VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO.

3 (2021) 135

A CORPUS-BASED STUDY ON REPORTING VERBS

USED IN TESOL RESEARCH ARTICLES
BY NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE WRITERS

Duong My Tham*1, Tran Phuong Nhi2

1. Ho Chi Minh City University of Economics and Finance (UEF),
141 Dien Bien Phu Street, Ward 15, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2. Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH),
475A Dien Bien Phu Street, Ward 25, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Received 18 November 2020

Revised 7 January 2021; Accepted 10 May 2021

Abstract: This corpus-based research aimed to compare the use of reporting verbs in TESOL
research articles between non-native and native English writers. Two corpora including 30 for the non-
native corpus and 30 for the native corpus were constructed for analysis. The data in the form of plain
text were processed via AntConc software version 3.5.7. The findings indicated significant differences
in terms of frequency, function, and position between the two corpora. Specifically, more reporting
verbs were found in the non-native corpus than in the native corpus. Of four verb groups of Argue, Find,
Show, and Think, Argue group was the top priority used in TESOL research articles by both non-native
and native English authors. The results of the functional and positional analysis in both the corpora also
showed that two most common functions of reporting verbs were (1) presentation and (2) evaluation
and examination, and most of the observed reporting verbs were in neutral position.
Keywords: corpus, frequency, function, position, reporting verb, research article

1. Introduction* difficult to use reporting verbs accurately

(Bloch, 2010; Manan & Noor, 2014).
One of the most important aspects of
academic writing is using reporting verbs to How to use reporting verbs
show the references of other authors’ appropriately is very critical in academic
literature (Yeganeh & Boghayeri, 2015). writing, but it is likely to be underestimated
Charles (2006) has affirmed that appropriate in research although reporting verbs are one
reporting verbs can show a writer’s opinion of the most important grammatical items in
about others’ ideas. In reality, however, writing statements (Hyland, 1998). Non-
Yeganeh and Boghayeri (2015) have native English writers may overlook the
explored that “non-native students often fail suitability of reporting verbs used for a
to use [reporting verbs] appropriately in their certain statement in their writing (Manan &
writing” (p. 583). It can be assumed that Noor, 2014). Similarly, Bloch (2010) has
novice or non-native English writers find it recognized that writers use reporting verbs
repeatedly in their research and pay less

*
Corresponding author.
Email address: [email protected]
https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4729
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 136

attention to effects of the reporting verbs Categorization of reporting verbs

used on the research. It is recognized that reporting verbs
There have been studies addressing are categorized based on the framework of
the comparison regarding the use of Thompson and Ye (1991) and Hyland
reporting verbs between native and non- (1999). Thompson and Ye (1991)
native writers; however, only a limited conducting the first research on classifying
number of research on reporting verbs used reporting verbs have divided reporting verbs
in TESOL research articles has been under into three groups: Textual verbs, Mental
investigation. Therefore, this paper was verbs and Research verbs. Thompson and Ye
conducted to scrutinize differences in using (1991) have pinpointed the differences
reporting verbs in three aspects, namely among the three groups: (1) Textual verbs
frequency, function, and position in TESOL (e.g., state or indicate) show a writer’s
research articles between non-native and stance, (2) Mental verbs (e.g., believe or
native English authors. think) show a writer’s thinking, and (3)
1. What are similarities and Research verbs (e.g., find or explore) refer to
differences in terms of frequency of a writer’s interpretation. Based on
reporting verbs in TESOL research articles Thompson and Ye’s (1991) classification,
written by non-native and native English Hyland (1999, 2002) has also introduced
authors? three types of reporting verbs, namely
2. What are similarities and Discourse Acts, Cognition Acts, and
differences in terms of functions and Research Acts. It can be noticed that Hyland
positions of reporting verbs in TESOL (1999, 2002) used the terms of Discourse
research articles written by non-native and and Cognition Acts instead of Textual and
native English authors? Mental verbs. While Cognition-related verbs
(e.g., assume, believe, conceptualize, etc.)
2. Literature Review involving mental process and Discourse-
related verbs (e.g., discuss, report, state, etc.)
Definition of reporting verbs
relating to linguistic activities showing a
Charles (2006, p. 326) has defined writer’s point of view to evaluate cited
reporting verbs as a tool “to give credit to studies, Research Acts consisting of verbs
other researchers to use their work in the describing experimental activities conducted
cumulative construction of knowledge” in the real life are elaborately classified with
while Hyland (1999) and Thompson and Ye three sub-groups, namely factive verbs (e.g.,
(1991) have argued that reporting verbs demonstrate, establish, show, etc.), counter-
showing writers’ behavior to other factive verbs (e.g., fail, ignore, overlook,
researchers’ work are indispensable etc.), and non-factive verbs (e.g., investigate,
linguistic features. Also, reporting verbs is identify, observe, etc.).
viewed as a lexical device to help writers to In another aspect, Francis, Hunston
state their viewpoints and connect with and Manning’s (1996) have presented a
readers (Hyland, 2005). These definitions framework of reporting verb categorization
support one another, which provides readers that is different from the aforementioned
with insightful understanding of reporting frameworks. In Figure 1, there are four types
verbs used in research. of reporting verbs: Argue group, Find group,
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 137

Show group, Think group as follows. Concerning functions of reporting

• Argue verbs involving how a writer verbs, Weissberg and Buker (2007) have
makes an argument and creates a indicated three functions of reporting verbs:
position on studied issues (e.g., (1) to present the background information
argue, claim, indicate, point out, about the research conducted, (2) to inform
suggest, etc.). readers about how much the writer is
• Find verbs concerning what writers familiar with the study areas and (3) to relate
find in research (e.g., discover, the research to the literature. In addition,
establish, find, observe, realize, etc.). writers use the references from others’
• Show verbs referring to a true
previous studies to strengthen their claims
situation or a fact in research cases
and show the significance of the work
(e.g., demonstrate, reveal show, etc.).
reported (Petric, 2007). To help readers use
• Think verbs relating to the writer’s
thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and reporting verbs appropriately, University of
understanding (e.g., assume, believe, Adelaide Writing Center (2014) has
feel, think, hope, etc.). provided a guide to functions of reporting
verbs categorized into 13 groups (e.g.,
With reference to positions of
addition, advice, agreement, argument and
reporting verbs, Figure 1 shows three
persuasion, believing, conclusion,
degrees of strength introduced by RMIT
disagreement and questioning, discussion,
University Study and Learning Center
emphasis, evaluation and examination,
(2012). The first group including tentative or
explanation, presentation, & suggestion).
weak reporting verbs are suitable for making
assumptions, questions or To sum up, Hyland (1999) and
recommendations, etc. in research. The Thompson and Ye (1991) have classified
second group which is composed of neutral reporting verbs into three categories:
reporting verbs is used for expressing Research Acts/ Research verbs, Cognition
narrative sentences or citing references from Acts/Mental verbs and Discourse
other research without expressing attitudes. Acts/Textual verbs, whereas Francis et al.
The last group - strong reporting verbs - is (1996) have presented four types of
adopted to affirm, emphasize or show reporting verbs including Argue verbs, Find
attitudes and feelings towards the ideas cited verbs, Think verbs, Show verbs. Each
in the research. Likewise, Writing Center of categorization of reporting verbs has its own
University of Adelaide (2014) has proposed characteristics. This study adopted Francis et
three types of position of reporting verbs, al.’s (1996) classification of reporting verbs
viz. weak position (e.g., admit, confuse, as a theoretical framework because of its
comment, doubt, hope, etc.), neutral position clarity and popularity. In particular, this
(e.g., accept, analyze, believe, disagree, framework has been adapted by several
discuss, find, recognize, report, suggest, etc.) researchers (e.g., Charles, 2006; Friginal,
and strong position (e.g., argue, complain, 2013; Bloch, 2009). More importantly, it is
convince, emphasize, promise, recommend, aligned with the aim of the study.
warn, etc.).
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 138

Figure 1
Three Degrees of Strength of Reporting Verbs in Terms of Positions

Previous studies sections of Introduction and Literature

Review in research articles written by native
Prior studies have indicated that the
Persian and English writers. There were two
use of reporting verbs by native and non-
corpora of 60 research articles (i.e., 30
native researchers has been compared and
belonging to native English researchers and
contrasted in many studies to find out
30 belonging to Persian ones). The findings
differences between the two groups.
indicated a few differences in the use of
Jafarigohar and Mohammadkhani (2015)
reporting verbs between the corpora. In
analyzed the use of reporting verbs by native
particular, more reporting verbs in Argue
and non-native writers in 63 articles on
group were found in research articles written
TESOL and Applied Linguistics. The results
by English authors than Persian ones
of their study showed significant differences
although this verb group was the most used
in patterns and options of reporting verbs
by both the Persian and the English writers.
despite no differences in size and frequency
In terms of functions, moreover, there were
of reporting verbs between native and non-
some differences in using verbs and subjects
native writers.
grammatically, but the common pattern in
Furthermore, Yeganeh and both the corpora was “an integral citation, a
Boghayeri (2015) investigated frequency human subject and a present tense [Argue]
and functions of reporting verbs used in the
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 139

verb” (Yeganeh & Boghayeri, 2015, p. 586). and constructions in which the context is
Recently, Yilmaz and Erturk (2017) reduced to the lexical elements with a
carried out a study comparing frequency, particular grammatical element or structure.
functions, and positions of reporting verbs Finally, concordances provide the
between Turkish and native English writers. occurrence of a match of the search
Two corpora of 160 research articles relating expression in a user-defined context, often
to English Language Teaching were the whole clause/sentence. In this study, the
constructed for corpus-based analysis. As frequency list (i.e. frequency) and
for frequency, the findings showed that more concordances (i.e. functions) of reporting
reporting verbs were used by non-native verbs were examined. In terms of research
authors than native counterparts. In respect methods, furthermore, the quantitative
of functions, six reporting verbs which were method was used as it identifies a research
frequently used on both the corpora have the problem based on the statistics and figures
function of presentation (e.g., report and from the collected research results
show), evaluation and examination (e.g., (Creswell, 2012).
examine and investigate), and conclusion Corpus
and suggestion (e.g., find and suggestion);
especially, three reporting verbs (e.g., In this study, 60 research articles
revealed, indicated, & observed) were were purposively chosen and collected from
overused by non-native writers. Concerning TESOL journals which were divided into
positional analysis, it was indicated that both two corpora: 30 research articles written by
groups of researchers only used reporting non-native English researchers contain
verbs in neutral position, except one strong 183,807 words and 10,262 word types, and
reporting verb found in the native corpus. 30 research articles written by native English
researchers have 165,838 words and 11,221
In brief, the previous studies have word types. The total words in both corpora
addressed the differences in frequency, are 349,645. The research articles were
functions, and positions of reporting verbs selected based on the following criteria: (1)
between native and non-native writers. In they must be published on scholarly journals
this study, both differences and similarities with high h-index, (2) they must contain
in terms of frequency, function, and position integral sections, namely introduction,
of reporting verbs used in TESOL research literature review, methodology, results and
articles between native and non-native discussion, and conclusion, and (3) they
authors are under investigation. were published from 2009 to 2019.
3. Methodology Data collection
Research design Firstly, a wide range of TESOL
journals from the websites such as
A corpus-based study refers to the
www.scimagojr.com and
computerized retrieval and subsequent
https://www.jstor.org were chosen and
analysis of linguistic elements and structures
classified into two corpora, namely non-
from corpora (Gries, 2008). Ellis (2008) also
native corpus and native corpus based on the
introduced three corpus-linguistic methods
biodata of the writers in the articles and on
for analyzing data. First, frequency lists and
the websites (e.g., www.researchgate.net,
collocate lists or collocations construct the
https://scholar.google.com). Then, 60
most decontextualized methods ignoring the
research articles were selected and
context in which an utterance or a sentence
categorized. The first corpus includes
is produced. Second, there are colligations
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 140

research articles written by non-native tokens of reporting verbs were found in the
English writers from non-English speaking non-native corpus. More specifically, Argue
countries (e.g., Bangladesh, Brazil, China, group was most used with 953 tokens
Indonesia, India, Iran, Israel, Libya, Persia, (65.9%) and followed by Find group, Think
Singapore, Somalia, Thailand, Turkey, and group, and Show group with the tokens of
Vietnam). The second corpus contains 274 (18.94%), 157 (10.85%), and 62
research articles written by native English
(4.28%) respectively.
writers from English speaking countries
(e.g., Australia, Britain, Canada, New Table 1
Zealand, and The United States). Frequencies of Reporting Verbs Used in 30
Data analysis TESOL Research Articles by Non-Native
Writers
The frequency of reporting verbs was
statistically calculated based on Francis et n=1,446
Group Reporting verb
al.’s (1996) taxonomy, and function together F %
with position of reporting verbs was agree 151 10.44
analyzed based upon the classifications of
argue 61 4.22
reporting verbs proposed by RMIT
University Study and Learning Center criticize 7 0.48
(2012) and University of Adelaide Writing disagree 20 1.38
Center (2014). It is noticed that only the emphasize 11 0.76
main content of the articles was selected to
explain 83 5.74
assure the accuracy of the collected data, so
some irrelevant parts such as keywords, indicate 253 17.50
Argue
name of journals, ISSN, page numbers, inform 44 3.04
received/accepted/published date, DOI,
mention 40 2.77
URL, appendix, and references were
manually removed. Additionally, all the realize 17 1.18
articles were originally in PDF-format. recognize 6 0.41
Thus, all texts in the corpora were converted report 62 4.29
to plain text format so that the researchers
state 128 8.85
could analyze the data relating to reporting
verbs by means of AntConc - a free suggest 70 4.84
concordance software program for 953 65.90
Windows. To increase the reliability of the analyze 12 0.83
study, besides, the researchers ran the data of
the corpora using AntConc software version establish 11 0.76
3.5.7 four times to cross-check the Find explore 5 0.35
consistency among the times. find 183 12.66
4. Results and Discussion investigate 63 4.36
274 18.94
Frequency of RVs used in TESOL research
articles demonstrate 18 1.24
Show
As can be seen in Table 1, 1,446 describe 44 3.04
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 141

62 4.28 243 39.26

believe 56 3.87 analyze 23 3.72
Think hope 8 0.55 discover 9 1.45
think 93 6.43 establish 31 5.00
Find
157 10.85 explore 24 3.88
On the other hand, regardless of the find 151 24.39
same positions for Argue and Find groups, investigate 4 0.65
there was a slight difference between Show
242 39.09
and Think groups in 30 research articles
written by the native writers compared to demonstrate 15 2.42
those by the non-native writers. As Show describe 56 9.05
demonstrated in Table 2, in particular, the reflect 34 5.49
figures for Argue and Find groups that were
105 16.96
also identified as the first and second places
had an inconsiderable difference (i.e., Think believe 29 4.68
39.26% & 39.09%). Show group, however, 29 4.68
occupied the third position with 105 tokens
To shed light on the difference in
(16.96%), and Think group was ranked
terms of reporting verb use in TESOL
fourth with a tiny number of tokens at 29,
research articles between two groups of
accounting for 4.68% despite the third place
writers, a comparison is necessarily
as depicted in Table 1.
provided. As observed in Figure 2, far more
Table 2 reporting verbs were found in 60 RAs
Frequencies of Reporting Verbs Used in 30 produced by the non-native writers than the
TESOL Research Articles by Native Writers native counterparts. Noticeably, the figure
n=619 for RVs in Argue group used by non-native
Group Reporting verb writers (65.90%) approximately doubled
F % that for the native authors (39.26%), whereas
acknowledge 7 1.13 the native researchers are more likely to
argue 15 2.42 employ RVs in Find group than the non-
native researchers, reaching 39,09%
address 25 4.03
compared to 18.94% for the non-native ones.
confirm 9 1.45 The similar pattern can be seen for Think
criticize 5 0.81 and Show groups. That is, the percentage of
Argue disagree 3 0.48 RVs in Think group found in the non-native
corpus (10.85%) probably doubled that of
explain 6 0.97
the native corpus (4.68%) whilst the figure
indicate 45 7.27 for RVs in Show group used in the native
mention 23 3.72 corpus (16.96%) was four times higher than
that in the non-native corpus (4.28%).
realize 13 2.10
report 92 14.86
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 142

Figure 2 writers tended to employ more reporting

Distribution of Reporting Verbs Found in verbs in their TESOL articles than the native
the Research Articles Written by Non-Native authors did. This is in line with Yilmaz and
and Native Authors Erturk’s (2017) conclusion that Turkish
researchers used reporting verbs more
Non-native corpus frequently than native English ones. This
finding, however, is different from
10.85% Jafarigohar and Mohammadkhani’s (2015)
4.28%
finding indicating the mostly equal number
of reporting verbs used by both native and
18.94%
non-native writers. More specifically,
65.90% among four reporting verb groups (e.g.,
Argue, Find, Show, & Think), Argue and
Find groups were the most and the second
most commonly used by both groups of
writers in spite of the different size.
Similarly, Yeganeh and Boghayeri (2015)
Argue Find Show Think concluded that both Persian and English
authors used reporting verbs in Argue group
Native corpus most frequently, and Think group was
identified as the second priority for the
4.68% native English writers, whereas Find group
was the Persian writers’ second option. In
16.96%
39.26% Veerachaisantikul’s (2016) study
investigating reporting verbs used in EFL
English majors’ research projects, Argue
39% and Think group occupied the first and
second positions with high percentages.
However, Uba (2020) found out that find
(first place), show (second place), and
indicate (third place) are the most frequent
Argue Find Show Think affirmative reporting verbs in Applied
Linguistics research articles, i.e., the authors
In summary, both the native and non- gave first priority to Find group and then to
native researchers employed reporting verbs Show group and Argue group, which is
in Argue, Find, Show, and Think groups. supported by the findings of
However, the native writers tended to use Veerachaisantikul’s (2016).
fewer reporting verbs than the non-native Functions and Positions of RVs used in
counterparts did. RVs in Argue group were TESOL research articles
most commonly used in both groups of
writers, followed by Find group with a In Argue group, it can be observed
moderate use. The least used verb groups in Table 3 that more reporting verbs were
were Show and Think in spite of a bit variously employed in research articles
difference in frequency of RVs between the produced by the non-native writers. That is
native and non-native writers. to say, these reporting verbs varied in
As presented earlier, the results of function. Regarding the functions, most of
the present study showed that the non-native the reporting verbs used in the research
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 143

articles of both groups of writers were showing writers’ position in RAs written by
neutral. It is noteworthy that RVs in Argue the non-native group, whereas only one
group had a variety of functions, viz. strong reporting verb was found for the
agreement, argument, conclusion, native group. This means that the non-native
disagreement, emphasis, evaluation, researchers made stronger claims than the
explanation, presentation, and suggestion. native ones in their research articles.
There were two strong reporting verbs
Table 3
Functions and Positions of RVs in Argue Group Used by Native and Non-Native English
Writers
Native Non-native
Position Position
Function RV Function RV
W N S W N S
agreement acknowledge X agreement agree X
argument argue X argument argue X
evaluation and
presentation address X criticize X
examination
agreement confirm X disagreement disagree X
evaluation
and criticize X emphasis emphasize X
examination

disagreement disagree X explanation explain X

explanation explain X presentation indicate X

presentation indicate X presentation inform X
presentation mention presentation mention X
conclusion realize X conclusion realize X
presentation report X agreement recognize X
presentation report X
presentation state X
suggestion suggest X
Note: W=Weak, N=Neutral, S=Strong
The results in Table 4 show that the reporting verbs in Find group were used
native English writers used more reporting in a neutral position. Only one verb was
verbs in Find group than the non-native identified as a strong reporting verb (e.g.,
writers. In terms of function, both groups of establish). It can be stated that there were no
writers used reporting verbs with quite significant differences in terms of function
similar functions (e.g., conclusion, of reporting verbs for Find group between
emphasis, evaluation, examination) as the native and non-native researchers.
illustrated in Table 5. In addition, almost all
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 144

Table 4
Functions and Positions of RVs in Find Group Used by Native and Non-Native English Writers
Native Non-native
Position Position
Function RV Function RV
W N S W N S
evaluation and
analyze X evaluation analyze X
examination
conclusion discover X presentation establish X
presentation establish X emphasis explore X
evaluation and
emphasis explore X find X
examination
evaluation and evaluation and
find X investigate X
examination examination
evaluation and
investigate X
examination
Note: W=Weak, N=Neutral, S=Strong
In respect of Show group, Table 5 verbs (e.g., demonstrate & describe). As
demonstrates that native English writers seen in Table 3, furthermore, more reporting
used reporting verbs (e.g., demonstrate, verbs in Show group were used by the native
describe, & reflect) in their research articles writers than the non-native counterparts.
to express their neutral opinions about the This can be interpreted that the former group
issues they are discussing or presenting. found it useful to use reporting verbs in this
Similarly, non-native writers used reporting group for their research articles.
Table 5
Function and Position of RVs in Show Group Used by Native and Non-Native English Writers
Native Non-native
Position Position
Function RV Function RV
W N S W N S
Presentation demonstrate X Presentation demonstrate X
Presentation describe X Presentation describe X
Presentation reflect X
Note: W=Weak, N=Neutral, S=Strong
In contrast, the use of reporting verbs Meanwhile, the non-native writers used a
in Think group by the native English writers wide range of reporting verbs from strong
is limited in either size or type. Evidently, degree to weak degree (e.g., believe, think,
they hardly ever used reporting verbs in & hope) to present their ideas about what
Think group for their TESOL research they are discussing. As reported in Table 6,
articles as shown in Table 3, and only one noticeably, there was one weak reporting
strong reporting verb (e.g., believe) was verb (e.g., hope) with the aim to make their
found in the 30-article native corpus. claims less strong.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 145

Table 6
Functions and Positions of RVs in Think Group Used by Native and Non-Native English Writers
Native Non-native
Position Position
Function RV Function RV
W N S W N S
believing believe X believing believe X
believing hope X
believing think X
Note: W=Weak, N=Neutral, S=Strong
In short, a bit more reporting verbs As regards positional analysis, the
with different functions and positions were findings demonstrated that most of the
used in the TESOL research articles written reporting verbs were used in neutral position
by the non-native writers than the native except for two stronger reporting verbs in
ones, and neutral reporting verbs were more both of the corpora and one weaker verb in
commonly employed than strong and weak the non-native corpus. Similarly, Yilmaz and
ones. Turning to the details, reporting verbs Erturk (2017) confirmed that native and non-
in Argue and Find groups are preferred to native authors avoided including weaker and
those in Show and Think groups. The big stronger verbs in their studies. Instead, they
difference in the use of reporting verbs tended to use more neutral verbs. This
between the two groups of writers is that the tendency can be explained that neutral
non-native researchers seemed to favor reporting verbs may reduce the strength or
reporting verbs in Argue group over the weakness of claims with the use of strong
remaining groups while the native writers and weak reporting verbs respectively.
probably used reporting verbs in Argue and Additionally, it is worth noting that two
Find groups almost equally. strong reporting verbs (e.g., argue &
According to the aforementioned emphasize) were discovered in the non-
findings, there were no significant native corpus, whereas only one strong verb
differences in function of reporting verbs (e.g., argue) was observed in the native
between the two corpora; especially, corpus. This means that the native English
presentation and evaluation and examination writers used less reporting verbs in a strong
were the top functions used by both the position than the non-native counterparts.
native and non-native researchers. These This result is likely to be different from
functions probably cover all three functions Yilmaz and Erturk’s (2017) finding that
proposed by Weissberg and Buker (2007). there was only one strong verb (e.g., argue)
This can be inferred that these functions are used by the native writers.
equally significant and commonly-used in
5. Conclusion
research, so authors consider using them in
their studies regardless of their nationality. This corpus-based study included
In fact, Yilmaz and Erturk (2017) reported two corpora of reporting verbs in 60 TESOL
the similar results emphasizing no research articles (i.e., 30 from the non-native
differences in terms of the variety of RV writers and 30 from the native English
functions and presenting top three functions, writers). The data were analyzed by means
namely presentation, evaluation and of AntConc software, and three key findings
examination, and conclusion and suggestion.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 146

are reported as follows. Firstly, it is explored of reporting verbs based on these findings.
that the non-native writers have a tendency Despite contributions to the field of
to employ more reporting verbs than the discourse analysis in general and reporting
native English counterparts. In particular, verbs in particular, this study remains some
Argue group is the most frequently used by limitations in terms of the corpus size and
both groups of authors, followed by Find, limited discipline. Due to the limited time
Show, and Think groups. Secondly, there and the scope of the study, 60 TESOL
are no considerable differences in the research articles equally falling into two
function of reporting verbs between the two groups, namely non-native corpus and native
corpora. This means that both the non-native corpus were selected as the research sample.
and native writers have a similar pattern in Another limitation is that the study only put
using reporting verbs with various functions. an emphasis on the discipline of TESOL. As
Among a wide range of functions of a consequence, it is unlikely to generalize
reporting verbs, the most commonly used how non-native and native English
functions are (1) presentation and (2) researchers use reporting verbs in research
evaluation and examination. Finally, almost articles. It is, therefore, recommended that
all reporting verbs in neutral position are further researchers should widen the corpus
found in both corpora. Remarkably, there are size and make a cross-disciplinary
two strong verbs and one weak verb found in comparison in terms of the use of reporting
the non-native corpus, whereas only one verbs among disciplines such as Biology,
strong verb was discovered in the native Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science,
corpus. Medical and so on.
According to Yeganeh and
Boghayeri (2015), reporting verbs (i.e.,
citing and referencing to other literature) are References
regarded as one of the most vital aspects in Bloch, J. (2009). The design of an online
academic writing, non-native students often concordancing program for teaching about
found it difficult to use reporting verbs reporting verbs. Language Learning and
appropriately in their writing. It is hoped that Technology, 13(1), 59-78.
the results of this study may raise awareness Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in
reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-
of the importance of reporting verbs for non- based study of theses in two disciplines.
native students, especially Vietnamese EFL English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 310-
students majoring in TESOL and serve as 331.
guidance that helps improve the use of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003
reporting verbs in academic writing. Creswell, W. (2012). Education research: Planning,
Accordingly, they can avoid ignoring other conducting and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson
works in their writing or research in the
Education Inc.
future. It is suggested that reporting verbs
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused
should be introduced to EFL students who SLA: The associative learning of
are producing academic pieces of writing constructions, learned attention and the
such as BA students in English language or limited L2 Endstate. In P. Robinson & N. C.
TESOL, MA students, and PhD students in Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive
all disciplines. Moreover, this study could linguistics and second language acquisition
(pp. 372-405). Routledge.
also work as a reference for scholars and
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E., (1996).
teachers who work on reporting verbs. In Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1:
particular, they may conduct further studies Verbs. Harper Collins.
exploring linguistic features within groups
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 147

Friginal, E. (2013). Developing research report Study and Learning Center (2012). Degree of
writing skills using corpora. English for strength in use of reporting verbs. RMIT
Specific Purposes, 32(4), 208-220. University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.06.001 https://www.lib.rmit.edu.au/assignment/file
Gries, S. T. (2008). Corpus-based methods in s/Reporting_verbs.pdf
analyses of second language acquisition Thompson, G., & Ye, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the
data. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), reporting verbs used in academic papers.
Handbook of cognitive linguistics and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 365-382.
second language acquisition (pp. 406-431). https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.4.365
Routledge. Uba, S. Y. (2020). Semantic categories of reporting
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research verbs across four disciplines in research
articles. Hong Kong Journal of Applied articles. English Language Teaching, 13(1),
Linguistics, 3(2), 133-136. 89-98. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n1p89
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54 Weissberg, R., & Buker, S. (2007). Writing up
Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation research: Experimental research report
and the construction of disciplinary writing for students of English (2nd ed.).
knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341- Pearson Malaysia.
367. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.341 Writing Centre (2014). Verbs for reporting. The
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: University of Adelaide.
Authorial identity in academic writing. https://www.adelaide.edu.au/writingcentre/
Journal of Pragmatics, 1(1), 1-18. sites/default/files/docs/learningguide-
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378- verbsforreporting.pdf
2166(02)00035-8 Yeganeh, M. T., & Boghayeri, M. (2015). The
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring frequency and function of reporting verbs in
interaction in writing. Continuum. research articles written by native Persian
Jafarigohar, M., & Mohammadkhani, A. (2015). and English speakers. Procedia – Social and
Reporting verbs in applied linguistics Behavioral Sciences, 192, 582-586.
research articles by native and non-native https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.097
writers. Theory and Practice in Language Yilmaz, M., & Erturk, Z. (2017). A contrastive
Studies, 5(12), 2490-2496. corpus-based analysis of the use of reporting
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0512.08 verbs by native and non-native ELT
Petric, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in researchers. Novitas-ROYAL, 11(2),
high- and low-rated master’s theses. Journal 112-127.
of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 238-
253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.002
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 3 (2021) 148

MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU DỰA TRÊN NGỮ LIỆU VỀ ĐỘNG TỪ

TƯỜNG THUẬT ĐƯỢC SỬ DỤNG TRONG CÁC BÀI BÁO
THUỘC NGÀNH GIẢNG DẠY TIẾNG ANH
CỦA TÁC GIẢ BẢN NGỮ VÀ PHI BẢN NGỮ

Dương Mỹ Thẩm 1, Trần Phương Nhi 2

1. Trường Đại học Kinh tế Tài chính (UEF),
141-145 Điện Biên Phủ, phường 15, quận Bình Thạnh, Tp. Hồ Chí Minh, Việt Nam
2. Trường Đại học Công Nghệ TP.HCM (HUTECH),
475A Điện Biên Phủ, phường 25, quận Bình Thạnh, Tp. Hồ Chí Minh, Việt Nam

Tóm tắt: Nghiên cứu dựa trên ngữ liệu này so sánh việc sử dụng các động từ tường thuật trong
các bài báo nghiên cứu thuộc chuyên ngành Giảng dạy tiếng Anh giữa tác giả bản ngữ và phi bản ngữ.
Kho ngữ liệu được chia thành hai nhóm: 30 bài báo nghiên cứu của tác giả phi bản ngữ và 30 bài báo
nghiên cứu của tác giả bản ngữ. Dữ liệu ở dạng văn bản thuần túy đã được xử lý thông qua phần mềm
AntConc phiên bản 3.5.7. Kết quả cho thấy sự khác biệt giữa hai nhóm tác giả khi xét về tần suất sử
dụng, chức năng và vị trí của động từ tường thuật. Cụ thể, tác giả phi bản ngữ có khuynh hướng sử dụng
nhiều động từ tường thuật hơn các tác giả bản ngữ. Trong bốn nhóm động từ tường thuật bao gồm Argue,
Find, Show, Think thì nhóm Argue được sử dụng nhiều nhất bởi cả hai nhóm tác giả. Ngoài ra, kết quả
liên quan đến chức năng và vị trí của những động từ tường thuật này còn chỉ ra hai chức năng phổ biến
nhất của động từ tường thuật là (1) trình bày và (2) đánh giá và kiểm tra; các động từ tường thuật được
quan sát đều ở vị trí trung lập.
Từ khóa: ngữ liệu, động từ tường thuật, bài báo nghiên cứu, giảng dạy tiếng Anh