The paper compares the means of expressing interpersonal function in Czech and English academic texts dealing with linguistics. These expressions are found at various language
levels and the classification takes into account both the formal and the functional point of view. Concerning the various approaches to metadiscourse, we follow the work of Ken Hyland.
For the purpose of our analysis we gathered 24 academic articles, 12 per each language. As a first step, a detailed analysis of four academic texts was performed to obtain a range of
metadiscourse expressions for the following corpus analysis. The aim of the corpus analysis was to find out to what extent the selected expressions were represented in a larger set of
data. Despite the different language types, Czech and English use similar means to express interpersonal features of metadiscourse. The greatest difference was found in the category of
hedges, relational markers and self-mentions; other categories displayed relatively similar frequencies.
Vyjadřování interpersonální funkce v českých a anglických odborných textech. Kontrastivní studie
Autoři:
V časopise:
Číslo v periodiku:
1
Ročník:
94
Vydavatel:
Místo vydání:
Rok vydání:
Strany:
31-42
ISBN/ISSN:
0862-8459 (vyhledej v knihovnách)
Typ publikace:
Jazyk:
Kontakt:
marcela_sudkov@centrum.cz
Abstrakt:
Bibliografie:
BARLOW, G. M. (2000): ‘MonoConc Pro 2.0’. Athelstan.
BIBER, D. (2006): University Language. A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
BIBER, D. et al. (1999): Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
CVRČEK, V. a kol. (2010): Mluvnice současné češtiny 1, Jak se píše a mluví. Praha: Karolinum.
ČMEJRKOVÁ, S. (1994): Nonnative (academic) writing. In: S. ČMEJRKOVÁ – F. DANEŠ – E. HAVLOVÁ (eds): Writing vs Speaking: Language, Text, Discourse, Communication. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, s. 303–310.
ČMEJRKOVÁ, S. – DANEŠ F. – SVĚTLÁ J. (1999): Jak napsat odborný text. Praha: LEDA.
HYLAND, K. (1998): Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. In: Journal of Pragmatics 30, s. 437–455.
HYLAND, K. (2004 [2000]): Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
HYLAND, K. – TSE, P. (2004): Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. In: Applied Linguistics 25/2, s. 156–157.
HYLAND, K. – TSE, P. (2005): Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. In: Functions of Language. Vol. 12, Issue 1, s. 39–63.
HYLAND, K. (2010): Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. In: Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9 (2010), s. 116–127.
LINK, http://ucnk.ff.cuni.cz/link.php
MATHESIUS, V. (1961): Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny na základě obecně lingvistickém. Praha: Academia.
MAURAREN, A. (1993): Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English Economic Texts. In: English for Specific Purposes 12, s. 3–22.
SANDERSON, T. (2008): Corpus. Culture. Discourse. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
SUDKOVÁ, M. (2011): Interpersonální metatextové prostředky v odborném textu anglickém a českém. Nepublikovaná diplomová práce. ÚAJD, FF UK Praha.
