A Disciplinary-Based Multidimensional Analysis of Saudi Students vs Native Speakers’ PhD Dissertations

Abstract

This study investigates linguistic variation in academic writing between native English speakers and Saudi English speakers across five disciplines at the doctoral level. Using Multidimensional Analysis (MDA) to examine language use across different textual dimensions, the research analyzes 150 PhD dissertations from each group, representing successful scholarly discourse in Education, English, Linguistics, Biology, and Nursing. The study identified three main dimensions of linguistic variation: Involved vs. Informational Production, Elaborated Information with Stance Marking, and Integrated Argumentative Discourse. Rather than evaluating differences against a presumed standard, the research documents how writers from different linguistic backgrounds successfully employ varied strategies to achieve equivalent communicative goals within academic discourse. Results revealed substantial variations across disciplines and between writer groups, demonstrating that successful academic discourse can be achieved through diverse but equally effective linguistic strategies. In hard sciences like Biology, native English speakers employ informational content with elaboration and hedging strategies, while Saudi English speakers utilize concentrated informational approaches with direct presentation strategies. In soft sciences such as English and Education, native speakers demonstrate high levels of involvement, interactivity, and stance marking, while Saudi writers effectively balance involvement and informational content through alternative elaboration strategies. Nursing showed distinctive patterns where native speakers integrate involvement with qualitative insights, while Saudi writers employ informational density with focused precision. Key factors influencing these variations include disciplinary conventions, linguistic background, and research methodology preferences. Native speakers typically engage through involvement, elaboration, and stance marking in soft sciences while maintaining informational discourse in hard sciences. Saudi writers demonstrate systematic deployment of clarity-focused and informational strategies across disciplines, employing distinct rhetorical approaches that achieve effective academic communication. These findings highlight the complex interplay between disciplinary norms and linguistic background in shaping academic discourse. The research supports pluralistic perspectives that recognize Saudi academic English as a legitimate scholarly variety within international academic discourse. While disciplinary conventions influence writing styles for both groups, different linguistic backgrounds represent alternative but equally valid pathways to successful scholarly communication. The study challenges deficit-based frameworks that position non-native writing against native speaker standards, instead documenting that both native speaker and Saudi English writers successfully construct academic discourse through different combinations of linguistic resources. The substantial within-group variability and consistent achievement of institutional success underscore the validity of multiple approaches to academic writing effectiveness. This research contributes to understanding linguistic diversity as a fundamental characteristic of successful academic discourse, offering valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and researchers in academic writing by demonstrating that effective scholarly communication manifests through various legitimate linguistic strategies rather than convergence on a single standard.