Article Sidebar

Submitted
September 12, 2024
Accepted
November 28, 2024
Published
December 1, 2024
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 257 Download : 114

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study examines the use of metadiscourse in English, Indonesian, and Arabic research article abstracts from the Studia Islamika journal, published between 2014 and 2023. Focusing on enhancing cross-cultural academic communication, the research analyzes how authors affiliated with Islamic higher education institutions employ metadiscourse to engage readers and position their work within the scholarly field. Using Hyland's (2005) metadiscourse framework, the study identifies distinct patterns in the distribution and realization of interactive and interactional metadiscourse elements across the three languages. Transitions are the most frequently employed interactive feature, with a stronger reliance on frame markers in Indonesian and Arabic abstracts. However, the absence of self-mentions and engagement markers across all three languages suggests a shared preference for a formal academic tone. These findings provide valuable insights into metadiscourse practices in Islamic studies abstracts, offering guidance for scholars in preparing manuscripts for publication. Additionally, this research underscores the importance of focusing on metadiscourse in academic writing within language education departments at Islamic higher education institutions, enhancing scholars’ writing skills and promoting awareness of cultural and linguistic nuances when addressing a global audience.

Keywords

Abstract Contrastive linguistics Genre analysis Islamic studies Metadiscourse Research Article

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

References

  1. Abdollahi-Guilani, M., Yasin, M. S. M., Hua, T. K., & Aghaei, K. (2012). Culture-integrated teaching for the enhancement of EFL learner tolerance. Asian Social Science, 8(6), 115. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n6p115
  2. Abdulaal, M.A.A. (2020). A cross-linguistic analysis of formulaic language and meta-discourse in linguistics research articles by natives and Arabs: Modeling Saudis and Egyptians. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 11(3), 193-211. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no3.12
  3. Ädel, A. (2023). Adopting a ‘move’ rather than a ‘marker’ approach to metadiscourse: A taxonomy for spoken student presentations. English for Specific Purposes, 69, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.09.001
  4. Afzaal, M., Ilyas Chishti, M., Liu, C., & Zhang, C. (2021). Metadiscourse in Chinese and American graduate dissertation introductions. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2021.1970879
  5. Akmaliah, W., & Nadzir, I. (2024). The elective affinity of Islamic populism: A case study of Indonesian politic identity within the three elections. Studia Islamika, 31(1).
  6. Al Farisi, M. Z. (2023). Acceptability of the Quran translation. Al-Jami’ah, 61(2), 329–363. https://doi.org/10.14421/AJIS.2023.612.329-363
  7. Al Farisi, M. Z., Maulani, H., Hardoyo, A. B., Khalid, S. M., & Saleh, N. (2024). Investigating Arabic language teaching materials based on Indonesian folklore: An ethnographic study on the folktale of “Bandung.†Asian Education and Development Studies, 13(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-07-2023-0082
  8. Alharbi, L. (1997). Rhetorical transfer across cultures: English into Arabic and Arabic into
  9. Alharbi, L. M., & Swales, J. M. (2011). Arabic and English abstracts in bilingual language science journals. Languages in Contrast, 11(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.11.1.06alh
  10. Alotaibi, H S. (2020). The thematic structure in research article abstracts: Variations across disciplines. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1756146-1756146. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1756146
  11. Alotaibi, H. (2015). Metadiscourse in Arabic and English research article abstracts. World Journal of English Language, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v5n2p1
  12. Alshahrani, A. (2015). A Cross-linguistic analysis of interactive metadiscourse devices employment in native English and Arab ESL academic writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5, 1535-1542. https://doi.org/10.17507/TPLS.0508.01.
  13. Alshahrani, A. A. S. (2015). A cross-linguistic analysis of interactive metadiscourse devices employment in native English and Arab ESL academic writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1535. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0508.01
  14. Alyousef, H. S. (2015). An investigation of metadiscourse features in international postgraduate business students’ texts: The use of interactive and interactional markers in tertiary multimodal finance texts. SAGE Open, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015610796
  15. Alzarieni, M.M., Zainudin, I. S., Awal, N.M., & Sulaiman, M. Z. (2019). Interactional metadiscourse markers in the abstract sections of Arabic patents. Arab World English Journal, 10(2), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no2.29
  16. Al-Zubeiry, H. Y. A., & Al-Baha, K. S. A. (2019). Metadiscourse devices in English scientific research articles written by native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 46-61. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v11i1.14259
  17. Amnuai, W. (2019). Analyses of rhetorical moves and linguistic realizations in accounting research article abstracts published in international and Thai-based journals. SAGE Publishing, 9(1), 215824401882238-215824401882238. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018822384
  18. Arsyad, S. (2013). A genre-based analysis on discussion section of research articles in Indonesian written by Indonesian speakers. International Journal of Linguistics. Vol 5 no 4. doi:10.5296/ijl.v5i4.3773
  19. Arsyad, S., & Adila, D. (2018). Using local style when writing in English: the citing behaviour of Indonesian authors in English research article introductions. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 170-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2017.1327835
  20. Cao, F., & Hu, G. (2014). Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007
  21. Chen, L., & Li, C. (2023). Interactional metadiscourse in news commentaries: A corpus-based study of China Daily and The New York Times. Journal of Pragmatics, 212, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.04.018
  22. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.003
  23. Crismore, A., & Hill, K. T. (1988). The interaction of metadiscourse and anxiety in determining children's learning of social studies textbook materials. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20(3), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968809547642
  24. Crismore, A., 1989. Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. Peter Lang.
  25. Curry, N., Baker, P., & Brookes, G. (2024). Generative AI for corpus approaches to discourse studies: A critical evaluation of ChatGPT. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100082
  26. Defianty, M., & Hidayat, D. N. (2020, February). A framework strategy to overcome barriers in writing for publication. In 2nd International Conference on Islam, Science and Technology (ICONIST 2019), 55-59. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200220.010
  27. Elâ€Dakhs, D A S. (2018, September 18). Why are abstracts in PhD theses and research articles different? A genre-specific perspective. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 36, 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.09.005
  28. Feng, L. (2015). A case study into the writing of Chinese postgraduate students in a UK academic environment. English Language Teaching, 8(9), 86-95. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n9p86
  29. Gai, F., & Wang, Y. (2022, November 14). Correlated metadiscourse and metacognition in writing research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural study. Frontiers Media, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1026554
  30. Gao, S., & Pramoolsook, I. (2023). A cross-cultural move analysis of electronic engineering research article introductions: The case of Chinese, Thai, and native English scholarly writers. Ampersand, 10, 100106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2022.100106
  31. Gashi, B. (2015). Writing and translating research papers in English: Discourse community, academic and specific English programs towards European complied programs and research papers. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 4(2 S1), 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2015.v4n2s1p38
  32. Ghasempour, B., & Farnia, M. (2017). Contrastive move analysis: Persian and English research articles abstracts in law. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 5, 927. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1704739G
  33. Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
  34. Hamamah, H., Emaliana, I., Hapsari, Y., Degeng, P D D., & Fadillah, A C. (2023). Using nominal group technique to explore publication challenges and the usefulness of AI-based writing technologies: Insights from Indonesian scholars. Academy Publication, 13(8), 2038-2047. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1308.20
  35. Harris, Z., 1959. The transformational model of language structure. Anthropol. Linguistics, 1(1), 27-29. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30022172
  36. Hasan, E., & Alsout, E. (2023). A pragmatic approach to the rhetorical analysis and the metadiscourse markers of research article abstracts in the field of applied linguistics. Discourse and Interaction, 16(2), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2023-2-51
  37. Hidayatullah, R. (2024). Islamic underground movement: Islamist music in the Indonesian popular music scene. Studia Islamika, 31(1), 63–93. https://doi.org/10.36712/sdi.v31i1.30664
  38. Hilmi, A. Z. ., Toyyibah, & Afifi, N. . (2021). A Genre Analysis on The Discussion Section Of Quantitative And Qualitative Research Articles In ELT And Linguistics. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 8(2), 341–369. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v8i2.3264
  39. Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
  40. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.
  41. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Elsevier BV, 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
  42. Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
  43. Hyland, K., & Zou, H. (Joanna). (2020). In the frame: Signaling structure in academic articles and blogs. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.002
  44. Hyland, K., (2010). Metadiscourse: mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Stud. 9 (2), 125--143.
  45. Ibrahim, N., & Nambiar, R. M. (2012). Scaffoldings in academic writing: The role of intercultural rhetoric and genre analysis in academic socialization. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 438-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.298
  46. Irawan, A., Supriyatno, T., & Fatahillah, F. (2022). Implementation of Islamic universal values-based leadership power at state Islamic higher education. Nazhruna: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 5(3), 1025-1035. https://doi.org/10.31538/nzh.v5i3.2531
  47. Jasim Al-Shujairi, Y. B. (2020). What, which and where: examining self-mention markers in ISI and Iraqi local research articles in applied linguistics. Asian Englishes, 22(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2018.1544699
  48. Kachru, Y. (2001). World Englishes and rhetoric across cultures. Asian Englishes, 4(2), 54-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2001.10801076
  49. Kashiha, H., & Marandi, S. (2019). Rhetoric-specific features of interactive metadiscourse in introduction moves: A case of discipline awareness. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1548294
  50. Khajavy, G. H., Asadpour, S. F., & Yousefi, A. (2012). A comparative analysis of interactive metadiscourse features in discussion section of research articles written in English and Persian. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 147-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1767
  51. Khasanah, S. N., & Baehaqie, I. (2021). The comparison of the formation of Indonesian and Arabic plural meanings (Contrastive analysis). Jurnal Arbitrer, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.8.1.25-34.202
  52. Kheryadi, K., Muin, A., & Syahid, A. H. (2022). Hedges in English and Arabic Metadiscourse Utility in Academic Writing: A Contrastive Analysis. Jurnal Al Bayan: Jurnal Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Arab, 14(2), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.24042/albayan.v14i2.12144
  53. Kopple, W. V. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication, 36(1), 82-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
  54. Kurniawan, E. (2023). Humanities dissertation abstracts in Indonesian and English universities: A comparative move analysis. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 23(2), 57-74. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2023-2302-04
  55. Kurniawan, E., & Haerunisa, Z. F. (2023). A comparative study of lexical bundles in accepted and rejected applied linguistic research article introductions. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(2), 628–648. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i2.28119
  56. Kurniawan, E., & Sabila, N. A. A. (2021). Another look at the rhetorical moves and linguistic realizations in international and Indonesian journal articles: A case of tourism research article abstracts. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 318-329. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i2.32055
  57. Kurniawan, E., Lubis, A. H., Suherdi, D., & Danuwijaya, A. A. (2019a). Rhetorical organization of applied linguistics abstracts: Does Scopus journal quartile matter? GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 19(4), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1904-10
  58. Kurniawan, E., Nabilla, S. N., & Mauludini, Y. R. (2024). Introduction in social science research articles by Indonesian authors: A comparative move analysis. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching, 27(1), 336-355. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v27i1.8191
  59. Kurniawan, E., Ruswan, D., & Cahyowati, A. (2019b). Exploring logical connectors in journals with different indexing levels: A comparison between international and national indexed journals. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 76-84. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v9i1.16088
  60. Li, T., & Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004
  61. Lin, L. H., & Morrison, B. (2021). Challenges in academic writing: Perspectives of engineering faculty and L2 postgraduate research students. English for Specific Purposes, 63, 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.03.004
  62. Liu, S., & Zhang, J. (2021). Using metadiscourse to enhance persuasiveness in corporate press releases: A corpus-based study. SAGE Open, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032165
  63. Lotfi, S. A. T., Sarkeshikian, S. A. H., & Saleh, E. (2019). A cross-cultural study of the use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays by Iranian and Chinese EFL students. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1601540
  64. Lubis, A. H., Kurniawan, E., & Gunawan, W. (2022). Does Journal Indexation Matter? A Genre-Approach Move Analysis of Nursing English Research Article Abstracts. Journal of Language and Education, 8(2), 92-105. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.13471
  65. Ma, L. P. F. (2020). Writing in English as an additional language: Challenges encountered by doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(6), 1176–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1809354
  66. Mahmood, R., Javaid, G., & Mahmood, A. (2017). Analysis of metadiscourse features in argumentative writing by Pakistani undergraduate students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(6), 78-87. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n6p78
  67. Mukhid, A., Udin, U., & Saladin, B. (2023). The Use of amthãl communication and tafsir in da’wa as a learning method for developing the Islamic community in Lombok. Ulumuna, 27(2), 905-920. https://doi.org/10.20414/ujis.v27i2.975
  68. Muluk, S., & Dahliana, S. (2024). Investigating students’ writing performance and attitude towards a web 2.0-based flipped classroom instruction. Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun, 12(1), 137-164. doi:10.26811/peuradeun.v12i1.109
  69. Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
  70. Nagano, R. L. (2015). Research article titles and disciplinary conventions: A corpus study of eight disciplines. Journal of Academic Writing, 5(1), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v5i1.168
  71. Ngai, C. S. B., & Singh, R. G. (2020). Relationship between persuasive metadiscoursal devices in research article abstracts and their attention on social media. Plos one, 15(4), e0231305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231305
  72. Ngai, S. B. C., Singh, R. G., & Koon, A. C. (2018). A discourse analysis of the macro-structure, metadiscoursal and microdiscoursal features in the abstracts of research articles across multiple science disciplines. PloS one, 13(10), e0205417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205417
  73. Nikmah, K. (2020). Interrogative sentence: A contrastive study of Arabic and Indonesian. Izdihar : Journal of Arabic Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Literature, 2(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.22219/jiz.v2i3.10148
  74. Njoto-Feillard, G. (2014). Financing Muhammadiyah: The early economic endeavours of a muslim modernist mass organization in Indonesia (1920s-1960s)‬. 21(1). https://doi.org/10.15408/sdi.v21i1.877
  75. O’Keeffe, A., & Mc Carthy, M. (2010). The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. In A. O’Keeffe & M. Mc Carthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (First edit). Routledge.
  76. Özdemir, N. Ö., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011
  77. Papangkorn, P., & Phoocharoensil, S. (2021). A comparative study of stance and engagement used by English and Thai speakers in English argumentative essays. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 867-888. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1281921
  78. Pearson, W. S., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2023). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A systematic review. Lingua, 293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103561
  79. Peng, J. E., & Zheng, Y. (2021). Metadiscourse and voice construction in discussion sections in BA theses by Chinese university students majoring in English. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211008870
  80. Pratiwi, S. N., & Kurniawan, E. (2021). Rhetorical move and genre knowledge development of English and Indonesian abstracts: A comparative analysis. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(3), 885–900. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i3.21038
  81. Putri, T. D., Kurniawan, E., Gunawan, W., & Lubis, A. H. (2021, April). Move analysis of thesis and dissertation abstracts of local and international graduate lecturers. In Thirteenth Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2020) (pp. 581-586). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210427.088
  82. Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2018, November 5). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004
  83. Ruan, Z. (2019). Metadiscourse use in L2 student essay writing: A longitudinal cross-contextual comparison. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42(4), 466-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2019-0028
  84. Soleimani, N., & Mohammadkhah, E. (2020). Meta-discourse markers in the book reviews published in ISI and non-ISI journals of applied linguistics. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1807677. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1807677
  85. Suherdi, D., Kurniawan, E., & Lubis, A. H. (2020). A genre analysis of research article ‘findings and discussion’sections written by Indonesian undergraduate EFL students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i1.24989
  86. Suherdi, D., Kurniawan, E., & Lubis, A. H. (2021). Does cognition reflect performance: Rhetorical organization of journal article abstracts written by Indonesian authors. In F.A. Hamied (Ed.) Literacies, culture, and society towards industrial revolution, 4, 209-228.
  87. Sultan, A. H. J. (2011). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. ACTA LINGUISTICA, 5(1). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278158347
  88. Sultan, A. H. J. (2015). A Contrastive study of metadiscourse in English and Arabic linguistics research articles. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278158347
  89. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2010). From text to task: Putting research on abstracts to work. In M.F. Ruiz-Garrido, J.C. Palmer-Silveira, & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 169-182). Brill.
  90. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic Writing for Graduate Students (third edition). Michigan University. Retrieved from http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=2173936
  91. Taqi, Ju. S. M. (2021). Hedges in English and Arabic: A contrastive study. İlköğretim Online, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.03.61
  92. Tocalo, A. W. I. (2021). Move structures and their rhetorical verbs of research article abstracts across Englishes. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v11i1.34593
  93. Tse, P., & Hyland, K. (2010). Claiming a territory: Relative clauses in journal descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1880–1889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.025
  94. Wang, J., & Zeng, L. (2021). Disciplinary recognized self-presence: Self-mention used with hedges and boosters in PhD students’ research writing. SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211005454
  95. Wang, S., & JI, Y. H. (2015). The similarities and differences of English writing and translation. Sino-US English Teaching, 12(7), 519-523. doi:10.17265/1539-8072/2015.07.007
  96. Williams, J., 1981. Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace, 3rd ed. Scott, Foresman.