三个学科知识主张的建构——阿拉伯和英语作家英语研究文章中的对冲和助推策略探析

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Ghada Ali AlGhamdi, Hesham Suleiman Alyousef
{"title":"三个学科知识主张的建构——阿拉伯和英语作家英语研究文章中的对冲和助推策略探析","authors":"Ghada Ali AlGhamdi, Hesham Suleiman Alyousef","doi":"10.17323/jle.2022.12363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Academic writers utilize a variety of rhetorical methods to construct their knowledge claims through hedges and boosters. These two strategies may also be affected by disciplinary, cultural, or generic contexts.  \nPurpose. This mixed-methods contrastive research study explored how disciplinary and cultural contexts may affect the way Arab and Anglophone writers construct and modulate knowledge claims through hedges and boosters in the results and discussion sections of 90 English research articles in three disciplines: Journalism, Law, and Political Science. \nMethods. Instances of hedges and boosters and their pragmatic functions in context were identified, employing Liu and Tseng’s (2021) framework. This framework provides a detailed functional interpretation of the use and variation of these devices along four continuums: authorial voice, reasoning, consensus-building, and information evaluation. \nResults. The results showed interesting contrasts and similarities between both groups regarding the approaches they used to define their levels of commitment and detachment in their knowledge claims. The quantitative findings revealed significant differences in hedges but non-significant differences in boosters used by both groups. The qualitative analysis revealed that hedging and boosting functions in Arab and Anglophone writers’ RAs differed along the four continuums. Anglophone writers often used hedges in their writing to show humility, negotiate knowledge claims, and accommodate vagueness. These acts enabled them to sketch the realities emerging from their research. By contrast, the English-speaking Arab writers used fewer hedging strategies and demonstrated assertiveness, and assumed shared knowledge to enhance the realities constructed in their knowledge claims. \nImplications. These findings can benefit ESP/EAP teachers, especially those teaching writing for publication purposes to raise postgraduate students’ awareness of epistemic modality markers. A custom-made ESP/EAP course tailored to the needs of learners based on Liu and Tseng’s (2021) hedging-boosting framework can be devised to develop communicative and academic strategies in English. ","PeriodicalId":37020,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Construction of Knowledge Claims in Three Disciplines: An Exploration of Hedging and Boosting Strategies in Research Articles Written in English by Arab and Anglophone Writers\",\"authors\":\"Ghada Ali AlGhamdi, Hesham Suleiman Alyousef\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/jle.2022.12363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. Academic writers utilize a variety of rhetorical methods to construct their knowledge claims through hedges and boosters. These two strategies may also be affected by disciplinary, cultural, or generic contexts.  \\nPurpose. This mixed-methods contrastive research study explored how disciplinary and cultural contexts may affect the way Arab and Anglophone writers construct and modulate knowledge claims through hedges and boosters in the results and discussion sections of 90 English research articles in three disciplines: Journalism, Law, and Political Science. \\nMethods. Instances of hedges and boosters and their pragmatic functions in context were identified, employing Liu and Tseng’s (2021) framework. This framework provides a detailed functional interpretation of the use and variation of these devices along four continuums: authorial voice, reasoning, consensus-building, and information evaluation. \\nResults. The results showed interesting contrasts and similarities between both groups regarding the approaches they used to define their levels of commitment and detachment in their knowledge claims. The quantitative findings revealed significant differences in hedges but non-significant differences in boosters used by both groups. The qualitative analysis revealed that hedging and boosting functions in Arab and Anglophone writers’ RAs differed along the four continuums. Anglophone writers often used hedges in their writing to show humility, negotiate knowledge claims, and accommodate vagueness. These acts enabled them to sketch the realities emerging from their research. By contrast, the English-speaking Arab writers used fewer hedging strategies and demonstrated assertiveness, and assumed shared knowledge to enhance the realities constructed in their knowledge claims. \\nImplications. These findings can benefit ESP/EAP teachers, especially those teaching writing for publication purposes to raise postgraduate students’ awareness of epistemic modality markers. A custom-made ESP/EAP course tailored to the needs of learners based on Liu and Tseng’s (2021) hedging-boosting framework can be devised to develop communicative and academic strategies in English. \",\"PeriodicalId\":37020,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Language and Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Language and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12363\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景学术作家运用多种修辞方法,通过模糊限制语和助推器来构建自己的知识主张。这两种策略也可能受到学科、文化或一般背景的影响。目的。这项混合方法的对比研究探讨了学科和文化背景如何通过新闻学、法学和政治学三个学科的90篇英语研究文章的结果和讨论部分的模糊限制语和助推器来影响阿拉伯和英语作家构建和调整知识主张的方式。方法。使用刘和曾(2021)的框架,确定了模糊限制语和加强语的实例及其在上下文中的语用功能。该框架沿着四个连续体对这些手段的使用和变化进行了详细的功能解释:作者的声音、推理、建立共识和信息评估。后果研究结果显示,两组人在定义他们在知识主张中的承诺和超然程度的方法方面存在着有趣的对比和相似之处。定量研究结果显示,两组在套期保值方面存在显著差异,但在加强剂方面没有显著差异。定性分析表明,阿拉伯和英语作家的RA在四个连续体中的对冲和助推作用不同。英语作家在写作中经常使用模糊限制语来表现谦逊,协商知识主张,并适应模糊性。这些行为使他们能够勾勒出研究中出现的现实。相比之下,讲英语的阿拉伯作家使用较少的对冲策略,表现出自信,并假设共享知识来增强他们知识主张中构建的现实。含义。这些发现有利于ESP/EAP教师,尤其是那些以出版为目的教授写作的教师,以提高研究生对认知模态标记的认识。基于刘和曾(2021)的套期保值促进框架,可以根据学习者的需求定制ESP/EAP课程,以开发英语交际和学术策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Construction of Knowledge Claims in Three Disciplines: An Exploration of Hedging and Boosting Strategies in Research Articles Written in English by Arab and Anglophone Writers
Background. Academic writers utilize a variety of rhetorical methods to construct their knowledge claims through hedges and boosters. These two strategies may also be affected by disciplinary, cultural, or generic contexts.  Purpose. This mixed-methods contrastive research study explored how disciplinary and cultural contexts may affect the way Arab and Anglophone writers construct and modulate knowledge claims through hedges and boosters in the results and discussion sections of 90 English research articles in three disciplines: Journalism, Law, and Political Science. Methods. Instances of hedges and boosters and their pragmatic functions in context were identified, employing Liu and Tseng’s (2021) framework. This framework provides a detailed functional interpretation of the use and variation of these devices along four continuums: authorial voice, reasoning, consensus-building, and information evaluation. Results. The results showed interesting contrasts and similarities between both groups regarding the approaches they used to define their levels of commitment and detachment in their knowledge claims. The quantitative findings revealed significant differences in hedges but non-significant differences in boosters used by both groups. The qualitative analysis revealed that hedging and boosting functions in Arab and Anglophone writers’ RAs differed along the four continuums. Anglophone writers often used hedges in their writing to show humility, negotiate knowledge claims, and accommodate vagueness. These acts enabled them to sketch the realities emerging from their research. By contrast, the English-speaking Arab writers used fewer hedging strategies and demonstrated assertiveness, and assumed shared knowledge to enhance the realities constructed in their knowledge claims. Implications. These findings can benefit ESP/EAP teachers, especially those teaching writing for publication purposes to raise postgraduate students’ awareness of epistemic modality markers. A custom-made ESP/EAP course tailored to the needs of learners based on Liu and Tseng’s (2021) hedging-boosting framework can be devised to develop communicative and academic strategies in English. 
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
Journal of Language and Education
Journal of Language and Education Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
33
审稿时长
18 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