A Corpus-based Study of Reformulation Markers across Different Disciplines
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v5n2.72Abstract
This study presents a corpus-based study of reformulation markers as a common metadiscourse device in research articles of three different disciplines, namely, applied linguistics, computer engineering, and physics. Toward this end, qualitative and quantitative analyses of reformulation devices were conducted. Three sub-corpora were compiled by downloading articles from academic journals of each discipline selected via convenience sampling. Each corpus included approximately one million words. All the analyses were conducted through employing Murillo’s (2004, 2007) classification which consists of three broad categories: explicit meaning functions (identification, specification, and explanation), conceptual meaning functions (definition and denomination), and implicit meaning functions (conclusion and mathematical operation). Chi-square tests were performed to determine whether the results found in the analysis were statistically significant. The results revealed that there were differences between the functions of reformulation markers (RMs) across different disciplines. In particular, the three disciplines differ in terms of their types, and functions, and writers of physics research articles (RAs) use RMs much more frequently than writers of applied linguistics and computer engineering RAs. In light of the findings, recommendations are made for EAP classes.
References
Airey, J. & Cedric, L. 2006, June. Languages, Modality and Disciplinary Knowledge. 2nd Conference on Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education, Maastricht.
Author, M., Jalilifar, A. & Zarea, M. 2013. A Corpus Study of Lexical Bundles Across Different Disciplines. The Iranian EFL Journal. 9(6): 11-35.
Author, & Matouri, H. 2017. Comparative Study of Reflexive Metadiscourse in Applied Linguistics Research Articles. International Journals and in Iranian National Journals. ARTESOLESP E-Journal. 7(1): 15-28.
Author, & Nooreddinmoosa, M. 2018. Informality in Applied Linguistics Research Articles: Comparing Native and Non-Native Writings. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 4(2): 349-373.
Alise, M. 2007. Disciplinary Differences in Preferred Research Methods: A Comparison of Groups in the Biglan Classification Scheme. An Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Louisiana
State University And Agricultural And Mechanical College, Baton Rouge, LA.
Bach, C. 1996. Reformular: una operacion argumentativa aseptica? Estudio del conector de reformulacion parafrastica es a dir. Sendebar. 7: 255-271.
Bach, C. & Cuenca, M. J. 2007. Contrasting the Form and Use of Reformulation Markers. Discourse Studies. 9(2): 149-175.
Baker, M. 2004. A Corpus-based View of Similarity and Difference in Translation. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 9(2): 167-193.
Beauvais, P. J. 1989. A Speech Act Theory of Metadiscourse. Written Communication. 6: 11-30.
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. 1993. The Relevance of Reformulations. Language and Literature. 2: 101-120.
Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. 1996. Variation Among Academic Disciplines: Analytical Frameworks and Research. In J.C. Smart (Ed.). The Handbook of Theory and Research in Higher Education. New York, NY: Agathon Press. 1-46.
Carter, R. 2003. Language Awareness. ELT Journal. 57: 64-65.
Cabre, M. T. 1995. Les relacions parafrastiques. In: Artigas, Rosa (Ed.). El significat textual. Generalitat de Catalunya Barcelona. 73-81.
Connor, U., Nagelhout, E. & Rozycki, W. 2008. Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. 1990. Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.). The Writing Scholar Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 119-136.
Cuenca, M. J. 2003. Two Ways to Reformulate: A Contrastive Analysis of Reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics. 35(7): 1069-1093.
Fuentes, R. C. 1993. Conclusivos y reformulativos. Verba. 20: 171-198.
Gulich, E. & Kotschi, T. 1983. Les marqueurs de reformulation paraphrastique. Cahiers de linguistique française. 5:305-351.
Gulich, E. & Kotschi, T. 1995. Discourse Production in Oral Communication. In U.M. Quasthoff (Ed.). Aspects of Oral Communication Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter. 30-66.
Hagstrom, W. 1964. Anomy in Scientific Communities. Social Problems. 12(2): 186-195.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Hargens, L. L. 1975. Patterns of Scientific Research: A Comparative Analysis of Research in Three Scientific Fields. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Hinds, J. 1983. Contrastive Rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text. 3(2): 183-196.
Hinds, J. 1984. Retention of Information Using a Japanese Style of Presentation. Studies in Linguistics. 8(1): 45–69.
Hoey, M. 2001. Textual Interaction. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 30: 437-455.
Hyland, K. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer Stance in Research Articles. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.). Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. London: Longman. 99-121.
Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions inAcademic Writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes. 27(1): 4-21.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. 2004. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics. 25(2): 156-177.
Jalilifar, A. R. & Author, M. 2007. How Explicit Instruction Makes a Difference: Metadiscourse Markers and EFLlLearners' Reading Comprehension Skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning. 38(1): 35-52.
Jalififar, A. R., Z. G. Shooshtari. 2011. Metadiscourse Awareness and ESAP Comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning. 41(2): 53-74.
Kahkesh, M., & Author. 2017. A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse Markers in English and Persian University Lectures. Research in Applied Linguistics. 8: 125-135.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lodahl, J., & Gordon, G. 1972. The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments. American Sociological Review. 37(2): 57-72.
Martin, M. P. 2003. A Genre Analysis of English and Spanish Research Paper Abstracts in Experimental Social Sciences. English for Specific Purposes. 22: 25-42.
Moder, C. & Martinovic-Zic, A. 2004. Discourse Across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Murillo, S. 2004. A Relevance Reassessment of Reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics. 36(11): 20590-2068.
Murillo, S. 2007. A Contribution to the Pragmalinguistic Contrastive Study of Explicatory Reformulative Discourse Markers in Contemporary Journalistic Written English and Spanish.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Universidad de Zaragoza.
Murillo, S. 2012. The Use of Reformulation Markers in Business Management Research Articles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 17(1): 64-90.
Mutesayire, M. 2005. Cohesive Devices and Explicitation in Translated English – A Corpus-based Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
Schourup, L. 1999. Discourse Markers. Lingua. 107: 227-265.
Swales, J. 1993. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. 2004. Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thoiron, P. and Bejoint, H. 1991. La place de la réformulation dans les textes scientifiques. Meta. 36(1): 101-10.
Vande Kopple, W. J. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication. 36(1): 82-93.
Wells, G. 1992. The Centrality of Talk in Education. In K. Norman (Ed.). Thinking Voices: The Work of the National Oracy Project London: Hodder an Stoughton. 282-301.
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. 2004. Relevance Theory. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics Oxford: Blackwell. 607-632.
Xiao, R. 2011. Word Clusters and Reformulation Markers in Chinese and English. Languages in Contrast. 11(2): 145-171.
