学术书面英语中认知形态的词汇动词:学科变异

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Tatiana Szczygłowska
{"title":"学术书面英语中认知形态的词汇动词:学科变异","authors":"Tatiana Szczygłowska","doi":"10.24425/linsi.2022.141219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the disciplinary preferences of medical and psychology writers of research articles (RAs) in the use of epistemic lexical verbs (ELVs), regarding their frequency, prominence, distribution across the RA sections, and recurrent phraseology. The results show that disciplinary affiliation affects these phenomena, as more ELVs are found in psychology than in medicine. Both groups prefer speculative judgements and quotative evidence and most frequently use ELVs in Discussions. Yet, psychology authors are more balanced in their preferences and rely on a wider selection of frequent ELVs which are often combined with self-mention. Medical authors are more inclined towards deductive ELVs. Disciplinary differences are also observed in the choice of the specific ELVs, their frequency distributions and phraseology in the distinct RA sections.","PeriodicalId":52527,"journal":{"name":"Linguistica Silesiana","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lexical verbs of epistemic modality in academic written English: disciplinary variation\",\"authors\":\"Tatiana Szczygłowska\",\"doi\":\"10.24425/linsi.2022.141219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article examines the disciplinary preferences of medical and psychology writers of research articles (RAs) in the use of epistemic lexical verbs (ELVs), regarding their frequency, prominence, distribution across the RA sections, and recurrent phraseology. The results show that disciplinary affiliation affects these phenomena, as more ELVs are found in psychology than in medicine. Both groups prefer speculative judgements and quotative evidence and most frequently use ELVs in Discussions. Yet, psychology authors are more balanced in their preferences and rely on a wider selection of frequent ELVs which are often combined with self-mention. Medical authors are more inclined towards deductive ELVs. Disciplinary differences are also observed in the choice of the specific ELVs, their frequency distributions and phraseology in the distinct RA sections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linguistica Silesiana\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linguistica Silesiana\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24425/linsi.2022.141219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistica Silesiana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24425/linsi.2022.141219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了研究文章(RA)的医学和心理学作者在使用认知词汇动词(ELV)方面的学科偏好,包括其频率、突出度、RA部分的分布和重复短语。研究结果表明,学科归属会影响这些现象,因为心理学中发现的ELV比医学中发现的要多。两组人都喜欢推测性判断和引用性证据,在讨论中最常使用ELV。然而,心理学作者的偏好更加平衡,并依赖于更广泛的频繁ELV选择,这些ELV通常与自我提及相结合。医学作者更倾向于演绎ELV。在不同RA部分中,在特定ELV的选择、频率分布和措辞方面也观察到了学科差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lexical verbs of epistemic modality in academic written English: disciplinary variation
The article examines the disciplinary preferences of medical and psychology writers of research articles (RAs) in the use of epistemic lexical verbs (ELVs), regarding their frequency, prominence, distribution across the RA sections, and recurrent phraseology. The results show that disciplinary affiliation affects these phenomena, as more ELVs are found in psychology than in medicine. Both groups prefer speculative judgements and quotative evidence and most frequently use ELVs in Discussions. Yet, psychology authors are more balanced in their preferences and rely on a wider selection of frequent ELVs which are often combined with self-mention. Medical authors are more inclined towards deductive ELVs. Disciplinary differences are also observed in the choice of the specific ELVs, their frequency distributions and phraseology in the distinct RA sections.
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
Linguistica Silesiana
Linguistica Silesiana Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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