A Comparative Analysis of Epistemic and Root Modality in Two selected English Books in the Field of Applied Linguistics Written by English Native and Iranian Non-native Writers

Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی

مینو  شاه محمدی ¹ (Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)
ناصر  غفوری ² (Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)

Received: 2017-04-08 Accepted : 2019-04-08 Published : 2017-03-21

Keywords: academic writing, Discourse Analysis, epistemic modality, root modality,

Abstract :

Academic discourse has always been the focus of many linguists, especially those who have been involved with English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and discourse analysis. Persuasion, as part of rhetorical structure of academic writing, is partly achieved by employing modality markers. Adopting a descriptive design, the present study was carried out to compare the use of modality markers in terms of frequency and their categorical distribution in two academic books, written in English, in the field of Applied Linguistics by native English and non-native Iranian authors. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik’s (1985) model of modality was employed as an analytical framework to identify the type of modal verbs. The frequency of different types of modal verbs was calculated per 100000 words and the significance of difference in their distribution was checked through Chi-square nonparametric inferential statistics. The results of the statistical analyses did not show any significant difference in the overall distribution of modality (both epistemic and root) markers. However, significant differences were observed in the categorical distributions of modal verbs in two corpora. The results were attributed to the non-native writers’ lack of awareness of the conventional rules of English rhetoric, and the lack of explicit instruction in this field. The findings could offer pedagogical implications for those involved in syllabus design and materials development in general and English writing courses in particular.

References:

References

Adejare, R. A. (2014). The manifestation of mood and modality in texts. English Linguistics Research, 3 (1),18-27.

Ahangari, S., & Zafarani, K. (2010) .Comparative analysis of metafunctions across English and Persian advertisement.  37^th International Systemic Functional Congress. University of British Columbia: Vancouver, Canada

Alaei, M., Agha Golzade, F., Dabir Moghadam, M., & Golfam, A. (2010). Studying meaning exchange in humanity science textbooks on the basis of Hallidayan Systemic Functional Grammar from aspect of interpersonal metafunction. Journal of Persian Language and Literature Studies, 17, 211-228.

Assadi Aidinlou, N., &Mohammadpour, S. (2012). An investigation of epistemic modality in literary texts. International   Journals of Social Science and Education, 2(4), 729-737.

AssadiAidinlou, N., & Mohammadpour, S. (2013).  A comparative study of the textualization of modality in English legal and medical academic journals from the systemic functional linguistic perspective. (Unpublished M.A. thesis). Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch.

  

Candlin, C. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin, & D. Murphy (eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). Englewood Cliffs N. J. Prentice Hall International

Celce- Murcia, M. (Ed.). (1991). Teaching English as second or foreign language. Boston, U.S.: Heinle

Coates, J. (1993). The semantics of modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Hel.

Duszak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural academic communication: A discourse community views. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Trends in linguistics: studies and monographs (pp. 11-39).Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2^nded).London: Edward Arnold

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kroll, B. (1997). Toefl 2000. Writitng composition, community and assessment. Cambridge: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London continuum.

Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6 (2), 183-205.

Karkkainen, E. (1992). Modality as a strategy in interaction: Epistemic modality in the language of native and non-native speakers of English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 197-216.   

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (2^nded). London and New York: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, M. (2001). Discourse. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 48-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.          

Nabifar, N. & Pooyafar, F. (2014). Epistemic modality in native and non-native M. A. TEFL theses. (Unpublished M.A. thesis). Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch.         

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 Spanish.  Iberica, 19, 77-95. 

Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of English language. London: Longman

 

Rubin, V. R. (2010). Epistemic modality: From uncertainty to certainty in the context of information seeking as interactions with texts. Information Processing and Management, 46, 533–540.

Schoonen, R., Geldern, A. V., Glopper, K., Hulstine, J., Simis, A., Snelling, P., Stevenson M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165-202.

Vázquez, I., & Giner, D. (2008). Beyond mood and modality: Epistemic modality markers and hedges in research articles: A cross-disciplinary study.  Revista Alicantina de Studio Ingleses, 21, 171–190

 Wang, J. (2010). ACritical discourse analysis of Barack Obama‟s Speeches. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 254-261.

 Ye, R. (2010). The Interpersonal metafunction analysis of Barack Obama's victory speech. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 146-151.