USING SFG TO ANALYZE AUTHORIAL EMPHASIZERS AND PROPOSITIONAL INTENSIFIERS: A COMPARISON OF ALBANIAN AND ITALIAN ACADEMIC WRITING

Q2 Arts and Humanities

Discourse and Interaction Pub Date : 2021-12-27 DOI:10.5817/di2021-2-61

Vincenzo Dheskali

{"title":"USING SFG TO ANALYZE AUTHORIAL EMPHASIZERS AND PROPOSITIONAL INTENSIFIERS: A COMPARISON OF ALBANIAN AND ITALIAN ACADEMIC WRITING","authors":"Vincenzo Dheskali","doi":"10.5817/di2021-2-61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modality expresses high probability and total degree through boosters (Halliday 1985,Holmes 1990). Through them, writers reinforce statements with the assurance of reliableknowledge (cf. Hyland 1998b). This study compares the usage of boosting emphasizers (e.g. certainly) and intensifiers (e.g. completely) (cf. Quirk et al. 1985) and their orientation and manifestation (cf. Halliday & Matthiessen 2014) in Albanian and Italian student academic writings in L1 and English as an L2. I compiled an Italian and an Italian English corpus (around 3 million words each) as well as an Albanian corpus (around 2.2 million words) and Albanian English one (around 700,000 words). The corpora are comparable in terms of genre, disciplinary domain, gender and the division of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences. Since very little research has been conducted on academic writing in Albania (Toska 2015), it is essential to initiate research in this field. The results showed that boosters were significantly favored in Italian and Italian English and less favored in Albanian. Conclusively, Italians show more commitment than Albanians.","PeriodicalId":38177,"journal":{"name":"Discourse and Interaction","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse and Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/di2021-2-61","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Modality expresses high probability and total degree through boosters (Halliday 1985,Holmes 1990). Through them, writers reinforce statements with the assurance of reliableknowledge (cf. Hyland 1998b). This study compares the usage of boosting emphasizers (e.g. certainly) and intensifiers (e.g. completely) (cf. Quirk et al. 1985) and their orientation and manifestation (cf. Halliday & Matthiessen 2014) in Albanian and Italian student academic writings in L1 and English as an L2. I compiled an Italian and an Italian English corpus (around 3 million words each) as well as an Albanian corpus (around 2.2 million words) and Albanian English one (around 700,000 words). The corpora are comparable in terms of genre, disciplinary domain, gender and the division of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences. Since very little research has been conducted on academic writing in Albania (Toska 2015), it is essential to initiate research in this field. The results showed that boosters were significantly favored in Italian and Italian English and less favored in Albanian. Conclusively, Italians show more commitment than Albanians.

查看原文本刊更多论文

用SFG分析作者强调词和命题强化词&阿尔巴尼亚语和意大利语学术写作比较

情态通过助推器表达高概率和总程度（Halliday 1985，Holmes 1990）。通过它们，作者以可靠知识的保证来强化陈述（参见Hyland 1998b）。本研究比较了强化强调词（例如肯定）和强化词（例如完全）的使用（参见Quirk等人，1985）及其在阿尔巴尼亚和意大利学生一年级和二年级学术写作中的取向和表现（参见Halliday&Matthiessen，2014）。我汇编了一个意大利语和意大利语英语语料库（各约300万单词），以及一个阿尔巴尼亚语语料库（约220万单词）和阿尔巴尼亚语英语语料库（约70万单词）。语料库在类型、学科领域、性别以及“硬”和“软”科学的划分方面具有可比性。由于阿尔巴尼亚对学术写作的研究很少（Toska 2015），因此启动这一领域的研究至关重要。结果显示，加强剂在意大利语和意式英语中明显受欢迎，而在阿尔巴尼亚语中则不太受欢迎。总之，意大利人比阿尔巴尼亚人表现出更多的承诺。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Discourse and Interaction Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics

CiteScore

1.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量