Beyond mere facts: Epistemic profiles of conclusions to English- and Polish-language linguistics articles
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEWybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEBeyond mere facts: Epistemic profiles of conclusions to English- and Polish-language linguistics articles
Data publikacji: 30.05.2023
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2023, Volume 140, Issue 2, s. 165 - 189
https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.23.008.17757Autorzy
Beyond mere facts: Epistemic profiles of conclusions to English- and Polish-language linguistics articles
Expressions of epistemic stance in academic discourse reflect not only the authors’ commitment to the truth of what is being said, but also their awareness of other members of the discourse community, the current thinking within the discipline, and the established patterns of interaction. Stance-taking is strongly embedded in culture and language, as demonstrated in numerous studies that focus on L2 academic English (e.g. Hinkel 2002; Dontcheva-Navratilova 2018; Wu and Paltridge 2021) and, less often, academic communication in various linguistic contexts (e.g. Perez-Llantada 2010). This paper purues this latter line of inquiry and proposes a contrastive analysis of epistemic markers in conclusions to English- and Polish-language linguistics articles in an attempt to identify their epistemic profiles. Epistemic profile refers here to a combination of two features: the epistemic modal value (Halliday 1985/1994) which is marked more frequently than others across a text or text fragment, and the concurrence of modality markers with specific rhetorical moves (Swales 1990; Yang and Allison 2003). Thus, it provides information about the value of modalization and the type of content that tends to be modalized. The analysis was based on a two-part corpus of conclusions to 400 linguistics articles, with 200 English-language articles drawn from international databases and 200 Polish-language articles published in recognized national journals. In the first stage, the frequencies of epistemic markers in the two sub-corpora were calculated (Scott 2008) and a statistical analysis was applied to determine whether the differences were significant. In the second stage, 50 concluding sections from each sub-corpus were manually annotated for rhetorical moves to determine whether epistemic markers tended to occur within specific moves. The findings show statistically significant differences in the frequencies of high- and low-value epistemic markers in the sub-corpora and a tendency for epistemic markers to occur within moves that offer interpretive content.
Alramadan M.M. 2016. Appraisal in English and Arabic academic discourse: A contrastive study within a systemic functional perspective. [unpublished PhD dissertation, King Saud University].
Arnaudet M.L., Barrett M.E. 1984. Approaches to academic reading and writing. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.
Atkinson D. 1998. Integrating multiple analyses in historical studies of scientific discourse: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. – Battalio J.T. (ed.). Essays in the study of scientific discourse: Methods, practice, and pedagogy. Stamford (CT) London: Ablex: 139–165.
Bamford J. 2005. Subjective or objective evaluation? Prediction in academic lectures. – Tognini-Bonelli E., Del Lungo Camiciotti G. (eds.). Strategies in academic discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 17–29.
Berger P.L., Luckmann T. 1966/1967. The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
Biber D. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. – Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116.
Biber D., Finegan E. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. – Discourse Processes 11: 1–34.
Bralczyk J. 1978. O leksykalnych wyznacznikach prawdziwościowej oceny sądów. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Burgess S., Martín-Martín P. (eds.). 2008. English as an additional language in research publication and communication. Bern: Peter Lang.
Coates J. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
Conrad S., Biber D. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. – Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 56–73.
Crompton P. 1997. Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. – English for Specific Purposes 16.4: 271–287.
Crosthwaite P., Cheung L., Jiang F. 2017. Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. – English for Specific Purposes 46: 107–123.
Diani G. 2009. Reporting and evaluation in English book review articles: A cross-disciplinary study. – Hyland K., Diani G. (eds.). Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan: 87–104.
Dontcheva-Navratilova O. 2018. Intercultural and interdisciplinary variation in the use of epistemic lexical verbs in linguistics and economics research articles. – Linguistica Pragensia 28.2: 154–167.
Dudley-Evans T. 1994. Genre analysis: An approach to text analysis for ESP. – Coulthard M. (ed.). Advances in written text analysis. London, New York: Routledge: 219–228.
Fortanet I. 2008. Evaluative language in peer review referee reports. – Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 27–37.
Freddi M. 2005. From corpus to register: The construction of evaluation and argumentation in linguistics textbooks. – Tognini-Bonelli E., Del Lungo Camiciotti G. (eds.). Strategies in academic discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 133–151.
Gavins J. 2005. (Re)thinking modality: A text-world perspective. – Journal of Literary Semantics 34: 79–93.
Gilbert G.N., Mulkay M. 1984. Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gries S. 2013. Statistics for linguistics with R. [2nd ed.]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Grzegorczykowa R. 1996/1998. Wykłady z polskiej składni. [3rd ed.]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Grzegorczykowa R. 2001. Wprowadzenie do semantyki językoznawczej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Halliday M.A.K. 1985/1994. Functional grammar. [2nd ed.]. London: Arnold.
Hewings M., Thaine C. 2012. Cambridge academic English: An integrated skills course for EAP. Advanced. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinkel E. 2002. Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hood S. 2010. Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hopkins A., Dudley-Evans T. 1988. A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. – English for Specific Purposes 7: 113–121.
Hoye L. 1997. Adverbs and modality in English. London, New York: Longman.
Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). 2000. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland K. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. – Candlin C.N., Hyland K. (eds.). Writing: Texts, processes and practices. London, New York: Longman: 99–121.
Hyland K. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. – Discourse Studies 7.2: 173–192.
Hyland K., Milton J. 1997. Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. – Journal of Second Language Writing 6.2: 183–205.
Kashiha H. 2015. Recurrent formulas and moves in writing research article conclusions among native and nonnative writers. – 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 21.1: 47–59.
Kim C., Crosthwaite P. 2019. Disciplinary differences in the use of evaluative that: Expression of stance via that-clauses in business and medicine. – Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41: 100775.
Krzyżyk D. 2008. Synonimia pojęć prawdziwościowych – teoria i nauczanie. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Ligara B. 1997. Polskie czasowniki modalne i ich francuskie ekwiwalenty tłumaczeniowe. Kraków: Universitas.
Łyda A., Warchał K. (eds.). 2014. Occupying niches: Interculturality, cross-culturality and aculturality in academic research. Cham: Springer.
Martin J.R. 2000. Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. – Hunston S., Thompson G. (eds.). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 142–175.
Martin J.R., White P.R.R. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mur-Dueñas P., Šinkūnienė J. (eds.). 2018. Intercultural perspectives on research writing. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Myers G., Lampropoulou S. 2012. Impersonal you and stance-taking in social research interviews. – Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1206–1218.
Palmer F.R. 1979. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.
Palmer F.R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pérez-Llantada C. 2010. The “dialectics of change” as a facet of globalisation: Epistemic modality in academic writing. – Ruiz-Garrido M.F., Palmer-Silveira J.C., Fortanet-Gómez I. (eds.). English for professional and academic purposes. Amsterdam: Rodopi: 25–41.
Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rezzano N.S. 2004. Modality and modal responsibility in research articles in English. – Facchinetti R., Palmer F. (eds.). English modality in perspective: Genre analysis and contrastive studies. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang: 101–118.
Römer U. 2005. “This seems somewhat counterintuitive, though…” Negative evaluation in linguistics book reviews by male and female authors. – Tognini-Bonelli E., Del Lungo Camiciotti G. (eds.). Strategies in academic discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 97–115.
Rytel D. 1982. Leksykalne środki wyrażania modalności w języku czeskim i polskim. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Scott M. 2008. WordSmith Tools 5.0 for Windows. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. Simpson P. 1993. Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge.
Stępień B. 2016. Zasady pisania tekstów naukowych. Prace doktorskie i artykuły. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Suomela-Salmi E., Dervin F. (eds.). 2009. Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives on academic discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Swales J.M. 1981. Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham: The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit.
Swales J.M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales J.M. 2001. EAP-related linguistic research: An intellectual history. – Flowerdew J., Peacock M. (eds.). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 42–54.
Swales J.M., Feak C.B. 2012. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. [3rd ed.]. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Tutak K. 2003. Leksykalne nieczasownikowe wykładniki modalności epistemicznej w autobiografiach. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka.
Vold E.T. 2006. Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. – International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16.1: 61–87.
Wallace M., Wray A. 2016. Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. [3rd ed.]. Los Angeles, London: Sage.
Warchał K. 2015. Certainty and doubt in academic discourse: Epistemic modality markers in English and Polish linguistics articles. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Westney P. 1995. Modals and periphrasics in English: An investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Wu B., Paltridge B. 2021. Stance expressions in academic writing: A corpus-based comparison of Chinese students’ MA dissertations and PhD theses. – Lingua 253: 103071.
Yang R., Allison D. 2003. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. – English for Specific Purposes 22: 365–385.
Zamani G., Ebadia S. 2016. Move analysis of conclusions as components of research articles in Persian and English. – Cypriot Journal of Educational Science 11.1: 9–20.
Zaśko-Zielińska M., Majewska-Tworek A., Piekot T. 2008. Sztuka pisania. Przewodnik po tekstach użytkowych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Żabowska M. 2006. Zróżnicowanie semantyczne partykuł epistemicznych. – LingVaria 1.1: 203–213.
Żydek-Bednarczuk U. 2014. Polski język naukowy wczoraj i dzisiaj. – Transformacje 1–2 (80– 81): 207–219.
Informacje: Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 2023, Volume 140, Issue 2, s. 165 - 189
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
Beyond mere facts: Epistemic profiles of conclusions to English- and Polish-language linguistics articles
Beyond mere facts: Epistemic profiles of conclusions to English- and Polish-language linguistics articles
University of Silesia in Katowice
Polska
Publikacja: 30.05.2023
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: CC BY
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
AngielskiLiczba wyświetleń: 442
Liczba pobrań: 262