A Corpus-based Analysis of Epistemic Stance Adverbs in Essays Written by Native English Speakers and Iranian EFL Learners
محورهای موضوعی : language teachingامیر سبزوار 1 , حمیدرضا حق وردی 2 , رضا بی ریا 3
1 - گروه انگلیسی، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اصفهان، ایران
2 - گروه انگلیسی، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اصفهان، ایران
3 - گروه انگلیسی، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اصفهان، ایران
کلید واژه: EFL learners, Corpus analysis, Academic essay, BAWE, epistemic adverbs, stance,
چکیده مقاله :
Academic essays entail taking a stance on the truth value of propositions. Epistemic adverbs deal with the speaker's assessment of the truth value of propositions. Employing a corpus-based approach with descriptive statistics and qualitative description, this study explored the use of epistemic stance adverbs in academic essays written by native English speakers and Iranian EFL learners. Following Biber et al.'s (1999) framework of stance adverbials, the researchers employed a corpus of 62077 words taken from class assignments written by Iranian EFL learners and a corpus of 65268 words taken from British Academic Written English (BAWE) to investigate the use of epistemic stance adverbs. Antconc software 3.4.3 version was used to search the most frequent stance adverbs. Frequency counts for each of the adverbs were extracted and normalized per 1000 words; then, Chi-square was run to pinpoint any differences between the two groups. The findings revealed both similarities and differences in the use of stance adverbs between the two groups. For example, EFL writers used more confident adverbs to show their authorial presence while native speakers used more maybe adverbs which are less authority-oriented. The findings may have implications for second/foreign language learners and writing instruction.
مقالات علمی جولانگاهی برای بیان موضع پیرامون صدق یک قضیه است. در این پژوهش موارد استفاده از قیدهای بیان دیدگاه در مقالات علمی زبان آموزان ایرانی و انگلیسی زبانان مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. با استفاده از چارچوب بایبر و همکاران (1991) در خصوص قیدهای بیان دیدگاه ، محققین در یک پیکره متشکل از 62077 کلمه برگرفته ازتکالیف نوشتاری زبان آموزان ایرانی و یک پیکره 65268 کلمه ای برگرفته از متون آکادمیک انگلیسی باو کاربرد قیود بیان دیدگاه را مورد بررسی قرار دادند. جهت جستجوی متداولترین قیود از نرم افزار انت کانک نسخه 3.4.3 استفاده شد.بدین منظور تعداد تکرار هر یک از قیدها استخراج و بر اساس هزار کلمه نرمال شد و سپس از آزمون مربع کای جهت مشخص نمودن تفاوت میان دو پیکره استفاده شد. یافته ها از وجود تفاوتها و شباهتهایی مابین دو پیکره حکابت می کرد. زبان آموزان ایرانی بیشتر از قیدهای بیان اطمینان برای نشان دادن دیدگاه خود استفاده کردند در حالی که انگلیسی زبانان بیشتر از قیدهای بیان عدم اطمینان در نوشته های خود استفاده کردند. یافته های این تحقیق می تواند برای زبان آموزان ایرانی و همچنین آموزش نگارش در بردارنده جنبه های کاربردی باشد.
Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288-297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
Adams, H., & Quintana-Toledo, E. (2013). Adverbial stance marking in the introduction and conclusion sections of legal research articles. Revista de lingüística y lenguas aplicadas, 8(1), 13-22. doi:doi:https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2013.1028
Ahmad, U., & Mehrjooseresht, M. (2012). Stance Adverbials in Engineering Thesis Abstracts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 29-36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.244
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4. 3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written communication, 31(2), 151-183.
Auría, M. C. P.-L. (2008). Stance and Academic Promotionalism: a Cross-disciplinary Comparison in the Soft Sciences. Atlantis, 30(1), 129-145.
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97-116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse processes, 11(1), 1-34.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text-interdisciplinary journal for the study of discourse, 9(1), 93-124.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman London.
Cakir, H. (2016). Native and Non-Native Writers' Use of Stance Adverbs in English Research Article Abstracts. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6(12).Retrievedfrom//www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=65455doi:10.4236 /ojml.2016.62008
Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (Vol. 20). Ablex Publishing Corporation Norwood NJ.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 27(3), 497-544.
Fløttum, K. (2006). Medical research articles in the comparative perspectives of discipline and language. In F. Salager-Meyer & M. Gotti (eds.), Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts (pp.251-269). Bern: Peter Lang
Halliday, M. A., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar third edition. London: Edward Arnold.
Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing: University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Oxford University Press, UK.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles. Applied linguistics, 17(4), 433-454. doi:10.1093/applin/17.4.433
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and Engagement in Academic Writing. Applied linguistics, 23(2), 215-239. doi:10.1093/applin/23.2.215
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing. Journal of second language writing, 6(2), 183-205. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123-139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002
Kuhi, D., Azar, S., Shomoossi, A., & Shomoossi, N. (2012). Interaction markers in the written output of learners of English: the case of gender. Journal of Education, 1(2), 79-90.
Martínez, 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(3), 174-190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.06.001
Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2003). Appraisal: Negotiating attitudes. In JR Martin & D. Rose (eds), Working with discourse: meaning beyond the clause (pp. 22–65). Continuum: London.
McGrath, L., & Kuteeva, M. (2012). Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices. English for Specific Purposes, 31(3), 161-173. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002
Millan, E. L. (2008). Epistemic and Approximative Meaning Revisited: The use of hedges boosters and approximators when writing research in different disciplines. English as an additional language in research publication and communication, 61, 65.
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. Ibérica, Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos(19), 77-95.
Rozumko, A. (2017). Adverbs of certainty in a cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective: English-Polish. Languages in Contrast, 16(2), 239-263. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.2.04roz
Sameri, M., & Tavangar, M. (2013). Epistemic Modality in Academic Discourse: A Cross-Linguistic and Cross. The Iranian EFL Journal, 15(1), 127-147
Sayah, L., & Hashemi, M. R. (2014). Exploring Stance and Engagement Features in Discourse Analysis Papers. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 4(3),593-601.
Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 251-265. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Aijmer, K. (2007). The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs (Vol. 56): Walter de Gruyter.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Then and now: A reconsideration of the first corpus of scientific English. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE)(8), 5-21.
Taki, S., & Jafarpour, F. (2012). Engagement and stance in academic writing: A study of English and Persian research articles. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 157-168.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 58-78. doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.58
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2006.00106.x
Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
