The paper explores the lexical profile of graduation theses written by the students at the University of Montenegro and compares it against that of BA theses authored by native speakers of American English. We study their lexical level (LFP method), lexical variation (sTTR method), and share of academic vocabulary according to the New Academic Word List (Browne, Culligan and Philliphs). We depart from the assumption that L2 academic writing is less complex vocabulary-wise and aim to determine how different it is and where the lexical differences may lie, so that pedagogical recommendations can be made. The results show that the Montenegrin theses are readable at 4,000 words, which means that B2 learners (according to CEFR) can read them at a reasonable level. In contrast, the theses written by native speakers can be read at 7,000 words, i.e. only by those commanding good C levels. As this is in line with our expectations, we conclude that the Montenegrin theses display a sufficient vocabulary size. Since the students still underuse academic vocabulary, we recommend that more emphasis should be placed on it in the course of their studies.
This paper is based on a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of three British dailies (the Guardian, the Independent and the Times) on NATO air strikes on Yugoslavia. The paper briefly introduces van Dijk's notions of microstructures and macrostructures of newspaper articles and discusses some aspects of CDA (van Dijk, Fairclough), especially its approach of combining linguistic analysis with intertextual analysis. It then focuses on the issues of dominance and politics. The paper starts from the assumption that the concepts of dominance, power and politics are linked to the role of language that shapes or legitimates particular views, which is also the case in the corpus we analyzed. Politicians always use media in wartime to persuade citizens in a justness of war, leading consumers of news to uncritically accept that the 'news' presented to them is true. The paper offers examples from the three dailies and discusses them based on the theoretical approach taken. It briefly touches upon macrostructures and focuses on the elements on the micro level (verbs, nouns, noun phrases and adjectives) that are important for the interpretation of the analyzed articles
This paper revisits the concept of macrostructure, i.e. the thematic and organizational structure of texts, in this case that of the news discourse and its link with Critical Discourse analysis (CDA). Special focus is put on the Evaluation as a part of the news story macrostructure. The paper presents the author’s model of news structure in print media, based on the models of van Dijk (1988a, 1988b) and Bell (1994). The following parts of the macrostructure are identified: (1) Headline, (2) Lead, (3) Main Event(s), (4) Background of the Event, (5) Verbal Comment(s), (6) Evaluation, and (7) Results of the Event. The author also points out that pure linguistic analysis itself cannot lead to proper interpretation of news discourse. Based on these two aspects, the paper specifically focuses on Evaluation as a part of the macro structure and its linguistic exponents on the microstructure level. Evaluation includes attitudes, opinions or the evaluation of the event by the journalist or the newspaper he/she writes for. It is the Evaluation that gives sense or meaning to the text. Evaluation will be discussed in terms of its explicit presence in the text, as a distinctive unit in the schematic structure of news, but also in its implicit form, very often hidden behind other parts of macrostructure such as Headline, Lead, Main Event or Verbal Comments. The examples of Evaluation will be taken from a corpus comprising examples from three British and three Montenegrin dailies reporting on the NATO airstrikes against former Yugoslavia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.