赢家通吃:欧洲研究理事会资助的成功项目提案摘要中的立场和参与标记

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Jolanta Sinkuniene, Augustinas Melinskas
{"title":"赢家通吃:欧洲研究理事会资助的成功项目提案摘要中的立场和参与标记","authors":"Jolanta Sinkuniene, Augustinas Melinskas","doi":"10.5817/di2023-2-98","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to investigate frequency and distribution patterns of stance and engagement markers across different science fields in European Research Council funded project proposal abstracts. Three science fields analysed using corpus-based quantitative and qualitative methodology are life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, and social sciences and humanities. A corpus consisting of 90 project proposal abstracts was compiled and each text was examined for stance and engagement markers following Hyland’s (2005b) framework of stance and engagement. The results show that stance markers were used much more frequently than engagement markers in all science fields analysed. However, it was found that compared to writers in social sciences and humanities, authors of life sciences and physical sciences and engineering abstracts tended to use more stance markers which may suggest a greater importance placed on creating a stronger authorial persona. In social sciences and humanities abstracts, on the other hand, engagement markers were more frequent than in the other two fields, which may imply that their texts are slightly more reader focused. The results of the study shed light on competitive funding discourse which is still scarcely researched, as well as reveal strategies and techniques used to create effective scientific discourse.","PeriodicalId":38177,"journal":{"name":"Discourse and Interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The winner takes it all: Stance and engagement markers in successful project proposal abstracts funded by ERC\",\"authors\":\"Jolanta Sinkuniene, Augustinas Melinskas\",\"doi\":\"10.5817/di2023-2-98\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper aims to investigate frequency and distribution patterns of stance and engagement markers across different science fields in European Research Council funded project proposal abstracts. Three science fields analysed using corpus-based quantitative and qualitative methodology are life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, and social sciences and humanities. A corpus consisting of 90 project proposal abstracts was compiled and each text was examined for stance and engagement markers following Hyland’s (2005b) framework of stance and engagement. The results show that stance markers were used much more frequently than engagement markers in all science fields analysed. However, it was found that compared to writers in social sciences and humanities, authors of life sciences and physical sciences and engineering abstracts tended to use more stance markers which may suggest a greater importance placed on creating a stronger authorial persona. In social sciences and humanities abstracts, on the other hand, engagement markers were more frequent than in the other two fields, which may imply that their texts are slightly more reader focused. The results of the study shed light on competitive funding discourse which is still scarcely researched, as well as reveal strategies and techniques used to create effective scientific discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discourse and Interaction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-20\",\"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/di2023-2-98\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse and Interaction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/di2023-2-98","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

摘要

本文旨在研究欧洲研究理事会资助的项目提案摘要中不同科学领域的立场和参与标记的频率和分布模式。采用基于语料库的定量和定性方法分析了生命科学、物理科学与工程以及社会科学与人文科学这三个科学领域。我们编制了一个由 90 份项目建议书摘要组成的语料库,并按照 Hyland(2005b)的立场和参与框架对每个文本进行了立场和参与标记检查。结果显示,在所分析的所有科学领域中,立场标记的使用频率都远远高于参与标记。然而,研究发现,与社会科学和人文科学领域的作者相比,生命科学、物理科学和工程学领域的摘要作者倾向于使用更多的立场标记,这可能表明作者更重视创建一个更强有力的作者角色。另一方面,在社会科学和人文科学的摘要中,参与标记的使用频率高于其他两个领域,这可能意味着他们的文章更关注读者。本研究的结果揭示了竞争性资助话语的现状,而对竞争性资助话语的研究还很少,本研究还揭示了创建有效科学话语的策略和技巧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The winner takes it all: Stance and engagement markers in successful project proposal abstracts funded by ERC
This paper aims to investigate frequency and distribution patterns of stance and engagement markers across different science fields in European Research Council funded project proposal abstracts. Three science fields analysed using corpus-based quantitative and qualitative methodology are life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, and social sciences and humanities. A corpus consisting of 90 project proposal abstracts was compiled and each text was examined for stance and engagement markers following Hyland’s (2005b) framework of stance and engagement. The results show that stance markers were used much more frequently than engagement markers in all science fields analysed. However, it was found that compared to writers in social sciences and humanities, authors of life sciences and physical sciences and engineering abstracts tended to use more stance markers which may suggest a greater importance placed on creating a stronger authorial persona. In social sciences and humanities abstracts, on the other hand, engagement markers were more frequent than in the other two fields, which may imply that their texts are slightly more reader focused. The results of the study shed light on competitive funding discourse which is still scarcely researched, as well as reveal strategies and techniques used to create effective scientific discourse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Discourse and Interaction
Discourse and Interaction Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
×
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