Comparative Study of the Spoken Language Features in the Academic Writings of Chinese and Sudanese Undergraduates

Comparative Study of the Spoken Language Features in the Academic Writings of Chinese and Sudanese Undergraduates | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Comparative Study of the Spoken Language Features in the Academic Writings of Chinese and Sudanese Undergraduates Yujie Su, Altayeb Salih Ahmed Mohammed, Yuqing Dai, Juan Zhang, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5873068/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 13 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Employing spoken language characteristics in written language could potentially generate confusion for readers, as these features rely on the speaker's physical presence to determine the speaker's precise intentions beyond the usage of these elements. However, prior research often took a qualitative study of differences between the spoken and written languages, and scarcely did contrastive study of that between learners of English as a foreign language and a second language. So, the study investigated qualitatively and quantitatively the specific spoken language features in academic writing of Chinese and Sudanese university students, aiming to investigate the types of spoken language features when they are incorporated into formal and academic writing of the two groups of students. The students were assigned the same academic writing task and they were required to finish writing within 30 minutes. It was discovered that some spoken-language features such as deixis, adjacency pairs, dialect, hedge and vague language were present in the responses that were received. Based on this discovery, numerous recommendations were made to address the issue and determine appropriate solutions. spoken language features academic writing Chinese language features academic writing self-made corpus undergraduates Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction SL and WL are two major registers in language learning. Early research in SL and WL focused on their distinct linguistic features (e.g., Drieman, 1962 ; Harrel, 1957 ; Danne et al., 1977) or functional account of the differences involving contextual factors such as situation, purpose, message, etc. (Chafe, 1979 ; Keenan & Bennet, 1977 ; Rubin, 1978 ; Tannen, 1982 ). The written language (WL) is more challenging to deliver meaning because there is no additional way to facilitate conveying meaning as there is in the spoken language. The spoken language (SL) has additional means to effectively convey its meaning, such as gestures, body language, eye contact, and so on. These means are affecting the meaning and integrating it. Employing SL characteristics in academic written language could potentially generate confusion for readers, as these features rely on the speaker's physical presence to determine the speaker's precise intentions beyond the usage of these elements. Generally, academic writings contain SL features, which influences the formality and arouse confusion. Conveying meaning in WL poses greater challenges compared to SL, as written language lacks the additional nonverbal cues, such as gestures, body language, and eye contact, which are integral to the effective expression of meaning in spoken discourse. Chafe and Danielwicz ( 1987 ) examined four types of texts (conversations, lectures, letters, and academic papers) and identified 19 features, such as type/token ratio, hedges, implicit third person reference, literary and colloquial vocabulary, and others, which have been regarded criteria for evaluating the spoken features in writings. Researchers tended to discord in the measurement. Additionally, few current research has approached the investigation into spoken features by comparing English writings of students from different countries. Three questions were addressed: 1) What differences present between SL and WL? 2) What are SL features found in Chinese and Sudanese students' writings? 3) What is the enlightenment to non-English teaching? The study aims to investigate the use of SL features in academic writings of Chinese and Sudanese university students. Specifically, the study aims to investigate the types of SL features when they are incorporated into formal and academic writing of the two groups of students. The comparative study of spoken features in the academic writings of Chinese and Sudanese undergraduates generates some objective theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, by measuring the spoken features in EFL and ESL writings this research contributes to the field of Second Language Acquisition. It shed lights on the transferability of spoken language features into written forms, enriching our understanding of cross-linguistic influence and first-language impact on written composition. Practically, by identifying specific oral language features in the writings, this research offers valuable insights for educators and curriculum designers working with international students and enable the improvement of instructional methodologies that better integrates spoken and written language skills, ultimately enhancing the students' overall academic performance and communicative competence. 2. Literature Review The spoken and written modes of English are particularly confusing for nonnative speakers who are learning English with inadequate output as native speakers do. 2.1 Comparison of Language Features between SL and WL SL and WL are often the subject for comparison in related research. The recurring theme in this field include the recognition of syntactic, lexical, and morphological differences between the two modalities (Chafe, 1979; Redeker, 1984). SL is characterized as informal, colloquial and unstructured due to its spontaneity, while WL is deemed comparatively formal, more structured, impersonal and wordy (Mewburn, Firth & Lehmann, 2019). Hinkel (2003) compared the writing of native English speakers (L1) and English language learners (ELL) in the universities by means of corpus and found that features of spoken register, i.e., be as a main verb, predicative adjectives, private verbs and public verbs, were in statistically higher median frequency rates in the writing of ELL students compared to English L1 essays, and L1 writings had a statistically more frequency of it-cleft. Other oral features like interrogatives, progressives, personal pronouns, and contractions are pervasive in spoken register (Kim & Kim, 2022). WL is a crucial form of communication that plays a critical role in various aspects of human life, ranging from education, administration, literature, and research. An understanding of its inherent characteristics is paramount for effective written communication and literacy development. Syntactically, WL tends to exhibit greater syntactic complexity compared with SL, with longer sentences and a wider variety of sentence types (Biber, 1988). As for the use of vocabulary, WL tends to employ specialized and technical vocabulary to reflect unique domain and contexts, allowing for precise and nuanced expression (Nation, 2006). Then the style of WL differs from SL in formality and objectivity, with the selection of formal or academic words, complete and grammatical sentences, and proper conjunctions emphasizing grammatical accuracy and logical coherence (Halliday, 2004). SL differs from WL in the use of functions, as Halliday (2002: 344) pointed out that SL tends to describe actions, namely, talking about something as it happened or was done, while WL tends to express things, i.e., representing in the form of an object. Generally, WL tends to describe actions in terms of nouns. Oppositely, SL usually represent actions in terms of verbs. It means that nominalization, representation of actions in terms of nouns, is an important feature for WL. Besides nominalization, the abstraction of WL also lies in lexical density. Halliday (2002: 329) defined lexical density as the proportion of lexical items (content words) to the total discourse, whose extent (higher or lower) was influenced by the language type of the texts. Generally, SL had fewer lexical items in clause while WL had higher ones. Hammond (1990) pointed out that besides lexical density, SL also differs from WL in complexity of grammatical structures. In other words, WL has a higher lexical density, while SL is complex in clauses. The use of personal nouns is also recognized as an important feature for the discrepancy between SL and WL. 2.2 Current Research on Spoken Language Features in Academic Writing Writing and speech are two distinct modalities that are challenging to directly compare since discourse develops in contexts where language is used to create genres. Here, genres are interpreted as forms of text or speech, such as academic essays, informal chats, or narratives; these are cultural units made up of lexical and grammatical resources (Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Martin 1992). Registers are the various arrangements of these lexical and grammatical resources. In the realization of specific genres, different register selections are more or less appropriate or effective (Schleppegrell, 1996). Singular nouns following plural measurement expressions, contractions, multiple negative constructions, split infinitives, errors, pauses, repetitions, reformulations, grammatical reduction/interpersonal dimension—which includes situational ellipsis, utterance launchers, tails, tags, etc.—are some of the most noticeable characteristics of spoken English that the scholars list. Discourse markers, interestingly, also function as one of the spoken aspects. Discourse markers named differently are the subject of much attention from different researchers, most of which focus on discourse markers, which are lexical items that connect sentences, clauses, and other textual parts to create a cohesive, consistent, and comprehensible whole. Nevertheless, the stylistic quirks of these lexical items are receiving scant attention. It's crucial to keep in mind that distinct discourse markers might be employed in spoken and written English, and that discourse markers are sensitive to register. The excessively oral tone of an academic essay may be influenced by the employment of informal or semiformal discourse markers. Discourse markers are used in this study to examine the spoken-like quality of student academic essays, along with a brief examination of additional spoken elements found in this type of writing (Šimčikaitė, 2011). The grammar of written English has received a lot more attention lately, although the grammar of spoken English was not well explained. It is the primary cause of learners' ongoing confusion over the distinctions between spoken and written English. The two forms of language were contrasted and distinct characteristics of written and spoken English were identified in light of researchers' growing interest in the characteristics of spoken language in recent years. According to researchers like Carter and McCarthy (2006), Pridham (2001), Huddleston and Pullum (2002), Leech and Svartvik (1994), Biber et al. (1999), and Pridham (2001), spoken and written English are different in terms of vocabulary, grammar, formality, and spontaneity. One of the hardest things to get good at is academic writing, which has extremely intricate frameworks and a formal, impersonal style that differs from daily English. Nonetheless, it has been shown that certain aspects of spoken English that influence the written work's oral tone also frequently show up in the academic writing produced by learners. The field of corpus linguistics emerged in the early 1960s when the computer corpus made its appearance. This new field offers the chance to study cross-linguistic variations and unearth fresh linguistic facts. Corpus linguistics piqued the interest of researchers such as Kennedy (1998), Granger (1998), Granger et al. (2002), Meyer (2002), Halliday et al. (2004), and Baker (2006). Although it is neither a new field of linguistics nor a new theory of language, according to Granger et al. (2002: 1), the methodology is extremely potent and has the capacity to alter perceptions of language because of the nature of the data it employs (Šimčikaitė, 2012). Rich features are those that "point to the relation between a text and its context," according to Barton (2004). Rich features are characterised by their linguistic integrity—that is, their ability to be defined in terms of language structure and subsequently classified, coded, counted, and subjected to other forms of empirical analysis—and contextual value—that is, their ability to be conventionally linked to issues of function, meaning, interpretation, and significance. (Barton, 2004: 66). If applied to student writing, the examination of rich features could have a significant impact. Teachers may be able to find answers to why novice writers typically produce difficult sentences or convey ideas incoherently by comparing the writing samples of stronger and weaker students. Additionally, it is thought that composition professors would be able to provide much more grounded feedback on students' writing as well as more precise instructions on how to separate spoken language in academic contexts from ordinary written language by using rich feature analysis. When writing in an academic setting, students typically require some time to become proficient in differentiating between spoken and written language. Particularly inexperienced authors have a tendency to incorporate spoken language into academic writing, even if written language is meant to be employed in a more scientific manner. Young children, whether or not they are from an English-speaking family, have poor control over the distinctions between oral and written language, claims Hammond (1990). The fact that "there is no absolute distinction between the two (spoken and written)" (Carter, 2004) makes learning more challenging. The spoken and written forms of English can be particularly perplexing for non-native speakers who are learning the language yet rarely use it as well as native speakers do. Consider Chinese students as an example. From elementary school through college, the majority of Chinese students are obliged to acquire the English language. However, because most students take exams for English frequently and don't utilize it in daily life, English is taken as a subject rather than a language. They typically don't know the distinction between written and spoken English, which could result in awkward situations when written language is used while spoken language is written. It turns out that it is crucial for teachers to provide their students the precise direction they need in order to prevent them from misusing the two forms of language when they are learning to write. Chafe (1979) identified communication-involvement evidences like use of direct quotes and historical present relating to the subject matters, use of informal words or expressions (e.g., I figured, a very fun situation), monitoring devices to control the information flow (e.g., I mean, you know, oh no I take that back), evidentials (comments on the source and validly of the information), vagueness, and hedges. Tian (2013) compared the two registers in four texts and discuss three main aspects, namely, nominalization, lexical density and grammatical intricacy and personal pronouns. Kim & Kim (2022) did research on affinities of text types to typical spoken and written registers and identified pervasive oral features in SL like interrogatives, progressives, personal pronouns, and contractions. 2.3 Features of SL in the Present Thesis Based on the analysis of the prior SL-related research, some common conclusions of SL features were drawn: 1) syntactical features: more short sentences, more simple sentence types, more ellipse sentences; 2) linguistic features: generally, less lexical density such as more verbs, less content words, more personal nouns; specifically, other features like adjacent pairs, common spoken language, hedge, etc. SL contains more simple sentences, which results in more sentence types. Quirk et al. (1972), identified seven basic or simple sentences types, namely, SV, SVC, SVA, SVO, SVOO, SVOC, and SVOA. According to lexical meaning, words can be divided into content words and functions. Content words refer to noun, verb, adjective, and adverb. Function words include pronouns, determiners, complementizers, conjunctions, and the like. SL contains less content words. For example, SL usually expresses in first person pronouns and therefore involves more verbs. Among other features, adjacent pairs like How are you, yes, is notable. Another is hedge language, including I think, and so on, etc. 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Questions 1) What differences present between SL and WL? 2) What are SL features found in Chinese and Sudanese students' writings? 3) What is the enlightenment to non-English teaching? 3.2 Tools and Measures 1) A self-made corpus The self-made corpus consists of 52 compositions written by Chinese students and 31 essays written by Sudanese students. All of the compositions were compared in terms of lexical density via AntWordProfiler and of syntactic structures via AntConc. The two groups of essays were arranged into two separate corpora. The corpus of 52 compositions by Chinese students consisted of 6002 tokens, or 10514 types, while that of 31 essays by Sudanese students had 4282 tokens, or 984 types. 2) AntConc AntConc is a freeware corpus analysis toolkit developed for concordancing and text analysis by Dr. Anthony of Waseda University. This software has been updated many times and the latest version is Version 4.2.4. AntConc is powerful in concordance. The application of AntConc 4.2.4 enable a clear view of target words or expressions in a text or collection of texts. In order to gain a distinct knowledge of the syntactic structures in compositions of both groups of students, the syntactic codes were used to identify sentence types of simple sentences like SV, SVO, SVOO, etc., while the syntactic codes for compound and complex sentences included SS for subjective sentences, OS for objective sentences, PS for predicative sentences, AS for attributive sentences, and the like. 3) AntWordProfiler AntWordProfiler is also a freeware developed by Anthony for profiling the vocabulary level and complexity of texts. It can be downloaded for Windows without installation, and it supports various reference lists and citation methods. In the present research, this software is used to analyze the target compositions and helps zoom upon content words of different vocabulary levels. 3.3 Participants There were two groups of participants from China and Sudan. Both groups were 4th-year undergraduates. There were 52 Chinese students taking part in the investigation, and there were 31 Sudanese students who submitted their academic writings. Table 1 Basic Information of Participants Nationality English number gender male female Ratio China A foreign language 52 9 43 1:4.78 Sudan A second language 31 4 27 1:6.75 Participants were asked to write an essay on the topic " Many people believe that social media has advantages more than disadvantages. Do you agree? Mention reasons to support your answer. " The length was not restricted. Each group of students were supposed to submit their writings within 30 minutes, without the use of any devices or dictionaries. 3.4 Data Collection and Analysis This study used a self-made corpus of academic writings of Chinese and Sudanese 4th-year undergraduates. All the collected academic writings were transcribed into text files and built into a self-made corpus for the comparison. First, the hand-written articles were scanned. Then, they were transcribed separately into independent text files and stored as a self-made corpus in the computer, which could be available for easy access via AntConc. After the texts were encoded with sentence types and enlisted in a common file, namely, a separate self-made corpus. AntConc was run for syntactic analysis by taking specific syntactic codes as key words. AntWordProfiler was applied to generate the word lists of different levels for a close comparison of content words in the academic writings of the two groups. 4. Results and Discussion According to Quirk et al. (1972), there are 7 basic sentence types, including SV, SVO, SVOO, SVOC, SVOA, SVC, and SVA. WL has more complex sentences than SL. Table 2 SL Features of Both Groups of Students' Academic Writing Students Syntactic features Linguistic features simple Non-simple content function Chinese 265 438 902 5100 Sudanese 15 59 865 127 4.1 Content words According to the statistical results of word levels via AntWordProfiler, it's found that in Chinese students' writings content words of Level 1 rank first, followed by Level 0, Level 3 and Level 2. Comparatively, in Sudanese students' writings the ranking order was similar, with content words of Level 1 ranking first, followed by Level 0, Level 3 and Level 2. Table 3 Levels of Content Words in Chinese Students' Writings Part of speech Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 0 Noun 142 37 59 110 Verb 145 53 68 62 Adjective 66 32 39 63 adverb 14 2 0 10 total 367 124 166 245 Table 4 Levels of Content Words in Sudanese Students' Writings Part of speech Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 0 Noun 94 29 49 89 Verb 100 29 48 44 Adjective 36 11 24 38 adverb 15 0 1 5 total 245 69 122 176 4.2 Identification of Linguistic Features To obtain a closer view of the use of content words in both groups, a comparison of the part of speech was also conducted into subcategories like deixis, hedge, adjacency pair, back-channel features, and the like. As it could be seen from Figure 1, the Chinese students have used Deixis 243 throughout their writings, while the Sudanese students have used this feature 61 times. The Hedge feature has been imposed 7 times and 2 times by Chinese students and Sudanese students, respectively. The adjacency pairs feature has been spotted used 3 times less by the Chinese students than the Sudanese students. Moving to the back-channel features, it was found out that the Chinese students have used these features 5 times, while the Sudanese students didn't use them throughout their essays. The Chinese group used the common spoken language features only once, while the Sudanese group did not. The Elision feature was noticed used by both groups. Finally, nine Chinese students have not used any spoken language feature in their essays, and comparatively, fourteen Sudanese students had not imposed any spoken language feature in her essay. 4.3 Comparison of the Presence of SL Features Comparing the academic writing performance of both groups, 82.7% of Chinese students have used spoken language features throughout their essays, while 17.3% have not used the spoken language features. When it comes to Sudanese students, 91.7% have imposed spoken language features on their academic writings, while 8.3% have not done so. Moving on, it could be noticed that they both have imposed the Deixis feature more than the other spoken language features (Chinese students 243 times, Sudanese students 61 times). Furthermore, the Hedge feature has been used more by the Chinese students than the Sudanese students (seven vs. two), while the Sudanese students have used the Adjacency pairs feature more than the Chinese students (ten times by the Sudanese students and two times by the Chinese students); moreover, the Back-channel features are more popularly used by the Chinese students compared to the Sudanese students (five vs. zero). The common spoken language features are used equally by both groups (one time by each). Additionally, it could be seen that none of the Chinese students have used the Elision feature, while only one Sudanese student has used it. Eventually, there are more Chinese students who have not used any spoken language features throughout their essays; at the same time, there is only one Sudanese student's essay that was found to be clear without any spoken language features. 5. Implications for Academic Writing Proficiency To avoid meaning's shortage, incompleteness, or ambiguity that can happen with using spoken language features in academic writing and to improve the academic writing, there are some suggestions that need to be addressed: When writing an academic essay, students or writers need to avoid addressing unknown readers or unknown subjects by imposing subject and object pronouns, because this will confuse the readers, who might not be as the student or writer imagined them. Also, the readers might be more confused when the essay's writer uses 'we', 'I', or 'our' since it is not necessary that the readers know who the writer is and his indications. In academic writing, students or essay writers should not use vague language like (and so on) because this form might include information that the readers are not familiar with; therefore, the essay's writer must be specific about the objects that he or she is indicating to avoid ambiguity. When writing academic essays, essays' writers must not give dialogue or direct answers like (yes, no) since the academic writing is not a live conversation or theatre show. This way might lead the essay writers to flow conversational content that can be more complicated to understand because the writer's writing style is defining who's writing to, which automatically may reject other readers whose statuses or profiles are not similar to the essay's presumed readers. Essays' writers must give strong addressed sentences and avoid using weak or soft words or phrases like perhaps, maybe, sort of, and 'I think', because such forms might confuse the readers about whether the writer is sure enough or not regarding the content he/she is sharing. Essay writers must avoid using shortened forms of any word because this might not be recognized by all readers. Essay writers must avoid using dialectical forms since this can be understood by a specific range of readers (the geography limit). The results of using dialectical forms can affect delivering the complete meaning of the shared content. 5. Recommendations and Solutions 5.1 Strategies to Minimize the Use of SL Features in Academic Writing Based on the findings from the comparative analysis of Chinese and Sudanese students' essays, which reveal significant differences in the use of spoken language features such as deixis, hedges, adjacency pairs, and back-channeling, it is important to develop targeted strategies to help students minimize these features in academic writing. Here, we outline effective strategies to minimize the presence of spoken language (SL) features in academic writing. One primary approach is to educate students on the differences between spoken and written language. Teachers can organize workshops and interactive activities that highlight these differences by comparing informal spoken language with formal academic writing. For instance, students can be shown how informal phrases like “I think this is a problem" can be rephrased into more formal academic expressions such as "This presents a significant issue" (Hyland, 2004). Besides, developing explicit guidelines and detailed rubrics for academic writing can help students understand the expectations for formal writing and reduce the use of spoken language features. These guidelines should clearly define academic writing conventions, such as minimizing the use of hedges and avoiding conversational elements like back-channeling, emphasizing aspects such as avoiding colloquial expressions and maintaining formal tone (Swales & Feak, 2012). Rubrics should include criteria for evaluating the clarity of arguments, the appropriateness of language, and the presence of academic structures. By using these guidelines and rubrics in their writing assignments, students can better understand and apply the standards for effective academic writing. For example, a guideline might suggest using "the evidence indicates" instead of "I believe the evidence shows" (Graff & Birkenstein, 2014). Additionally, peer review sessions and regular feedback can be valuable tools in identifying and revising SL features. By participating in peer reviews, students can learn to recognize informal language and improve their own writing. During peer review sessions, students should be trained to focus on identifying spoken language features like deixis and hedges, and to provide constructive feedback on how to replace these features with formal academic expressions. This process not only improves students' writing but also enhances their ability to critically assess and apply academic writing conventions. A structured peer review process can include checklists that focus on academic writing standards, such as avoiding conversational language and ensuring clarity (Topping, 2009). Teachers can also provide targeted feedback on drafts, pointing out instances of SL features and offering specific revision suggestions. 5.2 Training and Interventions for Students To enhance students' academic writing skills, structured training programs and targeted interventions are essential. A highly effective approach is the development of specialized academic writing courses that provide comprehensive instruction on formal writing practices. These courses should be specifically designed to address the overuse of spoken language features like deixis, hedges, adjacency pairs, and back-channeling in students' academic writing. The curriculum of such courses should include a series of targeted modules that focus on the key elements of academic writing, such as argumentation, evidence-based writing, and maintaining formality in written discourse. These courses can be further enhanced by incorporating real-world academic writing tasks and providing students with opportunities to practice and receive feedback on their use of formal language features (Hyland, 2009). Another effective intervention for enhancing academic writing skills is the establishment of one-on-one tutoring services, which offer personalized feedback on students' drafts, focusing on issues such as the overuse of deixis, excessive hedging, and inappropriate use of back-channeling and address specific writing challenges faced by students (Schleppegrell, 1996). In these individualized sessions, a tutor works directly with a student to review and critique their writing assignments, providing detailed, constructive feedback tailored to the student’s unique needs. For example, tutors can help students identify instances of informal language in their drafts, which may not align with academic writing standards, and guide them on how to revise these passages for greater formality and clarity (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002). This personalized approach allows tutors to focus on the student’s specific issues, such as helping them to develop a clear thesis statement, organize their arguments logically, or use academic vocabulary effectively. Additionally, one-on-one tutoring creates a supportive environment where students can openly discuss their writing difficulties, ask questions, and receive immediate, actionable advice. This direct interaction not only addresses the immediate concerns of the student but also fosters a deeper understanding of academic writing conventions and strategies. By offering tailored support, these tutoring services help students improve their writing skills, overcome specific challenges, and build a strong foundation for future academic success (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002). Through such personalized interventions, one-on-one tutoring plays a crucial role in enhancing students' writing abilities and contributing to their overall academic growth. Incorporating technology into the writing process can also be beneficial. Tools like “Grammarly” and “Hemingway Editor” can assist students in detecting and revising SL features in their writing. These tools offer feedback on language formality, sentence structure, and overall clarity (Carter & McCarthy, 2006). Beyond these specific tools, technology can also be integrated into the writing process through the use of writing apps, online writing websites, and educational platforms that offer tutorials and practice exercises. By utilizing these resources, students can receive immediate feedback and engage in self-directed learning to improve their writing skills. The incorporation of technology in writing instruction thus provides students with additional support mechanisms to refine their academic writing abilities and meet high academic standards. 5.3 Implications for Teaching and Learning Firstly, the significant difference in the use of deixis between Chinese and Sudanese students suggests a need for targeted instructional strategies in academic writing. Chinese students used deixis extensively compared to their Sudanese counterparts, indicating a potential overreliance on spoken language features. This implies that educators should focus on teaching students how to balance spoken and written language elements, perhaps by developing exercises that help students recognize and avoid excessive use of deixis in academic texts. Secondly, the data shows that Chinese students used hedges less frequently and made limited use of back-channeling compared to Sudanese students in their academic writing. While self-assessment can help students recognize and reduce the overuse of these features, it is not sufficient on its own. To effectively address these issues, a combination of strategies should be implemented. This includes structured self-assessment tools that focus on academic writing conventions, targeted workshops that provide specific training on avoiding the use of hedges and back-channeling in academic writing, and regular feedback from instructors to guide students in improving their writing skills. Finally, the observed differences in language features between Chinese and Sudanese students underscore the potential for cross-cultural learning opportunities. The variation in the use of adjacency pairs and elision across the two groups suggests that cross-cultural exchanges could help students understand diverse academic writing norms. By facilitating collaborative writing projects or organizing workshops that bring together students from different backgrounds, educators can help students appreciate and integrate various academic writing practices. 6. Conclusion Using spoken language features in academic writing leads to ambiguous or unclear meaning; therefore, teachers, researchers, and students should always think of ways to decrease the usage of spoken language features in academic writing. In the current study, a group of Chinese and Sudanese students from two different universities and different educational systems have written an academic essay. After that, their essays have been investigated to check whether they used spoken language features or not and what types of spoken language features they used. After the investigation, it was found that both groups have used different spoken language feature types with different percentages. The results were thoroughly discussed, and many suggestions to improve academic writing proficiency have been addressed. Besides that, future studies related to the same topic have been well proposed. According to the collected answers of the participants, 1) 84.4% of both Chinese and Sudanese participants have used spoken language features in their academic writing answers, and 15.6% have not used spoken language features in their writings. 2) Both groups (Chinese and Sudanese) have problems with academic writing; therefore, both educational systems in China and Sudan (English language departments) should establish a systematic solution for such problems. 3) The major problem for both groups is using the Deixis feature. This means that all students, when they develop an academic essay, either are unknown subjects (meaning that they are not specialized in the content, which decreases the credibility and reliability of the essay) or they are writing to unknown readers (meaning that they do not know to whom they are writing). This study is significant as it contributes a solution to the problem of involving informal features like spoken language features (Adjacency pairs, Back-channels, Deixis, Elision, Hedge, and Common Spoken language features) in academic writing. It is also significant as it contributes to the literature in the area of academic writing and its improvement. Moreover, three of the stakeholders will benefit from this study: students, teachers, and linguistic universities, colleges, or schools. This study has some limitations: the words' number or paragraphs' number of the essay question that was handed to the students has not been specified; therefore, few students have written short essays (syntactical problems), which makes it difficult to spot spoken language features in their writing. The spoken language features can greatly affect the delivery of the meaning; therefore, besides other forms of academic writing like scholarly papers, review articles, and critical essays, it is strongly suggested to explore the usage of the spoken language features in many forms of formal writing like reports, brochures, letters to editors, business writing, and formal letters. Declarations Funding declaration ： The first author received Wenzhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau (23WSK133YBM), Wenzhou Ouhai District (2024-135F) and (2021-031) for this work. Authors’ contributions: This project is the conjoined efforts of all the authors, with the first author’s idea and supervision. Yujie Su did conceptualization and design of the study, drafted the manuscript, provided critical feedback and suggestions for improvement, and offered guidance and mentorship. Altayeb Salih Ahmed Mohammed and Yuqing Dai did acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and contributed to the writing. Juan Zhang and Xueyan Li supervised the research. Shuchang Dong took part in drafting the manuscript and revised the manuscript. Data availability statement: 1. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Wenzhou Unversity repository, www.wzu.edu.cn 2. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]. Ethics: the protocol was approved by Wenzhou University in accordance with the [named relevant guidelines and regulations. Consent statement Informed consent was obtained from all the participants involved in the study. Declaration of interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Datasets statement: Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. References Chafe, W. L. (1979). Integration and involvement in Spoken and Written Language . Paper presented at the 2 nd Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Vienna. Chafe, W., & Danielwicz, J. (1987). Comprehending Oral and Written Language . Academic Press. Diane, L. S., Kleiman, G. M., & Rubin, A. D. (1977). Analyses of Differences between Written and Oral Language. Technical Report , 29, 1-31. Drieman, G. (1962). Differences between Written and Spoken Language. Acta Psychologica , 26, 36-57. Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning. On Grammar: Volume 1 of the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday (pp. 323-351). London: Continuum. Hammond, J. (1990). Is Learning to Read and Write the Same as Learning to Speak? In F. Christie (Ed.), Literacy in a Changing World (pp. 26-53). Hawthorn, Victoria: ACER. Harrel, L. E. (1957). A Comparison of the Development of Oral and Written Language in School-age Children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 22(3), 77. Doi:10.2307/1165494 Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without Elegance: Features of Sentences in L1 and L2 Academic Texts. TESOL Quarterly , 37, 275-301. Keenan, E. O., & Bennet, T. L. (Eds.) (1977). Discourse across Space and Time. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics , 5, Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Department of Linguistics. Kim, Seong-shik & Kim, Kyeong-min (2022). Affinities of Text Types to Typical Spoken and Written Registers. Journal of the Korea English Education Society , 21(4), 43-66. Doi:10.18649/jkees.2022.21.2.43 Mewburn, L., Firth, K., Lehmann, S. (2019). How to Fix Your Academic Writing Trouble: A Practical Guide. London: Open University Press. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1972. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Redeker, G. (1984). On Differences between Spoken and Written Language. Discourse Processes , 7, 43-55. Rubin, A. D. (1978). A Theoretical Taxonomy of the Differences between Oral and Written Language. Technical Report , 35, 1-57. Schleppegrell, M. J. (1996). Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. Applied linguistics, 17 ( 3), 271-285. Šimčikaitė, Alė. (2011). Spoken Features in Learner Academic Writing: The Analysis of Discourse Markers. Psycho-features Facilitating Foreign Language Learning and Acquisition, 47. Šimčikaitė, Alė. (2012). Spoken Discourse Markers in Learner Academic Writing. Studies about Languages, 20, 27-34. Tian, X. F. (2013). Distinguish Spoken English from Written English: Rich Feature Analysis. English Language Teaching , 6(7), 72-79. Doi:10.5539/elt.v6n7p72 Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and Literate Strategies in Spoken and Written Narratives. Language , 58, 1-21. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 30 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 06 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 03 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 11 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Apr, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 22 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 22 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 21 Jan, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5873068","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":450754892,"identity":"23219891-7d31-4636-ab08-a03f7247f82f","order_by":0,"name":"Yujie Su","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wenzhou University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yujie","middleName":"","lastName":"Su","suffix":""},{"id":450754893,"identity":"78b87702-42b7-4422-85af-931b92777d52","order_by":1,"name":"Altayeb Salih Ahmed Mohammed","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wenzhou University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Altayeb","middleName":"Salih Ahmed","lastName":"Mohammed","suffix":""},{"id":450754894,"identity":"05d09e33-224e-49d1-968d-8f1bb17d9853","order_by":2,"name":"Yuqing Dai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wenzhou University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yuqing","middleName":"","lastName":"Dai","suffix":""},{"id":450754895,"identity":"9913c256-37e2-4ff5-82fd-65936ce007f1","order_by":3,"name":"Juan Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wenzhou University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Juan","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":450754896,"identity":"91b47e04-a7ca-4a31-8e59-f23eefb481a1","order_by":4,"name":"Xueyan Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wenzhou University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xueyan","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":450754897,"identity":"b4eb0c38-a741-43ae-869a-7112d65626fe","order_by":5,"name":"Shuchang Dong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wenzhou University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shuchang","middleName":"","lastName":"Dong","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-01-21 11:23:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5873068/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5873068/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81947465,"identity":"6f834ba5-dc4e-46b0-9cb4-9c1af26ad02b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 08:26:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31257,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLinguistic Features of Both Groups of Students' Academic Writing\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5873068/v1/80e3aa8e899a71b93a28cacb.png"},{"id":81948585,"identity":"8ab7302a-73aa-466f-83fc-185c6a0f9505","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-05 08:42:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":511504,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5873068/v1/cdc8f880-77f8-4007-892d-44ead1693723.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Comparative Study of the Spoken Language Features in the Academic Writings of Chinese and Sudanese Undergraduates","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSL and WL are two major registers in language learning. Early research in SL and WL focused on their distinct linguistic features (e.g., Drieman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e; Harrel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1957\u003c/span\u003e; Danne et al., 1977) or functional account of the differences involving contextual factors such as situation, purpose, message, etc. (Chafe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e; Keenan \u0026amp; Bennet, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e; Rubin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e; Tannen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The written language (WL) is more challenging to deliver meaning because there is no additional way to facilitate conveying meaning as there is in the spoken language. The spoken language (SL) has additional means to effectively convey its meaning, such as gestures, body language, eye contact, and so on. These means are affecting the meaning and integrating it. Employing SL characteristics in academic written language could potentially generate confusion for readers, as these features rely on the speaker's physical presence to determine the speaker's precise intentions beyond the usage of these elements. Generally, academic writings contain SL features, which influences the formality and arouse confusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Conveying meaning in WL poses greater challenges compared to SL, as written language lacks the additional nonverbal cues, such as gestures, body language, and eye contact, which are integral to the effective expression of meaning in spoken discourse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChafe and Danielwicz (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e) examined four types of texts (conversations, lectures, letters, and academic papers) and identified 19 features, such as type/token ratio, hedges, implicit third person reference, literary and colloquial vocabulary, and others, which have been regarded criteria for evaluating the spoken features in writings. Researchers tended to discord in the measurement. Additionally, few current research has approached the investigation into spoken features by comparing English writings of students from different countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree questions were addressed: 1) What differences present between SL and WL? 2) What are SL features found in Chinese and Sudanese students' writings? 3) What is the enlightenment to non-English teaching?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study aims to investigate the use of SL features in academic writings of Chinese and Sudanese university students. Specifically, the study aims to investigate the types of SL features when they are incorporated into formal and academic writing of the two groups of students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe comparative study of spoken features in the academic writings of Chinese and Sudanese undergraduates generates some objective theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, by measuring the spoken features in EFL and ESL writings this research contributes to the field of Second Language Acquisition. It shed lights on the transferability of spoken language features into written forms, enriching our understanding of cross-linguistic influence and first-language impact on written composition. Practically, by identifying specific oral language features in the writings, this research offers valuable insights for educators and curriculum designers working with international students and enable the improvement of instructional methodologies that better integrates spoken and written language skills, ultimately enhancing the students' overall academic performance and communicative competence.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe spoken and written modes of English are particularly confusing for nonnative speakers who are learning English with inadequate output as native speakers do.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.1 Comparison of Language Features between SL and WL\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSL and WL are often the subject for comparison in related research. The recurring theme in this field include the recognition of syntactic, lexical, and morphological differences between the two modalities (Chafe, 1979; Redeker, 1984). SL is characterized as informal, colloquial and unstructured due to its spontaneity, while WL is deemed comparatively formal, more structured, impersonal and wordy (Mewburn, Firth \u0026amp; Lehmann, 2019). Hinkel (2003) compared the writing of native English speakers (L1) and English language learners (ELL) in the universities by means of corpus and found that features of spoken register, i.e., be as a main verb, predicative adjectives, private verbs and public verbs, were in statistically higher median frequency rates in the writing of ELL students compared to English L1 essays, and L1 writings had a statistically more frequency of it-cleft. Other oral features like interrogatives, progressives, personal pronouns, and contractions are pervasive in spoken register (Kim \u0026amp; Kim, 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWL is a crucial form of communication that plays a critical role in various aspects of human life, ranging from education, administration, literature, and research. An understanding of its inherent characteristics is paramount for effective written communication and literacy development. Syntactically, WL tends to exhibit greater syntactic complexity compared with SL, with longer sentences and a wider variety of sentence types (Biber, 1988). As for the use of vocabulary, WL tends to employ specialized and technical vocabulary to reflect unique domain and contexts, allowing for precise and nuanced expression (Nation, 2006). Then the style of WL differs from SL in formality and objectivity, with the selection of formal or academic words, complete and grammatical sentences, and proper conjunctions emphasizing grammatical accuracy and logical coherence (Halliday, 2004).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSL differs from WL in the use of functions, as Halliday (2002: 344) pointed out that SL tends to describe actions, namely, talking about something as it happened or was done, while WL tends to express things, i.e., representing in the form of an object. Generally, WL tends to describe actions in terms of nouns. Oppositely, SL usually represent actions in terms of verbs. It means that nominalization, representation of actions in terms of nouns, is an important feature for WL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBesides nominalization, the abstraction of WL also lies in lexical density. Halliday (2002: 329) defined lexical density as the proportion of lexical items (content words) to the total discourse, whose extent (higher or lower) was influenced by the language type of the texts. Generally, SL had fewer lexical items in clause while WL had higher ones. Hammond (1990) pointed out that besides lexical density, SL also differs from WL in complexity of grammatical structures. In other words, WL has a higher lexical density, while SL is complex in clauses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of personal nouns is also recognized as an important feature for the discrepancy between SL and WL.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.2 Current Research on Spoken Language Features in Academic Writing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWriting and speech are two distinct modalities that are challenging to directly compare since discourse develops in contexts where language is used to create genres. Here, genres are interpreted as forms of text or speech, such as academic essays, informal chats, or narratives; these are cultural units made up of lexical and grammatical resources (Halliday \u0026amp; Hasan, 1989; Martin 1992). Registers are the various arrangements of these lexical and grammatical resources. In the realization of specific genres, different register selections are more or less appropriate or effective (Schleppegrell, 1996).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSingular nouns following plural measurement expressions, contractions, multiple negative constructions, split infinitives, errors, pauses, repetitions, reformulations, grammatical reduction/interpersonal dimension\u0026mdash;which includes situational ellipsis, utterance launchers, tails, tags, etc.\u0026mdash;are some of the most noticeable characteristics of spoken English that the scholars list. Discourse markers, interestingly, also function as one of the spoken aspects. Discourse markers named differently are the subject of much attention from different researchers, most of which focus on discourse markers, which are lexical items that connect sentences, clauses, and other textual parts to create a cohesive, consistent, and comprehensible whole. Nevertheless, the stylistic quirks of these lexical items are receiving scant attention. It\u0026apos;s crucial to keep in mind that distinct discourse markers might be employed in spoken and written English, and that discourse markers are sensitive to register. The excessively oral tone of an academic essay may be influenced by the employment of informal or semiformal discourse markers. Discourse markers are used in this study to examine the spoken-like quality of student academic essays, along with a brief examination of additional spoken elements found in this type of writing (\u0026Scaron;imčikaitė, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe grammar of written English has received a lot more attention lately, although the grammar of spoken English was not well explained. It is the primary cause of learners\u0026apos; ongoing confusion over the distinctions between spoken and written English. The two forms of language were contrasted and distinct characteristics of written and spoken English were identified in light of researchers\u0026apos; growing interest in the characteristics of spoken language in recent years. According to researchers like Carter and McCarthy (2006), Pridham (2001), Huddleston and Pullum (2002), Leech and Svartvik (1994), Biber et al. (1999), and Pridham (2001), spoken and written English are different in terms of vocabulary, grammar, formality, and spontaneity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the hardest things to get good at is academic writing, which has extremely intricate frameworks and a formal, impersonal style that differs from daily English. Nonetheless, it has been shown that certain aspects of spoken English that influence the written work\u0026apos;s oral tone also frequently show up in the academic writing produced by learners. The field of corpus linguistics emerged in the early 1960s when the computer corpus made its appearance. This new field offers the chance to study cross-linguistic variations and unearth fresh linguistic facts. Corpus linguistics piqued the interest of researchers such as Kennedy (1998), Granger (1998), Granger et al. (2002), Meyer (2002), Halliday et al. (2004), and Baker (2006). Although it is neither a new field of linguistics nor a new theory of language, according to Granger et al. (2002: 1), the methodology is extremely potent and has the capacity to alter perceptions of language because of the nature of the data it employs (\u0026Scaron;imčikaitė, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRich features are those that \u0026quot;point to the relation between a text and its context,\u0026quot; according to Barton (2004). Rich features are characterised by their linguistic integrity\u0026mdash;that is, their ability to be defined in terms of language structure and subsequently classified, coded, counted, and subjected to other forms of empirical analysis\u0026mdash;and contextual value\u0026mdash;that is, their ability to be conventionally linked to issues of function, meaning, interpretation, and significance. (Barton, 2004: 66). If applied to student writing, the examination of rich features could have a significant impact. Teachers may be able to find answers to why novice writers typically produce difficult sentences or convey ideas incoherently by comparing the writing samples of stronger and weaker students. Additionally, it is thought that composition professors would be able to provide much more grounded feedback on students\u0026apos; writing as well as more precise instructions on how to separate spoken language in academic contexts from ordinary written language by using rich feature analysis. When writing in an academic setting, students typically require some time to become proficient in differentiating between spoken and written language. Particularly inexperienced authors have a tendency to incorporate spoken language into academic writing, even if written language is meant to be employed in a more scientific manner. Young children, whether or not they are from an English-speaking family, have poor control over the distinctions between oral and written language, claims Hammond (1990). The fact that \u0026quot;there is no absolute distinction between the two (spoken and written)\u0026quot; (Carter, 2004) makes learning more challenging. The spoken and written forms of English can be particularly perplexing for non-native speakers who are learning the language yet rarely use it as well as native speakers do. Consider Chinese students as an example. From elementary school through college, the majority of Chinese students are obliged to acquire the English language. However, because most students take exams for English frequently and don\u0026apos;t utilize it in daily life, English is taken as a subject rather than a language. They typically don\u0026apos;t know the distinction between written and spoken English, which could result in awkward situations when written language is used while spoken language is written. It turns out that it is crucial for teachers to provide their students the precise direction they need in order to prevent them from misusing the two forms of language when they are learning to write.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChafe (1979) identified communication-involvement evidences like use of direct quotes and historical present relating to the subject matters, use of informal words or expressions (e.g., I figured, a very fun situation), monitoring devices to control the information flow (e.g., I mean, you know, oh no I take that back), evidentials (comments on the source and validly of the information), vagueness, and hedges. Tian (2013) compared the two registers in four texts and discuss three main aspects, namely, nominalization, lexical density and grammatical intricacy and personal pronouns. Kim \u0026amp; Kim (2022) did research on affinities of text types to typical spoken and written registers and identified pervasive oral features in SL like interrogatives, progressives, personal pronouns, and contractions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.3 Features of SL in the Present Thesis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the analysis of the prior SL-related research, some common conclusions of SL features were drawn: 1) syntactical features: more short sentences, more simple sentence types, more ellipse sentences; 2) linguistic features: generally, less lexical density such as more verbs, less content words, more personal nouns; specifically, other features like adjacent pairs, common spoken language, hedge, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSL contains more simple sentences, which results in more sentence types. Quirk et al. (1972), identified seven basic or simple sentences types, namely, SV, SVC, SVA, SVO, SVOO, SVOC, and SVOA.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to lexical meaning, words can be divided into content words and functions. Content words refer to noun, verb, adjective, and adverb. Function words include pronouns, determiners, complementizers, conjunctions, and the like. SL contains less content words. For example, SL usually expresses in first person pronouns and therefore involves more verbs. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong other features, adjacent pairs like How are you, yes, is notable. Another is hedge language, including I think, and so on, etc.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e3.1 Research Questions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) What differences present between SL and WL?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) What are SL features found in Chinese and Sudanese students\u0026apos; writings?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3) What is the enlightenment to non-English teaching?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.2 Tools and Measures\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) A self-made corpus\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe self-made corpus consists of 52 compositions written by Chinese students and 31 essays written by Sudanese students. All of the compositions were compared in terms of lexical density via AntWordProfiler and of syntactic structures via AntConc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe two groups of essays were arranged into two separate corpora. The corpus of 52 compositions by Chinese students consisted of 6002 tokens, or 10514 types, while that of 31 essays by Sudanese students had 4282 tokens, or 984 types.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) AntConc\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntConc is a freeware corpus analysis toolkit developed for concordancing and text analysis by Dr. Anthony of Waseda University. This software has been updated many times and the latest version is Version 4.2.4.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntConc is powerful in concordance. The application of AntConc 4.2.4 enable a clear view of target words or expressions in a text or collection of texts. In order to gain a distinct knowledge of the syntactic structures in compositions of both groups of students, the syntactic codes were used to identify sentence types of simple sentences like SV, SVO, SVOO, etc., while the syntactic codes for compound and complex sentences included SS for subjective sentences, OS for objective sentences, PS for predicative sentences, AS for attributive sentences, and the like.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3) AntWordProfiler\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntWordProfiler is also a freeware developed by Anthony for profiling the vocabulary level and complexity of texts. It can be downloaded for Windows without installation, and it supports various reference lists and citation methods. In the present research, this software is used to analyze the target compositions and helps zoom upon content words of different vocabulary levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.3 Participants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere were two groups of participants from China and Sudan. Both groups were 4th-year undergraduates. There were 52 Chinese students taking part in the investigation, and there were 31 Sudanese students who submitted their academic writings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 Basic Information of Participants\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNationality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnglish\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003enumber\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003egender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003emale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRatio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChina\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA foreign language\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:4.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSudan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 30px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA second language\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:6.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked to write an essay on the topic \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eMany people believe that social media has advantages more than disadvantages. Do you agree? Mention reasons to support your answer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026quot; The length was not restricted. Each group of students were supposed to submit their writings within 30 minutes, without the use of any devices or dictionaries.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.4 Data Collection and Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study used a self-made corpus of academic writings of Chinese and Sudanese 4th-year undergraduates. All the collected academic writings were transcribed into text files and built into a self-made corpus for the comparison.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, the hand-written articles were scanned. Then, they were transcribed separately into independent text files and stored as a self-made corpus in the computer, which could be available for easy access via AntConc. After the texts were encoded with sentence types and enlisted in a common file, namely, a separate self-made corpus. AntConc was run for syntactic analysis by taking specific syntactic codes as key words.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntWordProfiler was applied to generate the word lists of different levels for a close comparison of content words in the academic writings of the two groups.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAccording to Quirk et al. (1972), there are 7 basic sentence types, including SV, SVO, SVOO, SVOC, SVOA, SVC, and SVA. WL has more complex sentences than SL.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 SL Features of Both Groups of Students\u0026apos; Academic Writing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntactic features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 277px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLinguistic features\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esimple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-simple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econtent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efunction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChinese\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e438\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e902\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSudanese\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 69px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e865\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 138px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e127\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.1 Content words\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the statistical results of word levels via AntWordProfiler, it\u0026apos;s found that in Chinese students\u0026apos; writings content words of Level 1 rank first, followed by Level 0, Level 3 and Level 2. Comparatively, in Sudanese students\u0026apos; writings the ranking order was similar, with content words of Level 1 ranking first, followed by Level 0, Level 3 and Level 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 Levels of Content Words in Chinese Students\u0026apos; Writings\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePart of speech\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel 0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNoun\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e142\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVerb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e145\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eadverb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003etotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e367\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e245\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4 Levels of Content Words in Sudanese Students\u0026apos; Writings\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePart of speech\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel 0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNoun\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVerb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eadverb\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003etotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;245\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;122\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;176\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.2 Identification of Linguistic Features\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo obtain a closer view of the use of content words in both groups, a comparison of the part of speech was also conducted into subcategories like deixis, hedge, adjacency pair, back-channel features, and the like.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs it could be seen from Figure 1, the Chinese students have used Deixis 243 throughout their writings, while the Sudanese students have used this feature 61 times. The Hedge feature has been imposed 7 times and 2 times by Chinese students and Sudanese students, respectively. The adjacency pairs feature has been spotted used 3 times less by the Chinese students than the Sudanese students. Moving to the back-channel features, it was found out that the Chinese students have used these features 5 times, while the Sudanese students didn\u0026apos;t use them throughout their essays. The Chinese group used the common spoken language features only once, while the Sudanese group did not. The Elision feature was noticed used by both groups. Finally, nine Chinese students have not used any spoken language feature in their essays, and comparatively, fourteen Sudanese students had not imposed any spoken language feature in her essay.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.3 Comparison of the Presence of SL Features\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparing the academic writing performance of both groups, 82.7% of Chinese students have used spoken language features throughout their essays, while 17.3% have not used the spoken language features. When it comes to Sudanese students, 91.7% have imposed spoken language features on their academic writings, while 8.3% have not done so.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoving on, it could be noticed that they both have imposed the Deixis feature more than the other spoken language features (Chinese students 243 times, Sudanese students 61 times). Furthermore, the Hedge feature has been used more by the Chinese students than the Sudanese students (seven vs. two), while the Sudanese students have used the Adjacency pairs feature more than the Chinese students (ten times by the Sudanese students and two times by the Chinese students); moreover, the Back-channel features are more popularly used by the Chinese students compared to the Sudanese students (five vs. zero).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe common spoken language features are used equally by both groups (one time by each). Additionally, it could be seen that none of the Chinese students have used the Elision feature, while only one Sudanese student has used it. Eventually, there are more Chinese students who have not used any spoken language features throughout their essays; at the same time, there is only one Sudanese student\u0026apos;s essay that was found to be clear without any spoken language features.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Implications for Academic Writing Proficiency","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo avoid meaning\u0026apos;s shortage, incompleteness, or ambiguity that can happen with using spoken language features in academic writing and to improve the academic writing, there are some suggestions that need to be addressed:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen writing an academic essay, students or writers need to avoid addressing unknown readers or unknown subjects by imposing subject and object pronouns, because this will confuse the readers, who might not be as the student or writer imagined them. Also, the readers might be more confused when the essay\u0026apos;s writer uses \u0026apos;we\u0026apos;, \u0026apos;I\u0026apos;, or \u0026apos;our\u0026apos; since it is not necessary that the readers know who the writer is and his indications.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn academic writing, students or essay writers should not use vague language like (and so on) because this form might include information that the readers are not familiar with; therefore, the essay\u0026apos;s writer must be specific about the objects that he or she is indicating to avoid ambiguity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen writing academic essays, essays\u0026apos; writers must not give dialogue or direct answers like (yes, no) since the academic writing is not a live conversation or theatre show. This way might lead the essay writers to flow conversational content that can be more complicated to understand because the writer\u0026apos;s writing style is defining who\u0026apos;s writing to, which automatically may reject other readers whose statuses or profiles are not similar to the essay\u0026apos;s presumed readers.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEssays\u0026apos; writers must give strong addressed sentences and avoid using weak or soft words or phrases like perhaps, maybe, sort of, and \u0026apos;I think\u0026apos;, because such forms might confuse the readers about whether the writer is sure enough or not regarding the content he/she is sharing.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEssay writers must avoid using shortened forms of any word because this might not be recognized by all readers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEssay writers must avoid using dialectical forms since this can be understood by a specific range of readers (the geography limit). The results of using dialectical forms can affect delivering the complete meaning of the shared content.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5. Recommendations and Solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.1 Strategies to Minimize the Use of SL Features in Academic Writing\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the findings from the comparative analysis of Chinese and Sudanese students\u0026apos; essays, which reveal significant differences in the use of spoken language features such as deixis, hedges, adjacency pairs, and back-channeling, it is important to develop targeted strategies to help students minimize these features in academic writing. Here, we outline effective strategies to minimize the presence of spoken language (SL) features in academic writing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne primary approach is to educate students on the differences between spoken and written language. Teachers can organize workshops and interactive activities that highlight these differences by comparing informal spoken language with formal academic writing. For instance, students can be shown how informal phrases like \u0026ldquo;I think this is a problem\u0026quot; can be rephrased into more formal academic expressions such as \u0026quot;This presents a significant issue\u0026quot; (Hyland, 2004).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBesides, developing explicit guidelines and detailed rubrics for academic writing can help students understand the expectations for formal writing and reduce the use of spoken language features. These guidelines should clearly define academic writing conventions, such as minimizing the use of hedges and avoiding conversational elements like back-channeling, emphasizing aspects such as avoiding colloquial expressions and maintaining formal tone (Swales \u0026amp; Feak, 2012). Rubrics should include criteria for evaluating the clarity of arguments, the appropriateness of language, and the presence of academic structures. By using these guidelines and rubrics in their writing assignments, students can better understand and apply the standards for effective academic writing. For example, a guideline might suggest using \u0026quot;the evidence indicates\u0026quot; instead of \u0026quot;I believe the evidence shows\u0026quot; (Graff \u0026amp; Birkenstein, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, peer review sessions and regular feedback can be valuable tools in identifying and revising SL features. By participating in peer reviews, students can learn to recognize informal language and improve their own writing. During peer review sessions, students should be trained to focus on identifying spoken language features like deixis and hedges, and to provide constructive feedback on how to replace these features with formal academic expressions. This process not only improves students\u0026apos; writing but also enhances their ability to critically assess and apply academic writing conventions. A structured peer review process can include checklists that focus on academic writing standards, such as avoiding conversational language and ensuring clarity (Topping, 2009). Teachers can also provide targeted feedback on drafts, pointing out instances of SL features and offering specific revision suggestions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.2 Training and Interventions for Students\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo enhance students\u0026apos; academic writing skills, structured training programs and targeted interventions are essential. A highly effective approach is the development of specialized academic writing courses that provide comprehensive instruction on formal writing practices. These courses should be specifically designed to address the overuse of spoken language features like deixis, hedges, adjacency pairs, and back-channeling in students\u0026apos; academic writing. The curriculum of such courses should include a series of targeted modules that focus on the key elements of academic writing, such as argumentation, evidence-based writing, and maintaining formality in written discourse. These courses can be further enhanced by incorporating real-world academic writing tasks and providing students with opportunities to practice and receive feedback on their use of formal language features (Hyland, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother effective intervention for enhancing academic writing skills is the establishment of one-on-one tutoring services, which offer personalized feedback on students\u0026apos; drafts, focusing on issues such as the overuse of deixis, excessive hedging, and inappropriate use of back-channeling and address specific writing challenges faced by students (Schleppegrell, 1996). In these individualized sessions, a tutor works directly with a student to review and critique their writing assignments, providing detailed, constructive feedback tailored to the student\u0026rsquo;s unique needs. For example, tutors can help students identify instances of informal language in their drafts, which may not align with academic writing standards, and guide them on how to revise these passages for greater formality and clarity (Huddleston \u0026amp; Pullum, 2002). This personalized approach allows tutors to focus on the student\u0026rsquo;s specific issues, such as helping them to develop a clear thesis statement, organize their arguments logically, or use academic vocabulary effectively. Additionally, one-on-one tutoring creates a supportive environment where students can openly discuss their writing difficulties, ask questions, and receive immediate, actionable advice. This direct interaction not only addresses the immediate concerns of the student but also fosters a deeper understanding of academic writing conventions and strategies. By offering tailored support, these tutoring services help students improve their writing skills, overcome specific challenges, and build a strong foundation for future academic success (Huddleston \u0026amp; Pullum, 2002). Through such personalized interventions, one-on-one tutoring plays a crucial role in enhancing students\u0026apos; writing abilities and contributing to their overall academic growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncorporating technology into the writing process can also be beneficial. Tools like \u0026ldquo;Grammarly\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Hemingway Editor\u0026rdquo; can assist students in detecting and revising SL features in their writing. These tools offer feedback on language formality, sentence structure, and overall clarity (Carter \u0026amp; McCarthy, 2006). Beyond these specific tools, technology can also be integrated into the writing process through the use of writing apps, online writing websites, and educational platforms that offer tutorials and practice exercises. By utilizing these resources, students can receive immediate feedback and engage in self-directed learning to improve their writing skills. The incorporation of technology in writing instruction thus provides students with additional support mechanisms to refine their academic writing abilities and meet high academic standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5.3 Implications for Teaching and Learning\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirstly, the significant difference in the use of deixis between Chinese and Sudanese students suggests a need for targeted instructional strategies in academic writing. Chinese students used deixis extensively compared to their Sudanese counterparts, indicating a potential overreliance on spoken language features. This implies that educators should focus on teaching students how to balance spoken and written language elements, perhaps by developing exercises that help students recognize and avoid excessive use of deixis in academic texts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecondly, the data shows that Chinese students used hedges less frequently and made limited use of back-channeling compared to Sudanese students in their academic writing. While self-assessment can help students recognize and reduce the overuse of these features, it is not sufficient on its own. To effectively address these issues, a combination of strategies should be implemented. This includes structured self-assessment tools that focus on academic writing conventions, targeted workshops that provide specific training on avoiding the use of hedges and back-channeling in academic writing, and regular feedback from instructors to guide students in improving their writing skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the observed differences in language features between Chinese and Sudanese students underscore the potential for cross-cultural learning opportunities. The variation in the use of adjacency pairs and elision across the two groups suggests that cross-cultural exchanges could help students understand diverse academic writing norms. By facilitating collaborative writing projects or organizing workshops that bring together students from different backgrounds, educators can help students appreciate and integrate various academic writing practices.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eUsing spoken language features in academic writing leads to ambiguous or unclear meaning; therefore, teachers, researchers, and students should always think of ways to decrease the usage of spoken language features in academic writing. In the current study, a group of Chinese and Sudanese students from two different universities and different educational systems have written an academic essay. After that, their essays have been investigated to check whether they used spoken language features or not and what types of spoken language features they used. After the investigation, it was found that both groups have used different spoken language feature types with different percentages. The results were thoroughly discussed, and many suggestions to improve academic writing proficiency have been addressed. Besides that, future studies related to the same topic have been well proposed.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the collected answers of the participants,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) 84.4% of both Chinese and Sudanese participants have used spoken language features in their academic writing answers, and 15.6% have not used spoken language features in their writings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2) Both groups (Chinese and Sudanese) have problems with academic writing; therefore, both educational systems in China and Sudan (English language departments) should establish a systematic solution for such problems.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3) The major problem for both groups is using the Deixis feature. This means that all students, when they develop an academic essay, either are unknown subjects (meaning that they are not specialized in the content, which decreases the credibility and reliability of the essay) or they are writing to unknown readers (meaning that they do not know to whom they are writing).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is significant as it contributes a solution to the problem of involving informal features like spoken language features (Adjacency pairs, Back-channels, Deixis, Elision, Hedge, and Common Spoken language features) in academic writing. It is also significant as it contributes to the literature in the area of academic writing and its improvement. Moreover, three of the stakeholders will benefit from this study: students, teachers, and linguistic universities, colleges, or schools.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has some limitations: the words\u0026apos; number or paragraphs\u0026apos; number of the essay question that was handed to the students has not been specified; therefore, few students have written short essays (syntactical problems), which makes it difficult to spot spoken language features in their writing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe spoken language features can greatly affect the delivery of the meaning; therefore, besides other forms of academic writing like scholarly papers, review articles, and critical essays, it is strongly suggested to explore the usage of the spoken language features in many forms of formal writing like reports, brochures, letters to editors, business writing, and formal letters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e：\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first author received Wenzhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau (23WSK133YBM), Wenzhou Ouhai District (2024-135F) and (2021-031) for this work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis project is the conjoined efforts of all the authors, with the first author\u0026rsquo;s idea and supervision. Yujie Su did conceptualization and design of the study, drafted the manuscript, provided critical feedback and suggestions for improvement, and offered guidance and mentorship. Altayeb Salih Ahmed Mohammed and Yuqing Dai did acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and contributed to the writing. Juan Zhang and Xueyan Li supervised the research. Shuchang Dong took part in drafting the manuscript and revised the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Wenzhou Unversity repository, www.wzu.edu.cn \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe protocol was approved by Wenzhou University in accordance with the [named relevant guidelines and regulations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all the participants involved in the study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of interests:\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDatasets statement:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChafe, W. L. (1979). \u003cem\u003eIntegration and involvement in Spoken and Written Language\u003c/em\u003e. Paper presented at the 2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Vienna.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChafe, W., \u0026amp; Danielwicz, J. (1987). \u003cem\u003eComprehending Oral and Written Language\u003c/em\u003e. Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDiane, L. S., Kleiman, G. M., \u0026amp; Rubin, A. D. (1977). Analyses of Differences between Written and Oral Language. \u003cem\u003eTechnical Report\u003c/em\u003e, 29, 1-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDrieman, G. (1962). Differences between Written and Spoken Language. \u003cem\u003eActa Psychologica\u003c/em\u003e, 26, 36-57.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHalliday, M. A. K. (2002). Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning. \u003cem\u003eOn Grammar: Volume 1 of the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 323-351). London: Continuum.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHammond, J. (1990). Is Learning to Read and Write the Same as Learning to Speak? In F. Christie (Ed.), Literacy in a Changing World (pp. 26-53). Hawthorn, Victoria: ACER.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHarrel, L. E. (1957). A Comparison of the Development of Oral and Written Language in School-age Children. \u003cem\u003eMonographs of the Society for Research in Child Development\u003c/em\u003e, 22(3), 77. Doi:10.2307/1165494\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without Elegance: Features of Sentences in L1 and L2 Academic Texts. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 37, 275-301.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKeenan, E. O., \u0026amp; Bennet, T. L. (Eds.) (1977). Discourse across Space and Time. \u003cem\u003eSouthern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, 5, Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Department of Linguistics.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKim, Seong-shik \u0026amp; Kim, Kyeong-min (2022). Affinities of Text Types to Typical Spoken and Written Registers.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Journal of the Korea English Education Society\u003c/em\u003e, 21(4), 43-66. Doi:10.18649/jkees.2022.21.2.43\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMewburn, L., Firth, K., Lehmann, S. (2019). How to Fix Your Academic Writing Trouble: A Practical Guide. London: Open University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQuirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., \u0026amp; Svartvik, J. 1972. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRedeker, G. (1984). On Differences between Spoken and Written Language. \u003cem\u003eDiscourse Processes\u003c/em\u003e, 7, 43-55.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRubin, A. D. (1978). A Theoretical Taxonomy of the Differences between Oral and Written Language. \u003cem\u003eTechnical Report\u003c/em\u003e, 35, 1-57.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchleppegrell, M. J. (1996). Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eApplied linguistics,\u003c/em\u003e 17 ( 3), 271-285.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026Scaron;imčikaitė, Alė. (2011). Spoken Features in Learner Academic Writing: The Analysis of Discourse Markers.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePsycho-features Facilitating Foreign Language Learning and Acquisition,\u003c/em\u003e 47.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026Scaron;imčikaitė, Alė. (2012). Spoken Discourse Markers in Learner Academic Writing. \u003cem\u003eStudies about Languages,\u003c/em\u003e 20, 27-34.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTian, X. F. (2013). Distinguish Spoken English from Written English: Rich Feature Analysis. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, 6(7), 72-79. Doi:10.5539/elt.v6n7p72\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTannen, D. (1982). Oral and Literate Strategies in Spoken and Written Narratives. \u003cem\u003eLanguage\u003c/em\u003e, 58, 1-21. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"spoken language features, academic writing, Chinese, language features, academic writing, self-made corpus, undergraduates ","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5873068/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5873068/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eEmploying spoken language characteristics in written language could potentially generate confusion for readers, as these features rely on the speaker's physical presence to determine the speaker's precise intentions beyond the usage of these elements. However, prior research often took a qualitative study of differences between the spoken and written languages, and scarcely did contrastive study of that between learners of English as a foreign language and a second language. So, the study investigated qualitatively and quantitatively the specific spoken language features in academic writing of Chinese and Sudanese university students, aiming to investigate the types of spoken language features when they are incorporated into formal and academic writing of the two groups of students. The students were assigned the same academic writing task and they were required to finish writing within 30 minutes. It was discovered that some spoken-language features such as deixis, adjacency pairs, dialect, hedge and vague language were present in the responses that were received. Based on this discovery, numerous recommendations were made to address the issue and determine appropriate solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Comparative Study of the Spoken Language Features in the Academic Writings of Chinese and Sudanese Undergraduates","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-05 08:26:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5873068/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-07-30T15:36:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-06T16:11:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"101702537161430035592215692249510318392","date":"2025-07-04T17:21:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-03T08:38:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"202175334442111612055760891896662899212","date":"2025-05-24T19:22:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-11T15:02:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"8295607281539364922453921860146169780","date":"2025-05-01T18:37:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"4522270740996388237628926705139623543","date":"2025-05-01T10:17:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"70547687015510939615352449378556391608","date":"2025-04-30T12:52:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-29T09:56:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-22T11:07:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-22T11:05:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2025-01-21T11:15:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6afca598-f925-4ad1-bc77-1873f7870d3e","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 5th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-23T05:39:33+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-05 08:26:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5873068","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5873068","identity":"rs-5873068","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}