Một nghiên cứu dựa trên ngữ liệu về động từ tường thuật được sử dụng trong các bài báo thuộc ngành giảng dạy tiếng Anh của tác giả bản ngữ và phi bản ngữ
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
135
ACORPUS-BASED STUDYON REPORTING VERBS
USED IN TESOLRESEARCHARTICLES
BYNATIVEAND NON-NATIVE WRITERS
Duong My Tham*1, Tran Phuong Nhi2
1. Ho Chi Minh City University of Economics and Finance (UEF),
141 Dien Bien Phu Street, Ward 15, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2. Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH),
475A Dien Bien Phu Street, Ward 25, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Received 18 November 2020
Revised 7 January 2021; Accepted 10 May 2021
Abstract: This corpus-based research aimed to compare the use of reporting verbs in TESOL
research articles between non-native and native English writers. Two corpora including 30 for the non-
native corpus and 30 for the native corpus were constructed for analysis. The data in the form of plain
text were processed via AntConc software version 3.5.7. The findings indicated significant differences
in terms of frequency, function, and position between the two corpora. Specifically, more reporting
verbs were found in the non-native corpus than in the native corpus. Of four verb groups of Argue, Find,
Show, and Think, Argue group was the top priority used in TESOL research articles by both non-native
and native English authors. The results of the functional and positional analysis in both the corpora also
showed that two most common functions of reporting verbs were (1) presentation and (2) evaluation
and examination, and most of the observed reporting verbs were in neutral position.
Keywords: corpus, frequency, function, position, reporting verb, research article
1. Introduction*
difficult to use reporting verbs accurately
(Bloch, 2010; Manan & Noor, 2014).
One of the most important aspects of
academic writing is using reporting verbs to
show the references of other authors’
literature (Yeganeh & Boghayeri, 2015).
How to use reporting verbs
appropriately is very critical in academic
writing, but it is likely to be underestimated
in research although reporting verbs are one
Charles (2006) has affirmed that appropriate
of the most important grammatical items in
reporting verbs can show a writer’s opinion
about others’ ideas. In reality, however,
Yeganeh and Boghayeri (2015) have
explored that “non-native students often fail
to use [reporting verbs] appropriately in their
writing” (p. 583). It can be assumed that
novice or non-native English writers find it
writing statements (Hyland, 1998). Non-
native English writers may overlook the
suitability of reporting verbs used for a
certain statement in their writing (Manan &
Noor, 2014). Similarly, Bloch (2010) has
recognized that writers use reporting verbs
repeatedly in their research and pay less
* Corresponding author.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
136
attention to effects of the reporting verbs
used on the research.
Categorization of reporting verbs
It is recognized that reporting verbs
are categorized based on the framework of
Thompson and Ye (1991) and Hyland
(1999). Thompson and Ye (1991)
conducting the first research on classifying
reporting verbs have divided reporting verbs
into three groups: Textual verbs, Mental
verbs and Research verbs. Thompson and Ye
(1991) have pinpointed the differences
among the three groups: (1) Textual verbs
(e.g., state or indicate) show a writer’s
stance, (2) Mental verbs (e.g., believe or
think) show a writer’s thinking, and (3)
Research verbs (e.g., find or explore) refer to
There have been studies addressing
the comparison regarding the use of
reporting verbs between native and non-
native writers; however, only a limited
number of research on reporting verbs used
in TESOL research articles has been under
investigation. Therefore, this paper was
conducted to scrutinize differences in using
reporting verbs in three aspects, namely
frequency, function, and position in TESOL
research articles between non-native and
native English authors.
1. What are similarities and
differences in terms of frequency of
reporting verbs in TESOL research articles
written by non-native and native English
authors?
a
writer’s interpretation. Based on
Thompson and Ye’s (1991) classification,
Hyland (1999, 2002) has also introduced
three types of reporting verbs, namely
Discourse Acts, Cognition Acts, and
Research Acts. It can be noticed that Hyland
(1999, 2002) used the terms of Discourse
and Cognition Acts instead of Textual and
Mental verbs. While Cognition-related verbs
(e.g., assume, believe, conceptualize, etc.)
involving mental process and Discourse-
related verbs (e.g., discuss, report, state, etc.)
relating to linguistic activities showing a
writer’s point of view to evaluate cited
studies, Research Acts consisting of verbs
describing experimental activities conducted
in the real life are elaborately classified with
three sub-groups, namely factive verbs (e.g.,
demonstrate, establish, show, etc.), counter-
factive verbs (e.g., fail, ignore, overlook,
etc.), and non-factive verbs (e.g., investigate,
identify, observe, etc.).
2. What are similarities and
differences in terms of functions and
positions of reporting verbs in TESOL
research articles written by non-native and
native English authors?
2. Literature Review
Definition of reporting verbs
Charles (2006, p. 326) has defined
reporting verbs as a tool “to give credit to
other researchers to use their work in the
cumulative construction of knowledge”
while Hyland (1999) and Thompson and Ye
(1991) have argued that reporting verbs
showing writers’ behavior to other
researchers’ work are indispensable
linguistic features. Also, reporting verbs is
viewed as a lexical device to help writers to
state their viewpoints and connect with
readers (Hyland, 2005). These definitions
support one another, which provides readers
with insightful understanding of reporting
verbs used in research.
In another aspect, Francis, Hunston
and Manning’s (1996) have presented a
framework of reporting verb categorization
that is different from the aforementioned
frameworks. In Figure 1, there are four types
of reporting verbs: Argue group, Find group,
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
137
Show group, Think group as follows.
Concerning functions of reporting
verbs, Weissberg and Buker (2007) have
indicated three functions of reporting verbs:
(1) to present the background information
about the research conducted, (2) to inform
readers about how much the writer is
familiar with the study areas and (3) to relate
the research to the literature. In addition,
writers use the references from others’
previous studies to strengthen their claims
and show the significance of the work
reported (Petric, 2007). To help readers use
reporting verbs appropriately, University of
Adelaide Writing Center (2014) has
provided a guide to functions of reporting
verbs categorized into 13 groups (e.g.,
addition, advice, agreement, argument and
• Argue verbs involving how a writer
makes an argument and creates a
position on studied issues (e.g.,
argue, claim, indicate, point out,
suggest, etc.).
• Find verbs concerning what writers
find in research (e.g., discover,
establish, find, observe, realize, etc.).
• Show verbs referring to a true
situation or a fact in research cases
(e.g., demonstrate, reveal show, etc.).
• Think verbs relating to the writer’s
thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and
understanding (e.g., assume, believe,
feel, think, hope, etc.).
With reference to positions of
reporting verbs, Figure 1 shows three
degrees of strength introduced by RMIT
University Study and Learning Center
(2012). The first group including tentative or
weak reporting verbs are suitable for making
persuasion,
believing,
conclusion,
disagreement and questioning, discussion,
emphasis, evaluation and examination,
explanation, presentation, & suggestion).
To sum up, Hyland (1999) and
Thompson and Ye (1991) have classified
reporting verbs into three categories:
Research Acts/ Research verbs, Cognition
assumptions,
questions
or
recommendations, etc. in research. The
second group which is composed of neutral
reporting verbs is used for expressing
narrative sentences or citing references from
other research without expressing attitudes.
The last group - strong reporting verbs - is
adopted to affirm, emphasize or show
attitudes and feelings towards the ideas cited
in the research. Likewise, Writing Center of
University of Adelaide (2014) has proposed
three types of position of reporting verbs,
viz. weak position (e.g., admit, confuse,
comment, doubt, hope, etc.), neutral position
(e.g., accept, analyze, believe, disagree,
discuss, find, recognize, report, suggest, etc.)
and strong position (e.g., argue, complain,
convince, emphasize, promise, recommend,
warn, etc.).
Acts/Mental
verbs
and
Discourse
Acts/Textual verbs, whereas Francis et al.
(1996) have presented four types of
reporting verbs including Argue verbs, Find
verbs, Think verbs, Show verbs. Each
categorization of reporting verbs has its own
characteristics. This study adopted Francis et
al.’s (1996) classification of reporting verbs
as a theoretical framework because of its
clarity and popularity. In particular, this
framework has been adapted by several
researchers (e.g., Charles, 2006; Friginal,
2013; Bloch, 2009). More importantly, it is
aligned with the aim of the study.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
138
Figure 1
Three Degrees of Strength of Reporting Verbs in Terms of Positions
Previous studies
Prior studies have indicated that the
sections of Introduction and Literature
Review in research articles written by native
Persian and English writers. There were two
corpora of 60 research articles (i.e., 30
belonging to native English researchers and
30 belonging to Persian ones). The findings
indicated a few differences in the use of
reporting verbs between the corpora. In
particular, more reporting verbs in Argue
group were found in research articles written
by English authors than Persian ones
although this verb group was the most used
by both the Persian and the English writers.
In terms of functions, moreover, there were
some differences in using verbs and subjects
grammatically, but the common pattern in
both the corpora was “an integral citation, a
human subject and a present tense [Argue]
use of reporting verbs by native and non-
native researchers has been compared and
contrasted in many studies to find out
differences between the two groups.
Jafarigohar and Mohammadkhani (2015)
analyzed the use of reporting verbs by native
and non-native writers in 63 articles on
TESOL and Applied Linguistics. The results
of their study showed significant differences
in patterns and options of reporting verbs
despite no differences in size and frequency
of reporting verbs between native and non-
native writers.
Furthermore,
Yeganeh
and
Boghayeri (2015) investigated frequency
and functions of reporting verbs used in the
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
139
verb” (Yeganeh & Boghayeri, 2015, p. 586).
and constructions in which the context is
reduced to the lexical elements with a
particular grammatical element or structure.
Recently, Yilmaz and Erturk (2017)
carried out a study comparing frequency,
functions, and positions of reporting verbs
between Turkish and native English writers.
Two corpora of 160 research articles relating
to English Language Teaching were
constructed for corpus-based analysis. As
for frequency, the findings showed that more
reporting verbs were used by non-native
authors than native counterparts. In respect
of functions, six reporting verbs which were
frequently used on both the corpora have the
function of presentation (e.g., report and
show), evaluation and examination (e.g.,
examine and investigate), and conclusion
and suggestion (e.g., find and suggestion);
especially, three reporting verbs (e.g.,
revealed, indicated, & observed) were
overused by non-native writers. Concerning
positional analysis, it was indicated that both
groups of researchers only used reporting
verbs in neutral position, except one strong
reporting verb found in the native corpus.
Finally,
concordances
provide
the
occurrence of a match of the search
expression in a user-defined context, often
the whole clause/sentence. In this study, the
frequency list (i.e. frequency) and
concordances (i.e. functions) of reporting
verbs were examined. In terms of research
methods, furthermore, the quantitative
method was used as it identifies a research
problem based on the statistics and figures
from the collected research results
(Creswell, 2012).
Corpus
In this study, 60 research articles
were purposively chosen and collected from
TESOL journals which were divided into
two corpora: 30 research articles written by
non-native English researchers contain
183,807 words and 10,262 word types, and
30 research articles written by native English
researchers have 165,838 words and 11,221
word types. The total words in both corpora
are 349,645. The research articles were
selected based on the following criteria: (1)
they must be published on scholarly journals
with high h-index, (2) they must contain
integral sections, namely introduction,
literature review, methodology, results and
discussion, and conclusion, and (3) they
were published from 2009 to 2019.
In brief, the previous studies have
addressed the differences in frequency,
functions, and positions of reporting verbs
between native and non-native writers. In
this study, both differences and similarities
in terms of frequency, function, and position
of reporting verbs used in TESOL research
articles between native and non-native
authors are under investigation.
3. Methodology
Data collection
Firstly, a wide range of TESOL
journals from the websites such as
Research design
A corpus-based study refers to the
computerized retrieval and subsequent
analysis of linguistic elements and structures
from corpora (Gries, 2008). Ellis (2008) also
introduced three corpus-linguistic methods
for analyzing data. First, frequency lists and
collocate lists or collocations construct the
most decontextualized methods ignoring the
context in which an utterance or a sentence
is produced. Second, there are colligations
and
https://www.jstor.org were chosen and
classified into two corpora, namely non-
native corpus and native corpus based on the
biodata of the writers in the articles and on
research articles were selected and
categorized. The first corpus includes
Then,
60
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
140
research articles written by non-native
English writers from non-English speaking
countries (e.g., Bangladesh, Brazil, China,
Indonesia, India, Iran, Israel, Libya, Persia,
Singapore, Somalia, Thailand, Turkey, and
Vietnam). The second corpus contains
research articles written by native English
writers from English speaking countries
(e.g., Australia, Britain, Canada, New
Zealand, and The United States).
tokens of reporting verbs were found in the
non-native corpus. More specifically, Argue
group was most used with 953 tokens
(65.9%) and followed by Find group, Think
group, and Show group with the tokens of
274 (18.94%), 157 (10.85%), and 62
(4.28%) respectively.
Table 1
Frequencies of Reporting Verbs Used in 30
TESOL Research Articles by Non-Native
Writers
Data analysis
The frequency of reporting verbs was
statistically calculated based on Francis et
al.’s (1996) taxonomy, and function together
with position of reporting verbs was
analyzed based upon the classifications of
reporting verbs proposed by RMIT
University Study and Learning Center
(2012) and University of Adelaide Writing
Center (2014). It is noticed that only the
main content of the articles was selected to
assure the accuracy of the collected data, so
some irrelevant parts such as keywords,
name of journals, ISSN, page numbers,
received/accepted/published date, DOI,
URL, appendix, and references were
manually removed. Additionally, all the
articles were originally in PDF-format.
Thus, all texts in the corpora were converted
to plain text format so that the researchers
could analyze the data relating to reporting
verbs by means of AntConc - a free
n=1,446
Group Reporting verb
F
%
agree
151 10.44
61 4.22
argue
criticize
disagree
emphasize
explain
indicate
inform
mention
realize
7
0.48
20 1.38
11 0.76
83 5.74
253 17.50
44 3.04
40 2.77
17 1.18
Argue
recognize
report
6
0.41
62 4.29
128 8.85
70 4.84
953 65.90
12 0.83
11 0.76
state
suggest
concordance
software
program
for
Windows. To increase the reliability of the
study, besides, the researchers ran the data of
the corpora using AntConc software version
3.5.7 four times to cross-check the
consistency among the times.
analyze
establish
Find explore
5
0.35
find
183 12.66
63 4.36
274 18.94
18 1.24
44 3.04
investigate
4. Results and Discussion
Frequency of RVs used in TESOL research
articles
demonstrate
describe
Show
As can be seen in Table 1, 1,446
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
141
62 4.28
243 39.26
believe
Think hope
think
56 3.87
0.55
analyze
discover
establish
explore
find
23 3.72
8
9
1.45
93 6.43
31 5.00
24 3.88
151 24.39
Find
157 10.85
On the other hand, regardless of the
same positions for Argue and Find groups,
there was a slight difference between Show
and Think groups in 30 research articles
written by the native writers compared to
those by the non-native writers. As
demonstrated in Table 2, in particular, the
figures for Argue and Find groups that were
also identified as the first and second places
had an inconsiderable difference (i.e.,
39.26% & 39.09%). Show group, however,
occupied the third position with 105 tokens
(16.96%), and Think group was ranked
fourth with a tiny number of tokens at 29,
accounting for 4.68% despite the third place
as depicted in Table 1.
investigate
4
0.65
242 39.09
15 2.42
56 9.05
34 5.49
105 16.96
29 4.68
29 4.68
demonstrate
Show describe
reflect
Think believe
To shed light on the difference in
terms of reporting verb use in TESOL
research articles between two groups of
writers, a comparison is necessarily
provided. As observed in Figure 2, far more
reporting verbs were found in 60 RAs
produced by the non-native writers than the
native counterparts. Noticeably, the figure
for RVs in Argue group used by non-native
writers (65.90%) approximately doubled
that for the native authors (39.26%), whereas
the native researchers are more likely to
employ RVs in Find group than the non-
native researchers, reaching 39,09%
compared to 18.94% for the non-native ones.
The similar pattern can be seen for Think
and Show groups. That is, the percentage of
RVs in Think group found in the non-native
corpus (10.85%) probably doubled that of
the native corpus (4.68%) whilst the figure
for RVs in Show group used in the native
corpus (16.96%) was four times higher than
that in the non-native corpus (4.28%).
Table 2
Frequencies of Reporting Verbs Used in 30
TESOL Research Articles by Native Writers
n=619
Group Reporting verb
F
%
acknowledge
argue
7
1.13
15 2.42
25 4.03
address
confirm
criticize
9
5
3
6
1.45
0.81
0.48
0.97
Argue disagree
explain
indicate
mention
realize
report
45 7.27
23 3.72
13 2.10
92 14.86
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
142
Figure 2
writers tended to employ more reporting
verbs in their TESOL articles than the native
authors did. This is in line with Yilmaz and
Erturk’s (2017) conclusion that Turkish
researchers used reporting verbs more
frequently than native English ones. This
finding, however, is different from
Jafarigohar and Mohammadkhani’s (2015)
finding indicating the mostly equal number
of reporting verbs used by both native and
non-native writers. More specifically,
among four reporting verb groups (e.g.,
Argue, Find, Show, & Think), Argue and
Find groups were the most and the second
most commonly used by both groups of
writers in spite of the different size.
Similarly, Yeganeh and Boghayeri (2015)
concluded that both Persian and English
authors used reporting verbs in Argue group
most frequently, and Think group was
identified as the second priority for the
native English writers, whereas Find group
was the Persian writers’ second option. In
Distribution of Reporting Verbs Found in
the Research Articles Written by Non-Native
and Native Authors
Non-native corpus
10.85%
4.28%
18.94%
65.90%
Argue
Find
Show
Think
Native corpus
4.68%
16.96%
Veerachaisantikul’s
(2016)
study
39.26%
investigating reporting verbs used in EFL
English majors’ research projects, Argue
and Think group occupied the first and
second positions with high percentages.
However, Uba (2020) found out that find
(first place), show (second place), and
indicate (third place) are the most frequent
affirmative reporting verbs in Applied
Linguistics research articles, i.e., the authors
gave first priority to Find group and then to
Show group and Argue group, which is
39%
Argue
Find
Show
Think
In summary, both the native and non-
native researchers employed reporting verbs
in Argue, Find, Show, and Think groups.
However, the native writers tended to use
fewer reporting verbs than the non-native
counterparts did. RVs in Argue group were
most commonly used in both groups of
writers, followed by Find group with a
moderate use. The least used verb groups
were Show and Think in spite of a bit
difference in frequency of RVs between the
native and non-native writers.
supported
by
the
findings
of
Veerachaisantikul’s (2016).
Functions and Positions of RVs used in
TESOL research articles
In Argue group, it can be observed
in Table 3 that more reporting verbs were
variously employed in research articles
produced by the non-native writers. That is
to say, these reporting verbs varied in
function. Regarding the functions, most of
the reporting verbs used in the research
As presented earlier, the results of
the present study showed that the non-native
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
143
articles of both groups of writers were
neutral. It is noteworthy that RVs in Argue
group had a variety of functions, viz.
showing writers’ position in RAs written by
the non-native group, whereas only one
strong reporting verb was found for the
native group. This means that the non-native
researchers made stronger claims than the
native ones in their research articles.
agreement,
disagreement,
argument,
emphasis,
conclusion,
evaluation,
explanation, presentation, and suggestion.
There were two strong reporting verbs
Table 3
Functions and Positions of RVs in Argue Group Used by Native and Non-Native English
Writers
Native
Non-native
Position
Position
Function
RV
Function
RV
W
N
S
W
N
S
agreement
argument
acknowledge
argue
X
agreement
argument
agree
argue
X
X
X
evaluation and
examination
presentation
agreement
address
confirm
X
X
criticize
X
X
disagreement disagree
evaluation
and
criticize
X
emphasis
emphasize
X
examination
disagreement disagree
X
explanation
explain
X
explanation
presentation
presentation
conclusion
presentation
explain
indicate
mention
realize
report
X
X
presentation
presentation
presentation
conclusion
agreement
indicate
inform
mention
realize
recognize
report
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
presentation
presentation
suggestion
state
suggest
Note: W=Weak, N=Neutral, S=Strong
The results in Table 4 show that
native English writers used more reporting
verbs in Find group than the non-native
writers. In terms of function, both groups of
writers used reporting verbs with quite
the reporting verbs in Find group were used
in a neutral position. Only one verb was
identified as a strong reporting verb (e.g.,
establish). It can be stated that there were no
significant differences in terms of function
of reporting verbs for Find group between
the native and non-native researchers.
similar
functions
(e.g.,
conclusion,
emphasis, evaluation, examination) as
illustrated in Table 5. In addition, almost all
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
144
Table 4
Functions and Positions of RVs in Find Group Used by Native and Non-Native English Writers
Native Non-native
Position
Position
Function
RV
Function
RV
W N
S
W N
S
evaluation and
examination
analyze
X
X
evaluation
analyze
X
conclusion
discover
establish
presentation
establish
explore
X
presentation
X emphasis
X
X
evaluation and
examination
emphasis
explore
find
X
X
X
find
evaluation and
examination
evaluation and
examination
investigate
X
evaluation and
examination
investigate
Note: W=Weak, N=Neutral, S=Strong
In respect of Show group, Table 5
demonstrates that native English writers
used reporting verbs (e.g., demonstrate,
describe, & reflect) in their research articles
to express their neutral opinions about the
issues they are discussing or presenting.
Similarly, non-native writers used reporting
verbs (e.g., demonstrate & describe). As
seen in Table 3, furthermore, more reporting
verbs in Show group were used by the native
writers than the non-native counterparts.
This can be interpreted that the former group
found it useful to use reporting verbs in this
group for their research articles.
Table 5
Function and Position of RVs in Show Group Used by Native and Non-Native English Writers
Native
Non-native
Position
Position
Function
RV
Function
RV
W N S
W N S
Presentation demonstrate
Presentation describe
X
X
X
Presentation demonstrate
Presentation describe
X
X
Presentation reflect
Note: W=Weak, N=Neutral, S=Strong
In contrast, the use of reporting verbs
in Think group by the native English writers
is limited in either size or type. Evidently,
they hardly ever used reporting verbs in
Think group for their TESOL research
articles as shown in Table 3, and only one
strong reporting verb (e.g., believe) was
found in the 30-article native corpus.
Meanwhile, the non-native writers used a
wide range of reporting verbs from strong
degree to weak degree (e.g., believe, think,
& hope) to present their ideas about what
they are discussing. As reported in Table 6,
noticeably, there was one weak reporting
verb (e.g., hope) with the aim to make their
claims less strong.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
145
Table 6
Functions and Positions of RVs in Think Group Used by Native and Non-Native English Writers
Native
Non-native
Position
W N
Position
W N
Function
RV
Function
RV
S
S
believing believe
X
believing believe
believing hope
believing think
X
X
X
Note: W=Weak, N=Neutral, S=Strong
In short, a bit more reporting verbs
with different functions and positions were
used in the TESOL research articles written
by the non-native writers than the native
ones, and neutral reporting verbs were more
commonly employed than strong and weak
ones. Turning to the details, reporting verbs
in Argue and Find groups are preferred to
those in Show and Think groups. The big
difference in the use of reporting verbs
between the two groups of writers is that the
non-native researchers seemed to favor
reporting verbs in Argue group over the
remaining groups while the native writers
probably used reporting verbs in Argue and
Find groups almost equally.
As regards positional analysis, the
findings demonstrated that most of the
reporting verbs were used in neutral position
except for two stronger reporting verbs in
both of the corpora and one weaker verb in
the non-native corpus. Similarly, Yilmaz and
Erturk (2017) confirmed that native and non-
native authors avoided including weaker and
stronger verbs in their studies. Instead, they
tended to use more neutral verbs. This
tendency can be explained that neutral
reporting verbs may reduce the strength or
weakness of claims with the use of strong
and weak reporting verbs respectively.
Additionally, it is worth noting that two
strong reporting verbs (e.g., argue &
emphasize) were discovered in the non-
native corpus, whereas only one strong verb
(e.g., argue) was observed in the native
corpus. This means that the native English
writers used less reporting verbs in a strong
position than the non-native counterparts.
This result is likely to be different from
Yilmaz and Erturk’s (2017) finding that
there was only one strong verb (e.g., argue)
used by the native writers.
According to the aforementioned
findings, there were no significant
differences in function of reporting verbs
between the two corpora; especially,
presentation and evaluation and examination
were the top functions used by both the
native and non-native researchers. These
functions probably cover all three functions
proposed by Weissberg and Buker (2007).
This can be inferred that these functions are
equally significant and commonly-used in
research, so authors consider using them in
their studies regardless of their nationality.
In fact, Yilmaz and Erturk (2017) reported
the similar results emphasizing no
differences in terms of the variety of RV
functions and presenting top three functions,
namely presentation, evaluation and
examination, and conclusion and suggestion.
5. Conclusion
This corpus-based study included
two corpora of reporting verbs in 60 TESOL
research articles (i.e., 30 from the non-native
writers and 30 from the native English
writers). The data were analyzed by means
of AntConc software, and three key findings
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
146
are reported as follows. Firstly, it is explored
that the non-native writers have a tendency
to employ more reporting verbs than the
native English counterparts. In particular,
Argue group is the most frequently used by
both groups of authors, followed by Find,
Show, and Think groups. Secondly, there
are no considerable differences in the
function of reporting verbs between the two
corpora. This means that both the non-native
and native writers have a similar pattern in
using reporting verbs with various functions.
Among a wide range of functions of
reporting verbs, the most commonly used
functions are (1) presentation and (2)
evaluation and examination. Finally, almost
all reporting verbs in neutral position are
found in both corpora. Remarkably, there are
two strong verbs and one weak verb found in
the non-native corpus, whereas only one
strong verb was discovered in the native
corpus.
of reporting verbs based on these findings.
Despite contributions to the field of
discourse analysis in general and reporting
verbs in particular, this study remains some
limitations in terms of the corpus size and
limited discipline. Due to the limited time
and the scope of the study, 60 TESOL
research articles equally falling into two
groups, namely non-native corpus and native
corpus were selected as the research sample.
Another limitation is that the study only put
an emphasis on the discipline of TESOL. As
a consequence, it is unlikely to generalize
how non-native and native English
researchers use reporting verbs in research
articles. It is, therefore, recommended that
further researchers should widen the corpus
size and make
a
cross-disciplinary
comparison in terms of the use of reporting
verbs among disciplines such as Biology,
Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science,
Medical and so on.
According
to
Yeganeh
and
Boghayeri (2015), reporting verbs (i.e.,
citing and referencing to other literature) are
regarded as one of the most vital aspects in
academic writing, non-native students often
found it difficult to use reporting verbs
appropriately in their writing. It is hoped that
the results of this study may raise awareness
of the importance of reporting verbs for non-
native students, especially Vietnamese EFL
students majoring in TESOL and serve as
guidance that helps improve the use of
reporting verbs in academic writing.
Accordingly, they can avoid ignoring other
works in their writing or research in the
future. It is suggested that reporting verbs
should be introduced to EFL students who
are producing academic pieces of writing
such as BA students in English language or
TESOL, MA students, and PhD students in
all disciplines. Moreover, this study could
also work as a reference for scholars and
teachers who work on reporting verbs. In
particular, they may conduct further studies
exploring linguistic features within groups
References
Bloch, J. (2009). The design of an online
concordancing program for teaching about
reporting verbs. Language Learning and
Technology, 13(1), 59-78.
Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in
reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-
based study of theses in two disciplines.
English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 310-
331.
Creswell, W. (2012). Education research: Planning,
conducting and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson
Education Inc.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused
SLA: The associative learning of
constructions, learned attention and the
limited L2 Endstate. In P. Robinson & N. C.
Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive
linguistics and second language acquisition
(pp. 372-405). Routledge.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E., (1996).
Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1:
Verbs. Harper Collins.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
147
Friginal, E. (2013). Developing research report
Study and Learning Center (2012). Degree of
strength in use of reporting verbs. RMIT
University.
writing skills using corpora. English for
Specific
Purposes,
32(4),
208-220.
Gries, S. T. (2008). Corpus-based methods in
analyses of second language acquisition
data. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.),
Handbook of cognitive linguistics and
second language acquisition (pp. 406-431).
Routledge.
Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the
reporting verbs used in academic papers.
Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 365-382.
Uba, S. Y. (2020). Semantic categories of reporting
verbs across four disciplines in research
articles. English Language Teaching, 13(1),
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research
articles. Hong Kong Journal of Applied
Linguistics,
3(2),
133-136.
Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (2007). Writing up
research: Experimental research report
writing for students of English (2nd ed.).
Pearson Malaysia.
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation
and the construction of disciplinary
knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-
Writing Centre (2014). Verbs for reporting. The
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility:
Authorial identity in academic writing.
Journal of Pragmatics, 1(1), 1-18.
University
of
Adelaide.
Yeganeh, M. T., & Boghayeri, M. (2015). The
frequency and function of reporting verbs in
research articles written by native Persian
and English speakers. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 192, 582-586.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring
interaction in writing. Continuum.
Jafarigohar, M., & Mohammadkhani, A. (2015).
Reporting verbs in applied linguistics
research articles by native and non-native
writers. Theory and Practice in Language
Yilmaz, M., & Erturk, Z. (2017). A contrastive
corpus-based analysis of the use of reporting
verbs by native and non-native ELT
Studies,
5(12),
2490-2496.
researchers.
112-127.
Novitas-ROYAL,
11(2),
Petric, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in
high- and low-rated master’s theses. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 238-
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021)
148
MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU DỰATRÊN NGỮ LIỆU VỀ ĐỘNG TỪ
TƯỜNG THUẬT ĐƯỢC SỬ DỤNG TRONG CÁC BÀI BÁO
THUỘC NGÀNH GIẢNG DẠYTIẾNGANH
CỦATÁC GIẢ BẢN NGỮ VÀ PHI BẢN NGỮ
Dương Mỹ Thẩm 1, Trần Phương Nhi 2
1. Trường Đại học Kinh tế Tài chính (UEF),
141-145 Điện Biên Phủ, phường 15, quận Bình Thạnh, Tp. Hồ Chí Minh, Việt Nam
2. Trường Đại học Công Nghệ TP.HCM (HUTECH),
475A Điện Biên Phủ, phường 25, quận Bình Thạnh, Tp. Hồ Chí Minh, Việt Nam
Tóm tắt: Nghiên cứu dựa trên ngữ liệu này so sánh việc sử dụng các động từ tường thuật trong
các bài báo nghiên cứu thuộc chuyên ngành Giảng dạy tiếng Anh giữa tác giả bản ngữ và phi bản ngữ.
Kho ngữ liệu được chia thành hai nhóm: 30 bài báo nghiên cứu của tác giả phi bản ngữ và 30 bài báo
nghiên cứu của tác giả bản ngữ. Dữ liệu ở dạng văn bản thuần túy đã được xử lý thông qua phần mềm
AntConc phiên bản 3.5.7. Kết quả cho thấy sự khác biệt giữa hai nhóm tác giả khi xét về tần suất sử
dụng, chức năng và vị trí của động từ tường thuật. Cụ thể, tác giả phi bản ngữ có khuynh hướng sử dụng
nhiều động từ tường thuật hơn các tác giả bản ngữ. Trong bốn nhóm động từ tường thuật bao gồm Argue,
Find, Show, Think thì nhóm Argue được sử dụng nhiều nhất bởi cả hai nhóm tác giả. Ngoài ra, kết quả
liên quan đến chức năng và vị trí của những động từ tường thuật này còn chỉ ra hai chức năng phổ biến
nhất của động từ tường thuật là (1) trình bày và (2) đánh giá và kiểm tra; các động từ tường thuật được
quan sát đều ở vị trí trung lập.
Từ khóa: ngữ liệu, động từ tường thuật, bài báo nghiên cứu, giảng dạy tiếng Anh
14 trang
19100
Free
Bạn đang xem tài liệu "Một nghiên cứu dựa trên ngữ liệu về động từ tường thuật được sử dụng trong các bài báo thuộc ngành giảng dạy tiếng Anh của tác giả bản ngữ và phi bản ngữ", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- mot_nghien_cuu_dua_tren_ngu_lieu_ve_dong_tu_tuong_thuat_duoc.pdf
