IJAESsince 2000 International Journal of Arabic-English Studies

Disciplinary and Gender Interactions: Corpus Analysis of Stance and Engagement in L2 Research Articles

Abstract

This study investigates the use of certain features of authorial stance and engagement in 40 recently published research articles in the disciplines of linguistics and literature written in English by male and female native speakers of Egyptian Arabic. The study adopts Hyland’s (2005b) Model of Interaction, complements it with his (1998b) Model of Scientific Hedging, and proposes an extension of the latter model to boosting devices. The freeware corpus analytic toolkit AntConc is used for concordancing and text analysis. The results revealed clear cross-disciplinary effects but only limited gender effects with regard to the type and frequency of the metadiscursive features under study. Furthermore, certain metadiscursive choices by writers in linguistics and literature were observed to be consistent with the discourse of empirical and non-empirical sciences, respectively.

Authors

Amany Youssef

DOI

Keywords

Full Text :

ijaes.net/article/fulltext/view?volume=16&issue=1&id=4

References

  1. Andrusenko, Anastasiia. (2015). 'A contrastive analysis of Spanish-Arabic metadiscourse use in persuasive academic writing'. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 178: 9-14.
  2. Attarn, Atena. (2014). 'Study ofmetadiscourse in ESP articles: A comparison of English articles written by Iranian and English native speakers'. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 5 (1): 63-71. Hu, Guangwei and Feng Cao. (2011). 'Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese­ medium journals'. Journal of Pragmatics, 43: 2795-2809.
  3. Hyland, Ken. (1996). 'Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum'. System, 24 (4): 477-490.
  4. Hyland, Ken. (1998a). 'Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge'. Text, 18: 349-382.
  5. Hyland, Ken. (1998b). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  6. Hyland, Ken. (1998c). 'Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse'. Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 437-455.
  7. Hyland, Ken. (2000). 'Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts'. Language Awareness, 9 (4): 179-197.
  8. Hyland, Ken. (2002). 'Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing'. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1091-1112.
  9. Hyland, Ken. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  10. Hyland, Ken. (2005b). 'Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse'. Discourse Studies, 7 (2): 173-192.
  11. Hyland, Ken. (2009). 'Corpus-informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement'. In Maggie Charles, Diane Pecorari, and Susan Hunston (Eds.), Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse, (2009: 110-128). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
  12. Kroll, Barry M. (1984). 'Writing for readers: Three perspectives on audience'. College Composition and Communication, 35 (2): 172-185. http:/ldx.doi.org/10.2307/358094 (Retrieved on 10 April, 2015)
  13. Lakoff, Robin. (1973). 'Language and woman's place'. Language in Society, 2 (1): 45-80. http://www.jstor.org/stab1e/4166707 (Retrieved on 10 June, 2015)
  14. Moltmann, Friederike. (2006). 'Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person'. Nat Lang Semantics, 14: 257-281. semantics.univ­ parisl.fr/pdf/Generic'Yo20one.pdf(Retrieved on 10 January, 2016)
  15. Musa, Adamu. (2014). 'Hedging in academic writing: A pragmatic analysis of English and Chemistry masters' theses in a Ghanaian university'. English for Specific Purposes World, 15 (42): 1682-3257. www.esp-world.info (Retrieved on 5 January, 2016)
  16. Salager-Meyer, Fran oise. (1994). 'Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse'. English for Specific Purposes, 13 (2): 149-171.
  17. Samaie, Mahmoud, Fereshteb Kbosravian, and Mahnaz Boghayeri (2014). 'The frequency and types of hedges in research article introductions by Persian and English native authors'. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98: 1678-1685.
  18. Tannen, Deborah. (2003). 'Gender and family interaction'. In Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff (Eds.), The Handbook of Language and Gender, (2003: 179-201). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  19. Tse, Polly and Ken Hyland. (2008). "Roboot Kung fu': Gender and professional identity in biology and philosophy reviews'. Journal of Pragmatics, 40: 1232-1248.
  20. Yagiz, Oktay and Cuneyt Demir. (2014). 'Hedging strategies in academic discourse: A comparative analysis of Turkish writers and native writers of English'. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158: 260-268.
  21. Yeganeh, Maryam Tafaroji and Seyedeh Marzieh Ghoreyshi. (2015). 'Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles'. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192: 684- 689.
  22. Zadeh, Zabra Rezaei, Roya Babarlooei, and Shahla Simin. (2015). 'Gender­ based study of interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in conclusion sections of English Master Theses'. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 47: 195-208.
  23. Zarei, Gholam Reza and Sara Mansoori. (2011a). 'A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English'. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4 (1): 42-50.
  24. Zarei, Gholam Reza and Sara Mansoori. (2011b). 'Metadiscursive distinction between Persian and English: An analysis of computer engineering research articles'. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1037-1042.