Linguo-cognitive markers in human vs ai text attribution: a case study of narrative and descriptive discourse

Specifically, this paper explores and compares AI-generated content and human-authored texts and highlights both strengths and limitations of AI language models that exhibit conspicuous efficiency in quickly generating various content. However, LLMs struggle to convey human emotion, creativity, critical thinking, contextual and cultural nuances.

The findings of our study hold several implications for both writing practices and potential applications.

Specifically, our analysis of discourse strategies elicits discourse markers as distinct linguistic features--suchas `cognizant',`curation',`delveinto', `encompass', `flicker', `gain valuable information', `interplay', `intricacies', `it's (contracted forms)', `leverage', `overall', `pave the way / path' , `pivotal role', `realm', `revolutionize', `robustness', `shed light on', `shifting our focus', `significantly impact', `Sure, here's ...', `underscores the significance', `utilize', `valuable (insights)', `yields' and the like--which may aid in distinguishing AI-generated content from human writing, contributing to the development of authorship verification techniques, plagiarism detection, and forensic linguistics.

This insight can significantly impact writing practices by enhancing the understanding of how human cognitive processes manifest in the texts. Writers and content creators can leverage this knowledge to develop more authentic and engaging content, tailored to their target audience.

At the same time, the study acknowledges limitations listed below.

Replicating human emotions: although the research reveals the remarkable capabilities of AI language models that blur the lines between human creativity and machine intelligence, AI-generated content still grapples with replicating the depth of human emotion, creativity, and cultural nuances. Therefore, admitting AI as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human creativity is crucial, especially in fields where human emotions and experiences are demanding for effective communication.

Test structure: while the Al-generated response demonstrates a capability to reproduce a narrative structure, it can deviate from the assigned task by confusing a paragraph structure and exceeding the word limit.

Ornate language: the text that is marked by vivid verbs and expressive embellishments enhances aesthetic appeal and adds sophistication, creating immersive background. At the same time, excessive use of ornate vocabulary often results in stylistic inconsistencies. Mismatched linguistic elements and the lack of coherent flow may appear out of place in certain contexts, diminishing authenticity, hindering the text readability and its effectiveness in conveying the intended message, and causing miscommunication.

Cognitive and socio-cultural factors. Our findings emphasise critical thinking and specific linguistic and socio-cultural factors that contribute to the text attribution. Specifically, for narrative and descriptive writing, such factors include vivid sensory descriptions, engaging storytelling, and maintaining coherence.

In summary, this research advances discourse analysis and linguistic exploration, aiming to enhance communication practices in diverse cultural and linguistic environments.

Proceeding from the analysis of narrative and descriptive writing, future research could explore other types of discourse by comparing human- created and Al-generated texts in the context of text construction. Additionally, further research should acknowledge that satisfactory AI responses require fine-tuning of prompts, or and prompt engineering, which is a separate study beyond the current scope.

Ultimately, the convergence of Al-generated content, critical thinking, and creativity lays the foundations for more efficient communication strategies and fresh perspectives in discourse analysis. However, concerns about authenticity and ethics remain, necessitating recognition of AI's evolving capabilities while preserving the uniqueness of human cognition and creativity.

4. Supplement: Al-generated narrative text based on the assigned travel-related vocabulary

As I set out on a leisurely drive towards the city, little did I know that the journey was about to take an unexpected turn. The rising action began as I approached a crossroads, where the tension heightened due to an accident that had occurred just ahead. The heavy traffic and commotion served as the initial build-up of events. Navigating through the congestion, I decided to take a by-pass in an attempt to avoid the chaos caused by the collision. This marked the climax of the narrative, a pivotal moment where I made a critical decision that would influence the course of my journey.

Continuing along the alternate route, I found myself in a quiet cul-de-sac adorned with a charming bed and breakfast. This represented the beginning of the falling action, as the narrative began to wind down from the peak of the climax. From there, I followed a footbridge that led to a picturesque quayside, allowing me to take a moment to reflect on the events that had transpired. The sound of the waves and the view of the yachts at the harbour offered a sense of tranquility, offering a gradual transition from the intensity of the climax.

As I left the quayside and resumed my drive, I headed towards a historic monument situated along a bustling boulevard. This marked the conclusion of the narrative, as the journey came to a satisfying resolution. The sight of the monument served as a final point of interest before I arrived at my destination, a charming resort by the coast. The narrative followed the classic Fichtean curve, capturing the rising action, climax, and falling action that transformed a simple drive into a memorable and engaging adventure.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Яхонтова Т. В. (2003). Основи англомовного наукового письма: Навч. посібник для студентів, аспірантів і науковців. Вид. 2-ге. Львів: ПАІС.

2. Adler-Kassner, L., & Estrem, H. (2005). Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A View from the Field. In S. Harrington, K. Rhodes, R. O. Fischer, & R. Malenczyk (Eds.), Outcomes Book: Debate and Consensus after the WPA Outcomes Statement (p. 60-71). University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46nwgv.12

3. Aristotle. (2013). Poetics. Oxford World's Classics. Translated by Kenny, Anthony. Oxford University Press.

4. Aygun, S., & Yavuz, F. (2020). The effects of critical thinking instruction through asynchronous learning tools on writing. EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 5(2), 176-191. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/e.5.2.176-191

5. Crosswhite, J. (1996). The Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument. University of Wisconsin Press.

6. Dans, E. (2023). ChatGPT and the decline of critical Thinking. IE Insights. https://www.ie.edu/insights/articles/ chatgpt-and-the-decline-of-critical-thinking/

7. Denny, H. C. (2010). Facing Nationality in the Writing Center. Facing the Center: Toward an Identity Politics of One- to-OneMentoring. University Press of Colorado. P. 117-138. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt4cgqnv.12

8. Dong, T., & Yue, L. (2015). A Study on Critical Thinking Assessment System of College English Writing. English Language Teaching, 8(11), 176-182.

9. Dziri, N., Milton, S., Yu, M., Zaїane, O. R., & Reddy, S. (2022). On the Origin of Hallucinations in Conversational Models: Is it the Datasets or the Models? Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. P. 5271-5285. Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.387

10. Fedoriv Ya.R. & Ratushna L.Ya. (2023). Mastering The Art Of Persuasion: Crafting Credible Arguments // European scientific congress. Proceedings of the 4th International scientific and practical conference. Barca Academy Publishing. Madrid, Spain. 2023. P. 346-353. URL: https://sci-conf.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/EUROPEAN-SCIENTIFIC- CONGRESS-15-17.05.23.pdf

11. Fedoriv, Ya. R., Shuhai, A.Yu., & Pirozhenko, I. D. (2023). Acknowledgement of the Challenges in Constructing Different Types of Discourse. // Нотатки сучасної науки: електронний мультидисциплінарний науковий часопис. № 8. Харків: СГ НТМ «Новий курс», 2023. C. 10-11. https://www.newroute.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/nsn-8.pdf

12. Fleming, H., Glatthorn, A. A., & Warriner, J. E. (General Editor). (1969). Composition: Models and Exercises. Longmans Canada Limited: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

13. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0378-2166(98)00101-5

14. Gao, T., Yen, H., Yu, J., & Chen, D. (2023). Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2305.14627

15. Hartmann, J., Bergner, A., & Hildebrand, C. (2023, July 27). MindMiner: Uncovering Linguistic Markers of Mind Perception as a New Lens to Understand Consumer-Smart Object Relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1381

16. IELTS Essential CANADA. (2020, October 29). IELTS Writing task 2: Advantages and disadvantages essay [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpidurrrlGA

17. Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse Markers in Composition Writings: The Case of Iranian Learners of English as a Foreign Language. English Language Teaching, 1, 114-122. https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/460/472

18. Kamalloo, E., et al. (2023, 31 Jul). HAGRID: A Human-LLM Collaborative Dataset for Generative InformationSeeking with Attribution. arXiv:2307.16883v1 [cs.CL]. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16883.pdf

19. Kelly, W. J. (1992). Beginnings: A Rhetoric and Handbook. Macmillan Publishing Company.

20. Khan, T. F. et al. (2023). An Empirical Study on Authorship Verification for Low Resource Language using Hyper-Tuned CNN Approach. IEEE Access, Vol. 11, p. 80403-80415. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=10196421

21. Liu, N. F., Zhang, T., & Liang, P. (2023). Evaluating verifiability in generative search engines. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2304.09848

22. Lipschutz, G., Scarry, S., & Scarry, J. (2017). The Canadian Writer's Workplace. Nelson Education Ltd.

23. Maclin, A. (2001). Reference Guide to English: A Handbook of English as a Second Language. Washington, DC: Office of English Language Programs, United States Department of State.

24. Mauranen, A., & Ranta, E. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge University Press.

25. Reinking, J., et al. (2000). Strategies for Successful Writing. A Rhetoric Research Guide, Reader, and Handbook. Scarborough, On. Prentice-Hall Canada Inc.

26. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

27. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.

28. Stede, M., & Umbach, C. (1998). DiMLex: A Lexicon of Discourse Markers for Text Generation and Understanding. COLING-ACL. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.3115/980691.980771

29. Stewart, K.L. & Kowler, M.E. (1990). Forms of Writing: A brief Guide and Handbook. Annotated Instructor's Edition. Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice-Hall Canada Inc. P. 99-100.

30. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.

31. Troyka, Q. L., & Strom, Cy. (1999). Simon & SchusterHandbookfor Writers, Second Canadian Edition. Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice Hall Allyn & Bacon Canada.

32. Weaver, B. (2023, July 31). AI will absolutely replace screenwriters (Argument against Artificial Intelligence) - Blayne Weaver. [Video]. Film Courage. YouTube. https://youtu.be/KwzGBesUDXc

SOURCES OF ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

33. AITextDetector (2023, Jan. 01). ZeroGPT. https://www.zerogpt.com

34. Conlin, M. L. (1990). Patterns Plus. A Short Prose Reader with Argumentation. Third Edition. Cuyahoga Community College. Houghton Mifflin Company.

35. OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT [Large language model]. July 24, 2023 Version. https://chat.openai.com/

36. Zemach, D. E. & Rumisek, L. A. (2005). Academic Writing: from Paragraph to Essay. Oxford, MacMillan.

REFERENCES

1. Yakhontova Т. V. (2003). Osnovy anhlomovnoho naukovoho pysma: Navch. posibnyk dlia studentiv, aspirantiv i naukovtsiv. Vyd. 2-he. [Foundations of English Scientific Writing: Tutorial for Students, Postgraduates, and Researchers. 2nd Edition]. Lviv: PAIS.

2. Adler-Kassner, L., & Estrem, H. (2005). Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: A View from the Field. In S. Harrington, K. Rhodes, R. O. Fischer, & R. Malenczyk (Eds.), Outcomes Book: Debate and Consensus after the WPA Outcomes Statement (p. 60-71). University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt46nwgv.12

3. Aristotle. (2013). Poetics. Oxford World's Classics. Translated by Kenny, Anthony. Oxford University Press.

4. Aygun, S., & Yavuz, F. (2020). The effects of critical thinking instruction through asynchronous learning tools on writing. EduLite: Journal of English Education, Literature and Culture, 5(2), 176-191. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/e.5.2.176-191

5. Crosswhite, J. (1996). The Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument. University of Wisconsin Press.

6. Dans, E. (2023). ChatGPT and the decline of critical Thinking. IE Insights. https://www.ie.edu/insights/articles/ chatgpt-and-the-decline-of-critical-thinking/

7. Denny, H. C. (2010). Facing Nationality in the Writing Center. Facing the Center: Toward an Identity Politics of One- to-OneMentoring. University Press of Colorado. P. 117-138. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt4cgqnv.12

8. Dong, T., & Yue, L. (2015). A Study on Critical Thinking Assessment System of College English Writing. English Language Teaching, 8(11), 176-182.

9. Dziri, N., Milton, S., Yu, M., Zaїane, O. R., & Reddy, S. (2022). On the Origin of Hallucinations in Conversational Models: Is it the Datasets or the Models? Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. P. 5271-5285. Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.387

10. Fedoriv Ya.R. & Ratushna L.Ya. (2023). Mastering The Art Of Persuasion: Crafting Credible Arguments // European scientific congress. Proceedings of the 4th International scientific and practical conference. Barca Academy Publishing. Madrid, Spain. 2023. P. 346-353. URL: https://sci-conf.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/EUROPEAN-SCIENTIFIC- CONGRESS-15-17.05.23.pdf

11. Fedoriv, Ya. R., Shuhai, A.Yu., & Pirozhenko, I. D. (2023). Acknowledgement of the Challenges in Constructing Different Types of Discourse. // Нотатки сучасної науки: електронний мультидисциплінарний науковий часопис. № 8. Харків: СГ НТМ «Новий курс», 2023. C. 10-11. https://www.newroute.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/nsn-8.pdf

12. Fleming, H., Glatthorn, A. A., & Warriner, J. E. (General Editor). (1969). Composition: Models and Exercises. Longmans Canada Limited: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

13. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0378-2166(98)00101-5

14. Gao, T., Yen, H., Yu, J., & Chen, D. (2023). Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2305.14627

15. Hartmann, J., Bergner, A., & Hildebrand, C. (2023, July 27). MindMiner: Uncovering Linguistic Markers of Mind Perception as a New Lens to Understand Consumer-Smart Object Relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1381

16. IELTS Essential CANADA. (2020, October 29). IELTS Writing task 2: Advantages and disadvantages essay [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpidurrrlGA

17. Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse Markers in Composition Writings: The Case of Iranian Learners of English as a Foreign Language. English Language Teaching, 1, 114-122. https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/460/472

18. Kamalloo, E., et al. (2023, 31 Jul). HAGRID: A Human-LLM Collaborative Dataset for Generative InformationSeeking with Attribution. arXiv:2307.16883v1 [cs.CL]. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16883.pdf

19. Kelly, W. J. (1992). Beginnings: A Rhetoric and Handbook. Macmillan Publishing Company.

20. Khan, T. F. et al. (2023). An Empirical Study on Authorship Verification for Low Resource Language using Hyper-Tuned CNN Approach. IEEE Access, Vol. 11, P 80403-80415. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=10196421

21. Liu, N. F., Zhang, T., & Liang, P (2023). Evaluating verifiability in generative search engines. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2304.09848

22. Lipschutz, G., Scarry, S., & Scarry, J. (2017). The Canadian Writer's Workplace. Nelson Education Ltd.

23. Maclin, A. (2001). Reference Guide to English: A Handbook of English as a Second Language. Washington, DC: Office of English Language Programs, United States Department of State.

24. Mauranen, A., & Ranta, E. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge University Press.

25. Reinking, J., et al. (2000). Strategies for Successful Writing. A Rhetoric Research Guide, Reader, and Handbook. Scarborough, On. Prentice-Hall Canada Inc.

26. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

27. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.

28. Stede, M., & Umbach, C. (1998). DiMLex: A Lexicon of Discourse Markers for Text Generation and Understanding. COLING-ACL. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.3115/980691.980771

29. Stewart, K.L. & Kowler, M.E. (1990). Forms of Writing: A brief Guide and Handbook. Annotated Instructor's Edition. Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice-Hall Canada Inc. P. 99-100.

30. Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.

31. Troyka, Q. L., & Strom, Cy. (1999). Simon & SchusterHandbookfor Writers, Second Canadian Edition. Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice Hall Allyn & Bacon Canada.

32. Weaver, B. (2023, July 31). AI will absolutely replace screenwriters (Argument against Artificial Intelligence) - Blayne Weaver. [Video]. Film Courage. YouTube. https://youtu.be/KwzGBesUDXc

SOURCES OF ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

33. AITextDetector (2023, Jan. 01). ZeroGPT. https://www.zerogpt.com

34. Conlin, M. L. (1990). Patterns Plus. A Short Prose Reader with Argumentation. Third Edition. Cuyahoga Community College. Houghton Mifflin Company.

35. OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT [Large language model]. July 24, 2023 Version. https://chat.openai.com/

36. Zemach, D. E. & Rumisek, L. A. (2005). Academic Writing: from Paragraph to Essay. Oxford, MacMillan.

Размещено на Allbest.ru