Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Comparative analysis of epistemic modal verbs in the three sub-corpora of humanities & social sciences

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 43 - 63, 27.02.2022

Pınar Karahan

https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1070806
Cited By: 1

Öz

In this study, the use of epistemic modality in the category of modal verbs was comparatively examined in the abstract and introduction sections of journal articles written in the discipline of Humanities & Social Sciences. For this purpose, the Corpus of Journal Articles (CJA) 2014, which is a collection of 760 articles from high-impact journals in 38 disciplines, was used. The Humanities & Social Sciences, within this Corpus, consists of 23 sub-disciplines. The articles written in the discipline of Humanities & Social Sciences have further been divided into three sub-corpora: Research articles, Review articles and Theoretical articles. The CJA 2014 corpus consists of 6,015,063 words in total. This study investigated in quantitative terms the frequency analysis of the modal verbs “could, may, might, should, will, would, couldn’t, wouldn’t, shouldn’t” for the above-stated three sub-corpora in the Humanities & Social Sciences discipline. Log-likelihood tests were performed to determine any significant differences among the three sub-corpora. Findings of the study indicated that the most frequently used modal verbs in both the abstract and introduction sections of the Research Articles sub-corpus are “may, will, should, could”; while the most frequently used modal verbs in the Theoretical sub-corpus are “would, will, may, should”. Lastly, the most frequently used modal verbs in the Review Articles sub-corpus are “may, will, should”. Qualitative examples from the corpora were also provided in the manuscript. This study is expected to have important implications for academic writing in English for different research disciplines and different types of articles.

Anahtar Kelimeler

academic writing epistemic modality modal verbs journal articles research disciplines

Kaynakça

  • Akbaş, E. (2014). Commitment-detachment and authorial presence in postgraduate academic writing: A comparative study of Turkish native speakers, Turkish speakers of English and English native speakers [Doctoral dissertation, University of York]. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/7083
  • Akbaş, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 831-859. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
  • Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144.
  • Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
  • Biber, D., Stig J. Geoffrey L., Susan C. and Edward F. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
  • Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310-331.
  • Chen, Y. and Baker, P. (2010) ‘Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing’. Language Learning and Technology 14(2), 30–49.
  • Chovanec, J. (2012) Written academic discourse in English: from local traditions to global outreach’. Brno Studies in English 38(2), 5–16.
  • Coates, J. (1983).The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
  • Collins, P. (2009) Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Doğan, Z. N., & Akbaş, E. (2021). An exploratory study of epistemic stance in results and discussion sections of medical research articles. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25(3), 1132-1150.
  • Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264.
  • Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2014). Stance markers. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 219-248). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edn.). London: Edward Arnold.
  • He, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of epistemic modality markers in Chinese research articles. In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics (pp. 199-208). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • Hewings, A., & Hewings, M. (2001). Anticipator ‘it’in academic writing: An indicator of disciplinary difference and developing disciplinary knowledge.
  • Hyland, K. (1995). The Author in the Text: Hedging Scientific Writing. Hong Kong papers in linguistics and language teaching, 18, 33-42.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
  • Hyland, K. (2004). A convincing argument: Corpus analysis and academic persuasion. Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics, 87-112.
  • Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
  • Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  • Hyland, Ken and Milton J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2), 185–205.
  • Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in English (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203930250
  • 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.
  • Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.
  • McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. Academic discourse, 182-195.
  • Mirahayuni, N. K. (2002) Investigating Textual Structure in Native and Non-native English Research Articles: Strategy Differences between English and Indonesian Writers, Unpublished PhD thesis. University of New South Wales, Australia.
  • Ngula, R. S. (2017). Epistemic modal verbs in research articles written by Ghanaian and international scholars: A corpus-based study of three disciplines.
  • Panocová, R. (2008). Expression of modality in biomedical texts. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 3(1), 82-90.
  • Poole, R., Gnann, A., & Hahn-Powell, G. (2019). Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A diachronic corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100784
  • Rizomilioti, V. (2008). Exploring epistemic modality in academic discourse using corpora’. Information Technology in Languages for Specific Purposes 7, 53–71.
  • Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for academic purposes, 7(1), 55-67.
  • Swales, J. M. (1990). Discourse analysis in professional contexts. Annual review of applied linguistics, 11, 103-114.
  • Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 250-263.
  • Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere]. https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/67148
  • Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for specific purposes, 20(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889- 4906(99)00029-0
  • Yang, A., Zheng, S., & Ge, G. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.00

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 43 - 63, 27.02.2022

Pınar Karahan

https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1070806
Cited By: 1

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Akbaş, E. (2014). Commitment-detachment and authorial presence in postgraduate academic writing: A comparative study of Turkish native speakers, Turkish speakers of English and English native speakers [Doctoral dissertation, University of York]. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/7083
  • Akbaş, E., & Hardman, J. (2018). Strengthening or weakening claims in academic knowledge construction: A comparative study of hedges and boosters in postgraduate academic writing. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 831-859. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.4.0260
  • Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144.
  • Biber, D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.05.001
  • Biber, D., Stig J. Geoffrey L., Susan C. and Edward F. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
  • Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310-331.
  • Chen, Y. and Baker, P. (2010) ‘Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing’. Language Learning and Technology 14(2), 30–49.
  • Chovanec, J. (2012) Written academic discourse in English: from local traditions to global outreach’. Brno Studies in English 38(2), 5–16.
  • Coates, J. (1983).The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
  • Collins, P. (2009) Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
  • Doğan, Z. N., & Akbaş, E. (2021). An exploratory study of epistemic stance in results and discussion sections of medical research articles. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25(3), 1132-1150.
  • Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243-264.
  • Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2014). Stance markers. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 219-248). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.012
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edn.). London: Edward Arnold.
  • He, Y., & Wang, H. (2013). A corpus-based study of epistemic modality markers in Chinese research articles. In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics (pp. 199-208). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • Hewings, A., & Hewings, M. (2001). Anticipator ‘it’in academic writing: An indicator of disciplinary difference and developing disciplinary knowledge.
  • Hyland, K. (1995). The Author in the Text: Hedging Scientific Writing. Hong Kong papers in linguistics and language teaching, 18, 33-42.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text & Talk, 18(3), 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
  • Hyland, K. (2004). A convincing argument: Corpus analysis and academic persuasion. Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics, 87-112.
  • Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
  • Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
  • Hyland, Ken and Milton J. (1997). Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2), 185–205.
  • Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in English (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203930250
  • 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.
  • Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for specific Purposes, 12(1), 3-22.
  • McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A. (2002). Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. Academic discourse, 182-195.
  • Mirahayuni, N. K. (2002) Investigating Textual Structure in Native and Non-native English Research Articles: Strategy Differences between English and Indonesian Writers, Unpublished PhD thesis. University of New South Wales, Australia.
  • Ngula, R. S. (2017). Epistemic modal verbs in research articles written by Ghanaian and international scholars: A corpus-based study of three disciplines.
  • Panocová, R. (2008). Expression of modality in biomedical texts. SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 3(1), 82-90.
  • Poole, R., Gnann, A., & Hahn-Powell, G. (2019). Epistemic stance and the construction of knowledge in science writing: A diachronic corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100784
  • Rizomilioti, V. (2008). Exploring epistemic modality in academic discourse using corpora’. Information Technology in Languages for Specific Purposes 7, 53–71.
  • Samraj, B. (2008). A discourse analysis of master's theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. Journal of English for academic purposes, 7(1), 55-67.
  • Swales, J. M. (1990). Discourse analysis in professional contexts. Annual review of applied linguistics, 11, 103-114.
  • Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 250-263.
  • Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse. Exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere]. https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/67148
  • Vassileva, I. (2001). Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for specific purposes, 20(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889- 4906(99)00029-0
  • Yang, A., Zheng, S., & Ge, G. (2015). Epistemic modality in English-medium medical research articles: A systemic functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 38, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.10.00
Toplam 38 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Alan Eğitimleri
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Pınar Karahan 0000-0002-1562-9085

Yayımlanma Tarihi 27 Şubat 2022
Gönderilme Tarihi 9 Şubat 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Karahan, P. (2022). Comparative analysis of epistemic modal verbs in the three sub-corpora of humanities & social sciences. International Journal of Educational Spectrum, 4(1), 43-63. https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1070806

Cited By

An Exploratory Study of Epistemic Modal Verbs in Results and Conclusions Sections of the Three Sub-corpora of Humanities & Social Sciences: Implications for L2 Academic Writing
International Journal of Educational Spectrum
https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.1122676
 Kapak Resmi İndir

465221.                    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTlHwNdlfMtYefP6zNuxzJ7qJa6QuTIBRTFBQ&usqp=CAU         by.png                            open-access-logo-png-transparent.png                                                                       

IJES has a DOI number obtained from Crossref, is protected under the Creative Commons (cc-by) licence, and provides open access.