The use of discipline-specific corpora to determine disciplinary writing norms and rhetorical as well as linguistic features is established practice. Several studies have used discipline-specific corpora to establish such genre features and have testified to the efficiency of using corpora in class or for self-directed learning. Few scholars, however, have investigated the discipline of Political Science in this manner. The present study analyses the use of lexical bundles representing metadiscourse markers in the discipline of Political Science. It builds on a previous study (Bercuci 2020) which investigated lexical bundles in expert writing in the field. As I did in my previous study focusing on metadiscourse markers in the discipline of Political Science, to guide my analyses in this paper I use the definitions offered in Ken Hyland’s early seminal work, Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing (2005), as well as his 2008 article, “As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation”. As such, this paper focuses on a learner corpus of undergraduate and graduate student writing in Political Science. I thus reveal the discipline-specific inter-language interference of L1 Romanian into L2 writing in English and indicate the issues on which targeted writing exercises should focus during university-level English for Specific Purposes and English for Academic Purposes classes. Students should be asked to practice register variation through targeted exercises as this appears to be the most prominent case of interference not only of the Romanian language but also of writing norms typical of Romanian research communities in general.

Băniceru, C., Borchin, M., Doroholschi, C. I., & Tucan, D. (2012). Academic writing in Romania: A contrastive analysis of BA thesis introductions in Romanian and English. Quaestiones Romanicae, 1, 331-345.

 Băniceru, C., & Tucan, D. (2018). Perceptions about “Good Writing” and “Writing Competences” in Romanian academic writing practices: A questionnaire study. In M. Chitez, C.I. Doroholschi, O. Kruse, L. Salski, & D. Tucan (Eds.), University writing in Central and Eastern Europe: Tradition, transition, and innovation (pp. 103-112). New York: Springer.

Barbu, D. (2002). Romania. In M. Kaase, V. Sparschuh, & A. Wenninger (Eds.), Three social science disciplines in Central and Eastern Europe: Handbook on economics, political science and sociology (1989-2001) (pp. 322-343). Berlin: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften; GESIS Servicestelle Osteuropa; Collegium Budapest, Institute for Advanced Study.

Bercuci, L. (2020). Discipline-specific metadiscourse markers in ESP expert writing in political science. In R.‐M. Nistor, & C. Teglaș (Eds.), Limbajele specializate în contextual noilor medii de învățare: Provocări și oportunități (pp. 331-345). Cluj: Presa Universitară Clujeană.

Bercuci, L., & Chitez, M. (2019). A corpus analysis of argumentative structures in ESP writing. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 6(4), 733-747. doi: http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/655

Boettger, R. (2016). Using corpus-based instruction to explore writing variation across the disciplines: A case history in a graduate-level technical editing course. Across the Disciplines, 13(1), 1-21.

Borchin, M., & Doroholschi, C. I. (2016). Romania. In O. Kruse, M. Chitez, B. Rodriguez, & M. Castelló (Eds.), Exploring European writing cultures: Country reports on genres, writing practices and languages used in European higher education (pp. 179-201). Winterthur: ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften.

Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Wattam, S. (2020). #LancsBox v. 5.x. [software]. Available at: http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.

Charle, C. (2004). Patterns. In W. Rüegg (Ed.), A History of the university in Europe, Vol. III: Universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (pp. 35-80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 310–331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.05.003

Charles, M. (2007). Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.08.004

Eisfeld, R., & Leslie, A.P. (2010). Political Science in Central-East Europe and the Impact of Politics: Factors of Diversity, Forces of Convergence. European Political Science, 9(2), 223–243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.11

Flowerdew, J. (2011). Reconciling contrasting approaches to genre analysis: The whole can equal more than the sum of the parts. In D. Belcher, A. Johns, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), New directions in English for specific purposes research (pp. 119–144). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Gray, B. (2015). Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing Chicago: University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum: London.

Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001

Klingemann, H. (2002). Political Science in Central and Eastern Europe: National Development and International Integration. In M. Kaase, V. Sparschuh, & A. Wenninger (Eds.), Three social science disciplines in Central and Eastern Europe: Handbook on economics, political science and sociology (1989-2001) (pp. 206-213). Berlin: Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften; GESIS Servicestelle Osteuropa; Collegium Budapest, Institute for Advanced Study.

Kuteeva, M. (2013). Graduate learners’ approaches to genre-analysis tasks: Variations across and within four disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.11.004

Maswana, S., Kanamarub, K., & Tajinob, A. (2015). Move analysis of research articles across five engineering fields: What they share and what they do not. Ampersand, 2, 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2014.12.002

Eisfeld, R., & Pal, L. (2010). Political Science in Central-East Europe and the Impact of Politics: Factors of Diversity, Forces of Convergence. Eur Polit Sci, 9, 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.11

Reppen, R., & Olson, S. (2020). Lexical bundles across disciplines: A look at consistency and variability. In E. Friginal, R. Ute, & V. Cortes (Eds.), Advances in corpus-based research on academic writing: Effects of discipline, register, and writer expertise (pp.169-183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rüegg, W., & Sadlak, J. (2011). Relations with authority. In W. Rüegg (Ed.), A History of the university in Europe, Vol. IV: Universities since 1945 (pp. 73–123). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Russell, D.R. (2002). Writing in the academic disciplines: A curricular history. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Staples, S. (2015). Examining the linguistic needs of internationally educated nurses: A corpus-based study of lexico-grammatical features in nurse–patient interactions. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 122–136. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.09.002.

Stoller, F.L., & Robinson, M.S. (2013). Chemistry journal articles: An interdisciplinary approach to move analysis with pedagogical aims. English for Specific Purposes, 32(1), 45–57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.09.001

Tessuto, G. (2015). Generic structure and rhetorical moves in English-language empirical law research articles: Sites of interdisciplinary and interdiscursive cross-over. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 13–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.002

Vîiu, G.A., Vlăsceanu, M., & Miroiu, A. (2012). Ranking political science departments: The case of Romania. Quality Assurance Review for Higher Education, 4(2), 79-97.