Analysing stance in American and Spanish business management RAs : the case sentence-initial "retrospective labels"

María Pilar Mur Dueñas

Abstract


When writing research articles (RAs), scholars can use certain lexico-grammatical traits that enable them to encode their attitudes, judgments and opinions, thus functioning as markers of stance. It is believed that sentenceinitial nouns preceded by a deictic -'retrospective labels' in Francis's terminology (1986, 1994)- can be considered one of those traits. The aim here is to explore whether there are any language-driven differences in the use of 'retrospective labels' as markers of stance within a particular disciplinary discourse, namely, Business Management. 'Retrospective labels' were analysed in a corpus of 12 Ras on the above-mentioned discipline, 6 in American English and 6 in Spanish. The focus is placed on the contrastive analysis of the frequency of use of these 'retrospective labels', the type of head nouns and modifiers which most frequently form part of them and the extent to which these 'retrospective labels' convey attitudinal meaning. As a general implication, it is believed that the differences drawn from analyses of this type should be borne in mind by Spanish Business Management scholars when writing their RAs in English.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Becher, T., and P. R. Trowler. 2001 (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Biber, D., et al. 1998a. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Biber, D., et al. 1998b. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Breivega, K. R., T. Dahl, and K. Flottum. 2002. “Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in Medicine, Economics and Linguistics”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12 (2): 218-239.

Chang, Y., and J. Swales. 1999. “Informal elements in English academic writing”. Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. Eds. C. N. Candlin, and K. Hyland. London: Longman. 145-167.

Charles, M. 2003. “‘This mystery...’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in these from two contrasting disciplines”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4): 313-326.

Connor, U. 2004a. “Introduction”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (4): 271-276.

Connor, U. 2004b. “Intercultural rhetoric research: beyond texts”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (4): 291-304.

Corpas Pastor, G. 2001. “Compilación de un corpus ad hoc para la enseñanza de traducción inversa especializada”. Revista de Traductología TRANS 5: 155-184.

Crompton, P. 1997. “Hedging in academic writing: some theoretical aspects”. English for Specific Purposes 16 (4): 271-289.

Crompton, P. 1998. “Identifying hedges: definitions or divination”. English for Specific Purposes 17 (3): 303-313.

Flowerdew, J. 2002. “A pedagogic grammar of signalling nouns in discourse”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 44: 141-155.

Francis, G. 1986. Anaphoric Nouns. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.

Francis, G. 1994. “Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion”. Advances in Written Text Analysis. Ed. Coulthard, M. London: Routledge. 83-101.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1994 (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Hunston, S. 1993. “Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing”. Register Analysis. Theory and Practice. Ed. Ghadessy, M. London: Pinter Publishers. 57-73.

Hunston, S. 1994. “Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse”. Advances in Written Text Analysis. Ed. Coulthard, M. London: Routledge. 191- 218.

Hunston, S. 2000. “Evaluation and the planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts”. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Eds. Hunston, S., and G. Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 176-207.

Hyland, K. 1996a. “Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles”. Written Communication 13: 251-281.

Hyland, K. 1996b. “Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles”. Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433-454.

Hyland, K. 1999. “Disciplinary discourses: writer stance in research articles”. Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices. Eds. Candlin, C. N., and K. Hyland. London: Longman. 99-121.

Hyland, K. 2002. “Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing”. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1091-1112.

Ivanicˇ, R. 1991. “Nouns in search of a context”. International Review of Applied Linguistics 29: 93-114.

Kaplan, R. B. 1966. “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education”. Language Learning 16: 1-20.

Kaplan, R. B. 1987. “Cultural thought patterns revisited”. Writing Across Languages: Analyses of L2 text. Eds. Connor, U., and R. B. Kaplan. Addison Wesley, Reading MA. 9-22.

Kaplan, R. B. 1988. “Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric”. Writing Across Languages and Cultures. Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric. Ed. Purves, A. C. Sage: Newbury Park. 275-304.

Kuo, C. H. 1999. “The use of personal pronouns: role relationships in scientific journal articles”. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2): 121-138.

Moreno, A. I. 2004. “Retrospective labelling in premise-conclusion metatext: an English-Spanish contrastive study of research articles on business and economics”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3 (4): 321-339.

Salager-Meyer, F. 1994. “Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse”. English for Specific Purposes 13 (2): 149-170.

Swales, J., et al. 1998. “Consider this: the role of imperatives in scholarly writing”. Applied Linguistic 19: 97-121.

Thompson, G. 1996. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

Thompson, G., and Y. Ye. 1991. “Evaluation of the reporting verbs used in academic papers”. Applied Linguistics 12: 365-382.

Webber P. 1994. “The function of questions in different medical journal genres”. English for Specific Purposes 13 (3): 257-268.

Winter, E. O. 1992. “The notion of unspecific versus specific as one way of analysing the information of a fund-raising letter”. Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text. Eds. Mann, W., and S. A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 131-170.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.92

Copyright (c) 2004 María Pilar Mur Dueñas

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

© Universidad de La Rioja, 2013

ISSN 1576-6357

EISSN 1695-4300