Aktuální i starší čísla naleznete v našem e-shopu
Vstoupit do eshopu
>LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2023 (33) 2
ABSTRACT (en)
This article investigates writer-reader interaction in L2 (Czech) learner academic discourse with a specific focus on reader engagement in English-medium Master’s theses in the humanities. The study draws on Hyland and Jiang’s (2016) model of engagement. It aims to reveal how Czech graduates use features of engagement (such as reader reference, appeals to shared knowledge, directives and questions) to establish solidarity with readers by acknowledging their presence and negotiating potential alternative views. The contrastive corpus-based analysis compares a corpus of Czech English-medium Master’s theses with two reference L1 corpora representing learner and published academic discourse to explore the impact of linguacultural background, expertise and discipline on the frequency of use and functions of engagement markers. The findings suggest notable variations in the realization patterns and functions of engagement markers across the corpora. It is observed that Czech graduates tend to underuse reader reference and questions, while overusing directives. Moreover, they generally struggle to approximate disciplinary patterns of engagement markers. This trend might reflect students’ limited awareness of academic rhetorical conventions, their efforts to blend L1 and L2 academic norms, and the unique context of addressing an audience within the examination framework of the Master’s thesis.
KEYWORDS (en)
academic discourse, intercultural rhetoric, Master’s thesis, metadiscourse, reader engagement
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2023.2.2
REFERENCES
Bennett, K. (2009) English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8, 43–54. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003.
Brown, G. and S. C. Levinson (1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Çandarli, D., Y. Yasemin Bayyurt and L. Marti (2015) Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and crosscultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20, 192–202. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001.
Čmejrková, S. and F. Daneš (1997) Academic writing and cultural identity: The case of Czech academic writing. In: Duzsak, A. (ed) Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse, 40–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110821048.41.
Connor, U. and A. Moreno (2005) Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In: Bruthiaux, P., D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe and V. Ramanathan (eds) Directions in applied linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan. Multilingual Matters, 153–164. England: Clevedon.
Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (2014) The changing face of Czech academic discourse. In: Bennett, K. (ed) The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing, 39–61. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137351197_3.
Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (2016) Rhetorical functions of citations in linguistics research articles: A contrastive (English-Czech) study. Discourse and Interaction 9/2, 51–74.
Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (2020) Persuasion in academic discourse: Metadiscourse as a means of persuasion in Anglophone and Czech linguistics and economics research articles. In: Persuasion in specialised discourses. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-58163-3_3.
Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (2021) Engaging with the reader in research articles in English: Variation across disciplines and linguacultural backgrounds. English for Specific Purposes 63, 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. esp.2021.02.003.
Dontcheva-Navrátilová, O. (forthcoming) Academic writing conventions in Czech English-medium linguistics journals: Continuity and change over the last 30 years.
Flowerdew, L. (2015) Using corpus-based research and online academic corpora to inform writing of the discussion section of a thesis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 20, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeap.2015.06.001.
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, 343–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/ applin/ami012.
Ho, V. and C. Li (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jslw.2016.06.004.
Hyland, K. (2001) Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication 18/4, 549–74. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005.
Hyland, K. (2002a) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1091–1112. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8.
Hyland, K. (2002b) What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text 32/4, 529–557. https://doi.org/10.1515/ text.2002.021.
Hyland, K. (2002c) Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 23/2, 216–239. https://doi. org/10.1093/applin/23.2.215.
Hyland, K. (2005a) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: 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, K. (2008) Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. IJES 8/2, 1–23. https://doi. org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151.
Hyland, K. and K. Jiang (2016) “We must conclude that…”: A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24, 29–42. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003.
Kilgarriff, A., P. Rychlý, P. Smrž, and D. Tugwell (2004) The Sketch Engine. In: Proc Eleventh EURALEX International Congress. Lorient: France.
Kozubíková Šandová, J. (2019) Proměny českého akademického diskurzu během posledních padesáti let. [Changing Czech academic discourse in the past 50 years]. Časopis pro moderní filologii 101, 54–71.
Lafuente-Millán, E. (2014) Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 24, 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12019.
Lee, J. J. and J. E. Casal (2014) Metadiscourse in results and discussion chapters: A crosslinguistic analysis of English and Spanish thesis writers in engineering. System 46, 39–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2014.07.009.
Lee, J. J. and L. Deakin (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. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004.
Li, Q. and X. Zhang (2021) An analysis of citations in Chinese English-major Master’s theses and doctoral dissertations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 51, 1–14.
Liu, G. and J. Zhang, (2022) Interactional metadiscourse and author identity construction in academic theses. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13/6, 1313–1323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/ jltr.1306.20.
Malá, M. (2022) Hedging like a professional: A corpus-driven approach to interactional metadiscourse in English learner academic writing. In: Hůlková, I., R. Povolná and R. Vogel (eds) Patterns and variation in English language discourse. 9th Brno conference on linguistics studies in English, 72–86. Brno: Masaryk University. https://doi.org/10.5817/ CZ.MUNI.P280-0212-2022-5.
Myers, G. (1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1.
Park, H. I. and S. Lee (2022) Interactional metadiscourse in English teaching articles: A diachronic perspective (1980–2021). English Teaching 77/2, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.15858 / engtea.77.2.202206.3
Qiu, X. and X. Ma (2019) Disciplinary enculturation and authorial stance: Comparison of stance features among master’s dissertations, doctoral theses, and research articles. Iberica 38, 327–348.
Rayson, P., Berridge, D., and B. Francis (2004) Extending the Cochran rule for the comparison of word frequencies between corpora. In: Purnelle, G., C. Fairon and A. Dister (eds) Le poids des mots: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Statistical analysis of textual data (JADT 2004), 926–936. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
Samraj, B. (2008) A discourse analysis of Master’s theses across disciplines with a focus on introductions. English for Academic Purposes 7, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeap.2008.02.005.
Sudková, M. (2012) Vyjadřování interpersonální funkce v českých a anglických odborných textech. Kontrastivní studie. [The expression of interpersonal metadiscourse in Czech and English Academic texts. A contrastive study]. Časopis pro moderní filologii 94/1, 31–42.
Swales, J. (2004). Research Genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827.
Swales, J., U. K. Ahmad, Y.-Y. Chang, D. Chavez, D. Dressen, and R. Seymour (1998) Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics 19/1, 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.97.
Tang, R. and S. John (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes 18, 23–39. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5.
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.
Thompson, G. and P. Thetela (1995) The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 15/1, 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1515/ text.1.1995.15.1.103.
Tribble, C. (2002) Corpora and corpus analysis: new windows on academic writing. In: J. Flowerdew (ed.) Academic discourse, 131–149. London: Longman.
Yoon, H.-J. and U. Römer (2020) Quantifying disciplinary voices: An automated approach to interactional metadiscourse in successful student writing. Written Communication 37/2, 208–244.
Vassileva, I. (1998) Who am I/who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8/2, 163–192. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1998.tb00128.x.
Wang, J. and L. Zeng (2021) Disciplinary recognized self-presence: Self-mention used with hedges and boosters in PhD students’ research writing. SAGE Open, 11/2, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211005454.
Wu, B. and B. Paltridge (2021) Stance expressions in academic writing: A corpusbased comparison of Chinese students’ MA dissertations and PhD theses. Lingua 253, 103071, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lingua.2021.103071.
Zhao, C. G. (2012) Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing 30/2, 201–230.
Zhao, Y. and J. Liu (2021) A developmental view of authorial voice construction in master’s thesis: A case study of two novice L2 writers. SAGE Open 11/4, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1177/21582440211054483.
