| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 862 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,672 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 13,668,455 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 11,743,024 |
STANCE AND ENGAGEMENT DISCOURSE MARKERS IN JOURNAL’S “AUTHOR GUIDELINES” | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 34، شماره 3، دی 2015، صفحه 109-140 اصل مقاله (419.12 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2015.3583 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| raouf moini* ؛ Malihe Salami | ||
| University of Kashan | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Over the past decade, there has been an increasing interest in the study of interactional metadiscourse markers in different contexts. However, not much research has been conducted about the discourse of journal author guidelines, especially the use of meta-discourse markers in this genre. Therefore, this corpus-based study had three main aims: 1) to delve deep into the types, frequencies and functions of stance and engagement markers based on Fu’s (2012) interactional metadiscourse taxonomy, 2) to compare the distribution of stance and engagement features in journal author guidelines and 3) to investigate whether there is a significant difference between macro/micro interactional metadiscourse markers in journal author guidelines. A corpus of 280 author guidelines produced by seven leading international academic publishers in eight academic sub-disciplines in the humanities and social sciences was compiled and analyzed. The results of the analysis showed that engagement features (reader-oriented) enjoyed higher frequency of use in journal author guidelines. Moreover, the difference between the frequency of stance and engagement features was statistically significant. Furthermore, differences reported between macro and micro interactional metadiscourse were statistically significant. The extensive use of macro interactional metadiscourse markers indicated a high degree of interactionality of journal author guidelines. The present study gives us considerable insight into the dialogic nature of a totally neglected academic genre. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| author guideline؛ engagement؛ interactionalmetadiscourse؛ macro-interactional metadiscourse؛ micro-interactional metadiscourse؛ stance | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Algi, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing. Published MA thesis, Middle East Technical University. Ansarin, A. A., & Tarlani-Aliabdi, H. (2011). Reader engagement in English and Persian applied linguistics articles. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 154-164. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman. Biber, D., Condrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 9-48. Blagojević, S. (2009). Expressing attitudes in academic research articles written by English and Serbian authors. Linguistics and Literature, 7(1), 63-73. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: CUP. Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. Beckenham: Croom Helm. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 133-168. Fu, X. (2012).The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies, 14(4), 399-417. Giannoni, D. S. (2008). Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 212-232. Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (2000).A modern history of written discourse analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 191-223. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. (2001a). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574. Hyland, K. (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226. Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Power and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239. Hyland, K. (2002b). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text, 22(4), 529-557. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151. Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring writing in interaction. London: Continuum. Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192. Hyland, K. (2005c). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16, 363-377. Hyland, K. (2008a). Disciplinary voices: Interaction in research writing. English Text Construction, 1 (1), 5-22. Hyland, K. (2008b). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 8-18. Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2009). The leading journal in its field: evaluation in journal descriptions. Discourse Studies, 11(6), 703-720. Kaplan, R.B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited, in U. Connor & R.B. Kaplan (Eds.) Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts. (pp. 9-21). Reading, M.A.: Addison Wesley. Lakoff, G. (1970). Tense and its relation to participants. Language, 6(4), 838-849. Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977).The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics,33, 159-174. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marković, J. (2013). Engagement markers in introductory textbooks. Communication and culture online, 5(4), 36-51. McGrath, L. & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social interaction. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167. Palmer, F. (1986).Mood and Modality. London: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman. Shaw, Ph. (2000). The lexis and grammar of explicit evaluation in academic book reviews, 1913 and 1993. In Hyland K. & Giuliana, D. (Eds.), Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 217-235).London: Palgrave Macmillan. Swales, J. M., Ahmad, U., Chang, Yu-Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D., & Seymour, S. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 97-121. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78. Thompson, G. & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: the management of interaction in written discourse. TEXT, 15(1), 103-127. Webber, P. (1994).The functions of questions in different medical English genres. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 257–268. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 4,038 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 4,717 |
||