{"title":"人工写作和chatgpt生成的英语研究论文摘要中的反身性:元语篇的比较","authors":"Man Zhang, Jiawei Zhang","doi":"10.1093/applin/amaf032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reflexivity, a unique feature of human language, is a key indicator evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in text generation. Comparing reflexivity in human-written and ChatGPT-generated texts could reveal how well ChatGPT could capture the fundamental features of human language. Using a self-built corpus and adopting a bottom-up approach and statistical methods, this study compares the reflexive language, metadiscourse, in human-written and ChatGPT-generated English research article abstracts. Results show that in both types of abstracts, metadiscourse fulfills three broad and eight specific discourse functions: Referring to text participants (Referring to writer, Referring to text), Describing text actions (Introducing, Arguing, Finding, Presenting), Describing text circumstances (Phoric marking, Code glossing). However, metadiscourse markers are much more prevalent in ChatGPT-generated abstracts. In addition, human-written abstracts employ metadiscourse markers mainly for writer-oriented introducing, while ChatGPT-generated abstracts for text-oriented introducing. Possible reasons for the similarities and differences are related to ChatGPT’s working mechanism, the training dataset, and writing rules learnt by ChatGPT. This research contributes to the development of large language models and artificial intelligence output detectors, writing instruction and practice, and metadiscourse research.","PeriodicalId":48234,"journal":{"name":"Applied Linguistics","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflexivity in human-written and ChatGPT-generated English research article abstracts: A comparison of metadiscourse\",\"authors\":\"Man Zhang, Jiawei Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/applin/amaf032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reflexivity, a unique feature of human language, is a key indicator evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in text generation. Comparing reflexivity in human-written and ChatGPT-generated texts could reveal how well ChatGPT could capture the fundamental features of human language. Using a self-built corpus and adopting a bottom-up approach and statistical methods, this study compares the reflexive language, metadiscourse, in human-written and ChatGPT-generated English research article abstracts. Results show that in both types of abstracts, metadiscourse fulfills three broad and eight specific discourse functions: Referring to text participants (Referring to writer, Referring to text), Describing text actions (Introducing, Arguing, Finding, Presenting), Describing text circumstances (Phoric marking, Code glossing). However, metadiscourse markers are much more prevalent in ChatGPT-generated abstracts. In addition, human-written abstracts employ metadiscourse markers mainly for writer-oriented introducing, while ChatGPT-generated abstracts for text-oriented introducing. Possible reasons for the similarities and differences are related to ChatGPT’s working mechanism, the training dataset, and writing rules learnt by ChatGPT. This research contributes to the development of large language models and artificial intelligence output detectors, writing instruction and practice, and metadiscourse research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaf032\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaf032","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reflexivity in human-written and ChatGPT-generated English research article abstracts: A comparison of metadiscourse
Reflexivity, a unique feature of human language, is a key indicator evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in text generation. Comparing reflexivity in human-written and ChatGPT-generated texts could reveal how well ChatGPT could capture the fundamental features of human language. Using a self-built corpus and adopting a bottom-up approach and statistical methods, this study compares the reflexive language, metadiscourse, in human-written and ChatGPT-generated English research article abstracts. Results show that in both types of abstracts, metadiscourse fulfills three broad and eight specific discourse functions: Referring to text participants (Referring to writer, Referring to text), Describing text actions (Introducing, Arguing, Finding, Presenting), Describing text circumstances (Phoric marking, Code glossing). However, metadiscourse markers are much more prevalent in ChatGPT-generated abstracts. In addition, human-written abstracts employ metadiscourse markers mainly for writer-oriented introducing, while ChatGPT-generated abstracts for text-oriented introducing. Possible reasons for the similarities and differences are related to ChatGPT’s working mechanism, the training dataset, and writing rules learnt by ChatGPT. This research contributes to the development of large language models and artificial intelligence output detectors, writing instruction and practice, and metadiscourse research.
期刊介绍:
Applied Linguistics publishes research into language with relevance to real-world problems. The journal is keen to help make connections between fields, theories, research methods, and scholarly discourses, and welcomes contributions which critically reflect on current practices in applied linguistic research. It promotes scholarly and scientific discussion of issues that unite or divide scholars in applied linguistics. It is less interested in the ad hoc solution of particular problems and more interested in the handling of problems in a principled way by reference to theoretical studies.