摘要：This study investigated the differences between applied linguistics research articles written by non-native writers and their native counterparts in English, focusing on the use of reporting verbs in quoting other authors. The corpus consisted of 63 articles (about 200000 words) written by native and non-native writers of English published in three scholarly journals in the fields of language teaching and applied linguistics. The results showed significant differences in the choices writers made in using reporting verbs. The corpus was also analyzed to determine the degree to which writers quoted different authors directly or indirectly. The number of verbs were tallied and recorded and then classified on the basis of Thompson and Ye’s (1991) classification. Finally, the results of the analysis of reporting verbs used by native and non-native writers were compared. The findings showed higher use of direct quotations by native writers which might be interpreted to be the result of their linguistic capability in handling linguistic materials produced by other authors.
其他摘要：This study investigated the differences between applied linguistics research articles written by non-native writers and their native counterparts in English, focusing on the use of reporting verbs in quoting other authors. The corpus consisted of 63 articles (about 200000 words) written by native and non-native writers of English published in three scholarly journals in the fields of language teaching and applied linguistics. The results showed significant differences in the choices writers made in using reporting verbs. The corpus was also analyzed to determine the degree to which writers quoted different authors directly or indirectly. The number of verbs were tallied and recorded and then classified on the basis of Thompson and Ye’s (1991) classification. Finally, the results of the analysis of reporting verbs used by native and non-native writers were compared. The findings showed higher use of direct quotations by native writers which might be interpreted to be the result of their linguistic capability in handling linguistic materials produced by other authors.
