Linguistic recycling and its relationship to academic conflict: An analysis of authors' responses to direct quotation

Abstract

Arriving at an understanding of how scholarly writers manage linguistic recycling remains a focus of many studies in applied linguistics, bibliometrics and sociology of science. The value apportioned to citations in research assessment protocols is one factor in this sustained interest, the challenges that managing intertextuality present for novice scholars another. Applied linguists such as Harwood (2009) and Hyland and Jiang (2017) alongside sociologists of science have studied citation practices largely from the point of view of writers’ reasons for citing (see Erikson & Erlandson, 2014 for a review) or readers’ understanding of the function of the citation (e.g. Willett, 2013). Linguistic recycling as direct quotation of previously published research has received less attention from applied linguists, a notable exception being Petrić’s (2012) examination of students’ quotation practices. Her study, like those of citation practices, focuses on quoting writers’ intentions. We know less, however, about cited authors’ responses to quotations of their work. It is these responses that form the focus of our study. Taking as a starting point our two most frequently cited publications, we compiled a corpus of direct quotations noting the quotation strategy and our responses to each instance of the re-use of our words. These responses ranged from pride and satisfaction at seeing a key claim revoiced in another’s text through to annoyance at an instance of blatant misquotation. We then extended our corpus to include quotations of the work of three frequently cited scholars in our field, all of whom have played a role in debate around a key controversy in the English for research publication purposes (ERPP) literature. We presented these scholars with a document containing a representative sample of quotations of their publications related to the controversy and a request to respond to the quotations by indicating which instances they regarded as unwarranted. Analysis of these authors’ responses provides insights into the relationship of direct quotation to the rhetorical management of academic conflict. We suggest possible parallels with the expression of discrepancy in other domains.