Examining scientific writing styles from the perspective of linguistic complexity

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 70, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 462-475

  Lu, Chao ^a,b   Bu, Yi ^b   Wang, Jie ^c   Ding, Ying ^b,d   Torvik, Vetle ^e   Schnaars, Matthew ^b   Zhang, Chengzhi ^a,c  

^a NANJING UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NANJING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d WUHAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LINGUISTICS;

HIGH IMPACT; LARGE SCALE DATA SETS; LINGUISTIC COMPLEXITY; MEASUREMENTS OF; NON-NATIVE; SCIENTIFIC WRITING; SENTENCE LENGTH; SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY;

TECHNICAL WRITING;

ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; PUBLISHING; SPEECH; WRITING;

EID: 85058984753     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.24126     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Ambekar, A., Ward, C., Mohammed, J., Male, S., & Skiena, S. (2009). Name-ethnicity classification from open sources. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 49–58), June 28–July 1, 2009, Paris, France.
2. Aziz, A., Fook, C.Y., & Alsree, Z. (2010). Computational text analysis: A more comprehensive approach to determine readability of reading materials. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 1(2), 200–219.
3. Bailey, M. (2011). Science editing and its effect on manuscript acceptance time. American Medical Writers Association Journal, 26(4), 147–152.
4. Beers, S.F., & Nagy, W.E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185–200.
5. Bergsma, S., Post, M., & Yarowsky, D. (2012). Stylometric analysis of scientific articles. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 327–337), July 8–14, 2012, Jelu Island, South Korea.
6. Billig, M. (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse and Society, 19(6), 783–800.
7. Bird, S., Klein, E., & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: Analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. Newton, MA: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
8. Brants, T. (2000). TnT: A statistical part-of-speech tagger. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing (pp. 224–231), April 29–May 4, 2000, Seattle, WA.
9. Brown, P.F., Pietra, V.J.D., Pietra, S.A.D., & Mercer, R.L. (1993). The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 263–311.
10. Campbell, D.A., & Johnson, S.B. (2001). Comparing syntactic complexity in medical and non-medical corpora. In Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium (pp. 90–94). November 3–7, 2001, Washington D.C.
11. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.
12. Crowhurst, M. (1991). Interrelationships between reading and writing persuasive discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 314–338.
13. Curry, M.J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 663–688.
14. Dan, K. & Christopher, D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 423–430), July 7–12, 2003, Sapporo, Japan.
15. De Clercq, O., & Hoste, V. (2016). All mixed up? Finding the optimal feature set for general readability prediction and its application to English and Dutch. Computational Linguistics, 42(3), 457–490.
16. DiStefano, P., & Howie, S. (1979). Sentence weights: An alternative to the T-Unit. English Education, 11(2), 98–101.
17. Dobao, A.F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58.
18. DuBay, W.H. (2004) The principles of readability. Retrieved from http://www.impact-information.com/impactinfo/readability02.pdf
19. Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84.
20. Engber, C.A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155.
21. Estival, D., Gaustad, T., Pham, S.B., Radford, W., & Hutchinson, B. (2007). Author profiling for English emails. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 263–272), September 19–21, 2007, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
22. Ferris, D.R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49–62.
23. Ferris, D.R. (1994a). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(1), 45–65.
24. Ferris, D.R. (1994b). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414–420.
25. Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243–264.
26. Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127–150.
27. Gebhardt, R. (1980). Teamwork and feedback: Broadening the base of collaborative writing. College English, 42(1), 69–74.
28. Holmes, D.I. (1994). Authorship attribution. Computers and the Humanities, 28(2), 87–106.
29. Huang, J.C. (2010). Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: Perspectives of NNES PhD students in science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 33–44.
30. Imai, K., & Khanna, K. (2016). Improving ecological inference by predicting individual ethnicity from voter registration records. Political Analysis, 24(2), 263–272.
31. Isajiw, W.W. (1993). Definition and dimensions of ethnicity: A theoretical framework. In Proceedings of the Joint Canada-United States Conference on the Measurement of Ethnicity (pp. 407–427). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32. Jang, S. (2007). A study of students’ construction of science knowledge: Talk and writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research, 49(1), 65–81.
33. Jarvis, S., & Paquot, M. (2015). Native language identification. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (p. 2015). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Juhasz, B.J. (2008). The processing of compound words in English: Effects of word length on eye movements during reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 1057–1088.
35. Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning and Technology, 16(1), 91–109.
36. Keys, C.W. (1994). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1003–1022.
37. Koppel, M., Schler, J., & Zigdon, K. (2005). Automatically determining an anonymous author's native language. In International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (pp. 209–217), 41–76. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
38. Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161.
39. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322.
40. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.
41. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.
42. Lowry, P.B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M.R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 66–99.
43. Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496.
44. Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62.
45. Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26(5), 359–389.
46. Mayfield, T.L., & Jones, R. (2001). You're not from round here, are you? Naive Bayes detection of non-native utterance text. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 2–7, 2001, Pittsburgh, PA.
47. Mišak, A., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2005). Manuscript editing as a way of teaching scientific writing: Experience from a small scientific journal. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(2), 122–131.
48. Nisioi, S. (2015, April). Feature analysis for native language identification. In International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (pp. 644–657). Cham: Springer.
49. Ojima, M. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three Japanese ESL writers. System, 34(4), 566–585.
50. Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518.
51. Polio, C.G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143.
52. Rabinovich, E., Nisioi, S., Ordan, N., & Wintner, S. (2016). On the similarities between native, non-native and translated texts. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1609.03204.
53. Scontras, G., Badecker, W., & Fedorenko, E. (2017). Syntactic complexity effects in sentence production. Cognitive Science 39(3), 559–583.
54. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532.
55. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657–677.
56. Shaw, P. (1991). Science research students’ composing processes. English for Specific Purposes, 10(3), 189–206.
57. Smith, B.N., Singh, M., & Torvik, V.I. (2013). A search engine approach to estimating temporal changes in gender orientation of first names. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital libraries (pp. 199–208), July 22–26, 2013, Indianapolis, IN.
58. Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W.D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(48), 12708–12713.
59. Torvik, V.I. (2015). MapAffil: A bibliographic tool for mapping author affiliation strings to cities and their geocodes worldwide. D-Lib Magazine: The Magazine of the Digital Library Forum, 21(11–12), 10.1045/november2015–torvik.
60. Torvik, V.I., & Agarwal, S. (2016). Ethnea: An instance-based ethnicity classifier based on geo-coded author names in a large-scale bibliographic database. Paper presented at International Symposium on Science of Science, March 22–23, 2016, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
61. Treeratpituk, P. & Giles, C.L. (2012). Name-ethnicity classification and ethnicity-sensitive name matching. In Proceedings of the 26th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1141–1147), July 22–26, 2012, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
62. Tsvetkov, Y., Twitto, N., Schneider, N., Ordan, N., Faruqui, M., Chahuneau, V., … & Dyer, C. (2013). Identifying the L1 of non-native writers: the CMU-Haifa system. In Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp. 279–287), June 13, 2013, Atlanta, GA.
63. Tweedie, F.J., & Baayen, R.H. (1998). How variable may a constant be? Measures of lexical richness in perspective. Computers and the Humanities, 32(5), 323–352.
64. Vajjala, S., & Meurers, D. (2012). On improving the accuracy of readability classification using insights from second language acquisition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using NLP (pp. 163–173), July 8–14, 2012, Jelu Island, South Korea.
65. Wang, L., & Chen, G. (2008). A corpus-based study on nominalizations in argumentative essays of Chinese EFL learners. Foreign Languages in China, 5(5), 54–110.
66. Wong, S.M.J., & Dras, M. (2011). Exploiting parse structures for native language identification. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1600–1610), July 27–31, 2011, Edinburgh, U.K.
67. Yang, W., Lu, X., & Weigle, S.C. (2015). Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 53–67.
68. Yang, Y.H., Marslenwilson, W.D., & Bozic, M. (2017). Syntactic complexity and frequency in the neurocognitive language system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(9), 1605–1620.
69. Yarrow, F., & Topping, K.J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282.
70. Ye, J., Han, S., Hu, Y., Coskun, B., Liu, M., Qin, H., & Skiena, S. (2017). Nationality classification using name embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 1897–1906), November 6–10, 2017, Singapore, Singapore.
71. Zhang, C., Bu, Y., Ding, Y., & Xu, J. (2018). Understanding scientific collaboration: Homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(1), 72–86.