. However, the quality of academic writing is often compromised by various factors that reduce clarity and readability. Among these — a well-known issue in general writing that remains insufficiently addressed in the academic context. Although studies have examined redundancy in written texts broadly, there is limited focus on its specific implications in academic writing. Currently, there is no shared understanding, of the problem in academic writing, nor a common classification, or comprehensive analysis of the causes and effects of redundancy in academic texts.

Purpose: This article seeks to map the existing literature on text redundancy, examining its definitions and types. It further investigates factors contributing to redundancy in academic writing and assesses the impact of text redundancy on the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of academic communication.

Materials and Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines and the “PCC” mnemonic (Population, Context, Concept) were applied to establish inclusion and exclusion criteria. A literature search was conducted in June 2024, employing a detailed search strategy across two electronic databases, Scopus and Google Scholar, initially yielding 252 studies.

Results: A total of 65 English-language studies on text redundancy were included in the review. The synthesis of these studies revealed diverse perspectives on redundancy: some view it as a detractor from text quality and comprehension, while others regard it as a strategy improve clarity and explicitness. Various classifications of redundancy emerged, including distinctions by mode of expression, nature, and role or impact. The review examined both the functions and implications of redundancy in academic written communication.

Conclusion: This review underscores the dual role of text redundancy in academic writing. Redundancy can enhance comprehension by reinforcing key points but may also hinder communication through excessive repetition. The study classifies redundancy into three main categories: functional (beneficial), wordiness (excessive), and contextual redundancy. This framework offers writers guidance on managing redundancy effectively. The article highlights the importance of balancing necessary repetition with conciseness to maintain clarity and reader engagement, noting that excessive redundancy may lead to reader fatigue.

About the authors

Elena Tikhonova

RUDN University

Email: etihonova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8252-6150
Moscow, Russia

Daria Mezentseva

Russian Biotechnological University

Email: mezenceva.d@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0004-3330-5289
Moscow, Russia

Petr Kasatkin

MGIMO University

Email: kasatkin@inno.mgimo.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1361-6747
Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Abdollahi-Guilani, M., Mirzaeifard, S., Aghaei, K., & Khojastehrad, S. (2012). Clashes of conciseness and wordiness between English and Persian verbs. Asian Social Science, 8(10), Article 10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n10p118
  2. Al-Qaddoumi, K., & Ageli, N. (2023). Redundancy and ellipsis in the translation into English of selected Arabic media texts.
  3. International Journal of Translation and Interpretation Studies, 3(2), 16-23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.32996/ijtis.2023.3.2.2
  4. Albers, F., Trypke, M., Stebner, F., Wirth, J., & Plass, J. L. (2023). Different types of redundancy and their effect on learning and cognitive load. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(S2), 339-352. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12592
  5. Alontseva, N. V., & Ermoshin, Y. A. (2019). The problem of language redundancy on the example of a scientific text.RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 10(1), 129-140. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2019-10-1-129-140
  6. Bartell, A. L., Schultz, L. D., & Spyridakis, J. H. (2006). The effect of heading frequency on comprehension of print versus online information. Technical Communication, 53, 416-425.
  7. Baten, L. (1981). Text comprehension: The parameters of difficulty in narrative and expository prose texts: A redefinition of readability [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois.
  8. Bazzanella, C. (2011). Redundancy, repetition, and intensity in discourse. Language Sciences, 33(2), 243-254. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.002
  9. Bensoussan, M. (1990). Redundancy and the cohesion doze. Journal of Research in Reading, 13(1), 18-37. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1990.tb00320.x
  10. Berdicevskis, A. (2015). Estimating grammeme redundancy by measuring their importance for syntactic parser performance. In R. Berwick, A. Korhonen, A. Lenci, T. Poibeau, & A. Villavicencio (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Learning (pp. 65-73). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W15-2410
  11. Bodenreider, O. (2003). Strength in numbers: Exploring redundancy in hierarchical relations across biomedical terminologies. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2003, 101-105.
  12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  13. Buscail, L., & Saint-Dizier, P. (2009). Textual and stylistic error detection and correction: Categorization, annotation, and correction strategies. 2009 Eighth International Symposium on Natural Language Processing, 205-210. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SNLP.2009.5340918
  14. Caballero, G., & Kapatsinski, V. (2014). Perceptual functionality of morphological redundancy in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1134-1143. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.940983
  15. Cao, M., & Zhuge, H. (2022). Automatic evaluation of summary on fidelity, conciseness, and coherence for text summarization based on semantic link network. Expert Systems with Applications, 206. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117777
  16. Chauhan, P. (2022). Fundamentals of academic writing: A literature review. Journal of NELTA, 27(1-2), 161-180. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v27i1-2.53201
  17. Chetail, F. (2015). Reconsidering the role of orthographic redundancy in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 645. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00645
  18. Darian, S. (1979). The role of redundancy in language and language teaching. System, 7(1), 47-59. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(79)90022-8
  19. Dasril, Zaim, M., & Ningsih, K. (2019). Coherence and unity of students' writing on background of the study of research proposals. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Education Social Sciences and Humanities. Atlantis Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2991/icesshum-19.2019.65
  20. Dawson, J. H. (1992). Avoid redundancy in writing. Weed Technology, 6(3), 782. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890037X0003623X
  21. De Beaugrande, R. (1980). Text discourse in European research. Discourse Processes, 3, 287-300.
  22. Demir, C. (2019). Writing intelligible English prose: Conciseness vs. verbosity. Söylem Filoloji Dergisi, 4(2), 482-505. DOI:https://doi.org/10.29110/soylemdergi.617184
  23. Dhivya, P., & Koperundevi, E. (2024). TBLT: Avoiding redundancy to reduce complexity. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 567-576.
  24. Every, B. (2017). Writing economically in medicine and science: Tips for tackling wordiness. Medical Writing, 26, 17-20.
  25. Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What can Goffman's Stigma tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 77-86. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002
  26. Forlini, G., Bauer, M. B., & Prentice-Hall, I. (1982). Prentice Hall Grammar and Composition: Level 4. Prentice Hall PTR.
  27. Freywald, U., & Finkbeiner, R. (2018). Exact repetition or total reduplication? Exploring their boundaries in discourse and grammar. In R. Finkbeiner & U. Freywald (Eds.), Exact Repetition in Grammar and Discourse (pp. 3-28). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110592498-001
  28. Gengshen, H. (1990). An exploration into sci-tech interpretations: Abstract interpreting approach. Babel, 36(2), 85-96. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.36.2.03gen
  29. Grant-Davie, K. (1995). Functional redundancy and ellipsis as strategies in reading and writing. JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory, 15(3), 455-469.
  30. Guerrero, F. G. (2009). A new look at the classical entropy of written English (arXiv:0911.2284). arXiv. DOI:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0911.2284
  31. Heltai, P. (2018). Explicitation, redundancy, ellipsis, and translation. In K. Károly & A. Fóris (Eds.), New trends in translation studies (pp. 45-74). Akadémiai Kiadó.
  32. Horning, A. S. (1979). On defining redundancy in language: Case notes. Journal of Reading, 22(4), 312-320.
  33. Horning, A. S. (1991). Readable writing: The role of cohesion and redundancy. Journal of Advanced Composition, 11(1), 135-145.
  34. Horning, A. S. (1993). The psycholinguistics of readable writing: A multidisciplinary exploration. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  35. Hunnicutt, S. (1985).Intelligibility versus redundancy - Conditions of dependency. Language and Speech, 28(1), 47-56. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098502800103
  36. Kravtchenko, E., & Demberg, V. (2022). Informationally redundant utterances elicit pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 225, 105159. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105159
  37. Kuhi, D. (2017). Hybridity of scientific discourses: An intertextual perspective and implications for ESP pedagogy. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 5(2), 61-80. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22049/JALDA.2018.26150.1048
  38. Lehmann, C. (2005). Pleonasm and hypercharacterisation. In G. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2005 (pp. 1-13). Springer. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4066-0_5
  39. Leufkens, S. (2023). Measuring redundancy: The relation between concord and complexity. Linguistics Vanguard, 9(s1), 95-106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0143
  40. Lotfipour-Saedi, K. (1982). Applying an analysis of writer-reader discourse processes to a pedagogy of reading [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Lancaster.
  41. Lotfipour-Saedi, K., & Sarhady, T. (2000). Redundancy, its discoursal function, and textual realizations in different genres. The International Journal of Humanities, 7(1), 31-41.
  42. Lynn, M. (2016). Conciseness is critical. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 57(4), 346-347. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965516665740
  43. Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51-81. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319800103X
  44. Marinashvili, M. (2020). Average word length and text redundancy variability: French texts case study. Polonia University Scientific Journal, 38, 67-75. DOI:https://doi.org/10.23856/3849
  45. McCrudden, M. T., Hushman, C. J., & Marley, S. C. (2013). Exploring the boundary conditions of the redundancy principle. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(4), 537-554. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.813368
  46. McGarry, J. (1975). Redundancy and entropy in language. The Journal of General Psychology, 93(1), 101-106.
  47. Mu, W., & Lim, K. (2022). Revision for concision: A constrained paraphrase generation task. arXiv. DOI:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.14257
  48. Newman, E. B., & Waugh, N. C. (1960). The redundancy of texts in three languages. Information and Control, 3(2), 141-153. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(60)90731-2
  49. Prasetyo, Y. (2015). Sentence conciseness in thesis abstracts of English department students. Jurnal Edukasi, 1(1), 71-80.
  50. Rahman, N., & Borah, B. (2021). Redundancy removal method for multi-document query-based text summarization. 2021 International Symposium on Electrical, Electronics and Information Engineering (pp. 568-574). ACM. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3459104.3459197
  51. Rasulov, Z., & Artikov, A. (2023). The principle of redundancy in compound sentences.Integration Conference on Intgration of Pragmalinguistics, Functional Translation Studies and Language Teaching Processes (vol. 2, pp. 48-51). Bukhara State University.
  52. Rathjens, D. (1985). The seven components of clarity in technical writing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 28(4), 42-46. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1985.6448848
  53. Rosie, A. M. (1973). Information and communication theory. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
  54. Schlesinger, I. M. (1966). The influence of sentence structure on the reading process (Technical Report No. 21). U.S. Office of Naval Research Information Systems Branch.
  55. Schlesinger, I. M. (1977). Production and comprehension of utterances. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  56. Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Is spoken text always better? Investigating the modality and redundancy effect with longer text presentation.Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1590-1601. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.047
  57. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  58. Shannon, C. E. (1951). Prediction and entropy of printed English. The Bell System Technical Journal, 30(1), 50-64. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1951.tb01366.x
  59. Skorikova, T. P. (2017). Linguo-pragmatic aspects of the study of Russian public academic speech genres.Russian Linguistic Bulletin, 4(12). DOI:https://doi.org/10.18454/RULB.12.05
  60. Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  61. Smith, F. (1978). Understanding reading (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  62. Soltani, K., & Kuhi, D. (2022). Writer responsibility across sections of research articles: Recycling of directional determinants by English and Iranian academics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 60. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101191
  63. Stanley, R. (1967). Redundancy rules in phonology. Language, 43(2), 393-436. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/411542
  64. Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9, 311-327. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12151
  65. Swales, J. (2014). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1075/z.184.513swa
  66. Thadani, K., & McKeown, K. (2008). A framework for identifying textual redundancy. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 873-880). ACM. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3115/1599081.1599191
  67. Tikhonova, E. V., & Mezentseva, D. A. (2024). Wordiness in academic writing: A systematic scoping review. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 133-157. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2024-10-1-0-8
  68. Trudgill, P. (2009). Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. In G. Sampson, D. Gil, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 98-109). Oxford University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199545216.003.0007
  69. Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford University Press.
  70. Tuinman, J. J., & Gray, G. (1972). The effect of reducing the redundancy of written messages by deletion of function words. The Journal of Psychology, 82(2), 299-306. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1972.9923820
  71. Wallwork, A., & Southern, A. (2020). Chapter 5: Readability and avoiding redundancy. In A. Wallwork & A. Southern (Eds.), 100 tips to avoid mistakes in academic writing and presenting (pp. 39-74). Springer International Publishing. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44214-9_5
  72. Wang, F. X. (2001). English-Chinese comparative semantics. Foreign Language Press.
  73. Watkowska, D. (2021). Redundancy in ELF: A corpus-based study on negative and modal concord. Anglica: An International Journal of English Studies, 30(2), 71-86. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7311/0860-5734.30.2.04
  74. Wit, E. C., & Gillette, M. (1999). What is linguistic redundancy? [Technical Report].https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.714.5763&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  75. Wolf, L., Pimentel, T., Fedorenko, E., Cotterell, R., Warstadt, A., Wilcox, E., & Regev, T. (2023). Quantifying the redundancy between prosody and text. arXiv. DOI:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.17233
  76. Xu, S. H. (1984). The redundancy of language. Modern Foreign Languages, 2, 3-8.https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:XDWY.0.1984-02-000.
  77. Xue, H., & Hwa, R. (2014). Redundancy detection in ESL writings. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 683-691). ACL. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/E14-1072
  78. Yang, Y. (2021). The investigation on redundancy errors in writing of Chinese English learners with different proficiency. Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Education, Language and Art. Atlantis Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220131.025
  79. Zola, D. (1981). The effect of redundancy on the perception of words in reading [Technical Report]. University of Illinoys.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.