Edited by: Xinghua Liu, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
Reviewed by: Yancheng Yang, Hunan University, China
Veronika Makarova, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Chenghui Chen, Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, China
†These authors share first authorship
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Citation practices are crucial in academic discourse for both knowledge construction and interpersonal interaction. While prior research in academic English has explored citation practices among expert and novice authors, there is a notable gap in studies focusing on Chinese academic papers. Moreover, it remains uncertain whether insights from English-language corpora can be extrapolated to other linguistic contexts. This study presents a comparative analysis of citation practices among expert and novice authors within the field of Chinese Applied Linguistics. Utilizing a corpus of 715,000 Chinese words, we analyzed academic papers authored by both groups. Our findings reveal that citation practices between expert and novice authors are largely comparable. Specifically, integral citations were more prevalent than non-integral citations, with the cited authors predominantly occupying the subject position. In terms of citation form, the four types employed, in descending order of frequency, were summary, block quote, generalization, and quote. The analysis of reporting markers showed a predominance of discourse markers, followed by research markers, with cognitive markers being the least frequent. Notably, novice authors demonstrated certain deficiencies compared to their expert counterparts, including an overreliance on integral citations, a reduced use of generalization and block quote citations, and limited integration of information regarding reporting markers.
Citations are a fundamental component of academic discourse, facilitating both the dissemination of ideas and the exchange of research findings within scholarly communities. The functions of citations can be categorized into three primary aspects: knowledge construction, intertextuality, and interpersonal interaction. At the level of knowledge construction, the generation of new knowledge relies on the integration of a shared disciplinary framework. Incorporating previous research findings is essential for constructing new insights, positioning citations as a vital tool for presenting and advancing scientific knowledge (
Citation practices have been a focal point across disciplines such as applied linguistics, sociology of knowledge, and information science (
The majority of existing studies have focused on the examination of citations in academic English writing, with comparatively limited attention directed toward Chinese papers. Indeed, there are notable differences between citation practices in academic English and those in academic Chinese. For instance, while
A substantial amount of research has been conducted on citation practices in academic writing. Some studies have examined the form and function of citation practices (
In relation to the manner of citation practice, the extant research can be summarized as follows:
The differences in citation practices among writing groups with varying levels of expertise can be observed in five main ways.
First, writing groups with higher levels of expertise tend to have a higher citation density than those with lower levels of expertise. For example,
Second, with regard to the embedding method and citation form, writing groups with higher levels of expertise tend to employ a greater number of non-integral citations (
Third, the use of reporting markers is more diverse in terms of the reporting verbs employed by writers with higher levels of expertise (
Fourth, writers with higher levels of expertise tend to evaluate the cited content and express their personal stance in their citation practices (
Fifth, in terms of the function of citations, expert authors are more proficient in employing citations to serve their communicative purposes. For instance, doctoral students are more likely to cite sources than master’s students (
A review of the existing research reveals three areas that warrant further investigation. First, the issue of expertise influencing citation practice is still in its infancy. The majority of articles were published subsequent to 2020, and the total number of articles is relatively limited. It is noteworthy that while existing academic writing textbooks address citation practices, they tend to focus on reminding writers to avoid plagiarism through proper citation, rather than on choosing the most appropriate form of citation for communicative purposes. This makes it challenging for novice writers to obtain effective guidance from these textbooks. Second, the extant studies utilize English papers as the corpus, with fewer studies focusing on citation practices in Chinese papers and an even smaller number of studies on the citation practices of novice Chinese academic writers. It has been demonstrated that there are differences between the academic citation practices of English and Chinese (
In light of the aforementioned background, this paper seeks to address two research questions by constructing a corpus of expert and novice academic Chinese journal papers:
Does the number of citations vary according to the level of expertise of the writers?
Does embedding method, citation form, and reporting markers of citations vary according to the level of expertise of the writer?
This study is based on a corpus of 190 journal papers, comprising a total of 715,000 words, drawn from two distinct writing groups with varying levels of expertise (experts/novices) in their respective fields. In consideration of the disciplinary variation in citation practices (
The corpora for this study are categorized into two segments: expert-authored papers and novice-authored papers.
The corpus of expert authors’ papers was created in the following manner. The citation analysis feature of China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) was employed to examine the most highly-cited authors in the field from five core journals between 2015 and 2020. The journals in question are
The corpus of novice authors’ papers was created in the following manner. The data selected for the novice authors’ papers were sourced from the Graduate Forum organized by the School of Chinese as a Second Language at Peking University, spanning the years 2016–2019. The total number of papers included in the corpus is 158. The authors of these papers were all enrolled in master’s or doctoral programs and had prior experience with academic paper writing. However, as their academic writing skills were in the early developmental stage, they can be considered novices in academic writing. Papers authored by individuals with experience in publishing papers in core journals were excluded through manual screening. Furthermore, papers that did not comply with the standards required for journal publication or could not be converted to the requisite format were excluded. The screening process yielded 135 papers that were retained for further analysis. To ensure comparability with the expert journal papers corpus, 95 papers were randomly selected from the 135 retained papers for analysis, amounting to a total of 336,000 words. The conference papers have been incorporated into the CNKI database. Although they have not yet been published in academic journals, the objective of these papers is consistent with that of journal papers, namely to facilitate academic discourse and exchange between peers. Moreover, the length of both conference papers and journal papers is comparable. Therefore, in addition to the discrepancy in paper quality, they are, for the most part, comparable. However, they differ significantly from dissertations in terms of both the purpose of the writing and the length of the texts. Accordingly, for the purpose of citation analysis of academic papers, we treat journal papers and conference papers as essentially equivalent and utilize the term “journal papers” to refer to both in our discourse.
The identification of citation examples involves a systematic three-step process. The first step employs the HanLP toolkit, developed in Python, to perform Named Entity Recognition (NER) within the corpus, identifying entities such as names of individuals, places, and organizations. The second step consists of filtering out statements that reference the names of individuals. In the third step, statements are manually reviewed to exclude those that do not pertain to cited literature. Subsequently, the remaining statements are categorized according to the analytical framework outlined below.
In order to validate the generalisability of the findings on academic English citation practices among authors with different levels of expertise, this paper employs a citation example analysis framework inspired by
Embedding method is classified into two categories: non-integral, as exemplified by (1), and integral. Integral can be divided into three categories depending on the syntactic position of the cited authors. The first category comprises instances where the cited author is the subject of the sentence, as illustrated in example (2). The second category encompasses cases where the cited author is not the subject but appears as an additional constituent, as exemplified in example (3). The third category includes instances where the cited author is in a noun phrase, as demonstrated in example (4).
The integration of Chinese culture teaching with Chinese language instruction has always been one of the important research topics in the field of Chinese language teaching (Lu and Ma, 2016).
中国文化教学与汉语语言教学的结合一直是汉语教学领域研究的重要课题之一(陆俭明, 马真2016).
Qiang (2010) distinguished between the topic marker “~嘛” and the modal particle “~嘛,” and described their process of grammaticalization.
强星娜(2010)则区分了话题标记的“~嘛”和语气词的“~嘛”, 并描写了它们语法化的过程。
As Mr. Lu pointed out, language teaching materials should not be confined to the systematic nature of linguistic knowledge when dealing with language materials…
正如鲁健骥先生所说, 语言教材在处理语言材料的时候, 不应拘泥于语言知识的系统性…
Among them, Sally’s (2007) five insightful suggestions are as follows: first…
其中Sally (2007)提出的5条建议颇有见地…
Citation form is divided into four categories: block quote citation, which means that the quoted text is longer than or equal to 1 T unit, as illustrated in example (5); quote citation, which means that the original text is quoted as a word or phrase, as illustrated in example (6); summary citation, which means that the quoted text is a summary of one piece of literature, as illustrated in example (7); and generalization citation, which means that the quoted text is a summary of several pieces of literature, as illustrated in example (8). The above citation styles actually reflect the degree of integration of the original text by the author. Among them, block citation has the lowest level of integration of the original text, and the other three citation styles have increasing levels of integration, in that order.
5. The Ministry of Education’s Department of Teacher Education… defines it as “the continuous development process of teachers as individual professionals, involving their continuous acquisition of new knowledge and enhancement of professional capabilities. To become a mature professional, teachers need to expand the depth of their profession and improve their professional level through continuous learning and exploration, thus achieving a state of professional maturity.” (Wang, 2015)
教育部师范教育司…, 将…界定为“教师个体专业不断发展的历程, 是教师不断接受新知识, 增长专业能力的过程。教师要成为一个成熟的专业人员, 需要通过不断的学习与探究历程来拓展其专业内涵, 提高专业水平, 从而达到专业成熟的境界” (王添淼 2015).
6. To eliminate the interference caused by relevant projects in language learning, George (1972) proposed an error prevention strategy called “orderliness of input,” suggesting that…
为了消除相关项目给语言学习带来的干扰, George (1972) 提出一种称作“有序输入” (orderliness of input) 的错误预防策略, 认为…
7. For example, “没” (méi) evolved from a verb to an adverb and gradually transformed into a subjectively diminishing marker due to the constraints of subjective expression (Zhang, 2006).
比如“没”从动词虚化为副词, 由于受到主观表达的制约逐渐转化成为主观减量标记(张谊生 2006).
8. The publication of the first set of Chinese textbooks for foreign language learners, “Chinese Textbooks,” in 1958 laid the foundation for… (Ke Bide, 1990; Li Quan and Jin Yunzhen, 2008, etc.)
1958年第一套对外汉语教材《汉语教科书》出版, 奠定了… (柯彼德 1990; 李泉, 金允贞 2008等) (徐晶凝 2016).
The selection of reporting markers reflects the rhetorical competence evident in academic writing. By selecting appropriate language forms and establishing intertextual relationships with external content, the writer is able to achieve the communicative purposes within the discourse.
The classification of reporting markers can be divided into three categories, depending on the criteria used for differentiation: research markers, cognitive markers, and discourse markers. Research markers are primarily associated with research acts and can be further classified into two subcategories: those pertaining to the research process and those pertaining to the results of the research. Those markers that refer to the research process, such as “examined” and “counted,” etc., and those that refer to the results of the research, such as “found” and “constructed,” etc. Cognitive markers, which mainly refer to cognitive processes, e.g., “concerned” and “speculated,” etc. Discurse markers, which refer mainly to speech acts such as “pointing out,” “elaborating,” etc.
According to
In order to provide a more comprehensive overview of the analytical framework employed in this study, we have provided a summary of the aforementioned three categories in tabular form (see
Citation practice analysis framework.
| Embedding method | Non-integral, e.g., (Hyland, 1999) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Integral | Subject. As a subject, e.g., “Hyland (1999) argues that…” | ||
| Noun-phrase. The cited author is located in a noun phrase and the noun phrase serves as a necessary syntactic component, e.g., “Hyland (1999) study found that…” | |||
| Adjunct. The cited author is located in an adjunct phrase, e.g., “According to Hyland (1999)…” | |||
| Citation form | Quote, citing only a word or phrase from the original text | ||
| Block quotes, e.g., Hyland (1999) suggests that “…” | |||
| Summary, e.g., Hyland (1999) | |||
| Generalization, e.g., “Hyland (1999) and Jiang, (2005)” | |||
| Reporting markers | According to the concept of righteousness, divided into three categories | Research markers | Referring to the research process, e.g., “observe” |
| Referring to the results of research, e.g., “find” | |||
| Cognitive markers, e.g., “notice” | |||
| Discourse markers, e.g., “point out” | |||
| According to the structural form, divided into four categories | Reporting verbs alone or reporting verbs with an additional tense element, e.g., “v + |
||
| Prepositional phrase, e.g., “ |
|||
| Reporting verbs are located in relational clauses, such as “…v |
|||
| Reporting verbs are located in the central clause position of a modifier-head structure, e.g., “… |
|||
Comparison of the number of citations by expert and novice authors.
| Author Type | Number of citations | Average citations per paper | Relative citations (per 1,000 words) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expert author | 905 | 9.53 | 2.39 |
| Novice author | 765 | 8.05 | 2.28 |
The lower number of citations in novice authors’ papers may be attributed to a lesser degree of intertextuality awareness in this group.
The number of citations in the papers of expert and novice authors is not significantly different. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily indicate that there are no discernible differences in the citation practices observed in Chinese academic papers between the two groups. The subsequent analysis will undertake a comprehensive comparative examination based on the framework presented in
A notable discrepancy was observed in the selection of the embedding method between the two author groups (see
Statistics on different types of author embedding methods.
| Author Type | Non-Integral | Percentage | Integral | Percentage | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | |||
| Expert author | 414 | 1.09 | 45.75% | 491 | 1.3 | 54.25% |
| Novice author | 268 | 0.8 | 35.03% | 497 | 1.48 | 64.97% |
| Chi-square | ||||||
There are three advantages to using non-integral citations as opposed to integrated ones. Primarily, situating the cited source outside of the sentence serves to accentuate the information contained within the citation, thereby facilitating a more objective presentation. Secondly, this approach enables authors to integrate the cited information seamlessly into their own viewpoint, thus making it an integral part of their argument. Thirdly, the use of non-integral citations ensures coherence within the discourse, preventing interruptions in the process of argumentation. These advantages of non-integral citations assist authors in developing their academic identities. In particular, the objective of introducing cited information is to construct the author’s viewpoint, and non-integral citations are an effective means of achieving this goal. Authors construct their academic identities by forming their own perspectives based on the cited information and expressing them within the academic discourse community (
In accordance with the established analytical framework, there are three distinct syntactic positions for the cited authors in integrated citations. A comparison of the results reveals significant similarities in the syntactic positions of cited authors between the two types of authors (see
Statistics on different types of author syntactic position.
| Author type | Subject | Adjunct | Noun-phrase | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | |
| Expert author | 364 | 0.96 | 91 | 0.24 | 36 | 0.09 |
| Novice author | 368 | 1.09 | 111 | 0.33 | 18 | 0.05 |
| Chi-square | ||||||
The preceding analysis indicates that the syntactic positions of cited authors in Chinese journal papers differ significantly from those in English papers. Nevertheless, the overall distribution pattern remains consistent with that observed in English papers. These discrepancies may be attributed to the distinctive characteristics of Chinese academic papers. In contrast to English papers, Chinese papers tend to place the cited authors in the subject position with greater frequency. This form is more accessible for novice authors, which may contribute to the absence of a significant difference between the two groups. Conversely, English papers frequently employ nominalized phrases, which may prove more challenging for those with limited writing experience and/or non-native proficiency. Some studies have demonstrated that non-native speakers utilize a reduced number of nominalizations in their written work in comparison to native speakers (
A comparative analysis was conducted to examine the citation practices of expert and novice authors across four distinct categories. It was observed that, with the exception of quote, the two groups demonstrated notable discrepancies in their utilization of the remaining three citation forms, as illustrated in
Statistics on different types of author citation form.
| Author type | Block quote | Quote | Summary | Generalization | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | |
| Expert author | 178 | 0.47 | 104 | 0.27 | 476 | 1.26 | 147 | 0.39 |
| Novice author | 94 | 0.28 | 77 | 0.23 | 509 | 1.51 | 85 | 0.25 |
| Chi-square | ||||||||
The discrepancies in the citation form between the two cohorts of authors can be encapsulated as follows: First, expert authors tend to employ a greater number of direct quotations in comparison to novice authors. This is demonstrated by the higher frequency of “block quote” and “quote” observed in the papers of expert authors in comparison to those of novice authors. This finding is consistent with the findings of
A second distinction can be observed in the use of citations by expert and novice authors. Expert authors employ a greater number of generalization citations and a smaller number of summary citations compared to their novice counterparts. The utilization of generalization citations fulfils two distinct rhetorical functions. Primarily, it serves to enhance the credibility and authority of the content presented, thereby providing support for the author’s viewpoints or claims. This approach to citation enables authors to adapt the cited content in a flexible manner, thus enhancing the effectiveness of their argumentation and achieving the communicative goal of persuading readers (
A preliminary statistical analysis was conducted to examine the proportion of reporting markers utilized in citations and the frequency of high-frequency reporting verbs employed by the two groups of authors (see
Percentage of reporting markers and high frequency reporting verbs.
| Author type | Number of reporting markers | Percentage | High frequency reporting verbs (Frequency > 8) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | |||
| Expert author | 610 | 1.61 | 67.4% | point out (指出), think (认为), find (发现), say (说), propose (提出), study (研究), analyze (分析), explore (探讨), advocate (主张), examine (考察), classify (分为), 讨论 (discuss) |
| Novice author | 566 | 1.68 | 73.99% | think (认为), propose (提出), point out (指出), analyze (分析), study (研究), examine (考察), mention (提到), explore (探讨), classify (分为), summarize (总结) |
| Chi-square | ||||
The use of reporting verbs indicates that both groups of authors frequently utilize a similar set of high-frequency reporting verbs. However, expert authors demonstrate a higher level of diversity in their use of reporting verbs compared to novice authors, as evidenced by two key aspects. First, expert authors demonstrate a greater diversity of reporting verb types, resulting in a higher Type-Token Ratio (TTR) of reporting verbs in their corpus compared to novice authors. In particular, the TTR value for reporting verbs in the corpus of expert authors is 0.21, while in the corpus of novice authors, it is 0.2. Second, with regard to the coverage of high-frequency reporting verbs, the corpus of expert authors demonstrates that the top 10 high-frequency reporting verbs account for 53.11% of the total occurrences, whereas in the corpus of novice authors, the top 10 high-frequency reporting verbs cover 61.13% of the total occurrences. This suggests that novice authors tend to focus on utilizing the 10 most prevalent reporting verbs, exhibiting a lesser degree of complexity and adaptability in their paraphrase verb usage compared to expert authors. These findings are consistent with those of
By analyzing the use of reporting markers with varying referential content, it is possible to ascertain the authors’ preferences with regard to the selection of original material. The comprehensive statistical findings are presented in
Distribution of three types of reporting markers.
| Author type | Research markers | Discourse markers | Cognitive markers | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research act | Research results | Total | ||||||||
| Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | |
| Expert author | 171 | 0.45 | 59 | 0.16 | 230 | 0.61 | 365 | 0.96 | 15 | 0.04 |
| Novice author | 211 | 0.63 | 24 | 0.07 | 235 | 0.7 | 315 | 0.94 | 16 | 0.05 |
| Chi-square | ||||||||||
From a structural form perspective, there are significant differences in the use of the four types of structural forms between expert and novice authors (see
9. Tao Hongyin’s investigation of Chinatowns in the United States found that “compared with Mandarin in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia, North American Chinese is more like a great fusion of Chinese varieties, as its users consist of immigrants from these diverse regions within the Chinese cultural sphere” (Li Yuming, 2017).
陶红印对美国唐人街的调查发现:“跟港台, 东南亚地区的华语相比, 北美汉语更像是一个汉语变体的大融合, 因为北美汉语使用者正是来自这些不同地区但同属中华文化圈的移民” (李宇明 2017).
10. Under the strong advocacy of Nattinger and De Carrico (1992), Lewis (1993, 1997), and others, the lexical approach, also known as “词汇法” in Chinese, has gradually become a influential teaching methodology.
在 Nattinger and De Carrico (1992), Lewis(1993, 1997) 等的大力倡导下, 语块教学法 (lexical approach,或译作“词汇法”) 逐渐成为一种较有影响的教学法流派.
Distribution of reporting markers’ structural form.
| Author type | v + |
pre + v | … |
…v |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | |
| Expert author | 416 | 1.1 | 139 | 0.37 | 33 | 0.09 | 22 | 0.06 |
| Novice author | 302 | 0.9 | 244 | 0.73 | 5 | 0.01 | 15 | 0.04 |
| Chi-square | ||||||||
The second function of this structure is to encapsulate the reporting information, allowing great flexibility in syntactic positioning and facilitating subsequent comments or evaluations. In example (11), the encapsulated information appears in the subject position and the author provides an evaluation of it. In example (12), the encapsulated information is placed in the object position, explaining the concept of “句本位” (sentence-based perspective). Similarly, in example (13), it also occupies the object position, illustrating the basis of “教学呈现的先后顺序” (the order of instructional presentation), followed by further details of “主张” (proposition).
11. The analysis by Thomason is remarkably clear… (Zhang Bo, 2019)
Thomason的分析非常清楚,… (张博 2019).
12. Meanwhile, “句本位” is the proposition employed by Li Jinxi to elucidate the fundamental ideas of grammar (Zhao Jinming, 2017).
而“句本位”则是黎锦熙用以揭示语法基本思想的主张 (赵金铭 2017).
13. The sequence of presentation in teaching is based on Mr. Zhao Yuanren’s proposition, primarily considering the frequency of phrase and structure usage (Zhao Jinming, 2018).
教学中呈现的先后顺序, 是依赵元任先生的主张, 主要考虑短语和结构的使用频率 (赵金铭 2018).
The “…
There are differences in the temporal components attached to the reporting verbs used by the two groups of authors (see
Tense and aspect in reporting markers.
| Author type | v + |
v + |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | Raw numbers | Per 1,000 words | |
| Expert author | 60 | 0.16 | 30 | 0.08 |
| Novice author | 139 | 0.41 | 8 | 0.02 |
| Chi-square | ||||
Citations are an indispensable element of academic discourse, serving a pivotal function in the construction of knowledge, the interpretation of texts, and the dynamics of interpersonal communication. A substantial body of research on citations has been conducted, yielding a plethora of findings pertaining to various aspects of citations, including their forms, functions, and patterns across diverse contexts. Furthermore, differences in citation practices due to varying levels of expertise have been well-established in the field of academic English research. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether the conclusions drawn from academic English corpora can be generalized to academic Chinese corpora. This study, which employed a self-constructed small-scale corpus, compared the similarities and differences in citation practices between expert and novice authors. The findings yielded three main conclusions:
First, it can be concluded that the findings derived from the analysis of academic English corpora can be largely extrapolated to academic Chinese corpora. This suggests that the impact of expertise on citation practices in academic journal papers is a cross-linguistic phenomenon. This study demonstrates that in academic Chinese writing, expert authors and novice authors exhibit comparable differences in citation density, embedding methods, citation forms, and reporting markers, as observed in academic English. For instance, expert authors are more likely to utilize non-integral citations and direct quotations, employ a diverse array of reporting markers and exhibit discernible proclivities in the utilization of evaluative reporting markers.
Moreover, academic Chinese exhibits distinctive features that set it apart from academic English. In academic Chinese papers, authors demonstrate a greater proclivity for employing the form of situating citees in subject position in comparison to their counterparts in the field of academic English. This form is readily comprehensible, resulting in no notable discrepancies in its utilization between expert and novice authors. Conversely, academic English writing tends to favor nominalized phrases, with the cited author situated within a noun phrase. This structure can prove challenging for novice authors to master, leading to an overreliance on the citees as subject form and resulting in significant usage differences between the two groups in this regard.
Ultimately, the discrepancies in citation practices between the two cohorts of authors can be attributed to their comparatively weaker intertextual awareness and less pronounced sense of developing an academic writing expert identity. In particular, novice authors tend to introduce cited information with the objective of identifying the “correct answer,” rather than engaging in a critical integration of disparate pieces of information and establishing intertextual relationships between the current discourse and multiple source materials. This approach fails to demonstrate their expertise or construct an expert identity in academic writing. The latter is achieved through synthesizing various sources, forming their own academic perspectives and highlighting their professional knowledge.
Two limitations remain in this study. First, the analytical framework addresses the form of citation, but not the function of citation. A combination of formal and functional analyses would have enabled the formulation of more operational pedagogical suggestions and provided novice authors with a clearer understanding of the appropriate citation forms for fulfilling communicative purposes. Second, the analysis is confined to the textual corpus; however, if interviews with novice and expert authors were to be incorporated, the motivations behind the observed differences in citation use between the two groups could be subjected to more rigorous analysis, thereby enhancing the reliability of the conclusions drawn.
XG: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CJ: Writing – review & editing.
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was financially supported by the National Social Science Fund of China under the project ‘Corpus-based research on linguistic features of academic Chinese’ (NSSFC Grant No. 20BYY120).
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.