A cross-disciplinary study of verb boosters in research articles from engineering, medicine and linguisticsfrequency and co-text variations

  1. Skorczynska, Hanna 1
  2. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa 1
  1. 1 Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, España
Journal:
Revista signos: estudios de lingüística

ISSN: 0035-0451,  0718-0934

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 54

Issue: 106

Pages: 575-599

Type: Article

DOI: 10.4067/S0718-09342021000200575 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista signos: estudios de lingüística

Abstract

The present study looks into the variations in the frequencies and pragmatic functions of the metadiscourse markers known as boosters, and in particular, with regard to their verb forms. Three corpora have been compiled to this end, covering the fields of engineering, medicine and linguistics. The corpora were manually annotated for metadiscourse markers, boosters included, by a group of annotators. A predetermined list was used for annotation, but throughout the annotation process the list was modified to better reflect the use of metadiscourse in the corpora. The raw count of the occurrences of verb boosters shows clear differences between the corpora, which in turn confirms previous studies of this type. However, the range of verbs identified was very similar, pointing to a large overlap among the three. The three top frequency verb boosters also showed a clear overlap for engineering and medicine, but revealed considerable differences with linguistics. This study has been conducted within a research project financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (FFI2016-77941-P).

Bibliographic References

  • Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
  • Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016). A contrastive study of interactive metadiscourse in academic papers written in English and in Spanish. In F. Almeida, L. Cruz García & V. González Ruiz (Eds.), Corpus-based studies on language varieties. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019a). Authorial engagement in business emails. In C. Sancho Guinda (Ed.), Engagement in Professional Genres (pp. 47-65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019b). Do writers express the same attitude in historical genres? A contrastive analysis of attitude devices in the Corpus of History English Texts. In I. Moskowic, E. Sánchez Barreiro, I. Lareo & P. Lojo Sandino (Eds.), Writing history in Late Modern English. Explorations of the Coruña Corpus (pp. 237-259). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Gillaerts, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.
  • 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(3), 343-375.
  • Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-65
  • 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, 2795-2809.
  • Hunston, S. (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (Ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice (pp. 57-73). London and New York: Pinter Publishers.
  • Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text. Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hyland, K. (1997). Scientific claims and community values: Articulating an academic culture, Language and Communication, 17(1), 19-31.
  • Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge, Text, 18(3), 349-82.
  • Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-55.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  • Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29.
  • Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.
  • Hyland, K. & Jiang, E. K. (2018). In this paper we suggest: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30.
  • Moya, P. & Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2018a). Estrategias de intensificación en los comentarios digitales sobre noticias. Spanish in Context, 15(3), 369-391.
  • Moya, P. & Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2018b). Análisis comparativo de los marcadores de compromiso en los comentarios sobre noticias digitales en España y Chile. Onomázein. Revista de lingüística, filología y traducción. Special issue, 4, 26-48.
  • Moya, P. & Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2018c). La atenuación en los comentarios sobre las noticias digitales en periódicos de España y Chile. Onomázein. Revista de lingüística, filología y traducción, 40, 56-76.
  • Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079.
  • Myers, F. (1989). The language politicians use, (review of The Language of Politics by M. L. Geis, 1987). World Englishes, 8(2), 243-246.
  • Peacock, M. (2006). A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora, 1(1), 61-84.
  • Qin, W. & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22-39.
  • Rundbald, G. (2007). Impersonal, general, and social: The use of metonymy versus passive voice in medical discourse. Written Communication, 24(3), 250-277.
  • Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-170.
  • Skelton, A. (1997). Studying hidden curricula: Developing a perspective in the light of postmodern insights. Curriculum Studies, 5(2), 177-193.
  • Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 20(1), 83-102.
Data source: Dialnet