Interaction in academic discourse: communicative strategies for the expression of stance

Autoři:

Editoři:

V knize:

Vydavatel:

Místo vydání:

Rok vydání:

Strany: 
14-18
ISBN/ISSN: 
978-80-7368-592-8 (vyhledej v knihovnách)

Typ publikace:

Jazyk:

Klíčová slova:

Typ záznamu:

Abstrakt: 

In the last two decades academic discourse has come to be seen as a purposeful interaction between writers and readers in which the writers try to construct a credible representation of themselves and their research and to align themselves with the discourse community by evaluating their own work and views and the work and views of others. The study of stance in academic writing has concentrated primarily on showing differences in the preferences of academic communities by discipline. This paper seeks to examine differences in the expression of stance in academic English in the writing habits of novice Czech writers and expert native writers on the basis of an analysis of the use of certain hedges and boosters in published research articles and unpublished undergraduate and graduate dissertations.

Bibliografie: 

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Bublitz, W. (1997). ‘Introduction: Views on coherence.’ In: Bublitz, W., Lenk, U., Ventola, E. (Eds.). Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to Create it and How to Describe it. Pragmatics & Beyond. New Series. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-7.
Conrad, S. & Biber, D. (1999). ‘Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing.’ In: Hunston, S., Thompson, G. (Eds.). Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 56-73.
Halliday M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd ed.
Huddleston, R., Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (1996). ‘Writing Without Conviction. Hedging in Science Research Articles.’ Applied Linguistics 17, 56-75.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses. Michigan: University of Michigan.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London & New York: Continuum.
Miššíková, G. (2007). ‘Maxim hedges in political discourse: A contrastive perspective.’ Topics in Linguistics 1.
Povolná, R. (2007). ‘Aspects of coherence in spoken discourse.’ In Schmied, J., Haase, C., Povolná, R. (Eds.). Complexity and Coherence. REAL Studies 3. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag. 107-125.
Thompson, G. & Zhou, J. (2000). ‘Evaluation in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts.’ In: Hunston, S., Thompson, G. (Eds.). Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 121-141.
Hatzitheodorou, A.-M. & Mattheoudakis, M. ‘The projection of stance in the Greek Corpus of Learner English’. http://corpus.bham.ac.uk/corplingproceedings07/paper/86_Paper.pdf Retrieved on 5. 3. 2008.