A Comparative Study on Epistemic Modality in Linguistic Research Article Conclusions

Tianqi Liu
{"title":"A Comparative Study on Epistemic Modality in Linguistic Research Article Conclusions","authors":"Tianqi Liu","doi":"10.17507/tpls.1402.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Epistemic modality is an important and complex linguistic device in academic writing, which could help authors state their claims and positions. The conclusion is also a critical part in research articles, where authors summarize their studies and give suggestions. Many scholars study modality in many aspects, but they rarely focus on its application in research article conclusions. Therefore, this study compared the use of modality in 25 conclusions of linguistic research papers written by native English speakers and 25 English conclusions written by Chinese authors from a systemic functional perspective. It focused on the similarities and differences of the use of modality in linguistic research article conclusions from two perspectives: value and orientation. The results show that both native English speakers and Chinese authors are more likely to rely on low and median value and subjective orientation in their conclusions. The findings suggest that linguistic research article authors tend to make claims in a reserved and tentative way. Moreover, this study shows that Chinese authors are more likely to employ modal expressions and subjective orientation of modality in their conclusions, which may relate to cultural diversity and modality shift. The findings of the study may help non-native English authors to produce linguistic research articles in a more acceptable way.","PeriodicalId":23004,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice in Language Studies","volume":"5 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice in Language Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1402.19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Epistemic modality is an important and complex linguistic device in academic writing, which could help authors state their claims and positions. The conclusion is also a critical part in research articles, where authors summarize their studies and give suggestions. Many scholars study modality in many aspects, but they rarely focus on its application in research article conclusions. Therefore, this study compared the use of modality in 25 conclusions of linguistic research papers written by native English speakers and 25 English conclusions written by Chinese authors from a systemic functional perspective. It focused on the similarities and differences of the use of modality in linguistic research article conclusions from two perspectives: value and orientation. The results show that both native English speakers and Chinese authors are more likely to rely on low and median value and subjective orientation in their conclusions. The findings suggest that linguistic research article authors tend to make claims in a reserved and tentative way. Moreover, this study shows that Chinese authors are more likely to employ modal expressions and subjective orientation of modality in their conclusions, which may relate to cultural diversity and modality shift. The findings of the study may help non-native English authors to produce linguistic research articles in a more acceptable way.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语言学研究中的认识模式比较研究》一文的结论
在学术写作中,认识论模态是一种重要而复杂的语言手段,可以帮助作者阐述自己的主张和立场。结论也是研究文章的关键部分,作者在这里总结研究并提出建议。许多学者对模态进行了多方面的研究,但很少关注其在研究文章结论中的应用。因此,本研究从系统功能的角度出发,比较了 25 篇由英语为母语者撰写的语言学研究论文结论和 25 篇由中国作者撰写的英语结论中模态的使用情况。研究重点从价值和取向两个角度探讨了语言学研究文章结论中模态使用的异同。结果表明,无论是以英语为母语的作者还是以汉语为母语的作者,都更倾向于在结论中依赖低值和中值以及主观取向。研究结果表明,语言研究文章的作者倾向于以保留和试探性的方式提出主张。此外,本研究还表明,中国作者更倾向于在结论中使用模态表达和模态的主观取向,这可能与文化多样性和模态转换有关。研究结果可能有助于非英语母语作者以更易于接受的方式撰写语言学研究文章。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ethnolinguistic Study of Marine Fishes’ Characters of the Biak Tribe, Papua Examining the Impact of Tanzania's Language Policy in Education on Promoting the Chinese Language in Tanzania A Comprehensive Study of Business Writing Competence Among Business Management Students at Techno Link College, Ethiopia Muslim Identity Fluidities and Ambiguities: A Focus on Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist and Elif Shafak's The Forty Rules of Love The Development of Blended Learning Model Combined With Project-Based Learning Model in Indonesian Students’ Scientific Writing
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1