{"title":"L1 英语作者和中国 EFL 学者撰写的研究问题比较研究","authors":"Ziqing Gong , Yonghou Liu , Ying Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Research questions (RQs) function as an important basis for entire research projects, but scant attention has been paid to their formulation. The current study compares the types and structures of RQs and inter-step shifts involving RQs in English research articles (RAs) written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars. Our data consisted of 300 English RAs from highly ranked journals in the field of applied linguistics, comprising 150 articles by L1 English authors and 150 articles by Chinese EFL scholars. The findings reveal that RQ types are used by both author groups in the following decreasing order: descriptive questions > contingent questions > comparative questions > explanatory questions > normative questions. Both Chinese and L1 English writers exhibit sophisticated competence in constructing RQs in appropriate hierarchical orders, characterized by patterns of parallel structure, progressive structure, and parallel-progressive structure. However, English L1 scholars outperform their Chinese counterparts in the use of inter-step shifts that integrate RQs into a broader text. Our findings can help writers understand the internal logic of RQs, guide them to formulate hierarchically appropriate RQs and integrate them into the entire research context.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":"69 ","pages":"Article 101383"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of research questions written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars\",\"authors\":\"Ziqing Gong , Yonghou Liu , Ying Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Research questions (RQs) function as an important basis for entire research projects, but scant attention has been paid to their formulation. The current study compares the types and structures of RQs and inter-step shifts involving RQs in English research articles (RAs) written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars. Our data consisted of 300 English RAs from highly ranked journals in the field of applied linguistics, comprising 150 articles by L1 English authors and 150 articles by Chinese EFL scholars. The findings reveal that RQ types are used by both author groups in the following decreasing order: descriptive questions > contingent questions > comparative questions > explanatory questions > normative questions. Both Chinese and L1 English writers exhibit sophisticated competence in constructing RQs in appropriate hierarchical orders, characterized by patterns of parallel structure, progressive structure, and parallel-progressive structure. However, English L1 scholars outperform their Chinese counterparts in the use of inter-step shifts that integrate RQs into a broader text. Our findings can help writers understand the internal logic of RQs, guide them to formulate hierarchically appropriate RQs and integrate them into the entire research context.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of English for Academic Purposes\",\"volume\":\"69 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101383\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of English for Academic Purposes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000511\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000511","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparative study of research questions written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars
Research questions (RQs) function as an important basis for entire research projects, but scant attention has been paid to their formulation. The current study compares the types and structures of RQs and inter-step shifts involving RQs in English research articles (RAs) written by L1 English authors and Chinese EFL scholars. Our data consisted of 300 English RAs from highly ranked journals in the field of applied linguistics, comprising 150 articles by L1 English authors and 150 articles by Chinese EFL scholars. The findings reveal that RQ types are used by both author groups in the following decreasing order: descriptive questions > contingent questions > comparative questions > explanatory questions > normative questions. Both Chinese and L1 English writers exhibit sophisticated competence in constructing RQs in appropriate hierarchical orders, characterized by patterns of parallel structure, progressive structure, and parallel-progressive structure. However, English L1 scholars outperform their Chinese counterparts in the use of inter-step shifts that integrate RQs into a broader text. Our findings can help writers understand the internal logic of RQs, guide them to formulate hierarchically appropriate RQs and integrate them into the entire research context.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of English for Academic Purposes provides a forum for the dissemination of information and views which enables practitioners of and researchers in EAP to keep current with developments in their field and to contribute to its continued updating. JEAP publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges in the linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic description of English as it occurs in the contexts of academic study and scholarly exchange itself.