آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 848 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,531 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 13,271,146 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 11,511,791 |
Epistemic Features of Generality in Conclusions: The Case of Applied Linguistics and Power System Engineering | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| دوره 40، شماره 2، مرداد 2021، صفحه 47-80 اصل مقاله (323.05 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2021.39549.2936 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Hassan Jalali* ؛ Momeneh Ghadiri؛ Mina Zehtab | ||
| Centre of English Language, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This comparative corpus-based study was launched to analyze the use of intensifiers and indefinite pronouns indicating generality in two disciplines of applied linguistics (AL) and power system engineering (PSE). Accordingly, four corpora were considered in this study: two corpora representing English articles written by L1-English writers in applied linguistics (L1-English AL corpus) and power system engineering (L1-English PSE corpus), and two other corpora (L1-Persian AL corpus and L1-Persian PSE corpus) belonging to English articles written by L1-Persian writers in the same two disciplines. The findings revealed that the indefinite pronouns were used more frequently than intensifiers in all corpora; on the other hand, the use of qualified-generalization markers in the two L1-Persian corpora exceeded that in the L1-English corpora. As for disciplinary differences, the AL conclusions contained more generalization and qualified-generalization stance markers, as compared to their PSE counterparts. The study concludes with some implications regarding the representation of authorial voice. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Epistemic Stance؛ Generality؛ Stance Markers؛ Qualified-Generalization Markers | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288–297.
Akinci, S. (2016). A cross-disciplinary study of stance markers in research articles written by students and experts. Unpublished Master thesis, Iowa state university. Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/15144.
Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc 3.5.7: A free text analysis software. Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html.
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, C. I. Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 1(33), 151-183.
Aull, L. L., Bandarage, D., & Miller, M. R. (2017). Generality in student and expert epistemic stance: A corpus analysis of first-year, upper-level, and published academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 29-41.
Auría, M. C. P. L. (2008). Stance and academic promotionalism: A cross-disciplinary comparison in the soft sciences. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 30 (1), 129–145.
Bhatia, V. K. (2002). Applied genre analysis: a multi-perspective model. IBERICA 4, 3–19.
Biber, D. (2006a). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Biber, D. (2006b). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-106.
Biber, D., & B. Gray. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20.
Biber, D., & E. Finegan. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. DiscourseProcesses, 11, 1–34.
Biber, D., & E. Finegan. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93–124.
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., & S. Conrad, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Brezina, V. (2012). Epistemic markers in university advisory sessions: Towards a local grammar of epistemicity (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (1986). In Evidentiality: The linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston, & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cortes, V. (2011). Genre Analysis in the Academic Writing Class: with or without Corpora. Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis Linguistics, 16, 65- 80.
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stance taking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. John Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing.
Flowerdew, J., & Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre analysis of editorial letters to international journal contributors. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 463-489.
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In C. S. Guinda & K. Hyland (eds), stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15-33). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harre, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9 (1), 21–44.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2001). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17, 433-454.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18 (1), 41-62.
Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplines and Discourses: Social Interactions in the Construction of Knowledge. In D. Starke-Meyerring, A. Par, N. Artemeva, M. Horne, & L. Yousoubova (Eds.), Writing in knowledge societies. Perspectives on writing (pp.193-214). USA: Parlor Press.
Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253.
Hyland, K. (2013). Second language writing: The manufacture of a social fact. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 426-427.
Hyland, K., & Guinda, C. S. (Eds.). (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jalali, H. (2013). Lexical bundles in applied linguistics: Variations across postgraduate genres. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Translation Studies, 2 (2), 1-29.
Jalali, H., Rasekh, A. E., & Rizi, M. T. (2009). Anticipatory'it'lexical bundles: A comparative study of student and published writing in applied linguistics. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 3 (2).
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral sessions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Lorés, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 280-302.
Martin, J. R. (2005). Analyzing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie, & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 3-39). UK: A&C Black.
Martin, P. M. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 25-43.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Palmer, F. R. (1986) Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250.
Schemeleva, I. (2019). "it seems plausible to maintain that....": Clusters of epistemic stance expressions in written academic ELF text. ESP Today, 7(1), pp24-43.
Taki, S., & Jafarpour, F. (2012). Engagement and stance in academic writing: A study of English and Persian research articles. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 157-168.
Thompson, P. (2012). Achieving a voice of authority in PhD theses. In C. S. Guinda, & K. Hyland (eds), stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 119-133). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36-62. Vande, K. W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2012). The Best of both Worlds? Towards an English for Academic Purposes/Academic Literacies Writing Pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 481-495.
Wu, S. M. (2007). The use of engagement resources in high- and low-rated undergraduate geography essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 254-271.
Zhang, L. J. (2013). Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 446-447. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 301 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 315 |
||