Language choice tendency in second language academic writing -- Based on the perspective of explicit and implicit expression of information

Authors

  • Tiantong Wang Centre for Multidisciplinary and Intercultural Inquiry, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/anxekv83

Keywords:

Second language academic writing, language choice tendency, explicit information, implicit expression, second language acquisition.

Abstract

From the perspective of explicit and implicit information expression, this paper explores the language choice tendency of second language academic writing. The dynamic balance between the two is the core of the clarity and conciseness of academic terms, and also the key to cross-cultural academic communication. Combing second language acquisition and academic discourse research, it is found that learners show obvious level differences: the middle and low levels are often over manifested (such as the abuse of connectives and semantic repetition), and the middle and high levels are prone to improper concealment (such as fuzzy logic and unclear reference). Such tendencies tend to lead to discourse redundancy or logic fracture, affecting the efficiency of academic information transmission and the recognition of papers. The research shows that the main influencing factors are mother tongue transfer, insufficient cognition of academic norms, and the limitation of second language level. The purpose of this paper is to provide practical reference for the teaching of second language academic writing, help learners balance explicit and implicit expression according to the characteristics of science and engineering, humanities and Social Sciences, and improve the logicality and standardization of academic discourse.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Biber D, Gray B. Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511920776

[2] Hyland K, Tse P. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal[J]. Applied linguistics, 2004, 25(2): 156-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

[3] Seoane E, Suárez-Gómez C. Elaboration, compression and explicitness across sub-registers of popular and academic writing in Hong Kong English[J]. Register Studies, 2020, 2(2): 275-305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.19007.seo

[4] Hyland K. Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing[J]. Journal of second language writing, 2004, 13(2): 133-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

[5] Ruiying Y, Allison D. Research articles in applied linguistics: Structures from a functional perspective[J]. English for specific Purposes, 2004, 23(3): 264-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00005-X

[6] Anderson T. The doctoral gaze: Foreign PhD students’ internal and external academic discourse socialization[J]. Linguistics and Education, 2017, 37: 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.12.001

[7] Yang W, Sun Y. The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels[J]. Linguistics and education, 2012, 23(1): 31-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004

[8] Gao X. A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers' use of linking adverbials in academic writing[J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2016, 24: 14-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.08.002

[9] Ferris D, Roberts B. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?[J]. Journal of second language writing, 2001, 10(3): 161-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X

[10] Philp J, Adams R, Iwashita N. Peer interaction and second language learning[M]. Routledge, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203551349

Downloads

Published

05-02-2026

How to Cite

Wang, T. (2026). Language choice tendency in second language academic writing -- Based on the perspective of explicit and implicit expression of information. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 62, 440-445. https://doi.org/10.54097/anxekv83