阅读字里行间:工程研究文章的评估模式和步伐介绍

IF 3.2 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS English for Specific Purposes Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.002
Jianying Du , Hao Yuan , Qiong Li
{"title":"阅读字里行间:工程研究文章的评估模式和步伐介绍","authors":"Jianying Du ,&nbsp;Hao Yuan ,&nbsp;Qiong Li","doi":"10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Within the appraisal system<span> and the metadiscourse model, we examine engineering writers' evaluative behavior imprinted in research article introductions. Using a combination of in-house script and manual annotation, we explore lexical frequencies, semantic prosodies, and rhetoric constructs in the introductory sections of 100 most cited research articles spreading evenly across ten engineering sub-disciplines. The findings show that engineering research writers tend to provide factual rather than factional evaluations. The evaluative patterns and paces, however, vary due to the writers’ step choices in each move. Despite the ubiquitous positivity bias suggested by the number of positive lexis and sentences, our study finds negative evaluations occur and oscillate between the three moves in the introductions, and often present with purposeful choices of technical details. Meanwhile, the use of attitudinal markers with strong negative values indicates that engineering writers express their criticality rather directly with little concessions and even less dramatization.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":47809,"journal":{"name":"English for Specific Purposes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Read between the lines: Evaluative patterns and paces in engineering research article introductions\",\"authors\":\"Jianying Du ,&nbsp;Hao Yuan ,&nbsp;Qiong Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Within the appraisal system<span> and the metadiscourse model, we examine engineering writers' evaluative behavior imprinted in research article introductions. Using a combination of in-house script and manual annotation, we explore lexical frequencies, semantic prosodies, and rhetoric constructs in the introductory sections of 100 most cited research articles spreading evenly across ten engineering sub-disciplines. The findings show that engineering research writers tend to provide factual rather than factional evaluations. The evaluative patterns and paces, however, vary due to the writers’ step choices in each move. Despite the ubiquitous positivity bias suggested by the number of positive lexis and sentences, our study finds negative evaluations occur and oscillate between the three moves in the introductions, and often present with purposeful choices of technical details. Meanwhile, the use of attitudinal markers with strong negative values indicates that engineering writers express their criticality rather directly with little concessions and even less dramatization.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English for Specific Purposes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English for Specific Purposes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088949062300008X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English for Specific Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088949062300008X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在评价体系和元话语模型中,我们考察了工程作者在研究文章介绍中留下的评价行为。使用内部脚本和手动注释的组合,我们在100篇被引用最多的研究文章的介绍部分中探索词汇频率、语义韵律和修辞结构,这些文章均匀地分布在10个工程子学科中。研究结果表明,工程研究作者倾向于提供事实性的评估,而不是派系性的评估。然而,由于作者在每一步中的步骤选择,评估模式和速度会有所不同。尽管积极词汇和句子的数量表明了普遍存在的积极偏见,但我们的研究发现,消极评价在介绍的三种动作之间出现并振荡,并且经常出现有目的的技术细节选择。同时,带有强烈负面价值的态度标记的使用表明,工程作家更直接地表达了他们的批判性,几乎没有让步,甚至更少戏剧化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Read between the lines: Evaluative patterns and paces in engineering research article introductions

Within the appraisal system and the metadiscourse model, we examine engineering writers' evaluative behavior imprinted in research article introductions. Using a combination of in-house script and manual annotation, we explore lexical frequencies, semantic prosodies, and rhetoric constructs in the introductory sections of 100 most cited research articles spreading evenly across ten engineering sub-disciplines. The findings show that engineering research writers tend to provide factual rather than factional evaluations. The evaluative patterns and paces, however, vary due to the writers’ step choices in each move. Despite the ubiquitous positivity bias suggested by the number of positive lexis and sentences, our study finds negative evaluations occur and oscillate between the three moves in the introductions, and often present with purposeful choices of technical details. Meanwhile, the use of attitudinal markers with strong negative values indicates that engineering writers express their criticality rather directly with little concessions and even less dramatization.

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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: English For Specific Purposes is an international peer-reviewed journal that welcomes submissions from across the world. Authors are encouraged to submit articles and research/discussion notes on topics relevant to the teaching and learning of discourse for specific communities: academic, occupational, or otherwise specialized. Topics such as the following may be treated from the perspective of English for specific purposes: second language acquisition in specialized contexts, needs assessment, curriculum development and evaluation, materials preparation, discourse analysis, descriptions of specialized varieties of English.
期刊最新文献
Genre learning from the EAP class to undergraduate research symposiums Verbal-visual skill-building and perceptional changes in English presentation Guiding and engaging the audience: Visual metadiscourse in PowerPoint slides of Three Minute Thesis presentations Lexical coverage in science popularization discourse: The case of popular science news from Scientific American
×
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