Interaction in written texts: A bibliometric study of published research

• Authors: Ken Hyland , Feng (Kevin) Jiang

Abstracts

EN

While writing involves interactions between writers and readers as each considers the other in creating and interpreting texts, research interest in written interaction is a fairly recent development. This paper uses a bibliometric analysis to trace the growing interest in written interaction over the past 30 years from its origins in philosophy, conversation analysis and sociocultural language pedagogy. To do so, we analyzed all 918 articles mentioning writing and interaction in the social science citation index since 1990, dividing the corpus into two periods following the massive increase in interest after 2005. We identify which topics have been most prevalent and which authors, publications, journals and countries most influential over time. The results indicate the growing importance of identity, genre, discipline, metadiscourse and stance, particularly drawing on corpus methods. We also note the participation of authors from more countries in publishing interaction research with the growth of authors from China becoming particularly visible. These findings may interest those working in written discourse analysis and scholarly publishing.

Keywords

EN

bibliometrics; written interaction; research articles; scholarly publishing

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 903-924

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Ken Hyland

• University of East Anglia

• https://orcid.org/0000000247278355

author

Feng (Kevin) Jiang

• Jilin University

• https://orcid.org/0000000173699498

References

• Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
• Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.2.0) [Computer Software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
• Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
• Canagarajah, A. S. (1996). “Nondiscursive” requirements in academic publishing: Material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production. Written Communication, 14(4), 435-472.
• Cherry, R. (1988). Politeness in written persuasion. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 63-81.
• Davarpanah, M., & Aslekia, S. (2008). A scientometric analysis of international LIS journals: Productivity and characteristics. Scientometrics, 77(1), 21-39.
• Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155-171.
• Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College Composition and Communication, 48, 527-542.
• Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. Basic Books.
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Anchor Books.
• González-Alcaide, G., Jinseo, P., Huamaní, C., Gascón, J., & Rincón, J. (2012). Scientific authorships and collaboration network analysis on Chagas disease: Papers indexed in PubMed (1940-2009). Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, 54, 219-228.
• Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
• Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251-259.
• Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
• Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
• Hyland, K. (2015) Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the production of knowledge. Oxford University Press.
• Hyland, K., & Jiang, K. (2019). Academic discourse and global publishing: Disciplinary persuasion in changing times. Routledge.
• Hyland, K., & Jiang, K. (2020). “This work is antithetical to the spirit of re-search”: An anatomy of harsh peer reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 46, 100867.
• Lei, L., & Liu, D. (2019). Research trends in applied linguistics from 2005 to 2016: A bibliometric analysis and its implications. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 540-561.
• Liu, W., Hu, G., Tang, L., & Wang, Y. (2015). China’s global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978-2013). Journal of Informetrics, 9, 555-569.
• Ma, F., Li, Y., & Chen, B. (2014). Study of the collaboration in the field of the Chinese humanities and social sciences. Scientometrics, 100, 439-458.
• Mallapaty, S. (2020). China bans cash rewards for publishing papers. Nature, 579(7797), 18.
• Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave.
• Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10, 1-35.
• Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press.
• Myers, G. (1999). Interaction in writing: Principles and problems. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 40-61). Longman.
• National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2015). China statistical yearbook on science and technology (1996-2014). China Statistics Press.
• Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Academic Press.
• Pegrum, M. (2009). From blogs to bombs. UWA Publishing.
• Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25, 348-349.
• Schmid, H. (1995). TreeTagger software [Computer software]. http://www.cis.unimuenchen.de/~schmid/tools/TreeTagger/
• Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 59-82). Brill.
• Sebo, P., Maisonneuve, H., & Fournier, J. P. (2020). Gender gap in research: A bibliometric study of published articles in primary health care and gen-eral internal medicine. Family Practice, 37(3), 325-331.
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.
• Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
• UNESCO. (2017). Science report: Towards 2030. https://en.unesco.org/unesco_science_report/
• Xie, Q., & Freeman, R. B. (2019). Bigger than you thought: China’s contribution to scientific publications and its impact on the global economy. China & World Economy, 27(1), 1-27.
• Zhang, H., Patton, D., & Kenney, M. (2013). Building global-class universities: Assessing the impact of the 985 Project. Research Policy, 42, 765-775.
• Zhang, X. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of second language acquisition be-tween 1997 and 2018. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 199-222.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/ssllt.40220

Biblioteka Nauki

55992401