正式立场策略是否揭示了专业科技写作中的学科差异?

IF 1.7 3区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Elizaveta A. Smirnova, Javier Pérez-Guerra
{"title":"正式立场策略是否揭示了专业科技写作中的学科差异?","authors":"Elizaveta A. Smirnova,&nbsp;Javier Pérez-Guerra","doi":"10.1111/ijal.12694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Stance in academic discourse has been extensively studied, with numerous investigations indicating that its expression varies across disciplines, depending on the authors’ intention to either enhance or diminish their voice or presence (e.g., <i>It <span>seems</span> <span>fairly</span> certain</i> vs. <i>This is based on</i> <i><span>the belief that…</span></i>). This paper hypothesises that stance can be viewed as a strictly structural or formal linguistic mechanism in academic discourse, which can optimally determine disciplinary variation. The novelty of this study lies in the hypothesis that formal features of stance alone can identify academic disciplines, without relying on the meaning conveyed by the features. To demonstrate this, this paper focuses on the linguistic expression of stance in hard- and soft-science articles. The corpus of soft and hard scientific writing consists of research articles published in leading peer-reviewed journals in eight disciplines (chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, business studies, history, linguistics and political science) and comprises approximately 1.6 million words. The assessment of the realisation of stance in the aforementioned scientific disciplines is carried out by quantifying a range of grammatical (e.g., modal verb groups and embedded complement clauses) and lexical (boosters, hedges, and self-mention expressions) features suggested in the literature. The frequencies of the features are statistically modelled by means of, firstly, a multivariate regression analysis that determines the set of features whose contribution to the hard- versus soft-science variation is significant and, secondly, a clustering technique that groups similar disciplines based on exclusively the frequencies of the significant stance features. Clustering very successfully reveals a neat classification of the eight disciplines under investigation into two major clusters corresponding to the initial categorisation of the writings into the hard- and soft-science types. This suggests that the meaning conveyed by the stance features is dispensable for the purpose of disciplinary categorisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":46851,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Applied Linguistics","volume":"35 3","pages":"1242-1261"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijal.12694","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Formal Stance Strategies Reveal Disciplinary Variation in Professional Scientific Writing?\",\"authors\":\"Elizaveta A. Smirnova,&nbsp;Javier Pérez-Guerra\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijal.12694\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Stance in academic discourse has been extensively studied, with numerous investigations indicating that its expression varies across disciplines, depending on the authors’ intention to either enhance or diminish their voice or presence (e.g., <i>It <span>seems</span> <span>fairly</span> certain</i> vs. <i>This is based on</i> <i><span>the belief that…</span></i>). This paper hypothesises that stance can be viewed as a strictly structural or formal linguistic mechanism in academic discourse, which can optimally determine disciplinary variation. The novelty of this study lies in the hypothesis that formal features of stance alone can identify academic disciplines, without relying on the meaning conveyed by the features. To demonstrate this, this paper focuses on the linguistic expression of stance in hard- and soft-science articles. The corpus of soft and hard scientific writing consists of research articles published in leading peer-reviewed journals in eight disciplines (chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, business studies, history, linguistics and political science) and comprises approximately 1.6 million words. The assessment of the realisation of stance in the aforementioned scientific disciplines is carried out by quantifying a range of grammatical (e.g., modal verb groups and embedded complement clauses) and lexical (boosters, hedges, and self-mention expressions) features suggested in the literature. The frequencies of the features are statistically modelled by means of, firstly, a multivariate regression analysis that determines the set of features whose contribution to the hard- versus soft-science variation is significant and, secondly, a clustering technique that groups similar disciplines based on exclusively the frequencies of the significant stance features. Clustering very successfully reveals a neat classification of the eight disciplines under investigation into two major clusters corresponding to the initial categorisation of the writings into the hard- and soft-science types. This suggests that the meaning conveyed by the stance features is dispensable for the purpose of disciplinary categorisation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"35 3\",\"pages\":\"1242-1261\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijal.12694\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijal.12694\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijal.12694","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学术话语中的立场已被广泛研究,大量调查表明其表达在不同学科中有所不同,这取决于作者增强或减弱其声音或存在的意图(例如,It seems相当确定vs. This is based on the belief that…)。本文假设立场可以被看作是学术话语中的一种严格的结构或形式语言机制,它可以最佳地决定学科变异。本研究的新颖之处在于假设立场的形式特征可以单独识别学科,而不依赖于特征所传达的意义。为了证明这一点,本文重点研究了硬科学论文和软科学论文中立场的语言表达。软科学和硬科学写作的语料库包括发表在8个学科(化学、物理、工程、数学、商业、历史、语言学和政治学)的领先同行评审期刊上的研究文章,共计约160万字。对上述科学学科中立场实现的评估是通过量化文献中提出的一系列语法特征(如情态动词群和嵌入的补语从句)和词汇特征(助推器、模糊限制语和自我提及表达)来进行的。特征的频率通过以下方式进行统计建模:首先,多变量回归分析,确定对硬科学与软科学变化的贡献显著的特征集;其次,聚类技术,仅基于显著立场特征的频率对相似学科进行分组。聚类非常成功地揭示了被调查的八个学科的一个整洁的分类,分为两个主要的集群,对应于文章最初分为硬科学和软科学类型的分类。这表明立场特征所传达的意义对于学科分类的目的是可有可无的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Do Formal Stance Strategies Reveal Disciplinary Variation in Professional Scientific Writing?

Do Formal Stance Strategies Reveal Disciplinary Variation in Professional Scientific Writing?

Stance in academic discourse has been extensively studied, with numerous investigations indicating that its expression varies across disciplines, depending on the authors’ intention to either enhance or diminish their voice or presence (e.g., It seems fairly certain vs. This is based on the belief that…). This paper hypothesises that stance can be viewed as a strictly structural or formal linguistic mechanism in academic discourse, which can optimally determine disciplinary variation. The novelty of this study lies in the hypothesis that formal features of stance alone can identify academic disciplines, without relying on the meaning conveyed by the features. To demonstrate this, this paper focuses on the linguistic expression of stance in hard- and soft-science articles. The corpus of soft and hard scientific writing consists of research articles published in leading peer-reviewed journals in eight disciplines (chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, business studies, history, linguistics and political science) and comprises approximately 1.6 million words. The assessment of the realisation of stance in the aforementioned scientific disciplines is carried out by quantifying a range of grammatical (e.g., modal verb groups and embedded complement clauses) and lexical (boosters, hedges, and self-mention expressions) features suggested in the literature. The frequencies of the features are statistically modelled by means of, firstly, a multivariate regression analysis that determines the set of features whose contribution to the hard- versus soft-science variation is significant and, secondly, a clustering technique that groups similar disciplines based on exclusively the frequencies of the significant stance features. Clustering very successfully reveals a neat classification of the eight disciplines under investigation into two major clusters corresponding to the initial categorisation of the writings into the hard- and soft-science types. This suggests that the meaning conveyed by the stance features is dispensable for the purpose of disciplinary categorisation.

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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Applied Linguistics (InJAL) publishes articles that explore the relationship between expertise in linguistics, broadly defined, and the everyday experience of language. Its scope is international in that it welcomes articles which show explicitly how local issues of language use or learning exemplify more global concerns.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信