A Comparative Study on Promotion of Modal Adjuncts in Research Article Introductions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1302.22Keywords:
research article introductions, interpersonal metafunction, modal adjuncts, create a research spaceAbstract
Promotion is a major strategy in Research article introductions (RAIs) to attract reader's attention and gain recognition. Building on previous researches that suggest promotion in RAIs could be realized by different kinds of linguistic elements and rhetoric structures, this study collected 100 SCI RAIs in the discipline of computer science as data and explored the promotion realized by interpersonal metafunction and rhetoric structure of modal adjuncts. Meanwhile, in order to identify if there are differences and similarities of promotion between Chinese EFL RAIs (English RAIs written by Chinese scholars) and English L1 RAIs (English RAIs written by English and American scholars), this study quantified lexical features by examining lexical density, lexical variety and position of modal adjuncts. Results showed that the modal adjuncts could realize promotion through varying interpersonal metafunctions (temporality, modality, intensity and comment) and the model of Create a Research Space (CARS). However, more comprehensive promotion was realized in English L1 RAIs through interpersonal metafunction conveyed by more frequent, more kinds of and more positions of modal adjuncts. Besides, this study also verified that modal adjuncts were encoded of CARS to realize promotion in both Chinese EFL RAIs and English L1 RAIs in the same way because of the same strategies (familiarity and logic) and similar linguistic features. These results are discussed in terms of "constraint communication", and discipline background drawn on for knowledge claims in same and different types of academic writing of promotion between Chinese EFL RAIs and English L1 authors.
References
Abdollahzadeh E. (2011). Poring over the findings: interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288-297.
Afros E, & Schryer C F. (2009). Promotional (meta) discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28(1), 58-68.
An Y, Zheng S Y, & Ge G C. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1-10.
Bazerman C. (1981). What written knowledge does: three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 361-388.
Bazerman C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Berkenkotter C, & Huckin T N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bhatia V K. (1993). Analysing genre: language use in professional settings. Pearson Education.
Bhatia V K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse. Continuum.
Bizzell P. (1992). Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. University of Pittsburg Press.
Bodde B. (1991). Chinese Thought, Society and Science: The Intellectual and Social Background of Science and Technology in Pre-modern China. University of Hawaii Press.
Chang C G. (2008). An exploration of modal adjuncts as evaluation. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 1, 11-13.
Cruttenden A. (1997). Inotonation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: the universities. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133-168.
Galtung J. (1981). Structure, culture, and intellectual style: an essay comparing saxonic, teutonic, gallic and nipponic approaches. Social Science Information, 20, 817–856.
Gillaerts P, & Van de Velde F (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.
Gras P, Galiana P & Rosado E. (2021). Modal and Discourse Marking in L1 & L2 Spanish: A Comparative Analysis of Oral Narratives. Corpus Pragmatics, 5(1), 63-94.
Halliday M A K. (2008). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). Edward Arnold.
Hawes T, & Thomas S. (2012). Theme choice in EAP and media language. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(3), 175-183.
Hu G, & Cao F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809.
Hyland K. (1999). Academic attribution: citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-367.
Hyland K. (1996). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24, 477-490.
Hyland K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: reporting practices in academic writing. In J Flowerdew (Eds.), Academic discourse, (pp. 115-130). Longman.
Hyland K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. NY: Continuum.
Lanstyák I, & Heltai P. (2012). Universals in language contact and translation. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(1), 99-121.
Ma J, & Qi Y W. (2016). Persuasive models analysis in research article introductions. Foreign Language Education, 37(6), 32-36.
Martin J R, & White P R R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mu C, Zhang L J, & Ehrich J, et al. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148.
Pan F, Reppen R, & Biber D. (2016). Comparing patterns of L1 versus L2 English academic professionals: Lexical bundles in Telecommunications research journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 60-71.
Peng K, & Nisbett R E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.
Shaw P. (2003). Evaluation and promotion across languages. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 343-357.
Shaw P, Kuteeva M, & Okamura A. (2014). Submission letters for academic publication: Disciplinary differences and promotional language. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 106-117.
Swales J M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales J M. (2004) Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tweed R G. & Lehman D R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57, 89–99.
Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129-148.
Wood A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71-83). Cambridge University Press.
Xu X, & Nesi H. (2019). Differences in engagement: A comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 121-134.
Yang W. (2016). Evaluative language and interactive discourse in journal article highlights. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 89-103.
