Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
24
1.Academicdiscourseanditsrhetoric
internalcomplexityofacademicdiscoursecommunityanditssystemofgen-
res,Groom(2005:258)arguesthat:
weshouldexpectdifferentwrittenandspokengenresanddifferentdiscourse
communitiestoselectorprioritisedifferentphraseologicalpatterns;thefor-
meronthegroundsthattheyservedifferentcommunicativeandinstitution-
alpurposesandthusprioritisedifferentrhetoricalstrategies...andthelatter
onthegroundsthattheyarecharacterisedbydifferentideologicalinterests
andinterpersonalpractices(Groom,2005:258)
Andsoinhisanalysisofresearcharticlesandbookreviewsintwoareasof
scholarship,Groom(2005)notessomephraseologicaldifferencesacrossgen-
resanddisciplinesintheintroductoryitpatterns,especiallywithregardtone-
gationandcriticism.Inanothercontrastivestudy,LorésSanz(2008)compares
authorialvoiceinlinguisticsresearcharticlesandcorrespondingabstractsand
findsoutthatthewriter)spresenceismoreovertlymarkedbymeansofpro-
nounsintheformer,especiallyintheResultssectionormove.
Well-markedandperhapsmostfrequentlydiscusseddifferencesinac-
ademicregistershavebeenobservedacrossvariousfieldsofscholarship,in
particularbetweensocalledsoftdisciplinesandhardsciences.Forexample,
Biber(1988)inhislarge-scaleresearchintothedistributionofarichsetoflin-
guisticfeaturesacrossdifferentspokenandwrittengenresofEnglishfindsout
thatagentlessandimpersonalconstructions,whichaddtotheabstractnessof
thetext,aremoresalientafeatureofwrittenacademicproseinnaturalsci-
encesandtechnologythaninhumanitiesorsocialsciences(Biber,1988:194).
Conversely,readerpronouns,whichdirectlyengagetheaudienceandinthis
wayaddtotheinterpersonalcharacterofthetext,andhedgesandboosters,
whicharemarkersoftheauthorialstanceandcommitment,havebeenfound
tooccurmuchmorefrequentlyinsoftdisciplineresearcharticlesthaninsci-
ences(Hyland,2006).ThesefindingstallywiththoseobtainedbyFløttumet
al.(2006a),whostudiedpersonmanifestationinresearcharticlesfromthree
academicdisciplinesinthreelanguages.Theauthorsreportthatthepresence
oftheauthorandtheauthor-readerinteractionismarkedlylessconspicuous
inmedicinethaninlinguisticsoreconomics,asshownbyalowernumberof
firstpersonsubjectsandfeweraddresseefeaturesoftheletustype.Theyalso
observethatlinguisticstextsmoreoftenemployovertsignalsofargumenta-
tion,suchasnegationandadversativeconjunctions.
InterestingobservationscomefromVold(2006a,b),whostudieddiscipli-
naryandcross-linguisticdifferencesintheuseofepistemicmodalitymarkers
