آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 5 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 116 |
| تعداد مقالات | 1,333 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 1,336,454 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 1,268,894 |
Metadiscourse Use in Popular and Professional Science: The Case of Hedges and Boosters | ||
| Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 7، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 14، آذر 2019، صفحه 99-120 اصل مقاله (330.32 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22049/jalda.2019.26654.1144 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Davud Kuhi* 1؛ Mina Babapour2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh Branch, Maragheh, Iran | ||
| 2MA in ELT, Department of English language and literature, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The present article shows that all scientific texts included in journals, magazines, and newspapers are vulnerable to the penetration of hedges and boosters. However, it was found that scientific texts in the three corpora tended to open up the possibilities of alternative voices rather than narrowing them down. The relatively higher frequency of occurrence of hedges in comparison with boosters indicates that regardless of whether the audience is expert or non-expert, their voices are seen as respected in the scientific texts. Similarly, boosters as means of narrowing down the alternative positions and developing a strong and certain authorial voices are equally disfavored in both expert and popularized scientific texts. Despite this similar pattern of the use of hedges and boosters in the investigated corpora, the means to achieve the mentioned objectives slightly differed and the informal style of language use dominating popular genres influenced the textual realizations of such functions. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Booster؛ Hedge؛ Metadiscourse؛ Popular Science؛ Professional Science | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barthes, R. (1970). S/Z Paris: Seuil (trans. London: Cape, 1975).
Breivaga, K. R., Dahl, T., &Flottum, K. (2002).Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 218-239. T
Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses.English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.
Charles, M. (2006). The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics, 27, 492-518.
Crismore, A,.& Farnsworth, R. (1989). Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos. Rhetoric Review, 8(1), 91-112.
Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1990).Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-36). Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Curtis, R. (1994). Narrative form and normative force: Baconian story-telling in popular science. Social Studies of Science, 24, 419-61.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825.
de Oliveira, J. M., & Pagano, A. S. (2006). The research article and the science popularization article: A probabilistic functional grammar perspective on direct discourse representation. Discourse Studies, 8(5), 627-646.
Duszak, A. (1994). Academic discourse and intellectual style.Journal of Pragmatics, 21(3),291-313.
Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts.Written Communication, 3(3), 275-96.
Fairclough, N.(1992a). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis.Linguistics and Education, 4, 269-293.
Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2002). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. In M. Toolan (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics, Vol. 2 (pp. 69-103). London and New York: Routledge.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 3, 266-275.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993/2004).Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. In J. J. Webster (Ed.), The language of science (pp. 119-225). London and New York: Continuum.
Hanrahan, M. U. (2010). Highlighting hybridity: a critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. In C. Coffin, T. Lillis and K. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applied linguistics methods: A reader (pp. 148-162). London and New York: Routledge.
Harwood, N. (2005). “We do not seem to have a theory … The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap”: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 26, 343-375.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990).Discourse and the translator. London and New York: Routledge.
Henderson, W. (2001).Exemplification strategy in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.In M. Hewings (Ed) Academic writing in context (pp. 150-168). The University of Birmingham: University Press.
Hewings, A. &Hewings, M. (2001). Anticipatory “it” in academic writing: an indicator of disciplinary difference and developing disciplinary knowledge. In M. Hewings (Ed), Academic writing in context (pp.199-214). The University of Birmingham: University Press.
Hoey, M. (1988).Writing to meet the reader’s needs: Text patterning and reading strategies.Trondheim Papers in Applied Linguistics, IV, 15-73.
Hoey, M. (2000). Persuasive rhetoric in linguistics: a stylistic study of some features of the language of Noam Chomsky. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 28-37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoey.M. (2001).Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
Hunston, S. (1994).Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse.In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191-218). London and New York: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks.English for Specific Purposes, 13, 239256.
Hyland, K. (1996a). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum.System, 24, 477490.
Hyland, K. (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in Science research articles.Applied Linguistics, 17, 433 454.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge.Text, 18(3), 349382.
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks.English for Specific Purposes, 18(1),326.
Hyland, K. (2002a). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing.Applied Linguistics, 23, 215239.
Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing.ELT Journal, 56, 351 358.
Hyland, K. (2002c). What do they mean? Questions in academic writing.Text, 22, 529557.
Hyland, K. (2004). Graduate gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgments. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303324.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London and New York: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse.Applied Linguistics, 28, 266285.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse.Continuum.
Hyland, K., &Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 123139.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader (Ed. T. Moi). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kuhi, D. (2014). Commodified discourses, commodifying discourses: In pursuit of a theoretical model on the constitutive functioning of academic discourse in marketization of higher education. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, 2(1), 39-62.
Kuhi, D. (2018). (in press). Hybridity of scientific discourses: An intertextual perspective andimplications for ESP pedagogy. The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Discourse Analysis.
Kuhi, D. (2018). Popularization of scientific discourses and penetration of informal elements.Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 6(2), 49-97.
Kuhi, D., &Alinejad, Y. (2015). Stephen Hawking’s community-bound voice: a functional investigation of self-mentions in Stephen Hawking’s scientific discourse. The journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(17), 82-99.
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages (pp. 87114). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in FinnishEnglish Economic texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 322.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English.In S. Hunston (Ed.) and G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McEnry, T., &Kifle, N. A. (2002).Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second language writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.) Academic discourse (pp. 182195). London, UK: Longman.
Mei, S. W., & Allison, D. (2005). Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments: aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 105-127.
Miller, C., &Charney, D. (2008).Persuasion, audience and argument. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: history, society, school, individual, text (pp. 583-598). London and New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Myers, G. (1994). Narratives of science and nature in popularizing molecular genetics.In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 179-190). London: Routledge.
Myers, G. (2001). “In my opinion”: The place of personal views in undergraduate essays. In M. Hewings (Ed.), Academic writing in context (pp. 6378). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press.
Nelson, N. (2008). The reading-writing nexus in discourse research. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: history, society, school, individual, text (pp. 435-449). London and New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J., Ahmed, U. K., Chang, Y., Chavez, D., Dressen, D. F., & Seymour, R. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 97121.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 58-78.
ThueVold, E. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and crossdisciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 6187.
VandeKopple, W. (1985).Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse.College Composition and Communication, 36, 8293.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yakhontova, T. (2002). ‘Selling’ or ‘telling’? The issue of cultural variation in research genres.In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 216-213). London: Longman. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 648 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 786 |
||