UDC

81’1

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V332

Authors

Abstract

This paper, inspired by interest in semantics and pragmatics of academic discourse, focuses on English-medium research article abstracts by authors with native languages other than English. The study assumes that in order to convey an authorial stance and establish an effective relationship with the reader, representatives of different cultures use a repertoire of metadiscourse devices varying in terms of quality and quantity. The theoretical basis of the research is K. Hyland’s taxonomy of stance markers. Hedging and boosting devices found in the corpus were analysed using the terminology proposed by K. Hyland and H. Zou. The analysis showed that hedges and boosters are important elements of academic discourse. They play a crucial role in authorial efforts to make claims tentative and avoid categorical statements or persuade readers of certainty and accuracy of research results. The study found that academic article abstracts by Latin American authors contain considerably more hedges than those written by their Russian counterparts, who make extensive use of boosters. Anticipating and acknowledging alternative points of view, Latin American authors are more careful when making claims, which is in compliance with the internationally accepted academic writing norms. The findings suggest that Russian novice academic writers should be taught stancetaking strategies in line with the academic writing norms.

Keywords

research article abstracts, academic discourse, stancetaking, cross-cultural differences, metadiscourse devices, hedging, boosting, K. Hyland

References

1. Jing W., Jing D. A Comparative Study of Metadiscourse in English Research Article Abstracts in Hard Disciplines by L1 Chinese and L1 English Scholars. Appl. Res. Engl. Lang., 2018, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 399–434. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2019.110099.1264
2. Rochma A.F., Triastuti A., Ashadi. Rhetorical Styles of Introduction in English Language Teaching (ELT) Research Articles. Indones. J. Appl. Linguist., 2020, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 304–314. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v10i2.28593
3. Saidi M., Talebi S. Genre Analysis of Research Article Abstracts in English for Academic Purposes Journals: Exploring the Possible Variations Across the Venues of Research. Educ. Res. Int., 2021, vol. 2021. Art. no. 3578179. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3578179
4. Darabad A.M. Move Analysis of Research Article Abstracts: A Cross-Disciplinary Study. Int. J. Linguist., 2016, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 125–140. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i2.9379
5. Kozubíková Šandová J. Interpersonality in Research Article Abstracts: A Diachronic Case Study. Discourse Interact., 2021, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 77–99. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2021-1-77
6. Belyakova M. English-Russian Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Research Article Abstracts in Geoscience. ELUA, 2017, no. 31, pp. 27–45. https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2017.31.02
7. Lorés-Sanz R. ELF in the Making? Simplification and Hybridity in Abstract Writing. J. Engl. Lingua Franca, 2016, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 53–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2016-0003
8. Wang F., Pramoolsook I. Attitude in Abstracts: Stance Expression in Translation Practice Reports and Interpretation Practice Reports by Chinese Students. Discourse Interact., 2021, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 100–123. https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2021-1-100
9. Yang Y. Exploring Linguistic and Cultural Variations in the Use of Hedges in English and Chinese Scientific Discourse. J. Pragmat., 2013, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
10. Crismore A., Farnsworth R. Meta-Discourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse. Nash W. (ed.). The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, 1990, pp. 118–136.
11. Duszak A. Academic Discourse and Intellectual Styles. J. Pragmat., 1994, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90003-5
12. Boginskaya O.A. Opyt metadiskursivnogo analiza novogodnikh obrashcheniy Prezidenta Rossii [Metadiscourse Analysis of New Year’s Addresses of the Russian President]. Crede Experto: transport, obshchestvo, obrazovanie, yazyk, 2023, no. 1, pp. 166–181. https://doi.org/10.51955/2312-1327_2023_1_166
13. Biber D., Finegan E. Adverbial Stance Types in English. Discourse Process., 1988, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689
14. Gray B., Biber D. Current Conceptions of Stance. Hyland K., Guinda C.S. (eds.). Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. London, 2012, pp. 15–33.
15. Hyland K. Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Stud., 2005, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
16. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, 2005. 230 p.
17. Hyland K., Zou H. “I Believe the Findings Are Fascinating”: Stance in Three-Minute Theses. J. Engl. Acad. Purp., 2021, vol. 50. Art. no. 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973
18. Holmes J. Modifying Illocutionary Force. J. Pragmat., 1984, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 345–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6