See current and past issues in our e-shop
Enter e-shop
LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2020 (30) 2
ABSTRACT (en)
This study considers the behaviour of one specific stance adverb, indeed. In a previous analysis of scientific texts, indeed was found to be one of the most frequently used adverbs in the expression of emphatic standpoint evincing authorial presence (Moskowich and Crespo 2014). Also noted was its differing use by male and female writers, as well as differences according to genre and the geographical provenance of authors. My aim in the present study is to see whether such behaviour of indeed is also found in non-scientific texts, and if so to what extent. The analysis will include both scientific and non-scientific texts from the nineteenth century, a period in which the general fixation of English in its contemporary form had already taken place. The initial hypothesis is that authors of scientific texts tended to express themselves with more caution, even tentativeness, in comparison to authors writing less “impersonal” texts. External factors might also lead to identifiable variations in use in scientific writing, these including the sex of the speaker, plus his or her self-confidence as a writer. Such factors will be used as variables in the analysis. Data for scientific writing will be drawn from the Corpus of English Texts on Astronomy (CETA) and the Corpus of History English Texts (CHET); the Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE) will be used for non-scientific texts.
KEYWORDS (en)
corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, Late Modern period, scientific English, stance
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2020.2.5
REFERENCES
Adams, H. and E. Quintana-Toledo (2013) Adverbial Stance Marking in the Introduction and Conclusion Sections of Legal Research Articles. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 8, 13–22.
Allen, B., J. Qin and F. W. Lancaster (1994) Persuasive Communities: A Longitudinal Analysis of References in the Philosophical¨Transactions of the Royal Society, 1665–1990. Social Studies of Science 24/2, 279–310.
Bazerman, C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge. The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Biber, D. and E. Finegan (1988) Adverbial Stance Types in English. Discourse Processes 1, 1–34.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Longman.
Busse, B. (2012) Historical Text Analysis: Underlying Parameters and Methodological Procedures. In: Ender, A., A. Leemann and B. Wälchli (eds) Methods in Contemporary Linguistics, 285–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Conrad, S. and D. Biber (1999) Adverbial Marking of Stance in Speech and Writing. In: Hunston, S. and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in text. Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–73. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chafe, W. (1986) Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. In: Chafe, W. and J. Nichols (eds) The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 261–272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gray, B., D. Biber and T. Hiltunen (2011) The Expression of Stance in Early (1665–1712) Publications of the Philosophical Transactions and Other Contemporary Medical Prose: Innovations in a Pioneering Discourse. In: Taavitsainen, I. and P. Pahta (eds) Medical Writing in Early Modern English, 221–247. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. (1994) Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse. In: Coulthard, M. (ed) Advances in Written Text Analysis, 191–218. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2004) Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13/2, 133–151.
Hyland, K. (2005) Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies 7/2, 173–192.
Hyland, K. and P. Tse (2004) Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25/2, 156–177.
Hyland, K. and P. Tse (2005) Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 24/2, 123–139.
Jensen, T. (2015) Investigating the Passions of Persuasion. Newsletter Autzen House. Oregon State University: The Center for the Humanities. Available at: https://humanities.oregonstate.edu/investigating-passionspersuasion [last accessed 22 November 2016].
Millward, C. M. and M. Hayes (2012) A Biography of the English Language. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Moskowich, I. (2012) CETA as a Tool for the Study of Modern Astronomy in English. In: Moskowich, I. and B. Crespo (eds) Astronomy ‘playne and simple’: The Writing of Science between 1700 and 1900, 35–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Moskowich, I. (2017) Pronouns as Stance Markers in the Coruña Corpus: An Analysis of the CETA, CEPhiT and CHET. In: AlonsoAlmeida, F. (ed.) Stancetaking in Late Modern English scientific writing: Evidence from the Coruña Corpus, 73–92. Valencia: Universitat Politècnica de Valencia.
Moskowich, I. and B. Crespo (2014) Stance is Present in Scientific Writing, Indeed: Evidence from the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Token: A Journal of English Linguistics 3, 91–114.
Moskowich, I. and B. Crespo (2016) Classifying Communicative Formats in CHET, CECHeT and Others. EPiC Series in Language and Linguistics 1, 308–320.
Oxford English Dictionary Online (2009) Oxford: Oxford UP. Available at: https://www.oed.com [last accessed 28 November 2016].
Seoane, E. (2016) Authorial Presence in Late Modern English Philosophical Writing: Evidence from CEPhiT. In: Moskowich, I., G. Camiña-Rioboo, I. Lareo and B. Crespo (eds) The Conditioned and the Unconditioned. A Corpus of English Philosophy Texts, 123–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shuttleworth, S. and B. Charnley (2016) From Science Periodicals in the Nineteenth and Twenty-First Centuries. Notes and Records 70, 297–304.
Simpson, R. (2004) Stylistic Features of Academic Speech: The Role of Formulaic Expressions. In: Connor, U. and T. A. Upton (eds) Discourse in the Professions. Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics, 37–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
