Source Work in China-Based and Western SSCI Journal Articles: Preferences of Reporting Structures of English Academic Articles Published in China and in English-Speaking Countries

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the use of reporting verbs (RVs) in China-based and Western SSCI indexed English journal articles. Writing samples (N=168) are compared in terms of the frequencies of RVs, selection of high-frequency RVs and the evaluative orientations of RVs. The results suggest that whereas both English academic articles published in China and English academic articles published in English-speaking countries use similar varieties of RVs. Using the resources of appraisal theory, we found that English academic articles published in Chinas use fewer discourse RVs; they tend to use more neutral RVs, providing no overt intersubjective stance on the cited evidence, whereas English academic articles published in English-speaking countries favor more positive RVs to endorse the evidence during the argument. In particular, English academic articles published in China rarely employ negative and critical RVs. Academic writers’ preferences of RVs are not only due to their language proficiency, but also due to their discursive tradition and underlying cultural values. They also have to do with the journals’ coverage of topics and attitude toward academic debates and original thinking. The comparative findings have implications for English academic articles published in China, especially those based in non-English-speaking countries, when they try to use RVs to develop authorial stance in English: that is, to distinguish the semantic stance of RVs and cultivate cross-language and -culture awareness.