Article

A Comparative Study on Epistemic Modality in Linguistic Research Article Conclusions

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

Epistemic modality is an important and complex linguistic device in academic writing, which could help authors state their claims and positions. The conclusion is also a critical part in research articles, where authors summarize their studies and give suggestions. Many scholars study modality in many aspects, but they rarely focus on its application in research article conclusions. Therefore, this study compared the use of modality in 25 conclusions of linguistic research papers written by native English speakers and 25 English conclusions written by Chinese authors from a systemic functional perspective. It focused on the similarities and differences of the use of modality in linguistic research article conclusions from two perspectives: value and orientation. The results show that both native English speakers and Chinese authors are more likely to rely on low and median value and subjective orientation in their conclusions. The findings suggest that linguistic research article authors tend to make claims in a reserved and tentative way. Moreover, this study shows that Chinese authors are more likely to employ modal expressions and subjective orientation of modality in their conclusions, which may relate to cultural diversity and modality shift. The findings of the study may help non-native English authors to produce linguistic research articles in a more acceptable way.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

Article
This study examined the pragmatic functions of hedging strategies used by the Federal Reserve System (Fed) Chair during press conferences. The Fed’s significant influence on U.S. monetary policy and global financial markets makes its communication methods crucial yet linguistically underexplored. This study employed a mixed-methods approach to examine the frequency and types of hedges, their situational usage, and pragmatic functions. The findings revealed a notable use of approximators and shields to adapt to the complexities of financial communication, with adaptors and plausibility shields being the most common. The Fed Chair employed hedging strategies to address sensitive economic issues, uncertain policies, and matters affecting financial markets and public perception. These hedging strategies were used to mitigate potential criticism, enhance flexibility, soften the tone, maintain credibility, ensure effective information delivery, and improve politeness. The study contributed to the understanding of linguistic hedging strategies in financial communication and underscored the strategic use of language in economic policy-making and financial stability.
Article
Full-text available
The epistemic use of the modal element yào in Mandarin Chinese comes with typologically rare properties. First and foremost, epistemic yào is restricted to occur in explicit strict comparative constructions and is disallowed in other degree constructions or non-degree constructions. No modals have been documented in prior literature of Chinese linguistics or general linguistics to manifest such a restrictive distribution. Second, epistemic yào manifests flexibility with respect to where it can appear in certain explicit strict comparative constructions, and it allows multiple occurrences in certain contexts. Third, epistemic yào carries a quantificational force stronger than that of existential modals, yet weaker than that of strong necessity modals. I propose that epistemic yào is an adjunct modifier for strict comparative morphemes, thus setting it apart from epistemic modals that take propositions as their arguments. The weak necessity quantificational force of epistemic yào is encoded in its semantics by making recourse to alternative modal bases, which represents an innovative approach to capturing weak necessity. Through investigating epistemic yào, I hope to bring to the forefront some hitherto unnoticed interesting properties in natural language modality and reveal new intra- and inter-linguistic variations in the distribution and interpretation of modal elements.
Article
Full-text available
Central to argumentative writing is the proper use of epistemic devices (EDs), which distinguish writers’ opinions from facts and evaluate the degree of certainty expressed in their statements. Important as these devices are, they turn out to constitute a thorny area for non-native speakers (NNS). Previous research indicates that Chinese EFL learners differ significantly from the native speakers (NS) in marking epistemic modality. One problem of previous studies is that the essay topics are not well controlled, which makes it somewhat ambiguous as to whether the observed linguistic discrepancies are caused by the NNS/NS difference or by the topic differences. This paper sets out to explore much more comparable data from International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE). The results show that while both NS group and NNS groups are heavily dependent on a restricted range of items, the manipulation of epistemic modality is particularly problematic for the L2 students who employ syntactically simpler constructions and rely on a more limited range of devices, as already discovered in the previous studies. Nevertheless, this study also shows that the most proficient L2 students modify their statements with less certainty markers and more tentative expressions than do their L1 counterparts, and that all learner groups, regardless of their overall language proficiency, use less boosters than L1 writers, which is in sharp contrast with previous studies. The ability to mark epistemic modality has much to do with L2 proficiency. While lower-band students exhibit a heavy reliance on a narrower range of items for strong assertions, higher-band students tend to be more tentative and demonstrate a more native-like use of some Eds. The observed patterns are explained in the light of the inherent properties of English EDs, the imperfect modal instruction and learner factors.
Article
Full-text available
Academic Writing in a Global Context addresses the issue of the pressure on academics worldwide to produce their work in English in scholarly publishing, and why the growth of the use of academic English matters. Drawing on an eight year ‘text-ethnographic’ study of the experiences of fifty scholars working in Europe, this book discusses these questions at both a macro and micro level- through discussions of knowledge evaluation systems on all levels, and analysis of the progress of a text towards publication. In addition to this, case studies of individual scholars in their local institutions and countries are used to illustrate experiences of using English in the academic world. Academic Writing in a Global Context examines the impact of the growing dominance of English on academic writing for publication globally. The authors explore the ways in which the global status attributed to English is impacting on the lives and practices of multilingual scholars working in contexts where English is not the official language of communication and throws into relief the politics surrounding academic publishing. This book will be of interest to postgraduates and professionals in the fields of World Englishes, language and globalization and English Language Teaching.
Article
Full-text available
In the context of academic writing, authors tend to mitigate the force of their scientific claims by means of hedging devices in order to reduce the risk of opposition and minimise the face threatening acts that are involved in the making of claims. This study explores the phenomenon of hedging in the research article (RA) from a cross-cultural perspective. To this end, a total of 40 RAs written in English and Spanish in the field of Clinical and Health Psychology were analysed in terms of the frequency of occurrence and distribution of the various strategies and the linguistic devices associated to each strategy which perform a hedging function in the different structural units of the articles. The results of the comparative quantitative analyses revealed that there are similarities between the two languages regarding the distribution of hedges across the structural units of the RAs, although a certain degree of rhetorical variation was also found mainly in terms of the frequency of use of the strategy of indetermination (i.e. modality devices and approximators) which occurs to a much greater extent in the English texts. This suggests that the English RAs in the field of Clinical and Health Psychology, as a whole, involve more protection to the author’s face.
Article
The paper investigates the Discussion/Conclusion sections of research articles (RA) written by English L1, English L2 and Spanish L1 writers in applied linguistics, seeking to assist scholars in Spain and Latin America to get published in reputable international English-language journals, i.e. those listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). It draws on move analysis, contrasting texts written in two languages and by three groups of writers, a first in the literature. The study will advance our understanding of the complexity of these RA sections, and the difficulties faced by scholars whose first language is not English but who are under institutional pressure to publish in English. Results showed variances in the move structures in the Discussion/Conclusion sections written by the three groups. The English L1 group produced more rhetorically complex texts than the Spanish L1 group, while the English L2 group displayed hybridity in their texts as they brought to the fore the rhetorical practices of their L1 culture. The findings are expected to assist scholars to make their intellectual contributions accessible in mainstream international publications, whatever their native language.
Article
Academic publication now dominates the lives of academics across the globe who must increasingly submit their research for publication in high profile English language journals to move up the career ladder. The dominance of English in academic publishing, however, has raised questions of communicative inequality and the possible ‘linguistic injustice’ against an author's mother tongue. Native English speakers are thought to have an advantage as they acquire the language naturalistically while second language users must invest more time, effort and money into formally learning it and may experience greater difficulties when writing in English. Attitude surveys reveal that English as an Additional Language authors often believe that editors and referees are prejudiced against them for any non-standard language. In this paper, I critically review the evidence for linguistic injustice through a survey of the literature and interviews with scholars working in Hong Kong. I argue that framing publication problems as a crude Native vs non-Native polarization not only draws on an outmoded respect for ‘Native speaker’ competence but serves to demoralizes EAL writers and marginalize the difficulties experienced by novice L1 English academics. The paper, then, is a call for a more inclusive and balanced view of academic publishing.
Article
This paper constitutes a multidimensional explanation of an integration of genre-based knowledge and evaluative stance in the context of academic arguments employed in the conclusion sections of English and Malay research articles. For this purpose, it draws on an analysis of the features in Appraisal theory (Martin & Rose, 2003) integrated with an analysis of communicative purposes within a genre analysis framework (Swales, 1990, 2004). Among others, the findings include the observation that evaluative and dialogic stances jointly produce rhetorical effects in both English and Malay conclusions. English conclusions contain a subtle balance of assertion and mitigation while Malay conclusions tend to contract dialogic space and thus could be interpreted as less reader-friendly. This suggests that evaluation and the meaning potential of the genre are experienced and valued differently by scholars publishing in these two different scientific communities (international and local). This variation seems to be due to linguistic, contextual, and potential social cultural influences within the two academic discourse communities. The present study has pedagogical implications in the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classroom.
Article
Epistemic modality is a critical yet intricate linguistic device in academic writing. In this study, we investigated the use of epistemic modality in 25 English-medium medical research articles (RAs) from a systemic functional perspective. We focused on the distribution of the value and the orientation of epistemic modality and their functions in medical RAs. The results showed that medical RA writers mostly rely on low and median values, and implicitly subjective, implicitly objective and explicitly objective orientations of epistemic modality. These findings indicate that medical RA writers tend to make claims mainly in a tentative, reserved and objective way. The findings of the study may help non-native medical RA writers to produce more acceptable medical RAs.
Article
Successful academic communication in medicine involves writers persuading readers of the correctness of their interpretations, diagnoses, and knowledge claims. Because of potential opposition to such claims, however, and the uncertain status of much medical knowledge, writers often need to present their claims cautiously, accurately, and modestly to meet the exacting expectations of a skeptical disciplinary community. As a result, hedges are commonplace in medical writing because they express possibility rather than certainty and deference rather than overconfidence. This article explores the concept of hedging and examines its different forms, frequencies, and functions in medical research articles.
Article
Hedging is a well-documented feature of spoken discourse as a result of its role in qualifying categorical commitment and facilitating discussion. Its use in academic writing has received less attention, however, and we know little about the functions it serves in different research fields and particular genres. Hedging is a significant communicative resource for academics since it both confirms the individual's professional persona and represents a critical element in the rhetorical means of gaining acceptance of claims. Hedges allow writers to anticipate possible opposition to claims by expressing statements with precision, caution, and diplomatic deference to the views of colleagues. Based on a contextual analysis of 26 articles in molecular biology, this paper argues that hedging in scientific research writing cannot be fully understood in isolation from social and institutional contexts and suggests a pragmatic framework which reflects this interpretive environment.
Article
Recent studies of the pragmatics of politeness have drawn on conversational data. I argue that their model can be extended to some genres of written texts. There have been two obstacles to such an extension: the lack of a definite addressee for published texts, and the dificulty of defining relevant cultural variables. Taking a corpus of articles by molecular geneticists, I assume a simple model of a two-part audience, and focus on two kinds of impositions: claims and denials of claims. With this framework, one can see politeness claims and denials of claims. With this framework, one can see politeness strategies in regularities of scientific style-such as the use of pronouns and of passives-that are usually explained in terms of conventions. The analysis also accounts for some otherwise unexplained stylistic features, such as the use of adverbs in establishing solidarity, and the use of personal attribution in hedging. With these positive and negative politeness strategies in mind, we can understand better the social significance of the occasional instances in which the writer makes an imposition without redress, or makes the imposition indirectly or chooses not to make it at all. Comparisons with popularizations, a genre in which the writer has a different kind of relation to the reader, and thus uses different kinds of politeness devices, show that these devices arise in response to the interaction embodied in the text.
Article
This study analyzes modal verb use in a small corpus of L1 and L2 writing (718 essays/201,601 words) on five topics written by speakers of English, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. The results demonstrate that median frequency rates of modal verbs in L2 essays are significantly affected by the writing topic, depending on the writers’ L1s and the contextual meanings and functions of obligation and necessity modals. On the whole, the frequency rates of possibility and ability modals appear to be less topic-dependent than obligation and necessity modals in the L2 writing of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean speakers. In many cases, writing prompts/topics are generally designed to be accessible to young adults of any cultural and linguistic background. However, broad-based topic accessibility also implies reliance on writers’ personal experiences and socio-cultural background knowledge that can lead to a greater topic-effect on L2 writing and overuse of such language features as obligation and necessity modals. The study concludes that more personally distant topics elicit fewer disparities between L1 and L2 prose than topics in which the student writers are expected to draw on their personal experiences.
Article
This paper considers the generic structure of Conclusion chapters in PhD theses or dissertations. From a corpus of 45 PhD theses covering a range of disciplines, chapters playing a concluding role were identified and analysed for their functional moves and steps. Most Conclusions were found to restate purpose, consolidate research space with a varied array of steps, recommend future research and cover practical applications, implications or recommendations. However a minority were found to focus more on the field than on the thesis itself. These field-oriented Conclusions tended to adopt a problem–solution text structure, or in one case, an argument structure. Variations in focus and structure between disciplines were also found.