Coruña语料库分析:主体性和主体间性标记

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Begoña Crespo
{"title":"Coruña语料库分析:主体性和主体间性标记","authors":"Begoña Crespo","doi":"10.14746/stap.2022.57.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper aims to analyse the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity in scientific writing through the use of stance adverbs perhaps and possibly. These adverbs act as markers of the authors’ presence expressing their views, and a covert relationship between these authors and their corresponding readership. The material used for this study includes four sub-corpora of the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing: CETA (Corpus of English Texts on Astronomy), CEPhiT (Corpus of English Philosophy Texts), CHET (Corpus of English History Texts), and CELiST (Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts). Two of these represent the so-called soft sciences, and the other two the hard sciences, which will allow for comparison. The results might argue against the generally-assumed tendency in the history of scientific writing that this discourse has moved from being author-centred to object-centred. Perhaps it is simply impossible for writers of science to disappear completely from their texts.","PeriodicalId":35172,"journal":{"name":"Studia Anglica Posnaniensia","volume":"57 1","pages":"199 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysing the Coruña Corpus: Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity Markers\",\"authors\":\"Begoña Crespo\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/stap.2022.57.09\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper aims to analyse the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity in scientific writing through the use of stance adverbs perhaps and possibly. These adverbs act as markers of the authors’ presence expressing their views, and a covert relationship between these authors and their corresponding readership. The material used for this study includes four sub-corpora of the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing: CETA (Corpus of English Texts on Astronomy), CEPhiT (Corpus of English Philosophy Texts), CHET (Corpus of English History Texts), and CELiST (Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts). Two of these represent the so-called soft sciences, and the other two the hard sciences, which will allow for comparison. The results might argue against the generally-assumed tendency in the history of scientific writing that this discourse has moved from being author-centred to object-centred. Perhaps it is simply impossible for writers of science to disappear completely from their texts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Anglica Posnaniensia\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"199 - 224\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Anglica Posnaniensia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/stap.2022.57.09\",\"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":"Studia Anglica Posnaniensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/stap.2022.57.09","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

摘要本文试图通过对立场副词的使用来分析科学写作中的主体性和主体间性的概念。这些副词是作者表达观点的标志,也是作者与相应读者之间的隐蔽关系。本研究使用的材料包括Coruña英语科学写作语料库的四个子语料库:CETA(英语天文学语料库)、CEPhiT(英语哲学语料库)、CHET(英语历史语料库)和CELiST(英语生命科学语料库)。其中两个代表所谓的软科学,另外两个代表硬科学,可以进行比较。研究结果可能与科学写作史上普遍认为的趋势相反,即这种话语已经从以作者为中心转向以对象为中心。也许科学作家根本不可能完全从他们的文本中消失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysing the Coruña Corpus: Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity Markers
Abstract This paper aims to analyse the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity in scientific writing through the use of stance adverbs perhaps and possibly. These adverbs act as markers of the authors’ presence expressing their views, and a covert relationship between these authors and their corresponding readership. The material used for this study includes four sub-corpora of the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing: CETA (Corpus of English Texts on Astronomy), CEPhiT (Corpus of English Philosophy Texts), CHET (Corpus of English History Texts), and CELiST (Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts). Two of these represent the so-called soft sciences, and the other two the hard sciences, which will allow for comparison. The results might argue against the generally-assumed tendency in the history of scientific writing that this discourse has moved from being author-centred to object-centred. Perhaps it is simply impossible for writers of science to disappear completely from their texts.
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
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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