ADJECTIVES IN THE EXPRESSION OF EPISTEMIC MODALITY IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS RESEARCH ARTICLES

Attapol Khamkhien

Abstract


Research in academic writing has shown that writers have a strong tendency to communicate their ideas interactively with readers. This study examines how professional writers use adjectives as part of interactional metadiscourse when writing research articles. A total of 255 research articles published in distinguished journals in the field of applied linguistics between 2015 and 2020 were systematically compiled and quantitatively and qualitatively analysed. The extent to which epistemic adjectives and typical phraseological patterns are used in research articles was investigated with the help of corpus linguistics methods, as was their epistemic strength indicated by writers. The interpersonal model of metadiscourse was used as the theoretical framework for the study. The findings suggest that the academic writing corpus, in essence, is interactionally oriented, while the use of adjectives as an epistemic modality reflects a methodical approach by article writers when presenting propositions and discussing their knowledge claims. This study provides a deeper understanding of these linguistic features to impact the reader. Pedagogically, the study can be useful for teaching academic writing to postgraduate students and help them and novice writers develop writing competency through epistemic devices, especially in research articles intended for publication.


Keywords


epistemic modality, adjectives, writing for publication, research articles

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 52(212), 1-15.

Abdi, R. (2011). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the differences across subsections. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16.

Ağçam, R. (2014). A corpus-based study on epistemic adjectives in academic English. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(12), 1230–1236.

Alotaibi, H. (2018). Metadiscourse in dissertation acknowledgments: Exploration of gender differences in EFL texts. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 899–916. http://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0247

Al-Shunnag, M. A. (2014). Stance in political discourse: Arabic translations of American newspaper opinion articles on the ‘Arab Spring’. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, The University of Salford.

Ardizzone, P., & Pennisi, G. A. (2012). Epistemic modality variation in community law journals. In S. M. Maci & M. Sala (Eds.), Genre variation in academic communication: Emerging disciplinary trends (pp. 153–174). Bergamo: CELSB.

Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31, 151-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055

Babaii, E., Atai, M. R., & Mohammadi, V. (2015). Stance in English research articles: Two disciplines of the same science. TELL, 9(1), 1-27.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.

Biber, D. (2004). Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5, 107-135. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.5.1.06bib

Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001

Bista, K. (2009). On ‘yes, we can’: Linguistic power and possibility. Journal of English for Specific Purpose, 3(24), 34- 50.

Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian speakers. Studies About Linguistics, 5, 1–7.

Blagojevic, S. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive study of academic articles written in English by English and Norwegian speakers. Studies About Linguistics, 5, 1–7.

Bogdanović, V., & Mirović, I. (2018). Young researchers writing in ESL and the use of metadiscourse: Learning the ropes. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 813–830. http://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0031

Brogaard, B., & Gatzia, D. (2017). Introduction: Epistemic modals, Topoi, 36(1), 127-130. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-016-9374-3

Çapar, M. (2014). A study on metadiscourse markers in research articles. Unpublished PhD thesis, Anadolu University.

Charles, M. (2000). The role of an introductory it pattern in constructing an appropriate academic persona. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives: Insights into EAP writing practice (pp. 45–59). CALS: The University of Reading.

Chen, H. I. (2010). Contrastive learner corpus analysis of epistemic modality and interlanguage pragmatic competence in L2 writing. Arizona working papers in SLA & teaching, 17, 27-51.

Chovanec, J. (2012). Written academic discourse in English: From local traditions to global outreach. Brno Studies in English, 38(2), 5–16. http://doi.org.10.5817/BSE2012-2-1

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). New York: Oxford University Press.

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in the Language and Conventions of Academic Discourse (pp. 45-68). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.

Del Saz-Rubio, M. (2011). A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of Agricultural Sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 30(4), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002

Fintel, K. von and Gillies, A. S. (2007). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford Studies in epistemology, 2 (pp. 32-62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.005

Flowerdew, J. (2013). Discourse in English language education. New York: Routledge.

Flowerdew, L. (1998). Corpus linguistic techniques applied to textlinguistics. System, 26, 541–552.

Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80125-8

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: What can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.002

Ghahremani Mina, K., & Biria, R. (2017). Exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in discussion sections of social and medical science articles. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(4), 11-29.

Giannoni, D. (2008). Medical writing at the periphery: The case of Italian journal editorials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.003

Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004

Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3). 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted... In this article I aim to do just that’: A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1207-1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.012

Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001

Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21 -44.

Hong, H. Q., & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing A corpus-based study. International Journal of corpus linguistics, 19(2), 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.2.03hon

Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and modality in English. London and New York: Longman.

Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2006). Evaluation in text. In K. Brown (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics Volume 4 (pp. 305-312). Oxford: Elsevier.

Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organisation in a sample of written academic discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 191-218). London: Routledge.

Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90033-3

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes, 13(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90004-3

Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145

Hyland, K. (2007). English for professional academic purposes: writing for scholarly publication. In D. Belcher (Ed.), Teaching language purposefully: English for specific purposes in theory and practice (pp. 1–27). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 116-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003

Hyland, K. (2012). English for academic purposes and discourse analysis. In: J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 412-423). London: Routledge.

Hyland, K. (2013). Metadiscourse. In K. Hyland (Ed.), Discourse studies reader: Essential excerpts (pp. 65–88). London: Bloomsbury.

Jalilifar, A., Hayati, S., & Don, A. (2018). Investigating metadiscourse markers in book reviews and blurbs: A study of interested and disinterested genres. Study About Languages, 33, 90-107.

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2015). Distinguishing textual features characterizing structural variation in research articles across three engineering sub-discipline corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 74-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.008

Kilgarriff, A., Rychlý, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). The Sketch Engine. In Proc Eleventh EURALEX International Congress. Lorient, France.

Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1, 7-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9

Kranich, S., & Gast, V. (2012). Explicitness of epistemic modal marking: Recent changes in British and American English Svenja. Paper presented at MIMS (Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies). Hamburg: Jena.

Lee, J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34.

Letsoela, P. M. (2013). Interacting with readers: Metadiscourse features in National University of Lesotho undergraduate students’ academic writing. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(6), 138. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i6.4012

Lin, L., & Evans, S. (2012). Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002

Loi, C. K., & Lim, J. M.-H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introduction. Discourse Studies, 15, 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612471476

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.

Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 142–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martinéz, I. A. (2005). Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 174–190.

Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., Teruya, K., & Lam, M. (2010). Key Terms in systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.

McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language

writers. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 182-195). London: Pearson Education Limited.

Molino, A. (2018). “What I’m speaking is almost English…”: A corpus-based study of metadiscourse in English-medium lectures at an Italian university. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18, 935–956. http://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0330

Moskowich, I., & Crespo, B. (2019). Arguments that could possibly be urged: Modal verbs and tentativeness in the Coruña corpus. Languages, 4(57), 1–12.

Mu, C., Zhang, L., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135-148.

Nartey, M., & Yankson, F. E. (2014). A semantic investigation into the use of modal auxiliary verbs in the manifesto of a Ghanaian political party. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(3), 21–304.

Ngula, R. S. (2015). Epistemic modality in social science research articles written by Ghanaian authors: A corpus-based study of disciplinary and native vs. non-native variations. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.

Ngula, R. S. (2017). Epistemic modal verbs in research articles written by Ghanaian and international scholars: A corpus-based study of three disciplines. Brno Studies in English, 43(2), 5–27. http://doi.org.10.5817/BSE2017-2-1

Orta, I. V. (2010). A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in business management research articles in English and Spainish. Ibérica, 19, 77-96.

Özdemir, N. O., & Longo, B. (2014). Metadiscourse use in thesis abstracts: A cross-cultural study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 59-63. http://doi.org.10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.011

Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rizomilioti, V. (2006). Exploring epistemic modality in academic discourse using corpora. Information Technology in Languages for Specific Purposes, 73, 53-71.

Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930-1995). English for Specific Purposes, 22, 223-247.

Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009

Siddique, A. R., Shah, S. K., & Ahmad, M. (2019). Modality in an autobiography ‘If I am assassinated’ by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in English and its Urdu translation. Revista Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores, 6, 1–36.

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tenuta, A. M., Oliveira, A. L. A., & Orfanó, B. M. (2015). How Brazilian learners express modality through verbs and adverbs in their writing: A corpus-based study on n-grams. DELTA, 31(2), 333–357.

Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58

Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Vande Kopple, W. J. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research on English Language, 1(2), 37-44.

Vandenhoek, T. (2018). Epistemic markers in NS and NNS academic writing. Journal of Academic Writing, 8(1), 72-91. http://doi.org:10.18552/joaw.v8i1.359

Varttala, T. (2003). Hedging in scientific research articles: A cross-disciplinary study. In: G. Cortese & P. Riley (Eds.) Domain-specific English: Textual practices across communities and classrooms (pp. 141-174). New York: Peter Lang.

Vold, E. T. (2006). Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 61-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x




DOI: https://doi.org/10.30743/ll.v5i2.4534

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Fakultas Sastra 
Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara (UISU), Medan
Jl. Sisingamangaraja Teladan Medan 20217
Telp. (061) 7869911, e-mail: language_literacy@sastra.uisu.ac.id