Epistemic stance in written L2 English: The role of task type, L2 proficiency, and authorial style

Maria Pyykönen
{"title":"Epistemic stance in written L2 English: The role of task type, L2 proficiency, and authorial style","authors":"Maria Pyykönen","doi":"10.1016/j.acorp.2022.100040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The present study examines the relationship between the use of epistemic stance expressions (i.e., hedges and boosters) and task type, L2 proficiency, and individual authorial style in 1,773 essays representing three different kinds of tasks (complaint, letter, and opinion) written by 591 Finnish L2 English speakers on four different levels of proficiency (CEFR levels B1-C2). The results of the study show that the frequency of both hedges and boosters is mainly governed by task type, as the opinion tex contained a higher number of both hedges and boosters than the other tasks examined. Proficiency-related patterns were, nevertheless, also observed, as it was shown that in the complaint and opinion tasks, the frequency of both hedges and boosters tends to increase with proficiency, while in the letter task, the frequency of both ED types shows signs of decrease. Individual authorial style was shown to play a very limited role in the frequency of EDs in the data, but the results also suggest that the influence of authorial style may be greater with respect to boosters than it is with hedges.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72254,"journal":{"name":"Applied Corpus Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Corpus Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666799122000247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study examines the relationship between the use of epistemic stance expressions (i.e., hedges and boosters) and task type, L2 proficiency, and individual authorial style in 1,773 essays representing three different kinds of tasks (complaint, letter, and opinion) written by 591 Finnish L2 English speakers on four different levels of proficiency (CEFR levels B1-C2). The results of the study show that the frequency of both hedges and boosters is mainly governed by task type, as the opinion tex contained a higher number of both hedges and boosters than the other tasks examined. Proficiency-related patterns were, nevertheless, also observed, as it was shown that in the complaint and opinion tasks, the frequency of both hedges and boosters tends to increase with proficiency, while in the letter task, the frequency of both ED types shows signs of decrease. Individual authorial style was shown to play a very limited role in the frequency of EDs in the data, but the results also suggest that the influence of authorial style may be greater with respect to boosters than it is with hedges.

二语书面英语的认知立场:任务类型、二语水平和作者风格的作用
本研究考察了591名芬兰语第二英语使用者在四种不同熟练程度(CEFR水平B1-C2)上写的1773篇代表三种不同任务(抱怨、信件和意见)的文章中认知立场表达(即模糊限制语和助词)的使用与任务类型、二语熟练程度和个人写作风格之间的关系。研究结果表明,模糊限制语和促进语的使用频率主要受任务类型的影响,因为意见稿中包含的模糊限制语和促进语的数量高于其他被调查的任务。然而,与熟练程度相关的模式也被观察到,因为它表明,在抱怨和意见任务中,模糊限制语和助推词的频率都倾向于随着熟练程度的增加而增加,而在字母任务中,两种ED类型的频率都有下降的迹象。在数据中,个人作者风格对电子邮件频率的影响非常有限,但结果也表明,作者风格对助推器的影响可能比对模糊限制的影响更大。
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
Applied Corpus Linguistics
Applied Corpus Linguistics Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
70 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信