An Investigation into the Interactional Features of Citations in Academic Writing by Chinese master’s students

An Investigation into the Interactional Features of Citations in Academic Writing by Chinese master’s students | 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 Article An Investigation into the Interactional Features of Citations in Academic Writing by Chinese master’s students Mengxiao Li, Huiping Zhang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7253487/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract According to Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), academic writing is viewed as an interactive event and a social exchange of meaning (Halliday & Hasan, 1989 ). Citations serve as an important bridge in establishing academic writing interactions, allowing authors to engage in discussions of relevant research and demonstrating how their findings contribute to the supplementation and development of the existing disciplinary knowledge base (Hyland, 2004 ). Existing citation studies tended to focus more on the functions and forms of citations, with little attention paid to the interactional aspect of citations, particularly how Chinese master’s students used citations to construct academic interaction in their academic writing. This study, using the engagement framework as a theoretical framework, explored the systematic features of how Chinese master’s students in applied linguistics used citations to construct interaction. The findings indicated that: (1) master’s students underused non-integral citations and excessively used verb-controlling integral citations; (2) they overused entertain in steps where negotiation should have been restricted; (3) they failed to evaluate the shortcomings of previous studies in the Literature Review section; (4) In the Results and Discussion section, master’s students failed to engage in a dialectical discussion of perspectives from existing research and to address the gaps in related studies. Based on these findings, the study offered some insights for teaching English academic writing. Social science/Education Humanities/Language and linguistics Social science/Language and linguistics Humanities/Literature Citation Engagement Interaction master’s students Figures Figure 1 Introduction Writing is an exchange of meaning, a form of interaction between the author, existing research, and potential readers. The author bears the primary responsibility for constructing this interaction by using evaluation to establish connections with existing research, while also regulating the space for negotiation with readers, thereby constructing the intertextuality of academic discourse (Hunston, 2000). Through engaging with existing research, citation not only enhances the credibility of the author’s viewpoints but also embeds research findings within the disciplinary knowledge system (Liadét & Black, 2019). Based on the intertextuality of academic writing, the engagement framework in appraisal theory systematically outlines the evaluative resources for constructing academic writing interactions (Martin & White, 2005). In recent years, empirical research on citation practices has primarily focused on the forms and functions of citation (e.g., Ahn & Oh, 2024; Chan & Kwan, 2024; Xu, 2012), the motivations and influencing factors behind citation use (e.g., Wang et. al., 2017), and learners’ misuses of citations (e.g., Zhao et al., 2016). However, studies on citation as an interactive practice remain relatively scarce. Although citation plays a critical role in academic writing, current academic English writing instruction primarily addresses citation forms, content, and phrasing (Shi & Dong, 2018), with little explicit guidance on how to use citations to establish academic interaction. Effective guidance must be grounded in an objective understanding of students’ systematic features. In light of this, the present study, guided by the engagement framework, explores the systematic features of how Chinese Master’s students in applied linguistics use citations to establish interaction in their academic writing. Literature Review Evaluation-Related Citation Analysis. Academic writing is inherently intertextual (Fairclough, 1992), with existing research forming a network. As members of the academic community, authors are required to identify gaps within this network and conduct further research to explore these areas, thereby enriching the body of relevant literature. Citation is a direct and explicit form of intertextuality (Bazerman et al., 2005), and it directly establishes overt interaction between academic discourses. Authors use citations to draw broader support from existing literature, thereby demonstrating the significance of their new findings. Conversely, new research findings also serve to supplement or explore the citations themselves (Ahn & Oh, 2024). Given the significant role that citations played in establishing interaction between authors and academic discourses, there was an increasing focus on citation interaction in recent years. Research explored the linguistic resources authors used in citations to regulate their interactions with the cited authors or potential readers. The theoretical frameworks selected in these studies generally fell into two categories: the first category involved the use of certain engagement categories from the engagement framework within appraisal theory (e.g., Coffin, 2009; Lee et al., 2018; Zhang, 2023; Khamkhien, 2025), while the second category was based on the use of certain reporting verbs (e.g., Liadét & Black, 2019; Mu, 2024). Research on citation interaction in academic writing could be traced back to Coffin (2009), who selected several engagement categories from the engagement system (Martin & White, 2005) to form a theoretical framework. Using a doctoral thesis on film studies as data, Coffin analyzed how authors used engagement to express their stance on citations. Lee et al. (2018) adopted Coffin’s (2009) framework and examined the engagement in citations within essays written by 100 first-year university students who spoke English as a second language (ESL). They found that the students primarily employed attribution to state the content of the citations, while striving to avoid revealing any evaluative stance on the citations in order to demonstrate respect for authoritative literature. Zhang (2023) compared the use of engagement in citations between ESL doctoral students in engineering and native English-speaking scholars. The study revealed that although both groups selected citation forms and adjusted their stance according to the communicative purposes of each section, ESL doctoral students exhibited more limited patterns and types of engagement than native speakers. Bastola & Ho(2023) conducted a study by selecting 60 doctoral theses from Nepali PhD students at a comprehensive university in Nepal, specifically examining the Literature Review sections. They investigated how these doctoral students interacted with existing research. The study found that many of these students presented existing research merely as part of their knowledge base in the relevant field. They lacked an effective identification of gaps in the existing research and did not propose how their own research would address these gaps. Khamkhien (2025) investigated the patterns of citation stance expression among fourth-year Thai undergraduate students who speak English as a second language. The study found that these students frequently employed acknowledgment to indicate the source of citations while attempting to minimize evaluative comments on the content of the citations. Another category of research on citation interaction focuses on the use of reporting verbs in citations by authors. Liadét & Black (2019), using native English-speaking scholars as a reference, compared the use of reporting verbs in course assignments written by first-year English-native undergraduate students and ESL undergraduate students. The study found that, as participants in academic writing interaction, native English-speaking scholars used a balanced combination of contractive endorsement with expansive entertain . They merely reported the content of the citation in an impartial manner, without actively engaging in discussions related to the topic. Mu (2024) compared the use of reporting verbs in citation practices in the Literature Review sections of ESL graduate students and native English-speaking scholars. The study found that master’s students, due to their limited understanding of the usage of reporting verbs, preferred to use non-factive reporting verbs, thus concealing their stance. They only presented their knowledge in the relevant field without actively engaging in the discussion of related research. In contrast, native English-speaking scholars strategically used reporting verbs to support their findings and construct interactions with related research. However, the above-mentioned research on citation interaction primarily focuses on reporting verbs or selects certain engagement categories as the theoretical foundation. The theoretical perspectives adopted are relatively limited, and the corpus chosen is confined to some sections of academic writing, which fails to comprehensively reveal the systematic features of how authors use citations to construct interaction between academic discourses. Therefore, it is necessary to select more comprehensive theoretical perspectives and a broader corpus to conduct further empirical investigations. Research on Engagement . In recent years, research on the interactional features of academic writing through the lens of the engagement framework has gained significant attention. Early studies primarily focused on exploring the use of individual evaluative lexicon. For example, Loghmani et al. (2020) analyzed the Discussion chapters of ten doctoral dissertations written by American PhD students in the field of TEFL. Their study revealed that although these students used various forms of engagement to actively participate in discussions of relevant research, they tended to use contraction more frequently than expansion, in order to minimize the likelihood of readers raising questions or doubts. Du et al. (2023) investigated the Introduction sections of 100 engineering journal articles and found that the patterns of engagement used by native English-speaking scholars varied according to their choice of steps in the discourse. They frequently employed deny to directly and succinctly criticize the shortcomings of existing research, subsequently identifying the gaps in the relevant literature to establish a research territory. Since engagement is often used in combination to collaboratively construct interaction within academic discourses, later empirical studies shifted focus from individual evaluative lexicon to the combinations of engagement . For instance, Geng & Wharton (2019) identified high-frequency combinations of engagement used by native English-speaking PhD students in the Discussion chapters of applied linguistics doctoral theses. The study found that when authors encountered discrepancies with existing research, they typically employed a combination of distance and pronounce to form a contractive strategy, thereby minimizing the likelihood of readers raising questions. On the other hand, when authors’ findings aligned with previous research, they frequently used entertain to present their findings, followed by endorse to cite existing research that supported their findings. Xu & Nesi (2019) compared engagement combinations used in the Introduction and Conclusion sections of applied linguistics journal articles written by Chinese and British scholars. They discovered that British scholars, after using contractive deny , would often use expansive entertain to leave space for further discussion. In contrast, Chinese scholars, to limit the possibility of readers adopting alternative positions, more often used contractive combinations to reduce the space for negotiation. Zhang & Cheung (2023) compared engagement combinations used in the discussion chapters of journal articles in four disciplines—chemistry, geography, education, and management—and found that each discipline applied different strategies in using engagement to achieve their communicative goals in various contexts. These differences were not only due to disciplinary variation but were also influenced by a range of other factors. In summary, the majority of related research has focused on undergraduate and doctoral students, as well as scholars, with insufficient attention given to master’s students, particularly ESL master’s students. Additionally, existing studies have predominantly examined authors’ overall use of engagement across entire academic texts, with insufficient attention paid to citation-specific usage and a notable lack of targeted investigations into how engagement is strategically employed to construct interaction within citation practices. Based on these two gaps, there has been inadequate exploration of the systematic features of how ESL master’s students use engagement to construct interaction in citations. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth investigation into this area. Analytical framework. Evaluation is one of the core components of academic writing. Authors use evaluation to interact with existing research, utilizing previous studies to demonstrate the significance of their own findings and contributing to the advancement of disciplinary knowledge, while simultaneously engaging in negotiation with potential readers to build alliances (Hyland & Diani, 2009). Based on Bakhtin’s renowned concepts of dialogism and heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1981), Martin & White (2005) proposed Appraisal Theory to describe the various intersubjective stances that authors may express throughout their writing. This theory extends and develops the interpersonal function of Systemic Functional Linguistics, deeply exploring the intertextuality of academic discourse. Appraisal Theory posits that all language can, to some extent, respond to the views of existing research or anticipate the possible reactions of readers. Authors can proactively address possible objections from readers, thereby assisting and guiding them to accept their stance. The theory provides the most comprehensive classification system for analyzing evaluation (Hyland, 2005), dividing it into three sub-systems: attitude , engagement , graduation . The engagement framework specifically details the interpersonal strategies authors use to address the diverse views from existing research and potential readers, as well as the specific linguistic expressions associated with each strategy. Martin & White (2005) argue that, on one hand, authors use engagement to discuss related research, expressing whether they support, remain neutral, or oppose established views within the academic community; on the other hand, the selection of engagement also reflects the authors’ expectations and responses to the readers’ viewpoints. Through the use of engagement , authors create a space for objective and open discussion within their discourse. The engagement framework provides an elaborate categorization system and linguistic resources, allowing authors to express their stance and varying levels of commitment to propositions. This flexibility enables them to adjust the size of the negotiation space with existing research or potential readers, making it an effective tool for analyzing evaluation-related citations in this study. Therefore, this research draws on the engagement framework within Appraisal Theory to identify and categorize the authors’ stances. The engagement framework suggests that monogloss implies a single possible interpretation of the proposition, while heterogloss acknowledges the existence of multiple viewpoints. When expressing a stance, authors’ primary choice is between monogloss and heterogloss . Monogloss disregards the diversity of perspectives, while heterogloss admits the plurality of viewpoints, placing the author in the role of interacting with various opinions. Heterogloss can further be divided into expansion and contraction , based on the effect they have on constructing intersubjective interaction. Expansion enlarges the space for negotiation, encouraging the exploration of diverse stances, including distance , entertain , and acknowledge . Contraction narrows the negotiation space, aiming to limit reader challenges, and includes deny , counter , pronounce , and endorse . These categories vary in the extent to which they limit negotiation, ranked from narrowest to widest as follows: deny , counter , pronounce , endorse , acknowledge , entertain , and distance . This study adopts the citation classification scheme proposed by Xu (2012), which was developed through empirical research in applied linguistics. The framework primarily focuses on whether the cited author appears in the citation and, if so, in what form, thereby providing a useful basis for analysing evaluative stance in citations. The framework distinguishes between non-integral citation and integral citation. In non-integral citations, the cited author’s name and the year of publication are enclosed in parentheses and placed after the relevant sentence information (see Example 1). In contrast, integral citations incorporate the cited author within the sentence structure. In such cases, the publication year is enclosed in parentheses, while the author’s name precedes the bracketed year. If the integral citation employs a reporting verb to convey the act of citation, it is categorised as a verb-controlling integral citation (see Example 2). When the cited author’s name forms an integral part of the noun phrase within the sentence, the citation is classified as a naming integral citation (see Example 13). This study integrates Xu (2012)’s classification of citation types with the engagement framework proposed by Martin & White (2005), thereby constructing an engagement framework for citation analysis (see Figure 1). On the left side of Figure 1, the typology of citation forms is presented, while the right side illustrates the engagement categories and the corresponding coding scheme. Coulthard (1994) proposed that when citing, authors not only had the responsibility to specify whose views are being referenced but also to evaluate the truthfulness of the cited content. The use of citations and engagement are two key ways through which authors construct intertextual interaction within their discourse, and they are closely intertwined. Therefore, this study attempts to combine the use of citations with engagement . Guided by the engagement framework (Martin & White, 2005) and drawing on English native-speaking scholars as a reference, the study aims to explore the systematic features of the engagement employed in the citations by Chinese master’s students in applied linguistics, particularly in their thesis works. Specifically, the study seeks to address two research questions: (1) What are the differences in the types of citations used by Chinese master's students and native English-speaking scholars? (2) What are the similarities and differences in the use of engagement in citations across different sections of academic theses by Chinese master's students compared to native English-speaking scholars? Research Design Corpora. Although there are some differences in the format between journal articles and thesis dissertations, both share the core objective of persuading readers to accept the research findings. This requires situating the research within the context of the disciplinary discourse community, establishing connections with other studies through citations, and presenting the research findings within an intertextual framework (Hyland, 1999), thereby demonstrating the feasibility, credibility, and value of the research. Citations, by incorporating engagement , establish interactions between different studies within the disciplinary knowledge system. Therefore, a comparative analysis of citations and the engagement within them is viable for both types of texts. The journal articles selected for the corpus were randomly chosen from four applied linguistics SSCI journals: Applied Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, System, and Journal of Second Language Writing . These 10 articles, authored by native speakers, were published between 2020 and 2024. Additionally, 7 master’s theses in applied linguistics, graduated from different Chinese universities between 2020 and 2024, were randomly selected from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) thesis database. Preliminary research revealed that the conclusion sections of the two types of academic paper contained almost no citations, while other chapters used a considerable number of citations. To conduct a more comprehensive investigation into the systematic features of citation use across various chapters, this study excluded the Conclusion sections and focused on four main chapters: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, and Results and Discussion. Some studies separate the Results and Discussion into two independent chapters. In this study, such research was excluded from the corpus selection. Only the Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, and Results and Discussion chapters were retained from each journal article and master’s thesis. Two small-scale corpora were established: the Native Scholar Corpus (NSC), consisting of 86,004 tokens and 6,609 types, and the Chinese Master Corpus (CMC), consisting of 85,450 tokens and 5,631 types. The frequency of tokens and types in each corpus was calculated using AntConc. Annotation and Analysis. The 10 journal articles and 7 master’s theses selected for the corpus in this study all employed the author-date citation system. In the author-date citation system, non-integral citations listed the author’s surname and the publication year together within parentheses, with multiple author-year pairs potentially appearing in a single set of parentheses. Integral citations placed the author’s surname before the parentheses, with the publication year included inside. The counting criterion for both types of citations was based on the occurrence of each pair of parentheses near each citation in the body text, where a sentence may have contained multiple citations. Therefore, the analysis of the author’s stance in this study was conducted at the sentence level, with each sentence serving as the unit of measurement, rather than the citation itself. For example, in Example 1, a sentence contained three pairs of parentheses, reflecting three citations. This study followed the genre structure framework derived from empirical research in applied linguistics to categorize the moves and steps of each chapter. Specifically, the Introduction and the Literature Review chapter followed Bastola & Ho (2023), and the Results and Discussion chapter followed Yang & Allison (2003). Due to the varying designs of Methodology sections in different studies, a universally applicable genre structure framework has not yet been established. This study employed a manual annotation method. The annotation process was divided into two steps: first, each citation was categorized according to the left side of the analysis framework in Figure 1; second, the engagement used in each citation was identified, and its corresponding engagement category was determined based on the framework’s right side, as outlined in Figure 1. Since interpretive coding was subjective, the annotation work was jointly completed by the two authors of this paper. Each author independently annotated the entire corpus. Following this, the two authors thoroughly compared their annotations, identifying any discrepancies. The authors’ inter-coder agreement was 98.59%. Finally, a third university-level English teacher with more extensive research experience was invited to collaboratively discuss each of the identified differences. After thorough deliberation, all three researchers reached a unanimous consensus. Upon completion of the annotation, this study systematically quantified the frequency of various citation types and the number of different engagement used in each chapter. Subsequently, the study examined and analyzed the systematic features in the use of citations and engagement by the two groups of authors. This study employed the chi-square test ( X² ) to compare whether there were significant differences in the frequency of citation types and the use of different types of engagement between the two corpora. Results and Findings Differences in Citation Types. As shown in Table 1, the total number of citations employed by the Chinese master’s students and the native English-speaking scholars was 855 and 1276, respectively. The number of citations used by the Chinese master’s students was significantly lower than that of the native English-speaking scholars ( X² =81.488, P<0.001). In terms of the distribution of citation types across the two groups, the Chinese master’s students most frequently employed verb-controlling integral citations, whereas the native English-speaking scholars showed a clear preference for non-integral citations. Compared with the native English-speaking scholars, the Chinese master’s students significantly underused non-integral citations ( X² =17.368, P<0.001) and overused verb-controlling integral citations ( X² =17.368, P<0.001). Moreover, although both groups demonstrated the use of multiple citations within a single sentence, the native English-speaking scholars tended to draw from a broader range of cited sources than the Chinese master’s students (see Examples 1 and 2). (1) These studies have explored the types and functions of citations (Harwood, 2009; Mansourizadeh & Ahmad, 2011; Petri´c, 2007; Thompson, 1996; Thompson, 2005), cultural variations in citation practices (Belcher, 1994; Bloch & Chi, 1995; Pennycook, 1996), and the choice of reporting verbs in conjunction with citations (Charles, 2006; Hawes & Thomas, 1997; Hyland, 1999; Thompson, 2001; Thompson & Ye, 1991). (NSC) (2) Biber et al. (1999) studied the high frequency lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose, finding that conversation and academic prose use a large stock of different bundles and there are almost ten times as many three-word lexical bundles as four-word lexical bundles in both conversation and academic prose; Biber et al. (2004) evaluated the utilization of lexical bundles in classroom teaching and textbooks and contrasted them to those observed in conversation and academic prose, concluding that the use of lexical bundles in classroom teaching turns out to be especially surprising both in frequency and in function and classroom teaching uses more stance and discourse organizer bundles than conversation does. (CMC) Table 1 Frequencies of different types of citations. Total Citations Non-integral Citations Verb-controlled Integral Citations Author-integral Citations Master’s Students 855 223 529 103 Scholars 1276 724 405 147 X2 81.488 263.278 17.368 7.473 P 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.006** Note: *** indicates significance at the 0.001 level; ** indicates significance at the 0.01 level; * indicates significance at the 0.05 level. The same applies to subsequent tables. Similarities and Differences in the Use of Engagement Across Chapters. This section compares the use of engagement by the Chinese master’s students and native English-speaking scholars in terms of both frequency and patterns across the Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, and Results and Discussion chapters. Introduction. In terms of frequency (see Table 2), compared with the native scholars, the master’s students significantly underused pronounce ( X 2 = 17.626， P <0.001), entertain ( X 2 = 8.820， P <0.01), deny ( X 2 = 17.700， P <0.001), and counter ( X 2 = 9.858， P <0.01). Table 2 Distribution of engagement types in the introduction chapter. Monogloss Deny Counter Pronounce Endorse Acknowledge Entertain Distance Master’s Students 0 5 6 6 24 8 4 0 Scholars 20 30 23 32 37 27 18 0 X2 19.874 17.700 9.858 17.626 2.688 10.194 8.820 0 P 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.002** 0.000*** 0.101 0.001** 0.003** 0 Regarding usage patterns, in the move of “Establishing a Niche”, both groups of writers tended to combine pronounce or endorse with deny or counter , forming a contractive combination to highlight gaps in previous research (see Examples 3 and 4). (3) However [cou], as ably discussed [end] by the likes of Hyland (2019: 36) and Partington (2017: 195), lexicon- and text-based approaches can[ent] never [den] achieve an accurate and comprehensive [end] interpretation of the author’s attitudinal meanings. (NSC) (4) Although [cou] it has the feature of accurate [end] use of words, strict grammatical structure and objective expression of things, but [cou] it also contains hedges (Li, 2006). (CMC) In the move of “Presenting the Present Work”, native English-speaking scholars commonly adopted a pattern in which an expansive evaluation was first used to describe their own research, followed by a citation to reinforce the claim (see Example 5). However, such patterns were not observed in the Chinese Master’s Corpus (CMC). (5) Specifically, this study attempts to [ent] examine [ack] lexical bundles in specific rhetorical move-steps of RA Introductions, a function-form mapping, which has been increasingly foregrounded [end] by EAP scholars who advocate the connection between text and context in discourse analysis (see Lu, Casal, Liu, Kisselev, & Yoon, 2021; Lu, Yoon, & Kisselev, 2018; Yin, Gao, & Lu, 2021). (NSC) Literature Review Section. In terms of frequency(see Table 3), compared to the native English-speaking scholars, the Chinese master’s students overused entertain ( X 2 = 8.520， P <0.01) and acknowledge ( X 2 = 55.381， P <0.001), while underused deny ( X 2 = 6.868， P <0.01). Table 3 Distribution of engagement types in the literature review chapter. Monogloss Deny Counter Pronounce Endorse Acknowledge Entertain Distance Master’s Students 37 21 35 47 107 279 65 7 Scholars 34 42 51 55 138 130 36 2 X 2 0.147 6.868 2.876 0.577 3.730 55.381 8.520 2.810 P 0.701 0.009 ** 0.090 0.447 0.053 0.000 *** 0.004 ** 0.094 Regarding usage patterns, in the move of “Establishing a Research Territory”, native English-speaking scholars typically employed endorse or pronounce to emphasize the importance and research value of the selected topic (e.g., Example 6). In contrast, Chinese master’s students more frequently used entertain and acknowledge to describe what previous studies have done or discovered (e.g., Example 7). Additionally, Chinese master’s students sometimes used two kinds of engagement representing opposing positions within a single citation (see Example 8). (6) Although [cou] language may [ent] not[den] serve as sufficient equivalence to thoughts because they are two different yet inter-related competencies (Vygotsky, 1934/1986), attitudinal values carried by human language have attracted increasing scholarly attention [end] in the field of applied linguistics (e.g., Hunston & Su, 2019; Hyland, 2014) and in science and technology (e.g., Dodds et al., 2015). (NSC) (7) Si Xianzhu and Pang Yuhou (2018) investigated [ack] the implications of attitude system on translation and they suggested [ack] that translators may [ent] choose appropriate [end] way to make the nearest translation of the original text on the basis of AT. (CMC) (8) Charles (2007) only [den] discusses the use of “noun + that complement clause” in political science and material science, and the results show [end] that “noun + that complement clause” is often [pro] used to express stance in both disciplines. (CMC) In the move of “ Occupying the Niche” , native English-speaking scholars used endorse to justify the advantages of their choices (e.g., Example 9) or employed monogloss to explain the concepts, classifications, or theories adopted in their research (e.g., Example 10). In contrast, Chinese master’s students did not use any citations to support their research in this move. (9) Of crucial [end] relevance to this study is the comprehensive [end] consideration of the diverse types and functions of noun phrases (Biber et al., 2011; Lan et al., 2022). Given the potential differences in how L2 proficiency is employed across modes (Hwang et al., 2020; Park & Yoon, 2021), this study integrates English proficiency levels into the investigation of noun phrase use. (NSC) (10) The focus of the current study was on advanced Chinese learners of English who mainly learn academic vocabulary independently and require substantial vocabulary knowledge in order to perform successfully in academic writing (Higginbotham and Reid 2019). (NSC) Methodology Section. In terms of frequency (see Table 4), compared to native English-speaking scholars, Chinese master’s students underused monogloss ( X 2 = 29.725， P <0.001), endorse ( X 2 = 19.424， P <0.001), and acknowledge ( X 2 = 26.776， P <0.001) in the Methodology chapter. Table 4 Distribution of engagement in the methodology chapter. Monogloss Deny Counter Pronounce Endorse Acknowledge Entertain Distance Master’s Students 19 0 0 5 6 6 4 0 Scholars 71 14 15 8 34 42 16 0 X 2 29.725 13.911 14.905 0.673 19.424 26.776 7.124 0 P 0.000 *** 0.000 *** 0.000 *** 0.412 0.000 *** 0.000 *** 0.008 ** 0 Regarding usage patterns, the authors from both groups used citations in the Methodology chapter mainly in two ways. The first is to use citations to demonstrate that the chosen methods are reliable and feasible. While both groups had the same communicative purpose, they preferred different kinds of engagement. Native English-speaking scholars more frequently chose endorse (e.g., Example 11), while Chinese master’s students tended to use acknowledge (e.g., Example 12). The second is that both groups of authors used monogloss to directly specify the definitions, classifications, and methods proposed by the research they selected (e.g., Examples 13 and 14). (11) The major advantages [end] of using ATLAS.ti were that it enabled Wang to work directly with the data in Chinese characters, and create multiple and overlapping codes while retaining the given context (Lewis 2004). (NSC) (12) Chen and Baker (2010) indicated [ack] that “the number of four-word bundles is frequently manageable”. Thus, four-word bundles are extracted, which is consistent with an earlier study that evaluated only four-word bundles. (CMC) (13) According to the definition of hedges by Hyland (1995) and the classification of hedges by Hyland (1998), it provides the full basis for identifying hedges. (CMC) (14) The essays were rated on a 6-point scale compiled from several CEFR writing scales (see Huhta et al. 2014). (NSC) Results and Discussion Section. In terms of frequency(see Table 5), compared to native English-speaking scholars, Chinese master’s students underused entertain ( X 2 = 11.062， P <0.001) and distance ( X 2 = 3.974， P <0.05). Table 5 Distribution of engagement in the results and discussion chapter. Monogloss Deny Counter Pronounce Endorse Acknowledge Entertain Distance Master’s Students 33 7 7 15 37 38 25 0 Scholars 7 19 27 37 121 67 55 4 X 2 17.073 5.462 11.638 9.169 44.158 7.828 11.062 3.974 P 0.000 *** 0.019 * 0.001 *** 0.002 ** 0.001 *** 0.005 ** 0.001 *** 0.046 * In terms of usage patterns, both groups of authors used entertain to cite interpretations of the reasons for their findings (e.g., Example 15). Both groups also compared their findings with related research, with some findings being consistent with previous studies (e.g., Example 16). Building on this, native scholars used two types of examples that master’s students did not attempt: the first involves discussing findings that are inconsistent with related research (e.g., Example 17); the second involves demonstrating how their findings fill gaps in existing research (e.g., Example 18). (15) On the other hand, the limited [den] second-language proficiency of Chinese students may [ent] also be a contributing factor (Wang & Zhang, 2007). (CMC) (16) This result shows [end] that Chinese PhD students have a tendency to utilize active verbs in academic writing, which is in line with [end] Biber’s research (1999), the usage of verb phrases with active verbs is a sign of conversational style. (NSC) (17) Given that global feedback is more demanding for L2 learners, entailing more extensive energy and effort (Wang et al., 2022), it seems [ent] that they were motivated to attend to teacher feedback assiduously. This finding is very inspiring [end], since it does not [den] lend support to the claim [dis] that L2 learners predominantly [pro] focus on language, showing little [den] concern with global issues during revision (Chen, Zhang, & Parr, 2022; Chen & Zhang, 2019). (NSC) (18) It should also be pointed out that [pro] while [cou] attempts [ent] have been made to improve metacognitive and affective management of learning for intermediate- and upper intermediate-level learners (Bielak and Mystkowska-Wiertelak 2020; Teng and Zhang 2020), this kind of support [end] is not commonly provided to advanced-level learners. This study demonstrated ways that advanced-level learners are challenged, in this case, in their academic writing—by issues of semantic appropriateness, collocational restrictions, and grammatical accuracy. (NSC) Discussion Differences in Citation Types. This study found that Chinese master’s students used significantly fewer citations overall compared to native English-speaking scholars, which is consistent with Zhang’s ( 2023 ) findings regarding doctoral candidates in engineering. In this study, not only did Chinese master’s students use citations at a much lower density than native English-speaking scholars, but their selection of cited literature was also narrower. This reflects that Chinese master’s students have a less comprehensive understanding of the relevant literature in the field, both in terms of quantity and depth. In contrast, native English-speaking scholars are more adept at obtaining substantial support from existing research through citations. When using non-integral citations, authors interpreted the cited content and paraphrased it in their own words, integrating it with their own views, thus sharing some of the responsibility for the citation. In contrast, when using integral citations, authors emphasized that the citation came from another’s viewpoint, and they did not take responsibility for the citation (Mu, 2024 ). In this study, native English-speaking scholars most frequently used non-integral citations, while Chinese master’s students most often used verb-controlling integral citations. This suggested that native English-speaking scholars were more inclined to paraphrase citations, sharing responsibility, whereas Chinese master’s students tended to attribute responsibility to the cited sources. An examination of the corpus revealed that native English-speaking scholars, when reviewing related research, focused more on categorizing and synthesizing the studies, as well as evaluating their shortcomings. They then proceeded to establish the connection between the cited research and their own. By critically evaluating the limitations of existing research, the author highlighted the advantages of their own work and inspired future research, contributing to the development of disciplinary knowledge (Wang et. al., 2017 ). Although adjusting citation strategies according to communicative purposes was crucial in academic writing (Cumming et al., 2016 ), the citation patterns frequently used by Chinese master’s students were limited to restating and listing the content and findings of existing research (e.g., Example 2), with little further synthesis or critical evaluation of the studies. This may have stemmed from the mindset of Chinese master’s students, who had been accustomed to collecting and summarizing existing research from a learner’s perspective, lacking the courage to engage in critical evaluation. In fact, citing literature not only demonstrated the author’s familiarity with the relevant research but also facilitated their integration into the academic community. By acknowledging others, the author established connections between their own research and existing work, thereby gaining recognition from others and supporting their own research (Lee et al, 2018 ). Similarities and Differences in the Use of Engagement Across Chapters Similarities in the Use of Engagement. In the Results and Discussion section, authors not only presented their own research findings but also used the engagement to interact with existing research (Geng & Wharton, 2019 ). In this study, both Chinese master’s students and native English-speaking scholars employed entertain when citing other studies’ analyses of causes. The entertain signaled the author’s uncertainty regarding the cited content, thus increasing the openness of the viewpoint (Zolfaghari, 2023 ). In Example 15, the Chinese master’s student used the entertain “may”, suggesting that the cause discussed in the citation was merely one of several influencing factors, and that other diverse reasons may have existed. This formulation invited readers to further refine this viewpoint in future discussions. Both groups of authors used endorse to cite existing research findings that aligned with their own. In Example 16, the scholar used a combination of endorse to support the similar findings of prior research, which not only resonated with the existing body of research but also demonstrated that the author’s findings were not merely personal opinions but were part of a broader academic consensus. Differences in the Use of Engagement. In the “Establishing a Niche” step of the introduction, the author needed to inform the reader of the shortcomings in existing research, indicating that future related studies should address or improve upon these gaps (Hyland, 2014 ). This study found that, in order to avoid potential criticism from the reader, both Chinese master’s students and native English-speaking scholars employed contract combinations in the “Establishing a Niche” step. Both groups of authors chose a “first affirm, then deny” strategy for evaluation (e.g., Example 3 and Example 4). They first used endorse or pronounce to directly affirm the contributions or value of existing research, then used deny or counter to point out the deficiencies. Although the evaluation patterns used by both groups were consistent, Chinese master’s students often overlooked the use of entertain when employing deny or counter . The combination of entertain with deny or counter not only demonstrated the author’s disagreement with the content of the citation but also cautiously separated the author’s position from the viewpoint of the citation (Zolfaghari, 2023 ). Chinese master’s students omitted the use of entertain and solely employed deny or counter . This approach to using engagement was more likely to provoke opposition from readers towards the author's viewpoint. In the “Establishing a Niche” step, when the author identified gaps in existing research, it stimulated the reader’s interest and made them look forward to future studies addressing these gaps. Therefore, in the subsequent “Presenting the Present Work” step, the author should have explained how their research responded to and filled the gaps in existing studies (Du et al., 2023 ). Since the Introduction emphasized marketing (Swales, 2011 ), native English-speaking scholars, after introducing their own research, immediately supported it with citations to attract the reader’s attention to the merits of the study, thereby demonstrating the value of their research. This created a “first expand, then contract” evaluation pattern, constructing an objective, equitable, and flexible negotiation space. As shown in Example 5, native English-speaking scholars, when describing their research, first modestly used expand evaluations such as entertain and acknowledge . Then, they used citations to highlight that their research had attracted significant attention from the academic community and held considerable research significance. However, no similar examples were found in the corpus of Chinese master’s students’ work. Although opportunities for marketing one’s research in the Introduction were limited, Chinese master’s students failed to seize these opportunities in the “Presenting the Present Work” step. Compared to native English-speaking scholars, Chinese master’s students lacked the use of entertain in both the “Establishing a Niche” and “Presenting the Present Work” steps, which directly led to their underuse of entertain in the Introduction section. In the Literature Review section, the author selected representative relevant studies, categorised them, and evaluated them dialectically, establishing a connection with their own research (Badenhorst, 2018 ). Therefore, in the “Establishing a Research Territory” step, the author needed to emphasize the importance of the selected topic. In Example 6, native English-speaking scholars used contractive endorse to persuade the reader that the chosen topic was currently receiving attention and was worth researching. In contrast to native English-speaking scholars, Chinese master’s students failed to grasp the communicative purpose of this step, instead merely accumulating the content and findings of existing studies (as shown in Example 7), without purposefully building connections between the existing research and their own. The citations in the Literature Review should have linked past, present, and future relevant studies surrounding the topic, forming a knowledge network (Hyland, 2009 ). Therefore, the author should have focused on using citations in the Literature Review section, accumulating a knowledge thread for discussions and interaction with potential readers and future research.In this study, the shortcomings exposed by Chinese master’s students in this step aligned with the findings from Bastola & Ho ( 2023 ) regarding doctoral students, revealing a shared weakness in English academic writing among both Chinese master’s and Nepalese doctoral students. Furthermore, Chinese master’s students extensively used expansive acknowledge and entertain in this step. This not only stood in sharp contrast to the contractive endorse and pronounce favoured by native English-speaking scholars but also contradicted the communicative purpose of this step. The heavy use of expansive evaluations by Chinese master’s students deliberately left more room for negotiation, reducing the responsibility the author assumed for the citations. Moreover, this also indicated that Chinese master’s students had limited control over their stance and were unable to precisely and flexibly choose engagement to regulate the size of the negotiation space based on the communicative goal of the step. In the Methodology section, authors cited previous studies to substantiate the superiority of their chosen methods. In this study, Chinese master’s students and native English-speaking scholars employed different types of engagement when citing in this section, suggesting divergent attitudes towards the cited material. While both endorse and acknowledge presented the content of a citation, the former conveyed the author’s explicit alignment with and support for the cited content, whereas the latter marked the source as an external viewpoint, thereby distancing the author from epistemic responsibility (Loghmani et al., 2020 ). As illustrated in Example 11, native English-speaking scholars adopted endorse to reinforce the advantages of the selected methodological approach, thereby clearly articulating the rationale for their methodological choices. In contrast, Example 12 demonstrated that although the Chinese master’s student appeared to have chosen the research subject based on the cited content, they employed the acknowledge , concealing their alignment with the citation. While such a strategy may have deflected direct responsibility for the cited claim, it simultaneously diluted the rhetorical force and persuasive impact of the citation. In the Results and Discussion section, native English-speaking scholars not only cited viewpoints that aligned with their own research findings to gain support but also sometimes cited perspectives from existing research that contradicted their findings. They used distance to express doubts and then continued with a dialectical discussion to further contribute to the disciplinary knowledge system. Academic writing frequently employed citations to integrate new knowledge into the disciplinary knowledge framework, which could be achieved in two main ways: one was by citing existing research to support the reliability and value of the author’s new findings, thereby incorporating these findings into the academic discourse; the other was when the author challenged the viewpoints of cited research and offered new insights (Khamkhien, 2025 ). In Example 17, native English-speaking scholars used the entertain “seems” to enhance the openness of the negotiation space, humbly presenting their findings, and employed both distance and deny to highlight that these findings contradicted existing research. The citation of conflicting results, on one hand, showcased the author’s profound disciplinary knowledge and strengthened the persuasiveness of the argument. On the other hand, it deeply integrated the author’s findings into the academic discourse community, further exploring and substantiating the significance of these findings through dialectical discussion (Zhang & Cheung, 2023 ). Chinese master’s students, in contrast, lacked the dialectical approach to challenging citations, missing an important avenue for constructing new disciplinary knowledge. As a result, they tended to underuse distance . In Example 18, the native English-speaking scholar first cited representative research to identify gaps in the existing literature and then presented their own findings as a solution to these gaps, effectively advancing the development of the disciplinary knowledge system. Subsequently, native English-speaking scholars summarized and presented their breakthrough findings. There were no examples of citations that contributed to filling research gaps in the Chinese master’s students’ corpus. The absence of the two citation types discussed above among Chinese master’s students may have been attributed to two main factors. First, they tended to lack both the awareness and the confidence to engage in dialectical interaction with existing research in the Results and Discussion sections. This mirrored their approach in the Literature Review section, where they similarly exhibited a tendency to adopt a learner-oriented stance, rather than that of an emerging member of the academic community. Second, Chinese master’s students, much like Thai L2 learners, were constrained by limited language proficiency and a relatively shallow understanding of disciplinary knowledge, which inhibited their ability to engage critically with prior research (Khamkhien, 2025 ). By contrast, native English-speaking scholars demonstrated stronger linguistic competence and a more comprehensive command of disciplinary content. This enabled them to draw upon a wider lexical and syntactic repertoire to articulate diverse viewpoints, express varying degrees of commitment to the propositions embedded in citations, and represent more nuanced stances through flexible deployment of engagement resources. Their capacity to express heteroglossic voices, reflect complex epistemic positions, allowed them to construct more sophisticated academic arguments. Conclusion Citing literature through references to existing studies to support the author’s research design and academic achievements was not only an important method for establishing the author’s research identity and academic position but also a social process of constructing disciplinary knowledge (Wang et. al., 2017 ). This study, from the theoretical perspective of the engagement framework, explored the characteristics of how Chinese Master’s students in applied linguistics used citations to construct interactions. The findings revealed that Chinese master’s students underused non-integral citations and excessively used verb-controlling integral citations. Furthermore, Chinese master’s students overused entertain in steps that required restricted negotiation. In the Literature Review section, Chinese master’s students lacked evaluations of the shortcomings of related research. In the Results and Discussion section, they overlooked the dialectical discussion of divergent results and failed to address research gaps. The common source of these findings could be traced back to the Chinese master’s students’ learner mindset, in which they tended to avoid taking responsibility and excessively increased the openness of their exploratory interactions. Therefore, the teaching of English academic writing to master’s students should address both the “Way” and the “Technique.” The “Way” refers to guiding students to establish a high-level academic writing perspective, breaking free from the cautious learner mindset. It emphasizes the importance of valuing and cherishing the opportunity to engage in disciplinary knowledge discussions through academic writing, and encourages students to contribute their independent thoughts courageously. The “Technique” refers to, after successfully shaping students’ high-level academic writing perspectives, systematically teaching them how to use citations and engagement to establish and participate in interactions, providing students with concrete tools to experiment and practice. This study makes significant contributions to both the research on citations and the teaching and learning practices of English academic writing.. Firstly, existing citation studies have mainly focused on examining the functions and forms of citations. In contrast, this study concentrates on the interactional aspects of citation use, systematically exploring the characteristics of engagement in the citations used by Chinese master’s students in applied linguistics in their thesis. It provides a detailed analysis of the distribution patterns of the types of citations used and the systematic regularities in the application of engagement. From a content perspective, this study serves as a valuable addition to the existing literature on citation research. Secondly, this study attempts to integrate Xu ( 2012 )’s classification method of citation types in applied linguistics academic writing with the engagement framework of Appraisal Theory (Martin & White, 2005 ), resulting in the creation of the “Engagement Framework for Citation Analysis “This framework is suitable for future research analyzing the interactional construction of citations in various types of applied linguistics academic discourse. Thirdly, this study’s systematic investigation into how Chinese master’s students in applied linguistics use engagement in citations to construct academic writing interactions provides valuable feedback for the teaching and learning of academic writing in English as a second language. Chinese master’s students can use this study as a mirror to objectively and deeply understand the common difficulties they encounter when using citations to construct interactions. This awareness can help them more effectively learn the correct methods of using engagement in citations. English instructors and master’s thesis advisors can use the findings of this study to gain a more systematic understanding of the weak areas in their students’ ability to construct interactions in English academic writing and provide targeted guidance in teaching practice to help students overcome challenges. This study represents an exploration of how learners use citations to construct interactions, with both the theoretical perspective and data sources allowing room for further development. Future research could adopt alternative theoretical perspectives to explore the deeper factors influencing learners’ use of citations in establishing academic interactions. Additionally, attention could be directed toward examining citation use in other learner groups, or comparing the interactive differences in academic writing across various disciplines. Declarations Funding: This work was supported by a key project of the Liaoning Provincial Social Science Fund, 2021,Number: L21AY004, “ A Study on the Development of Interactive Competence in English Academic Writing among Graduate Students in Liaoning Province ” Author contributions First Author: She led the study’s conception and design, constructed the corpus, took on a portion of the data annotation and statistical analysis tasks, and took charge of drafting. Corresponding Author: She undertook a portion of the data annotation and analysis tasks, and was also responsible for revising and refining the manuscript. Data Availability All the corpora utilized in this study were derived from publicly published academic papers. Journal articles were randomly selected from ten SSCI articles authored by English native-speaking scholars, published between 2020 and 2024, from four applied linguistics journals: Applied Linguistics , English for Specific Purposes , System , and Journal of Second Language Writing , which were downloaded from the journals' official websites. Master's theses were randomly extracted from the publicly available database of master's theses on China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), comprising seven applied linguistics theses authored by graduates from different Chinese universities, with graduation dates between 2020 and 2024. Preliminary findings indicated that the conclusion sections of the two types of corpora extracted for this study contained almost no instances of citation usage, whereas the other chapters included a notable number of citations. To conduct a more comprehensive investigation into the systematic characteristics of citation usage across different chapters, this study chose to exclude the conclusion sections and to encompass the introduction, literature review, research methods, and results and discussion chapters. Some studies separate the results and discussion into two distinct chapters; however, such studies were excluded from the corpus selection in this research. This study retained only the introduction, literature review, research methods, and results and discussion chapters from each journal article and master’s thesis, thereby establishing two small corpora: the Native Scholar Corpus (NSC), comprising 86,004 tokens and 6,609 types, and the Chinese Master Corpus (CMC), consisting of 85,450 tokens and 5,631 types. AntConc was employed to analyze the token and type counts of each corpus. For inquiries regarding the acquisition of the corpora used in this study, please feel free to contact the two authors. Ethical Approval and Informed Consent This study examining the interactional features of citations in academic writing by Chinese master’s students was conducted ethically. It did not involve any participants. All the corpora collected for this research were publicly published and accessible online, eliminating the need for obtaining additional informed consent from the authors. Furthermore, the study did not compromise any personal identifying information or privacy of the authors. The utilization of these corpora posed no harm to the physical or mental well-being of the authors and did not intrude upon their personal lives. The research methodology and data analysis were conducted responsibly to ensure accurate representation of the findings. All procedures performed in studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of Relevant Human Research Ethics Review Committee in China and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The research methods and data used in this study underwent rigorous ethical review by the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Committee of Northeastern University. This study received approval with the ethical review number NEU-EC-2025B065S. References Ahn C, Oh S (2024) Citation practices in applied linguistics: A comparative study of Korean master’s theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 69(3): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101369 Bakhtin M (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. University of Texas Press, Austin Bastola M, Ho V (2023) Rhetorical structure of literature review chapters in Nepalese PhD dissertations: Students’ engagement with previous scholarship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 65(5): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101271 Badenhorst C (2018) Citation practices of postgraduate students writing literature reviews. London Review of Education 16(1): 121-135. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.1.11 Bazerman C, Little J, Bethel L, Chavkin T, Fouquette D, Garufis J (2005) Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. Parlor Press, Tempe Chan T, Kwan B (2024) Citation content in literature review sections of research articles: A cross-paradigm comparison of design science and interpretivist research in information systems. English for Specific Purposes 73(1): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.08.001 Coulthard M (1994) On analyzing and evaluating written text. In: Coulthard M (eds) Advances in written text analysis. Routledge, New York, pp 1-11 Coffin C (2009) Incorporating and evaluating voices in a film studies thesis. Writing & Pedagogy 1(2): 163-193. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v1i2.163 Cumming A, Lai C, Cho H (2016) Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 23(3):47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002 Du J, Yuan H, Li Q (2023) Read between the lines: Evaluative patterns and paces in engineering research article Introductions. English for Specific Purposes 71(3):1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.002 Fairclough N (1992) Discourse and social change. Polity Press, Cambridge Geng Y, Wharton S (2019) How do thesis writers evaluate their own and others’ findings? An appraisal analysis and a pedagogical intervention. English for Specific Purposes 56(4): 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.06.002 Halliday M, Hasan R (1989) Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford Hunston S (2000) Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In: Hunston S, Thompson G (eds) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 176-207 Hyland K (2014) Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In: Flowerdew J (eds) Academic discourse. Routledge, London, pp 125-140 Hyland K, Diani G (2009) Introduction: academic evaluation and review genres. In: Hyland K, Diani G. (eds.). Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 1-14 Hyland K (2009) Corpus informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement. In Charles M, Hunston S, Pecorari D (eds) Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse. Continuum, London, pp 110-128 Hyland K (2004) Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Hyland K (2005) Metadiscourse. Continuum, London Hyland K (1999) Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics 20(3) : 341-367 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.341 Khamkhien A (2025) The art of referencing: Patterns of citation and authorial stance in academic texts written by Thai students and professional writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 74(2):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101470 Lee J, Hitchcock C, Casal J (2018) Citation practices of L2 university students in first-year writing: Form, function, and stance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes33(3):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.01.001 Liadét C, Black S (2019) “So and so” says, states and argues: A corpus-assisted engagement analysis of reporting verbs. Journal of Second Language Writing 44(2): 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.02.001 Loghmani Z, Ghonsooly B, Ghazanfari M (2020) Engagement in doctoral dissertation discussion sections written by English native speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 45(3):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100851 Martin R, White P (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke Mu C (2024) Citation choices in L2 novices’ and experts’ literature review sections: A functional discourse analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 68(2): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101361 Shi L, Dong Y (2018) Chinese graduate students paraphrasing in English and Chinese contexts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 34(4): 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.03.002 Swales J (2011) Aspects of article Introductions. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Xu X, Nesi H (2019) Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 38(2):121-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.003 Yang R, Allison D (2003) Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes 22(4): 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1 Zhang G (2023) Authorial stance in citations: Variation by writer expertise and research article part-genres. English for Specific Purposes 70(2): 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.002 Zhang W, Cheung Y (2023) The different ways to write publishable research articles: Using cluster analysis to uncover patterns of APPRAISAL in discussions across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 63(3): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101231 Zolfaghari F (2023) The rhetoric of negation in research articles: A cross-disciplinary analysis of appraisal resources. English for Specific Purposes 70 (2): 192-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.007 Xu F (2012). Citation Features in English Empirical Research Discourses. Journal of Foreign Languages 35(6): 60-68. Wang J, Yang K, Sun F (2017) Features of citing practice in academic writing by Chinese postgraduate students of the English program. Foreign Language World 182(5): 56-64. Zhao Y, Deng Y, Niu X, Zhang Y, Liu K, Wang Y (2016) Referencing practices in empirical research papers on foreign language education published by university journals [J]. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals 27(2): 217-222. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-7253487","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":509914631,"identity":"3f6418f4-5f03-49a1-8f15-94075bf14e59","order_by":0,"name":"Mengxiao Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northeastern University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mengxiao","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":509914632,"identity":"3fb99012-7a48-4b39-9539-c38f1784606d","order_by":1,"name":"Huiping Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northeast Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Huiping","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-30 13:38:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7253487/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7253487/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":90936555,"identity":"0d037ae6-feea-4bd3-a7e5-a8b930147918","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-09 17:08:54","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60055,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEngagement\u003c/em\u003eFramework for Citation Analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7253487/v1/afdb980bd0f19f9220f69ead.jpg"},{"id":100360202,"identity":"033fcab7-513e-42b8-a827-169fc6eb9266","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-16 07:38:00","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1106192,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7253487/v1/935f1edd-1137-4e1b-9361-91544ea1c566.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"An Investigation into the Interactional Features of Citations in Academic Writing by Chinese master’s students","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWriting is an exchange of meaning, a form of interaction between the author, existing research, and potential readers. The author bears the primary responsibility for constructing this interaction by using evaluation to establish connections with existing research, while also regulating the space for negotiation with readers, thereby constructing the intertextuality of academic discourse (Hunston, 2000). Through engaging with existing research, citation not only enhances the credibility of the author\u0026rsquo;s viewpoints but also embeds research findings within the disciplinary knowledge system (Liad\u0026eacute;t \u0026amp; Black, 2019). Based on the intertextuality of academic writing, the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eframework in appraisal theory systematically outlines the evaluative resources for constructing academic writing interactions (Martin \u0026amp; White, 2005).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recent years, empirical research on citation practices has primarily focused on the forms and functions of citation (e.g., Ahn \u0026amp; Oh, 2024; Chan \u0026amp; Kwan, 2024; Xu, 2012), the motivations and influencing factors behind citation use (e.g., Wang et. al., 2017), and learners\u0026rsquo; misuses of citations (e.g., Zhao et al., 2016). However, studies on citation as an interactive practice remain relatively scarce. Although citation plays a critical role in academic writing, current academic English writing instruction primarily addresses citation forms, content, and phrasing (Shi \u0026amp; Dong, 2018), with little explicit guidance on how to use citations to establish academic interaction. Effective guidance must be grounded in an objective understanding of students\u0026rsquo; systematic features. In light of this, the present study, guided by the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e framework, explores the systematic features of how Chinese Master\u0026rsquo;s students in applied linguistics use citations to establish interaction in their academic writing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eEvaluation-Related Citation Analysis. Academic writing is inherently intertextual (Fairclough, 1992), with existing research forming a network. As members of the academic community, authors are required to identify gaps within this network and conduct further research to explore these areas, thereby enriching the body of relevant literature. Citation is a direct and explicit form of intertextuality (Bazerman et al., 2005), and it directly establishes overt interaction between academic discourses. Authors use citations to draw broader support from existing literature, thereby demonstrating the significance of their new findings. Conversely, new research findings also serve to supplement or explore the citations themselves (Ahn \u0026amp; Oh, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the significant role that citations played in establishing interaction between authors and academic discourses, there was an increasing focus on citation interaction in recent years. Research explored the linguistic resources authors used in citations to regulate their interactions with the cited authors or potential readers. The theoretical frameworks selected in these studies generally fell into two categories: the first category involved the use of certain \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e categories from the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e framework within appraisal theory (e.g., Coffin, 2009; Lee et al., 2018; Zhang, 2023; Khamkhien, 2025), while the second category was based on the use of certain reporting verbs (e.g., Liad\u0026eacute;t \u0026amp; Black, 2019; Mu, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch on citation interaction in academic writing could be traced back to Coffin (2009), who selected several \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecategories from the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003esystem (Martin \u0026amp; White, 2005) to form a theoretical framework. Using a doctoral thesis on film studies as data, Coffin analyzed how authors used \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e to express their stance on citations. Lee et al. (2018) adopted Coffin\u0026rsquo;s (2009) framework and examined the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e in citations within essays written by 100 first-year university students who spoke English as a second language (ESL). They found that the students primarily employed \u003cem\u003eattribution\u003c/em\u003e to state the content of the citations, while striving to avoid revealing any evaluative stance on the citations in order to demonstrate respect for authoritative literature. Zhang (2023) compared the use of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e in citations between ESL doctoral students in engineering and native English-speaking scholars. The study revealed that although both groups selected citation forms and adjusted their stance according to the communicative purposes of each section, ESL doctoral students exhibited more limited patterns and types of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e than native speakers. Bastola \u0026amp; Ho(2023) conducted a study by selecting 60 doctoral theses from Nepali PhD students at a comprehensive university in Nepal, specifically examining the Literature Review sections. They investigated how these doctoral students interacted with existing research. The study found that many of these students presented existing research merely as part of their knowledge base in the relevant field. They lacked an effective identification of gaps in the existing research and did not propose how their own research would address these gaps. Khamkhien (2025) investigated the patterns of citation stance expression among fourth-year Thai undergraduate students who speak English as a second language. The study found that these students frequently employed \u003cem\u003eacknowledgment\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eto indicate the source of citations while attempting to minimize evaluative comments on the content of the citations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother category of research on citation interaction focuses on the use of reporting verbs in citations by authors. Liad\u0026eacute;t \u0026amp; Black (2019), using native English-speaking scholars as a reference, compared the use of reporting verbs in course assignments written by first-year English-native undergraduate students and ESL undergraduate students. The study found that, as participants in academic writing interaction, native English-speaking scholars used a balanced combination of contractive \u003cem\u003eendorsement\u003c/em\u003e with expansive \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e. They merely reported the content of the citation in an impartial manner, without actively engaging in discussions related to the topic. Mu (2024) compared the use of reporting verbs in citation practices in the Literature Review sections of ESL graduate students and native English-speaking scholars. The study found that master\u0026rsquo;s students, due to their limited understanding of the usage of reporting verbs, preferred to use non-factive reporting verbs, thus concealing their stance. They only presented their knowledge in the relevant field without actively engaging in the discussion of related research. In contrast, native English-speaking scholars strategically used reporting verbs to support their findings and construct interactions with related research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the above-mentioned research on citation interaction primarily focuses on reporting verbs or selects certain \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecategories as the theoretical foundation. The theoretical perspectives adopted are relatively limited, and the corpus chosen is confined to some sections of academic writing, which fails to comprehensively reveal the systematic features of how authors use citations to construct interaction between academic discourses. Therefore, it is necessary to select more comprehensive theoretical perspectives and a broader corpus to conduct further empirical investigations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch on \u003cem\u003eEngagement\u003c/em\u003e. In recent years, research on the interactional features of academic writing through the lens of the engagement framework has gained significant attention. Early studies primarily focused on exploring the use of individual evaluative lexicon. For example, Loghmani et al. (2020) analyzed the Discussion chapters of ten doctoral dissertations written by American PhD students in the field of TEFL. Their study revealed that although these students used various forms of\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;engagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eto actively participate in discussions of relevant research, they tended to use contraction more frequently than expansion, in order to minimize the likelihood of readers raising questions or doubts. Du et al. (2023) investigated the Introduction sections of 100 engineering journal articles and found that the patterns of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e used by native English-speaking scholars varied according to their choice of steps in the discourse. They frequently employed \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e to directly and succinctly criticize the shortcomings of existing research, subsequently identifying the gaps in the relevant literature to establish a research territory.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e is often used in combination to collaboratively construct interaction within academic discourses, later empirical studies shifted focus from individual evaluative lexicon to the combinations of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e. For instance, Geng \u0026amp; Wharton (2019) identified high-frequency combinations of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e used by native English-speaking PhD students in the Discussion chapters of applied linguistics doctoral theses. The study found that when authors encountered discrepancies with existing research, they typically employed a combination of \u003cem\u003edistance\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epronounce\u003c/em\u003e to form a contractive strategy, thereby minimizing the likelihood of readers raising questions. On the other hand, when authors\u0026rsquo; findings aligned with previous research, they frequently used \u003cem\u003eentertain\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eto present their findings, followed by \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e to cite existing research that supported their findings. Xu \u0026amp; Nesi (2019) compared \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e combinations used in the Introduction and Conclusion sections of applied linguistics journal articles written by Chinese and British scholars. They discovered that British scholars, after using contractive \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e, would often use expansive \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e to leave space for further discussion. In contrast, Chinese scholars, to limit the possibility of readers adopting alternative positions, more often used contractive combinations to reduce the space for negotiation. Zhang \u0026amp; Cheung (2023) compared \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e combinations used in the discussion chapters of journal articles in four disciplines\u0026mdash;chemistry, geography, education, and management\u0026mdash;and found that each discipline applied different strategies in using \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e to achieve their communicative goals in various contexts. These differences were not only due to disciplinary variation but were also influenced by a range of other factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the majority of related research has focused on undergraduate and doctoral students, as well as scholars, with insufficient attention given to master\u0026rsquo;s students, particularly ESL master\u0026rsquo;s students. Additionally, existing studies have predominantly examined authors\u0026rsquo; overall use of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eacross entire academic texts, with insufficient attention paid to citation-specific usage and a notable lack of targeted investigations into how engagement is strategically employed to construct interaction within citation practices. Based on these two gaps, there has been inadequate exploration of the systematic features of how ESL master\u0026rsquo;s students use \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e to construct interaction in citations. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth investigation into this area.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalytical framework. Evaluation is one of the core components of academic writing. Authors use evaluation to interact with existing research, utilizing previous studies to demonstrate the significance of their own findings and contributing to the advancement of disciplinary knowledge, while simultaneously engaging in negotiation with potential readers to build alliances (Hyland \u0026amp; Diani, 2009). Based on Bakhtin\u0026rsquo;s renowned concepts of dialogism and heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1981), Martin \u0026amp; White (2005) proposed Appraisal Theory to describe the various intersubjective stances that authors may express throughout their writing. This theory extends and develops the interpersonal function of Systemic Functional Linguistics, deeply exploring the intertextuality of academic discourse. Appraisal Theory posits that all language can, to some extent, respond to the views of existing research or anticipate the possible reactions of readers. Authors can proactively address possible objections from readers, thereby assisting and guiding them to accept their stance. The theory provides the most comprehensive classification system for analyzing evaluation (Hyland, 2005), dividing it into three sub-systems: \u003cem\u003eattitude\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003egraduation\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e framework specifically details the interpersonal strategies authors use to address the diverse views from existing research and potential readers, as well as the specific linguistic expressions associated with each strategy. Martin \u0026amp; White (2005) argue that, on one hand, authors use\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;engagement\u003c/em\u003e to discuss related research, expressing whether they support, remain neutral, or oppose established views within the academic community; on the other hand, the selection of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ealso reflects the authors\u0026rsquo; expectations and responses to the readers\u0026rsquo; viewpoints. Through the use of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e, authors create a space for objective and open discussion within their discourse. The \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eframework provides an elaborate categorization system and linguistic resources, allowing authors to express their stance and varying levels of commitment to propositions. This flexibility enables them to adjust the size of the negotiation space with existing research or potential readers, making it an effective tool for analyzing evaluation-related citations in this study. Therefore, this research draws on the\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;engagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eframework within Appraisal Theory to identify and categorize the authors\u0026rsquo; stances.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e framework suggests that \u003cem\u003emonogloss\u003c/em\u003e implies a single possible interpretation of the proposition, while \u003cem\u003eheterogloss\u003c/em\u003e acknowledges the existence of multiple viewpoints. When expressing a stance, authors\u0026rsquo; primary choice is between \u003cem\u003emonogloss\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eheterogloss\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eMonogloss\u003c/em\u003e disregards the diversity of perspectives, while \u003cem\u003eheterogloss\u003c/em\u003e admits the plurality of viewpoints, placing the author in the role of interacting with various opinions. \u003cem\u003eHeterogloss\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecan further be divided into \u003cem\u003eexpansion\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003econtraction\u003c/em\u003e, based on the effect they have on constructing intersubjective interaction. \u003cem\u003eExpansion\u003c/em\u003e enlarges the space for negotiation, encouraging the exploration of diverse stances, including \u003cem\u003edistance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eContraction\u003c/em\u003e narrows the negotiation space, aiming to limit reader challenges, and includes\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;deny\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ecounter\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003epronounce\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e. These categories vary in the extent to which they limit negotiation, ranked from narrowest to widest as follows: \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;counter\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003epronounce\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003edistance\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts the citation classification scheme proposed by Xu (2012), which was developed through empirical research in applied linguistics. The framework primarily focuses on whether the cited author appears in the citation and, if so, in what form, thereby providing a useful basis for analysing evaluative stance in citations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe framework distinguishes between non-integral citation and integral citation. In non-integral citations, the cited author\u0026rsquo;s name and the year of publication are enclosed in parentheses and placed after the relevant sentence information (see Example 1). In contrast, integral citations incorporate the cited author within the sentence structure. In such cases, the publication year is enclosed in parentheses, while the author\u0026rsquo;s name precedes the bracketed year. If the integral citation employs a reporting verb to convey the act of citation, it is categorised as a verb-controlling integral citation (see Example 2). When the cited author\u0026rsquo;s name forms an integral part of the noun phrase within the sentence, the citation is classified as a naming integral citation (see Example 13).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study integrates Xu (2012)\u0026rsquo;s classification of citation types with the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eframework proposed by Martin \u0026amp; White (2005), thereby constructing an engagement framework for citation analysis (see Figure 1). On the left side of Figure 1, the typology of citation forms is presented, while the right side illustrates the\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;engagement\u003c/em\u003e categories and the corresponding coding scheme.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCoulthard (1994) proposed that when citing, authors not only had the responsibility to specify whose views are being referenced but also to evaluate the truthfulness of the cited content. The use of citations and \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e are two key ways through which authors construct intertextual interaction within their discourse, and they are closely intertwined. Therefore, this study attempts to combine the use of citations with \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e. Guided by the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e framework (Martin \u0026amp; White, 2005) and drawing on English native-speaking scholars as a reference, the study aims to explore the systematic features of the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e employed in the citations by Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students in applied linguistics, particularly in their thesis works.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the study seeks to address two research questions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(1) What are the differences in the types of citations used by Chinese master\u0026apos;s students and native English-speaking scholars?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2) What are the similarities and differences in the use of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e in citations across different sections of academic theses by Chinese master\u0026apos;s students compared to native English-speaking scholars?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Design","content":"\u003cp\u003eCorpora.\u0026nbsp;Although there are some differences in the format between journal articles and thesis dissertations, both share the core objective of persuading readers to accept the research findings. This requires situating the research within the context of the disciplinary discourse community, establishing connections with other studies through citations, and presenting the research findings within an intertextual framework (Hyland, 1999), thereby demonstrating the feasibility, credibility, and value of the research. Citations, by incorporating \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e, establish interactions between different studies within the disciplinary knowledge system. Therefore, a comparative analysis of citations and the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e within them is viable for both types of texts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe journal articles selected for the corpus were randomly chosen from four applied linguistics SSCI journals: \u003cem\u003eApplied Linguistics, English for Specific Purposes, System,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eJournal of Second Language Writing\u003c/em\u003e. These 10 articles, authored by native speakers, were published between 2020 and 2024. Additionally, 7 master’s theses in applied linguistics, graduated from different Chinese universities between 2020 and 2024, were randomly selected from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) thesis database. Preliminary research revealed that the conclusion sections of the two types of academic paper contained almost no citations, while other chapters used a considerable number of citations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo conduct a more comprehensive investigation into the systematic features of citation use across various chapters, this study excluded the Conclusion sections and focused on four main chapters: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, and Results and Discussion. Some studies separate the Results and Discussion into two independent chapters. In this study, such research was excluded from the corpus selection. Only the Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, and Results and Discussion chapters were retained from each journal article and master’s thesis. Two small-scale corpora were established: the Native Scholar Corpus (NSC), consisting of 86,004 tokens and 6,609 types, and the Chinese Master Corpus (CMC), consisting of 85,450 tokens and 5,631 types. The frequency of tokens and types in each corpus was calculated using AntConc.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnnotation and Analysis. The 10 journal articles and 7 master’s theses selected for the corpus in this study all employed the author-date citation system. In the author-date citation system, non-integral citations listed the author’s surname and the publication year together within parentheses, with multiple author-year pairs potentially appearing in a single set of parentheses. Integral citations placed the author’s surname before the parentheses, with the publication year included inside. The counting criterion for both types of citations was based on the occurrence of each pair of parentheses near each citation in the body text, where a sentence may have contained multiple citations. Therefore, the analysis of the author’s stance in this study was conducted at the sentence level, with each sentence serving as the unit of measurement, rather than the citation itself. For example, in Example 1, a sentence contained three pairs of parentheses, reflecting three citations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study followed the genre structure framework derived from empirical research in applied linguistics to categorize the moves and steps of each chapter. Specifically, the Introduction and the Literature Review chapter followed Bastola \u0026amp; Ho (2023), and the Results and Discussion chapter followed Yang \u0026amp; Allison (2003). Due to the varying designs of Methodology sections in different studies, a universally applicable genre structure framework has not yet been established.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a manual annotation method. The annotation process was divided into two steps: first, each citation was categorized according to the left side of the analysis framework in Figure 1; second, the\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;engagement\u003c/em\u003e used in each citation was identified, and its corresponding \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e category was determined based on the framework’s right side, as outlined in Figure 1. Since interpretive coding was subjective, the annotation work was jointly completed by the two authors of this paper. Each author independently annotated the entire corpus. Following this, the two authors thoroughly compared their annotations, identifying any discrepancies. The authors’ inter-coder agreement was 98.59%. Finally, a third university-level English teacher with more extensive research experience was invited to collaboratively discuss each of the identified differences. After thorough deliberation, all three researchers reached a unanimous consensus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUpon completion of the annotation, this study systematically quantified the frequency of various citation types and the number of different \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e used in each chapter. Subsequently, the study examined and analyzed the systematic features in the use of citations and \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e by the two groups of authors. This study employed the chi-square test (\u003cem\u003eX²\u003c/em\u003e) to compare whether there were significant differences in the frequency of citation types and the use of different types of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e between the two corpora.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eDifferences in Citation Types. As shown in Table 1, the total number of citations employed by the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students and the native English-speaking scholars was 855 and 1276, respectively. The number of citations used by the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students was significantly lower than that of the native English-speaking scholars (\u003cem\u003eX\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e=81.488, P\u0026lt;0.001). In terms of the distribution of citation types across the two groups, the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students most frequently employed verb-controlling integral citations, whereas the native English-speaking scholars showed a clear preference for non-integral citations. Compared with the native English-speaking scholars, the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students significantly underused non-integral citations (\u003cem\u003eX\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e=17.368, P\u0026lt;0.001) and overused verb-controlling integral citations (\u003cem\u003eX\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e=17.368, P\u0026lt;0.001). Moreover, although both groups demonstrated the use of multiple citations within a single sentence, the native English-speaking scholars tended to draw from a broader range of cited sources than the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students (see Examples 1 and 2).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(1) These studies have explored the types and functions of citations (Harwood, 2009; Mansourizadeh \u0026amp; Ahmad, 2011; Petri\u0026acute;c, 2007; Thompson, 1996; Thompson, 2005), cultural variations in citation practices (Belcher, 1994; Bloch \u0026amp; Chi, 1995; Pennycook, 1996), and the choice of reporting verbs in conjunction with citations (Charles, 2006; Hawes \u0026amp; Thomas, 1997; Hyland, 1999; Thompson, 2001; Thompson \u0026amp; Ye, 1991). (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(2) Biber et al. (1999) studied the high frequency lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose, finding that conversation and academic prose use a large stock of different bundles and there are almost ten times as many three-word lexical bundles as four-word lexical bundles in both conversation and academic prose; Biber et al. (2004) evaluated the utilization of lexical bundles in classroom teaching and textbooks and contrasted them to those observed in conversation and academic prose, concluding that the use of lexical bundles in classroom teaching turns out to be especially surprising both in frequency and in function and classroom teaching uses more stance and discourse organizer bundles than conversation does. (CMC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 552px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 1 Frequencies of different types of citations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNon-integral Citations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerb-controlled Integral Citations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 127px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor-integral Citations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s Students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e855\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e223\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e529\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 127px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScholars\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1276\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e724\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e405\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 127px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e147\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.488\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e263.278\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.368\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 127px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.473\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 151px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 127px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.006**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 552px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNote: *** indicates significance at the 0.001 level; ** indicates significance at the 0.01 level; * indicates significance at the 0.05 level. The same applies to subsequent tables.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarities and Differences in the Use of Engagement Across Chapters. This section compares the use of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eby the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students and native English-speaking scholars in terms of both frequency and patterns across the Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, and Results and Discussion chapters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntroduction. In terms of frequency (see Table 2), compared with the native scholars, the master\u0026rsquo;s students significantly underused pronounce (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e17.626，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001), entertain (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e8.820，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.01), deny (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e17.700，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001), and counter (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e9.858，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"9\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 554px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 2 Distribution of engagement types in the introduction chapter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonogloss\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeny\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCounter\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePronounce\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEndorse\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertain\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s Students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScholars\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.874\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.700\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.858\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.626\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.688\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.194\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.820\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 56px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding usage patterns, in the move of \u0026ldquo;Establishing a Niche\u0026rdquo;, both groups of writers tended to combine\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;pronounce\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e with \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ecounter\u003c/em\u003e, forming a contractive combination to highlight gaps in previous research (see Examples 3 and 4).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(3) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHowever\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[cou], as \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eably discussed\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] by the likes of Hyland (2019: 36) and Partington (2017: 195), lexicon- and text-based approaches can[ent] \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003enever\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[den] achieve an \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eaccurate and comprehensive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] interpretation of the author\u0026rsquo;s attitudinal meanings. (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(4) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlthough\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[cou] it has the feature of \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eaccurate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] use of words, strict grammatical structure and objective expression of things, \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ebut\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[cou] it also contains hedges (Li, 2006). (CMC)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the move of \u0026ldquo;Presenting the Present Work\u0026rdquo;, native English-speaking scholars commonly adopted a pattern in which an \u003cem\u003eexpansive\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eevaluation was first used to describe their own research, followed by a citation to reinforce the claim (see Example 5). However, such patterns were not observed in the Chinese Master\u0026rsquo;s Corpus (CMC).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(5) Specifically, this study \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eattempts to\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ent] \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eexamine\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ack] lexical bundles in specific rhetorical move-steps of RA Introductions, a function-form mapping, which has been \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eincreasingly foregrounded\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] by EAP scholars who advocate the connection between text and context in discourse analysis (see Lu, Casal, Liu, Kisselev, \u0026amp; Yoon, 2021; Lu, Yoon, \u0026amp; Kisselev, 2018; Yin, Gao, \u0026amp; Lu, 2021). (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiterature Review Section. In terms of frequency(see Table 3), compared to the native English-speaking scholars, the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students overused \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e8.520，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.01) and \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e55.381，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001), while underused \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e6.868，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"9\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 554px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 3 Distribution of engagement types in the literature review chapter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonogloss\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeny\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCounter\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePronounce\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEndorse\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertain\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDistance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s Students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e279\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScholars\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e138\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.147\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.868\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.876\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.577\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.730\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.381\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.520\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.810\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.701\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.009\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.447\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.094\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding usage patterns, in the move of \u0026ldquo;Establishing a Research Territory\u0026rdquo;, native English-speaking scholars typically employed \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003epronounce\u003c/em\u003e to emphasize the importance and research value of the selected topic (e.g., Example 6). In contrast, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students more frequently used \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e to describe what previous studies have done or discovered (e.g., Example 7). Additionally, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students sometimes used two kinds of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003erepresenting opposing positions within a single citation (see Example 8).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(6) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlthough\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[cou] language \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ent] not[den] serve as sufficient equivalence to thoughts because they are two different yet inter-related competencies (Vygotsky, 1934/1986), attitudinal values carried by human language have \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eattracted increasing scholarly attention\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] in the field of applied linguistics (e.g., Hunston \u0026amp; Su, 2019; Hyland, 2014) and in science and technology (e.g., Dodds et al., 2015). (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(7) Si Xianzhu and Pang Yuhou (2018) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003einvestigated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ack] the implications of attitude system on translation and they \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003esuggested\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ack] that translators \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ent] choose \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eappropriate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] way to make the nearest translation of the original text on the basis of AT. (CMC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(8) Charles (2007) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eonly\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[den] discusses the use of \u0026ldquo;noun + that complement clause\u0026rdquo; in political science and material science, and the results \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eshow\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] that \u0026ldquo;noun + that complement clause\u0026rdquo; is \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eoften\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[pro] used to express stance in both disciplines. (CMC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the move of \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eOccupying the Niche\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e, native English-speaking scholars used \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e to justify the advantages of their choices (e.g., Example 9) or employed\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;monogloss\u003c/em\u003e to explain the concepts, classifications, or theories adopted in their research (e.g., Example 10). In contrast, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students did not use any citations to support their research in this move.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(9) Of \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ecrucial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] relevance to this study is the\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;comprehensive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] consideration of the diverse types and functions of noun phrases (Biber et al., 2011; Lan et al., 2022). Given the potential differences in how L2 proficiency is employed across modes (Hwang et al., 2020; Park \u0026amp; Yoon, 2021), this study integrates English proficiency levels into the investigation of noun phrase use. (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(10) The focus of the current study was on advanced Chinese learners of English who mainly learn academic vocabulary independently and require substantial vocabulary knowledge in order to perform successfully in academic writing (Higginbotham and Reid 2019). (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethodology Section. In terms of frequency (see Table 4), compared to native English-speaking scholars, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students underused \u003cem\u003emonogloss\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e29.725，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001), \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e19.424，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001), and \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e26.776，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001) in the Methodology chapter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"9\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 554px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 4 Distribution of engagement in the methodology chapter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonogloss\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeny\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCounter\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePronounce\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEndorse\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertain\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDistance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s Students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScholars\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.725\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.911\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.905\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.673\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.424\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.776\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.124\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 58px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.412\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.008\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding usage patterns, the authors from both groups used citations in the Methodology chapter mainly in two ways. The first is to use citations to demonstrate that the chosen methods are reliable and feasible. While both groups had the same communicative purpose, they preferred different kinds of engagement. Native English-speaking scholars more frequently chose \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e (e.g., Example 11), while Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students tended to use \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e (e.g., Example 12). The second is that both groups of authors used \u003cem\u003emonogloss\u003c/em\u003e to directly specify the definitions, classifications, and methods proposed by the research they selected (e.g., Examples 13 and 14).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(11) The \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003emajor advantages\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] of using ATLAS.ti were that it enabled Wang to work directly with the data in Chinese characters, and create multiple and overlapping codes while retaining the given context (Lewis 2004). (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(12) Chen and Baker (2010) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eindicated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ack] that \u0026ldquo;the number of four-word bundles is frequently manageable\u0026rdquo;. Thus, four-word bundles are extracted, which is consistent with an earlier study that evaluated only four-word bundles. (CMC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(13) According to the definition of hedges by Hyland (1995) and the classification of hedges by Hyland (1998), it provides the full basis for identifying hedges. (CMC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(14) The essays were rated on a 6-point scale compiled from several CEFR writing scales (see Huhta et al. 2014). (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults and Discussion Section. In terms of frequency(see Table 5), compared to native English-speaking scholars, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students underused \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e11.062，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001) and\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;distance\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=\u003c/em\u003e3.974，\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"9\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 554px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 5 Distribution of engagement in the results and discussion chapter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonogloss\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeny\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCounter\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePronounce\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEndorse\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertain\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDistance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaster\u0026rsquo;s Students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScholars\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e121\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.073\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.462\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.638\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.169\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.158\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.828\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.062\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.974\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 59px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.046\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of usage patterns, both groups of authors used \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e to cite interpretations of the reasons for their findings (e.g., Example 15). Both groups also compared their findings with related research, with some findings being consistent with previous studies (e.g., Example 16). Building on this, native scholars used two types of examples that master\u0026rsquo;s students did not attempt: the first involves discussing findings that are inconsistent with related research (e.g., Example 17); the second involves demonstrating how their findings fill gaps in existing research (e.g., Example 18).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(15) On the other hand, the \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003elimited\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[den] second-language proficiency of Chinese students \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003emay\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ent] also be a contributing factor (Wang \u0026amp; Zhang, 2007). (CMC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(16) This result \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eshows\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] that Chinese PhD students have a tendency to utilize active verbs in academic writing, which is \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ein line with\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] Biber\u0026rsquo;s research (1999), the usage of verb phrases with active verbs is a sign of conversational style. (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(17) Given that global feedback is more demanding for L2 learners, entailing more extensive energy and effort (Wang et al., 2022), it \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eseems\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ent] that they were motivated to attend to teacher feedback assiduously. This finding is very \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003einspiring\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end], since it does \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003enot\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[den] lend support to the \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eclaim\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[dis] that L2 learners \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003epredominantly\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[pro] focus on language, showing \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003elittle\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[den] concern with global issues during revision (Chen, Zhang, \u0026amp; Parr, 2022; Chen \u0026amp; Zhang, 2019). (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(18) \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIt should also be pointed out that\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[pro] \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ewhile\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[cou] \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eattempts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[ent] have been made to improve metacognitive and affective management of learning for intermediate- and upper intermediate-level learners (Bielak and Mystkowska-Wiertelak 2020; Teng and Zhang 2020), this kind of \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003esupport\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e[end] is not commonly provided to advanced-level learners. This study demonstrated ways that advanced-level learners are challenged, in this case, in their academic writing\u0026mdash;by issues of semantic appropriateness, collocational restrictions, and grammatical accuracy. (NSC)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDifferences in Citation Types.\u003c/b\u003e This study found that Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students used significantly fewer citations overall compared to native English-speaking scholars, which is consistent with Zhang\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) findings regarding doctoral candidates in engineering. In this study, not only did Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students use citations at a much lower density than native English-speaking scholars, but their selection of cited literature was also narrower. This reflects that Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students have a less comprehensive understanding of the relevant literature in the field, both in terms of quantity and depth. In contrast, native English-speaking scholars are more adept at obtaining substantial support from existing research through citations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen using non-integral citations, authors interpreted the cited content and paraphrased it in their own words, integrating it with their own views, thus sharing some of the responsibility for the citation. In contrast, when using integral citations, authors emphasized that the citation came from another\u0026rsquo;s viewpoint, and they did not take responsibility for the citation (Mu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, native English-speaking scholars most frequently used non-integral citations, while Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students most often used verb-controlling integral citations. This suggested that native English-speaking scholars were more inclined to paraphrase citations, sharing responsibility, whereas Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students tended to attribute responsibility to the cited sources.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn examination of the corpus revealed that native English-speaking scholars, when reviewing related research, focused more on categorizing and synthesizing the studies, as well as evaluating their shortcomings. They then proceeded to establish the connection between the cited research and their own. By critically evaluating the limitations of existing research, the author highlighted the advantages of their own work and inspired future research, contributing to the development of disciplinary knowledge (Wang et. al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Although adjusting citation strategies according to communicative purposes was crucial in academic writing (Cumming et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), the citation patterns frequently used by Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students were limited to restating and listing the content and findings of existing research (e.g., Example 2), with little further synthesis or critical evaluation of the studies. This may have stemmed from the mindset of Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students, who had been accustomed to collecting and summarizing existing research from a learner\u0026rsquo;s perspective, lacking the courage to engage in critical evaluation. In fact, citing literature not only demonstrated the author\u0026rsquo;s familiarity with the relevant research but also facilitated their integration into the academic community. By acknowledging others, the author established connections between their own research and existing work, thereby gaining recognition from others and supporting their own research (Lee et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSimilarities and Differences in the Use of Engagement Across Chapters\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimilarities in the Use of Engagement.\u003c/em\u003e In the Results and Discussion section, authors not only presented their own research findings but also used the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e to interact with existing research (Geng \u0026amp; Wharton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, both Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students and native English-speaking scholars employed \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e when citing other studies\u0026rsquo; analyses of causes. The \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e signaled the author\u0026rsquo;s uncertainty regarding the cited content, thus increasing the openness of the viewpoint (Zolfaghari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In Example 15, the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s student used the \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;may\u0026rdquo;, suggesting that the cause discussed in the citation was merely one of several influencing factors, and that other diverse reasons may have existed. This formulation invited readers to further refine this viewpoint in future discussions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoth groups of authors used \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e to cite existing research findings that aligned with their own. In Example 16, the scholar used a combination of \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e to support the similar findings of prior research, which not only resonated with the existing body of research but also demonstrated that the author\u0026rsquo;s findings were not merely personal opinions but were part of a broader academic consensus.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDifferences in the Use of Engagement.\u003c/em\u003e In the \u0026ldquo;Establishing a Niche\u0026rdquo; step of the introduction, the author needed to inform the reader of the shortcomings in existing research, indicating that future related studies should address or improve upon these gaps (Hyland, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This study found that, in order to avoid potential criticism from the reader, both Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students and native English-speaking scholars employed \u003cem\u003econtract\u003c/em\u003e combinations in the \u0026ldquo;Establishing a Niche\u0026rdquo; step. Both groups of authors chose a \u0026ldquo;first affirm, then deny\u0026rdquo; strategy for evaluation (e.g., Example 3 and Example 4). They first used \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003epronounce\u003c/em\u003e to directly affirm the contributions or value of existing research, then used \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ecounter\u003c/em\u003e to point out the deficiencies. Although the evaluation patterns used by both groups were consistent, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students often overlooked the use of \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e when employing \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ecounter\u003c/em\u003e. The combination of \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e with \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ecounter\u003c/em\u003e not only demonstrated the author\u0026rsquo;s disagreement with the content of the citation but also cautiously separated the author\u0026rsquo;s position from the viewpoint of the citation (Zolfaghari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students omitted the use of \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e and solely employed \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ecounter\u003c/em\u003e. This approach to using engagement was more likely to provoke opposition from readers towards the author's viewpoint.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the \u0026ldquo;Establishing a Niche\u0026rdquo; step, when the author identified gaps in existing research, it stimulated the reader\u0026rsquo;s interest and made them look forward to future studies addressing these gaps. Therefore, in the subsequent \u0026ldquo;Presenting the Present Work\u0026rdquo; step, the author should have explained how their research responded to and filled the gaps in existing studies (Du et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Since the Introduction emphasized marketing (Swales, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), native English-speaking scholars, after introducing their own research, immediately supported it with citations to attract the reader\u0026rsquo;s attention to the merits of the study, thereby demonstrating the value of their research. This created a \u0026ldquo;first expand, then contract\u0026rdquo; evaluation pattern, constructing an objective, equitable, and flexible negotiation space.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Example 5, native English-speaking scholars, when describing their research, first modestly used \u003cem\u003eexpand\u003c/em\u003e evaluations such as \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e. Then, they used citations to highlight that their research had attracted significant attention from the academic community and held considerable research significance. However, no similar examples were found in the corpus of Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students\u0026rsquo; work. Although opportunities for marketing one\u0026rsquo;s research in the Introduction were limited, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students failed to seize these opportunities in the \u0026ldquo;Presenting the Present Work\u0026rdquo; step. Compared to native English-speaking scholars, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students lacked the use of \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e in both the \u0026ldquo;Establishing a Niche\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Presenting the Present Work\u0026rdquo; steps, which directly led to their underuse of \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e in the Introduction section.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Literature Review section, the author selected representative relevant studies, categorised them, and evaluated them dialectically, establishing a connection with their own research (Badenhorst, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, in the \u0026ldquo;Establishing a Research Territory\u0026rdquo; step, the author needed to emphasize the importance of the selected topic. In Example 6, native English-speaking scholars used contractive \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e to persuade the reader that the chosen topic was currently receiving attention and was worth researching. In contrast to native English-speaking scholars, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students failed to grasp the communicative purpose of this step, instead merely accumulating the content and findings of existing studies (as shown in Example 7), without purposefully building connections between the existing research and their own. The citations in the Literature Review should have linked past, present, and future relevant studies surrounding the topic, forming a knowledge network (Hyland, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the author should have focused on using citations in the Literature Review section, accumulating a knowledge thread for discussions and interaction with potential readers and future research.In this study, the shortcomings exposed by Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students in this step aligned with the findings from Bastola \u0026amp; Ho (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) regarding doctoral students, revealing a shared weakness in English academic writing among both Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s and Nepalese doctoral students. Furthermore, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students extensively used expansive \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e in this step. This not only stood in sharp contrast to the contractive \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003epronounce\u003c/em\u003e favoured by native English-speaking scholars but also contradicted the communicative purpose of this step. The heavy use of expansive evaluations by Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students deliberately left more room for negotiation, reducing the responsibility the author assumed for the citations. Moreover, this also indicated that Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students had limited control over their stance and were unable to precisely and flexibly choose \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e to regulate the size of the negotiation space based on the communicative goal of the step.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Methodology section, authors cited previous studies to substantiate the superiority of their chosen methods. In this study, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students and native English-speaking scholars employed different types of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e when citing in this section, suggesting divergent attitudes towards the cited material. While both \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e presented the content of a citation, the former conveyed the author\u0026rsquo;s explicit alignment with and support for the cited content, whereas the latter marked the source as an external viewpoint, thereby distancing the author from epistemic responsibility (Loghmani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs illustrated in Example 11, native English-speaking scholars adopted \u003cem\u003eendorse\u003c/em\u003e to reinforce the advantages of the selected methodological approach, thereby clearly articulating the rationale for their methodological choices. In contrast, Example 12 demonstrated that although the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s student appeared to have chosen the research subject based on the cited content, they employed the \u003cem\u003eacknowledge\u003c/em\u003e, concealing their alignment with the citation. While such a strategy may have deflected direct responsibility for the cited claim, it simultaneously diluted the rhetorical force and persuasive impact of the citation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Results and Discussion section, native English-speaking scholars not only cited viewpoints that aligned with their own research findings to gain support but also sometimes cited perspectives from existing research that contradicted their findings. They used \u003cem\u003edistance\u003c/em\u003e to express doubts and then continued with a dialectical discussion to further contribute to the disciplinary knowledge system. Academic writing frequently employed citations to integrate new knowledge into the disciplinary knowledge framework, which could be achieved in two main ways: one was by citing existing research to support the reliability and value of the author\u0026rsquo;s new findings, thereby incorporating these findings into the academic discourse; the other was when the author challenged the viewpoints of cited research and offered new insights (Khamkhien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In Example 17, native English-speaking scholars used the \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;seems\u0026rdquo; to enhance the openness of the negotiation space, humbly presenting their findings, and employed both \u003cem\u003edistance\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003edeny\u003c/em\u003e to highlight that these findings contradicted existing research. The citation of conflicting results, on one hand, showcased the author\u0026rsquo;s profound disciplinary knowledge and strengthened the persuasiveness of the argument. On the other hand, it deeply integrated the author\u0026rsquo;s findings into the academic discourse community, further exploring and substantiating the significance of these findings through dialectical discussion (Zhang \u0026amp; Cheung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students, in contrast, lacked the dialectical approach to challenging citations, missing an important avenue for constructing new disciplinary knowledge. As a result, they tended to underuse \u003cem\u003edistance\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Example 18, the native English-speaking scholar first cited representative research to identify gaps in the existing literature and then presented their own findings as a solution to these gaps, effectively advancing the development of the disciplinary knowledge system. Subsequently, native English-speaking scholars summarized and presented their breakthrough findings. There were no examples of citations that contributed to filling research gaps in the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students\u0026rsquo; corpus.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe absence of the two citation types discussed above among Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students may have been attributed to two main factors. First, they tended to lack both the awareness and the confidence to engage in dialectical interaction with existing research in the Results and Discussion sections. This mirrored their approach in the Literature Review section, where they similarly exhibited a tendency to adopt a learner-oriented stance, rather than that of an emerging member of the academic community. Second, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students, much like Thai L2 learners, were constrained by limited language proficiency and a relatively shallow understanding of disciplinary knowledge, which inhibited their ability to engage critically with prior research (Khamkhien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy contrast, native English-speaking scholars demonstrated stronger linguistic competence and a more comprehensive command of disciplinary content. This enabled them to draw upon a wider lexical and syntactic repertoire to articulate diverse viewpoints, express varying degrees of commitment to the propositions embedded in citations, and represent more nuanced stances through flexible deployment of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e resources. Their capacity to express \u003cem\u003eheteroglossic\u003c/em\u003e voices, reflect complex epistemic positions, allowed them to construct more sophisticated academic arguments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCiting literature through references to existing studies to support the author\u0026rsquo;s research design and academic achievements was not only an important method for establishing the author\u0026rsquo;s research identity and academic position but also a social process of constructing disciplinary knowledge (Wang et. al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This study, from the theoretical perspective of the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e framework, explored the characteristics of how Chinese Master\u0026rsquo;s students in applied linguistics used citations to construct interactions. The findings revealed that Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students underused non-integral citations and excessively used verb-controlling integral citations. Furthermore, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students overused \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e in steps that required restricted negotiation. In the Literature Review section, Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students lacked evaluations of the shortcomings of related research. In the Results and Discussion section, they overlooked the dialectical discussion of divergent results and failed to address research gaps. The common source of these findings could be traced back to the Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students\u0026rsquo; learner mindset, in which they tended to avoid taking responsibility and excessively increased the openness of their exploratory interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, the teaching of English academic writing to master\u0026rsquo;s students should address both the \u0026ldquo;Way\u0026rdquo; and the \u0026ldquo;Technique.\u0026rdquo; The \u0026ldquo;Way\u0026rdquo; refers to guiding students to establish a high-level academic writing perspective, breaking free from the cautious learner mindset. It emphasizes the importance of valuing and cherishing the opportunity to engage in disciplinary knowledge discussions through academic writing, and encourages students to contribute their independent thoughts courageously. The \u0026ldquo;Technique\u0026rdquo; refers to, after successfully shaping students\u0026rsquo; high-level academic writing perspectives, systematically teaching them how to use citations and \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e to establish and participate in interactions, providing students with concrete tools to experiment and practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study makes significant contributions to both the research on citations and the teaching and learning practices of English academic writing..\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirstly, existing citation studies have mainly focused on examining the functions and forms of citations. In contrast, this study concentrates on the interactional aspects of citation use, systematically exploring the characteristics of \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e in the citations used by Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students in applied linguistics in their thesis. It provides a detailed analysis of the distribution patterns of the types of citations used and the systematic regularities in the application of \u003cem\u003eengagement.\u003c/em\u003e From a content perspective, this study serves as a valuable addition to the existing literature on citation research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecondly, this study attempts to integrate Xu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026rsquo;s classification method of citation types in applied linguistics academic writing with the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e framework of Appraisal Theory (Martin \u0026amp; White, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), resulting in the creation of the \u0026ldquo;Engagement Framework for Citation Analysis \u0026ldquo;This framework is suitable for future research analyzing the interactional construction of citations in various types of applied linguistics academic discourse.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThirdly, this study\u0026rsquo;s systematic investigation into how Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students in applied linguistics use \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e in citations to construct academic writing interactions provides valuable feedback for the teaching and learning of academic writing in English as a second language. Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students can use this study as a mirror to objectively and deeply understand the common difficulties they encounter when using citations to construct interactions. This awareness can help them more effectively learn the correct methods of using \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e in citations. English instructors and master\u0026rsquo;s thesis advisors can use the findings of this study to gain a more systematic understanding of the weak areas in their students\u0026rsquo; ability to construct interactions in English academic writing and provide targeted guidance in teaching practice to help students overcome challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study represents an exploration of how learners use citations to construct interactions, with both the theoretical perspective and data sources allowing room for further development. Future research could adopt alternative theoretical perspectives to explore the deeper factors influencing learners\u0026rsquo; use of citations in establishing academic interactions. Additionally, attention could be directed toward examining citation use in other learner groups, or comparing the interactive differences in academic writing across various disciplines.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by a key project of the Liaoning Provincial Social Science Fund, 2021,Number: L21AY004, \u003cem\u003e“\u003c/em\u003eA Study on the Development of Interactive Competence in English Academic Writing among Graduate Students in Liaoning Province\u003cem\u003e”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst Author: She led the study’s conception and design,\u0026nbsp;constructed the corpus, took on a portion of the data annotation and statistical analysis tasks, and took charge of drafting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorresponding Author: She undertook a portion of the data annotation and analysis tasks, and was also responsible for revising and refining the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll the corpora utilized in this study were derived from publicly published academic papers. Journal articles were randomly selected from ten SSCI articles authored by English native-speaking scholars, published between 2020 and 2024, from four applied linguistics journals: \u003cem\u003eApplied Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;English for Specific Purposes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eJournal of Second Language Writing\u003c/em\u003e, which were downloaded from the journals' official websites. Master's theses were randomly extracted from the publicly available database of master's theses on China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), comprising seven applied linguistics theses authored by graduates from different Chinese universities, with graduation dates between 2020 and 2024.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreliminary findings indicated that the conclusion sections of the two types of corpora extracted for this study contained almost no instances of citation usage, whereas the other chapters included a notable number of citations. To conduct a more comprehensive investigation into the systematic characteristics of citation usage across different chapters, this study chose to exclude the conclusion sections and to encompass the introduction, literature review, research methods, and results and discussion chapters. Some studies separate the results and discussion into two distinct chapters; however, such studies were excluded from the corpus selection in this research.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study retained only the introduction, literature review, research methods, and results and discussion chapters from each journal article and master’s thesis, thereby establishing two small corpora: the Native Scholar Corpus (NSC), comprising 86,004 tokens and 6,609 types, and the Chinese Master Corpus (CMC), consisting of 85,450 tokens and 5,631 types. AntConc was employed to analyze the token and type counts of each corpus.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor inquiries regarding the acquisition of the corpora used in this study, please feel free to contact the two authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study examining the interactional features of citations in academic writing by Chinese master’s students was conducted ethically. It did not involve any participants. All the corpora collected for this research were publicly published and accessible online, eliminating the need for obtaining additional informed consent from the authors. Furthermore, the study did not compromise any personal identifying information or privacy of the authors. The utilization of these corpora posed no harm to the physical or mental well-being of the authors and did not intrude upon their personal lives.\u0026nbsp;The research methodology and data analysis were conducted responsibly to ensure accurate representation of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll procedures performed in studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of Relevant Human Research Ethics Review Committee in China and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research methods and data used in this study underwent rigorous ethical review by the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Committee of Northeastern University. This study received approval with the ethical review number NEU-EC-2025B065S.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhn C, Oh S (2024) Citation practices in applied linguistics: A comparative study of Korean master\u0026rsquo;s theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 69(3): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101369\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakhtin M (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. University of Texas Press, Austin\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBastola M, Ho V (2023) Rhetorical structure of literature review chapters in Nepalese PhD dissertations: Students\u0026rsquo; engagement with previous scholarship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 65(5): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101271 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBadenhorst C (2018) Citation practices of postgraduate students writing literature reviews. London Review of Education 16(1): 121-135. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.16.1.11 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBazerman C, Little J, Bethel L, Chavkin T, Fouquette D, Garufis J (2005) Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. Parlor Press, Tempe\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan T, Kwan B (2024) Citation content in literature review sections of research articles: A cross-paradigm comparison of design science and interpretivist research in information systems. English for Specific Purposes 73(1): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.08.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoulthard M (1994) On analyzing and evaluating written text. In: Coulthard M (eds) Advances in written text analysis. Routledge, New York, pp 1-11\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoffin C (2009) Incorporating and evaluating voices in a film studies thesis. Writing \u0026amp; Pedagogy 1(2): 163-193. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v1i2.163 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCumming A, Lai C, Cho H (2016) Students\u0026rsquo; writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e23(3):47\u0026ndash;58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDu J, Yuan H, Li Q (2023) Read between the lines: Evaluative patterns and paces in engineering research article Introductions. English for Specific Purposes 71(3):1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFairclough N (1992) Discourse and social change. Polity Press, Cambridge\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGeng Y, Wharton S (2019) How do thesis writers evaluate their own and others\u0026rsquo; findings? An appraisal analysis and a pedagogical intervention. English for Specific Purposes 56(4): 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.06.002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalliday M, Hasan R (1989) Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHunston S (2000) Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In: Hunston S, Thompson G (eds) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 176-207\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHyland K (2014) Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In: Flowerdew J (eds) Academic discourse. Routledge, London, pp 125-140\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHyland K, Diani G (2009) Introduction: academic evaluation and review genres. In: Hyland K, Diani G. (eds.). Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 1-14 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHyland K (2009) Corpus informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement. In Charles M, Hunston S, Pecorari D (eds) Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse. Continuum, London, pp 110-128\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHyland K (2004) Disciplinary Discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHyland K (2005) Metadiscourse. Continuum, London \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHyland K (1999) Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics 20(3) : 341-367 https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.341 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhamkhien A (2025) The art of referencing: Patterns of citation and authorial stance in academic texts written by Thai students and professional writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e74(2):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101470 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee J, Hitchcock C, Casal J (2018) Citation practices of L2 university students in first-year writing: Form, function, and stance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes33(3):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.01.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiad\u0026eacute;t C, Black S (2019) \u0026ldquo;So and so\u0026rdquo; says, states and argues: A corpus-assisted engagement analysis of reporting verbs. Journal of Second Language Writing 44(2): 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.02.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoghmani Z, Ghonsooly B, Ghazanfari M (2020) Engagement in doctoral dissertation discussion sections written by English native speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e45(3):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100851 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartin R, White P (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMu C (2024) Citation choices in L2 novices\u0026rsquo; and experts\u0026rsquo; literature review sections: A functional discourse analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e68(2): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101361 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi L, Dong Y (2018) Chinese graduate students paraphrasing in English and Chinese contexts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 34(4): 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.03.002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwales J (2011)\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eAspects of article Introductions. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu X, Nesi H (2019) Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e38(2):121-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.003 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang R, Allison D (2003) Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e22(4): 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang G (2023) Authorial stance in citations: Variation by writer expertise and research article part-genres. English for Specific Purposes 70(2): 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang W, Cheung Y (2023) The different ways to write publishable research articles: Using cluster analysis to uncover patterns of APPRAISAL in discussions across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 63(3): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101231 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZolfaghari F (2023) The rhetoric of negation in research articles: A cross-disciplinary analysis of appraisal resources. English for Specific Purposes 70 (2): 192-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.007 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu F (2012). Citation Features in English Empirical Research Discourses. Journal of Foreign Languages 35(6): 60-68.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang J, Yang K, Sun F (2017) Features of citing practice in academic writing by Chinese postgraduate students of the English program. Foreign Language World 182(5): 56-64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao Y, Deng Y, Niu X, Zhang Y, Liu K, Wang Y (2016) Referencing practices in empirical research papers on foreign language education published by university journals [J]. Chinese Journal of Scientific and Technical Periodicals 27(2): 217-222.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Citation, Engagement, Interaction, master’s students","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7253487/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7253487/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAccording to Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), academic writing is viewed as an interactive event and a social exchange of meaning (Halliday \u0026amp; Hasan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Citations serve as an important bridge in establishing academic writing interactions, allowing authors to engage in discussions of relevant research and demonstrating how their findings contribute to the supplementation and development of the existing disciplinary knowledge base (Hyland, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Existing citation studies tended to focus more on the functions and forms of citations, with little attention paid to the interactional aspect of citations, particularly how Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students used citations to construct academic interaction in their academic writing. This study, using the \u003cem\u003eengagement\u003c/em\u003e framework as a theoretical framework, explored the systematic features of how Chinese master\u0026rsquo;s students in applied linguistics used citations to construct interaction. The findings indicated that: (1) master\u0026rsquo;s students underused non-integral citations and excessively used verb-controlling integral citations; (2) they overused \u003cem\u003eentertain\u003c/em\u003e in steps where negotiation should have been restricted; (3) they failed to evaluate the shortcomings of previous studies in the Literature Review section; (4) In the Results and Discussion section, master\u0026rsquo;s students failed to engage in a dialectical discussion of perspectives from existing research and to address the gaps in related studies. Based on these findings, the study offered some insights for teaching English academic writing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"An Investigation into the Interactional Features of Citations in Academic Writing by Chinese master’s students","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-09 17:08:49","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7253487/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ed18f425-08d1-4b62-8d35-09bb021e418d","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":54159731,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":54159732,"name":"Humanities/Language and linguistics"},{"id":54159733,"name":"Social science/Language and linguistics"},{"id":54159734,"name":"Humanities/Literature"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-11T17:38:46+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-09 17:08:49","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7253487","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7253487","identity":"rs-7253487","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}